Although originally conceived as a Ford Thunderbird proposal, the 1960s Lincoln Continental was available only as a four-door pillared sedan and four-door convertible for the first five years of its life. In 1966, Lincoln-Mercury belatedly added a two-door hardtop coupe to the lineup, finally giving the Continental a rival for the popular Cadillac Coupe DeVille. Let’s take a look at the Continental coupe, and consider what Motor Trend had to say when it took the new Lincoln for a spin in February 1966.
Because the 1960s Lincoln Continental is now so widely acclaimed as a classic design, it’s easy to get an exaggerated sense of how successful it was in its day. Automotive histories will often imply that Lincoln really had Cadillac on the ropes, as it sometimes did in later years.
1961 Lincoln Continental four-door sedan / Ford Motor Company
The numbers tell a different story. The new Continental was successful enough to keep the Lincoln brand alive (which had definitely not been a certainty a few years earlier) and making money, but its market share remained very modest, and its sales were no threat to Cadillac.
Cadillac and Lincoln Model Year Production, 1961 to 1969
There were a number of reasons for that: Cadillac offered several different trim series at different price points, where Lincoln offered only one; Lincolns were significantly more expensive (due in part to their more extensive standard equipment); Lincoln resale values lagged behind Cadillac’s, which discouraged owners from trading as often as Cadillac owners typically did; and Lincoln offered only two body styles, where Cadillac generally offered at least four.
In discussing the latest Continental, Motor Trend editor Bob McVay summed up the situation like this:
Back in 1961, when this theme started, Ben D. Mills, who was Lincoln-Mercury Division head at the time, commented: “Let Cadillac play their own ball game — we’ll start a new league.” As it turned out, paid attendance in the junior circuit was a bit disappointing, and the reason simply proved once again that whatever the league, the game requires a full team. Down through recent years, Cadillac sales have been quarterbacked by its Coupe De Ville, so from any armchair, Lincoln’s next move could be considered obvious.
The lack of a two-door hardtop body style was probably Lincoln’s most glaring omission. Although the popularity of two-door hardtops as a percentage of total industry sales had dipped a bit in 1959 and 1960 due to the recession and the emergence of compact models like the Ford Falcon and Mercury Comet (which didn’t offer hardtops, at least at first), hardtop sales had taken off sharply since then. In 1960, 11.48 percent of new U.S. cars were two-door hardtops; that figure had risen to 21.95 percent by 1963 and 33.52 percent by 1965. While four-door models accounted for the majority of Cadillac sales in the early ’60s, two-door hardtops comprised a significant and growing share, as the following breakdown reveals.
Cadillac and Lincoln Model Year Production by Body Style, 1961 to 1969
(For the purposes of these charts and tables, I’ve counted all four-door closed body styles as “sedans,” whether pillared or pillarless four-door hardtops. “Specialty” means the FWD Eldorado and Continental Mark III; earlier Eldorados are counted among the convertibles. I’m aware that all early Mark IIIs were technically 1969s, but I’ve split the 1969 total between those built during the 1968 model year and during MY1969 proper.)
| Sedans | Coupes | Convertibles | Specialty | Chassis | Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1961 | |||||||
| Cadillac | 83,059 | 36,161 | 16,950 | - | 2,204 | 138,374 | |
| Lincoln | 22,303 | - | 2,857 | - | - | 25,160 | |
| 1962 | |||||||
| Cadillac | 97,802 | 42,508 | 18,250 | - | 2,280 | 160,840 | |
| Lincoln | 27,859 | - | 3,212 | - | - | 31,071 | |
| 1963 | |||||||
| Cadillac | 91,968 | 48,535 | 19,425 | - | 2,530 | 162,458 | |
| Lincoln | 28,095 | - | 3,138 | - | - | 31,233 | |
| 1964 | |||||||
| Cadillac | 93,189 | 50,361 | 19,770 | - | 2,527 | 165,847 | |
| Lincoln | 32,969 | - | 3,328 | - | - | 36,297 | |
| 1965 | |||||||
| Cadillac | 101,581 | 55,860 | 21,325 | - | 2,669 | 181,435 | |
| Lincoln | 36,824 | - | 3,356 | - | - | 40,180 | |
| 1966 | |||||||
| Cadillac | 111,102 | 61,660 | 21,450 | - | 2,463 | 196,675 | |
| Lincoln | 35,809 | 15,766 | 3,180 | - | - | 54,755 | |
| 1967 | |||||||
| Cadillac | 99,547 | 61,990 | 18,200 | 17,930 | 2,333 | 200,000 | |
| Lincoln | 32,331 | 11,060 | 2,276 | - | - | 45,667 | |
| 1968 | |||||||
| Cadillac | 112,937 | 72,100 | 18,025 | 24,528 | 2,413 | 230,003 | |
| Lincoln | 29,719 | 9,415 | - | 7,770 | - | 46,904 | |
| 1969 | |||||||
| Cadillac | 109,554 | 71,355 | 16,445 | 23,333 | 2,550 | 223,237 | |
| Lincoln | 29,351 | 9,032 | - | 23,088 | - | 61,471 |
1961 Lincoln Continental convertible / Ford Motor Company
All things considered, it’s strange that it took Lincoln-Mercury so long to offer a two-door Continental hardtop. There was no question that it would work stylistically — the Continental design had originated as a two-door, an alternate proposal for the 1961 Thunderbird, and there had been several full-size clay models of it in 1958–1959 — and that was clearly where the market was going. However, Lincoln-Mercury hemmed and hawed, conducting multiple marketing studies without taking any immediate action.
I think a likely explanation was uncertainty about how to position a two-door Continental relative to the Thunderbird, which had substantial structural commonality with the Continental. This was undoubtedly a sore subject for Lincoln-Mercury management, since the Thunderbird encroached on their turf in both price and prestige, but the Thunderbird was a very profitable car for Ford, and the financial health of the Wixom assembly plant where the Thunderbird and Continental were built depended on both models coexisting at sustainable volumes. Nonetheless, it was increasingly clear that not offering a two-door Continental was costing sales and making it that much harder for Lincoln to steal sales from Cadillac.
McVay remarked:
THE CONTINENTAL Coupe is a bright new star in the Lincoln catalog. It’s lighter, costs less, and handles and performs better than either the 4-door sedan or the 4-door convertible. And some will feel that it does the most justice to a styling theme that may deservedly be called classic.
The 1966 Continental had received a major facelift, maybe the most notable features of which were the rear fender hop-up — something Ford would subsequently try to push as a global design theme — and the return of curved side glass, an element of the 1961–1963 cars that had been dropped in 1964. The ’66 was also 4.6 inches longer than the ’65, although surprisingly its weight had charged hardly at all.
McVay added:
Two-door models of any make are invariably better handling than their sedan counterparts, because the centers of gravity and roll are closer to ideal. Also, in Continental’s case, curb weight runs 100 and 500 pounds less than the sedan’s and convertible’s, respectively.
I think the first statement was a real reach: Two-door models are typically only a little lighter than four-doors, and the impact on weight distribution or center of gravity is negligible. The Continental coupe saved a bit more weight than most, probably because it simplified the door-latching system, but saving 100 lb on a 5,400 lb luxury sedan wasn’t going to make it meaningfully more agile, especially since Lincoln had further softened the rear springs for 1966.
1966 Lincolns had a mostly new powertrain, now with the C6 automatic (which Lincoln called Twin-Range Turbo-Drive) and the biggest-yet version of the ’50s-vintage MEL engine:
The new V-8, displacing 462 cubic inches, is monstrous even by U.S. standards, and we suspect that its rated 340 hp is a somewhat modest description of the real facts. If anything, the car responds a little too readily when toe-tapping in traffic, while paradoxically, keeping agile in the mountains required considerable throttle movement and a consequent rather heavy penalty in fuel consumption. However, after paying upwards of $6500 for a Continental, any attention to operating costs brands you a nit-picker. It’s just that inconvenience of having to stop for gas.
The 462 incorporated a variety of changes from the 430, including new heads, a new camshaft, and increased cooling capacity, but despite its 33-cubic-inch advantage over the Cadillac 429, it boasted no more power and only 5 lb-ft more advertised torque than the Cadillac engine, which was over 150 lb lighter. It seems that the 462’s breathing still left much to be desired, despite its surprisingly large valves.
This engine would be short-lived, and I suspect the main rationale for it was to eke a few more years out of the existing MEL engine tooling before the new 460 was ready.
The 1966 Lincoln had a new dashboard with an attractive “jewel-case” design, but McVay complained that it was a triumph of form over function:
While the Continental may be rated as a modern classic on the outside, we award an MT glare at the person or persons who designed the instrument panel. This would be better described as a cry-wolf pack of warning lights that will keep bulb-makers in business for the foreseeable future. The most used switch, for the lights, is located down, nearly out of sight, in a position uncomfortably close to the driver’s left knee. It pulls out to compound the togetherness, whereas the wiper switch, up where the other one ought to be, turns. Thus we’ll almost guarantee that a first-time 1966 Continental driver will yank at what he thinks are the lights and find himself with a loose knob in his hand and a windshield-full of washer fluid.
Some of the control layout complaints were a side effect of placing the HVAC controls on the left side of the panel, arranged to be mostly symmetrical with the radio on the opposite side. It was aesthetically pleasing, but it occupied a lot of real estate normally used for minor controls.
Another casualty of the new design was instrumentation. Where the 1965 dashboard had needle gauges for battery, coolant temperature, and oil pressure, MT groused that the 1966 instrument panel “mostly houses an unjewel-like collection of warning lights,” along with an extraordinarily tiny fuel gauge. One new optional feature, which the Motor Trend test car had, was automatic climate control, matching Cadillac’s Comfort Control.
McVay wasted a curious number of column inches complaining about the new seat belt warning light before continuing:
These minor matters, though, are soon forgotten as you luxuriate in what must be the most comfortable bench-type seats in any car. Our model was upholstered with an optional synthetic so soft that FoMoCo interior designers privately refer to it as “panty cloth.” The big 2-door, with its relatively low tunnel, may be truthfully called a carriage for six.
As expected of a car in this class, the Continental had various upholstery and trim options. It appears the Motor Trend car had Rivard cloth upholstery, distinguished by its longitudinal pleats (the standard Madrigal cloth had a biscuit pattern); the brochure says there was also the option of “finest wool broadcloth” at extra cost. I think all of the cloth upholstery choices were somewhat overshadowed by the very attractive burgundy leather and vinyl trim of the car in the color photos. Look at it:
McVay noted:
Exit from lingerie-land is helped considerably by unusually well balanced doors, but you have to use corresponding care in parking lots. They open easily — right bang into the car next to you.
It’s clear that this review was based on a fairly short acquaintance — note that there are no fuel economy figures, and no comment on ride or handling other than the terse photo caption remarking, “Lean in corners was mildly evident.” The recorded performance figures were an improvement over recent Continentals and okay for this class: 0 to 60 mph in 10.8 seconds, two seconds quicker than their much heavier ’65 convertible, the quarter mile in 18.1 seconds at 80 mph. It’s not clear whether the 125 mph speed listed in the data panel was an actual observed top speed or an estimated one. (The tracks they normally used for acceleration and braking runs weren’t long enough for top speed testing.) McVay also noted:
Shifts were silky smooth under all conditions, and this transmission has the desirable slick-surface feature of a lockout for low gear.
The whole drive train has been redesigned to accommodate the whopping 485 pounds-feet of torque generated by the new engine. There are two constant-velocity U-joints, and beefier driveshaft and differential. For anywhere but the plains states, we suggest you at least try the optional 3-to-l axle ratio. The 2.8 on our car lugged a little in the mountains.
We don’t think this would have been a happy test without the standard front-disc brakes. Despite the constant drenching, we knew that at least the front pair of stoppers would respond instantly.
There are no braking distances, but the 1965 Continental convertible Motor Trend had tested a year earlier, with the then-new front disc brakes, had managed to stop from 60 mph in a respectable 141.5 feet, and since the ’66 coupe weighed 380 lb less, it presumably would have done at least as well. Making the discs standard was especially commendable because Cadillac didn’t yet offer disc brakes at all, even as an option.
Adding the two-door coupe did give Lincoln sales a boost in 1966, although that probably had to do as much with some aggressive price cuts as with the introduction of the new body style. Lincoln-Mercury had moved some features to the options list in order to bring prices closer to the Cadillac DeVille, so the 1966 sedan was a hefty $542 cheaper than the equivalent 1965 model. The new coupe was $265 cheaper than the sedan, albeit still $146 more than a Coupe DeVille.
Continental coupe production totaled 15,766 units for 1966, bringing Lincoln sales to 54,755, the best the brand had done in 10 years. However, this boost was temporary: Sales dipped below 46,000 for 1967, with coupe sales falling by 30 percent, and then fell below 40,000 for 1968, following the cancellation of the convertible. Based on those trends, my guess is that the novelty of the new two-door hardtop for 1966 encouraged some existing Lincoln customers to trade in sooner than they otherwise would, rather than that the coupe opened up any real new frontiers in sales.
The Continental coupe was a handsome car, cleanly styled and tastefully detailed, but I would argue that it didn’t really have a strong identity of its own. If you already liked Continentals, it was great — I’ve seen many a Lincoln fan say the 1966–67 two-door is their favorite, after the ’61 — but if you weren’t sold on what Motor Trend called its “purity of line,” the two-door version wasn’t likely to convince you. As overdue as it was, the coupe lacked a unique selling proposition, which Lincoln-Mercury didn’t find until the arrival of the Mark III two and a half years later.
Related Reading
Car Show Classic – 1966 Lincoln Continental Coupe – Where Have You Been?! (by Tom Klockau)
Curbside Classic: 1965 Lincoln Continental – The Last Great American Luxury Car (by Paul N)
Facebook Find: 1966 Lincoln Continental Coupe – “Maid Quiet” (by Aaron65)
Car Show Classic: 1966-67 Lincoln Continental Convertible – End Of An Era (by Tom Klockau)
Cohort Pic(k) of the Day: 1966 Lincoln Continental Coupe – With A Little Help From My (GM) Friends (by Paul N)
Beautiful Car Day Cohort Outtake: 1966 Lincoln Continental Convertible (by Paul N)
COAL: 1967 Lincoln Continental Coupe: Black On Top, Unfortunately Brown On The Bottom (by Jim Brophy)
Curbside Classic: 1968-1971 Lincoln Continental Mark III – Right On!…The Mark (by Paul N)
Vintage Car Life Road Test: 1961 Lincoln Continental Sedan – “The Best-Looking American Car Built Today” (by Paul N)
CC Unicorn Hunt: 1961 Lincoln Continental Pillarless Hardtop Sedan (by Tom Halter)
It’s odd that they took so long to return to the original concept of the Continental. The first and second generations were coupes by definition, with no sedans at all. This 66 strongly resembles the 56.
Hurting Continental/Lincoln sales was they were ‘Fords’ priced above Cadillacs…
And everyone has forgotten that Henry Ford started Cadillac… LOL!
I’ve said before, the ’61 Continental hit a sweet spot in the market of people who thought a Cadillac was getting too commonplace but weren’t yet ready to buy foreign. With only two models (until this coupe in ’66), the sedan priced halfway between Deville and Fleetwood 60 Special and the convertible firmly in Fleetwood territory, it was expensive enough for its’ relative rartity to be seen as exclusivity rather than unpopularity and the margins must’ve been handsome.
This ’66 coupe represented a pivot from that strategy – whose work to bring the division back to profitability and burnish the Lincoln nameplate’s image was done – back to trying to get something like Cadilllac’s volume.
This is the conventional wisdom, but while Lincoln did make enough money to keep the division in the black, Lincoln’s weak residuals suggest it was not matching Cadillac in prestige, and in terms of volume, the sweet spot was neither very big nor overly rich.
I think Lincoln’s decision to not offer the 1961 car in 2-door form was reasonable. In 1961-63 especially, the Thunderbird was a 2 door Lincoln in all but price. But more than that, Lincoln had offered a 2 door hardtop in each of its 3 series for 1958-60, and it had been a complete disaster. In 1960, Lincoln’s 2-door hardtop (including all 3 series – Lincoln, Premiere and Continental) did not total 4500 units. In the Continental line the convertible outsold the 2-door hardtop. Part of the problem was that the 1958-60 2-door’s proportions were not as good as those of the 4-door cars.
Beyond that, Lincoln was selling stately elegance to Cadillac’s flash, and people who wanted stately elegance were 4 door people.
On the 66-67 version, I always found it attractive but not overly so. Cadillac always seemed to do a better job on coupe proportions than Lincoln did, at least after 1957. And I don’t think the 68-69 coupe was an improvement.
Oh, I agree. I do think adding a two-door hardtop would have been a natural step for 1964, though. Lincoln-Mercury did several marketing studies, but kept shying away, it seems because they somewhat underestimated the likely volume.
Interesting article, Aaron. I have never seen one of these coupes, and did not know they were made. I assumed that Lincoln didn’t even try the sixties big coupe fad until the Mark III.
It’s a good-looking car, but almost exactly what I’d expect a Photoshop of a Continental coupe to look like if they never had existed.
They are fairly rare. Total production was 45,273 coupes over four model years.
The ’61-63 were effectively 4-door coupes, and the 3-inch longer rear doors of the later models didn’t entirely lose that proportion. Never saw much merit in those 2-doors, the new top being an any-roof. Wonder if they would have ended up further ahead financially and otherwise had they done a 4-door hardtop as they had once considered. There must have been one heck of a technical hurdle to get over.
Lincoln toyed with making the sedan pillarless, but likely settled on the sedan for weight and expense reasons.
If you are referring to the issue where the suicide door glass would need to overlap, they had the technical hurdle taken care of with the window mechanism developed for the convertible – which was complex and added expense.
These Lincolns were unibody, and this was the second generation of Lincoln to attempt this in a big car. Ford struggled with body flex, and adding steel was their solution, giving these cars a weight problem. The convertible was was 5,480 lbs, compared with the sedan at 5,085, undoubtedly due to the extra bracing to stiffen the drop top. Dropping the B-pillar would likely have required other bracing, making the sedan even heavier than it was. Contrast this with the 1966 Cadillac Sedan DeVille at 4,515 lbs, and you can understand the desire to compromise somewhere for weight, performance, fuel consumption and price.
The Continental is unibody. Maybe Lincoln hesitated adding a coupe because of the cost in engineering and tooling. Body on frame cars its relatively cheap to offer different body styles.
Also not usurping Thunderbird sales probably had a good bit to do with it.
I too don’t think the Continental ever needed a coupe variant. I get the rationale to try competing with Cadillac more directly but what the original package offered was stylish enough on its own where two doors wasn’t really any more personal. In fact to me losing the suicide doors stomps out what is arguably the coolest aspect to these cars. That plus being another retail print of the same suit the original design is already watered down and beginning to look a bit anonymous.
The other problem with the coupe is while I don’t think it’s actually unattractive by any measure, it’s literally the same roofline as the 66 Falcon and Fairlane/Comet 2 door sedans, just without the pillars and window frames. It’s not like that was their optional roofline either, it was the standard bottom barrel trim, who on earth decided premiering those and the coupe version top tier prestige model in the same year was a good idea?
Fairlane sedan for comparison
I never understood the intended delineation between the market for big coupes like this Continental and the later personal luxury coupes like the Mark III. The former had a bit more rear seat space, but other than that they seemed to be chasing the same buyers. Same thing for Electra or Wildcat coupe vs. Riviera, and a few others.
I absolutely agree that Cadillac and Lincoln played in different leagues. Cadillac had (mostly) standalone dealers, so they needed a full line of cars. Lincoln was simply the nicest car sold at a Lincoln-Mercury dealer, so one model would suffice.
I would say that Lincoln wasn’t in competition with Cadillac, but rather with the Fleetwood and Fleetwood Eldorado lines *from* Cadillac. If you wish to buy a Sedan de Ville equivalent, your L-M dealer will be happy to show you a nice Park Lane.
I agree that they were different leagues, though I think it was more type of buyer than price of vehicle, because Cadillac and Lincoln were direct competitors. Quick JD Power MSRP look-up:
$3460 – Mercury Parklane 4HT
$5581 – Cadillac SdV
$5750 – Lincoln Continental 4D
$6378 – Cadillac Sixty Special (Fleetwood)
My parents owned Lincoln sedans for several years, including a ’66, ’69 and ’73. My dad was self-made, owned a string of fast foot restaurants. My mom was stylish despite 6 kids. She liked the mid-century modern look of Lincoln, and my dad liked it too and thought it was a businessman’s car. They weren’t “Cadillac” people like most doctors and lawyers. The marched to their own drum. And when that last Lincoln began showing rust after only 4 years, during and after OPEC #1, they got rid of it and bought the first of several ’77 Datsun 810s. Another great car, and also rarely seen in our neighborhood.
In think the ’75 and later Lincolns steadily lost their special quality. Gerry McGovern tried to bring it back in the 2000s but Ford was struggling by then. I did like the late Peter Horbury’s Lincoln theme that first appeared 2007 with the MKR Concept. The ’10 MKT had it too, though with a misguided rear design and seating package. But its front and overall vibe reminded me of those special Lincolns of my youth, with some ’40 Continental mixed in.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. The 1961-1969 Lincolns had the best combination of European minimalist styling and American power and presence. These cars were elegant and beautiful.
If the article was by Bob McVay, who was the “R.M.” who appears to sign it at the end?
Whoever wrote it, it does a good job of describing the engine feel. They would seemingly leap off the line, so much so that in some ways it was easier to use the second-gear start, but the transmission would have to downshift early to maintain momentum on hills. Maybe it was the somewhat low axle ratio, and/or an extremely mild state of tune. If I recall correctly these engines would idle smoothly at very low speeds, like 450 rpm.
Bob = Robert = Robert McVay (how he’s credited in the masthead of that issue) = R.M.
I noticed it this morning before work, but only now have time to supply a quick Photoshop.
More formal rear roof slope, would work better. Photoshopped example is also riding lower now.
Agree. The roof always seemed off to me on the coupe, too sporty for such an otherwise formal car. Your C pillar works much better.
Thanks Dave! I quickly glanced at the Lincoln’s profile before work, this morning. And immediately thought, “That does not look right. It looks like a Ford.”
You have to wonder how these things get approved at the highest level of corporate design studios. It does look sportier, and playful. But as you said, it conflicts, with the rest of the exterior.
Nice Photoshop. Now just loose a few inches off the rear and perfect. Just a few, not extreme.
I think the 1966-67 Lincolns were beautiful and I miss those big two door hardtops and convertibles. I guess you just had to be there, during that time, to full apricate full size two door hardtops and convertibles.
Thank you Alfred! Great call, on the shortened length, aft of the rear wheel. Trimmed approximately 4 inches (full-scaled). I honestly don’t know how the final roofline was approved. Reminds me of a Galaxie 500 sedan.
Making it more formal seemed like a ‘no-brainer’, to me this morning. I could visualize the improvement, before actually rendering it in Photoshop this afternoon.
Also centred the rear wheel/tire left to right within the rear wheel well. While lowering the ride height. These were exceptionally rare in Canada. As you may imagine.
The car pictured in the article is a dead ringer for my ’67 coupe that I wrote up in the link below, though mine was at the correct ride height. I still think it’s one of the most beautiful cars to come out of Detroit – the lower front headlights and “forehead” that is mimicked at the rear just does it for me. The balance and sleekness of the 66-67s was somewhat diminished by the more formal Thunderbird-type roof the coupe got 68/69.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/cars-of-a-lifetime/coal-1967-lincoln-continental-coupe-black-on-top-unfortunately-brown-on-the-bottom/
I had been intending to add that to the “Related Reading” links, but I had misremembered that you had a ’66, so I couldn’t figure out why I couldn’t find it. I added it now.
I’m mildly surprised at the sales figures for coupes versus sedans in both the Cadillac and Lincoln lines. I was expecting the hardtop coupe sales to be higher. I had always heard that the Coupe deVille was Cadillac’s most popular single model for many years during the ’60s and ’70s. (And the Impala Hardtop Coupe was the most popular full-sized Chevy during the ’60s and ’70s, at least up to the downsized ’77 models). But maybe this wasn’t so.
It was a progression. Look at the Cadillac coupes totals for 1961 and 1969 (which includes Series 62 and Calais coupes, not just Coupe de Ville): Notice that coupe production doubled over the course of the decade where sedan sales mostly held pat.
The elegance of the 1961 Continental compared to the same year Cadillac is stark, but by 1965 the Cadillac styling had been greatly cleaned up and was fresher than the now 4 year old Continental, plus the Cadillac would blow away a Lincoln when the stoplight turned green, handle better, and get 2-5 mpg better in daily driving. The only advantage the Lincoln had was the disc brakes.