This review puts the Thunderbird in proper context as “The supreme status symbol of the younger set”. It was the eminent car to be seen in; it turned heads like no other, even “in car blase Southern California”. And if one really wanted to be seen, then the convertible version was even more magnetic. Car Life tested one to see if it drove as well as it turned heads. You probably won’t be surprised at their conclusion.
“…you soon feel all eyes upon you…sometimes downright jealously“. Of course, all this attention didn’t come cheap, between its 11 mpg thirst and almost $6,000 price ($60k adjusted to 2022). But due to the Thunderbird’s very high resale value, the actual cost of ownership wasn’t quite as hard to come by as it might seem at first jealous glance.
color photos from the web
CL points out that anyone concerned about fuel mileage probably isn’t really qualified to be in the market for a Thunderbird. So what’s it like to drive?
It’s heavy, weighing almost as much as a larger Cadillac. Despite its 205″ length, it sits on a rather short 113″ wheelbase, 1″ less than a Comet’s. All those long overhangs are not exactly a good recipe for handling: “causes handling around curves at higher velocities to be somewhat uncertain.” The soft springs and “wishy-washy shock absorbers” play their part too, but CL notes that a set of stiffer aftermarket shocks can go some distance to improving that.
The steering was quick, but not surprisingly, lacking in feel. CL duly noted than manual steering was not available. Nor am manual transmission. I’m trying to imagine a Thunderbird with a three-on-the-tree and armstrong steering. Who else but Car Life (or R&T) would even ask these questions?
The degree to which it will take a curve at high speed depends much on the smoothness of the pavement. CL points at that a car like the T-Bird shouldn’t just “sit there and look pretty, but perform as well.” Good luck with that; these were just not a driver’s car, period. Remember, it’s all about being envied, while cruising, not racing.
Acceleration from 0-60 was 10 seconds, which CL deemed “the borderline between acceptable and unacceptable performance for cars consuming more than one gallon of gas for every 20 miles traveled”. How about for one that only goes 11 miles? Even less acceptable?
But the Bird redeemed itself with a decent 50-80 mph passing time (time not given), which is probably a more relevant criteria. It was never going to excel at stop light drags, but then it didn’t have to; it was an automatic “winner” thanks to its looks.
CL does speculate whether all of the 300 advertised horses in the 390 cubic inch V8 were really in attendance. This seems to come up not uncommonly with Fords in this time period; Roger Huntington was convinced that GM’s and Chrysler’s hp ratings were more credible, based on his thorough accelerometer tests which could fairly accurately determine an engine’s actual (net) horsepower.
CL recommended aggressively using the lower gears in the Cruise-O-matic transmission when descending grades, as the drum brakes were lacking, in part because of very limited cooling air flow over the drums due to the body styling and the full wheel covers. Fading brakes is a small price to pay for vanity.
Trunk space was severely lacking; if the top was stowed there was precious little room left for any actual luggage.
The optional 6-way power seats were deemed worth having on a long trip, thanks to the ability to change positions. And the expensive $500 ($5,000 adjusted) air conditioning “must be tried to be appreciated” as the fatigue reduction on a long trip was huge. True that.
Unfortunately, quality was not up to the lofty price: the right door didn’t want to close readily, the heater had a short which smelled of burning insulation, and the hood latches were not adjusted properly. That caused some disconcerting moments during high speed testing when one front corner of the hood started lifting up some.
In summation, CL couldn’t fault the Thunderbird’s envy-generating abilities, but for the money, they would have preferred that its dynamic qualities were more in line with the price. No surprises there.
My take on the ’61 Thunderbird convertible:
1961 Ford Thunderbird Convertible – The American Dream Mobile Paul Niedermeyer
This series of Thunderbirds was one of the best of entire runoff the brand, especially as shown here as convertible in RED. Never owned one,but a friend had a well used Tbird that still looked great and was comfortable and dependable! Gas was cheap and few really cared about mileage. Personally have never worried about performance as much as styling, comfort, and making people look! This Tbird does al that and more 🏆. Only 75 and 76 birds exceeded this series. As I’ve said in other posts, I have always loved OTT luxury. This is one of a very few smaller automobiles that accomplished that. Have a friend who had a 71 BIRD and is looking to find one of those. Last good Tbird for me was 79. Everything after that to me was a thunder chicken.
The more things change…The testors laud the ‘Bird’s power seats as a preventative to stopping for half an hour and rest an aching back. Nowadays, of course, we have the 1/2 hour EV stop to restore range. If this is a $60000 personal convertible for the middle aged but conventional rake in 2023, it illuminates how much more expensive cars have to be these days to house the necessary tech and materials. It’s hard to find a comparative vehicle to the ’61 T-Bird. Maybe the lexus LC convertible? That one goes for $105000.
Hot Rod magazine put a 300hp 352 Interceptor on the dyno because they didn’t believe the hp rating. I have to dig the magazine up but I seem to remember they got something like 185 hp at the wheels so add maybe 40 hp to get flywheel rating. The Ford automatic was a power robber as well compared to others.
These were all about style and they had it in spades. The last car that JFK drove himself was a ’63 T Bird coupe that he had stashed out in Palm Springs. These cars also bring to mind 77 Sunset Strip.
Take me back to no cell phones, tattoos, or pink hair.
His 63 mercury in Hyannisport
A few weeks ago I watched a rerun of an old Perry Mason show. (BTW, was there ever any more perfect casting than Raymond Burr, William Tallman, Barbara Hale and William Hopper in their roles as Mason, Hamilton Burger, Della Street and Paul Drake?)
Of course there was only one car for the handsome, suave, urbane, silver haired Paul Drake. His 1961 Thunderbird convertible fit him perfectly.
These still call my name, despite my less-than-satisfying experience with a decrepit old one decades ago. I am surprised by two things the testers did not mention. First, this was the intro year for the Swing-a-way steering wheel, something the auto market has not seen before or since these Birds. Maybe that was one of the fripperies they deemed unworthy of notice.
The second is a tendency I read about in other old tests for some squirrely handling at higher speeds due to the odd one-year-only rear spring design with a front hanger that allowed a bit of fore-aft movement in the entire spring assembly on each side. It must have been a problem for Ford to go back to a conventional front spring hanger (bolt and bushing) in 1962. Or maybe they did notice it and just attributed it to the wimpy shocks.
The defects in this car seem unusual – At first I thought it might be an early build, but then they said that the 62 models were right around the corner. Maybe Wixom was running the lines faster than optimum because of demand?
Weren’t the Thunderbirds made at the same plant as the Lincolns, which were the subject of an intense, or at least well-publicized, quality control campaign? I would have expected a lot of the Lincoln quality control to rub off on the Thunderbirds, especially considering that they were also a high-priced prestige car.
Motor Trend reported on their road test of a 1962 Sports Roadster in the September 1962 issue. They stated “Quality throughout the entire car is for the most part excellent. All panels and doors as well as the trim are perfectly aligned. Unfortunately, the test car’s top and the side windows weren’t so perfectly aligned, and after a wash job the front seats were full of water.” My experience with the three hardtops of this gen T-Bird is that they were well built. Among my friends’ cars, convertibles of this era did routinely leak – I recall when a friend’s 1964 Oldsmobile convertible produced the same result in the car wash. Not an an acceptable excuse for such an expensive car as the Thunderbird Sports Roadster.
I remember a businessman in my neighborhood buying a 61 yellow convert with a red leather interior.
Five year old me thought these were amazing exotic cars. Especially with the tonneau cover headrests.
“Five year old me thought these were amazing exotic cars.”
17 year old me thought these were amazing exotic cars.
Especially the way the T-Bird convertible top did a back flip way into the trunk (just like the Lincoln Continental) rather than folding itself behind the rear seat like most other convertibles.
Besides the retractable operation being neat, it left no need for a manually installed cover over the folded top like most convertibles, making these look like true roadsters with the top down
“Ford’s Personal Car has no Real Competition” It’s as if they forgot about the 61 Olds Starfire.
The Starfire was just a tarted up Super 88 convertible. That’s not exactly “real competition”.
“Starfire was just a tarted up Super 88…”
100% correct, as why early Starfires are kind of forgotten. The full size ’62-’68 GP’s* were more like an Impala SS, sportier full size. Making the ’69+ GP a unique mid size body was a hit, leading to ’77 T-Bird.
* More unique then SS and Starfire, but still sharing panels with “Mom’s Catalina”.
The Thunderbird outsold the Starfire nearly 10-1. So I guess almost everyone else forgot about it too. 🙂
I am with Paul above – the Starfire was pretty much a trim job on a regular Oldsmobile. It took the 63 Riviera provide some competition to the Bird.
Yes, the large sporty cars like the Starfire, Wildcat, GP, and SS were never direct competition for the Thunderbird. It’s surprising that it took 5 years before GM finally responded with the spectacular Riviera.
My parents bought new a 1960 conv., 1963 hardtop, 1966 Town Landau. I was gifted the ’63’ on my 16th birthday (early ’67’), gifted the ’66’ late 1969, and currently have a 1966 T-Bird conv. These are all wonderful autos to experience, then and now. They all handled about as well and any other luxury cars of the period. And yes, they got much attention then as well as now. Not recommended for shy people.
The Thunderbird, at the time, was still the only specialty luxury car among the Big Three that had a bespoke body. The Corvette was still a pretty Spartan sports car. Other makes had sporty or luxurious trim levels like the Chrysler 300 or the Pontiac Grand Prix. The introduction of the Riviera was still two years away.
It was, in many ways, like the 190 SL Mercedes convertible, which was oriented for comfortable touring as opposed to the more potent 300 series. The Thunderbird was the first American personal luxury car. I imagine a lot of younger readers are amazed to read that a mere Ford, costing 6,000 dollars, could inspire so much attention and even envy. Back then, even middle class people didn’t have that high an income, even the “adjusted” price of 60K, doesn’t sound that impressive, but I would equate it to the cost of a 100K Lincoln Navigator today. I remember when a car loan required 20% down, was limited to three years, and of course leasing was very rare. Over the years, after 1976, Ford continually moved the T Bird more downmarket.
The T Bird was the last American car that I would attach the “Dreamboat” moniker to. If you don’t believe me, ask your Mom, or even better, ask your Grandma! Women loved these little Birds. My Mom told me that if she ever won the Irish Sweepstakes, she would buy a bright red T Bird convertible, just like this one.
The styling of this T-Bird is a wonderful expression of the optimism at the start of the ’60s. It incorporates all those space age motifs into a well resolved whole whilst not appearing overly busy. The interior, with its center console making a feature of the Wixom built body’s center tunnel monocoque structure is also really nicely done. I can only imagine the pleasure of cruising around in one of these when they were new (or now, to that matter).
One of these would definitely be in my Dream Garage!
Keep in mind that the Convertible weight was 4500+ lbs versus 4000 for the Hardtop, due to the Conv mechanism & reinforced chassis.
These Thunderbirds are STILL inspiring envy 60+ years later. Thank you for finding modern photos of one of the few Bullet Birds not sporting the roadster back seat cover. It seems like most any of those convertibles you see have the cover, which is kind of a pet peeve for me. I think it makes the car look rather silly. Everyone knows there’s a back seat under there, and if there wasn’t, the proportions would be absurd for a true two seat car. I could go on, but I won’t!
Paul, please keep these Car Life articles coming! The early 1960s were such a fascinating time in American car history after the flamboyant excesses of the late 50s. The largest cars become somewhat smaller and lighter (if only for a relatively short period), the compacts were introduced and followed shortly by the midsize and pony cars. Also styling became much more rational (except of course for Exner’s lingering weirdness at Chrysler).
There was newly introduced technology, at least on the domestic front, much of which was problematic at first, but features all taken for granted today — aluminum engines, fuel injection, turbocharging, disk brakes, and independent rear suspensions.
This Thunderbird was a fantastically styled car inside and out, but yes, the test results were quite predictable — basically a boulevard cruiser for showing off.
Great post – one of the cars that “took my breath away” when I first saw one back in the early 60’s, along with the 63 Stingray, 63 Avanti, and 66 Toronado.
It’s one of those cars that pics just don’t do it justice – you have to see it in the metal.
I’ve read a TON of old Ford road tests in my 60 years and this is the first one ever that had a 61′-66′ 390 TBird doing 0-60 in under 10 seconds.
The 6 year old me thought these things looked great. The 30s-40s-50s-60s year old me doesn’t think so. The squarebird aged well, the 64-65 still looks good, but these? Not so good, at least to my eyes. Transmissions. A 3 on the tree, of course not. But IIRC this was a console car, so a 4 on the floor might have worked. They may not have been a performance car, but IIRC they were kind of marketing it as such.
Yeah, it seemed like the 390s were always over rated, power wise. I think some of the early ones were ok, but it didn’t take long before they were relatively gutless for their size. But if you think those are bad, just drive a late 70s pickup truck with the short stroke 360. Now those were gutless. And I’m fonder of Fords than the other domestic manufactures.
Agree with the 390’s being over rated. The 360 picked up the mantle for the 352, another gutless wonder. Ford also had an obsession with two barrel carbs. I don’t recall any of the 352, 360, 390 pickups have a four barrel carb. Most of the average FE’s were all done by 4500 rpm anyway. I am also a Ford fan, got a 428CJ so they could do it, just makes me wonder why they didn’t do it sooner.
Yeah I feel the same way, the bullet bird was my favorite of the classic Tbirds as a kid but I like the square birds better now. Too much 61 Continental in the 61-63, it’s trying to look classy and sporty at the same time and it’s neither of those things, the squares shed all their sports car (if you can call the 55-57s that) roots but it looked like a successor to them at least, and the flairbirds largely went back to many of the squarebird elements, rendering the bulletbirds kind of an orphan cosmetically.
Early Mustang was meant to be ‘smaller T-Bird’. With small v8 as top power option. No fastbacks for first 6 months, too.
I purchased a fully restored 63 hardtop last year. It has plenty of power. The handling leaves much to be desired, but is typical for the time. The factory AC is great. The swing away steering wheel is much appreciated as it does aid in entry and exit. My 63 is painted its original Silver Mink with a black interior. As far as getting attention goes, heads turn. At the car shows, there is always a crowd of awed viewers gaping and asking questions. The 61-63 bullet Birds are not for the faint of heart
Back in 1962 a neighbor family traded their 1957 Ford wagon for one of these. They had 2 children about my age (9). Their second car was a Renault.
I was very envious that they got to ride in such a cool car as the Thunderbird.
In 1963 my parents bought a Pontiac sedan.
Nice car but no T-Bird.