Hard as it may be to believe, in all of the years that curbside classics have been gracing the pages of Curbside Classic, we have never given the 1957 Thunderbird its day in the sun. At least not without its older brothers along. That day has now come.
It is generally accepted that General Motors was the long-reining king of automotive styling. Names like Harley Earl and Bill Mitchell are well known for the long stream of attractive and trend-setting cars that they guided from paper to clay and into showrooms everywhere during the company’s long term domination of the American auto industry. However, it seems that once every decade it was the Ford Motor Company that hit the stylistic home run which made all other cars seem ordinary.
Think about it: in the 1920s it was the Model A, one of the most beautiful cars of its era, never mind its diminuitive size. The 1936 Ford (or the ’39 if you are a contrarian like me) did the same thing the following decade in that each was virtually perfect in its own way.
Then there was the 1941 Lincoln Continental and the 1965 Mustang, two cars that reached a kind of styling perfection in the 1940’s and the 1960’s. And the 1950’s? Sorry, but it is not the ’57 Chevy. It is this one: The 1957 Ford Thunderbird.
The basic story of the Thunderbird is well-known. Sports cars were all the rage in the early 1950s. In addition to the most famous one (the 1953 Corvette) there were many others. The Nash-Healy, the Hudson Italia and the Kaiser Darrin all made it to production. Even the 1953 Studebaker Starliner/Starlight was considered as something of a sports car, albeit a more practical one with a back seat.
Chrysler was busy with a series of Virgil Exner-conceived one-offs, any one of which could have made it to showrooms had K. T. Keller & Co. been less invested in revamping the standard lines. And there were, of course, many sports car prototypes and show cars from various Divisions that made the rounds of GM’s Motorama shows.
And then there was the Ford Motor Company. By 1952 the company had made amazing strides from the company of less than a decade earlier, which was closer than many realized to closing up shop. Too Big To Fail was a thing in the 1940’s too. As the second half of the twentieth century got underway, the most backwards auto company known for selling tough but thoroughly obsolete products had transformed itself into a modern company that was quite competitive. By 1952 the idea of a sports car must have been on Henry Ford II’s mind. When Chevrolet introduced the 1953 Corvette, it almost certainly was.
The story of Thunderbird’s birth in the fall of 1954 is another story for another time. And one that Aaron Severson has ably chronicled at Ate Up With Motor. The crib notes version is that the original Bird’s styling story is a bit murky. There are versions crediting Frank Hershey, Bill Boyer and Joe Oros, each of whom worked under Ford’s styling VP George Walker. Success, as we all know, has many fathers.
The 1955 Thunderbird turned out to be not a sports car, exactly. However, in the way that seemed unique to Ford in those years the car and its designers stumbled on the secret to success. While everyone else was trying to build an American Triumph or Jaguar, Ford created a uniquely American style accessory that was more of a cross between a Jaguar and a Cadillac. The Thunderbird had two seats like a sports car, but was really meant for the boulevard or the country club.
Although Ford had projected a 10,000 unit initial run, the company sold 16,155 Birds in 1955. Even with its new V8 engine, Chevrolet could only manage to move 674 Corvettes that year. It has been argued that without the 1953 Corvette there would have been no 1955 Thunderbird, and without the 1955 Thunderbird there would have been no 1956 Corvette.
After two years of success the 1957 model would require a restyle. What is fascinating is the way the 1957 restyle has received so little attention through the years. If the story of the ’55 is murky, that of the ’57 has been almost ignored despite the fact that it was undoubtedly one of the most successful refreshes in the history of automobile styling.
Perhaps the 1957 Thunderbird’s styling became an afterthought in automotive history because the car was an afterthought during its development. After all, immediately after the drama of the 1955 model attention shifted to Robert McNamara and his green eyeshade-style of automotive management. Now, instead of an American “sports car”, the Thunderbird program was morphed into a larger unit “body buddy” with the 1958 Lincoln so that both of them (and the Wixom, Michigan plant where they were to be built) could become paying propositions. There are many fascinating things about the 1958 Thunderbird and it was an unqualified success in more ways than one, but there is one thing it was not: Beautiful. OK, maybe it was beautiful by the standards of new cars in 1958, but not the kind of beauty that makes you stop and stare today.
In 1986 Bill Boyer wrote “Thunderbird – An Odyssey In Automotive Design”. Boyer ran a Thunderbird design studio within Ford styling beginning in early 1955, so he would have known the ’57 project as well as anyone. In that roughly two hundred page book Boyer gave the exterior styling of the ’57 project a few paragraphs over perhaps two or three pages. The 1955 and 1958 cycles got all the attention in both the book and in real life, so we have to take what details we can scrounge.
We know that the a larger grille was desired for better engine cooling and the dipped bumper met this criteria while allowing the front end sheetmetal to remain essentially unchanged.
We also know that the biggest change was a four inch stretch of the rear (with no increase in wheelbase) which allowed the spare tire to be put back into the trunk. It is also clear that the ’57 Bird’s rear was designed mainly to maintain a family resemblance with the new 1957 Ford Fairlane – the company’s big project for the year.
It is remarkable how similar the Thunderbird’s 1957 styling story followed that of the regular Chevrolet. Both cars involved a third year rehash of an attractive and popular car. And both have gone down in history as one of the most successful designs of the era. But where the ’57 Bel-Air became beloved because it was so common, the Thunderbird of that year was appreciated for its relative rarity. Perhaps the secret to long-term styling success in the 1950’s was giving the stylists as little to change as possible?
It is easy to look back at the radical 1957 line coming from Chrysler Corporation and see how dowdy and old fashioned almost everything else looked in comparison. The ’57 Ford Fairlane may have come closest to matching Virgil Exner’s impact over at Chrysler, but most agree that the front of the Ford was a bit hamfisted. The 1957 Thunderbird, however, avoided this fate.
Look at this car. Is there a single line, a single piece or a single feature that calls out for improvement? The fender skirt might be the most controversial item today, but they can be removed for those offended by them. Personally, I much prefer the skirted versions over the open-wheel look.
1957 models, clockwise from top left: Chrysler New Yorker, Pontiac Star Chief, Studebaker Champion, Chevrolet Bel Air
Up front the new bumper and grille transform the design from ordinary for the period to timeless. The dipped bumper looked just right in a year that saw several of them. The T-Bird’s dip was more dramatic than those found on the Chrysler (and on the ’57 Chevrolet, for that matter). And it was far more successful than the awkward effort on the front of of the standard Studebaker line or the overly complicated one on the ’57 Pontiac.
Out back the thin, canted fins make Exner’s Forward Look fins look a little pudgy. Ford’s small, canted fins may have come off as well as any fin design from the era, and it has certainly worn better than most of them as time has passed. The trademark round taillights over the bumper that drops down on the ends end up in perfect proportion. This was likely due to good fortune as much as anything since the taillight lenses came directly from the ’57 Fairlane. Really, how amazing is it that a facelift job largely dictated by other projects could come out this well? And not just well but just right.
How right? One look at some of the alternative ideas brings home just how many ways stylists could have ruined the final two-seat Thunderbird.
The big scallop behind the front wheel got fairly far along in the design process, and was eliminated only when the new 1956 Corvette came out with a similar feature. The production design lost the slightly chunky look of 1955-56 and was far more pure than the 1958 unit-bodied Squarebird that succeeded it. We could say that Ford kept the best parts of the already attractive 1955-56 car and added more goodness everywhere major changes were made.
And how perfect was it for me to find this one in this setting. Geist Reservoir is an area northeast of Indianapolis that has been surrounded by expensive homes and has developed a bit of the flavor of lake living. Near the marina is a building that has seen a series of failed restaurants. But there is one that opened there last year which seems to be a success. We met friends there last year and I was fortunate to find a CC-worthy Pontiac GTO in the parking lot. And when we met them again recently, I was greeted by this gorgeous Thundering Bird as we left the building.
This T-Bird was in its element – a scenic, upscale locale with well-dressed people all around. This car was not parked at a road racing course, and was never intended to be. Nope, this car was made for settings where there are yachts or golf clubs or cocktails. Elegant. That is the word that sums up the Thunderbird alone among the offerings of almost everything else built by the U. S. Auto industry that year.
Most old cars look good in pictures, but let me tell you this one was stunning in person. No wonder the owner took the liberty of parking it along the curb near the establishment’s front door instead of between the white lines farther away where we of the proletariat parked our more plebeian wheels. All the better to not mar the mirror-perfect Raven Black finish. As I walked around this one during photographing, I was struck by the total lack of bad or awkward angles. Just as some humans are made for the camera, so is the 1957 Thunderbird.
I did not, of course, lift the hood, but I like to imagine there a 4 bbl 312 for providing the kind of scoot-power a car like this deserves. I’ll bet the exhaust note is lovely. Ford offered some fairly strong powerplants that year, including a supercharged 312. Fearsome performance was not, however, the Thunderbird’s real purpose in life. Who really needs a supercharger or dual four-barrel carbs to live the beautiful life?
Like the 1957 Chevrolet, the ’57 Thunderbird sold well but not spectacularly. It’s generation-high output of 21,380 cars was aided by a production year extended into December of 1957 due to delays in getting all-new ’58 model into showrooms. The Corvette had a good 1957 too, though 6,339 vehicles was good only by 1950’s Corvette standards.
And just as the 1957 Chevrolet would be overshadowed by its new 1958 replacement, Ford would eventually show what real success looked like when the four-seat 1958 Thunderbird would introduce the concept of personal luxury to the American automobile market.
In truth, I am a little surprised that the ’57 Chevy and the ’59 Cadillac have become the alpha and the omega of 1950’s American automotive design. But then popular tastes can be difficult to predict. For my money the 1957 Ford Thunderbird may represent the decade’s actual styling peak. How fascinating that the company with so few really good designs of the period would come up with the one that stands far above all the rest.
Only follow it up with the 1958 Edsel.
But boy did it ever. Whether in shape or proportion, concept or detailing, the 1957 Ford Thunderbird may well have been the most perfectly styled car of its era. There have always been stylish cars and cars with design that has withstood the test of time. This one managed to be both.
Further Reading:
Garageside Classic – Maintaining And Driving Harold’s T-Birds (Jon7190)
Vintage Ads: 1955-57 Thunderbird – The Light Of Hand Performer (Paul Niedermeyer)
The ’57 Thunderbird is definently ONE of the best, but not THE bes. In fact, it’s not even the best of all T-Birds. The T-Bird Roadster that came later was better. No, the ’55 Chevy Bel Air and the ’56 Corvette looked better, I think. And what about the 1951 Hudson Hornet? Way better.
The Tbird was the best looking car of any decade hands down!
Nice, the last real Thunderbird before bloat set in.
I agree with”ilovecars” the Tbird is a definate beauty,one of the most beautiful cars ever to hit the pavement(i preffer the 55 Tbird myself)That said…The 55 Chevy Bel Air to me is the most beautiful car of the 50’s maybe all time. And lets not forget that Cadillac had a bunch of beuts like the 53 Eldorado, 57 Brougham,59 Biaritz…………….etc
The 55 Chevy was perfect all around!! Great write up JP!!!
I’ve never understood the adulation for the ‘57 Chevrolet. A gross wrecking of the beautiful ‘55 (and the decently attractive ‘56 that had to be revised even though it didn’t need it), the only rationale I can find for ‘57 love is the same that later brought about brougham love: An American fascination with the loud, the show-offy, the tacky, and the cheap masquerading as class.
Even as a child I found the Ford to be more attractive, and the Plymouth to be more striking – even though both were hurt by badly thought out headlight treatments. Which Plymouth fixed in ‘58, while Ford blew it completely.
Of course, at our house, you never said that around the dinner table, unless you wanted to be sent to your room, immediately.
Same here. The 1957 Chevrolet looked junked-up, as though having blown their wad on the 1955, all the stylists had left was to make an imitation Cadillac.
Plymouth’s (and the other ChryCos’) headlight treatment in 1957 was the best they could do when several states did not legalize quad (we called them “dual” at the time) headlights which were the original Exner design. As you say, that was fixed for 1958…but Ford went to an awkward front end with squeezed-in looking quads and what looked like an ape’s jaw for a grill. As for the 1958 Chevrolet, it was all-new but looked five years old.
According to my dad the buyers of new 57s here agreed with you Syke after the intial orders were delivered no reorders came in that had never happened with any other Chevrolet, 58s sold like beer at a footy game, it was new
If I remember correctly, what turned out to be the 1958 Chevy models were supposed to be released in 1957. However I believe some engineering issues prevented that from happening and thus, Chevy had to do a bit of an emergency refresh on the 55-56 models. Though I’m not 100% sure, I can safely assume that some of the styling cues found on the 57 were supposed to be on the newer platform that eventually came out on the 58s with the only difference being that on what supposed to be the 57s would have came with single headlights rather than dual lights. Look at Ford and Chrysler, both companies released brand new cars with new styling and even Buicks and Caddys had new platforms for 1957. But due to whatever issue that arisen, the old, pontiacs and chevys had to soldier on for one more year with the older body
BUT like many other 50’s cars, the lower-end models (in the case of Chevrolet, the 150 and 210), in my opinion, look FAR better than the garish chariots that were at the top end of the choices available to buyer.
I hadn’t realized there was so little written at CC about the early Thunderbirds, but that’s not surprising because with iconic cars like this, it’s easy to think that there’s not much more to add that hasn’t been said about them zillions of times before. Yet, you managed to. Ultimately, I agree… this was the best-styled car of the decade.
When I think of the ’55-’57 Thunderbird, I often think about how the concept of a 2-seater that was “really meant for the boulevard or the country club” succeeded with the T-bird, but then hardly ever again (maybe the Mercedes SL’s). It seems that carmakers have tried to recapture the Thunderbird’s magic, but usually don’t succeed.
Thanks Eric. I think the reason the early Thunderbird was considered such a success had nothing to do with sales numbers. 15-20k/yr sales was nothing to get excited about even then. But it moved Ford out of “the low priced 3” and into a territory no Ford had ever occupied – the aspirational car. Regular Fords (and Chevrolets) had been getting much nicer by 1955 but the Thunderbird may have been the first major crack in the Division/price-class system that built General Motors. It’s funny that Ford tried and tried to take on GM in the 50s and every intentional effort failed. In the Thunderbird they succeeded purely by accident. Just think – if this car had racked up Corvette-like sales numbers, I doubt we would ever have seen the 4 seat 58 model that started a trend that went on for twenty years.
All of these would have been good approaches to this car, but I could not get past how almost supernaturally beautiful this thing was. I had been seeing these (in pictures and at car shows) my whole life but seeing one out in a real-life setting drove the point into me for the first time.
The ’57 Thunderbird has long been a favorite of mine. Knowing more about its history is even better.
And for 21,000 of these being made, the survival rate is amazing. Last summer I saw a red one near my house turning onto a main thoroughfare.
When I lived in Hannibal years ago there was a man who drove a white one daily every summer. It was rather rough but still a ’57 Thunderbird.
Last fall I was in the front yard mulching leaves. A Chevrolet pickup pulling a trailer ambles up the street and backs into the neighbors driveway diagonal from my house. Soon enough a black 1957 Thunderbird emerges from the garage of a secondary structure and it’s put on a trailer. Knowing the guy in the pickup, I later learn he got it running again. It was a good waxing and a set of whitewalls away from looking like the featured Thunderbird.
Since you mention Ford’s best design for the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, what about the 1970s? Inquiring minds need to know. 🙂
71/72 fullsize sedan and wagon with rocker panel trim.
72 Ranchero and Gran Torino
Yes, an amazing survival rate absolutely. But then these were never “normal cars”. My mother was a young adult when these came out and these cars cast a spell on everyone in her age group. They were always special. I think the Miata is kind of the same way in modern cars. Yes, some were driven into the ground and thrown away, but many many more were lovingly kept in decent shape.
The 1970s was where I hit a brick wall. I think Ford did it again with the 83 Thunderbird and I would even argue that they did so again with the Explorer in the 1990s. But the 1970s, well, I cannot come up with an example of where Ford carried off a design so perfectly that it became iconic. Perhaps this is a good QOTD – what was the most Iconic Ford design effort of the 70s?
I suspect your winner would be the ’79 Mustang. Not so much because it is an outstanding design. Rather, domestic Ford styling of the 70s was not particularly strong. The ’79 Mustang’s design longevity would be a strong aiding factor.
I agree the Fox body Mustang was a daring move, not dramatic, in terms of styling cues like the swept-back grille. Designers dared to be different and management pushed back as they were still in a sixties styling funk. This would happen again in developing the new Taurus a few years later.
The 57 T-Bird when compared to other cars of the era was understaded, but still pleasing to the eye. Styling that aged well in my opinion. And does it ever look good in black.
Great write-up JP. I know that not everyone is a fan of black cars, but when the paint is perfect on a black car like this, it’s not really black… it’s whatever color it is reflecting. I can see YOUR reflection perfectly in some of these shots. ;o)
As to the possible QOTD? I think I’d have to go with Vince’s Gran Torino (pictured below) if this becomes a QOTD. No doubt he would agree, albiet with a little bias.
Considering the love affair with Broughams in the ’70(s), the Bill Blass Lincoln Mark V probably deserves a nod as well.
Don and Rick, I’d have to concur, but I might be a tad biased. 😉 I can say today that my 72’s styling will still turn a lot of heads. Seriously though, Ford didn’t have a lot of well styled cars in the 1970’s but both the 71-72 Fords and the ’72 Gran Torinos have always been two cars I though Ford got right for the looks department. Daniel’s nomination for the ’79 Mustang is a good one too, even though the polar opposite of the aforementioned cars. I always like the Fox Mustangs.
The very few Thunder birds that arrived here near new never reached old bomb status they were prized right from the get go, Other rare valuable cars didnt fare so well sometimes, theres a Sunbeam Tiger that races as a street stock at the local speedway and its a genuine V8 Tiger, goes ok but its very very rough now.
Last week I took a back way to work which happens to be the back way to my son’s elementary school. Within 1 mile I passed two Thunderbirds parked in their driveways. I, of course, didn’t have my camera with me as usual. I’ll have to drive by again with the camera.
The ’58 DeSoto Adventurer is one of my favorites.
Outstanding article and observations JP. You prove again, you are in the top tier of writers at CC. I’d say from a pop culture POV, the ’55–57 T-Bird would be tops, along with the ’57 Chev and the ’56 Corvette. These are designs that many non-car people readily identify as icons of 50s America. They’ve probably been immortalized more times in photography, film, or print, than any other domestic car designs of that era.
I will add that the great proportions of the ’57 T-Bird, besides it’s clean, groundbreaking styling, is a big part of its lasting appeal. Something Ford really never did replicate afterwards in future T-Birds. I do think T-Birds of this era look best in light colours. As light paintwork highlights the cleanliness, and details, of the design.
Great writeup with plenty I didn’t know—or hadn’t thought about–before, including how the matchup with the ’57 full-size car figured in.
I won’t join the scuffle about **best** design, but I love these, and if I ever win the lottery I just might spring for one.
Survival Rate: come to think of it, even in the 1960s-70s I didn’t see too many of these beaten down and used up—even in northern climes, a lot of them “kept nice.”
Factory Photos: I’m one of those guys who wonders where the neighborhood is, and what it looks like today. If my eye is right, Ford had used the same stylish home when launching the original in 1955–somewhere in the nicest Detroit suburbs?
…and it was the same house in front of which a Thunderbird prototype was photographed, presumably in 1954. In this photo, the curb in front of the house appears unfinished, indicating the house (or subdivision) was recently built at that time.
I’d love to know where this house was (strong likelihood of the Detroit area somewhere) and who the house belonged to!
Wow, I had not realized how many times that same house was used in promo pictures. Do we have a volunteer to cruise the older Detroit suburbs to find this place? 🙂
Eric, you might find that’s the same car as George’s. The chrome side detail appears to have been airbrushed on
Don A, I believe the story is that side spear (echoing the Crown Victoria, right?) was taken off the production car only at the last minute. Somewhere online is the first dealer brochure *with* the trim, and then the reprint with the car as we know it.
Eric703 and JPC, I would have loved to have divvied up the labor during the Dearborn meet-up two summers ago and tried to find this place–perhaps Grosse Ile or northern suburbs.
Here’s yet another early photo (of the ’55 w/hardtop) at the same new-looking homesite:
Aha! One more (Henry Ford Museum), same location. Placard on lawn gives street number as “425” (or possibly “423”), which might help narrow search. Sure looks midwest rather than SoCal to me!
Great clue there with 425 (that’s what it looks like to me too). I’ve spent way too much time tonight looking at aerial and StreetView images of the Grosse Point areas… found some similar-looking types of houses, but haven’t located this one yet.
@Eric703: Bravo to you for taking up the chase with this one. At one point (months & months ago) I even sent a few of these to some Detroit-area realtors, asking “look familiar?” but nothing positive came of it. When time permits, I’ll try to get back to it!
Thank God they deleted that “side spear”, it just looked silly. It didn’t look good on any Ford.
To me the 1955-57 T-birds look like Fairlanes that were left in the dryer too long and shrunk in an awkward way. I prefer the 1953 Studebaker Starlight Coupe.
I agree with you re: the ’53 Studebaker Starlight but the 1957 Thunderbird is the sweet spot of the Little TBird series.
This car is beautifully proportioned, and could have remained as such well into the 1960s looking entirely relevant and timely. Geez they could have even made it bigger and kept the same style, if they had desired.
When you mentioned the dropped grille, I had to do a double take. I hadn’t even noticed that design element, it was so subtle. They did it so nicely it didn’t look out of place.
Excellent find!
What I had never noticed was the way the front bumper dipped in the middle while the rear bumper dipped at the outer edges. That back bumper’s raised middle made the whole rear end look lower and thinner. The 57 Fairlane’s rear looks positively thick and chunky in comparison. Which is something else I had never noticed before now.
Agreed. I would posit that the 57 Ford was designed by an entirely different team than the T-bird, and they may never have crossed paths.
The 1957 Fairlanes had a partly different body including different greenhouses, and I think a longer wheelbase than the two lower end lines like that one. The fins start with a curve and are taller like the Thunderbird’s. The taller rear bumper with black painted areas also makes the rear end look more horizontal.
The Thunderbird was indeed the product of a team separated from the other styling studios. Boyer’s book tells us that the early Thunderbird was considered a PITA distraction by several in management and as a result they were stuck in a flood-prone basement studio and were way down low on the priority scale. It is funny how within a decade the Thunderbird studio would be a really important place within the company.
Another point I left out was that the bumpers, front and back, were far more expensive to fabricate than on the higher volume cars (and on the 55-56 for that matter) which might explain why the family resemblance did not run the other direction.
My understanding is that the 57 Fairlane was designed first (heavily influenced by the Mystere concept car) and that the TBird studio was given the early results and told to keep the family resemblance. Now that I know this I see the taillights on the Fairlane as too small and those identical pieces on the Thunderbird as just right.
With such a perfect car for inspiration, it’s mind boggling how Ford could get the 2002 Thunderbird so wrong.
I find that so interesting as I think they absolutely did a perfect job on the exterior styling of the ‘02 and can’t think of anything I’d change. Not that your opinion is wrong at all, after all it’s an opinion and thus perfectly valid, just that the car generates very different responses.
Count me in as one who likes the looks of the modern 2 seater. It is as good looking as the 57, no, but that doesn’t make it a bad looking vehicle.
There have been a couple of times over the years when a frequent Craigslist search was Thunderbird, min year 2002. One of those times was just a couple of months ago. I was looking for a new toy and came across something else, it was a touch high in the price for the condition so I dithered and it disappeared. But now I had an itch and searched all the usual places but didn’t find many under my self imposed price limit. I want one in Turquoise and there were no locally, lots of red but if it is a red it needs to have the red interior accents too and for some reason the ones I found didn’t have it.
Then that other car came back on Craigslist with a lower price and I made it happen.
However just yesterday I pulled up alongside one at a light. It was red and wearing some aftermarket wheels on the blingy side. I was surprised to see the driver was a late 30’s-early 40’s man in business attire. I did for a second think if I should have kept looking and found a T-bird.
For starters the 02 looks more like a retro MGB than a retro Thunderbird.
The big forward angled headlights and upright taillights of the original’s just couldn’t be done in an aerodynamic way and this apparently still mattered to designers at the time(the later much more successful retro Mustang would have a blunt nose, true to the classics, aerodynamics be damned).
They’re also far too cab forward with their long sloping windshield and short stubby hood, which serves no functional packaging advantage for a car that doesn’t even have back seat. It was all too obvious in this aspect that the Lincoln LS hardpoints couldn’t be altered and the compromise is just too big for most Thunderbird fans to swallow.
+1 , and why I consider my ’97 the last real T-Bird. (although it would likely not win any beauty contests either, but I liked it. ;o)
+1 Last Tbirds intended to be Tbirds from the start. Not a decontented Mark IV, rebadged LTD II, a tarted up Fairmont or a mutilated Lincoln LS.
I will agree with HBE&N here. I thought the 2002 lost every bit of styling magic that made the original work. The middle of the car wasn’t bad, but the round full wheel openings were bad. The front looked more New Beetle than classic Thunderbird, and the tail of all 3 originals were defined by the little bit of fin over the taillights which squared things up back there. The big round light and sloping rear just didn’t work. I never found the new one the slightest bit appealing.
I wonder if you would have lifted the hood if this was a beater parked near the other proles? 😀
Nice history and to be honest I had no idea that there really even were any changes in the run. I’ve never studied them all side by side so this was extremely interesting.
I’ve driven one of this generation (a short distance) back in late high school and the overwhelming feeling was one of significant heft. My favorites are and will remain the 60’s T-birds, but these are definitely attractive, just not for my own fantasy collection.
An excellent writeup as usual and just the thing to get the day started on the right note!
It occurred to me when doing this that there has been a marked tendency for all 3 years of the Little Birds to be lumped together whenever they are discussed or written about. Finding anything specific about only one year (particularly the 56 or 57) has been fairly rare. This was really the first time I have examined the 57 solely (or at least mostly) on its own merits without reference to its elder siblings.
When I was a teen the 56 was my favorite, mainly because the 57 seemed to get all the glory and because I liked the Continental spare hanging on the rear. But after getting up close and personal with this car the 57 is my fave hands down.
A friend has a ’57 red, red & white interior, auto (yes, I’m finally make peace with FordOmatic & PowerGlide) with the continental kit. Beautiful car at neighborhood car shows.
I’ve always seen the 1957 Thunderbird as the successful refresh of the 1955-56 models. While other carmakers seemed to treat their restyles of prior bodies as an aging dowager might, by piling on the baroque ornamentation and excess chrome like slathered-on makeup (I’m looking at YOU, ’57 Chevrolet), Ford cleaned up the ‘Bird very attractively.
The four-pane graphic showing the 1957 Chrysler, Pontiac, Studebaker and Chevrolet is reminiscent of the one Paul inserted in his 1963 Pontiac Catalina writeup, where the Pontiac, like the 1957 Chrysler, made the same-year Chevrolet, Ford and Plymouth look like a previous generation.
I’d never appreciated the impact of the 57 Thunderbird on the rear styling of the Mk I Cortina…
Ditto for the 60 Rambler.
There’s no doubt in my mind that the ’57 Tbird’s revised and much cleaner front end was inspired (at least in part) by the Corvette. The ’55-’56 Tbird’s front end had those gimmicky jet intakes or whatever they were supposed to be. The Corvette rather pioneered that clean low grille, from the get-go.
When I was a kid, I preferred the ’55, as the ’56’s conti spare looked a bit ridiculous to me (you know how I am about things like that). The ’57 clearly had a better front end, but I thought its new longer rear end was just too long, creating an imbalanced design, with too much rear overhang. It killed any last pretensions the TBird might have had in being a sports car.
What both the Small Birds and C1 Corvettes suffer from is atrocious seating positions and relationship to their steering wheels. Sitting as the they both do on old-school passenger car ladder frames, one sits on the floor, and the giant steering wheel is practically in one’s chest. Getting into one now makes one realize how profoundly more ergonomic newer cars are. These are not suitable for tall guys like me.
“It killed any last pretensions the TBird might have had in being a sports car.”
I think you fell into the trap of thinking about the Thunderbird as a sports car, which was something very easy to do when you first saw them. But it was a terrible sports car from the start. As a sports car, I agree that the extra overhang is bad.
But as a 2 passenger Country Club Cruiser that overhang worked and fixed a look that I think was a little stubby on the older version. The Bird could not hold a candle to the Corvette as a sports car. But the fact that it outsold the Corvette 6 to 1 in 1957 shows that Ford found the fat part of the market for a 2 seat roadster.
I think you fell into the trap of thinking about the Thunderbird as a sports car,
The ’55-’57 TBird was a sports car, without any doubt. It absolutely jives with the definition of a sports car: Broader definitions of sports cars include cars “in which performance takes precedence over carrying capacity”,[4] or that emphasise the “thrill of driving”[5] or are “marketed “using the excitement of speed and the glamour of the (race)track”[6] However, other people have more specific definitions, such as “must be a two-seater or a 2+2 seater”[7] or a car with two seats only.[8][9] (from Wikipedia, but quite accurate.
A sports car does not have to meet some specific performance/handling/braking level to be one. As it is, Ford very definitely did improve all of the dynamic qualities of the Small Bird in these and other categories. And the ’55 TBird was very much deemed a sports car when it arrived. Here’s from a M/T test:
The accusation that American car manufacturers couldn’t build a sports car-even if they tried-is no longer valid. The first indication was the Chevrolet Corvette. And although Ford is the first one to deny it (Ford calls it a “personal car”) they have a sports car in the Thunderbird, and it’s a good one.
After pushing the car around the handling course a few times I soon got confident enough to begin taking the corners at 55-65 mph. With more practice, I felt sure that I could up the speed. That’s how the car impresses you. The ride is unlike that which the diehard sports car addict has come to expect from a sports car. It’s firm enough to prevent too much bobbing coming out of a dip or flying over a bump.
The Thunderbird will go with the best of them, even with the Fordomatic automatic transmission. In fact, with the Fordomatic, a hotter engine (198 hp) is used, compared to the stick shift’s 190-hp engine. A time of 11.5 seconds is what we got for 0-60 mph, putting it into sports car company. Acceleration at passing speeds is impressive. We averaged times of 4.2 seconds to get from 30 to 50 mph, and 11 seconds from 50 to 80. That’s enough to indicate that the ‘Bird meets its advertised claims of “sports car…performance.”
The Thunderbird has three basic points in its favor: a rakish, ground-hugging style, performance to match good sports cars, and a design that has built-in comfort for driver and passenger, with no penalty whatsoever to pay for fun.-Walt Woron, Editor
Just because Ford didn’t use the term “sports car” in most of its ads (the one attached below does use the term) doesn’t mean it wasn’t one (other companies commonly didn’t use the term in their ads either). Everyone saw it clearly for what it was: a response to the Corvette as well as the booming sports car market overall.
“Sports car” is a huge tent. The 36hp Karmann Ghia was generally considered to be one. The big Jag XK140/150s certainly were. As were the long line of Mercedes SLs, although the R107, built from ’72 to ’89 was realistically no more sportier in its time and context compared to its sedan siblings than the Small Bird was in its time.
I could dig up many examples of two-seaters that were considered sports cars in the 50s-70s that had no genuine sporting aspirations or qualifications other than being two-seaters and perhaps some modest increase in power (or not).
It’s impossible to define some absolute or relative performance bar that a sports car has to meet. If it looks like a two seat “sports car”, it is one. The Small Bird most certainly meets that bar and clears it with a pretty good measure.
And note that I said “It killed any last pretensions the TBird might have had in being a sports car.” That’s my subjective take. I’m sure a quite healthy percentage of ’57 TBird buyers thought they were driving a sports car, regardless of what I thought (or you think now). Try to tell a proud owner of a 2002 TBird that it’s not a “sports car”. Or a woman driving a Mercedes SLK, or whatever…
I rather think you fell into the trap of thinking about the Thunderbird as not a sports car. 🙂
Sports car or not? I think you and I will disagree on this point.
In the context of 1955, of course it was a sports car. Because the only other kinds were luxury car, regular car and compact car – and the Thunderbird certainly wan’t any of those.
It takes more than two seats to make a sports car. The Crosley Hotshot was a sports car, the Nash Metropolitan was not. The Corvette was absolutely a sports car. A sports car has to be a car designed for driver engagement and driving fun. Has there ever been anything written about the Corvette that did not mention Zora Arkus Duntov? By 1956-57 he had taken a poorly done sports car and turned it into a great one.
But who was the chassis engineer on the Thunderbird? Who knows or cares. Read that review you cite again – the car was more agile and faster than a Ford sedan (given it’s smaller size and lighter weight, wouldn’t it have to be?). It was comfortable. And it was a styling knockout. There was nothing there about the car being at home around pylons or giving a Jaguar or an Allard (or even a Triumph or Corvette) a run for its money.
Nobody in 1955 or 1957 had any idea what this thing was because there had never been anything like it. It was a little bit like a upper middle price American roadsters had been before the war. A stylish two passenger body on the shortest wheelbase available. Nobody called them sports cars. But it wasn’t just a 2 passenger Fairlane.
The Mercedes R107 may be the closest anyone has ever come to replicating the formula, but even then it was a lot more expensive, relatively speaking. Nobody bought the 107 for its driving dynamics, but for its image and its style. The wife of the prototypical midwestern doctor who bought a Thunderbird may have thought of it as a sports car, but that kind of buyer wouldn’t know a sports car if it hit her (or him).
Cars like the Miata have been switch hitters that appeal to the autocross crowd and to the buyer of something fun and cute. By 1956 the Corvette might have been that kind of car too. But the TBird never was. Any racing that got done with them was by Ford loyalists or by factory teams that competed because Chevrolet was competing. They were not going to be found by weekend racers at Watkins Glen.
In addition to private racers, Ford had four special ’57 “Battlebird” racers built by DePaolo Engineering. Specially bored out 312 had 348 cid, and supercharged, and many other special components.
Full story here: https://www.oldcarsweekly.com/collector-cars/50s-cars/rich_history_of_1957_ford_battlebirds
Here’s one leading a ’57 Corvette.
Since the Thunderbird is not a car you would ever see in my part of the world, I hadn’t realised they had tweaked it for ’57. I probably like the ’55 just as much ( and so did the European makers that “copied” it ) but the ’57 is maybe perfect except for the dropped ends on the rear bumper.
Excellent read and great argument for the ’57 Bird. I have long been a fan of the 55-57 Bird but my father is even more so, as these are his favourites. Ever since I was a little child we’d argue over the best year. He liked the ’56, for the porthole windows and the continental kit. I always thought the ’57 was the best looking of the bunch, and of course I like the supercharged 312 that was available.
As time has marched on though, I think I like the ’57 a little less than I used to. While I still think the ’57 grille and front end is nicer looking, the extra rear length causes too much imbalance in the design in my eyes. I think the ’55 has the best proportions overall, even though there are some details I don’t like (the rear exhaust exits for one).
As for the best styled car from the 1950’s, I don’t know if I can pick one. The ’57 T-bird is definitely in the top ten, but not the best in my eyes. Since you brought up the comparison to the Vette, I think the ’56-57 Vette is one of the all time best looking Corvettes, and in my eyes a better styled car than the ’57 T-bird. I will also have to echo other’s with the ’55 Chevrolet, excellent clean styling, and perfect proportions.
As for the ’57 Chevy, I actually do like it and think for a 1950’s car it has excellent styling. For me, the ’57 Chevrolet holds a special place as it was the car that ignited my love of cars. As a young child I just fell in love with the design. Today, I still think the ’57 Chevrolet is a well styled car, and one of my favorites from the era (but I do have bias). I think the reason it bodes well with many today is that it captures the styling nuisances of the 1950’s without going to excess. It has fins, but they are small, it has a wrap around windshield, but it’s not radical, it has chrome but not too much and it is lower than the ’55 but it still has a tall upright interior. In addition, it has excellent proportions and I think it has aged considerably better than the ’57 Ford or Plymouth – both of whom fell victim of the styling excess of the time.
The ’59 Cadillac on the other hand I think is revered simply because it is the best example of all 1950’s excess in one package. Monstrous size, the biggest fins, and lots of chrome.
A couple of little nits. I think you accidentally quoted the ’56 Corvette production numbers. There were 6339 Corvettes made in 1957. Also, it was actually the Thunderbird that was decided to be Unitized first. When the 4-seater was in the development, Earle MacPherson was pushing for unibody construction so that new T-bird could be very low. Because the projections for T-Bird were insufficient to support Wixom, it was decided that the Lincoln would also be built as with unitized construction. In fact this decision caused quite an uproar with Lincoln’s engineering as the decision was forced on them. Harley Copp, Lincoln’s chief engineer, opposed it because there wasn’t enough time to engineer a new Lincoln, he had concerns over the size the Lincoln, and it would make annual body changes expensive.
Thanks for those nits, I have made some changes to the text.
The 1956-57 Corvette is indeed a beautiful car, surely one of the most beautiful of the decade. But by my (possibly unique) standard of “when I look at it does my mind start to go with what I might have done differently” the Vette does not quite match the Bird.
The taillights and rear bumper of the Corvette are not quite there for me. The taillights were fixed with the 58. Also the toothy grille is not quite the direction I would have gone. A more subtle design might have helped the car. Nitpicky yes. But the 57 TBird does not suggest such changes in my mind. (The 57 Fairlane, however, brings all kinds of them up.)
Jim, loyal Hoosier as you are, I’m *shocked*, shocked that you’d pick another car over the ’53 Studebaker Starliner. This beautiful T-Bird must have been a knock-out in person.
We all know about your weakness for convertibles, Jim. It’s an unfair advantage the T-Bird has over the Stude. If only they had offered a Starliner convertible like this one, which I wrote about back in 2012, then I think your choice of the most perfectly styled fifties car would have been different. As I said then, I say again seven years later, this is the most beautiful car I’ve ever seen.
I saw a Stude very similar the red one you showed, at a show n shine just last week. A very beautiful car. They were never numerous in the wild, but they had a very nice flowing style to them.
Try again for the pic
I have thought about this and have decided that the 53 Studebaker might rate a tie for first place. My standard is “would I change anything” and the 53 Stude is another car where any change I could think of would be a downgrade.
Perhaps we need to break the decade into Early 50s and Late 50s, and award two blue ribbons.
There was so much change through the fifties, I agree two blue ribbons are justified.
Several have commented on the ’53/’54 Studebaker Starliners as being the epitome of the era. I certainly agree. (I specify the “K”-body Starliner over the “C”-body Starlight because the hardtop “K” body has a cleaner roofline by not having the overly thick “B”-pillar of the “C” body Starlight. That “B”-pillar is the only flaw in an otherwise perfect design and the Starliner hardtop makes up for it.) Studebaker didn’t realize it, but they had the prototype of the personal luxury car with the Starliner and later as it morphed into the Golden Hawk. In ’59, instead of offering the half-hearted “C”-body Silver Hawk, they should have gone hard after the “Squarbird” with the hardtop Golden Hawk. All of that aside, I would agree that after the “K”-body Studebaker Starliners, the ’57 T-bird was the best design of the era: a strong #2.
“In ’59, instead of offering the half-hearted “C”-body Silver Hawk, they should have gone hard after the “Squarbird” with the hardtop Golden Hawk.”
You are exactly right. What is funny is that the original Golden Hawk of 1956 was heavily advertised as a 5 passenger sports car (in an odd configuration of 3 in front and 2 in back). As noted in my exchange with PN above, I argue that nobody knew what to do with cars like the original T-Bird or the Hawk, both cars that were completely unlike anything else being made at the time, certainly in the US. We can now see that both were early concepts of personal luxury.
The 1955 Corvette was still offering a real roadster with detachable side curtain windows. The Thunderbird offered an available 4 way power seat.
I completely agree with you on the ’57 being the most attractive of the series (not that I would kick a ’55 or ’56 out of my garage). I think the design/styling holds up well because it is remarkably free of excess. The fins are not too big, no chrome slathered all over the side, no wretched continental kit spare. It wasn’t leading edge in the engine or chassis dept. but the proportions are just so right I can forgive that. I’m also puzzled at the popularity of the ’57 Chevy with today’s collectors vs. the clean, uncluttered ’55 design.
You know JP. I have to agree with you, which is why for a long time, the 57 T-Bird was the only American car from the 50s I really liked. It wasn’t slathered in chrome, or excessive fins, but it didn’t look like a dull boring holdover from the early pre-war days either. It was just a car that was evocative of its time, while not falling prey to the gimmicks that surrounded it. That simplicity was why I liked it so much, and while other 50s cars have garnered my interest and respect, the 57 T-Bird will always be the best styled car of its decade in my opinion. Also, it was the only T-Bird I liked for a long time, and I haven’t warmed up to the subsequent ones as much as I have this, so make of that what you will.
I’m writing strictly from memory here and I was a kid – but I recall my father being crazy about this car and we test drove a used one around 1960 or so. Although appreciated and preserved over time, the 57s weren’t that expensive as used cars initially. The all-new 1958 four-seat Thunderbird was a sensation (IIRC it was Motor Trend’s Car of the Year) and the 57 was eclipsed by it during a time when “new” was always the rage. Of course in the long run the Squarebird never had the cache of the two-seater in terms of collectibility/desirability.
I agree with JPC’s noting that the Thunderbird elevated Ford’s whole line (and for quite a long time: note the “Thunderbird” roofline and “Thunderbird” V8 used in other Ford cars) and it became a dream of the working and middle classes – not just the country club set – to own one. My father’s Thunderbird passion eventually was sated with the purchased of a lightly used 65 in 67 and it was a fine car.
Such a great nameplate, too bad Ford didn’t continue it later on with a luxury/sports sedan when coupes and two-seaters were passe. Lost opportunity in my view. It would have made a lot more sense to create a competitor to, say, the Infiniti G35 in 2002 than to offer a retro two-seater.
This is my dream car! Thank you for the wonderful write-up.
JPC, one more item from Henry Ford Museum–the body-dimensions drawing for the ’57 (sampled below), everything in decimal inches, of course: https://www.thehenryford.org/collections-and-research/digital-collections/artifact/480402#slide=gs-322639
Classy car. Cheech & Chong approve.
This is about the only Ford that I really ever liked, styling wise. There isn’t anything on it that I would really change, unlike every other Ford vehicle from ’57 until about 2000.
I never liked the Mustang much, the Camaro, both the first and second generations blew the Mustang away. The Chevelle, Cutlass, and other GM intermediates were light years better than the similar sized Fords(Until the Colonade disaster), and the Mopars towered looks wise over all, until 1975 and they went into the crapper of Monte Carloism too. I really hated the looks of the Fox Mustangs, but they were fun, in GT form.
Ford really hit the low point in the 80’s and so did almost everyone else, even the Taurus was blah to me, “a bar of used soap” was a perfect description. The second gen Taurus/sable were just awful looking, and the “football” dash was just plain stupid.
I like their vehicle looks now better than ever, and they aren’t anywhere near my favorites.
Even I, who has lived and breathed Tri-Five Chevies all my life – especially the ’57, must acknowledge the beauty of the ’57 T-Bird’s styling. The ’55-’56 have their charm but the ’57 is simply timeless.
While I’ve never owned a Thunderbird, when I was 9-10-11 years old or so, the first model kit I ever SPRAY-painted was AMT’s ’57 Thunderbird 3-in-1 kit.
I can remember the details to this day. I couldn’t afford the gold undercoat that Pactra said was required to go under their candy Parisian purple paint, so I just bought the purple paint (at 69 cents a can, that was a big investment).
I’m sure the paint was full of runs, but at the time, after 3-4 coats, it came out a REALLY lovely shade of deep purple. I was very proud of it!
I built that kit too. It was one of my earlier efforts which ended up in a crazy project I began but never finished. I cut the body in half right behind the doors and tried to make it the front half of a town car kind of thing where the back half was a 40-something Lincoln Continental coupe. Yeah, I know. I had even grafted a 53 Studebaker-style prow onto the hood of the Bird. There was lots of body putty involved but I never got it finished. It may still be in my “parts box” somewhere in a really dusty corner of the basement.
I’ve always liked the 57 Fords, both full size and Tbird. Beautifully styled and sleek. Build quality, not so much. I could never understand how the stylists could absolutely destroy them when the 58s arrived. UGLY!
Like the ’57 Tbird, I’m late.
Great ramble, Mr Cavanaugh. As with quite a number here, I wasn’t really aware this was so different, knowing vaguely that one was a bit stumpy, and one had a dumbass tyre on the back and one was a bit long.
And there it is – my problem with it. It’s without question a showstopper of a design, and beautiful, but needed to end about, aw, a half-inch earlier. And have slightly less sharp-edged fins, (that currently don’t really much match the front). And most certainly 80% less rear bumper, which, frankly, is a carbuncle of a thing. Luckily, those big blowy mouths sticking practically into the next lanes either side of it never caught on.
Funnily enough, to my mind, the very lovely front has quite some resemblance to the feted ’57 Chev anyway.
Ofcourse, all this is just one man’s mileage, and yours not only may vary, but does.
Nope
The 1953 Studebaker is better.
The original 1955 and 1956 Tbirds is better.
The Mark II is better.
The 1956 Chevrolet is better.
The 1957 Tbird wasn’t improved with those silly fins.
I think that one of the things that makes these early Birds so memorable is their relative scarcity. Even so, I remember seeing these all through my lifetime and in fact I even saw a ’57 driving by my workplace last week. I think that the comparison to the Mercedes SL coupes of the 70’s through 1990’s is a good comparison although the Birds were never that expensive compared to other American luxury cars.
Sports cars in the 1950s were cramped, noisy. rough riding, with terrible heating and weather protection. The first Corvettes didn’t even have roll up windows. The T Bird was a real adult American car, the only compromise was it’s size, which was also it’s virtue. It was an indulgence, made for only the driver and a single passenger. Not something to schlep the kids, dog, groceries and Mother in Law in the back seat! It was a reward or those that could afford it and could live with it. Singles, couples and well off families that would usually have a bigger car or a Country Squire parked alongside it in the garage.
The allure of the Thunderbird life style extended from these early models into the mid 1960’s until the demise of the convertible model. Below is one of my favorite ads.
Probably for many of us, our first exposure to the 1957 Thunderbird was on TV: Robert Urich as Dan Tanna in “Vega$,” driving a red ’57. The car was 20-ish years old then, and it looked better than anything else out there. And he parked it in his living room!
Parking that car in his living room looked cool on TV, but in reality it wouldn’t have been so cool. Every time the car was started it would’ve filled the house with fumes. With the garage door open at night with the lights on, the house fills up with bugs, or who knows what. And good luck getting insurance on a house like that, since it wouldn’t be legal to build it just about anywhere. Once again reality screws up fantasy.
I think a big part of the early ‘Birds’ success was that it looked like a shortened and sectioned version of the standard Ford passenger car. Remember this was the heyday of car customizing, and the custom guys could look at the ‘Bird and instantly relate; Ford had done the work for them.
Let’s not forget that the standard Ford passenger car was a pretty nice looking rig, a purer, more attractive design than contemporary Plymouths or Chevys. Don’t agree? Try to picture one of them shortened and sectioned to the ‘Birds’ proportions. Mention has been made of that lovely Studebaker Starliner; what a shame the sedans looked so dumpy.
The ’57 refresh shows how much similarity there was between the ’55-6 and ’57 Fords. A frontal refresh, canted tail fins, and it fitted in perfectly with the ’57 range. I have to say though that I’m thankful they didn’t carry over the two-seat ‘Bird to ’58; the ’58s rear would have ruined it. And I’m so glad the Edsel guys never got their mitts on it.
Back in 1988 I decided to buy either one of my two favorite ’50s cars. A ’55-’57 T-bird or a ’58-’60 Corvette. I had no favorite in mind, either would do. After much looking around and test drives, I was stunned by the Corvette. They were kind of crude. The front suspension with it’s kingpins and trunnions was no match for the T-bird’s ball joint front end. While the handling put both these cars in the boulevard cruiser category, the Corvette was not living up to all the hype. There was a reason these were handily outsold.
It was like a beautiful woman who turned out to be fabricated. Wig, padding, make-up, etc.
I still love the look of those Corvettes, but the ’57 Bird is what I bought and own to this day.
Even when I was a kid and really became conscious of cars in the early ’60s, I really liked the ’55-’57 Thunderbirds. At some point I probably decided I liked the ’57 best because of the styling cues picked up from the Fairlane. There were all kinds of good reasons for the ’58 Thunderbird to come into being, but in the process the car lost nearly all of the trim gracefulness of the two-seaters.
While I do have some issue with the longer trunk, you made a good case for the ‘57 T-Bird as the best looking car of the 1950’s, considering this was a third year refresh it’s a rather remarkable feat for Ford. Fantastic pics, btw. The ‘53 Studebaker Loewy coupe ‘55 Chevy Nomad, ‘52 Willys Aero and ‘54 Kaiser (that grill + those taillights) deserve an honorable mention in my opinion.
I’m sure most people would disagree with my pick for best Ford design of the ‘70’s – a two door base 1978 Fairmont, which has a much lower survival rate ratio than ‘55-‘57 Thunderbirds.
The 1956 Thunderbird was the best car ever built.A true American classic.
1956 Tbird
In 1976, when I was 20, my neighbor had a black 57 T-Bird for sale parked in his driveway. I drooled over that car for months. He was asking $4000 which was about $3900 more than I could afford at the time. I tried talking my girlfriend (now my wife) into buying it. Instead she bought a new Vega (go figure). During that time I bought a white 1958 T-Bird for $50 with 56000 miles. Had some bodywork done and repainted in 76 classic Vette white lacquer. It was sharp. Having wanted a 57 T-Bird ever since it just wasn’t in the cards given the expenses of a house, 3 daughters and their college until December of 2020 when I picked up this 57 T-Bird. To me, the little birds and the square birds are timeless classics as well as the 55-57 chevys and the 58-60 corvettes. I also have another timeless classic, a 1930 model A.
I totally agree Jim. I’ve had some of it’s runners-up like a ’57 300c convert, ’58 NY convert (pic of mine below) and ’57 Olds convert, but the ’57 T is the one car I’ve loved since it was new, yet have unfortunately never owned one. Imo they are greatly undervalued today. I look at the prices of ’57 Chev converts and can only say “why?”.
I found this group while trying to find out about this image. Does anyone know if this was a photoshop, or who would have modified the bird to look like this? BTW, I own a white ’57 Bird with the three speed manual, and overdrive. First gear isn’t meshed, so from a stop, I have to put it in second, then into neutral, release the clutch, gas it, put the clutch in, and shift to first.
I forgot to give the source of this photo. https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/enthusiasts/these-10-cars-used-to-be-cool-but-aren-t-anymore/ss-BB1iIGBk?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=482b13dc94e545d6a60dbddc408931c1&ei=27#image=12
AI generated. And despite the article claiming to have a human author it seems like it was written by AI too.
The only car in there that even fits the premise was the Eclipse and Hummer H2 everything else was always either loathed or the butt of jokes(somehow there was no mention of explosions of pintos, just “ like, eew, it’s like, really, like, ugly” or simply average and never that cool to begin with.
“ Today’s kids have probably never even heard of this ride. It’s, dare we say it, a total eclipse of the heart. ”
Oh yeah I bet kids today got that Bonnie Tyler reference!