NB: The car pictured here is a 1959 Thunderbird, but my article is about its near-identical 1958 predecessor due to its historical significance. As a kid, I could never tell them apart anyway. I hope such dissonance won’t upset the purists here.
Behold the mythical winged dream machine: The 1958 Thunderbird. It literally embodied the dream that everyday folks could soar above the humdrum of a dull workaday existence and dowdy sedans. Suddenly, luxury and exclusivity were no longer in the realm of a privileged few, but within the grasp of every hard-working dreamer; after all, the T-Bird was a Ford. If Ol’ Henry could fulfill his once-unattainable dream of putting every American on wheels, then surely Hank II and his Whiz Kids could fit them with wings. For a dozen or so years the Thunderbird soared, revolutionizing the industry by creating an entirely new genre: The attainable personal-luxury car. Perhaps, like Icarus, it tried to fly too high, or maybe the dream changed, because it soon fell back to Earth. After it crashed, its wings were tacked onto a blinged-out Torino, and so died a piece of the American dream. 
If we identified the two most revolutionary vehicles of the fifties, the list would undoubtedly comprise the T-Bird and the VW Beetle. Each car carved out a significant new segment in the mainstream market, albeit on opposite ends of the spectrum. These cars, like their respective buyers, are polar opposites–yin/yang, right brain/left brain, thrifty/exuberant, grounded/aspiring–that foreshadowed the complete fragmentation of a modern marketplace once dominated by full-sized cars. The industry has never been the same; think Mustang. Revolutionary enough?
The Thunderbird was born in response to other manufacturers’ sports cars, chiefly the 1953 Corvette. Its’55-‘57 two-seat incarnation did convey a sporty image, but it was all pretense, and the antecedent to the long line of Mercedes SL soft-roadsters and such. Nevertheless, it outsold the ‘Vette, and by a huge margin. That first taste of the personal-luxury market was juicy, and Ford was hooked, leaving the marginal sports-car market for Chevy to pursue.
But if the Thunderbird really was going to inspire the soaring aspiration of late-’50s suburban optimism, it needed to be a social vehicle–in other words, a four-seater. The T-Bird was for taking your suitably impressed friends to the supper club for steaks after enjoying Mai Tais in the Polynesian-themed rec room of your new rancher. Or getting the kids to the game while Mommy was out shopping in her Country Squire. Two-seaters are intrinsically anti-social, the province of sports-car fanatics, boors or the snooty upper crust. Even if no one would ever sit in the back seat, a T-Bird hinted at an invitation inside to share the dream.
The new ’58 “Squarebird” was also revolutionary in its development and production. Reflecting a new paradigm of style over function, the roles of designers and engineers were reversed, as the Thunderbird was fully styled before it was engineered. For the first time in memory, Detroit’s entrenched development hierarchy had been turned on its head.
It was also the first vehicle built at Ford’s new Wixom, MI plant; designed specifically to assemble big unibodies, it was revolutionary in its own right. Unless I’m mistaken (and recognizing that the Wixom plant also built the big 1958 Continental), the T-Bird (and Lincoln) was the first unibody from the Big Three (in terms of construction, the 1934 Chrysler Airflow was more of a hybrid).
Speaking of styling, probably the less I say the better, lest I offend the lovers of these beasts. Although the T-Bird’s distinctive roof (pioneered on the ’57 Ford Skyliner) became a classic–it ran through the mid- to late-’60s–the upper and lower halves seem disproportional, making the top look like it’s melting into the lower body. A common design gimmick of the time that Ford took to extremes.
The front end looks like a cross between the Batmobile and a catfish. It’s really quite crude as well, resembling something cobbled up in fiberglass by a customizing shop. The 1961-1963 “Bullet Bird” is a profoundly more inspired, refined and better-executed design.
The rear end is an exuberant display of protrusions, curves and afterburners, and is perhaps the best angle from which to view this rocket ship. It’s at once camp, Googie and ridiculous, and hopefully not meant to be taken seriously; of course, that might not have been intended back in 1958.
After I first arrived in the states, in 1960, I was distracted by one of these Squarebirds and a similar vintage Corvette on my mile-long walk to second grade. The ‘Vette I understood: It was all buff with a sexy big ass. The T-Bird, however, was an enigma. Don’t get me wrong; I obsessed on it, especially that interior, which looks like a cross between a ski-boat’s cockpit and a space-ship control console from late-’40s Hollywood. Compared with all the dumpy Ramblers and Larks along the way, the T-Bird was one of the highlights of my day, every day. Still, I struggled to figure out what Joe Oros and his stylists were trying to communicate. I learned English quickly enough, but Squarebird-ese was a bitch. In any case, the car surely held my attention, and I’m certain its owner wondered how all those smudges and drool got on his side window every morning.
Speaking of consoles, the ‘Bird’s was the mother of them all, and for a good reason. The Thunderbird may have flown metaphorically, spiritually and mythically, but in reality it was strictly earthbound: This low-flyer had barely five inches of ground clearance even when new. Factor in a few years of spring sag and, well, it looks like an empty creeper would barely fit under this one. The console covered a drive shaft located practically at elbow level.
The engine compartment was a snug affair as well. My first look at it was a bit of a shock to me, since I was so used to the typically barn-sized engine rooms of tall ’50s sedans. The T-Bird was truly futuristic in portending the nightmare engine compartments of the ’70s. Under that big flat air cleaner sat Ford’s brand-new 352 cu in (5.8-liter) FE engine. Fed by a big Holley four-barrel carb, it was rated at a then-impressive 300 horsepower, about the same as a new Caddy. However, the T-Bird was priced closer to a Fairlane than a Coupe DeVille.
The 352 isn’t enough? Then order up the 350 hp MEL 430 cu in (7.0-liter) monster from the Lincoln, the biggest engine currently available in the land, if not the world. A Bird endowed with its extra fifty horsepower and truckloads of torque probably was among the fastest sleds of its day. Undoubtedly, handling–at least such as it was–didn’t benefit from all that extra iron sitting over the front wheels. It’s all Thunderbird mythology anyway, because mighty few MELs were ever actually shoehorned into that cozy engine compartment.
The ’58 model was a bang-up success, despite a short production year and the lack of a ragtop until almost the end. But that was only the beginning: There were 67,000 sold in 1959, and some 93,000 in 1960–almost five times the sales of the two-seater in its best year, and ten times Corvette sales. Nineteen-sixty also marked the apex of the T-Birds flight trajectory; except for a blip in 1964, the T-Bird’s long glide into the depths of the ’70s had begun. We’ll hold our noses and talk about the T-Bird’s demise and resurrection as a zombie another time.
Amazingly–or maybe not–it took GM five years to take the Thunderbird seriously and launch some real competition. The ’63 Riviera was a gem, but it sold at half the T-Bird’s numbers. Ford had established a pretty solid beachhead in the luxo-coupe wars, at least for a while, and it provided a hell of a lesson: Attack GM from the sides, not head-on. In future years, Ford would apply that lesson more than once.
The T-Bird’s luxo-coupe market dwindled away, as dreams and fads inevitably do. New dreams to take its place were invented by the Mad Men, and as long as buyers remain willing to fall for their seduction, the clapping of the mythical wings of the Thunderbird can be heard.
I liked the ’55-’57 T-Birds and I got some shots of a beautiful black one this summer. I was never a big fan of the later Birds, though, and I always thought they were kind of ugly. Still, it’s a snapshot of its era and it deserves to be restored to serve as a reminder of the spirit of the late Fifties. For myself, however, I’d take a ’63 Riviera over one of these any day. Just ditch the drum brakes for a set of discs and I’d be good to go.
i really want to spend the afternoon detailing that car, no charge my pleasure
I’m glad I’m not the only one that looks at run down tired old cars, and wants to clean them up. A real joy to get one looking as good as it can without any actual real repair. Just clean up and enjoy.
Would have to get 4 matching wheel covers, though. Not necessarily T bird caps.
One of the first things I did with my tired original ’77 Chevelle was detail the snot out of it and attempt to clean up the ancient paint. Now people ask me if its been repainted. I eventually will repaint it, but now I know that it still wears its original paint well.
I like that last shot, the curves on the door shape is quite a contrast to the straight lines on the roof.
The contrasting lines, along with the forward-swept A-pillar, make the car appear to bend down at the center to my eye.
Neighbor of a friend had one of these. Neighbors son was maybe 16 or 17 and we were 12 or 13. Son took us for a ride and we were thrilled until he drove 80 (not kidding) on a residential street. We were still thrilled but also terrified. I had no idea that such a thing could be done. Luckily nothing bad happened but can you imagine what the wreck would have been like.
I’ll bet other CC contributors have similar stories. Hope you will share them.
I guess the CCOTY posts can skip straight to 1959.
I hope not, although Paul has certainly biased the judging with this entry. I already spent a long time thinking about this and writing-up a submission for the 1958 nominee, just waiting for the CCOTY post.
In 1988, SNL showed a mock debate between Dana Carvey as Bush and Jon Lovitz as Dukakis. At one point Carvey says something goofy and Lovitz looks at the audience and says, “I can’t believe I’m losing to this guy.”
“I can’t believe I’m losing to this guy” – GM and Chrysler designers watching this atomic icebox outsell their alternatives.
“Speaking of styling, probably the less I say the better, lest I offend the lovers of these beasts.”
I think Syke and K. Martin will say it for you, Paul.
The design shouldn’t work, but it does. Also remember that this car’s price placed it firmly in the medium-price segment. It therefore competed with the Oldsmobile Eighty-Eight Holiday coupe, Buick Special and Century Rivieras, the DeSotos and lower-level Chryslers.
The Chrysler products had already a gained a reputation for terrible quality by the time this car debuted in January 1958, and the Oldsmobiles and Buicks were simply awful from a styling standpoint.
Also remember that those cars were available as garden-variety sedans and wagons. The Thunderbird really was unique – you weren’t going to see a suburban housewife in curlers with five kids in a station wagon version, and or grandma in a sedan version.
If you wanted the level of styling distinction offered by the Thunderbird in 1958, you had to buy a rather expensive European import, the Studebaker Hawk or the Chevrolet Corvette.
European cars were not terribly reliable, they lacked reliable automatic transmissions and dealer coverage was very thin once you left the big cities.
By 1958, virtually everyone was convinced that Studebaker was headed for oblivion, and they all knew that the Hawk was simply a facelifted version of the old 1953 coupe.
The Corvette was a geniune sports car, but it only had two seats, and was therefore somewhat of a toy.
The uniqueness of “personal luxury” aside, there is a family resemblance between this T-bird and the ’58 Fairlane, also with the catfish face and rear protuberances.
That was on purpose — Joe Oros said later that Ford decided to make the rest of the ’58 line look like the four-seat Thunderbird, an effort that he admitted didn’t really pan out.
On the other hand, I suppose that attempt may have given the T-Bird an inadvertent boost. Because it arrive a few months after the rest of the line, it ended up looking like arguably the best-sorted variation on the themes.
I guess I’ll just say it: This is a perfect example of why I’m not a Ford fan with very few exceptions. The T-bird is ungainly, ponderous, clumsily designed and plug-ugly – to my eyes, as most other Fords of that vintage.
GM iron was, design-wise, so much more refined and flowing, for the most part (except the 1958 Chevy). Chrysler was second.
That being said, opinions are like belly-buttons; everybody has one!
One thing I must add: The cars of that era lent themselves to any and all color combos, something near-impossible today.
Oh, how I miss turquoise – emblematic of the times, for sure.
I have to agree with you on the styling. Looks like a few different cars put together to make one…cut and chop.
I have a hard time taking the same opinion that it is a revolutionary car of the 50’s. I’d point more towards the Hudson’s uni-bodys.
VW as revolutionary? Not quite sure that is a 50’s thing. Maybe the 40’s in Europe?
“Revolutionary” in the case of both the T-Bird and VW is specifically limited to their impact on the US market: both dramatically changed it forever. I’m not talking about their technical aspects.
In those terms I’d more likely point towards the MG’s the GI’s fell in love with as starting the import market more than the VW.
I suppose the t-bird might have somewhat created the idea of the personal luxury car for the masses. Was it really a success or did it just steal sales from Ford’s other convertible and coupe offerings in the same prices range at the time?
67000 isn’t a resounding success then or now. Heck, 90000 isn’t that great either.
That question is hard to answer because ’58 was a bad year for auto sales overall. The economy took a dive just before the model year started, so buyers were more reluctant to spend money. The styling of a lot of the ’58 cars went over poorly, particularly the ’58 Ford (which ironically was intended to look like the T-Bird), which had been very popular in ’57. Also, the Thunderbird was a lot more expensive than a
’58 Fairlane 500 hardtop or convertible — to the tune of around $1,200, which was a big jump in those days. So, direct comparisons are a little tricky.
It’s worth emphasizing that the Thunderbird had value to Ford beyond actual sales volume: The T-Bird was Ford’s image leader. The four-seat ‘Bird’s was almost as useful in that role as the two-seater, at least at first, but was solidly profitable. (The two-seater most likely wasn’t.)
Agreed on the looks of this bird. Is it just me, or do these things look like they could break in half at the cowl at any moment?
I agree with every sentence you posted. Thanks for saving me some time Zackman.
I never liked the Square Birds – the front end simply looked overwrought and ungainly, the rear end looked ridiculously campy and the sides…it seems like almost every Ford product of that era had slab-sided sheetmetal with a coupe of creases here and there as an afterthought. GM definitely had the better styled cars, but the Square Bird had the field all to itself and gave people what they wanted: a “cool” two-door four-seat boulevarder with a beefy engine, a lot of kitsch and somewhat-vague sporting pretensions.
“As a kid, I could never tell them apart anyway. I hope such dissonance won’t upset the purists here. ”
Well, it does, but Paul gets a pass for that statement for initially bringing in European ways. Any normal car-crazed American kid would lose his credentials for being unable to distinguish the mesh grille of a 58 from the tubular one of a 59. That’s what we were put on the planet to know.
I remember the excitement of the introduction of that car as if it were yesterday, and when it was declared MT COTY. My Dad’s friend – a hard-drinking bachelor – had a new beige 58 that, along with his Evinrude-powered speedboat with the same theme, meant he was living the life…Never mind that the seats and seating position killed his bad back and that the car lacked what it got in 1961, much more refinement and features to distinguish it from the full-sized Fords, especially in interior appointments such as the steering wheel and gear shift lever.
I still maintain that Ford needs the equivalent car today, and should never have let the Thunderbird – truly unique in all the world for a time – become part of a rental fleet of cheap nothingness. At least these models remain an image of a unique mid-century lifestyle of cool: Mai Tais, Tiki lounges, patios, pastels, steak houses, carports, and country clubs. No wonder the Edsel was such a flop – this was the really new car in 58.
The Thunderbird was a victim of its own success. It inspired a host of imitators in the 1960s. Then Chevrolet and Pontiac REALLY hit the jackpot when they modified their intermediates to become the personal-luxury Monte Carlo and Grand Prix, respectively.
Both of those cars were considerably cheaper than a contemporary Thunderbird, and took the personal-luxury concept downmarket. They sold like crazy throughout the 1970s, so Ford came out with the “downsized” 1977 Thunderbird, and it set sales records, too (sales went from about 50,000 in 1976 to 300,000+ in 1977!).
In the 1980s, buyers turned away from coupes, and the entire segment went into decline. Today, one coupe (the Mustang) is enough for the Ford Division. Ford would probably be better off making a more formal Lincoln coupe from the Mustang platform instead of reintroducing the Thunderbird.
I was seven at the time, and didn’t have the information on non-current cars to tell some of the more similar ones apart, like the ’58 and ’59 T-Bird. That happened soon enough.
In 1958 my family lived on a country road high in the hills above Warren, PA. Our section of the road 2.5 miles from town was pretty much Ford country. About a half mile further east lived a husband/wife realtor team in a mid-century modern board and baton house overlooking a deep valley a mile below. The house itself could have been used in a car ad of the period. Anyway, this couple had a baby blue 58 T-Bird and I recall the hundreds of times I admired it as they would drive by our property on their way to town. The wife would usually be driving and invariably she would be lighting a cigarette just as they passed our house. How typical of the fifties was that! Our closest neighbor across the road had both a 57 Ford Country Sedan (wagon) and a baby blue and white Skyliner convertible with dual spotlights, dual exhaust of course, and a continental kit! Given the choice I would have chosen the Skyliner over the T-Bird. I did ride in the Skyliner many times as that family had a son my age. Neighbor on the other side had a 58 Ford 2 door hardtop in turquoise blue and white. My dad had a 56 Ford 2 dr ranch wagon in seafoam green but at least it was stick with big V-8 and dual exhausts. It was the car I had some access to during high school. Further up the road just past the house with the Skyliner was a large dairy farm and the yard and lanes were filled with mid-fifties Ford pickups plus a black 55 Ford 2 dr sedan belonging to the oldest son who had graduated from high school in 55. I was constantly fighting rust on the rocker panels of the 56 ranch wagon and also the rear quarter panels. I hated having the runt of the litter of all those fine Fords but it was a fine running car and I wrestled it successfully through many deep snow covered roads with studded snow tires and that rumbling Thunderbird V-8.
Nice memoir.
The 1953 Studebaker Starliner may not have achieved the T-Bird’s sales, but in key ways it was more “revolutionary.” The whole idea of a “family-sized” but distinctively styled coupe started here. Studebaker was also the first one to prove that there was a much bigger market for pseudo-sports cars with back seats, although the company wasn’t strong enough to keep the Loewy design fresh.
The Starliner was an exceptionally well-styled car — leagues better than the ticky-tacky T-Bird. I’d go as far as to call the Starliner the best-styled American car of the 1950s. A true classic.
Okay, so the Starliner didn’t offer any major engineering firsts such as unit-body construction. So what? It’s a styling exercise. Giving the T-Bird unit construction was as meaningless as giving the Toronado front-wheel drive.
I suppose one could give the T-Bird points for being styled before it was engineered, but was that really so exceptional back then? Was the 1958 Edsel much different?
My use of the word “revolutionary” is specifically limited to the car’s lasting impact on the marketplace, not in its construction or mechanical aspects.
I believe that the ’58 T-Bird really heralded the beginning of the fragmentation of the domestic car market, in the same way the “revolutionary” VW spearheaded the import market.
I would second that assessment, as neither the Corvette nor any of the sub-models from independents ever sold in great quantity to that time.
“My use of the word “revolutionary” is specifically limited to the car’s lasting impact on the marketplace”
Or, as Jim Rome is famous for saying: “Scoreboard!”
In the end,sales=money is what seems to matter, so you are correct.
I agree. As was said, this put Ford in the medium car market. They also were attempting a move further into that market with the Edsel. If the Thunderbird had been sold as an Edsel, would Edsel lasted longer? And it is a very good argument that this was the beginning of the end of Mercury.
And of course the VW wasn’t revolutionary in any mechanical or engineering sense in ’50s or ’60s terms — it was, after all, a continuous refinement of a prewar design.
I would tend to agree with your assessment. The Big Three had done various limited-production models — the ’40s Chrysler Town & Country, the early Corvette, the ’53-’54 Buick Skylark — but their market impact was pretty minimal. Similarly, the early postwar compacts generally sold in very marginal numbers and didn’t make a lot of money, so the Big Three more or less ignored them. The four-seat Thunderbird showed that a “specialty car” could sell a meaningful volume and make a real profit, which had a big impact on the subsequent decades.
The Starliner/Starlight coupes were beautiful, but they were obviously coupe versions of the standard Studebakers. The front ensemble looks identical on the Starliner and the Commander sedan.
The Thunderbird really was different from the standard Ford.
Actually, no, the Starliner was not a “coupe version of the standard Studebaker,” and that was a big factor in Studebaker’s failure to capitalize on the beauty and popularity of the ’53 Starliner. It’s the other way around. The mainstream ’53 Stude two and four door sedans were given design elements that imitated the Starliner, especially a similar looking front clip, but they were built on an entirely different platform, and it showed in the dumpiness and poor proportions of the design. The proportions are entirely different. Studebaker did do some styling studies of a four-door body on the Starliner platform, and they show such a car would have been drop dead gorgeous.
Good point. And in hindsight, it was plain that Studebaker was overtaxed (physically and financially) in trying to design and build two completely separate cars. Although the Starliner/Hawk/GT Hawk made for the sexiest Studes, I have often wondered if a better looking standard line (had it been the only one) would have sold better and allowed for a decent re-design around 1956-58. Perhaps not, though.
The grille, headlight enclosure and taillight design looked identical on the sedans and the Starliner and Starlight coupes. Most people therefore viewed the Starliner and Starlight as coupe versions of the Studebaker sedans. No one viewed this Thunderbird as another version of the basic Ford.
Really Paul, you couldn’t take the time to spot check the year? L A Z Y ! lol
While I have to admit the 58-60 isn’t my favorite T-Bird series (61-63 for me), it certainly did represent the time period. What Buick did with tacked on chrome, the Thunderbird did with sheetmetal sculpturing. Surface detailing was popular. “Busy” was the buzz word in 58.
I don’t get your roof comment “–the upper and lower halves seem disproportional, making the top look like it’s melting into the lower body.”……….it’s square on square, that’s why it’s called a Square Bird! That comment would seem more apt for the airy sloped windows on GM cars of the era, and others who copied them…..Ford included. It was the beginning of the “formal roof” that was aped by everyone.
The 58 was a huge success in a very recessed economy. The only cars to increase yearly sales was the Thunderbird and a Rambler. Others were down 30, 40, 50%. Another reason for it’s success was it’s build quality, at a time when most car’s build quality was atrocious (57/58 Chryslers?) the Thunderbird was built alongside the Lincoln at Wixom. Yes, over engineered and heavy for unit construction (as was the Lincoln) it was robust and the quality was evident. Note also that sales of the Thunderbird increase for 59 and 60. Lincoln quality at a Chrysler price!
It wasn’t like the engineers didn’t do anything.
“The new ’58 “Squarebird” was also revolutionary in its development and production. Reflecting a new paradigm of style over function, the roles of designers and engineers were reversed, as the Thunderbird was fully styled before it was engineered. For the first time in memory, Detroit’s entrenched development hierarchy had been turned on its head.”
Without a link to validate, that sounds like a questionable opinion. More so than GM’s Design Guru/Vice President, innovator of clay modeling, Mr. Harley Earl? The 57 Seville? The Y Job? Regardless the Ford engineers got the longer, lower, wider Thunderbird design to work. The recessed floor pans and the raised transmission tunnel with the now requisite bucket seats and console, started here.
I would give the nod to Chevy over Ford for the corvette vs t bird and for cars in general from 55-57. I had been wondering what you were going to come up with for 58 because I couldn’t think of anything worthy. I think you hit it.
When I was looking into this for the article on the squarebirds I became aware that this had sparked a little controversy when they chose to go with a four seater. I think they hit a homerun.
I would adopt this one just for the color combo. What a perfect combo for 1958.
In fairness to the stylists, I don’t think everyone had quite figured out how to configure front ends as the cars got lower. The classic look of headlights above the grilles that had been in place since before WWII must have seemed like the way, because several companies tried it. Was it the 59 GM cars that finally brought the grille up and the headlights down and put them together? This car tried to make the old way work, and with not the best success.
Great piece, Paul and I enjoyed reading it. I think it’s interesting to note that the ’58 was Ford’s evolutionary step in bloating out the Bird, just as Bunkie Knudsen did a decade later with Iaccoca’s successful steed, the Mustang. Everything that’s old is new again.
To me this looks like a body customizer has been let loose on a 58 Ford, with all the styling cues from the standard car. I too have a hard time tracking the different years of T-bird, I don’t think I saw a single one in the flesh other than the 55-57’s as I was growing up. There are probably 10 times as many T-birds in Australia now compared to 20 years ago!
Also the comment about a snug engine bay is surprising given the 8-12″ of fresh air between the engine and firewall!
Excellent writing, Paul.
I owned the 58th 58′ T-Bird, made.
Loved that stylish ride with its many body design details. Swapped out its 352″ for a 406″ with Tri-Power. Put Cherry Bomb mufflers on it, and later Lakes pipes. Replaced the 58′ grille, tail lights, and rear finish panel with 59′ parts. Two inch white side walls with Mopar styled steel wheels, the good looking artillery style Rallye ones from late sixties, early seventies Chrysler products. Fuzzy dice hanging from the mirror and some pin stripping, finished her up. Women loved that car.
Got a reckless driving ticket in her for burning rubber up the ramp of a parking garage. Judge dismissed it.
Had it for years until the original owner contacted me about reacquiring it, so let it go. Still want another one or a 61′-63′, to cut the roof off and turn into a road race car in the style of the Le Carrera Pan-America cars, like somebody rendered recently in Rod & Custom?
Regards Tre
Auto Writers are giving Ford crap for putting Austin Martin grills on their new cars, trucks and vans. However, I see their inspiration in these mid-century birds. I was a GM guy from age 2 but in the past few years ford really has be put out some great looking cars. The impala and corvette are the only current GM car that has style and some type of connection to past and present.
You know, Chevrolet could have produced the concept 1956 Impala, it was very similar conceptually to the four place T bird; imagined as a four place Corvette. That would have been an interesting challenge, but it wasn’t to be.
Good point. I loved that Impala concept, even though I wasn’t exposed to it until after I moved to the US in 1960.
Wow…had never seen this Impala concept car before…kinda cool looking!
In my senior year of high school, 75-76, I was one of the lucky few granted “second year” auto shop. This meant that we could pursue projects that were far different than first year students learning the basics. I learned how easy it was to curry favor from teachers by working on their cars! Even the auto shop teacher, who had a clapped out 58 Bird in the shop yard.
I was lucky enough to spend 45 minutes a day working on it through part of the year, pulling the heads so he could knurl the valve guides to cure a smoking problem. We did get it back together and did get it running, but sadly I never got to drive it after working on it for so long, or any other square bird for that matter.
It suffered from the collapsed dash as many of them did in Southern CA, I suppose now you could get aftermarket replacements. I still wonder where that car is and hope it didn’t meet its end in a crusher or a boneyard.
Sadly the auto shop teacher passed away before I was able to thank him for teaching me skills that I have used throughout my working and personal life. He was one of the very few who did.
There was a solid lifter 360 horsepower 352 offered for the 1960 model year. A sunroof was also offered in 1960, designed by Golde. Hence the name Golde Top.
No it wasn’t. And here’s the expert with a rebuttal to your claim (from squarebirds.org)
Oh, great, I have to debunk another myth or stop one from starting…again. Ford offered a hi-po 352 that was advertised at 360 hp in 1960 that was used in full-size Fords, but not offered for T-birds. Why? I found a few letters/memos in the Ford Industrial Archives back in ’94 when researching “Thunderbird 1955-1966” that addressed this issue. People wrote in asking if they could order the 360 hp engine in a ’60 ‘Bird – responses were authored by Chief Engineer Donald Fry stating in essence the 360 hp engine was too wild of an engine for the typical ‘Bird owner to offer as an option. The Cruise-O-Matic was not offered behind the 360 hp 352 because Ford’s engineers did not want to beef it up to handle the additional power, and its vacuum output was less than a 300 hp 352 due to a higher-lift/longer duration cam. He in turn recommended ordering the 430 if more power was wanted in a ‘Bird.
Fry pointed out in one response that the higher idle speed, use of mechanical lifters and adjustable rocker arms did not lend themselves to people who weren’t accustomed to the higher horsepower and resultant need for more maintenance, adjustments, etc. required to keep the engine running problem-free and in tune. Dealing with warranty issues associated with a high-strung engine, especially in the hands of someone who did not know how to maintain it, was also a concern with Ford management.
The 360 hp 352 had a bunch of little of differences from the 300 hp 352 – “shorty” cast-iron headers, the aforementioned aluminum intake (BTW I have one of these that I used on my ’63 HT until I put an “M”-series tripower on it), Holley 4v carb, open element air cleaner, hotter cam, solid lifters and adjustable rocker arms, dual-point/mechanical advance distributor, larger-diameter pulley for the generator (kind of like the K-code 271 hp 289s), and I think larger valves (need to double check that one).
I have received claims from people over the years having a hipo 352 in their ‘Bird from the factory, but VIN numbers (the 360 was coded ‘X’ if I remember correctly vs. ‘Y’ for the 300 hp 352) do not bear this out. The correspondence from Ford’s engineering department also helps to confirm this. If a person was serious about getting this engine in a ‘Bird they certainly could get ahold of one out of a full-size Ford, but it would not have been a factory installation.
As for that Hemmings article, if it is from the Hemmings Muscle Car story that ran in one of its first issues, the car in question was a maroon-colored Y-code hardtop that was displayed at the ’99 VTCI International at Indianapolis. Its owner claimed it was a NASCAR-ordered car with a manual transmission and 15″ wheels (the ROT was coded for Nylon tires but did not indicate anything suggesting other than 14″ stock wheels), but there were a bunch of discrepancies that didn’t add up: heater, radio and spotlights (I need to double-check the ROT that came out of this car as I have a photo of it on file) don’t lend themselves to a “stripper” that would be taken apart to bare bones for racing, and ’56 Ford “dog-dish” hubcaps don’t help to make a convincing arugment, either. Both Bill VanEss and myself wrote letters to the Editor lambasting them for all the factual errors in that article and in the car itself that was featured, but these apparently fell on deaf ears.
__________________
Alan H. Tast AIA, LEED AP BD+C
Technical Director/Past President, Vintage Thunderbird Club Int’l.
Author, “Thunderbird 1955-1966” & “Thunderbird 50 Years”
Dealer installed. As was the tri-power onto the 390, chrome engine dress-up, and on and on.
That’s an easy out. But you still have no proof.
I doubt a dealer would have done it. One of he main reasons is that the mechanical lifter hi-po 352/390 just wouldn’t have worked properly hooked up to the automatic, which was the only transmission available in the T-Bird.
It’s easy to keep repeating the same thing over and over, but lacking any proof, your claim is not credible.
Hey if a “found a few letters/memos” statement does it for you. Go for it.
The mechanical lifters were used throughout the Y-Block offerings without reservation from Ford, including the Supercharged 312.
Don’t want to argue with you because it is your article with your collected data.
This is the only thoughtful presentation of the 1958 Thunderbird, which is worthy of a thoughtful presentation. The great news is that Paul wrote it up.
It is an odd looking car that was important to the industry and the times. It was outrageous and a first in many ways. We’re comfortable looking back upon 1958, but not with 1958 eyes and spirit. Fully appreciating and understanding this vehicle can only be done – here – at Curbside Classic.
Thank you Paul for doing a great job on an important piece of auto history!