What exactly is the American Dream? Was it easier to answer that question fifty years ago? If you were seven years old, and had just arrived from Austria at the same time the 1961 Thunderbird first appeared, the answer is definitely yes. What more was there to aspire to then this? Seeing fifty of these convertibles in Kennedy’s Inaugural Parade only cemented the image. In America anyone could realistically aspire to own a car that actually looked like a Dream Car in a car show, one that would glamorously jet you away from the humdrum of ordinary life, if not exactly rocket you to the moon. Yes, in the fall of 1960, Ford was building my dream, even if the real thing didn’t have the dream-like purple and turquoise sparkling highlights that this one sports (thanks to my camera). And then I was rudely awakened.
Just three years later, both the stunning 1961-1963 “Bullet Bird” and Kennedy were gone. The squared-off, fussy 1964 T-Bird confirmed my defection to the Church of St. Mark of Excellence, and my brief childhood love affair with Ford was mostly over. In my dream driveway, the T-Bird was were replaced by an ever changing palette of GM’s finest. The American Dream has never been a static affair.
Was 1961 Ford’s finest hour, at least for a very long time to come? In my book, yes. My feelings for Ford’s late fifties styling has been well documented, and that extended to the 1958 – 1960 “Square Bird”, regardless of how revolutionary a car it was. They impressed me on some level, the interior, mainly, but I though their front ends looked like a hideous creature from the depths of the ocean. I guess the public didn’t quite agree with me, because the Square Bird outsold the Bullet Bird, right through its last year. Everyone’s dream is different.
The highlight of my fling with the 61-63 T-Bird came when we were on vacation in NY, and I saw a red Sports Roadster in the flesh for the first time (there were none in Iowa City). Available for 1962 and 1963, the fiberglass cover over the rear seats was meant to evoke the original two-seat T-Bird. Of course it was a bit ridiculous, but don’t tell that to an eleven year-old agog, or the proud driver.
It evoked the classic roadsters of the thirties, with their long tails and no pretense of practicality. And it was about as sporty as they were, but who cared? The T-Bird had long ago ceded that role to the Corvette, while it was laughing all the way to the bank. The big Birds outsold the ‘Vette by almost ten to one. McNamara made the right call when he backed the big change to four-passenger Birds in 1958. And the T-Bird practically owned the market segment it created, for way longer than GM would have liked, despite everything they threw at it.
Has anyone thought about how the poor Mercury dealers felt during the T-Bird’s heyday? What was Ford doing selling such an upscale and exclusive car anyway, especially when it sported the optional (and popular) Landau package? Sucks to be them, then and more recently. Mercury was doomed anyway; Ford just didn’t do the multiple brand thing well, and at least they’ve finally embraced that reality now. But where’s today’s Dream Car by Ford?
Looks like someone else is wondering what happened to the American dream.
The 1961 Thunderbird might well have looked very different than it turned out. Elwood Engel’s design proposal (above) lost out to the winning one by Alex Tremulis. Look familiar? Ford President Robert McNamara ran into it by accident, liked it, and had it turned into the 1961 Lincoln. That was convenient for production reasons too, allowing both cars to share aspects of their unibody innards.
Just as well it turned out as it did; I deeply admire the ’61 Lincoln Continental, but it somehow lacks the pizazz and Dream Car quality of the ‘Bird. Tremulis was a brilliant and eccentric character, having designed the Tucker earlier in his career.
The most dramatic and original feature of the Bullet Bird is the sharp blade that serves as its belt line. It rises from the steeply sloping front end, that was way to un-American for Americans, lacking a big open mouth. It may well be why the Bullets sold less than both the Square birds before it and the Flair birds after it. I’m sure you’re not surprised when I reiterate that it’s by far the best of the bunch: clean, original, (mostly) lacking the clutter of group-think throwing too many styling gimmicks at it.
The blade does double duty as my favorite door handle ever. Maybe the least ergonomic ever. Don’t the doors open telepathically?
Nothing’s ever been done just quite like this, although the ’61 Conti does give it a run for the money. Gives the term “knife edge design” new meaning.
Mustn’t neglect the Bullet’s red-hot jet exhaust with after-burner nozzles.
Sadly, there was only an internal combustion engine at work under the hood. I have vivid memories of gazing into the T-Bird’s engine room as a kid hanging out in the work bays at the Ford dealership. I always felt sorry for the mechanics that had to work on them; they were the most crowded of any car back then. The giant flat air cleaner and the separate tank for the side-flow radiator were distinctive, concessions to the tight clearances around the 390 CID FE motor. Rated at 300 (gross) hp, it moved the ‘Bird well enough, but hardly with any genuine thunder. This was a porky fowl (4,000+ lbs) , several hundred pounds more than a bigger Galaxie. Their unibodies didn’t necessarily save weight, having been designed in the pre-CAD era. “Better to overbuild than not”, that was the Wixom mamtra.
And no one is going to accuse these Thunderbirds of actual sporting qualities; any pretensions to that were fully abandoned when the format went to a four-passenger personal luxury coupe.
Their dynamic qualities were best left to the realm of dreams, or movies (these two shots are from “Palm Springs”). No, that’s not diesel soot, but an FE at full chat, in the pre-EPA era. They did have a rep for being a bit inefficient.
And watch where you drive that thing; these cars probably set an all-time low for clearance, which only got worse as the springs sagged in old age.
Who cared about such mundane matters, when you’re ensconced in that cockpit, the swing away steering wheel back where it belongs, and piloting down that glassy smooth new pavement of the just-built interstate? The Thunderbird’s interior was at least as enchanting for me as the exterior. When you’re used to being packed into our 62 Fail-lane sedan with too many siblings with whom skin contact was not exactly desirable, just the idea of of bucket seats separated by that huge expanse of console was dreamy.
Now that I really think about it, that may just have been the biggest attraction of the Thunderbird to me. It represented true freedom… from being sandwiched between a pesky big brother and a sweet but sticky little one. All my dream cars back then had bucket seats, even the lowly Falcon Futura. My brief infatuation with a neighbor’s ’58 Impala coupe ended with the front bench seat; what! no buckets? I arrived in America exactly at the right moment: the beginning of the bucket seat era. And the T-Bird played a key role in ushering it in.
All that glitters is not gold, but the Bullet’s pointy and bladed front end is gold in my book.
That hardly applies to the Landau’s padded top and ridiculous bars. Maybe the Great Brougham Epoch actually started in 1962. And take off those horrendous trim pieces slapped on the door. Have you no shame? No wonder Bullets are popular with customizers; a great shape that just needs a bit of cleaning up.
Having decided to pass on the Peugeot 404, I had a fleeting thought when I saw this Bird: “maybe I need to act on my childhood dream?”
No, what I need is a new dream. Good night.
Paul, you’ve captured the spirit that was Detroit, early 60′s style with this story. Aside from the T Bird and Mustang of this era, it seemed that Ford would spend the rest of the decade chasing GM in engineering and design. That competition was healthy for both companies, the result being some great cars……and some not so great cars. Today I no longer see that hatred for the Ford or the Chevy or the Mopar like there was in the 1960′s. I miss that era. And I especially miss the Detroit icons of that era like Iaccoca, Henry Fort II, Arkus-Duntov, Delorean, Cole, Townsend, Teague. I often wonder where are our home grown Detroit leaders of today are……….
The Thunderbird represented where America was heading…….a supersonic, space age looking personal luxury chariot for our new superhighways into the future. Nowadays, as I look at a Korean built Chevy at the local dealership or some other vehicle built with content made in other countries I wonder where we are again heading…….and I wonder about what we once made with our own hands and willpower…….
I agree, this is the best generation T-bird. I was a bit disappointed that you didn’t mention any pricing info so we could tell just how (un)obtainable this car was for the average buyer.
I was always surprised that Mercury didn’t get it’s own version in the early days.
NADAguides.com says base price of the ’61 T-Bird was $4170 for the hardtop, $4637 for the convertible. I’m sure they were optioned up past that as a rule.
My folks wanted a new T-Bird convertible real bad in the fall of 1960, but they settled for a well-optioned black Galaxie Sunliner convertible, base $2963. It was a plenty cool car too.
I always wondered about that, now that I’ve looked it up I can see why they chose the Sunliner.
I’d take this era’s Birds over Squares or Glamours. A connie like the red one, from whatever year ditches the hash marks on the doors.
The 390 really doesn’t seem like the right motor. 5.0 EFI or EcoBoost?
Michael wrote:
“The Thunderbird represented where America was heading…….a supersonic, space age looking personal luxury chariot for our new superhighways into the future.”
I think Paul’s references to dreams are a reminder that that future was mostly a mirage. Still, I wouldn’t mind a little more airiness, both literally and metaphorically, in the styling of our modern correctmobiles.
C’mon Paul, buy it! You only live once, and you NEED this car…
I cannot believe I was so wrong. For some reason I don’t remember Ford making any Tbirds from 1961 until the mid eighties. Try as I might all I can conjure up would be too bloated and underachieving for Ford to have used that name.
Yeah, ridiculous is the word for that vinyl top and landau irons. That’s pretty strange to tack those brougham styling elements onto a T-Bird with afterburner taillights. What, a Brougham Space Ship? The two styles simply don’t mesh.
Totally agree, it’s a horse-drawn spaceship. Like Capt. Imperial I’ll have that unadorned red convertible please. So hot.
Landau irons and vinyl roofs were the gateway drugs to full Brougham addiction. First step to the seventies LTDs that damn near killed Ford again.
Why has no one Mentioned …Was this A Special “Monaco Edition” celebrating Princess Grace? in 1963?
I believe the official name was “Limited Edition Landau.” It appears there is an owner’s nameplate on the console – very cool. Not that I ever saw one of the Landaus or Sports Roadsters growing up in small town midwest. Now I get to drool over them at car shows or sometimes on the streets in LA (quite a few Roadsters around).
The first big auto show I went to with my Dad was in the fall of 1960 and both the new 61 Continentals and Thunderbirds were featured – I thought I had died and gone to heaven, though my Dad ended up buying two new 61 Falcons, one with a metal plate where the radio should have gone (gas mileage was his buzzword that year).
One of our neighbors got a new 61 T-Bird and I lived for the minute they flew down the country road past our house in it. I liked every T-Bird built from 55 through 65 but my favorites are the 61-63 and 64-65 (we had a 65 so it is my #1 – I thought the styling changes on the 66 made the car look heavier, especially the grille, and I never cared for full-width tailights.)
The bullet-nosed Birds were featured in 77 Sunset Strip and Perry Mason (Paul Drake drove one – and later a 64) and I never missed an episode. They were quintessential mid-century cool and glamour. Jim Wright’s September 62 Motor Trend road test of a 62 red Sports Roadster described the car thusly:
“Of course, when one is buying prestige, a lot of basic things can be easily overlooked. Who cares if the car has a large price tag, is grossly overweight, offers less than average performance (even with 300 hp), will consistently deliver horrible gas mileage, at times handles like a land-locked whale and suffers from an almost complete lack of usable storage space?….In spite of what we consider to be faults, we wouldn’t have the T-Bird any other way – it’s the only car around that can make even the lowest peon (like a road tester) look like a million bucks behind its steering wheel.”
Yes! You’ve captured everything I love about this car, the best of all T-Birds for me. Engel’s design, too formal to be a T-Bird, is the iconic Lincoln. Brilliant, crazy Tremulis somehow transformed it into a fluid rocket ship. He took the essence of the round taillight idea and carried it throughout in a clean integrated shape.
Space Age design was American optimism and faith in the future. The Next Frontier. It was far too full of itself and turned to ashes later, but what a wonderful world for this Sputnik child.
I think we have a major milestone here. Is this the first car with an integrated and flush dashboard-console? This car’s interior is the standard form for all cars now. Square Bird had buckets and a big console, but tucked under the conventional dash. Also I love the rocketship tubular feature built into the interior’s sides.
1961 was Ford’s pinnacle, I agree. Sensible Falcon, super-sharp and elegant Ford, and this dreamboat. Too bad Robert McNamara didn’t stay in the car business.
A nit to correct here, jets are internal combustion engines too. Sadly, only pistons under this hood.
Mike, I think you might be right about that integration of dash and console. I thought perhaps the 60 Chrysler 300F was the first – it had such a beautiful interior with a front to back console that provided an integrated look – but when I looked at the pictures, the console is tucked under the dash as you describe the interior of the Square Bird.
At the risk of being hit by verbal flamethrowers, I like the vinyl top and landau irons. To me, it makes for a really interesting visual, and breaks up what would be red overkill on the roof pillars. I agree though that this was the finest era of T-Birds from a styling perspective.
You’re covering all my neighboorhood cars! *snert*
It’s a beauty in person. Me and my friend Rob spent a few minutes looking at it yesterday. I really like the interior. Excellent write up, as usual.
The ’63 Chrysler Turbine Car always reminded me of the Bullet Bird to me. No surprise since Engel had defected to Chrysler and directed its styling.
It reminds me of a Bullet Bird too, but one that is going backwards.
You’re hardly the first to make that association either. When it was new, some critic referred to the Chrysler Turbine as the “Engel-bird”.
While I like the Bullet Bird well enough I actually prefer the Square Birds. Come on they have to be much faster they have 3 times more rockets…at least the 60
I have to agree with you on this one. This era T-birds is one of my favorite cars. Just epitome of style in my opinion. I too have always love the door handles but my favorite part of the car is the cockpit. I love how the dash flows in to the door panels and into the console to surround you.
There was on at the pull-a-part a while back and I had to sit in it and imagine it was 1962 and I was some business tycoon.
Never understood the Bird. Not quite a Ford, not a Lincoln or Mercury…where’s it’s home? Whose car IS it?
The original T-Bird format was, IMHO, the winner; although I have no great love for the 1955 Ford. Had they been able to carry the format forward a dozen years, a mini-Me 1966 LTD with low suspension and a hot engine option…that would have relegated the Mustang to chick-car status and indication of paycheck deficiency.
Alas, Robert McNamara arrived, with all his Puritanical obnoxiousness. The Thunderbird had to seat four or die…and here’s’ where we wound up.
On an evolutionary dead-end.
Was it more out of place than the Corvette in a Chevrolet dealership?
As for evolutionary dead-end, I dare say Ford would be happy with one that ran for another 25 or so years! Having said that I can’t imagine buying a post ’57 Thunderbird, although this era are nice to look at.
Well, McNamara’s feeling about the Thunderbird was that it should make money, which the four-seater did and the two-seater really didn’t (although it was a tremendously effective promotional tool).
I was also going to comment that the decision of taking the rejected design and making it a Lincoln was a master-stroke, combined with the move to the 4-seat T-bird surely one of the best things Ford ever did.
When I visited my grandparents in the early 80s, I used to love going through my Grandad’s National Geographic magazines from the 50s-80s. The ads therein for the T-Bird were among my favourites – even in the early 80s the cars still looked cool, very smooth, very rocket-shippy. When my grandparents decided to get rid of all the NatGeos, I snapped them up and (carefully!) removed all the car ads, which are now housed nicely in a binder – ready to take me back to the 80s and the 60s
Id love to see that!
These are my favorite Birds too, although the 63 with the creases and hash marks on the doors are my least favorite of the series. The 61 was the cleanest, no side trim other than the 4 spears on the rear flank. I also never cared for the Landau model. The 61 was chosen as the Indianapolis 500 pace car that year.
A great perspective on this car. This really was a car people drooled over. One sucked me in years later when I fell for a 61 hardtop that was much rougher then I had any business buying. The interiors of these were fabulous places to be. The aluminum trim all over the console that slowed smoothly into the dash, then onto the doors and back. And you are right – these things were LOW cars.
My only peeve with these is the way virtually everybody with a convertible has bought a repro tonneau cover to turn it into a Sports Roadster.
Even this weekend as I chase my own American dream, moving from Gallup, NM to Tohatchi, NM with my new wife to be closer to the school that I have been made principal of; I am mindful of the way cars still fit into our American dream. Moving into a district owned property (the town is on reservation land and you can’t just buy a house – as a white man like me) my parking space will be limited. I still dream of a certain ’67 Mustang but I also dream of a big old American sedan.
That Thunderbird is gorgeous and to me the 60s Thunderbirds are the best.
“But where’s today’s Dream Car by Ford?”
If a 600+ HP Shelby GT500 isn’t dreamy enough, how about a Raptor or a SHO?
But if you mean a Show Car brought to life, there’s the Flex. With the EB3.5 it’s performance nothing to sneeze at. And like the 60s T-Birds it is equally comfortable with the country club set.
To me, the drivable Dream Car evokes a sense that you’re driving the car of the future. That may be about technology, but it’s definitely about looks. None of the vehicles that you mentioned evoke that feeling to me.
The Ford Flex is not comparable to the Bullet-bird at all. The Flex may be a comfortable and efficient people-hauler (which the T-bird is not) but to look at it’s just another box on wheels. A Dream Car? Maybe to soccer-moms.
Dreams, like esthetics, are different to everyone. The Fairlane Show Car was brought mostly intact as the Flex. It’s a very clever and stylish (and polarizing) box/station wagon.
Is it swoopy and futuristic? Oh hell no! Well, the future may look more practical and boxy to some. It does have panache. Ford has kept it around not because of sales (only so-so) but because it sells well optioned and to iconoclastic affluent non Ford buyers. Not soccer moms per se.
It’s been named a future collectible along with the Viper and Solstice (and 96 Sebring convertible ?)
http://www.autosahora.com/en/la-auto-show/2009/12/14/ford-flex-and-coming-collectible
i hope the american dream never dies,its one of the only places in the world that if you have a good attitude ,work hard ,give back ..you could change your life forever and live the american dream..lovely……Arnold schwartzenneger arrived in america in 68 with 20 dollars and his gym bag as soon as he started earning thease t birds were the first car he bought as he said it was his dream car…anything is possible
Paul:
I am 62 yrs old and seeing this Tbird brought tears to my eyes. This car pictured (white) was an exact duplicate, color, body, fender skirts, landau roof and S design on roofsides rear, of my very first car.
My Tbird had a Ford blue air breather with large white block letters 390cu.in. with crossed checkered flags. The valve covers were also ford blue and had a Rochester 4 bbl carb, later replaced wth a Holley 4 bbl., had fuel feed problems, acted like it was starving for gas.
I loved that car so much. I could tear the tires off of it with no problems. The only thing I didn’t like was the weight, well over 4300 lbs. My research on the car said that this model was 315 hp 390 ci.in. There were police interceptor 390 c.i. engines back then with much more hp, but now not sure what was in mine seeing the color of your engine photo.
The police interceptors had Holley 4bbl.carb back then. Maybe someone could add light to this.
I sold the car in 72 for little to nothing, and have resented it ever since. Like most guy’s their first car will always be remembered. Mine was a sweetheart. Thank you for the flash back Paul. “Z”
Z, My pleasure. And the last time I drove by there, it was still for sale!
My son washing our newly aquired 1963 Hardtop.
That’s a beauty George! !!!!!!!!!
Paul, you captured the era perfectly. The ’61-63 Thunderbirds were by far my favorite version. It’s amazing how many great looking vehicles came into being in the early sixties: Beside the Thunderbird, the Pontiac Gran Prix and Buick Rivera, the Studebaker Avanti and Hawk GT, the Corvette Sting Ray and the Lincoln Continental. It was the last era of unbridled creativity before reality set in–Ralph Nader and safety issues, fuel economy standards, etc. I don’t think we will ever see an era like that again.
My favorite as well! Especially the ’63 Sports Roadster. I only sat in these when I was a kid dropping by car lots. Not sure there’s enough headroom for me with the top up since. I sat in a ’64 flare Bird a while back and had to stoop down since my head was brushing against the roof. If I had the money, I would definitely by one and only drive it with the top down in a warmer climate than I live in. Definitely a dream car that suggested soaring possibilities.