You are totally forgiven if at first glance you think this is a 1968 Pontiac Grand Prix. Or worse, a 1967 Catalina. Thanks to a certain former General Motors executive, this Tin Indian doppelganger is actually the 1970 Ford Thunderbird.
The 1967-69 Ford Thunderbirds had decidedly left their youthful flair days behind, ditching the convertible and uni-body construction for tomb like isolation with a separate body and frame construction. Although slathered with the latest in accessories, like the reintroduced sunroof that attempted to let the sunshine in, your typical sophisticated 30-something of the Age of Aquarius was choosing their personal luxury elsewhere in more daring packaging.
That daring challenge came in the form of Pontiac’s last Greatest Hit of the 1960s, the Great Grand Prix re-think (CC here). The grandiose G-Body with that spectacularly long hood was a runaway success and shifted the game of Personal Luxury away from big bruisers like the Toronado, Riviera and Thunderbird and down a size (and price bracket) to just above the mundane mid sized sedan and coupe.
But true to Ford’s misstep patterns, it found itself stumbling or capitalizing on a market segment (Personal Luxury was accidentally a Studebaker Hawk creation, Pony Cars an outgrowth of sporty compacts like the Corvair Monza) and then languishing in product development, or going to the complete opposite of what made its entries in that market unique or desirable. After the Falcon and Fairlane got lost in the woods, it was the Thunderbird’s turn.
The 4 door “Personal Luxury Sedan” was a bad enough misstep; deciding that a series of Pontiac cues, courtesy of Semon “Bunkie” Knudsen’s ideas, were an almost fatal blow. The “Bunkie Beak” was a watered down cue that looked straight out of the Pontiac studio. Although in hindsight described as a “bird beak” that truly captured the mythical bird aura of the Thunderbird, it couldn’t have come at a worse time to seem in any way unique.
In fact, the whole 1970 reskinning of the Thunderbird comes across as a proposal to keep the 1969 Grand Prix on the larger, swoopier B-Body shell, right down to the semi-fastback roofline that got progressively faster on GM B-Body coupes between 1965 and 1968. It is completely incongruous to the Broughamification of the T-bird that happened in 1967, and would return out of nowhere in 1972.
The 2nd biggest nod to Bunkie’s old stomping grounds would be these delightful hockey stick tail lamps borrowed from contemporary Pontiacs. Which, well, in some ways could be interpreted as reversals of the original Edsel non wagon lenses, but we won’t get into a more complex game of “who’s cribbing who.”
At least underneath all of this brand identity confusion the Thunderbird was a fine hustler once again. At least in a straight line. Not only was the 429 the standard engine by this point, the Thunderbird 429 used wedge heads, making these Thunderbirds perhaps the liveliest since the Lincoln 430 was stuffed under their hoods 10 years earlier.
Was it a complete failure? In some ways it put one of the biggest nails in the Thunderbird coffin, showing how much a fully unique product had lost its way in 15 years. Then again that’s a lifetime in the American Auto Industry. In an even shorter time window the Impala name went from Show Car, to Special Coupe and Convertible to the Sedan your dad regularly traded in.
As we know the ultimate bloat would set in with the cut rate Mark IV edition Thunderbird, followed by the best selling mass market Thunderbird. But what to make of these two forgotten years in the Bird Kingdom? For a car that rose like the Phoenix more times than a cat has lives, we can consider this one of those periods of Ash.
I am just going to come out and say it: I always loved these, for some unexplainable reason. T-Birds seem to break down into eras. 2 seaters, 58-66 big birds, then 67-76 Really big birds. This 1970-71 generation is my favorite of the third era of birds.
Yes, that nose is really “out there”. But this series has a flow and a cohesiveness to the design that is lacking in the 1967-69 or the 1972-76 cars. These cars almost personify the vibe of 1970-71, which somehow was at the intersection between sport, luxury and full-out brougham. These cars also were completely distinct in concept from the concurrent Mark III. Maybe you couldn’t afford the Lincoln, but the T-Bird was nothing to be ashamed of.
Agreed, they were totally impractical cars. But then, did anybody ever buy a Thunderbird for practicality? I would prefer one in a dark color with no vinyl roof. Then I would need to figure out how to adapt a backup camera system into the front bumper to protect that lovely, delicate beak.
Edit – as I continue looking at these pictures, the GM influences stick out more and more. In addition to the obvious Pontiac cues, I see a lot of Toronado in the rear quarters and in the wheelcovers (which everyone will recall were re-purposed for the 1975-78 Mercury Marquis).
I agree. This is one of my favorite T-Birds. I’m always combing the ‘net looking for a 70-71 to buy, but haven’t pulled the trigger. Yet……
I like these too, including the four door sedan. The 1970-71 sedans have to be especially rare.
Those wheel covers lasted all the way to the 1987 Grand Marquis. Quite a run!
They were also used in Australia on the 76-79 LTD
I believe the Granada/Monarch (US models) had them as well. Didn’t realize they were around back in ’70 and I always figured they were yet another attempt to rip-off the Mercedes-Benz look, which the Granada & Monarch were ridiculously compared to in Ford’s advertising!!
I don’t remember ever seeing a Panther Grand Marquis (at least the pre-’92 ones) with anything except the wire-wheel covers… they look kinda weird in that application.
Wow, I really never noticed those hubcaps were reused so much. I like ‘em.
Also, I loved this body style of the ‘bird and don’t really get all the hate for it.
True, the interior lacked the glamor of the ’61-’66 models, but it was still decent enough. But the styling of the ’70 was quite sharp, IMO. And the beak on mine never got dented, I just don’t think it was really all that fragile. Of course, when I go shopping I tend to park in the “wayback” areas, even now with my ratty old LeSabre and F150. Exercise is good!
The Fordor model must’ve been very rare, as I’ve only ever seen it in photos. That’s actually one of my Holy Grail cars (it’s a loong list though), the ’70 or ’71 Fordor…
I actually saw a rough ’71 sedan a couple years ago in front of a junkyard with a for sale sign. It was medium metallic blue, was complete, and looked like it was a running vehicle. Unfortunately it was a couple years ago and I didn’t have my camera in the car. Wish I had pics of it.
There’s a really interesting one at http://www.flickr.com/photos/sjb4photos/4923735446/
Would have posted the photo, but my absurdly slow dialup connection isn’t cooperating and I’ve got to be somewhere else in like 4 minutes.
Typical of frod Australia. They never had the commitment to local design that Holden had.
Even their wheel trims were imported.
I just came across a super rare 1970 Thunderbird “Mark T” you really need to check out. I am sure this is the only one in existence as a 70. I am trying to do some more research for the owner and I came across this. So, if you know anyone. Keith 5037899274
My thoughts on how the 1970 Thunderbird should look what A wonderful car to drive
Other than the wheelz/tires, I think that’s a beautiful car.
Wow, good call on the Toronado. I’m definitely picking up that vibe in the hind-quarters now that you mention it, but never made that connection on my own.
These really do look like an ode to GM in every respect. Were they a massive sales disaster? I can’t recall seeing one on the road uh… ever, believe it or not! I don’t see many ’67-’69s either, but the ’55-’66 T-Birds are abundant on the parking lot cruise circuit here and bloat ’birds are fairly common lurking in old fogey’s driveways or sitting unsold on ridiculous used car lots in crappier neighborhoods (much like the Mark IV).
The angles Laurence photographed this car at really make it look sharp – the rear 3/4 shot is outstanding and the front profile shows it’s distinct avian influence. Seeing it like this, there are a lot of good, attractive ideas in it’s shape… but IMO when you step back (like the angle in the Ford brochure) it looks completely ridiculous. It’s solely the beak that does it too… with a flatter face this is a very good looking car – but also a dead ringer for some long-lost ’68-’72 Pontiac prototype.
I do agree, though, that it’s infinitely more interesting and unique than what came before and after - and in my mind that equates to better. Ugly via absurdity is certainly better than ugly via decadence!
“Ugly via absurdity is certainly better than ugly via decadence!”
Well put, Sean. CC could put that on the masthead!
Loving this dialog and so glad I found this venue. I am the proud owner of a perfectly stock 1970 Tbird
I guess I should get my profile up on this.
Yes, I love the car. Rare parts for sure. Finding folks to work on her is another issue. I’ve had 6 mechanics…parts need to be made, oy vay. There was never a passenger mirror made. Darn the luck.
-Katherine “KB”
Well written my friend. I couldn’t agree with you any more or any less. I love my bird and I toil over where I bring her, park and who works on her. She is a land yacht! No lie. And I too worry about her beak and Hockey tail lights. Finding a garage to house her in length is another topic along with finding parts. Good luck to me- right? Ebay is my go to friend as well as Craigslist. My mechanics are a dieing breed and I hope to continue keeping her running smooth as she is accustomed. Many original parts need to be made for simple things like a door stop, new fan motor brackets etc…I love the chopped top and the ride is smooth–what power. I burn 100 in her. I’ve wanted one of these for 20 years. Yes, I’m an old GM freak so this particular Ford stole my heart.
I’m based in Cali and am the 2nd owner. I’ve been restoring my “Bronzie” for a few years now. Just making things work and look good, nothing additional. Well, maybe suspension and tires/rims, Stereo. But that’s it. I’ve been hard pressed to locate another 70′ bird in my state. Can’t find them. No one is crazy enough to dump this type of dough, worry and fret over her and alas drive her at 10MPG.
Roof: I too would have preferred no vinyl, mos def. I’ve been tempted to peel it off, sand and repaint. Then I came to my situational awareness senses. I’m also restoring and fretting over my 72 Datsun 510 “Bunny”. These two girls have my pocket book but good. All worth it. Can’t take these with me so for the now, I’ll be their caretakers until such time I pass the baton over.
Hoping to upload photos and my own personal ID photo, if I could just find the profile area for this…
Keep those cards and letters coming! Yes, I do show Bronzie all year around. Many have no idea what she even is….never seen one.
-Cheers
KB
One of FoMoCo’s deadliest sins IMHO.
The face appears as though the would-be headlight covers are stuck in the open position.
A unremarkable design, especially when compared to the Grand Prix, not worthy of the Thunderbird moniker.
I’m not so sure I concur with you on the so-called performance of the MEL 430
in the 1959-60 models. I tend to think of these as a jumbo-sized 352, and not in a good way. This design was a great big boat anchor, very, very heavy (more than an FE) and the bowl-in-piston design didn’t really breathe all that well. Don’t let that 350 HP rating fool you, they were only marginally quicker than a 352, and they all had a strange exhaust note, like a half-miss skip that a burned valve would cause.(Period Lincolns exhibited this strange trait as well). Speaking if which, it was less than expected sales
of the latter that led to the 430 being made optional to clear out some inventory.
The 385 Lima series 429 (and the 460) was a quantum leap forward, which, incidentally, made it’s way to the standard equipment list on Jan 1, 1968. Up to this point, was 390 was officially standard but seldom installed. This makes that years 390 almost as rare as the 400 -2V M which found it’s way into exactly 2006 1972 models.
Having said that, I kind of like these, too, in some inexplicable fashion, as I do the 1972-76 big Bird, especially the pre-DOT bumper ’72 model.
When I was a kid, the next door neighbor brought home a new 1968 Landau.
I thought it was the coolest thing ever, but the guy was somewhat of an eccentric (still lived at home in his 40s) and was in the floor covering business.
He treated that poor Bird like a truck, carrying rolls of carpet on the roof and such. He turned it into junk in 4 years and replaced it with a loaded Plymouth Fury wagon.
Your comments on the 430 engine are interesting. I recall reading some period road tests which indicated that the 58 Lincoln was a pretty hot car. I seem to recall a 0-60 time in the upper 8 second range, and vividly recall that 0-30 was in 3 seconds flat. They must have been able to wring some performance out of the thing to move that horribly heavy 58 Lincoln that quickly. A quick look at Wiki indicates that there was a 400 hp Mercury Super Marauder version that used triple 2bbl carbs. I also recall that the engine was detuned with lower compression for 1959 and later, and lived a pretty undistinguised life from there on out. So maybe the intial version was too highly stressed. Any thoughts?
Well, by the time I was conscious of such things they weren’t new anymore.
Maybe that had some effect, but I still think they sounded funny.
That 3-2 barrel version must be ultra-rare, possibly not even offered in Canada.
I’ve heard the 430 wasn’t SUPER lively, and what it could accomplish was based on its massive torque (that 3 second flat to 30 would back that up).But I know Motor Trend scored around a 8.7 or 8.9 0-60 time versus a mid 10 second run with a 352. Not a huge gap, but big enough.
But I think it was moreso that I’m comparing how relatively sleepy 390 equipped Thunderbirds were in the early-mid 1960s.
Trivia time: Did you know (I didn’t until I just looked it up) that the 1970 T-Bird’s curb weight of 4354 lbs was less than 250 pounds over that of the 1961 T-Bird hardtop (4117 lbs)? The car gained less weight in its later years than most would guess. No wonder the old 390 wasn’t really up to the job.
Yes, they weren’t as heavy as they looked. Even more surprising is that the somewhat bigger ’72 was only up to 4,420 pounds,
Somewhere I saw but can’t find now an advertisement for the first of the Glamor ‘Birds where they touted how switching to BOF construction allowed them to reduce the weight while increasing the rigidity, isolation, handling and decrease the squeaks and rattles vs the unibody predecessors.
Reviewers noted that, as well. The problem with the earlier unitized Thunderbirds was that, like the Lincolns with which they shared some structural commonality, they were designed in the era before computer stress analysis. Any time there were signs of stress, the engineers added more metal, which meant that cars were pretty rugged, but also very, very heavy. The switch back to BOF actually cut about 100 lb off the Thunderbird’s dry weight.
Of course, one consequence was interior space. A primary reason for making the Thunderbird unitized in the first place was to allow a lower floor to provide decent headroom with a very low roof. BOF may have been lighter in this case, but it meant the body was again sitting atop the perimeter frame, which meant either raising the roof or cutting into headroom. Period reviews of these cars complained that if you were over 6 feet tall, your head was going to be squished against the headliner.
But with a permiter frame the floor sits down between the frame rails, ie step down so BOF didn’t really cut into head room. The fact that the body sat down around the frame rails might have cut into the width of the foot well area but in general that increased the stiffness of the body structure since if formed a C channel frame rail of sorts.
It may have made the structure stiffer, but headroom does seem to have suffered in the translation, particularly with the 1970-71 cars. I wasn’t able to dig up comparable figures, but they took an extra 1.5 inches out of overall height for 1970, and from the reviews (I haven’t driven one of this generation) it was came out of headroom.
Admittedly, the worst complaints came from Road Test‘s crew, whose car had the sunroof. I haven’t looked at the installation, but from the photos, I think the T-bird roof was the sort where the panel slides back into a space above the headliner, which inevitably takes its toll on headroom, as well.
I had a 69 for a while and at 6′ 1″ I had lots of head room. However I believe they reduced the head room even more with the 70′s which look like they have a chopped top from the factory. Fitting a retracting sunroof usually eats up an inch or two of head room too, so I could see a 70-71 with the sunroof being cramped.
A friend on mine had a 1963 Lincoln as a daily driver a few years back, until the gas bills caused its cessation. The 430 under the hood made loads of torque, as it had to in order to move such a barge, but I don’t recall it being much of a hot-rod. The car tested in 1958 was most probably breathed on by the factory, as most test cars were in those days.
The 390 was never much in the way of a powerful motor but it made good torque and was indestructible. I think it was compensation for the horrid Y block fiasco, and thus was built overly strong to make up for the overly weak Y-block.
The 429 was a much more modern power plant.
Agreed… even if the 430 wasn’t a monster compared to it’s contemporaries, it was still the best Ford had to offer at the time. Whether or not either car was actually fast (highly subjective, of course), it does seem like they tried to dial the T-Bird’s sporting auspices back in with the beaked models after spending most of the previous decade watering it down (and the next decade plus turning it back into a bloated softie).
I’ll be honest, though – until I read your article I always assumed these were just as gutless as the bloat ‘birds and it was a long, slow decline from the 50s until the aero ‘bird made things interesting again, briefly.
It could be said that the 1958 T-bird with the 430 V8 was the first muscle car even before the 64 GTO.
I think I read where Holman and Moody ran a few with no corporate funding although with limited success.
The 430 was a VERY THIRSTY engine and Ford dialed it back for ’59 and ’60 in interests of economy coming with the onslaught of the Eisenhower recession. The ’60 had a Holley/Autolite 2-bbl and dropped to a 315 (gross) HP rating.
Has anybody here seen the tbird. It got lost in 1961. It’s reported to have been seen lurking about disguised as a lincoln.
55-57 was great. My personal favorite was the 58-60. The only benefit I see in these later models is a tendency to suck gas. I can buy a pickup that is much cheaper that will do that just fine.
It’s ok. You can say it. Exposing me to luxury vehicles is casting pearls before swine, but I like what I like what I like.
Speaking of Lincoln in disguise, I scanned some drawings done by Elwood Engel when he sketched his visions of the 1961 T-bird who morphed into a Lincoln. I scanned these illustrations from the August 2003 issue of Collectible Automobile.
How Stuff Works also got some pictures of clay models of Engel T-bird before it morphed into the Lincoln Continental. http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1961-lincoln-continental4.htm
JPC’s comments about the Toronado thing was what struck me looking at the side profile. These Thunderbirds look like “Pontiac” Toronados from the side and rear view.
It is funny to look back on the rate of change in the US auto industry of the ’50s and ’60s. Fifteen years an eternity? Maybe in the days when that meant a switch from flat-head 6s to over-head-valve V8s, from three on the tree to perfected 3 speed automatics, from frumpy prewar rehashes through the cars of the rocket age to a new austerity. In the years since? That isn’t long enough for GM to address a single poor product decision or replace a turn signal stalk that gets panned by automotive journalists.
It’s not saying much but I do like the 70/71s styling cues more than the 67-69s and certainly more than the 72-76s.
I definitely see tons of GM in there. The body shape reminds me more of the E-body of the Toronado/Riviara more so than the fastback 65-68 fastback B body. Even the Hubcaps used in these years look like knock offs of the Toronado’s slotted wheels.
I remember these cars from growing up in the 1970s. Every other one that I saw had a smashed-in beak!
I paid particular attention to this detail due to the popularity of the bumper-guard add-ons that were popular then. Our 1971 LTD had the optional front (and rear) bumper guards, and the front ones were comical as they were several inches back from the tip of the (less-pronounced than the T-Bird) snout. So they made the front end look a bit more menacing and that was about it, unless you happened to hit a pole about 15″ off-center on either side!
I never understood the beak, whether Pontiac, Ford, whoever. Was hideous looking to my eye, served no purpose in hiding something important in front of the radiator, and made cars uber-fragile for parking, pushing, etc. It really seemed to be the designers saying, “we got nothing anymore folks” or maybe I was just maturing and there were other things catching my eye than cars.
That may be the ugliest car ever! At least the Pontiac Aztec is unique.
“Personal Luxury was accidentally a Studebaker Hawk creation”
Studebaker Hawk, yeah yeah!
Studebaker Hawk Stu-de-ba-ker Hawk!
He’s rubbing his thighs with Aunt Jemima syrup up and down — his shorts will be filled with flies that will be buzzing all around — Studebaker Hawk, he does it every night. Studebaker Hawk, he treats the flies all right. Studebaker Hawk, that’s why they never bite.
Sorry, Zappa’s 60s music still has a strong hold on me…
If I’d come and seen the clue I’d have guessed it right away. I had an identical ’70 T-bird. Bought from a guy in LA who worked at Harmon Marine, who’d install one of their 460s into it. You could actually destroy the rear tires and not even go anywhere. Six MPG on the freeway! The acceleration was a real blast, and I loved it for awhile. It was definitely All Ate Up With Motor!
The ’67 I had subsequently, with the 428 was much more, um tractable.
Whatever is wrong with the design of this car, it and its GM counterparts help explain why relatively few people wanted a 2-door fuselage Mopar. Those barges were really just two-door sedans. If you were going to spring for a big, flashy coupe in 1970, you wanted a coupe: low roof, long nose, short deck, and nothing to remind you of a taxicab.
I assume a Sport Fury GT could run away from this car, but that didn’t really matter to most buyers.
I know Bunkie gets no love from Ford aficianados, but I liked his designs. But that is probably because I am much more a fan of the 1949-1981 GM products than Fords. Fords always seemed dull to me. The Rivieras, the Grand Prixs, the Trans Ams, the Cutlasses – Ford just didn’t have anything I liked near as much. I really thought the original Mustang was a secretaries car. I did like the 1969-1970 and I liked the 1971-1973 Bunkie Mustang. So other than the crazy beak, this car looks okay to me. I despised the later 70s Thunderbirds. I cannot believe how many they sold of that ugly and depressing car.
Not ugly. Beautiful! I like the front end just as much as the contemporary Pontiacs. Yes, very Bill Mitchell derivative, but why not? GM owned the 60′s. Can’t blame them.
The Big 3 (well, GM and Ford, anyway) really hit their stride with personal luxury coupes in the sixties, all the way through 1971 (including Bunkie’s ‘Beak-Bird’ and the torpedo-back 1971 Riviera). Choosing between the Thunderbird and GM’s offerings of any given year during that timeframe would be a hard decision.
I like these cars. They are actually one of my favorite T-bird designs. I know a gentleman in the local Thunderbird club that has a blue with blue leather interior ’70 sports back without the vinyl roof. It’s a sharp car with a console and high back bucket seats. The big 429 Thunder Jet moves that thing pretty good. It’s got a lot of torque.
The 67-69 and 70-71 T-birds share a lot of the same mechanicals. The 67 had the 390FE standard with the 428FE being optional. In 68 the 390FE was standard and the 429 Thunder Jet was optional till December of that year. From Dec. of 68 till 1971 the 429 Thunder Jet was the only engine available in the T-bird.
On the subject of the Ford FE V8 their were only two really performance oriented versions of the engine. The 427 and the 428 Cobra Jet were the only real screamers in the FE engine family. The 352, 390, and standard 428 were just regular street performers, nothing special. Even the 66 T-birds with the optional “Q code” 428 weren’t all that fast. Now swap in a 428 Cobra Jet and that “Flair Bird” might have some grunt.
I beg to differ on the 390′s. There were quite a few high performing 390′s back in the day, possibly not the versions in the Thunderbirds, but a lot of Galaxies, Mustangs and Fairlanes were built with 390′s that could hold their own among the Mopars and GM’s of the 60′s.
The 390′s Performance Years
http://www.woodyg.com/fairlane/390years.html
Early on there were performance versions of the 352, the 390 and the 406.
Mistake this for a Pontiac Gran Prix? No way! This is immediately recognizable as just another piece-of-junk Ford from that awful era of full-sized cars which had dawned with the 1970 models. Regardless of the make, with VERY FEW exceptions, I hated all the big boats by then. I’d rather have an Impala, but I didn’t like them for what they turned into either. I was entering the service, so what did I care? What I DID like was the 1970 Monte Carlo – now THAT was a car I lusted over!
In less than a year, I would be proudly driving my avatar, so I REALLY didn’t care, for all was perfect in my little world in the summer of 1970!
I came from a Ford family, complete with an uncle who owned (in succession) a ’55, ’59 and ’63 T-Bird, all convertibles (the ’63 was a true Sports Roadster). They lost him in ’68 with the new body style and no convertible, so he went for a ’69 Cougar XR-7 Convertible instead.
I was a little better than lukewarm on the ’68 and ’69s (in fact, I think I built a model of that generation…hey, I was 12), but the 70s were the end. I never looked at another Thunderbird with anything resembling admiration, much less desire, until ’87 and the Turbo Coupe.
As someone who loves car design, which no friend of mine understands the fact i love cars as works of art, i love this T-bird design it is quite beautiful and the interior is awesome.Those that dont like it, should notice the price of these go up and up, meaning they are special autos. Anyway they are beautiful and i hope to have one someday but i will probably have to settle on a low mileage town car or continental which is fine too.
Generally speaking, I don’t think refreshes are better than the original. The 67 Thunderbird looks the best looking of the series IMHO. Make mine a suicide 4 door, with the Brougham interior and a 428.
Is it just me or is the semi-fastback of the 1970 Thunderbird a one-off? The Bird before and after 1970 seem to have an identical, much more formal roof. Did Ford really tool up the fastback for just that one year?
If Henry Ford II was really mad at Bunkie over what he’d done to the 1970 Thunderbird, you would have thought he’d have gotten rid of the beak before the roof. Seems like it would been a whole lot cheaper.
In ’71, they re-introduced the 3-window Landau, for the second time (first was ’69, original was ’66).
The fastback roof continued in ’71 as the Hardtop.
It does make me wonder, just how many people have relatively complete collections of all the various different generations of Thunderbird. I can’t imagine there are many.
I’m surprised how many have commented about how this car looks like it borrowed styling cues from the Toronado or Pontiac. I was born in ’71 (I came home in a ’71 Mark III!) & since age four, have been enamored with all the 60′s-70′s era cars.. I loved the big old ’67-’69 Pontiacs with their hockey-stick taillamps, the ’67-’70 Cougars with their sequential lights, and of course the ’67-’71 Thunderbirds but never, never, never did I see “borrowed” styling cues between the marques.
I’m not saying they didn’t exist but even after reading the posts, I don’t see it.
I’m a 90% GM guy but find the ’70 and ’71 Thunderbirds some of the most beautiful vehicles — the SportsRoof, aggressive beak, full-width taillight…the body lines on the trunklid: wow. To me, the name “Thunderbird” is perfect for this style. Make mine dark green sans vinyl top please.
These are just kick-butt looking cars! Especially the Sports Roof shown here! and yes, they did chop the headroom and windshield about another 1.5 inches…The beak is a bit overdone, but hey, it was unique! Although yes- very Grand Prix-ish! These are also a subset of the Glamour Birds (in the VTCI we put them there anyways). The nose is like a scrunched ’68 Grand Prix beak IMO! The 429 pulled these cars real well! Into near Muscle car territory! And the 4-door suicide version ARE indeed one of the Holy T-bird Grails! Again, good score! Great cars these are!
I’ve been in love with this car ever since I almost bought a 12 year old one in 1982. Long low and looking so wide with those full width sequential taillights. Add the wrap around rear seat and the front buckets, this car was the epitome of early Seventies cool.
Here’s my ’70
I just picked up this beauty recently. Incredible car!
!http://hubgarage.s3.amazonaws.com/photos/4816059/P9209668_detail.JPG!
It has the desirable buckets and console option.
I own a 70 and a 71 in 2-door sportsroof model the 70 is being relegated to part’s car has electrical problems and rust issues but has bucket seat interior that will go into 71 when its finished think twice about removing vinyl top as they don’t finish the weldjoint’s and they require quite a bit of work before you paint. I had to remove the 71 because of tear’s and rust.
As far as the styling i’ve alway’s liked it since I saw my first one at age 15 in 1970 didn’t really know the history until I bought the 71 and you can really see the Pontiac cue’s in the styling the saying Is it a bird a plane or a Pontiac.
As far as performance the 71 is very strong and never seem’s to stop pulling get’s to 80 in a hurry.
Have a ’70 with suicide doors… like driving a big old cloud around. LOVE IT!
she might be 13 years older than me but I love my 70 tbird.
Good looking Bird love mine
Very pretty
This is my take on A 1970 thunderbird A pleasure to Drive