I’ve seen the garish ’57 Chevy and Corvette kits on modern cars, but this is a new one for me. wainohg shot and posted it at the Cohort, and I feel a moral obligation to share it with you. Or something like that.
Oh, and you can surely tell what it started out to be.
If not, maybe this will help. It’s a Ford product. Ok; a Thunderbird (10th gen, MN-12). Fairly well disguised, depending on your X ray vision. So what are we to make of this?
I don’t know. That’s why I’m sharing it with you. I’m hoping someone else will know.
Sacrilege! Like trying to get one of the Kardashians to pass off as Mona Lisa.
This is strange, but it looks well done. And an alternative to the angry bar of soap we see these days.
I agree. It has nice lines and seems well integrated. But I can’t stomach a continental kit under any circumstances.
Fender skirts would make it even worse.
Yeah, the continental kit ruins it. It’s a pity since it’s otherwise quite a nice, modern, daily-driver that looks relatively close to the original.
MN12 89 through 96 Thunderbird was the base. Should have left it as it left the factory. However, Every car has a buyer. So if someone wanted to do this… Go for it.
Like MarcKyle64 says, it appears well done, but the Crestliner badge appears to be misplaced, floating in a sea of white.
While there isnβt room to put it behind the front wheel and below the trim (as on the inspiration vehicle), to my eyes it wouldβve looked better if it had been placed immediately behind the doors, just below or even just above the horizontal chrome strip (sort of like the β54s).
How unfortunate.
I’ve seen one or two of these in person (it seems they are a thing) and it’s simply hard to describe. In some ways it works but in most ways, uh, no. At least for me.
The thought of my old ’96 Thunderbird being turned into this is cringe-worthy.
I saw one of these last week. I’d seen the Camaro based 57 Chevy version as well, but this is new.
I differ from Jason in that I think a 96 Thunderbird is cringe-worthy on it’s own, so if doing this is fun for you, why not?
However, I do wonder about the economics of the situation. The kit is about $3,500 US, if you were to also buy a nice Thunderbird, put the kit on, and have the whole thing painted you can be into a nice driver REAL 1951 Ford for that kind of money.
But the modern vehicle driving dynamics and hot rod wow factor are probably big draws here. Not for me, but again, why not?
My only hope is that the T-bird somehow got totaled due to sheet metal damage and someone with creativity decided to save it.
You can buy a straight MN for $1500. Why start with a wreck?
Not really my thing, but if willed to me as the pride & joy of a beloved uncle, I’d keep it nice in his memory.
At easyrods.com, here’s their Ford gallery, showing some other variations on the theme: http://www.easyrods.com/ford_gallery/content/index.html
As I look through the gallery, I keep noticing how nicely the fronts and rears are done, but the rear side window and roofline throws the entire thing out of proportion.
At least the featured carβs builder blocked out part of the rear window, which helps…a bit.
The glasshouses just don’t work. Period. I love the front end, but then the wheel arch starts. From there it goes downhill.
Nobody has ever made it to convincingly retrofit or retro-ize those modern glued windows.
Us old guys/gals would never be fooled by something like this, as nicely done as it is. But I can’t help wondering how young people today would think of these things. Just last week my son in another state emailed me a pic while he was at a Memorial Day parade. “Whatever kind of car is this?” he asked. I informed him that it was a 1957 Chevy Nomad wagon. It was, BTW, red/white and beautifully restored.
I am 20 years old. Its… eh. I’d probably take some pictures of it but I’d much prefer a real 51 Ford.
I donβt think these fool anybody. Theyβre about as convincing as the βconvertible topsβ added to MN Cougars
I actually saw a version of this on the east side of Chicago a few years ago. It wasn’t as nice, solid white and weathered. I thought it was the only one.
This one looks very well done. If you’re going this route, go big or go home, and the continental kit makes it very big indeed.
Still easier on the eyes than those Rolls Royce kits on Beetles I remember as a kid.
Being older than dirt I immediately thought of those kits people used to slap on the front of VW Beetles. There was one that sort of resembled a Rolls Royce grille and another that looked something like a late thirties/early forties Ford. Those are the two that I remember, there could have been others as well. Actually the faux Ford didn’t look as atrocious as one might think; probably because both the VW and Ford were from the same era. The “Thundercrest” in the article appears to be well done; not something that appeals to me but you certainly wouldn’t have any trouble spotting it in a parking lot. To each his own.
The Rolls-Royce VWs were hokey, but the ’40 Ford VW wasn’t bad, mostly because the curves of the Ford didn’t look out of place on the Beetle.
It is much better looking than the 1957 Chevrolet kit also offered by Easy Rod. My friend built the Chevrolet version which goes on a Camaro, and it looked very cartoonish. There was a kit I saw several years ago which put a hood and rear quarter panels similar to a 1957 Chevy on a late model Chevy pu. I liked it.
Here’s a ’78 El Camino turned into a ’57 “El Camino”. I think it works much better. Sorry, I’ve never figured out how to put photos in a comment.
https://columbia.craigslist.org/cto/d/ocala-el-camino/6899490271.html
I like the way the dash was done.
I’ll post the picture since the ad is still up.
Come on fellows. It is very well assembled and I see any kind of issues with someone doing a project like this. Much better than the factory New Beetles, Nissan Figaro, PT Cruiser and other old school nostalgic models in the roads. For me it is much better than the moderns strret-road scneario of today. Bunchs of pseudo-SUVs, luxury sedans that want to be a sedan, a coup, a sports cars and what more……..Lots of ill desined cars with bad proportions and fat pig stance. This, at least, is nice to the eyes.
I’d normally say sacrilege, but this is a harmonious piece of art. J Mays did such a good job of expressing true Ford genes in the new T-bird that earlier expressions of the genes still fit.
Audrey: “He worked really hard, Grandma.”
Art: “So do washing machines.β
CC Effect strikes again – this was the next site I checked after CC this morning: https://barnfinds.com/seen-it-all-now-1978-1957-chevrolet-el-camino/
Not bad really. Think about it as if the 1951 Ford style stayed current through generations up to 1996. Unlike almost everything else back then the 1949-51 Fords were not either big balloon cars or others with some kind of vestigal front and/or rear fender shapes. It was really the design that pointed the way to the future up to now.
Basing it on the ’51 instead of the more classic ’49 gets you bigger tail lights and an improved Crestliner chrome swoop with the additional horizontal one going around the rear.
Two things: it would be better if the rear window was larger like the original Crestliner. The small window makes it look like a 1950’s customized chop top car. The 1956 Oldsmobile Fiesta style wheel covers (or other Olds spinners) were also used a lot on custom cars. I would use some later Ford full wheel covers instead.
As has been the case for weeks here, this comment disappeared instead of saving and I got a “You are posting too fast. Slow down.” message. And I forgot to copy it as a precaution.
This example was obviously finished to a high level. Very few cars can pull off the Continental Kit, most look tacked on. I rest my case. I can actually see the appeal to something like this. Driving an actual ’51 Ford would not be as convenient, comfortable or safe as a ’96 T Bird. It kind of falls halfway between a complete kit car re-body and a “Barris Type” customized car. At least no ’51 Fords were harmed in this case.
It had me at the chrome bullets in the grille. Think of it as a fifties tribute band, it’s fun.
The shoebox Ford look is timeless, and goes well with a modern aero greenhouse and general shape. I wish we’d see more of this look in production cars, instead of what MarcKyle64 so aptly called an angry bar of soap.
But what is it that compels people to tack a Continental kit on a car to “make it fifties”? They were rare at the time if I’m not mistaken. They always look horrible.
When I first saw the picture I thought “customized 49 Ford”, then after looking at the rear view shot I’m thinking a late 90’s T-Bird somebody really went to town on. They did an
excellent job with the exception of the continental kit which looks totally out of place on
this vehicle. I wonder what the interior looks like?
This one looks like it might be metal and they did some serious work on the roof section. Most of these Shoebirds don’t mess with that. Yes there is a name for these, there are a fair number of them out there, both Foxy and MN. I’ve even seen them done on a Cougar which looks particularly bad as you can imagine. http://automozeal.blogspot.com/2013/06/1949-1950-ford-body-kit-for.html They have kind of died out but were pretty popular, as far as things like this go, back in the late 90s and early 00s
Great mashup!
In 2001 the factory did this “Ford 49” concept. I like this “51 Ford” better, it’s got more character.
Apart from the bumper turd it looks half ok
Someone must make a kit for this gen T-bird/Cougar; here’s what it looks like in Mercury form:
Front:
The first of the Shoebirds were steel and it is surprising how well the factory bits fit together. I saw one at a show that had a full set of pictures detailing the build. Since then yes at least one company did make kits, don’t know if they are still making them or not.
Why does it have both dual side pipes and dual rear pipes?
For the same reason that it has that ugly spare wheel thing on the back π
I have a feeling there are a dozen of those weird crying dolls in the trunk of this thing.
I cringe every time I walk past one of those at a cruise.
That’s as bad as the DJ playing tepid re-recordings of Rock ‘n Roll classics from collections usually released by companies like Madacy…
Continental kit notwithstanding (not a fan of those), the most egregious design element on this car, imo, is the little oval hole for the chmsl. I passed this post on to my brother, his comment back was βI like the hubcaps, also BONUS points for having side and Billy pipes.β So I guess we all see something a bit different – but I myself can certainly appreciate the time and effort put into its making.
You want to do a 50s Ford tribute and you pick a . . . 51? The most awkward and messy of the shoebox years?
At least the MN-12 roofline is not horribly different than the Ford coupe of those years. I have seen worse.
Hey, I like it! Just lose that continental tire rear.
The partially-covered rear window on the feature car is actually one of the options that kit-buyers can order – the ‘Chop Top Kit’. This kit also raises the side window sills by 4 inches, which I think makes for a very effective change, improving the greenhouse proportions considerably. It certainly makes the feature car look a lot better than the cars with only the front and rear kit.
Oh my
I’ve seen one of these in black around Butler County north of Pittsburgh.
I admire the workmanship but with everything available today to make a reliable cruiser out of a classic, why not just go that way?
Well, it’s probably the best one of these conversions I’ve seen. The side window covers really help. But it’s not something I’d drive – not even ironically!
I love this car just the way it ts, However all the comments were well taken enjoyed very much. i feel that some of the comments were very help full so i l started to build a 1950 ford. it should be done in 2023 using some of your ideas. I will show to all when it is finished .I am a little slower than t was when i built this but I just turned 85 years young and work only when i feel like it and taking my spare time showing my 1951 ford crestliner by way the 51 ford is title registered as 1951 ford crestliner but thank you for for your comments. SamSam
I sent my address before this hope you get it