I’m quite impressed that the latest version of Midjourney AI can render a Mustang almost correctly, but what’s the point? I want to see…bizarre and other-worldly, like this 1960 Thunderbird. Stare at this picture (click it for max size) and admit it: this just can’t be a real car. It looks like the front end of an AI creation, with six red headlights, just like some of the earlier ones we saw.
The front end isn’t a whole lot more grounded in reality either, despite being mighty close to the ground.
These ’58-’60 T-Birds really did a number on seven or eight year-old me after we arrived in the states in the fall of 1960. The gorgeous new ’61 Bullet Bird had just come out, and it blew me away. But there was one of these parked at the curb on my walk to school, and I struggled to understand it. I got that it was exclusive, and its interior was seductive. But the exterior styling…what a disaster. I wouldn’t have used that word then, but I could tell it was already from a totally different era. The ’61 Thunderbird and all those divine new ’61 GM cars; they all looked like they were so airy, and looked like they could take flight any moment. But this; it looked like a deep sea monster that had somehow found itself on dry land, and looked even worse for it.
It was much more angler fish than a bird of some kind.
Having gotten y childhood fears of these off my chest, I will admit a certain attraction to them, precisely because they are so…bizarre. I’d like to think that these twin exhaust tubes are connected to an (optional) 430 MEL V8, and not the standard 352. That was a lot of engine to stuff into its none-too big engine room, but with the biggest production engine in the land and its resulting torque, these would fly, back in the day.
That including on the banked turns of NASCAR’s tracks. With 350 rated hp and a big displacement advantage in a low (aerodynamically superior) body, they created some genuine thunder, despite the MEL engine’s less-than optimal cylinder head architecture. The significantly smaller but better-breathing 348 Chevy won the manufacturer’s title in 1959 and 1960, with Ford #2 both years.
That changed in 1961, with the arrival of Ford’s hi-po 390 FE, which despite being smaller was better suited to the demands of high speed racing.
posted at the Cohort by nifticus
None of the, ah, stranger elements of the ’58 – ’60 T-Bird’s styling can take away from its pioneering role in creating a new market niche, the upscale four-passenger personal luxury/sports coupe. Not that it’s success from transitioning from a two-passenger sports/tourer was guaranteed or even obvious in its first year (1958) when sales were a fairly modest 38k. Of course 1958 was a terrible year for upscale cars, especially those from Ford (Edsel, Mercury & Lincoln). By 1959, sales were up to 67k, and hit 91k in 1960, a record for the T-Bird that would stand until 1964.
In my CC, I called it “The Most Revolutionary Car of the Fifties“, based on its pioneering its market segment and being the spiritual antecedent of the Mustang. Do I still think so? Hmm; maybe not. I’ve come to appreciate more than ever the huge impact AMC made with its Rambler throughout that decade. It’s a tough call; how about a tie?
Can we give Fuzzyman a new challenge, to come up with an even more bizarre ’60 T-Bird? Is it possible?
Related CC reading:
Curbside Classic: 1958 Ford Thunderbird – The Most Revolutionary American Car Of The Fifties
That ’60 T-bird just screams “we’re still in 1958!” or a theme of “Look Backwards”. In an era of annual refreshes, this still looks more like a ’58 Square Bird’s homely younger sister who doesn’t yet know how to apply her makeup. The ’61s were a refreshing breath of a new decade–along with the Bullet Birds came the iconic ’61 Continental. Until today, I have no recollection of a ’59 or ’60 T-bird, there was the shape of the ’58 and then suddenly the Bullet Birds appeared.
Still, it’s good to see a rare bird in the wild.
I was 8 when the original came out and liked certain elements. The front end, especially on the ’58, with it’s polka-dot grille and hooded, eagle eyes, has a sophistication and aero aggressiveness that I still find attractive, and the c-pillar is iconic. Even as a kid, I thought the rocket stamping on the flanks was busy, but the ’58’s chromed rocket stage “O” rings adorned it well, compared to the other two years. I had a cream colored 1/24 scale dealer promo which began to droop in the middle fairly quickly as the polystyrene aged, and I’ve, since, mentally applied that filter to every full sized squarebird of this era. As paul intimates, these cars are weird but winning.
The promo would’ve been molded in acetate. Polystyrene (which was and is used for model kits) and ABS for newer promos starting in the early ’60s.
I made a meme:
It hurts a little to see this one “patina-ed,” thin whitewalls, no wheel covers, and so on. Plus, cars that sit low don’t always look flattering in low-angle photos. Shine up the paint, take care of wheels and tires, and shoot from on high, and it’s not so garish (though 1961 was sure a change!):
Every car and Crossover made today is imitating this front end – huge grille, angry headlights. Still influential. The bulletbird was really a dead end with its pointed chromed prow and slab sides, the flairbirds largely restored a lot of the squarebird elements.
I don’t think it’s so much of a disaster as it is a mess. It’s a car that has a hundred different interesting styling elements thrown in but few really compliment each other and it comes off like an unedited early stage clay model. That’s its charm at the same time though, by comparison Bulletbird is a more delicate tasteful design wrapped over a gigantic wide low heavy thirsty absurd chassis, what matches the car as a whole better? To me whether it’s easy on the eyes or not, the squarebird is the second image after the two seaters that comes to my mind when I hear the name Thunderbird, it’s a googie product. Same thing applies to many cars, like I think the 67-69 era Mustang fastbacks were the best looking of them, yet when I think of what the definitive Mustang is it’s unquestionable the 65-66 convertible or coupe
I had forgotten that in Aaron65’s homage to the ’65 T-bird two months ago, I noted that the Flair Birds had a lot of Square Bird DNA. (I thought the Bullet Birds harkened back to the original 2-seater T-birds.) The stylists must have learned from their mistakes of the ’60 version because the ’64-’66 Birds were much more sleek and cohesive and reflected the decade well.
“even more bizarre ’60 T-Bird?”
How about the one listed on BAT yesterday? Three speed manual (column mounted shifter) – confirmed by the data plate!
I remember back in the day, a guy who worked in a gas station near me bought a brand new one of these with a three-on-the-tree.
Beyond its pioneering a market segment, I don’t think the styling gets enough credit. First, that roof was like nothing else in the industry when it came out. Everyone else was all about making the greenhouse as pillarless as possible, but these set a trend that everyone would be following within a few years.
Second, it is true that there is a lot of sculpting going on all over the car, and some of it works better than what is in other places. But, when everyone else was about softer contours (GM) or the wedge (Chrysler), the body of this car (and the 58-60 Lincoln) was an almost pure rectangle from the side. Again, the entire industry would be building rectangles for much of the rest of the 1960s. Ford botched a lot of styling in the late 50’s, but it mostly got this one right, and in a very influential way.
I’m not sure I agree with your affection for this T-Bird.
However, I know you like Peugeot 404s. There is a nice one that just appeared on bringatrailer.com
Im not a Thunderbird fan, but I like that one, you can keep the shiny ones untill they blind you.
About 40 years ago I went to an estate auction that included the cars in the garage. One was a 1968 T-bird, the other was a 1960 ‘bird, white with a black vinyl top. The ’60 was not running, and had a couple of flat tires, so I bought it for around $200.
After I brought the car back to my shop and unloaded it from my car hauler, I started to take a closer look at what I had just bought. The leading edge of the roof had a strange chrome railing that stuck up about 2 inches, something I had never seen on a 1958-60 T-bird. So I called a guy I knew who had several T-birds, and he came over that evening to see the car.
As soon as he saw the roof railing he opened the door and looked up at the headliner, and said “It’s got a sunroof!” I said something to the effect that the vinyl top was a solid piece, there was no sunroof. Turned out he was correct, the car was one of very few 1960 T-birds built with a factory sliding steel sunroof! If I remember correctly, the sunroof was made by the German manufacturer Golde & Co., and was only offered in 1960, selling only about 2,500 examples.
In running our hands over the vinyl top surface, we didn’t feel any evidence of a movable sunroof panel. We carefully peeled back the vinyl roof to discover the sunroof was still in place, but had been “bondoed” in place with plastic filler, then sanded smooth.
I already had too many project cars ahead of the T-bird, so I ended up selling it in Hemmings, and I never did try to dig out the bondo and see if the panel would slide or not. This was pre-internet and I had no idea at the time how rare the sunroof cars were. The T-bird club says they were the first US production car to have a sliding steel sunroof, and the lack of sales convinced Ford not to offer them on the new ’61 cars.
I wonder if they sealed it because it leaked?
Could well be that it leaked. It is why I hate sliding sunroofs.
All is well when the weather is nice and you can slide it open. I sure loved the sliding roof in our Triumph back in the early eighties. But a leaking sunroof is hard to remedie. The drainage hoses are blocked and porous. The rubber seals are unobtainable or not quite the correct shape. If they are the right shape they are impossible to put in place. Some cars rust easily around the sliding tops (Citroen CX, Rover 3500). If possible I avoid having a car with a sliding sunroof. In fact I sold a car with a sunroof mainly because one of the two (! a Subaru Outback) started leaking.
I find the rear end to be fantastic, like something out of the Thunderbirds puppet animation. And as others have said, the roofline is iconic. And don’t forget the speedboat interior.
The MEL 430 had flat heads and an angle cut block just like a 348/409 Chevy, so that aspect of the architecture was the same except 348 seemed better on the track. The W block Chevy had valves that were not in a row so the ports were short, I suspect the Lincoln had the valves in line and that made the difference.
Hopefully, someone can give the “poor beast”some life.
In 1960 my best friend’s parents bought a new ’60 T-bird in Dark Ivy Green metallic with a light green and white leather bucket seat and console interior, which, with it’s airplane-style dashboard was spectacular and so modern looking to a 10 yr old kid. I was insanely jealous as we had a dumpy dark blue ’59 Squire wagon; this car was so much cooler. The styling was very influential, that roofline was copied by everyone and the aggressive front end was just perfect. Loved Square Birds then and still love them now.
What a beautiful, bizarre rear end. A very good reason to own such a car.
To me that’s the best looking T- bird 58 to 60 because it’s a hybrid of what came before and after it . still looks like it’s a fast car Standing still .. yet mean and Aggressive look !just gourgeous!!