(first posted 2/27/2012) Although I didn’t have time on the way to lunch to get as many pictures as I normally do, and the Flair Birds deserve a lot more than just an outtake, I’m just going to take this moment to say these are my favorite Thunderbirds, ever. Why?
More so than the Bullet Birds that proceeded them and the Glamour Birds that followed, no other car offered 1960’s style with more consumerist camp crap in a remarkable tasteful way than they did. The intersection between the Swing Away Steering Wheel, Eight Track tapes, and Landau Bar Vinyl Top are intoxicating to think about.
Nevermind that the flair flock shared many of the flaws of its predecessor (overweight, slow, frighteningly bad brakes and sloppy handling). It’s still a stunning car to behold. And with all that gee-whiz gadgetry combined with those over the top looks, it’s totally understandable how Thunderbird maintained a lock on the personal luxury market again formidable competitors, especially the Riviera.
It was the last Thunderbird successfully sold as a way of life, just not a car. And that was the true Thunderbird magic: It never was truly just a car. Like a Cadillac, or Mercedes (or any car that reflected a certain level of income and taste, no matter how crass), owning a Thunderbird of this vintage meant you were living the good life, and could only afford the best.
Whether that mythology was created by Mad Men, Motown or some soft focus reasoning in between those extremes, never (for better or for worse) will we see such a car be so successful purely on its well crafted image.
I am very fond of these for similar reasons. I prefer the ’65 or ’66 for a couple of reasons, one practical (front discs became standard for ’65, which makes slowing down from freeway speeds a good deal less intimidating), one aesthetic (sequential taillights, which weren’t ready in ’64, I think because they still needed to clear them with the various state lighting regulations). The ’66 could also be ordered with the 428, although I don’t know how many people bothered — you didn’t buy a Thunderbird to drag race.
+1!
I agree, this is the pinnacle of Thunderbirddom. I’ll never forget as a small boy the first time I saw those sequential tail lights in action. Wow!
yes, exactly !
just as those of us “of a certain age” remember where we were on Nov. 22, 1963, I too, remember the first time I saw the sequential lights.
Put me down as another you thinks this is the best Thunderbird. I know a lot of folks like the first, two seater one but even then the T-bird has always been more of a tourer/gt than a sports car.
I agree 65-66 is where its at, the sequential lights are the clincher. These cars do have a ton of gee-whiz gimmicks from the era, the thermometer/steam gauge speedometer with the eyeball gauges, the controls on the”glare shield” the overt aircraft and pilot references in the ads, the headrests that slides out of the passenger seat when it reclines sort of like an Eames chair, the wrap around rear seats, maximum swank.
A childhood friend’s Mom had a ’66 (replaced in ’69 w/another T-Bird) and when picked up in that car, I found the wraparound rear seats simply wicked!
What’s that about the speedometer? About 40 years An old friend of my mother’s came to visit and parked her What I think was a Lincoln Continental perhaps mid seventies early seventies vintage in our driveway. Being 16 and not the person I am today I decided that I needed to drive it so I told them I needed to move it out of the driveway to get my car out. I ask for the keys to move it.. So I did out into the road and about a quarter of a mile away to a big parking lot Where I ripped a few standing burnouts…. And then returned correctly having assumed that the location location of the living room and the timing would prevent me from running into any trouble. Why tell you all this? Perhaps a little bit of a confession but what I recalled from that with almost certainty is that I thought the speedometer was a horizontal liquid filled indicator indicator and that the way it bounced was really odd. If Carmine this is what you’re talking about you solved the mystery for me
I had a ’66 Town Landau. One of the best car I’ve ever had. The taillights had been converted to electronic before I bought it, unfortunately it had also been converted to a two-barrel carb. I sourced all the missing linkage, the under carb phenolic spacer (also supplied vacuum for the transmission kick down) and an Autolite 4100. The swing away steering wheel was a requirement, the column shift had a problem with falling out of park in these cars. If you swung the steering wheel over, it’d lock the shifter in park. The ‘waterfall’ rear seat is a work of art. I think out of the three years, the ’66s had the best taillights.
i’m surprised to see how popular the flair bird is with the cc crowd. i thought you were all square bird guys. this has always been my favorite. it was the first car that i remember liking as a kid. i would excitedly point out the sequential lights to everyone around me. as an adult, i’m in love with the interior, the aero-chrome details (check out the flow-thru air vents on the rear deck) in the interior and the fuselage body especially on the convertible.
The flow-through ventilation is worth mentioning — it was one place where the T-Bird really was the way of the future. Ford used a similar system on its ’65 four-door hardtops, and it gradually filtered down through the rest of the line.
Bottom feeding Ford Cortinas had flowthru ventilation in 64 so the thunder turd wasnt that flash
Outside the U.S., no, but within the domestic market, it was a novelty. (You could get a Cortina in the states in ’64, but you’d have had to be fairly determined about it.)
You could get a Cortina in the US!?! Amazing….I wonder how many were sold. I remember them for…the flow-through ventilation! There were also the Lotus and GT versions that everyone seems to rave about. A friend’s mother had one and I remember her pointing out this great new ventilation using “eyeball” vents! Why she bothered demonstrating that to a 5 year old schoolboy I cannot recall – but it was the ’60’s so I guess consumerism was King!
Ashley, regarding US Cortina sales, i’ll do my best. I don’t have any 1963 numbers. The 1964-1967 numbers include all English Fords sold in the US, as no breakdown is given. 1968-1970 numbers are exclusively Cortinas.
1964: 4,100 (Anglia, Cortina, Consul Capri, Zodiac)
1965 4,810 (Anglia and Cortina)
1966: 7,932 (Anglia and Cortina)
1967: 16,193 (Anglia and Cortina)
1968: 22,983
1969: 21,496
1970: 10,216
Was that Cortina flow-thru ventilation caused by rust or was it poor panel fit?
Brilliant. I am gonna use that
My perfect FlareBird would be a ’66 convertible because of the tailights, but with the ’65 hood, grille, and front bumper. Likewise, the 428 engine would be a requirement, not so much because it was that great of an engine. It’s just that the 390 was such a stone.
Of course, it’d be a tough call between that or a Chrysler Newport convertible of the same year, which were pretty damn nice, too (and you could get the 440 engine).
I always liked these T-Birds also. Built an AMT model of a ’64 convertible back in the day.
I think the ’66 Convertible is make a late rush to take the vote. I’m go along w/ the last two posters. This car is absolutely ‘Space-age Batchelor pad’ groovy
very hip
The convertible’s lines really do it for me.
hello,
i’m from belguim and recently i have a t bird 1964 cv, it looks like the one you send in the picture, the red one, but i bought it with no roof, is it originally one with no roof or not. i searched it on the net but cant find it.
maybe the pics say more than my words . tanx
Someone cut the roof off your ’64. The vinyl raised padding is what’s left of the C-pillars. Even the rear ventilation grill is still in place.
Believe me, that began life as a hardtop and was converted sometime in its life.
-Kurt
The original body code would be in the VIN as well. No mistake there!
Another vote for sequential tail lights – the icing on the cake!
It’s quite possible that in mid-1960’s Nova Scotia there were exactly ‘zero’ Thunderbirds. I don’t remember ever seeing one, although there must have been the odd one that came out of its garage for a two week flounce in August.
I do vividly remember a family drive to Boston one Easter weekend though, following one of those beautiful ‘Birds at night along a seemingly endless neon strip into the centre of the city. Oh America….
We also saw two British guys named Burton & Gielgud in a play called Hamlet while we were there. My parents said they were very famous – maybe they had Thunderbirds?
Sounds like you may have driven south on Route 1 to get into the city, but I didn’t arrive in Boston until ’81.
It was definitely before the basic Interstate network was complete. I remember driving all the way down the east coast to Florida with a friend in 1969, and even then there were still places in the Carolinas / Georgia where I-95 just ended.
I’ve always liked Boston, and went down a number of times when I was at university in Halifax. Those were the days when you could show up at the border even as a hitch-hiker, and as long as you had $20 on you and looked reasonably respectable there were no problems. Such freedom we had!
I drove up and down I-95 many times in the early 70s, and I remember 2 things: 4 toll booths in Virginia between Richmond and Petersburg(you barely got up to the legal speed before you had to slow for the next toll booth), and even in the 70s there were sections of I-95 not yet finished in the Carolinas and Georgia.
Don’t get me started: these were perhaps the finest intoxicants of choice as a child coming of age during the T-Bird’s high-flying years, until other substances took over almost exactly when the T-Bird first lost its magic touch (1967).
These were the closet thing to Dream Cars for sale; at least at something less than nose-bleed prices. The American Dream Machine indeed!
Intoxicants – the perfect word to describe the looks, feel and aroma of my favorite car. It intoxicates me to this day. That dash alone brings back a flood of memories. What more could a ten-year-old boy ask than to sit in that clamshell seat and slide that slim wheel back and forth.
We went home in a Fairlane 500 (sigh).
On a pure emotional reaction, it’s definitely in my top 10 cars I’ve always wanted to own. Even in the 1980s they held a mystique of some far cooler time of better dressed people and better music.
And then finding the exquisite advertisements in a bunch of old National Geographics sealed the deal.
And in 1964-66, the people in this market for cars really just cared that these cars drove serenely in a straight line at 75mph.
Given the set of keys between this and a 1964 Riviera, it would be a Hard choice, and The Thunderbird would win based on the fact that no other car had its presence for the price. Beautiful as a Riv is (and more of a satisfying drive) it’s not the *WOW* zeitgeist of consumer tastes that the Thunderbird is.
Rivieras never made it into pop songs alongside Mustangs, Corvettes and Cadillacs….
I discovered a stash of old National Geographics for sale for pennies at my local library back when I was in junior high/high school. This would be the early 90’s, and discovering those car ads was a revelation! I cut them all out and put them in clear plastic sleeves and binders and would sift through those for hours, just breathtaking, and mostly upscale cars, Caddies with jewelry crests, Lincolns, T-Birds. if it was a more pedestrian car it was a Caprice Classic or an LTD. “Caprice-squint hard- doesnt it look like a you know what?”. Great post, I picked up a cd rom set of National Geographic the 50’s and the 60’s from my local goodwill. 240 issues of mid century bliss and it includes all of the advertisements in jpg format! These are great t-birds- definitely the classyist- the peak of the vintage t-bird. Although and I am sure I will be called out as a heretic here but my favorite T-bird will always be the one I remember first- the late 70’s LTD II version with the basket handle and the opera window. When I was a kid in the early 80’s I thought that baby was one of the coolest cars out there, especialy red with a white roof, “More Thunder for the bird…”
I’d love a blue 66 hardtop with a 428. No landau bars or vinyl roof just the hardtop.
I used to favor the Bullet Birds over these when I was younger but now a days I think I’d go so far as call the 64-66 the epitome of the Thunderbird nameplate (I was never big on the 55-57s). I generally never cared for convertibles but these are one of my few exceptions to the rule, the bodylines just work so well as a vert.
I forgot how cool the interiors were!
When I was in high school my father purchased a year-old 1965 Thunderbird in perfect condition. It was a beige on beige hardtop. Absolutely wonderful car. We loved the flow-through ventilation, disc brakes, sequential turn signals, vacuum-assisted controls, stylish interior with the cocktail lounge rear seat, great lighting (cool red and white lights in the doors, underdash and rear cove lights), and chrome-laden dash and console. I seem to recall that the windshield wipers were driven by a hydraulic hose system via the power steering pump, an unusual set-up.
The only negatives I recall were an ashtray in the console that was tiny and hard to reach (yes, we cared about those things back in the day), a cramped trunk with cheap-looking plaid covering that leaked slightly, and poor gas mileage.
Thunderbirds were real highway cruisers and made you feel great behind the wheel. We never had any significant problems with the car. The 390 engine and Cruiseomatic transmission were strong. I so constantly washed and waxed it that the Indiana road salt had little chance to do damage.
It is a real shame that Ford lost its way with the Thunderbird, culminating in that last revival in badly-styled two-seater form. Thunderbird was an aspirational nameplate that the company would do well to resurrect in modern form for today’s marketplace.
Another fan, here. Give me a dark green 65 convertible, or maybe a white one with red interior. These unit body Birds were horribly heavy, at about 4500 pounds, probably the beefiest 113 inch wb car ever built. But all of that heft made the cars feel really, really substantial. These were a true segment-buster. I consider the 58-66 TBirds the first nail in GM’s coffin. These cars showed that you didn’t need a medium priced brand to sell upper medium priced cars.
You are exactly right, Laurence. These cars sold the lifestyle as much as they sold the cars.
So true – T-Birds as they grew bigger and/or swoopier cannibalized sales from Mercury – the #2 punch was the LTD in ’65. . .
Also I think General Motors was confused (Chrysler completely out of the loop) on how to deal with “the Thunderbird Problem.” The B-Specials of the early 1960s were nice, but nice “Deluxe Catalinas” and “Super Super Eighty Eights” instead of being truly unique, and they didn’t tower over the rest of their respective line-ups in performance like a Letter series 300 (which even by the early 1960s, didn’t tower as far above normal Chryslers as it once did). The only true natural competitors to the Thunderbird on the Market (unique coupe bodyshell), were the Gran Turismo Hawk and Avanti.
The Riviera probably suffers (ironically) from the same issue 1960s Continentals suffer from, the elegance and restraint appealed to those who didn’t want to flaunt their wealth, those who did would just pony up an extra $200-400 for a Cadillac. Thunderbirds, especially the flairs, announced Nouveau Riche in a way Cadillacs did.
But the Thunderbird lost that market in the late 60’s to the revitalized Grand Prix, the Monte Carlo, and the Cutlass Supreme. Ford, Ironically didn’t notice this gap in the Market until the 1977 Thunderbird.
I totally agree with above! So many car writers gush about the ’63 Grand Prix, as if it had its own unique body shell, but it really was a custom trimed Catalina coupe. Same with Starfire and Wildcat.
What I think also hurt T-Bird sales, before ’77, was the Mark III and IV. Upper class buyers would rather spend on a Lincoln than a big Ford, by then.
They “gush” about the Grand Prix because it is a significant car. even if the body is shared, though the roof is unique, the Grand Prix is clean and elegant, could be available with real gauges and a tach, a 4 speed manual, 8 lug wheels, etc, not to mention 421’s and tri-power,its the personal luxury coupe for the man that was serious about performance.
The roof wasn’t unique though, it was shared with The Starfire. It had the bonus of being based upon the more suave Pontiac designs at time. And I’d argue out of GM’s stabs, the Riviera was the most well baked out of the 3.
A person I worked with in high school drove her family’s 1963 dark blue Grand Prix, IMO the best of all model years. These cars looked best in solid, dark colors. It was truly clean and elegant, from the chromeless coke bottle sides, concave rear window, to the beautiful styled wheels, the epitome of change from overchromed late 50’s/early 60’s Detroit. Someone else in town had a 1965 Starfire with the concave rear window but it was not nearly as clean and well-styled as the GP and looked much more like an ordinary Olds. My favorite big Ford of the 60’s, the 66 LTD 2 door hardtop, took many styling cues from the 63 GP.
Our boss bought a new 1967 Grand Prix, burgundy with black vinyl top, hidden headlights, very handsome car. A convertible version of the same car in the same burgundy color is enshrined in the Smithsonian Museum of American History.
My dad bought a white 64 with black Landau roof in 65 I believe. We all loved it; we felt we had a true luxury car. Only problem was the apparent factory installed slender chrome body side molding eventually caused large round rust holes at every (five or six?) mounting points, which became pretty hideous. Until then, it was, and except for that, a great car.
The ultimate Flairbird – the two seater:
This vintage bird with the sports roadster cover is the ultimate waste moblie, its already a 4600lb convertible with no trunk with the top down, might as well make it a 2 seater, why not, I love the 60’s.
And another pic of the seat:
That’s where the Batmobile came from, or should have.
Maybe it was because of the car I had before: a hot rodded 64 Falcon Sprint convertible (289/4spd, originally a 260/auto) or the car I had afterwards: an original 71 Mark III w/67K miles, but I never really liked my 1964 Thunderbird convertible.
It was pretty. It was flamboyant. Adding the Kelsey Hayes wheels made it even more. It just wasn’t ME. I always felt I needed to wear rhinestone sun glasses! LOL
I had the Falcon for a couple of years, the Lincoln for over a decade. The ‘bird for less than a year. A friend of mine loved it though, he went on to get a beautiful original black 61 T-Bird, a low mileage 428 Tahoe Turquoise 66 T-Bird……and lastly two of the last Retro Birds.
Pic was taken around Christmas 1992 (?), hence presents in back seat.
I’ve always liked these for their understated elegance and flair but I guess my favorite birds were the 67-70 bodies, but make mine the 68, which I think had the backup lights (two, one on each end) embedded in the taillights and yes, these also had the sequential lights as well as the Cougar (67-70) before the whole sequential thing faded from the limelight.
Back when Sinatra was still king, easy listening was popular amongst the squares and the T-Bird said you’ve arrived, just like a Cadillac would, but in a different way and with a personal luxury coupe at that.
Beautiful cars none the less.
My uncle had a black ’65 coupe with red and white interior, that had previously belonged to his mother. What an amazing car. Always loved this generation of ‘Birds.
I have always loved these. I discovered one in a neighbor’s garage when I was about 7. It shared space with a 1961 white Caddy Conv, I would imagine it was later a Mercedes Benz Household. I Think their 65 was a Special Edition Ember Glow, I practically drooled over it.
It was The owner of said car Who Explained To Me That My Viewing was OK, as long as I Never left evidence “prints in windows,on car, SCRATCHES,God Forbid” LOOK but dont touch.
Shame the 64, didnt have sequential taillights, hence its my 3rd favorite of the 3 years.
SO HARD To Choose Which Bird Id Want, I Cant Even Decide 65 or 66, I like them both so much individually.
1966 Looks So Simply elegant as a Landau, yet I’d Pick The one With Back Windows as well, I Want POWER vent windows as well.
1965 Is HARD to beat. I Love The taillight lenses having shared duty on Later California Mustangs… Did some Shelby Cobra Mustangs use these as well?
Colors – White Interior is hard to beat…BUT AQUA is Probably easier to keep clean.
I Can not see one of These and NOT LOOK in TO see the Best Back Seat Room Decor in a coupe Ever!
1966 was sort of the last year the Thunderbird brought its “A” game, and even by then the clean Mitchell-max Riviera was really on the move, not to mention the Toronado, and upcomming Eldorado.
its clean and semi agressive lines were a counterpoint to the Thunderbird which was really starting to get gorpy and strange, especially the Landau version with the hearse like S-bars on the roof and no rear quarter glass, creating a 4 foot wide B-pillar.Crazy.
One of my fantasies, should I become rich enough to afford it, would be a T-Bird from every year of the 2nd to 4th generations. To me, this is the car that most represents the ideal post WWII car culture in the US.
Although automotive design is a subjective opinion, I think that a vast majority of people would describe the 61 through 66 Birds as beautiful.
58-66 Birds, 53 Studebaker Champion coupe, 61 GM bubble-top hardtop coupes, 54 Kaiser Dragon to me are not just cars, but true American works of art.
Here is our 64 convertible. tell me what you think.
Another awesome story. I’ve always liked the 1964-66 Thunderbird. I find this to be the best looking of the classic T-birds. Every generation has its best looking car, and I find this one to be one of the best. 🙂
This is one of those rare cars where the hardtop is as good looking….or even better looking than the droptop version.
There are currently 3 or 4 of these for sale in northern Florida, unfortunately, the majority are lacking A/C.
I’ll just chime in with my two cents that I also love these. The print ads with their beautifully staged photography showcase that intangible “specialness” these Flair-birds had. They were elegant and beautiful in that mid-60’s, Nancy Wilson kind of way.
I really dig Laurence’s writing and pictures and am so glad to know where to find his new stuff.
Kind of funny that a flashy celebrity owned one. I lived in Mount Vernon, Ohio for 16 years and knew that Paul Lynde was born there. At one point, a friend of mine bought Paul’s 64 Thunderbird, cleaned it up and tried to sell it on EBay. It didn’t generate much interest so, it was donated to the Knox County Historical Society, where it stills resides as far as I’m aware. It was a fitting car for Paul Lynde’s personality.
My pick of the 1964-1966 Flairs has been the 1966 Town Hardtop with the large “C” pillar, and wall to wall tail lights. Mine is white with turquoise interior, and the 428. However, they look great in most color combinations.
The private world of my Flair Bird back seat.
I was a Junior in High School when the 1966 Thunderbirds were new. I wanted one so bad that I could taste it. How impressive it would have been to drive up to the porte- cochere on Prom night!
Make mine a ’66 convertible in light blue metallic with a white top and white interior – (the same color combo in which I’d take my ’68 Impala convertible if I could afford such a Curbside Classic. ;o) Oh, and I’d have to go with the Batmobile cover to make it a two-seater when it was just me and only one other passenger. I had the pleasure of seeing one just like this in person at one of those classic car gatherings that pop up from time to time. This one was MASSIVE. I had just purchased my ’83 T-Bird and there was a guy directing people where to park as they arrived. He was grouping the cars by type. My car was NOT a classic, but a brand new ‘Bird at the time, but the guy with this beautiful ’66 invited me to park right next to his anyway. It was a fun night. He told me that the mechanism for the sequential turn signals was mechanical… his was restored all original and this feature actually worked… although at the time, you could get an electronic equivalent to make those turn signals function. As a kid, I loved those turn signals and wished my Dad’s ’66 and ’68 Impalas were so adorned. To this day that is the ONLY aftermarket modification I have on my 2007 Mustang… a specially modified OEM wiring harness on my taillights to make them do that sequential thing, ONLY when the turn signal is switched on… never the brake lights. No sense getting the attention of the local constabulary. ;o)
So weird I was talking about Light Blue and White as a favorite T-Bird color combination… The very next day (just now on my commute today, 3/8/16), I spotted this “Cohort” (If I am using the correct CC term here) in rush hour traffic between Baltimore & DC on 95 South. It appears to be a bullet bird of 1963 vintage. And while not the same generation as our subject car, it does appear to be a Landau version as is our subject car. Sorry I couldn’t get a better shot, but I was trying to defend my ’07 Mustang against a possible cut-off by the offending Hyundai Elantra making the lane change in the pic….
One of my uncles had a 65 Special Landau. It was resplendent in the standard “ember-glow” exterior color which was to my eyes a copper hue. The interior of course had the aircraft inspired intrument cluster and controls with heavy use of chrome accents throughout the cabin. It had a personalized ID plaque on the glove box. That interior might be considered excess or gaudy today, but back them, to a car crazy 17 yo, it was the epitome of luxury. I was allowed to drive it for short distances a few times and was impressed with the smooth ride and isolation. A significant improvement over our 62 Galaxie. Felt very substantial and solid. I understood later what journalists of the time were saying when they would suggest that the T-Bird was “more than the sum of it’s parts”. It wasn’t particulary fast, and didn’t handle well , but buyers were purchasing an escape module to lift them from the drudgery of their lives, and to that end, it was “unique in all the world”.
Recently discovered email:
“Dear Chrysler Turbine, Imitation is the best form of flattery ….. but I want my rear end back.
Mine is better, anyway.
Fun, fun, fun, ’64 T-Bird.”
Elwood Engel had a hand in both this and the T-Bird, so it’s no surprise that they resemble each other. Had Chrysler not been so bellicose about not offering smaller cars, this might have been viable in regular piston powered form. The ’63 Cordoba, if you will.
Excellent point! I love the Turbine, except for its bug-eyed budget Dodge headlight styling.
In high school in the late 70’s I had the chance to regularly drive two “Little old lady” T-Birds: A ’63 coupe (white with black interior) and a ’65 coupe (gold w/white top and laundau bar and gold/white interior).
I found the ’63 to be much sportier than the ’65 which was very ponderous and heavy under way. Both cars understeered like crazy, but the ’65 was worse. In fact I could turn a corner more aggressively in a ’76 Rolls Royce Silver Shadow LWB sedan than either TBird (don’t ask…..). Neither TBird was quick off the line, but if you nailed it in the ’63 at about 20-25 mph it would get up and move, leaving twin trails of carbon dust behind me!
I was a bad, bad boy!
My dad’s was blue with a black top, and it was the car that really got him to hating Fords. It had constant engine issues from day one, finally blowing head gaskets and then eating a cam. I think it had the 428, but I’m not sure. He normally got the biggest engines in all his cars, and often had them hopped up by some guy he knew, but the ‘Bird was never out of the shop long enough to get anything done to it. It was gone in a little over a year, replaced by the baby blue Caddy that my mom drove mostly. My dad gave ford one more try in 1969, when he bought, and had for only two weeks before trading it to my uncle straight up for another Caddy, a Lincoln MKIII, which he really hated. My uncle loved it, and was driving it to the day in ’73 when he dropped dead of a heart attack.
Oh, that interior. One of the most glorious examples of the best of the 60’s that one might find. I’d love to own one just to sit in it! The woodgrain option on the console of some of them mutes the effect drastically though–brushed aluminum or nothing!
I noticed the Ford advedtjsements showed flsir birds without factory A/C. Did these birds that had A/C have only the low mounted center vents to cool down these classics? Seems this A/C design was available and the same for the square birds, bullet birds and flair birds. Were there any hidden driver and passenger outboard vents? Why did the big Fords and Falcons still use knee knocker AC till the 65 redo but the birds had in dash AC?
Certainly doesn’t look like the A/C equipped Birds of this era had side vents. At least the center vent was built in, not the knee knocker the big Ford had.
Never did understand why Ford factory A/C was basically a hang on under dash affair until the 1965 redesign. GM had fully integrated its A/C in the dash years earlier. Kinda like the exposed transmission shifter linkage that Ford retained for far too long.
I know this is an old thread, but I’d love to know the derivation of “Landau” as used in association with American cars. I’ve always associated this word with the ersatz chrome bars on the C pillars meant to invoke classic folding tops, but I see it is also a model name.
Which is correct?
Wow, again.
It says something about domestic manufacturers that that Ford could create a brand and a product with such presence and image – and then just p*ss it away. From square bird to flare bird to bird dog. What company in their right mind does that? I’d love to read the records of the meetings where such decisions were made. Did anyone voice doubts?
People who Thunderbird!
I wonder if Ford tried to stop the cheap wine of the same name.
THUNDERBIRD
“Drive It Or Drink It”
Sort of CC effect, Hemmings Classic Car magazine features a gorgeous blue convertible this month.
Hemmings Classic Car magazine – I used to subscribe to that, but stopped for some reason a couple of years ago.
However, I used to peruse it at my favourite magazine stand, and buy the occasional copy. Alas I can no longer find it on a magazine rack anywhere here in Canada.
I hadn’t noticed it before, but there is no price or bar code for newsstand sales on the magazine cover. I guess they gave up on non-subscription sales, which does not surprise me.
Ford managed to create an air of “specialness” around the Thunderbird, which was a unique product at the time. The Corvette was still a Spartan ride, and other real sports cars were also not too comfort oriented. The Nash Healey was probably the closest in spirit, though it was never a full production model. GM had brought their special sports models earlier, the Eldorado, Skylark and Fiesta convertibles, but these were full sized models. The T Bird had a more intimate feeling. It held down the personal car spot for Ford until it was eclipsed by the Mark III. The T Bird appealed to both men and women even though it was not particularly aggressive like a Chrysler 300. Ladies loved them as well as male Bon Vivants. I think that the introduction of the lower cost Mustang stole a lot of thunder from the Bird as it was actually similar in concept.
Father of a neighbor schoolmate of mine owned a small Ford dealership nearby. Always drove a new Thunderbird. Often got rides to Jr. High school in several of these over the years. Nothing like this today.
My brother bought a “64 T bird” in 1978. Was a compendium of original, restored, in need of.
Considering its age and “western PA’s unkind climate, the car ran/worked quite well.
The exception being…. the heater core was in need of help!! As long as temps were 40 and above, all was doable.
The winters, meant the car had no damn heat!
One needed to operate the blower to keep the windshield clear and the that made things unbearably cold. (artic chill blowing at the face and head))
The glass was not tinted so summers could get rough too.
Still, I loved driving it. Ran soo strong, steady, quiet.
He either sold or traded it in 1981 right after he got married.
Might the Thunderbird mark the point at which “less than full-size” (i.e. mid-size) started to become more popular (than the corresponding full sized car)?
I know not all Thunderbirds could be considered “less than full sized” (for instance the ’72-’76 models were Ford model of a Lincoln Continental Mark IV which I guess was full sized?) but most seemed to me to be…especially the suceeding ’77-79 (which I think is the only model I ever drove, not because someone I knew owned one, but I worked for Hertz in ’77 and ’78 as a transporter, and it was a very popular rental, I’ve driven multiples (10 or more) of them…but none of the other vintages)…being LTDII based (always wondered why they offered both Thunderbird and LTII coupes though they did have different rooflines…oh, the good old days when we had multiple 2 door cars with small differences between them!).
What got me started thinking about them was the Chrysler 300 (original, not the 2005-current one)…I know they were limited numbers (up till mid 60’s?) but they were all full sized cars (even the non-limited number 300s)…and seemed to become less popular eventually (even though they became “unlimited” in mid-60’s). Remembering Chrysler’s saying up till Cordoba came out in ’75 was “no junior editions”…I’m sure the limited 300’s were very expensive cars, but how did they price compared to a Thunderbird (maybe a loaded one)? I note that Chrysler (particularly Dodge) had a big problem when they downsized the Polara in 1962, having to quickly come up with the full sized 880 when at least some people insisted on having option of a full sized Dodge rather than a mid-sized Polara (I know even the Polara was pretty roomy but people didn’t seem to be quite ready for a mid-sized car to replace a full sized one, particularly if it was a family vehicle (rather than a personal luxury car…like the Thunderbird, or maybe even the original 300). Yet within a year, Ford came out with the mid-sized Fairlane (and Mercury equivalent) and GM had mid-sized cars like the Olds F85, Pontiac Tempest, Chevrolet Chevelle, etc around this time as well (which weren’t marketed as personal luxury cars).
It seemed like by the mid-60’s, personal luxury cars became mid-sized (excepting the ’72-76 Thunderbird/Continental Mark IV). I just wonder when the “size” movement from full size to mid-size became “accepted” by buyers?
Part of this probably has to do with my Grandfather (on my Dad’s side)….he had a ’63 Ford Fairlane (mid-sized car) for many years I remember him commenting that he thought the car was “too light”…and in fact, he replaced it with what turned out to be his last car, a ’72 Chevrolet Biscayne (which undoubtedly was much heavier than the Fairlane. JPC mentions that the Thunderbird was a very heavy car for its size, but I don’t think all mid-sized cars were (i.e. the ’63 Fairlane was “too light” whereas the ’63 Thunderbird was “heavy” despite both being what seems mid-sized cars.
Guess I wonder if “weight” really was an issue (especially for my Grandfather) and what he really wanted was “size” in spite of saying “weight”….he never drove a ’63 Thunderbird I’m sure, but I wonder in retrospect if he’d have been satisfied with it being “heavy” enough (despite only being a 2 door, his ’63 Fairlane had 4 doors.
Guess a lot of this is semantics…what is “full” sized and “mid” size certainly varies depending on the timeframe you are referring to in terms of American cars, at least.