It pays to change up the walk routines once in a while, especially to break the cabin fever. I’ve seen this black Pacer before, a few years back. To my knowledge, it’s the only one in town that still sits out on the curb. But now it’s acquired a white companion, and they do make quite a pair. I’m not sure what the attraction is, but they’re both a bit out of the mainstream, especially their front ends.
Let’s check out the Pacer first. It’s stating the obvious, but this is one of the most unusual and unlikely American cars of the whole post war era. What a shocker it was, when I (and the rest of the country) first laid eyes on it. Who would have thought? Sure, AMC proved it was willing to go against the grain with the Gremlin. But that little abomination was just a Hornet with the back 1/3 sliced off. This was something radical. And bizarre. A very wide but short car, with a very glassy greenhouse. It looked like a cartoon car, since all the proportions were so different than the typical car. A small car for two wide persons; it was just a couple of decades ahead of its time. Kind of like a Toyota C-HR of its time. Except even weirder.
This one is a manual; no, not a slick shifting 5 speed; it’s a lowly three speed. And teamed to either the 232 (3.8L) or 258 (4.2L) six. Curiously, both were rated at 100 hp. Don’t ask why.
The floor shift required the optional bucket seats; good thing, as the center of the standard bench was absolutely useless, given that giant transmission tunnel.
And no, the Pacer’s hood isn’t so short because it was originally designed to have a rotary engine. That was always going to be optional, or a big maybe. The hood was just part of the design brief. AMC really would have liked it to be FWD, but that was wishful thinking. Designer Dick Teague was just indulging one of his many little manias. This one along with the Matador coupe effectively killed AMC and drove it into the hands of Renault. Oh well, it was going to happen sooner or later anyway. And he gave us two of the stranger cars in the process, so I say, good job, Dick!
I was never a fan of this generation T-Bird. The front end was intriguing, for about 90 seconds, but that wasn’t the whole problem. The rest of it just looked…uninspired. The designers were forcing it, trying to make an aging concept still look relevant somehow. The Bullet-bird was peak T-Bird, such a great reflection of the zeitgeist. But by the late ’60s, this was getting old and stale. Nobody under 50 or 60 wanted something like this in 1967. Not groovy, man. It had become an old fart-mobile.
This was all wrong anyway, even if you were an old man. The Brougham Epoch was raging, and it should have been big fat tufted velour, panty-cloth, or leather, and lots of fake wood. This is from a different era altogether.
And the wrap-around rear seat was so 1961. In order to stay cool and relevant, you have to be cool and relevant.
It’s got a Brougham Era correct top, so it’s obviously a Landau model.
I hate to think what the vinyl is hiding.
Now here’s a tough question: which of the two would end up in your driveway?
The 1966 T-bird was a trim 205 inches length by 70 inches wide. The ’67 grew to a somewhat bloated 209 by 77. In the process it lost its attractiveness as you outlined. The grille went from a work of beauty to a vacuum nozzle attachment. The back end lost their appeal. One would have hated to have been shoved unwillingly into that back seat imprisonment. Is that even an armrest? Um, no thanks.
The Pacer always looked to my eye like someone took a Gremlin and stuck a hose in a pumped it up with an air compressor. 100 hp to move that machine? You might have to pay me money, but I’ll take that one on a short term deal if I have to choose one of the two. It will get me in to Mopar classic shows.
And, yet, the ’67 T-Bird looks visually smaller than the ’66 at the same time. I’m sure that wasn’t what Ford was going for. On top of that, they added a 4-door to better appeal to the old farts.
The ’66 TBird was 205.4″ long and 77.3″ wide. Wheelbase was 113″. The ’67 TBird was 206.9″ (HT) 209.4″ (4-door) long and 77.3″ wide. Wheelbase of 2-door was 115″. Wheelbase of 4-door was 117″. Source of information: Ford Buyer’s Digest of New Car Facts for 1966 and Ford Buyer’s Digest of New Car Facts for 1967.
Wow! I liked the looks of the Pacer when it came out. I still do. Unfortunately, it was a mediocre automobile. I took a hard look at one. It had the 232 with a three-on-the-tree and overdrive. It was utterly uninspiring to drive. The salesman literally begged me to buy it. I ended up with a Plymouth Arrow. 1600cc and 4 speed. That car was an absolute ball to drive.
The T-Bird? Meh. The corresponding Mark III was a much better solution for what Ford was trying to do. The T-Bird did much better in the 70’s when Ford brought it down-market and put it on an intermediate platform.
The Pacer, because even when AMC is goofy they’re lovable. When Ford’s on a roll they’re the best America has to offer. When Ford stops giving a shit, case in point here, they really stop giving a shit.
My parents owned a ’67 T Bird and, unlike this car, it had cruise control with the chrome rocker buttons on the steering wheel and therefore did not have that one year only huge pad at the center of the wheel. The buttons were marked Resume/Retard and Set Accel/Coast. It also had the very rare 8 mph door lock feature which proved problematic in car washes that spun the wheels to evenly wash them.
I always liked riding in those big comfy rear seats and listening to the soft whirring and clicking of the sequential turn signals that came from the trunk.
If you are a Gen-Xer, then the Pacer is inextricably associated with the iconic Bohemian Rhapsody scene in Wayne’s World.
Or a late boomer.
I’d go with the Pacer. There have been a helluva lot of uglier/goofier cars produced since then. It’s an honest car, unpretentious (how could it be otherwise?)
While I do like T-Birds, The ’67-’82 years are just lost on me and have little appeal.
My daughter, on the other hand, loves the ’75 era Birds for their over the top styling.
Just looked at the Toyota C-HR. Never seen or heard of it before.
It ranks up there with the Pontiac Aztec, Edsel and ’58-’60 Continentals as
tortured sheet metal designs.
Dick Teague was a design genius in comparison.
Then again, the Pacer could be hiding a small block Chevy under the hood!
https://barnfinds.com/ls1-transplant-1976-amc-pacer-dl/
Was going to post the same one! 🙂
In ’67 I would have gone with the inflating yet still beautiful Riviera over the bloated ‘bird.
I think comparing the Pacer to the C-HR is unfair. The Pacer had a lot of flaws, but I think it was an honest attempt to be both distinctive and have some useful function. The C-HR is just bad design in every way. And I am usually a Toyota fan boy.
What’s do you dislike so much about the C-HR’s design? I ask in curiosity, and not to be hostile.
I woke up this morning thinking that I’d been too harsh on the Pacer last night when I wrote this. Dick Teague was trying to do something quite bold and worthwhile: essentially re-envision the American car, by ditching all of the design elements that had become so inevitable: a big, long hood, a big long trunk, and a boxy greenhouse in the middle. He said that the Pacer was the first car designed “from the inside out”.
The problem is that he was still stuck with the traditional American chassis and running gear. To have made his idea work, it absolutely would have needed a compact FWD drive train. The the Pacer would have been a lot more spacious inside. As it was, it had truly miserable space utilization; the rear seat was very cramped, and the cargo area was small, so small they quickly tooled up a wagon version.
My beef with the Pacer is that it was ultimately just about the cosmetics. To really design a car “from the inside out” you have to start with the right packaging. And of course the VW Golf/Rabbit that came out at about the same time showed how to do it right: more room inside, much smaller outside, not getting broiled by the sun, and vastly more efficient and most importantly, fun to drive.
That’s why the Pacer failed: it was quickly seen as nothing more than a shorter Matador with an eccentric body; none of the advantages and all of the disadvantages.
Now I’m back to being harsh again. 🙂
I don’t want to put the Pacer on a pedestal but I did drive one briefly, and it felt roomy and with good visibility other than a low seating position. In the Bay Area perhaps the greenhouse warming was less of an issue. I haven’t sat in a C-HR, but I can’t imagine roomy and good visibility are attributes. And Toyota could and should do better, while AMC certainly was hobbled by budget and existing platforms as you describe. I’ll still put the Pacer ahead of the Gremlin, which literally was a hack job. As for the TBird, even as a young kid I couldn’t relate to the idea of a 4 door TBird, regardless of styling, so I think this gen was the beginning of the decline.
Yup. The Pacer was the first US car that really deserved and demanded a transverse engine. With torsion bars instead of AMC’s tall coils, they might have even fitted the 232 transversely. Then the tunnel would have disappeared and the width would have made a real difference for passengers.
I remember Motor Trend gushing over the Pacer when it was introduced, proclaiming “Suddenly it’s 1980!” Road and Track was much more skeptical, praising the styling/design but criticizing the powertrain and chassis layout. The added external width compared to typical domestic compacts didn’t result in more useable seating capacity, because the intrusion of the transmission tunnel made 3-across seating in front impractical, and the rear seat was too narrow because of the wheelwells.
Interestingly, Studebaker made a big splash by creating the compact 1959 Lark by lopping off the front and rear of the grungy old Champion.
If the Pacer had had more traditional styling, creating a small, wide car by taking a two-door Matador and simply lopping off the front and rear ends (like the Lark) might have went over better.
The Thunderbird. When I was a little guy one of the parents friends bought a 67 suicide door Thunderbird. It was my first experience with these type of doors and I thought it was the classiest thing on the planet.
Still do.
I often wonder(well, not THAT often)how the Pacer would have fared if it was built with the rotary engine it was designed for?
As I said in the post, it wasn’t actually designed just for the rotary. The rotary was always going to be an option, if it actually existed. And even if it had, it wouldn’t have changed things that much. It was still going to be RWD, which means its terrible space efficiency was no different.
I suspect it would have been bad. Rotary seals (equivalent to rings on a piston engine) have a real bad habit of leaking oil. On top of that, it would have been brand-new engineering for a domestic car. To top it off, the rotary got miserable fuel mileage which wouldn’t have been offset by the rotary’s performance. It would have been like an old, leaky V8 from the fifties.
The AMC six was relatively reliable, no worse than GM or Ford’s sixes at the time. Build quality on the Pacer (well, any AMC product) was generally craptacular, anyway, but it likely would have been abysmal if the Pacer had gotten the GM rotary engine as planned. Warranty claims might have killed AMC before they had a chance to merge with Renault.
If the T-Bird did end up in my driveway, it would have to be pushed there. I don’t think it has a drivetrain, evidenced by the nose-high stance and the block behind the wheel.
Also, for the record, I kind of like these. What the Flairbird has in common with suicide Lincolns is that the replacement was a much less distinctive, but better engineered car.
I like Thunderbirds, even bad ones like this one. The novelty of the Pacer wears out the moment you drive one, while the Thunderbird is still a Thunderbird.
Exactly: ” The novelty of the Pacer wears out the moment you drive one,” I tested a new one, stick, when they first came out………….POOCHHHHHH! The driving dynamics made my dad’s Hornet automatic feel like a sports car. Not good, which really helped kill the car saleswise.
Kind of interesting to look at back then, but that wore off very rapidly. The one drive killed any interest I had in the Pacer and my ’74 Pinto wagon seemed sort of ok………DFO
No surprise here, I’ll take the Pacer. It actually looks pretty good in black, you rarely see them in that colour. Interior is very AMC but at least it’s a stick. Pull the 258 (hopefully) and put its crank in a Jeep 4.0 HO. Slide your new 4.6 stroker into the engine bay with a Mustang T5 attached to the AMC bellhousing and you’ve got a decent performing Pacer. Get some new springs if you can find them and better shocks and it might handle half decent provided the rack and pinion steering isn’t worn out. That Thunderbird really isn’t my cup of tea anyway.
Paul’s right, the Pacer was a good idea on paper, AMC just half-assed it and didn’t have the resources to do it right. It had to be FWD and way lighter to work. That just wasn’t really possible considering the resources squandered on the Matador and to a lesser extent the 2nd gen Javelin/AMX.
This was exactly what I needed to see this morning when I checked in at CC. Good memories from my high school days.
The Pacer would be my choice. My good friend had a ’78(?) model with a 258 auto. This was pre Wayne’s World, before everyone wanted one. As a bit of a wildcard it wasn’t surprising he pushed a lot of boundaries with that car, particularly with regards to common sense and safety. It took a beating like nothing I’ve ever seen. Jumps, both front and rear wheel landings were common place. We rolled it into a ditch one night, the fishbowl shape made it easy to pull back on its feet with my half ton Ford. Pushing the huge heavy doors open while laying on its side, not so easy. And 40 MPH into a snow covered parking lot with 1000 pounds of teenagers inside and spinning in ridiculously fast circles . . . . good times.
3 years of absurd antics and the car went onto another owner as a daily driver, none the worse for the wear seemingly. Say what you will about AMC’s but that car brings back nothing but good memories for me. Thanks for that Paul!
My mom had a brand new ‘76 Pacer X (the performance model! lol) and she liked it a lot. It replaced her Kingswood Estate wagon! I got to drive it quite a bit and didn’t mind it at all. We called it “The Transportation Module.” My only real negative memory was interior trim pieces starting to come unglued within a couple of years. It was one of a number of “outlier”cars my parents seemed to gravitate towards. I was a 21 year old and daily driving a ‘66 Sunbeam Alpine at the time.
I love both of these. I’m biased because I own one of these T-birds ( for 31 years ) and it’s my favorite car. I love the cool retro style and it’s nice to drive, a nice highway car. Comfortable, quiet, stable and fast, it’s really nicely done. I love the earlier T-birds too, and I can understand how enthusiasts may be disappointed with the 67-69 cars’ appearance. But they were a significantly better driving and better performing car in every way.
I love the Pacer too. I think it was 15 years ahead of it’s time. By 1990, Pacer -shaped cars were everywhere, and made me wonder why people got up in arms about its unusual style. I think most 70s American consumers didn’t understand or accept a form-follows- function and ridiculed what was a common sense design. It’s too bad AMCs limited resources meant the car was released with an underwhelming driveline
I was pretty young when the Pacer was introduced, and didn’t fully appreciate that it was a pretender in terms of being a genuinely advanced car for the times. Being less than 10 years old, I did see smaller, better packaged cars like the Pacer (and Rabbit) and their two box design as modern, and futuristic. A car for a younger generation, as one of the first generations raised on conservation awareness.
So, even if cars like the Mustang II, Granada, Pacer, and Monza, were multi-flawed attempts at downsized, economical design compared to cars like the Rabbit and Civic, these domestic cars still constituted a lot of the cars on the road. So, I liked what I was seeing, and I appreciated them for being a step in the right direction in terms of being smaller (or putting greater emphasis on smaller cars) and better packaged given they were American cars.
Because I like having the option of rolling down the window and resting my arm on the driver’s door as I drive, the Pacer is out. That stupid, stupid design compromise that had too much window trying to roll down into too shallow of a door resulted in one of the oddest workarounds ever – the big fat molded plastic upper door panel that followed the outline of the glass that stuck up over the beltline when it was rolled down.
The Thunderbird at least invites me to play some Frank Sinatra or Dean Martin as I drive. If the Bird were a 68 it would be a harder choice, but this one still had the cool stainless touches inside and the opposing wipers, so it’s a lot more pleasant on the inside than on the outside.
Thank you JPC. Your Frank and Dean reference hit the nail on the head. The interior is great, front AND rear.
The burr under Paul’s saddle causes him to miss many positive aspects of this Bird. In terms of exterior styling, Ford retained and evolved the taillamp treatment from the 66 Flairbird. The signature taillamp and landau S bar gave designers room to explore a new front design theme… one that accommodated the hidden headlamp design trend. To me, the only justifiable exterior design criticism is the A pillar (too sharp of a corner at the top).
As the personal luxury coupe market was getting a little crowded, we don’t give Ford enough credit for exploring the market acceptance of a 4-door luxury coupe. It seems disingenuous to criticize the 67-71 4-door Bird, yet fawn over today’s CLS, A7, Grand Coupe, et.al.
This generation Bird has significance that is lost by many Sunday Morning Quarterbacks. Ford surmised Thunderbird households were feeling the pressure for a more family-friendly vehicle as their Baby Booming kids were growing. So, Ford made the gutsy decision to replace their technology-leading convertible with the 4-door coupe. That is the type of boldness that can be celebrated.
Please understand that I am on record as considering the exterior of this car a hot mess, and the dulled-down 1968+ interior removes the last thing that really appeals to me about these cars.
My take is that during most of the Thunderbird’s glory years there was neither a Mustang nor an LTD nor a Continental Mark III. And in those years the Bird was as beautiful as anything coming out of GM. By 1967-68 these things were no longer true. Really, the 2 door 1967-69 Thunderbird was the least attractive thing in the Ford lineup.
I’d go for the T Bird especially in white on white on white! The interior looks great to me, The outside I’m not so sure. The proportions are right, long hood short deck. That set the formula for the other personal luxury cars that would follow. At least this model’s roof has those rear quarter windows, I think there was a more deluxe version without them. I guess the front end is supposed to evoke some kind of jet air intake or make it look like some kind of turbine car. These car got terrible gas mileage and the motor was a tight fit in the unit construction chassis. Oh, I think that it was groovy all right. At least groovy as interpreted by the over 50 crowd. As groovy as ol’ Dino playing Matt Helm!
These were actually back to BOF construction, first for a Thunderbird since 1967. I think that everything they gained in underhood room was taken up by more and more vacuum and electrical accessories under the hood, not to mention air conditioning that was pretty common by then.
And yes, I think that front was supposed to look like, well, new. It works better when the hidden headlight doors go down. And Toronado and Riviera went to a similar “inset” grille in 68, so I think it was a short-lived style. The Bunkie Beak on the 70 looks kind of good to me by comparison.
The only year there was a blind-quarter roof in this generation was 1969,
also 1971 if you count the Bunkie Bird, which was a sub-species IMHO.
I just recalled the front of the 1962 Oldsmobile – very similar in concept to the 67 Thunderbird. I have never found either attractive.
Many years ago a friend of mine transplanted an AMC 401 V8 into a Pacer. He had quite a bit of help from family members who were professional mechanics so the results turned out well. I only drove it a couple of times, and for short periods, but it was certainly an entertaining vehicle, at least in a straight line. This guy worked with me in Henderson, Kentucky and was dating a woman in the south suburbs of Chicago, which is about a six hour drive. After several months of this he decided that it would be less stressful if he just moved to Chicago. He also married the woman and they were together until he passed away a few years ago. The last thing I heard about the Pacer was that it had been retired and was slowly rusting away.
My cousin had a 4 door version of the Thunderbird. The rear doors were rear hinged (suicide doors) and as the car got older there were some problems with the latches on them. Her solution was to tie a rope across the back seat, through the rear armrests. It was inexpensive and effective, but kind of limited the usefulness of the rear seat.
I like them both. I have always liked the 1975 – ’77 Pacers *long* before “Wayne’s World” (which came out my senior year of high school, IIRC). I’m also drawn to the Thunderbird’s more (I’ll call it) mature approach to personal luxury. But then again, I much prefer old-school downtown Las Vegas to the Strip, so from a contemporary standpoint, I’m not sure if the T-Bird would quite have done it for me as a new car.
I always admired early four-door Thunderbird; the later styling of the front end not an improvement.
As a footnote , I suspect the four-door Thunderbird was the only car where the appearance was improved by a vinyl roof.
And with whitewalls.
Someone at Ford must have really wanted those landau bars. Imagine how bad that car without the vinyl roof would look without them.
The front fender lines on the T-bird are very predictive of the 1973 Chevy Monte Carlo. The Monte wears it better.
In black, with red interior and no vinyl roof, I’ll take the Thunderbird over the Pacer. If it was the 4 door then it would be a tougher decision.
I always liked the idea of the Pacer as a fun attention-getter, but for a car “designed from the inside out”, the interior is miserable, and it’s an undepowered slug. It will bring some smiles at a car show, but I cannot imagine having any fun behind that wheel.
The T-bird is just the opposite: its vacuum-cleaner snout has been hit with the fugly stick and I have no use for the landau roof, but the interior is still nice and classy in a 1960s kind of way. I can see myself driving this car and enjoying it, as long as I don’t have to look at the exterior too closely.
I’ve always liked the Pacer. The Pacer is the only car I can think of with a wider passenger door, with all those personnel luxury cars in the ‘70’s and ‘80’s I’m surprised I was only “doored” once riding a bike (it was a Saab and I quickly avoided being hit). Too bad the Pacer wasn’t front wheel drive.
Considering the Pacer is a 3 speed with a 100 Horses I would take the T-Bird (if it has a drive train). I had an acquaintance in high school who had a ‘67 T-Bird, I recall him saying it had 16” wheels, which was rather odd in 1980. The ‘66 is my favorite Thunderbird, this T-Bird generation missed the mark until it became a Mark III.
Tough question? Not at all. I’d take that Pacer all day, every day. Beside the fact that the vinyl is the only reason that roof has any shape since the metal has rusted away, this is second only to the 1980 Fox-body Thunderbird in gaudy ugliness. If I’m going to stooge around in a weird-looking car, I’m going to take the one that has no pretense to it.
Besides, my AMC love is unabashed and fairly well-established.
The 67 Thunderbird doesn’t seem to get much love, not sure what that says about me, as it’s my favourite T bird and the only one I would care to own, in 2 door form
I’ve always thought the Pacer was an attractive looking car and I miss the way automotive glass used to be trimmed with stainless steel mouldings.
Having always loved PLC(s), it would have to be the Thunderbird. For this generation though, I much prefer mine with a Bunkie Beak.
The Pacer? Not so much. What was it about AMC and its love of upside down water vessels? There was this upside down fishbowl, and go back even further to the likes of Nash and Hudson with their upside down bathtub vibe.
I do agree with others though that the Pacer should’ve been a FWD car. It just makes too much sense.
I love the 1967 Thunderbirds (I have one with the 428), as well as the 1966 Thunderbird (I have one with the 428), and the 1967 Riviera (don’t have one, but did).
I think that the design is pure, cohesive, and modern for the time. The 1967 is much lighter, faster, and quieter than the 1966. Body on frame vs earlier unitized body. Still a Thunderbird, in my opinion – being the last to have a full length console, last to have metal instrument cluster with aluminum trim, last to have the opposing windshield wiper blades. Although they were starting to have less expensive materials used in the interior, such as plastic map light bezel, vs metal, and sheet metal console vs die-cast. And the first to not have fender skirts and a hood scoop.
But the Tbird added some cool features for 1967, including the head-away headlights, and the automatic tilt-away steering wheel, and vent-less side windows (cool at the time).
Here is a picture of my 1967 2 door landau, with wire wheels. I normally much prefer the original wheel covers on all previous Tbirds, but in my opinion, the 1967 looks better with them as well as a little wider white wall (not true wide white).
You have to see one in person and in like new condition to appreciate their styling. Most are dogged out due to either being great road cars and being driven into the ground, as well as never being thought of as being true Thunderbirds – because of the lack of a convertible, the addition of a 4 door model, and the misconception that they are so much bigger and heavier than previous models.
But they are not really much bigger, being only about 1.5″ longer. Not to speak of the fact that they are much lighter. The 1966 weighs 4560 lbs, and the 1967 weighs 4256.
Also, keep in mind that the 2017 Dodge Charger (as one example) weighs as much as 4575 lbs. If I only had a dollar for every time I heard the “big old boat” comment about most antique cars like the 1967 Thunderbird!