Detractors of the fourth-generation Thunderbird might criticize its mass and nautical handling, but this shot, taken by cjarcher2, highlights its functional side. As heavy it might be, that overbuilt pre-CAD unibody has what it takes to be used for hauling duty five decades later. It takes strength to carry all that flair.
The lettering at the hood’s leading edge identifies this as a first-year ’64; it would take until 1965 for dual-piston front discs to appear and until 1966 for an optional 428 CID V8 to be offered, supplanting the then-overmatched standard 390. The idea was to increase performance, but as a personal luxury pioneer, one could argue such hardware would be best put to use doing exactly what this owner has seen fit to do here.
With its chrome ribbing and italic logo, this Mercury outboard (a completely different company, in case you didn’t know) is about as old as the car towing it. What better way to replicate the lifestyle these cars represented when new? Then as now, this ‘bird shows off its driver’s freedom to pursue leisure activities and enjoy the finer things in life. It doesn’t get much more perfect than this.
Related reading:
Curbside Classic: 1965 Ford Thunderbird Landau – Fancy Feast
CC Outtake: 1964 Ford Thunderbird – Flair for Fodder
Curbside Classic: 1963 Thunderbird Landau – The American Dream Car
It is a cute little boat and the era is about perfect for the car. As towing tasks go, this boat is fairly modest. For short to moderate distances, the car should be fine as equipped from the factory.
Adding a transmission cooler to these cars was a common modification for handling towing duty.
’64 – ’66 remain my favorite Birds. I hope they don’t catch on more, prices can still be reasonable.
Mercury marine engine goes well with a ’64 Bird. That chromed ribbing on the Mercury case compliments all the silver metal in the T-Bird interior – dash, console and front seat side trim.
Awesome!!!
It looks like this way taken waaaaaaay up in the Upper Peninsula, if the “Michigan Tech Lakeshore Center” sign is accurate. I think July and August are your two prime boating months up there. Houghton is a roughly nine hour drive from me…that’s how big Michigan is! It takes me 2.5 hours to get to Ohio.
I was just tossing the idea of towing a Spitfire race car with the Dart or the Skylark the other day when my dad and I were at the vintage races. Cool, cool, cool!
I took these photos yesterday in Houghton. I walked down the hill to let my beagle go potty and this beautiful pair was waiting for me. I just had to run up the hill and grab my camera before the owner could pull away. When I got back I realized I’d forgotten the sd card hence only 5 photos. He said the Bird pulls the boat with ease and gets the same fuel economy empty or loaded.
The outboard is actually several years older. Mercury switched to their now trademark black circa 1962-63. Some of the early black Mercs still had thin strips of chrome trim on them.
What a wonderful combo! Though I’ve always found the Landau bars on these to be kitsch gone too far. Make mine a convertible, please, or if that’s too flexible for the task of towing, a “standard” hardtop with the much more elegant emblems.
That trailer is a “Gator” tilting trailer, and is also period correct. These are great for loading or unloading the boat at a shallow ramp.
After you back it down the ramp, you pull the handle on the side to release a pin which holds it together. Then the part of the trailer which cradles the boat is allowed to pivot, pitching the nose of the boat up and making it easy to push off.
Works just as well when winching the boat back onto the trailer. As you winch the boat forward, the back half of the trailer comes back down. Once it’s winched all the way forwards, you flip the handle back and wiggle the boat/trailer until the spring-loaded pin pops back into the hole, holding the trailer together.
I hope I explained that adequately. If not, here’s a link with some pictures.
http://fiberglassics.com/fiberglassics-forums/home/main-forum/back-at-it-boat-s-off-the-trailer
Here’s a link to a Gator brochure:
http://www.fiberglassics.com/library/Gator
Superb car! We hardly see any of these here in Australia and they are usually LHD versions recently imported from California.
Just love the detailing lavished on every single detail.
…. And then there is the brochure text. Who knew Thunderbird could be used as a name, a verb and an adjective!? Great stuff!
It’s a shame I couldn’t get a good shot of the interior. The dashboard on these is truly impressive.
My favorite Birds, the ’64-’66’s. I agree, that dashboard was a tour de force.
I have a ’66 convertible and had the entire dash apart. It is amazing how many individual pieces there are. My ’66 had a trailer hitch on it when I got it. Given the tiny amount of trunk space with the top down, it makes sense.
And the name of a pub in NZ Thunderbird Valley inn, quite a few T birds in NZ some arrived long ago the better condition ones more recently.
Went to the upper PA back in 2002 (summer of course). Just a great time and I learned some things about canoeing downstream. The wind owns you, not the current.
Spent a lot of miles in a Tbird like this. Friend and I went all over. He never liked my VW till it was time to fill it up. 352 I think but it was a gas hog.
I believe that vintage vehicles can be practical, if hooked up correctly.
Small fiberglass boats like that are extremely light. You’re looking at perhaps a thousand pounds, including trailer. The T-Bird driver won’t even notice the difference!
i’d bet closer to 2k
Maybe, but the tongue weight is minimal.
This car at least has the cajones to do real, actual work. I wouldn’t dare try that with a fwd oriented, car based CUV. Factory tow capacities be damned….Ive seen what passed for a driveline underneath these things, its a joke. Fine for taking the kiddies to soccer practice and that’s about it, if you don’t want to hear CV joints pop like corn.
I like this generation of T-bird too….but only as a droptop. That boxy hardtop looks like a dog house plopped onto these sleek lines!
We’ve been taking our 2006 CR-V tent camping for 4 years now and it hasn’t exploded yet. 4 passengers plus the rear cargo area, a hard shell topper, and a box trailer all loaded with gear. I don’t know if I’d be as eager to haul so much if it had the automatic, but ours has the 5-speed stick.
In general an AT is about a million times better for towing than a MT. You get the torque multiplication of the torque converter that also allows the engine to get further into the power bad on take off only generating a little extra heat that is quickly dissipated. With a clutch you risk hot spots on the flywheel that leads to chatter and of course it just wears out the clutch quicker. Though in this case you are talking about a Honda AT.
> Though in this case you are talking about a Honda AT.
That was exactly my point.
I’ve towed lots of stuff with my pickup and it’s an automatic.
Most MT cars have a higher numerical final drive and first gear, somewhat negating the torque converter advantage of the AT at launch. My MT Honda has a 4.62 final drive, for example.
Well I see people doing it, but in my eyes that doesn’t mean its to be done. Hey man, if it works for you, then go for it. Thing is, how many more years will a light duty, fwd, 4 cylinder platform hold up like this? This T-bird is 50 years old. Hondas are good little runabouts when relatively new, but when theyre done….theyre done. Increasing the workload shortens the life. Yes, Im speaking in broad sweeping generalities. But if it were me towing a camper I wouldn’t do like Canucklehead says and buy an F-350…but a properly set up Cherokee, Grand Cherokee, Liberty, or Durango would be what Id pick. Any of those would last much longer and do the job a lot easier.
A Yaris could pull this trailer, it couldn’t be more than 800 kg all in. Guys here have convinced themselves they need an F-350 to haul a tent trailer. In Europe, it’s common to see tiny cars pulling pretty substantial caravans. It’s how you drive it.
Right. The current Toyota RAV4 (not exactly a giant car) for example has a towing capacity of 4,400 lbs.
E-segment sedans are rated somewhere between 3,500 and 4,400 lbs towing capacity.
But you do need a BE driver’s license to tow decent trailers. B is the driver’s license for cars and E is for trailers towed by a car. With B alone you may only tow very light toy-trailers.
I’d like to see a Yaris pull this boat at interstate speeds with a 30MPH crosswind. Even if it could, do you really believe that would be a smart thing to do? Do you know the tow capacity for a Yaris? The US version states “not recommended for towing” in the manual and the Canadian version is rated for 700 pounds. But oh yeah, it’s part of Paul’s “great american anti-towing conspiracy”. Go ahead, load it up, and don’t take into account the liability ramifications if you get into an accident.
But wait, in a minivan post that was linked to in the Corolla COAL I saw you admonishing someone last year for overloading. There you say overloading is irresponsible. Here you say it is fine if you know how to drive. Which is it?
The main problem is most smaller vehicles today are FWD. Our Grand Caravan could easily haul a boat a good deal larger than this one…in theory. Pulling it up a slimy wet concrete ramp is another story. Forget about trying to tow anything in the winter. Ask me how I know that.
People in Europe haul with small vehicles due to gas prices, regulations, and infrastructure not well suited to large vehicles. For the most part we don’t have those issues here in North America. Large vehicles are far more practical here. Choice is a good thing.
Bottom line is that there is more to towing and vehicle choices than you let on. But yes, this boat is a relatively light load easily pulled by a number of vehicles. Not nearly as many as you imply with your Yaris example though.
Look, this has been here before:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/auto-biography/the-great-american-anti-towing-conspiracy/
Has nothing to do with “overloading small vehicles”. Unless you claim that a Mercedes E-class is way too small for a 4,000 lbs trailer.
I grew up in the lakes region of northeastern IN and lots of “lakers” in our town drove T-Birds towing boats such as this back in the day. We had a 65 and it was a very fine car, and yes the “flight-style” dash was nicely designed. The interior lighting at night was impressive. Compared to the broughamy interiors featured in another post today, I’d take a Flairbird any day. The thin-shell bucket seats and the rear “lounge” seating were both comfortable and stylish.
We had friends with a 64 and the disc brakes in our 65 were a big improvement. 65 also was the first year for the sequential turn signals – I’ve heard it took that long for state lighting regs to be changed. And the hardtops introduced the modern flow-through ventilation system that worked really well.
Later I had a friend who owned a 66 with the 428. I never really thought the performance was that much greater than the 390 but these were really heavy cars meant for comfortable highway cruising, not off-the-line acceleration. The one thing I don’t miss is the terrible gas mileage – and I mean frequently in the single digit range. You could watch the ribbon-style speedometer move right and the gas gauge move left at about the same pace. Of course premium (or “ethyl” as we said then) cost something like 25-26 cents a gallon at the time…
“You could watch the ribbon-style speedometer move right and the gas gauge move left at about the same pace.” Ha! So true. About what happened in my 1970 Cougar XR-7 with its Cleveland 351. That reliably delivered about 9 mpg. Funny you remember the “ethyl” moniker. You would pull into the full serve gas station and say to the attendant “Fill ‘er up with ethyl.”
Here is a snap of the dash of my 65 Thunderbird Special Landau. All three years of the “FlairBird” carried this dash design.
Beautiful. I am surprised to see a Special Landau without A/C – I thought most of these rare cars were fully loaded. Just out of curiosity, do you know where it was originally purchased?
Yes it was originally purchased in the SFbay area and spent its entire life in Sonoma and Marin Counties until I brought it to Phx, Az. It was an early build for the Special landaus. Feb of 65.
I believe the one I photographed didn’t have that wood trim on the console/dash but instead polished metal.
Same with the one I’ve photographed. I do love these dashes though–so Jet Age. One of my favorites.
Absolutely stunning interior. Neighbor had a ’65 and as a youngster, it truly spoils you. Every dash looks so bland and uninspired in comparison.
That and how thick the doors are. I once saw a beetle passenger side door open next to the Tbird driver’s door open. Paper vs Rock. Nothing against the beetle. But damn. No wonder the unibody was overbuilt.
I hope you don’t mind, but I just grabbed the photo and it’s going to be my desktop wallpaper for awhile. 🙂
That’s correct, landaus has the wood grain inserts and the standard models had brushed metal inserts
i do love these t-birds. the 64 in aqua has long been a favorite of mine.
Excellent find Bowman! No doubt the T-Bird will pull that like it is not even there.
Help! I read this and Lawrence’s older T Bird write up. FLair Birds, Bullet Birds, square Birds…..what do all of these mean? I gather they apply to various generations of Thunderbirds…is there a list somewhere so I can understand the references? I think I like all of these ’60’s T birds!
Square bird is the 58 onwards model. Bullet bird is 61 on. Flair bird is 64 on and glamor bird is 67 on with a special mention to the Bunkie beak, a derivation of the glamor with an extended proboscis.
What a great photo. Looks like a twofer Matchbox set in the real. Great colour too.
Great ensemble photo. I especially love this ‘Bird without fender skirts. I’ve always hated skirts, and can’t think of any car that looks better with them.
A while ago on the Hemmings blog (yep, I read that too…) I saw a 1964 or 1965 photograph of cars on the street in Long Beach, Washington; one of the cars was a Corvette StingRay with a trailer hitch.
One of the things I hate about the Nissan CVT is that a hitch will void your warranty. My cube has a 800+lb payload capacity. I have probably exceeded that with people.
Had I known, we would probably still be driving the 2010 with the 6 sp MT. Had plans to put a ball on it and buy a very small trailer. Except for a few things that I can have delivered that does away with the need for a truck. Live and learn.
As a former snowmobiler I love the idea of CVT performance and smoothness but I’m not sold on the longevity or hauling ability. I realize the new ones in cars are quite a bit different than the rubber-eating ones I am so familiar with, but the same principles and weak points apply. They continue to progress though.
Great pic — the Tbird looks stable, low and planted and the lines really pop. I’ve watched the values on these go from being below the 55-57s, Squarebirds and Bulletbirds to now maybe above them all. I think they are getting credit for the nice way they drive. The ’65 LTD may have kicked off the Brougham era but I would argue the Flairbird set the fashion aspects of that trend a year earlier.