As we discussed last week, in 1999 I had returned from Japan and was looking forward to re-engaging with the classic Lincoln community and acquire a ’66 or ’67 Continental – my two favorite model years. I had purchased the showroom new 1978 Lincoln, but before that I owned a 1967 Coupe.
1965 Lincoln Continental Sedan
1967 Lincoln Continental Sedan
My preference for the ’66-67 models makes me something of an outlier – most Lincoln enthusiasts prefer the Gen 1 versions of the ‘60’s slabsides – those made from 1961-65. I’m in the minority that prefer the re-style Lincoln did in 1966. The Gen 1’s were beautiful, but were fairly rectangular when viewed from the side. The ’66 re-style added a more pronounced break just forward of the C pillar, and a slight character line along the beltline, that then tapered downward to the back. In my view, it made for a much sleeker shape.
1967 Lincoln Continental Coupe (from internet)
The other design feature that resonates with me is the symmetry; in several areas. First, notice the length of the front hood compared to the back trunk lid – almost the same length. The greenhouse sits squarely in the middle, almost balanced – no long hood, short deck here. Then look at the front and rear; the grille and headlights are set low – step around to the back and you can see that mirrored with the tail lamps enclosed in the low set bumper. The low headlights/grille and rear tail lamps are what struck me as a ten year old in 1966 – and have fascinated me ever since.
And you really need to have that fascination and passion to be an owner. There’s no getting around the fact that these were complex cars. From the perspective of the 1960’s, when most new models were owned for 3-4 years before trade-in, having unique vacuum and hydraulic controls must have been seen as a way to differentiate yourself from the other luxury makes in the crowd. Instead of a switch going “click”, it went “hiss”, and instead of an electric motor “humm”, you got a “whoosh.” That decision looks somewhat different fifty years later, as you dig through multiple vacuum and hydraulic hoses to find out why your HVAC system and wipers aren’t working. A shop manual is a must own.
My ’67 at a Local Car Show
So, back to the subject – how did I acquire this one? It was for sale in a local suburb of Dayton, and was advertised for $7K. As is typical with older Lincolns and I imagine with most American luxury cars, it had been owned by an older gentlemen who has passed, and was being sold by the family. It wasn’t a fair weather garage queen, he loved the car and used it as his daily driver. It was the definition of a “20 footer” – looked very nice from afar, but its flaws became readily apparent as you got closer. It had been repainted, and not in its original color – and the paint was likely applied at a local Earl Scheib shop. The bumpers had been re-chromed, but the rest of the chrome parts were old and pitted. The front seat had been re-upholstered, but not in the original pattern. The engine had 132K miles on it. The test drive went fine, other than the steering was loose (much looser than typical in the ‘60’s). Underneath it looked fairly rusty, but I pounded and poked a few places and it seemed solid. I offered $5K and we split the difference at $6K.
The first thing I wanted to do was fix the steering, and a new drag link tightened things back up. I can understand why the previous owner used it as his daily driver – it drove and rode beautifully. Everything about that car was “smooth” – the ride, the engine, the buttons and switches…just what you’d expect in a luxury car. The big 462 cubic inch V8 was the last version of the MEL (Mercury-Edsel-Lincoln) engine family introduced in 1958. It put out 340 gross horsepower and a giant 490 ft lbs of torque, exactly what was needed to push 4,940 pounds of Continental. That huge lump of iron weighed 735 lbs, though I would have bet it weighed more. It was the heaviest production car engine in ‘66-’67, beating the Chrysler 426 Hemi by 10 lbs. It would have made a perfect wrecking ball. Paul has an excellent post on the MEL here.
1966 Continental Convertible (from internet)
I was considering a restoration but when we had it up on the rack for the drag link replacement I was able to do a more thorough check of the underbody. Not good news – rust was much more pervasive than I had thought. With the restoration ruled out, I decided to use it as the previous owner had – as mostly a driver. While heavy, the 462 was extremely smooth – and went about its business with little fuss. I never had to replace anything mechanical – but was constantly running down vacuum leaks. As you can see from the engine picture, vacuum hoses went everywhere. The rubber hoses were just wearing out – most looked like they had never been replaced. And you had to be constantly on the lookout for hydraulic leaks. The wipers were controlled with vacuum switches, but the motor was hydraulic. The hydraulics were powered by a high capacity power steering pump, which was not belt driven but driven directly off the crankshaft. If you think this sounds complex, add two more hydraulic pumps, ten more relays, five more electric motors, and fifteen limit switches for the four-door convertible. You really have to love these cars, otherwise, they’d drive you nuts.
1967 Continental Coupe (from internet)
After a year, I decided it would be best to sell it and try to find another one in better shape. As I mentioned in the previous post, I was lucky to find the ’78 which was an original 5300 mile survivor and real time capsule. But comparing the two cars if both were in the same condition, the ’67 would win hands down. Why?
Styling. There’s no comparison between the two – the ’67 looks unique, sleek and balanced; the ’78 more formal, derivative, and somewhat kitschy, in that ’70’s way.
Driving. As I mentioned in the ’78 post, it had issues with starting and hesitation, like most late ‘70’s cars with early emission controls. The ’67 on the other hand, would fire right up and accelerated very smoothly. The 462 also had more “punch” than the lower compression 400.
One thing they both had in common though was “presence”; when you pulled up in either of these cars, people noticed. I consider myself privileged to have owned both of them.
Real shame about the rust, as a two door Lincoln from the sixties is a rarity today. Rust repairs on a unibody can get tricky as well.
Thanks for sharing the story on your ’67, it sure was a gorgeous car. I too have always really liked the ’66 to ’67 Lincolns. While the early 60s Lincolns are my favorite, these later model coupes are a very close second. It’s too bad about the rust, but living in a northern climate this tale is all too familiar. Many owners would invest in keeping the paint and body nice, but would forget to maintain the undercarriage and chassis. I have more than once seen nice shiney cars on the top that had a rusty undercarriage.
As I mentioned in your post on your ’78 Lincoln, I recall a 1966 Coupe that was owned by a local gentleman. It too was repainted and looked great from above but had a rusty undercarriage. When the fellow became too old to drive, he held raffled the car off as a prize among family and friends. The new owner out on a set of Cragar S/S wheels and treated it like a hot rod. The owner didn’t seem to look after it all that well, keeping it outside causing more rust. Within a few years it was at the local junkyard, due to the undercarriage rust become too severe. It probably could have been saved, but it would have taken a major commitment and a lot of money.
My God, what a gorgeous car.
I also like the later ’66 and ’67 Lincolns slightly better than the earlier ones. I didn’t know that all the accessories in those cars were vacuum operated, thats enough to keep me as an admirer instead of an owner but I do enjoy them. Too bad about the rust, I hope it gets repaired eventually
I also like the 66-67’s better than the 61-65’s. Agree that they look sleeker. Had no idea they were so complicated. How was the gas mileage, or shouldn’t I ask? 😀
Yes indeed, the gas mileage was abysmal – the engine was tired with 132K on it so I got around 8 mpg. I imagine if it had a re-build, it might go up to 10-11 mpg.
Fortunately work and home were fairly close. 🙂
I owned one for 13 years and worked on it a lot. The cars were complex relative to the average 1967 car. They aren’t hugely complex compared to more modern cars, and are comparable to a base model 1980s GM B-body Cadillac Deville.
The complexity comes in repairs and lack of spare parts support. A zero-option 67 Lincoln would be straightforward to fix with a service manual. But some options would be virtually unfixable if they broke. My 67 had optional automatic climate control, a massively complex and bulky combination on primitive electronics and mechanical controls, with no spare parts available. By comparison the basic ventilation controls are stone axe- simple.
“Has a/c, excellent upward airflow when moving at speed with carpets removed”.
What a pity. Such an elegant piece.
The ’61-’65 had an architectural mid-century-modern rectilinearity that is lost a bit on these ’66’s (though of course, the latter is no less the size of many an actual house than the former). The round rear wheelarch doesn’t sit as well with the straight-line of the rear door as did the squared off one, which to my eyes exemplifies the general middle-aged loss of muscle tone over all. I understand your concisely-described preference, but don’t fully share it. Mind, the earlier car didn’t come as a two-door, and may well not have looked as good as yours did in that form. It’s certainly the best looker of the newer body, and you describe a very nice way to go motoring.
Not many folk would feel privileged to own a hissing leaking rusticle no matter how beautiful, so I salute your taste and your loyalty
“Hissing leaking rusticle” – that was a good one Justy. I should have used that on the placard I used when I took it to the local car shows – I’m sure the judges would have got a laugh at that…and maybe given me a few extra points. Jim.
Handsome Lincolns but be wary of unibody rust, its a real problem with all unit-bodied Lincolns. Because its structural, having the rust properly repaired is hugely costly and difficult to find a competent shop to do so. Its more cost-affective to source a solid western states car and have it shipped than try to revive a rusted example.
Yes, I was hoping most of the uni-body structural elements had only surface rust but unfortunately it went fairly deep. I was ready to spend a fair amount to restore it but with that much rust it would have been way too expensive. Jim.
Terrific article, thank you. As I commented in your previous article, I owned a 67 Coupe for 13 years. I bought it when I was 23 and poor. I lacked the expertise to fix it properly and couldn’t afford to pay others to work on it.
I agree, I love the smoother style of the 66 redesign over previous years. Unfortunately Ford’s redesign also included decontenting, cheaper materials and a 30% cut in the retail price over the 65 models. This boosted sales but resulted in more plastic, (no more wood trim) and less detail inside. Still it was a high quality car and quite luxurious.
I deeply regret selling my 67. The problems it had would be easily fixed by me now, and these cars are quite rare and expensive these days. I regret I may not have the opportunity to own another.
Finally the 66-69 Lincolns are one the rare instances where the coupe varient is arguably less popular than the 4 door model. The suicide 4 door is widely recognized and has broad appeal. The coupe lacks this popularity although it’s a beautiful car.
Yes, we were both very fortunate to have owned a Coupe – as you probably know, there were about 11K Coupes made in ’67 in comparison to around 32K sedans.
Hope you do get the chance to own another one. Jim.
Thanks for this write up, very interesting! The suicide door Lincolns are so cool, but that 66-67 Coupe is a real beauty. I love the roof line, which compliments the more curvaceous body styling you described so well. They changed the roofline for 68, IIRC, and it was not quite so pretty. The 61 Lincoln was great, but IMHO each update they did on it was an improvement. I like 64-65 better and 66-67 best. Dropping the convertible took the shine off even the hardtops somehow in my mind, so 68-69 are just OK and it always looked strange to me with headrests in 69.
A 66-67 Lincoln convertible has long been on my classic car garage fantasy list. Your article reminds me how the reality of owning a classic can be a lot more work than the fantasy.
Very interesting perspective on the styling. We’re about the same age, and even when these cars were brand new, the first generation ‘61-65 cars had achieved classic status. Perhaps some of that was the association with JFK, whose motorcade I had seen when he visited our area when I was 5 or 6. But as I glanced through the pictures of your post, even before I started reading it, I saw certain features of the restyle in a new light, and I liked them. Nice car, and certainly the right color for a Continental – at least on top. Thanks for the post.
I’m sorry it didn’t work out for you. Although I prefer the ’61-’65 Conti’s, the early coupe has some seductive qualities, its rarity being one of them. And thanks for the reminder to stay away from them: their complexity is the ultimate opposite of my ’66 F100, which is the easiest vehicle to work on ever made, and nothing seems to ever break. Vacuum lines? One, from the intake to the distributor. And I don’t remember ever changing it, although if I did, it was a 60 second job.
’60s Continentals sort of break into four groups for me. There are the original 61-63 cars with their famed purity, especially when contrasted with gaudy late 1950s styling, and their restrained elegance is as striking today as it was in 1961. The ’64-65 sedans, like the off-white 65 shown, were even more severe in their starkness, now with rear doors that were as wide as the fronts and a wider greenhouse with flat side glass. The ’66 sedans became more sculptured and busy – and less attractive to my eyes – but the new look worked perfectly on the coupes. I wonder how much these were influenced by the ’63-65 Riviera which they closely resemble from several angles. I find the Conti’s grille a bit nondescript though. The ’68-69 coupes are the only ones I don’t care for; the fat C pillars made them look like an overgrown Mark III.
I hadn’t thought about that Riviera resemblance, but I totally see it now that you mention it!
Thank you for sharing your beautiful car. I’m with you, among the Engel Continentals, the ’66 does the most for me. I miss the front fender star on the ’67, petty, but when there is so much goodness to pick from in a ’60s Lincoln, why not go for what you want?
This may be heresy, but the ’61-’63 proportions were always a bit off to me, the rear side window was too small, and the rear passenger seat had minimal legroom in an otherwise large car. The ’64 refresh is the first of these Conties I’d take home, the wheelbase stretch made a tangible difference.
There is something almost sinister about the ’64-’65 cars, the ’66 refresh is as you said lighter, sleeker, less formal. The open rear real wheel well really made it America’s most distinctive luxury car in an era when the more closed the rear well, the more expensive the car usually was.
When Ford boldly built the anti-Cadillac……
I am with you on the 64 being the best looking of the early cars.
Add me to the list of ’66-’67 Lincoln lovers, particularly the coupe. In fact, I dare say I’d rather have one of them as a PLC instead of a Mark III.
Of course, it’s easy to see why the Mark III supplanted the earlier coupe with the competition from the dazzling ’67 Eldorado and Riviera. The GM cars are two of Bill Mitchell’s best designs (which is really saying something). I love the rear styling of the Cadillac but I’d take the Buick for not only an overall better look, but better mechanicals, too. Compared to those two, the ’66-’67 Lincoln coupe, nice as it might be, comes up short. And it would probably be a whole lot easier to keep an early Riviera running, as well.
My sister in law had a 66 Riviera, her best friend had a 67 Continental coupe, she told me that the Riviera handled much better, the Continental was a bit like steering a big box through a corner. I always liked these, all of them, 61 through 69, I prefer the 4 Dr but Cadillac and Buick were not using the vacuum system so much. I do remember the 66 Riviera had vacumn locks, but that was about it. The headlights might have been also. Thought I wanted one, guess I will stick with GM
Jim,
Great article. All the ’61-’69 Lincolns were elegant cars, everyone has their favorite. The ’61 was a game changer, following the ’58-’60 design, within three years, virtually every new car aped the clean lines and lack of chrome. I always thought the curved side glass coupled with the curve of the slab side just made the ’61-’63. The switch to straight glass in ’64 and the straight edged C pillar conflicted with the sides (in my opinion). The ’66-’69 was better integrated in both coupe and sedan. Your black ’67 coupe just defined the reason that someone would spend extra money to buy a luxury car. Very little could touch the sophisticated yet sporty look.
Sad that it turned out to be so terminally rusty—I’ve had that experience, but never with a car even remotely so intriguing as this one.
One thing grabbed me:
Oh, no. A factory service manual is mandatory; there is nothing even close to a substitute. The FSM is invariably a multiple-inch-thick book of thin paper going into detail on every system of one specific year of car. A 3/4-inch-thick Chilton or Haynes book purporting to cover ten or fifteen years’ worth of cars might be adequate if you’ve never changed a spark plug or a sealed beam and would like to get a general idea how that’s done (or if you’re ever so slightly too short and need a tiny little boost, they’re good for standing on…or they’re OK to set your drink on, or prop the door open, or start a campfire).
Exactly. The Chilton or Haynes books just pretend these systems don’t exist or never break or how to fix them is self-evident.
The Chilton and Haynes manuals are useful in their ways (things like torque settings and capacities), but are written by underpants gnomes:
Step 1.: Disconnect the negative battery terminal.
Step 2.: ? ? ?
Step 3.: Reassembly is reverse of the above procedure.
No sale there. I’ve seen so many factual errors in torque specs and capacities that I scorn the whole lot of them as unreliable and therefore worse than useless. And yes, they’re written by underpants gnomes.
I guess this is the weekend for big, expensive old black luxury cars that broke their owners’ hearts. 🙂
I am a little jealous, really. I have owned a 63 Cadillac and a 64 Imperial, but the Lincoln is the one of the trio that I have never owned or even spent any time in. And from an early age it was probably my favorite of the three.
It sounds like my Cadillac was substantially simpler from a mechanical perspective. The lock system was the only vacuum device on the car, and I don’t believe there were any hydraulics outside of the Hydra-Matic and the power steering. A whole lotta electrical wires and switches, though.
I hold these in roughly equal esteem with the early 60s cars – they are not better or worse, just different. I will admit that I don’t find the 2 door as well balanced as the sedan – a conclusion I am just now coming to after not really thinking about it for a long time. A very nice car!
What a beautiful car!
When I was in my teens and twenties (in the 70’s), I was all about performance cars.
Now that I’m on my 60’s, all of the cars (Lincolns, Cadillacs, imperials, etc) that I considered to be lumbering land yachts suddenly seem much more attractive.
Such a cool car, but probably not much fun to work on, as you said. One of the best things about ’60s cars is the variety of engine designs. Fundamentally, they all work about the same, but it’s interesting to see how the automakers got to that point. The in-block combustion chamber of the MEL and the Chevy W-Motor is one of many fascinations I have with machines of this era.
I imagine that reproduction underbody sheetmetal is hard to find for Continentals, but the available parts don’t usually scratch the surface of areas that need repair. From personal experience, if one does want to repair a rusty car, one must like the work, expect to lose money, and not be a total perfectionist. No rust is usually the best way to go, but things don’t always work out exactly the way we think they will.
Heartbreaking story, Jim-san. 1961-68 Lincolns are such beautiful cars, why did they also have to be so complicated? Sounds even worse than the Mercedes 600 or the early hydro Citroens.
And 8mpg ?! Wow… One of those cases when a prewar V12 might be preferable to a 60s V8.
Well, that Zephyr V12 did have all of 267 cubic inches vs. 462 in Jim’s. And it weighed almost a ton less. And that 19mpg wasn’t exactly EPA-approved; probably at a steady 45-50 mph, which was a typical highway speed back then.
And don’t ask about the V12’s oil consumption. 🙂
I thought I was the only one who preferred the 1966-69 styling over the 1961-65’s, especially the 1966-67’s, I feel the 1966-67 models is when Lincoln really got it right with the styling of these cars, I like the 1968-69 models but I find them to be a step down to the 1966-67 models, I also loved the early 1970’s Lincoln non-Mark Continental’s as well (especially the 1972-73 models).
I prefer the restyled ‘66 Lincolns to the earlier slab-sided models as well, and I really like the coupes – I’d take one over the four-door any time. Classic, tasteful and elegant stying. I’d really like to take one for a spin and give that big Detroit V8 a good workout. I would be smiling all the way to the gas station, and the price of filling it up wouldn’t bother me much. A small price to pay for driving a beautiful old classic.
I also prefer the 66 models, but mainly the coupes, that profile shot of your 67 is gorgeous.
One thing I’ve always wondered is why Ford went back to flat side glass for 64 It seems like a backwards move for a premium brand,
Denver Craig’s List:
1964 Lincoln Continental – $12500 (salida)
“Original Colorado car.
Zero rust. And I mean zero rust.
Interior is decent. White. Needs a new package tray.
Original maroon car.
Original state senator car.
Runs fine. I’ve driven it to Denver a few times.
Mileage is 99600.”
Then goes on to explain malfunctioning window switches…
I just grabbed this image from a Lincoln banner ad. Are they suggesting that Lincoln’s AV technology is so good that you can ride in the back seat, or have they once again contracted an ad agency that doesn’t know enough about cars to know that people don’t arrive alone in the back seat of them? Why no chauffer? They actually made an ad so silly that it might prompt their potential customers to wonder about the value of suicide doors on a car that won’t be chauffer driven.
Great writeup and I can’t wait to see what’s next! Bummer this gorgeous example turned out to be a bit too crusty.
Jim: Couldn’t agree more…I love the 66 restyling. Really sets it off.
The re-style was a retreat from purity of the original. That said, in an era of annual facelifts, it may have been thought the baroque lines were looking dated next to the exuberance of the mid-decade Cadillacs.
Rolls-Royce had examples of both to follow when designing the Corniche and choose Mulliner Park Ward’s direction rather than the straight lines James Young had used for their Silver Shadow FHCs.
Being in the Midwest the 20 footer thing is something I see a lot in old cars, sometimes the rust is indeed fixed but underneath you start noticing the patchwork of new sheetmetal fused to old pockmarked metal, blended together with a thickly applied “chassis black” paintjob. When it’s severe enough you gotta do what you gotta do, otherwise you’re either breaking the bank on reproduction stampings (if they exist) or your cutting up a doner car better than your own to fix it “properly”. Sometimes it’s just best to live out the cars remaining days and enjoy it, that is, if it lets you.
I do have a sadistic love the hydraulic/pneumatic actuation of everything, it seems really dumb but those little differences in noise during operation legitimately convey a sense that the car is truly different from other cars, very much akin to the bank vault door close sound. I never get that sense in cars now, everything sounds the same whether it’s a entry level Kia or a Mercedes, but these Lincoln’s didn’t even seem like other Ford’s of the time a all (well, maybe the Tbirds to some degree), it was a legit sense of exclusivity, even if it meant a wild goose chase for the mechanic when they go wrong.
I never really liked the coupes as much since the suicide doors are so iconic to the 60s Continental but yours looked really good in the black on black, it just oozes class. The vinyl is key I think, without it it kind of resembles the 2-door 66 Falcon roofline if it were a hardtop.
Lehman-Peterson built two secret service security-detail cars – specially modified ’67 Lincoln convertibles. They replaced the ’56 Series 75 parade car Fleetwood, known as the “Qween Mary”. The Lincolns were rolling arsenal’s.