(Update: we’re going to dedicate each day of the week to one decade of the T-Bird’s existence. So let’s finish out the gen1 with a couple of vintage ads. The 1958 T-Bird will be covered tomorrow morning in a 1960 T-Bird CC.)
Ford’s advertisements for its new 1955 Thunderbird made it all-too obvious that it was not out to chase Jaguars and Austin Healeys, although allusions to Europeans are made in this ad. It was the first so-called “personal car”, and designed to be a reasonably powerful two-seat car, stable at speed, but not one that would ever impress anyone with sporty handling. The ad copy about its steering is explicit:
Ford engineers don’t go along with the idea that a high-performance car such as the Thunderbird should have overly fast steering for the American highway. It steers with the ease you are accustomed to you can have it power-assisted if you wish.
In other words, slow and soggy, just like a ’54 Ford sedan.
I’ve always loved this one, as it conveys the Thunderbird’s intended demographic so well. And of course there’s just enough of of wifey’s ’55 Ford wagon showing in the garage to drive home another point or two.
In 1956, the spare was moved to the rear bumper, a somewhat controversial move. There was a semi-valid excuse: to create more space in the smallish trunk for actual luggage. Given the T-Birds beefy sedan-derived frame and low body, it really was quite flat. And given that the Thunderbird really wasn’t trying to be a sports car, but a two-passenger personal car, aping the Continental Spare that also was seen in a more muted form on the all-new 1956 Continental MkII, it ‘s understandable in some regards. But the added weight on the rear and yet softer springs created a instability in certain handling circumstances, and for that reason alone, the spare went back in an enlarged (longer)Â trunk for 1957.
“Mink Coat for Father”. If that doesn’t spell out the T-Bird’s role in life, what does?
Well, it wasn’t just for father, it was also for the mistress mother too! She does the hat shopping in the T-Bird, and he drives to the office in his ’57 Fairlane. And who drives the kids?
The new enlarged trunk featured in this ad or brochure page, as well as the new higher output versions of the 312 CID Y-block V8; up to 285 hp. There were even 208 Paxton-McCulloch supercharged T-Birds made with 300 or 340 hp. But realistically, these higher output T-Bird engines were mainly for show and a few publicity dashes in the flying mile or such. The T-Bird never attempted to go racing on road courses, unlike the ’57 Corvette, which acquitted itself very well in 1957.
But that was all soon irrelevant, as Ford moved more fully in the direction already hinted at in this ad: new limousine luxury
Frank Sinatra approves!
I really love good automotive advertising from the 1950s, and the T-Bird campaign was one of the better ones.
I would say that Don Draper and the rest of the Mad Men at Sterling-Cooper would also approve 😉
I am so guilty of doing what father with a mink coat is doing; checking myself out in a shop window reflection while I’m behind the wheel.
We call that “catching storefront” !!!! I do it in my old truck all the time. Nothing like seeing yourself rolling down the road.
A fall 1954 Canadian ad for your collection, Paul (sorry for the tilt). Are the features identical to the US model?
I’m sure they were, as they all came from the same plant. I’m almost certain that none were assembled in Oakville. Would have been pricey, too,as this predated the auto pact by a decade.
I just finished appraising a 56 with porthole and convertible top. It was assembled in the US and carries it’s American VIN number. Very true, it would not have been cost effective to build the T-Bird on this side of the border.
mmm . . . look at all those beautiful colors for 1957! But that the 2015 Mustang would have such variety and real American colors rather than four or five shades of silver/gray/white/black like a BMW.
On the subject of first generation Thunderbirds, who could forget this movie moment? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBmSjNqXsSM
I like this generation and the next. I don’t know what the third was was all about but in my opinion they weren’t T birds.
I really liked the 312 that came along in 57 (for the general public anyway) and wish that power train had been available in my 53. Of course I probably owe my continued existence to the fact that it wasn’t. Too much power and too little weight. I almost killed myself with the 272 in my 55. Not much left of that car when I was done with it. Those ads roll back the years.
“The body is all steel as it should be”. Not so subtle dig at the Corvette.
I’d love to have a framed print of one of these to hang on the wall. The images convey class and 50s innocence in equal measure and are very pleasing. I think the reason for the larger trunk in ’57 was simply to make the larger fins and taillights work. Those came from the ’57 Fairlane which was a lower, longer car than the ’55. I go between preferring the ’55 and ’57 T-birds. I think a black ’55 hardtop looks the best, especially with blackwall tires and the wire wheels, then maybe the Coral ’57. So many great colors in these ads, thanks for posting.
Callibrick, if you look on eBay (thunderbird + advertisement + perhaps 1955, etc. ) you’ll find both original ads/brochures and then some really nice reprints–maybe you can find what you’d like there.
My wife is quite enamored of the Thunderbird name. Despite 25 years of time together, and the purchase of a mint ’89 model for her (in early ’93), and the purchase of a 1st gen ceramic Christmas ornament for her, I’ve never asked her quite why. She took notice of the last gen retro Bird, and if we weren’t knee deep in kids, we’d have probably bought her one. With Bird week, I’ll have to ask her for her take on the breed.
I’ve always been a partisan of the ’64 – ’66, a controversial model in its own right. I’m looking forward to the commentary as the T-Bird evolves this week. I’ll also admit a liking for the Mark IV Birds – we should start calling them Big Bird, for both love and derision. Should be a fun week!
“just over 3,000 pounds.” This was way more portly than I’d have assumed. My ’72 “mega” B body Pontiac Grandville struggled to break 4K. Ordering AC was the trick to put it over.
When you base a car on a bigger platform, it typically ends up being not a lot lighter than the larger car because a lot of the heaviest structural elements aren’t much if any smaller or lighter. Other examples include the 1970–1974 Chrysler E-bodies, which were based on the B-body intermediate shell. Rearranging sheet metal and trimming overhang or even lopping a few inches out of the frame longitudinally doesn’t really make a big difference in total mass and if the smaller car has more glass area, it may even end up heavier than its bigger brother.
Apparently Ford felt that the “womenfolk” were incapable of shifting their own gears.
Very cool ads!
The “6am…Thunderbird Time” is my favorite, there is a color version of the ad, I’ve always liked it ever since I saw it in an old magazine somewhere as a kid, the artist conveys “moneyed lifestyle of leisure” with a simple illustration, the elegant 2 story house, the black Thunderbird and the matching Ford wagon in the large 2 car garage, the big red irish setter, the middle aged sport coated driver, the light on in the upstairs bedroom, its all so perfect.
……and fresh milk daily delivered to the doorsteps.
1964bler,
Women being incapable or not wanting to shift gears is an assumption all car makers have harbored since soon after the car was invented.
My 66 year old sister vowed to only own a car with a manual transmission….right up until her husband talked her out of her 99 Mustang and into a Prius. She’s on her 2nd Prius and thinks it’s the world’s greatest car. My younger sisters have driven cars with manual transmissions but only one ever owned one.
I’m surprised Ford ever offered a T-Bird with manual steering. Manual brakes wouldn’t have surprised me.
“An all-day trip is refreshing – not fagging.” What more can one ask of a GT? I think the Europeans were paying attention to the Thunderbird. A coupe years ago, I saw a 1955 T-bird in front of a Mercedes-Benz Pagoda SL. The similarity was striking between the cleanly styled ’55 and the 230SL. Reading the copy in the first ad, it could almost be describing the second generation SL. Compared to conventional sports cars, the W113 is a heavy, soft riding, slow steering, often automatic-equipped practical car with a removable hard top and a nice convertible top. Somehow the formula had more staying power in Stuttgart.
I’ve never head the word “fagging” used that way (as a synonym for “tiring”).
As for why that basic formula had more staying power in Stuttgart – Robert McNamara wasn’t in charge there. He wanted to kill the two-seater, because it wasn’t making enough money. He believed that a Thunderbird with four seats would sell better and make more money.
A long long time ago before it became an insult, being fagged meant being tired. Now it means something else and I never heard of fagging either. However, according to my urban dictionary it is “An exclamatory term of disbelief.”, There is not a single acceptable associated word so I think the acceptable public use of the word is over.
I think I’ve seen “fagged” as a synonym for “tired” mostly in British literature, maybe Sherlock Holmes or something of that era (sounds like something Watson would say, when trying to keep up with the coke fiend — If my Kindle was handy, I would check). Was trying to sound British possibly a backhanded jab at Jaguar?
I think you’re right. I’ve seen it used in British books, but don’t remember hearing it used, even as a child.
Fag is also another name for cigarette…at least in the U.K. You can go into a tobacconist shop and get “…a pack of fags” if you are so inclined.
Considering how different the 2 and 4 seat Thunderbirds were, you have to wonder why Ford didn’t go with an all new name. Perhaps because of how much trouble they had coming up with Thunderbird?
The Thunderbird name already had a lot of equity by the time the 1958 model debuted. It wouldn’t have made sense to abandon it, particularly since the two-seat Thunderbird was going away after the 1957 model year.
In Ford’s view, both were “personal” cars. One just had a back seat.
Duck soup with sherry. Wow. How very fifties elegance!
Though, personally, I don’t think I’d equate my autobox to a bowl of soup…
memory seats! neat
Not an ad, but a very early buff-magazine feature, with a bit of proto-typey look to it, and the reminder of how late the “Fairlane” name was in the running:
My favorite line in the ad is a picture of a woman’s shoe with just the tip touching the brake pedal. ‘You can put a light bulb between your foot and the brake pedal and bring your Thunderbird to a full halt without cracking the glass!’
I think the 55-57 T-bird really is a case of lightning in a bottle, as I can’t picture any subsequent Ford sedan that could have been distilled down to such an elegant roadster.
Great comparison to the Pagoda SL too CJinSD, there are striking similarities with that car both in layout/basis, styling and lasting desirability/collectability.
Going to a 4-seat layout doesn’t seem to have been a huge stretch, obviously it was a well-received move but also the baby Bird wasn’t a particularly small 2-seater so while a significant jump I don’t think there were that many people who wouldn’t have made the transition?
Sometime last winter I was browsing an antique mall and flea market. There was a book that caught my eye: “Thunderbird Chronicle” by the Auto Editors of Consumer Guide. I bought it and the cashier, a women in her early sixties, commented on the car: “We had a Thunderbird once. I loved that car!” She carried on about that car quite some time. I never expected that.
This car in almost any edition makes people look good and feel good about them selves. I noticed that when a square bird cruised by, a big bird was on display at the car meet or seeing that guy who lives down the street and drives his MN12 to work every day. The people driving these birds express some pride that is different from let’s say Mustang drivers. It is difficult to find the right words for it. They know what they have in their cars. They radiate self confidence.
“slow and soggy…just like a ’54 Ford sedan”.
Well, compared to modern standards, perhaps so.
But when compared to 1954 standards? Perhaps not so much??
A ’54 Ford sedan, with their new overhead valve V8 engine, “3-on-the-tree” manual transmission and overdrive, was quite quick when compared to the ancient “six-in-a-row-that-don’t-go” inline six cylinder Chevy engine and 2 speed “slip-n-slide PowerGlide” transmission..
Plymouth was no better than Chevy in ’54…….’course that would soon change.
You missed my point. I’m not comparing the ’54 Ford to other American cars. European sports cars (and sedans too) at the time had decidedly quicker and more responsive steering. In this ad, That was one of the biggest positives about cars like the MG, despite it being no faster than a ’54 Ford. Buyers of European cars were not happy with the typical American car steering at the time. Ford is trying to turn a negative into a positive. I can’t blame them for that, but it’s a fact.
Small wonder that Ford called it a “personal car”, hey?