1958-1966 Thunderbirds ?
Unlike the pricey 55-57's why are the 58's-66's so resonably priced, often under 12 for well kept cars. To my eye they are handsome inside and out. I would like to know from informed collectors what are the strengths and weaknesses(engine, transmission,suspension,brakes,comfort,electronics,conv. tops,etc. of the 58 to 66 years. What year would you reccommend for a reliable driver, styling aside. Appreciate your opinions. Pining in Maine for a bird in the spring.
Tagged:
0
Comments
The 4-seater was VERY popular when it was new. However, I think collectors just prefer the purity of the '55-57 style. Plus, the '55-57's were all convertibles. While a convertible was offered from 1958-66, it was comparatively rare. They built about 2,000 of them in 1958, and from then on out it rarely sold more than 10,000 units. I'd imagine the convertible models are pretty pricey, although the hardtops are probably reasonable.
The 1958-60 T-birds were unitized, and I think the next two generations were as well. That makes for an extra-solid body, but it also means that rust can be more serious than with a body-on-frame car. They've also got to be more comfortable than the '55-57 style to drive...those 2-seaters were way too cramped inside to be comfy, I'd imagine.
I hear that that the 1958-66 models all handle horribly. "Pig-like" is a common description, although I guess some years may be better than others. They're heavy cars, so they're probably rough on brakes and tires. They actually had problems with getting the convertible ready for production in 1958, so that might be a hint that it's troublesome. And considering that with the convertible, the top stows completely out of sight, under the boot, I imagine that adds to the complexity. Most convertibles back then, the top just sort of flopped down, and if you wanted a finished off look, there was a vinyl cover that you could snap into place to hide it. Sometimes it would still stick up, though.
T-birds tended to come with a lot of power features (windows, locks, etc), and that stuff can get troublesome as it ages. Now it may not be any worse (or better) than GM or Mopar electricals of the time, but it's still 40-50 year old components, and just something else waiting to break.
Considering the size of the engines and the horsepower, I don't think they're really all that quick. And I imagine they guzzle.
Still, they're cool looking cars, and if you just want something nice and old to cruise around in, I'm sure they could be a lot of fun. My favorite of the bunch is the '66, either as a hardtop or convertible (but not the landau coupe with the blind rear quarters). I don't think that's the one most people lust after, though!
I think the point I was trying to make (in my usual obscure way) was that IF you are going to buy a collectible car "to drive" rather than show, then by all means go out and DRIVE one before you buy that particular year and model.
Depending on your tastes and needs, a '65 Bird may please or may discourage you during a prolonged test drive.
Me, myself, I, Shiftright--I have a high tolerance for the limitations of old cars on the road at freeway speeds----however, putting a '65 Bird into a turn at speed can be a very scary business. Perhaps the problem is MINE, in that I do not drive cars like this in the stately manner for which they were built.
You will notice in period ads for the 60s Birds, that, unlike Corvettes, these cars are depicted cruising past golf courses with the driver waving at some squeaky clean rich people, or are parked in front of an opera house with the gentleman in his tux lightly grasping the hand of the be-jeweled wife or GF in her flowing strapless evening gown.
This is a far cry from Corvette ads:
Corvette AD 1966
As opposed to:
T-Bird AD
It also seems that back in that era, you'd see a lot of T-birds of that vintage in movies and tv shows. They were always driven by rich playboys. You knew a guy was hip, swinging, loaded, and a little bit dangerous, if he was driving one of those babies! I remember an episode of "The Alfred Hitchcock Hour" where Robert Redford was playing a spoiled rich boy who offed someone and then ran away with the hot housekeeper, in a '61-63 era T-bird!
As for the handling, I imagine one problem is that while the '58-66 T-birds are actually small-ish cars, they're very heavy, and they're designed for a comfy, big-car ride. So if you've never driven one, the size might be deceiving, making you think it should be a more nimble car than it really is.
Also, some of the car's faults, while noticeable at the time, might not seem so bad today. If you're used to newer cars and the way they handle and perform, then I imagine most cars from that era are going to feel awful. So while a '63 Grand Prix or Riviera might have been a great handling car for the time, compared to a '63 T-bird, put the typical modern-car driver behind the wheel and he's not going to notice the difference. They're all going to feel numb, floaty, and wallowy.
My recollection was that the T-Bird simply did not idle, run or shift as well as a GM car. It's pretty hard to beat a Chevy small block or big block and a TH transmission. Everything slips, slops, dips and squashes in a T-Bird. There's not a clean, sharp, steady, firm molecule in the car's operation IMO. It's like driving a giant bean bag.
I'm pretty familair with these cars and although I like the way they look they can be real dogs to drive and maintain.
My favorite of that era would be a 1965. I just love the style and looks of these.
The 352/390 engines were very good but they couldn't begain to compare with GM's offerings at the time. The Cruisomatic transmissions weren't bad either.
Like Andre said they handle like PIGS. They plow through turns like a cruise ship. Workmanship was mediocre at best. They had constant electrical problems and they would go through front end parts and tires like mad. Thankfully, they went to disc brakes in 1965. The earlier models woulf fry brake linings like no other car could.
As a comparision, a 1965 Buick Riviera was so much better of a car!
Even so, I wouldn't mind having a '65 Bird in my garage.
I just think there are better choices.
Hey, on Ebay there is a 1960 with factory air (rare) with only 23,000 miles! a San Diego car too!
Gore Vidal once called the astronauts "Rotarians in Outer Space" so I'm not so sure they would be the best judges of actual high-performance machinery that rolls on rubber tires. "The Right Stuff" shows some of them in new Corvettes and that seems to exonerate at least a few of them.
I'd surmise that if Mr. Glenn's jet fighter handled like a '58 T-Bird he would have punched out over the desert.
They probably enjoyed the fact that nobody else was
stupidbrave enough to drive an old T Bird fast.(Seriously, though, I thought they were all Corvette guys, and even had some kind of unofficial deal to get them very cheaply).
just to feed your tbird dreams a bit, i found this today:
tbird art
tbirds for sale
An idle curiosity. Perhaps I need to think earlier, substance and quality, let the facileness of the Thunderbird go. If you get this in time check out these two Packards on ebay: 1952 two door 110329744715, and 1950 four door 320327347702. What do you think , your thoughts just from the descriptions and pictures, purely hypothetically. Strengths and weaknesses of the engines? Just for fun, I won't buy one, just grist for the mill in the future.
Thanks
Well they look like decent enough old relics, but being 4-door cars, there is no investment value, and they both seem like bottom of the line models. If they were 2-doors with AC and in nicer colors that might be of more interest to me. The '52 is a 4-door you know!
Both look quite solid I'd say the '50 is worth more.
These are big ponderous beasts with nice, torquey flathead 8 engines. You'd build up your arm muscles, that's for sure. No power steering looks like.
At least with the old T-Birds you are likely to get a more modern engine, power steering and if you're lucky, AC. On the negative side, the T-Bird is like driving a block of ice with a steering wheel. The old Packards should handle a lot better.
I'd choose the '50 for a number of reasons, such as manual transmission and the bathtub styling----but I suspect the paint job isn't very good on the car if you looked closely at it.
so I guess what I'm saying is neither car gets me very excited---they are just "old cars" and nothing special. They don't have the body style, the options, the colors, etc. that might have made them collectibles IMO.
I never liked the style of those "pregnant" Packards, but that 1950 at least looks like it's in nice shape.
The 55-57 Birds have this modernity, whereas the '58-60 seems to regress in my eyes to an earlier and more cluttered look.
Thanks Joe and Happy New Year !
not flashy, but way below your 20k threshhold.
plain 61 bird
ok ok, it's a '66, but under 20k
heck, just go to hemmings and browse!
Just something to think about . . . . . .
The 66' Charger is "BIG", I like it and the price. It is less refined then the 68' which is my favorite year. I prefer the 3 tail lights to the later bar. My boss bought a 69' on ebay, southern car, for $17,000. Two years and $20,000 later the car is still in pieces, needs a complete interior, was riddled with rust and the rear bumper was held on with epoxy. He is wealthy and can afford it but who needs the aggravation. I shiver to think of this happening to me. I need everything done and ready to roll. Thanks for your reply.
We have a nice long list of other topics to discuss the idea of choosing a classic car to buy, or we can start up a new topic for this very project!
As for NASCAR and T-Birds, keep in mind that you can make ANY car go fast and handle if you have the skill and the money.
What you saw on a NASCAR track had very little relation to what you drove away from a Ford dealership.
I mean, they even raced Ford Falcons in the Monte Carlo rally and they raced Crosleys at Lemans!!!
You got time, you got money, you got skill-----? Miracles can and do occur!
It tickles me when I read about Southwest cars that have never been rained on, ever! Living in the Northeast I could almost say the opposite, my car has seldom seen a dry day. In Maine, going anywhere without a functioning top or working wipers would ensure a wet interior and impaired vision. As fantasy can blur with reality, one day I am James Bond driving an Aston Martin (dating myself from early Bond), the next I am Casper Milktoast in a Rambler. On the plus , non-Bond side, so many cars from the 50's and 60's have style that even the most modest, 50 years later, in good shape, still turns heads. I realize no one can know my personal tastes but it is very helpful knowing the strengths and weaknesses of the major auto makers during these years. I don't mind generalizations. You could tell me the transmission was weak on a particular model and that information might help me later. Thank you again for your input.
There's little luxury in a 1960 Corvette and no sports car in a 1960 T-Bird. I think that statement is "fair enough".
I would imagine every car is a "personal car".
Oh, marketing. it's so silly sometimes.
But a Corvette was America's only real sports car back then...now we have Viper, Cobra, etc.
The "Bird" went to "personal luxury" whatever that meant. You definitely did not see them on a race track, except for a few 55-57 Birds and the occasional whacky privateer.
electrical power... It started last week when I was pulling
into a parking lot... I heard a pop and could smell
electric smoke... I cut off the switch and the lights and
tried to restart the engine and it started fine. I when
into the gym and worked out came out drove home (2miles),
every thing was fine. The next day I was driving to school
and after about 15 miles on the highway, when I exited the
engine lost power again, no smell, no pop... I just coasted
to a stop. The car started right up and drove fine for a
couple of days... until today . This time I got about two
miles from home and again it stalled like before. But this
time it wouldn't crank when I turned the switch. No noise
at all... just dead. lights worked, just no starting. After
a while it stated to crank but would not run. At last after
numerous tries it started, but as soon as I put my foot on
the brake the engine died. This happened over and over....
until I finally took of the brake light switch and It was
fine. I drove 5 mile down the highway to exit and turned
around for home. I made it home where I reasembled the
brake light switch etc.
I went out later to the gym and on the way back it happened
again.... I made it home by driving without braking... I
just barely made in to my drive way. Now it will crank
sometime and some time it will start and braking wont
affect it, but it will eventually die without braking,
start again and braking will kill it.
What is my car's problem?
"
As for the brake issue, you may have a vacuum leak, most likely, either in the brake booster or the line that goes to it, or in the intake manifold on the engine.
So I think you actually have at least two separate problems here.
One of the dumbest things Ford did in those years was whern they decided that the parking brake should be released when the car was put in gear. That may be where you are hearing that vacuum leak from. These also had troublesome vacuum door locks that never seemed to work well after a few years.
The swingaway steering wheel had it's own quirks along with the sequestial turn signals.
I think I would disconnect the battery cable when you leave the car. Anytoime you smell electrical smoke, it's not a good thing!
In those days we did almost everything. We installed rebuilt engines, air conditioning, you name it.
A guy insisted that we install a rebuilt engine in his ratty 1965 T-Bird. This would have been in the late 70's. The car was a POS but for some reason, he was attached to it. I tried to talk him out of wasting his money but he insisted.
After we were done, he wanted us to find out why the car drifted all over the road and why the suspension made creeking sounds.
Of course, in typical T-Bird fashion, the front end was shot. Ball joints, upper shafts, you name it. No problem, he said, fix it!
So, we did the work and we were finishing up the alignment. My guy was setting the "toe" which requires the engine to be running on those cars.
All of a sudden, it went into reverse all by itself! This, of course, released the emergency brake and the T-Bird took off in reverse.
My guy looked up from below the T-Bird in the alignment pit, and the T-Bird was GONE! It was backing up at fast idle into my other shop building!
One of my guys was installing a headliner in a car and he barely got out of the way! The T-Bird hit that car, smashed a new Coats tire machine, and slipped into drive from the impact!
Everybody scattered and it ended up head first, over the side, in our alignment pit! A lot of screaming and a lot of bad words were heard!
It took two tow trucks and a lot of skill to get it out!
Surprisingly, the damage to the T-Bird was minimal compared to what it did to the shop!
It took my upholstery guy an hour to quit shaking!
No burning smells after the first time...
Oh there was and after market radio hook hooked up that that I disconnected and thee turn signals sometimes stop working, then the next time I drive the car they are fine... like right now I bet the car will start fine and run for a while, then all of a sudden...................
Come on guys, I know y'all have some better Idea! :sick:
You might want to just replace your ignition switch if you can find one.
Any way for any one who is interested I went out this morning and it started right up... let it warm up .... and went to put it in gear and right after stepping on the brake peddel
Dead switch again
I will try to find a switch somewhere :confuse:
Unrelated to the electrical problem but these old Birds were always causing troubles even when they were fairly new!
It's not an easy car to get running smoothly, has been my past experience. Perennially "lumpy" to say the least.
The T-Bird in question here needs someone who really knows what they are doing to trace the problems down. Anything can be fixed if you throw enough time and money at it.