Lincoln Continental Convertibles of the 1960's
In talking to a classic Cadillac owner who's also a Lincoln owner, he asked if I'd ever considered a 1960's Lincoln Continental convertible.
I told him I had, but not seriously like I have Cadillacs. However, he got me thinking and the "wheels in my head" (they're small) started to turn ever so slowly.
So, rather than jump into the deep end, I thought it best to start in the "baby pool" with regard to building my personal knowledge base on this marque.
Therefore, I'm turning to you folks, my cavalcade of classic car experts, as my initial foray into this marque. In terms of this forum discussion, I'd like to learn about '66-'67 Continental convertibles, but I'm certainly open to hearing about other years as well.
So, at the risk of being "shunned" by the Edmunds flock for excessive waffling, I'd appreciate any comments about Continentals of the 60's, but would prefer specific advice/input on 66-67's.
I'll probably also pick brochures on Ebay for 66-67 Continentals. I'm pretty sure '67 was the last year for the Continental convertible.
According to some price guides, it looks like the value of a 66-67 Continental convertible is generally less (by $2K to $5K) than a 62-64 Cadillac convertible (my favorite years) even when compared to an Eldorado. So, one could make the argument that by going Continental, I'd get more car for the money.
But, is this a car I want more of?
I told him I had, but not seriously like I have Cadillacs. However, he got me thinking and the "wheels in my head" (they're small) started to turn ever so slowly.
So, rather than jump into the deep end, I thought it best to start in the "baby pool" with regard to building my personal knowledge base on this marque.
Therefore, I'm turning to you folks, my cavalcade of classic car experts, as my initial foray into this marque. In terms of this forum discussion, I'd like to learn about '66-'67 Continental convertibles, but I'm certainly open to hearing about other years as well.
So, at the risk of being "shunned" by the Edmunds flock for excessive waffling, I'd appreciate any comments about Continentals of the 60's, but would prefer specific advice/input on 66-67's.
I'll probably also pick brochures on Ebay for 66-67 Continentals. I'm pretty sure '67 was the last year for the Continental convertible.
According to some price guides, it looks like the value of a 66-67 Continental convertible is generally less (by $2K to $5K) than a 62-64 Cadillac convertible (my favorite years) even when compared to an Eldorado. So, one could make the argument that by going Continental, I'd get more car for the money.
But, is this a car I want more of?
Tagged:
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Anybody know how much trunk space is available when the convertible top is down? Do you have to use the mechanism to open the trunk or is there a separate conventional pop-up trunk deck?
Not sure about the convertible's trunk room, but here's a pic of a '65 sedan's trunk...
http://www.bumpertobumperinc.com/images/65%20lincoln/MVC-017F.JPG
It's kinda hard to tell from a pic, but it doesn't really look like there's a whole lot of room in there. The car looks like it should have a lot of room, but because it's so low-slung, stuff like the suspension, sub-frame rails, gas tank, etc are going to intrude into trunk space. I'm guessing the spare tire would have to go down in that well for the 'vert, taking up even more room.
Does anyone know if the only access to the trunk was via the power rear lid apparatus or was there also a pop-up trunk thus allowing more conventional trunk access. I suspect the former is true.
A bigger concern is the mechanical complexity of these cars. The top mechanism requires eleven relays, motors and switches. (Ford probably used a lot of the technology and engineering from the 1957-59 Skyliners.) The rear door glass automatically lowers six inches when the door is opened to clear the convertible top. The power window motors were sealed in rubber at the factory.
These cars are beautiful - I especially like the 1961 with its Thunderbird-like grille - but undoubtedly a nightmare to restore. They are probably considerably more complicated than Cadillac or Imperial convertibles.
They can be mechanical nightmares however and handle horribly. The front suspensions are troublesome and the electricals are worse.
Kinda like the T-Birds of that era only worse.
GM offerings were MUCH better in those years.
But there are websites that tell you most of the nightmares and how to go about correcting them. When you get them squared away, they are a real crowd pleaser. Handsome car, the early ones I mean.
I like the first year the best, with the Thunderbird front end. It's a surprisingly sporty look although it probably doesn't blend with the rest of the car as well as the later more formal front end.
Perry Mason drove one, the ultimate product endorsement in those days.
I remember the exhaust manifolds would crack and were a real PITA to replace.
The more I think about it the more nightmares I remember with the 61-67 Lincolns.
Still...they were classy looking, no doubt about that.
Apparently it makes for a really heavy piston. That's probably less of a problem if the engine is intended for low-speed applications, and the 348 was designed for truck use. Maybe Ford thought big-inch engines were just for luxury cars, not racing, although they did have some factory racing parts for the 410.
What's the upside? It's probably makes it easier and cheaper to machine the cylinder head.
Here's a great link...
http://www.favorites.com/~jolly/GMCTruck.htm
Your post is about modern Lincolns and this topic is specifically about "classics" from the 60s.
I'd like to link you over to our Maintenance & Repair Board, and specifically this topic, which I think you will find helpful:
Check Engine Light Topic
thank you
Host
The 61-3 drive very well when properly sorted, and the brakes are redone, with correct 9.50x14 tyres. I drove one 100K and had a great time with it. The convertible top system was the most reliable of the entire decade...being that it DID NOT have the Upper Back Panel Limit Switch used in later cars to cut down the number of relays and switches. All of the convertibles used heavier steel and components to support the added weight and the car drove quite well considering what it was. The 66-67's drive the best and easiest to maintain. The 64-5's are the hardest to maintain, with the 65's being by far the better car.
There is, without doubt, nothing like it on the road. Public acceptance of the car then and now is astounding. Most of them were "driven hard and put away wet" , neglected, abused, and forgotten for many years---thus there problematic reputation, dealers didn't want to fool with them. Ergo many were allowed to rot into dust, and often crushed. Why only 25-33% of these cars have survived of the 15,571 that were made.
Ford Motor's $1.5Mn investment in the system was justified in that it gave Lincoln something that no one else had---a design concept now copied by almost every auto maker today: the automatic retracting convertible top system. I spoke with one of the design engineers for the system, a 22 year old man at the time, at it was all excitement at Lincoln then: "We had a great time doing it...a alot of midnight oil on that."
You forget that without the '61 Lincoln, a car that McNamara threatened to cancel, that Walker & Bordinat saved from the ash-heep of history with the revised E-Studio T-Bird clay in July of 1958, Lincoln would have been history---especially if you have ever seen what they WOULD HAVE built. All you have to do is drive a
60's Lincoln around town to see what people really think.
As for the driving, Lincoln offered disc brakes in '65 before Cadillac and Imperial. A well sorted drum system on the early cars still works OK. A ten year development program yeilded the best results: 65-9 Lincoln brakes being the best of any other car in the world save the 300SEL, and Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow. The system was not "improved" upon until the advent of hydro-boost a decade a later, but then Lincoln used non-Kelsey-Hayes calipers and the car suffered. A good '66-'69 can outdrive many cars, especially the 460 '68-69 Lincoln with almost perfect weight balance owing to the lighter but more powerful engine. No Imperial or Cadillac can keep up.
Quality issues were excellent. Lincoln/Wixom outdid themselves in this department, with each car being driven 15 miles on public roads before being delivered, and the engine plant inspecting every 100th engine. Each car recieved a 189 point inspection program plus an additional 26 point dealer inpsection. Reason being that the 58-60 Lincolns had been a nightmare and nearly killed Lincolnin the market-place.
The four-door convertible, the ultimate "guys" car, with room for a duffle bag and clubs with the top down, personified the era: JFK drove a '63 in Palm Beach. Earle Stanley Gardner, author of the Perry Mason series, having owned many Lincolns including his first Model K in 1933, has his hero driving Lincolns, and thus it came to be that 'Perry Mason' drove a Lincoln. Raymond Burr became a devotee as well, after having the pleasure of Lincoln's company.
For those who think the cars unweildy, wallowing, or what-have-you, you have not driven a good example, and not had the pleasure of the public acclaim driving one. If you can't catch a date driving a Lincoln Continental Four-Door Convertible, then, to paraphrase Winston Churchil, when Lady Astor told him: "Winston you're drunk", and he responded: "I may be drunk, but in the morning, I will be sober, but YOU will still be ugly"; thus it must be so: if you can't catch a date in a Lincoln Continental Convertible, you're still ugly.
DouglasR
I think most of these cars got ratty because they never had the value or prestige of their competitor Cadillacs--being so undervalued, few people were willing to undergo a complex and expensive restoration. They just drove 'em til they dropped.
As for quality, for Ford it was very good at the time but I don't think it approaches its nemesis, the Cadillac.
You'd be hard pressed to find more bullet-proof drivelines, for instance than Cadillacs of the era, and their tops did fit pretty well and kept weather out.
And the survival rate of old Caddies isn't bad, either.
Of the Convertibles, only the 66-67 leaks, the earlier cars don't as long as the top is aligned and the rubber good. The 61-3 tops usually stay working, were-as the 64-67's don't because of the Upper Back Panel Limit switch being out of adjustment, or someone has destroyed it in less than two seconds trying to adjust it without knowing how.... Yes it takes skilled labour to bring one of these cars back. But the factory put them under a third QC review before they were shipped to dealers...when new they were quite nice.
Rolls-Royce were far from being junque at anytime in their history---behind engineering wise, perhaps, but you can always disassemble one, fix and return it to proper glory. They suffer from ill-abuse like any other car, and those are the ones that often have given them---post-facto---a bad reputation. I drove a 1970 Silver Shadow, RHD against a 1969 Lincoln sedan, and outdrove the Lincoln...the RR handling better, and outpacing the Lincoln...Lincoln catching the Rolls in the straights. I was rather shocked, since both cars were mine! We forget that R-R at Crewe only ever had 5,500 people on staff to make an amazing car---today they draw from the whole of BMW AG to make 'the best car in the world'---and it is.
What is true is that in the 1970's Lincoln learned to make their accessories as reliable as the engines, especially considering that suppliers build most of the car. The QC for basic items like trim, body, engines, driveline, etc. are excellent, getting the myraid of features to work is another issue and time consuming.
At the end of the day, LC Convertibles weren't bad cars, an in many places better or equal to anything else then available. Complex, and painstaking to maintain: absolutely. No different than a Ferrari or a Rolls-Royce.
DouglasR
A Lincoln from the 60s would be a breeze to maintain next to a Rolls IMO. I mean, you don't have to pay $8,000 for a brake job do you? On a '61 Rolls you do. You don't need special training to fix most things on a Lincoln, which makes them more appealing than a Ferrari or Rolls---where hobbyists dare not tread.
The V8 was derived from concurrent 1950's technology, coupled with decades of emperical experience at Rolls-Royce. The Merlin engines providing much input in the ultimate arrangement of the Rolls-Royce V8. Rolls-Royce even developed a DOHC version of the V8 in the 1970's---rejecting it due to its excessive noisiness at idle---moving to turbo-charging instead using a 1969 Silver Shadow test mule for its first pre-Bentley Turbo. The strength of the design is shown in the fact that its horsepower has more than doubled in its nearly 50 year production run, now standing at 453Bhp. Dr. Paefgen at Bentley intends to introduce a 550-600Bhp version of this engine in the next Arnage for 2009.
Having extraordinary familiarity with aluminum through its aviation engine history, the V8 used aluminum for both heads and block. Rolls-Royce maintained its characteristic cylinder bore arrangement even in the V8. The Aluminum content of the engine a unique patented/registered combination of aluminum, silicon, nickel, tin, and magnesium---giving great strength and heat dissipation. You can't melt the cylinder heads with a torch...they can get soft, but not break down the material! Failure of the owners to maintain proper coolants and regular flushing of the block caused problems not inherent in the design. Any engine will fail if it can't cool properly. Current use of GM's DEXCOOL prevents breakdown of the coolant passages and scaling of the aluminum.
Lincoln's 430 engine, by contrast borrowed heavily from the same Merlin Engines. The design engineer had worked (If memory serves, a man named Phillip Martel) for Packard during the refit of East Grand Boulevard to produce Merlins in mass quantities. He used many features of the Merlin design for the Y-Block 430, itself derived from the Mark II 368 of 1956. The 462 being the same engine with different cylinder head porting, and enlarged capacity, the basic design lasted only 10 years, the R-R engine nearly fifty years!. The Rolls-Royce engine producing similar power and torque curves at 25% less the weight of the engine---giving the Shadow a nice weight balance for drivability.
The Shadow style was inspired, in part, by the 1961 Lincoln Continental and the Graber Bentley's of the 1950's. John Blatchley, the stylist for the Shadow, admitted as much in a 1969 interview. Elwood Engel, who designed the '61 was also influenced by the same Graber style, and Facel Vega---a car that Blatchley had also looked at. So both cars share many common historical engineering and styling traits.
As for the cost of a brake job on a Shadow: of course it is expensive---it uses air-craft type braking systems in conjunction with the Citroen licensed height control system pressured from two nitrogen accumulators. It is four times as complex as a standard system on a cheaper car---you always have power brakes even if the engine stops running---you get a couple of jabs of the pedal in case of an emergency. The Shadow brought Rolls-Royce to the forefront in the industry in terms of braking capacity, the old Birkigt designed Hispano-Suiza system adopted by Rolls-Royce in the 1920's having outlived its usefulness by the end of the Cloud era. Four wheel disc brakes with three hydraulic power systems and one mechanical system as back-up, all on independent suspension all round, meant the car really stops!. Lincoln could only boast of Kelsey-Hayes Disc Brakes in the front, and that with a single master cylinder prone to failure at 36 months.
Lincoln convertibles and Rolls-Royce do share one thing in common: requiring proper maintenance and service to keep them it good fettle. Otherwise they become a very expensive habit to bring back to the fore. And they both look great in your garage.
DouglasR
(Sources: 'History of a Dimension', S. H. Grylls, Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1963)
There is the very famous story that RR engineers tore down the Hdyramatic, remachined it to Rolls-Royce standards, put it back together and found that it would not work! The 'rough' Cadillac standards were necessary for smooth operation. So Rolls-Royce built them under license to the same specification with an appropriate bell-housing to match their engines, and slightly different valve body to match the shift points and torque curve of the R-R V8. The other issue is that Packard spent $7Mn to develop their own Ultramatic, (also sued by GM for patent infringement, though they lost that battle), spreading their costs over 75,000 units per year (so they planned, meaning its cost $100 per car in the first year and $33 per car in the third year!). For Rolls-Royce to develop their own unit would have cost at least as much, but over volumes of 2,500 cars per year, meant that the transmission would have added at least $2,800 to price of every car in the first year, the costs not amortised over fifteen years to bring it into aligment with either Cadillac or Packard!! Even Lincoln used Hydramatics in the begining, not introducing their own transmission until 1956.
Rolls-Royce did not overdo it on brakes; their testing on concurrent conventional 1950's power systems found fading and failure after repeated hard stopping---which the old system did not do. Thus they went with an adapted Citroen system---prototypes called "Burma" and "Tibet" were driven 1Mn miles before production began. Quite simply, they never wanted their customers to 'restyle' the front ends of their cars because of premature brake failure---major brake service required every 48,000 miles!
Lincoln by contrast, had tried disc brakes in the 1950's on prototypes, but the control mechanism/fluid technology was not up to the pressure/temperature ranges required of disc brakes: the result was boiling brake fluid and loss of brake pressure. 'Treadl-vac' systems used in the 1950's were OK at best and disasterous at worst, they were not up to the task of repeatedly stopping a 5,000 plus pound vehicle. If you have ever driven a 50's Lincoln across the Blue Ridge Parkway you know what I mean. Lincoln did not arrive at a near perfect brake system until 1967-9 with the advent of the combination of Kelsey-Hayes calipers and rotors plus the dual master cylinder made by Bendix. The Hydro-boost system was an improvement over the vacuum booster, but it was coupled with the cheaper single piston Ford derived calipers, which are not as effective as the Kelsey-Hayes units, the rotors were also not as thick and warped sooner.
Test a 1967-9 Lincoln against a Silver Shadow, and throw in a 300Sel for good measure and you can gauge were braking technology really was in the 1960's. It was extraordinarily good, and not outdone until the advent of electronic controls on brakes.
DouglasR
*Use of automatic transmissions in Grant and Sherman tanks used by Montgomery at El Alemain in 1942 allowed the British Army to defeat Rommel's Panzers because they could turn faster into the firing zone, and likewise escape out of firing range before Germans could strike---offsetting the difference in armor plating and gun capacity. Rolls-Royce could not ignore such 'testing'.
I'm not impressed by the mythology of Rolls Royce. It's a great example of a product "resting on its laurels". After WWII, the car simply did not deliver what it promised in the 1930s. The British auto industry was going down the drain and Rolls went with it.
The Rolls is a prime example of useless complication and a waste of talent and resources IMO. Everything was "good on paper" and sounded terribly impressive as churned out by Rolls PR department, but in the real world people are not Spitfire mechanics, they pay $100K for a car and they want to turn the key and drive it (or have their chauffeur drive it). For all that complication in the 70s and 80s, you got a fussy old-fashioned and rather clumsy car better suited to 1935 than 1985. Nice wood and leather though, and the Brits made the very best chrome for a long time. So my two cents about Rolls is: "All show and no go".
The final word on old Rolls Royces from the 70s and 80s is, I think in the resale value. You can't give them away. Buyers run away in droves....they are virtually worthless. You could get more for a nice Camaro than a 70s Rolls.
Cars are like everything else in that it is in the "execution" that it all works out or doesn't. Promises, statistics, specifications, testimony from engineers...all well and good...gee, the Corvair sounded so good, too, and so did the Vega. You'd buy one in a minute if you just read the brochures and never drove the car.
HYDRAMATIC: The Rolls Hydramatic was is a Rolls case and it was valved differently and changed a bit internally, so no, it's not really like your Catalina in the sense that you couldn't switch them. I think Rolls was desperate for an automatic that worked well since they couldn't design one themselves apparently--and didnt' have the money anyway, even if they could.
One has to remember that Rolls was a very undercapitalized company and bled money for decades. The car company was completely unprofitable, and no wonder. Without subsidization from its aircraft division, and its subsequent purchase by the Germans, it would have been long dead, an outdated, uncompetitive and eccentric piece of English history way too long in the tooth for the modern age.
Finally the Rolls is a decent car again, thanks to German technology (and money).
As I'll explain, I've not even bothered to check in here for a few years. For someone who was within a whisker (if not closer) of buying a collector car 4-5 years ago, I've had absolutely no interest over the last two years. But, that's what a divorce will do to you. My passion for collector/classic cars was absolutely and completely sucked out of me. But, I'm much better now. I'm actually allowed to handle sharp objects these days. LOL!
Anyway, more shocked I could not be to see a Lincoln discussion thread I started back in '02 was still alive and kicking - well, alive anyway. Hello Shifty (Joe). Glad to see you're still riding heard here. I'm even more glad you have this outlet again to share your impressive knowledge on this subject. And, I see Andre1969 is still here too. Wonder if any more of the "old guard" are around anymore.
Hope to make return visits here.
Yep we're all here with some new folks, too--but we don't hang out in this discussion much.
We're in Project Cars quite a bit, as you might imagine! Drop over there!
Shifty
Also I went through Hemmings Motor News and picked out two promising websites that sell Lincoln parts for your car, and they might lead you to something else:
www.markii.com
www.lincolnlandinc.com
one's in FLA and the other in Calif.
Everything has to be working just right or else it won't work. The 1957-1959 Ford retractables were even worse!
Dozens of relays, limit switches and miles of wiring!
I find your comments very insightful. I am presently sourcing a nice example to keep. Which year would you recommend for a Sunday car? I live near the tropics and the local climate would discourage having it as a daily car. It would probably get fried. They are awesome cars and I hope I can make a proper decision to keep one for a long long time.
Appreciate your insights.
John
John
http://www.lcoc.org/index.htm
I'd certainly consult them on everything except value estimates.
couldn't get too close due to traffic.
The LCOC is a great reference source. The folks there know these cars backwards and forwards. If you have a technical question, they'll be able to answer it. Still, speaking as a non-Lincoln owner (at least, not yet!), I would say there are more than a few in the LCOC who would challenge Shifty's opinion as to their knowledge of market value regarding these cars. I know an owner/seller is usually the last to catch up to the market, so I'm not necessarily disputing his call. But, it's a good thing he stated that view "in here" and not on the LCOC site. Unless, of course, the laws of chemistry and physics have been suspended and pouring gasoline onto a small fire no longer produces heat.
club members are not disinterested parties, and that's why they aren't good appraisers. They're great for restoration advice, however, and certainly know more than I do on THAT subject.