1960's Lincoln Continental 4 door convertibles

[Guest straight shooter]

I am curious to know which is your favorite year of the 1960's Lincoln Continental 4 door convertibles and which year is the most sought after, thanks.

[Guest Dr. Strangelove]

I think these cars are wonderful and not fully appreciated. Ford took a route less traveled in the 60's and hit a home run, IMO. Classicly understated and elegant. The 63/64 models are my favorites.

Edited January 31, 2012 by Dr. Strangelove (see edit history)

[Restorer32]

These cars were talked about a lot maybe 15 year ago and were supposed to be the next big craze but it never seemed to happen.

[gruberv8]

1961 is my favorite. I agree about them being underappreciated. The Hopefully it stays that way so I can get one some day. A same era Chrysler is worth about 3 times what a lincoln is.

[Guest ken bogren]

Classicly understated and elegant.

Exactly!

I'm partial to the 61 to 64 models, ut the 61 is my favorite.

[Steve_Mack_CT]

Like the Continental Mark II, these cars are a little more understated than their contemporaries. I have always thought it takes a real collector's eye to appreciate them. They had a following when new, and the convertibles became collectible after around 10 years - a true sign of a special vehicle, IMHO. The sedans are well designed as well, but have lagged in value of course. '61 - '63 is a shorter wheelbase, very well balanced car but with little legroom for a 4 door. '64 - '65 retained a lot of the original styling queues but the car got longer, and the greenhouse is actually a bit different, the glass does not curve in on the doors as with the earlier cars. Post '65 never really did it for me, but they are a bit cheaper, I think to get into.

Like any car some will like, others not so much, but I think this is one of the cleanest designs of the decade, and would be my first choice for a 60s luxury car.

[Dosmo]

Here is one that has been sitting in the same spot under this shed since 1996. I shot these pics about a month ago. Guy says he has $4400 in car and that is what it will take to buy it. I'm sure there is more rust than what you can see......it is a 65.

[Matt Harwood]

This is another one of those excellent cars (like the Continental Mark II) that I wish I had purchased 5-10 years ago whey they were still relatively affordable.

Maybe these were overlooked for years, but today, they are quickly gaining value, and top examples are approaching the $50,000 mark. Of course, you see a lot of them showing up in rap videos with ridiculous 22-inch wheels or slammed with goofy metallic paint jobs, further eating up the supply of good ones, generating more interest and driving up values.

On the other hand, a neglected one can quickly eat a fistful of $10,000 bills just in restoration costs, so it's important to find a good one. Personally, I like the 1963-1964 models, but they're all fine cars. They were some of the last of the hand-built luxury cars, something we'll probably never see again.

If you want one, now is the time to buy, because I guarantee they'll never get any cheaper. Just be sure to get a good one, not a project. They still aren't valuable enough to justify a frame-off restoration, but perhaps that'll change someday.

[NTX5467]

("Frame off" on a unibody car??? Good heavens!) We know what you mean, though, Matt.

You might also scroll down to the Lincoln forum and pose a similar question, plus probably what to look for in finding "a good one".

Enjoy!

NTX5467

[Guest Jim_Edwards]

This is another one of those excellent cars (like the Continental Mark II) that I wish I had purchased 5-10 years ago whey they were still relatively affordable.

Maybe these were overlooked for years, but today, they are quickly gaining value, and top examples are approaching the $50,000 mark. Of course, you see a lot of them showing up in rap videos with ridiculous 22-inch wheels or slammed with goofy metallic paint jobs, further eating up the supply of good ones, generating more interest and driving up values.

On the other hand, a neglected one can quickly eat a fistful of $10,000 bills just in restoration costs, so it's important to find a good one. Personally, I like the 1963-1964 models, but they're all fine cars. They were some of the last of the hand-built luxury cars, something we'll probably never see again.

If you want one, now is the time to buy, because I guarantee they'll never get any cheaper. Just be sure to get a good one, not a project. They still aren't valuable enough to justify a frame-off restoration, but perhaps that'll change someday.

I'd like to see someone try a frame off restoration of one of those. They're Uni-body cars and they weren't hand built. Went right down the same production line in Wixom as T-Birds.

[Guest straight shooter]

I'd like to see someone try a frame off restoration of one of those. They're Uni-body cars and they weren't hand built. Went right down the same production line in Wixom as T-Birds.

Was a fully optioned thunderbird convertible still less money than a continental convertible?

[NTX5467]

Although the Birds and Continentals might not have been "hand built", there WERE subjected to a 12 mile road test (on the plant grounds, as I recall), then put back into an inspection area to inspect and fix items which needed attention, before the cars left Wixom. But then other luxury makes (except for Cadillacs!) went through similar post-production/pre-shipped driving and inspection activities.

Perhaps the Birds were too high-production for the additional attention, but I recall reading about the Lincolns getting that special treatment.

Not sure when it was put in place OR how long it laster, model year wise.

Enjoy!

NTX5467

[LINC400]

Was a fully optioned thunderbird convertible still less money than a continental convertible?

Yes, $5563.00 for a T-bird sports roadster, the most expensive in 1963. $6916 for a 1963 Lincoln convert, and that is without options, which is unlikely for a Lincoln.

Most on the Lincoln forum seem to prefer 1963-64. Personally, I like the 1961 and 1965 better. The front end on the 1962-64 looks too Chevy-ish to me. While understated and refreshing when new, they look a little bland to me compared to other antiques.

[Steve_Mack_CT]

I once read an in depth article on these - one thing that sticks in my mind was that it apparently took Lincoln 3 days to build one of these to Cadillac's hour or two. little details such as window motors dipped in rubber and fitting the wood trim add quality, but as Matt points out - expense in a proper restoration. These cars were built to last, not be restored and a good one will be the cheaper alternative by far. A screaming deal, IMO, when some much lower quality cars from the same era seem to command so much money...

[X-Frame]

I'd like to see someone try a frame off restoration of one of those. They're Uni-body cars and they weren't hand built. Went right down the same production line in Wixom as T-Birds.

Correct on both points. Lincoln went unibody in 1958 and didn't gain a seperate frame again until 1970.

The first year (1961) was supposed to be such a instant classic in design that it received an award from the Industrial Design Institute. Elwood Engel was the designer and funny that he too was the designer of the 1964 Imperial as well which share some design hints.

Eric

[Matt Harwood]

I guess I got sloppy with my terminology, although I didn't realize that these were unibody cars. That's a GIANT convertible to have no frame under it!

And as far as hand-built, I was implying more of a craftsmanship thing. Yes, I know they were assembly line cars, but the attention to detail and the quality that went into them vanished after platform engineering showed up in the early '70s. That's what I was getting at, not that there were guys hammering out body panels over wooden body bucks or something. Perhaps I should have said these were some of the last of the special cars that the manufacturer cared about giving the customer something beyond just transportation. It was when owning a Lincoln was a significant thing.

Is it nit-pick day or am I getting sloppy?

[West Peterson]

It's nit-pick day. One doesn't hammer out body panels over body bucks, either. They are formed, then the body bucks are used for checking your work.

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

[Steve_Mack_CT]

Isn't everyday nitpick day folks?? If the accounts I read are correct they had to have some personalized attention, maybe not with panel beaters but probably in other areas to fill those three days allotted to build the car start to finish.

Quite possibly the last car to look really good with WWW tires!

[Guest Jim_Edwards]

Somehow I would tend to question any production car in the 1960's having three days on the assembly line. I would think production figures would tend to belie even the possibility of that being the case. Lincoln full size cars from 1958 to last year were only produced in the Wixom plant and from 1958 into the 1970s that plant also produced T-Birds. I personally cannot in my wildest imagination envision any Lincoln being in assembly in that plant for 3 days.

Where is Barry Wolk when we need him?

[Guest straight shooter]

The first year (1961) was supposed to be such a instant classic in design that it received an award from the Industrial Design Institute. Elwood Engel was the designer and funny that he too was the designer of the 1964 Imperial as well which share some design hints.

Eric

Thanks for your post, I always saw similarities between the 61-69 Continentals and the 64-69 Imperials but never knew that they were designed by the same designer. That explains everything.

[X-Frame]

Thanks for your post, I always saw similarities between the 61-69 Continentals and the 64-69 Imperials but never knew that they were designed by the same designer. That explains everything.

I think you mean the 1964-1966 Imperials since they changed in looks and configuration in 1967 (went to unibody and started to be more "Chrysler"). Yup... pick, pick, pick All in fun though (we hope).

The point about special attention to details on these luxury cars, Imperial was tops in that field I personally feel. It was the better bang for your buck and had many unique as well as proprietary details such as how the chrome accents were attached to the cars as opposed to other Chrysler models.

[X-Frame]

Isn't everyday nitpick day folks?? If the accounts I read are correct they had to have some personalized attention, maybe not with panel beaters but probably in other areas to fill those three days allotted to build the car start to finish.

Quite possibly the last car to look really good with WWW tires!

Elsewhere someone posted their new purchase 1970 Riviera with 1.6-inch wide witewalls and they look great. I had them on my 1969 Electra 225 coupe. Hell, I even had wide stripes on my 1981 New Yorker 5th Avenue (not the seperate 5th but an option package then). It had a stainless steel roof and limousine carriage top and mine was in single tone Nightwatch Blue (midnight blue color). Only 500 were made. Mine looked exactly like the one in the attached photo (the car on the bottom) but mine had dark blue leather interior. And can see they still came even in the early 1980s with wide whitewalls.

True, most cars today are not styled for whitewalls at all.

[Barry Wolk]

'67 was the last year for the convertible. They got better over time, however, the styling of the '61 is the purest, but has the smallest interior. The curved side glass of the early cars made the greenhouse rather small.

Mother nature loves to reclaim these cars. That car under the awning would cost far more than that car is worth to fix. Nice examples can still be had for $25,000.

The biggest killers of these cars is mother nature. Ford thought to install a pretty nice drainage system that quickly got clogged up with dirt and rust flakes. They can easily be compromised by hidden rust.

The way to tell if a Lincoln of that era has been rust compromised is to use the bumper jack. Lift the tire off the ground at each corner and check the operation of the doors. If the doors bind the car is structurally unstable. In that case you should turn 180 degrees and run in that direction as fast as you can.

[The Continental]

Granted it's the year I have, but I'll go with 1962. I like the 61-64s over the 65-67s for sure.

[Guest straight shooter]

Granted it's the year I have, but I'll go with 1962. I like the 61-64s over the 65-67s for sure.

I also like the 61-64s over the 65-67s but picking my favorite out of the 61-64s is the hard part. They are so similar.

[The Continental]

I like that the grill of the 1962 is the most unique out of the 4 years, and also the 1962 front clip was used on XP100 which started out as a 1961.

[X-Frame]

As far as year... I guess I am the odd one out of the bunch when it comes to the 1960's and choose 1966. The 1961 would be second with it's unique Thunderbird syle like grill-headlights. That would be for "convertibles" because I have always like the 1968-1/2 (1969) Mark III coupe.

Edited February 2, 2012 by X-Frame (see edit history)

[John_Maine]

The '61 is my favorite. When I was a teenager, I did yard work for a woman who had one as well as a '68 Barracuda. Her garage was a considerable distance from her house so once in awhile, she'd hand me the keys to the Lincoln and ask me to bring it down the driveway to the house. I never refused. It was 8 years old and had about 40K on it. When her husband died at the end of that summer, she sold it to her mailman for $650. I wanted it badly but was commuting 30 miles a day to college and figured I couldn't afford the gas.

[bhambulldog]

1961 is my favorite. I agree about them being underappreciated. The Hopefully it stays that way so I can get one some day. A same era Chrysler is worth about 3 times what a lincoln is.

I like the '61 best for the Grill Bar. Dad had a '66. Those are very nice , too. I've never ridden or driven such a smooth car. Smooth ride Smooth power. And, quiet!!

[bhambulldog]

As far as year... I guess I am the odd one out of the bunch when it comes to the 1960's and choose 1966. The 1961 would be second with it's unique Thunderbird syle like grill-headlights. That would be for "convertibles" because I have always like the 1968-1/2 (1969) Mark III coupe.

I like the '66 for it's size and the interior.

But for the front of the car; I like the '61 for the grill bar.

[X-Frame]

Out of the 1965-1969 style I don't like the front of the 1965 (slightly different than the other years) nor the carryover rear taillights. I prefer the more chiseled sharp edges of the 1966-1969 rear. The 1961 is the oddball out of the bunch and do like it because of that.

[Steve_Mack_CT]

I believe the '61 Tbird and Lincoln Grille and front bumper assembly is actually interchangeable.

[Guest Trombettista_Vecchio]

I believe that the 1961-64 Lincoln Continental is the one domestic car that I loved above all others.  I wrote to Schwartz Performance who claim to be able to put a full-frame chassis under the coachwork, and at that point, that would probably be my dream car. 

 

Fooling around with downloaded pictures and Excel, I've envisioned the convertible model--I'd rather call it a drop-head phaeton--with about six inches of overhang removed from the trunk and added to the wheelbase for more interior cabin room.   It's a cool look and makes the car look a bit more modern without really changing its character. 

 

Some of the added weight to an already heavy car could be recovered by installing an aluminum tall-block Windsor 427 with a 6R80 behind it.  With the right camshaft and EFI tuning, it could probably match the massive torque of the MEL 430 with a substantially lighter engine. Ford's own crate aluminum 427 would never work, but one tuned for low end torque might do the trick.

 

What would really be cool is a matching pair--the open car in Wimbledon White and the saloon in Black Diamond Tricoat.  I'll defend using the Cadillac color because I didn't mentally drop a BBC under the hood like some cretin might do! 

 

Add 1951 Cosmopolitan and 1957 Continental stable mates to that pair and that's one helluva collection.

[Guest my3buicks]

I like the 61-64, the 65 front end is ugly, 66 & 7 I like, 68 & 69 OK

[8E45E]

1967 Continental convertible is my favorite.

 

Rarest of them all is the 1961 4 door hardtop, of which FOUR were made.  I believe one of those four was shown in Science & Mechanics magazine; either the October or November, 1960 issue.  (Whichever one it was that profiled all the new-for-1961 cars).

 

Craig

[Harold]

I had a '63 and like the styling and the way it drove, but mechanically the car was very unreliable and needed repairs seemingly every other week.   At one point it needed a water pump and several local shops declined the job because it was too much work.  My father and I replaced the pump ourselves.

[JamesBulldogMiller55Buick]

I believe that the 1961-64 Lincoln Continental is the one domestic car that I loved above all others.  I wrote to Schwartz Performance who claim to be able to put a full-frame chassis under the coachwork, and at that point, that would probably be my dream car. 

 

Fooling around with downloaded pictures and Excel, I've envisioned the convertible model--I'd rather call it a drop-head phaeton--with about six inches of overhang removed from the trunk and added to the wheelbase for more interior cabin room.   It's a cool look and makes the car look a bit more modern without really changing its character. 

 

Some of the added weight to an already heavy car could be recovered by installing an aluminum tall-block Windsor 427 with a 6R80 behind it.  With the right camshaft and EFI tuning, it could probably match the massive torque of the MEL 430 with a substantially lighter engine. Ford's own crate aluminum 427 would never work, but one tuned for low end torque might do the trick.

 

What would really be cool is a matching pair--the open car in Wimbledon White and the saloon in Black Diamond Tricoat.  I'll defend using the Cadillac color because I didn't mentally drop a BBC under the hood like some cretin might do! 

 

Add 1951 Cosmopolitan and 1957 Continental stable mates to that pair and that's one helluva collection.

yes. to all the above

[Guest Trombettista_Vecchio]

That's a beautiful Buick, James.  My barber had one just like that.  It had to be nice for me to remember it, because I was eight or nine in 1955!

[JamesBulldogMiller55Buick]

That's a beautiful Buick, James. My barber had one just like that. It had to be nice for me to remember it, because I was eight or nine in 1955!

Thanks Trom,

Dad bought the Buick in 1970.

[Barry Wolk]

I'd like to see someone try a frame off restoration of one of those. They're Uni-body cars and they weren't hand built. Went right down the same production line in Wixom as T-Birds.

 The Mark II wasn't "hand-built" either.