Ford Thunderbird 1955-1959, from Stunning to Clunky in 5 short years.

[Gunsmoke]

I have always loved the look of the original 1955 Ford Thunderbird, it's simple and understated styling was such a divergence from the prevailing styling cues of the big 3. But for some likely unexplainable reason (slow sales, marketing lust, corporate stupidity, changes of designers, etc), over a short 5 years period they turned the model into a real clunker. Indeed, from many people's perspectives, the T-Bird never again became a stunner. The second half of the 50's was a bad time for big 3 car design decisions, perhaps none more obvious than the decisions on evolution (or de-evolution) of the T-Bird. A couple of proof of concept from the internet. I'm sure similar stories can be demonstrated for other makes.

[Rusty_OToole]

There was a lot going on at Ford in the fifties. They were trying to expand their market coverage from Ford, Mercury, Lincoln to better compete with other full line companies like GM and Chrysler. Somehow they found themselves with 2 expensive low production specialty cars, the Thunderbird and Continental. Someone decided to simplify things a bit by replacing both cars with a new 4 seater Thunderbird that resembled a Continental as a personal luxury car at a lower price. The result was a sales sensation, outselling the 2 seater Tbird and Continental combined, one of only 2 cars to increase sales in that recession year the other being Rambler. This at a time when other upper medium priced and high priced cars like DeSoto, Packard and Hudson were dying on the vine and Buick and Oldsmobile saw their sales cut in half.

This was a great move from a sales and marketing standpoint although some enthusiasts would have preferred Tbird to go in a different direction.

Edited May 31, 2023 by Rusty_OToole (see edit history)

[Avanti Bill]

As much as I don't care for the Square Birds lines the production numbers tell the story.  By 61 they were back on track styling wise.

[48Super]

Sorry, I must disagree with your calling the '58-'60 T-Birds clunkers. I owned a 17,000 mile all original 1960 T-bird for over 20 years and I always thought it was a great looking car. Yes, the 2 seater T-Birds  were sporty and cool but the increased sales of the 4 seat version is what helped the T-Bird live on for so long.

[dictator27]

The 55 to 57 Tbirds were never intended to be high volume cars, but I think Ford overestimated their sales expectations.  One criticism of the car was a cramped driving position.  Someone near 6 foot 6 (me) didn't fit.  Personally, I have never liked having the steering wheel in my lap.  I like it as far away as possible, preferable arms length.  That was just not going to  happen in the 55/57 Tbirds.  It does in the square birds.

[PWN]

5 minutes ago, 48Super said:

Sorry, I must disagree with your calling the '58-'60 T-Birds clunkers. I owned a 17,000 mile all original 1960 T-bird for over 20 years and I always thought it was a great looking car. Yes, the 2 seater T-Birds  were sporty and cool but the increased sales of the 4 seat version is what helped the T-Bird live on for so long.

I see the making of an Edsel in that design!

[Pete O]

Clunky is in the eye of the beholder.  And clunky is subject to 65 years of changing tastes.   When the second generation T-Bird first came out,  it was an immediate sales success, selling at a pace 4x that of the 2 seater.  It was very low and sleek compared to contemporary cars, and the doodads and sculpturing on the flanks was the style of the day.   

[oldford]

Gunsmoke, I think you and I must be in the minority. My opinion, which doesn't stand for much, is the you were being gracious in calling the later T-Birds clunky.

 

Frank

[60FlatTop]

If there had not been a cry for the return of the 2 seater T-Bird Lee Iaccoca wouldn't have told the design department to shorten the deck and lengthen the hood on the 6 cylinder Falcon to make a 3.2 liter sports car for the guys with snap down caps and patches on the sleeves of their sport coats.

 

Over 3 liters, whoopty doo. Big deal today, still.

[John348]

3 hours ago, 48Super said:

Sorry, I must disagree with your calling the '58-'60 T-Birds clunkers. I owned a 17,000 mile all original 1960 T-bird for over 20 years and I always thought it was a great looking car. Yes, the 2 seater T-Birds  were sporty and cool but the increased sales of the 4 seat version is what helped the T-Bird live on for so long.

I agree, the big birds seem to have copied a lot of Harley's influence in the design especially the tri-taillight treatment, very stunning design,  very non Ford looking design, (to me anyway) I never cared much for many Post War Ford designs but I always felt the big birds nailed it. They made a statement.  I can see Paul drake driving his now on Perry Mason. He did drive a small bird as well. He just looked awkward in it as he was a tall man.

 

 

 

  

Edited May 31, 2023 by John348 (see edit history)

[1935Packard]

Look on the bright side: They only made the sharp 2-seater for 3 years, but you can still buy them today pretty cheaply and enjoy the three-years-only styling. 

[60FlatTop]

I have very intimate experience with one 1956 Thunderbird. Mechanically I made it run smooth enough to set a flat bottomed ice cream cone on the air cleaner while it was idling at a cruise night. As a GM guy I would never be happy with the body fit. Closing the doors, operating the windows, gaps, and lines were just too poor when I was used to Buicks.

 

[JamesR]

This is one of those "put your money where your mouth is" type discussions. Some well known automotive journalists of the mid-1950's didn't like that Thunderbird had gone from a more sporting two seater to a more personal luxury oriented four seater in 1958, and said so in their columns. A lot of people in the enthusiast community mirrored that opinion in casual discussion back then.  As some commenters in this thread have mentioned, the public at large didn't share the enthusiasts opinion. I believe the first year of the four seater version ('58) sold as much or more than all three years of the two seater T-Birds combined. If American was so in love with the two seater version, they should've bought more of them.

 

As far as styling goes, does the '59 Chevy look as good the '55 - '57 Chevy models? Late fifties styling (for American cars) is very different than mid fifties styling; It's much more extreme and stylists took greater risks. Many cars of the era were considered rather vulgar buy some people. That was true across the board, and not just true of one model or make. Doesn't matter - I still like the looks of the square bird. As for two seaters, the '55 T-Bird was never intended to be a sports car in the vein of the Corvette or XK-140. With that in mind, it's my opinion that the T-Bird evolved in a way that was consistent with the original vision of the car - personal luxury.

 

 

Edited May 31, 2023 by JamesR (see edit history)

[bryankazmer]

The initial Corvette was no sports car either.  It evolved in another direction.

[8E45E]

2 hours ago, JamesR said:

If American was so in love with the two seater version, they should've bought more of them.

They got their second chance in 2004.

 

Craig

[John348]

Just now, 8E45E said:

They got their second chance in 2004.

 

Craig

They did not buy a lot of them either

[60FlatTop]

I like the Square Birds. Those and the Exner styled 1970s are favorites of mine. Ford's whole full size lineup was echoing the Exner team revival styles from '68-'76.

 

This one suits my taste just fine.

 

 

My 1971 Ford LTD had some of those revival lines.

 

Back in 2018 I had a project trauma and was considering quartering this abandoned '59 and mounting it on a Lincoln MK VIII platform. I guess divine intervention saved me somehow.

 

[Buffalowed Bill]

I'm a little more forgiving of the direction that Ford took with the TBird. In 1958 it became the genesis for the whole Personal Luxury Car theme, which would become one of the hallmarks of US car manufacture for decades. I drive descendants of the "clunky" TBirds daily. In my 90's TBirds and Lincoln Mark Vlll's I find the comfort and utility that suites me.

 

This is where the groundwork was laid for some of the other cars that I love. I wonder if there would have been the impetus for two of my favorite cars in our collection-1963 and 1965 Buick Rivieras?   

[Rusty_OToole]

Don't think of it as a bloated Bird. Think of it as a cut price Continental.

Edited June 1, 2023 by Rusty_OToole (see edit history)

[Pfeil]

10 hours ago, dictator27 said:

The 55 to 57 Tbirds were never intended to be high volume cars, but I think Ford overestimated their sales expectations.  One criticism of the car was a cramped driving position.  Someone near 6 foot 6 (me) didn't fit.  Personally, I have never liked having the steering wheel in my lap.  I like it as far away as possible, preferable arms length.  That was just not going to  happen in the 55/57 Tbirds.  It does in the square birds.

Steering wheel in the lap. I didn't like it either, and it doesn't matter if it's a T-Bird or a Corvette or and E type.

[Pfeil]

7 hours ago, John348 said:

I agree, the big birds seem to have copied a lot of Harley's influence in the design especially the tri-taillight treatment, very stunning design,  very non Ford looking design, (to me anyway) I never cared much for many Post War Ford designs but I always felt the big birds nailed it. They made a statement.  I can see Paul drake driving his now on Perry Mason. He did drive a small bird as well. He just looked awkward in it as he was a tall man.

 

 

 

  

I wonder John. Just how did he fit??

[rocketraider]

Considering McNamara was slashing and burning his way thru Ford at that time it's amazing the cars were built at all after 1958. But there were also marketing people and executives at Ford who understood the value of a halo car.

 

3 hours ago, John348 said:

They did not buy a lot of them either

 Wanted one when they appeared in 2002. Couldn't afford one then, and now that they're reasonably affordable nice ones in good colors aren't easy to find. The last few I've found within reasonable inspection driving distance have been some shade of gray, solid white, or bright red. None of which send me.

 

Some claimed the last generation were underpowered, others that they weren't distinctive enough. Baloney. I think the sh*t color offerings had as much to do with it as anything. One does not buy a statement car like a Thunderbird to blend into the background.

[Pfeil]

8 minutes ago, rocketraider said:

Considering McNamara was slashing and burning his way thru Ford at that time it's amazing the cars were built at all after 1958. But there were also marketing people and executives at Ford who understood the value of a halo car.

 

 Wanted one when they appeared in 2002. Couldn't afford one then, and now that they're reasonably affordable nice ones in good colors aren't easy to find. The last few I've found within reasonable inspection driving distance have been some shade of gray, solid white, or bright red. None of which send me.

 

Some claimed the last generation were underpowered, others that they weren't distinctive enough. Baloney. I think the sh*t color offerings had as much to do with it as anything. One does not buy a statement car like a Thunderbird to blend into the background.

Unless you live in Phoenix.

[rocketraider]

Diamond white I could live with! It's the plain solid white that bores me and makes me keep me money in me pocket!🤑

[EmTee]

My son-in-law's father has a "Thunderbird Blue" (aka: turquoise) one.  It is a pretty car.

[Avanti Bill]

I have an 05 and it has plenty of power and has been a good car, very low miles it stays in Florida and only gets a few miles per winter.  It's a 50th anniversary edition in Pearl which I think is a good color.   

[bryankazmer]

The 2002 - version was very much in the spirit of the original 55-57.  A pretty cruiser with reasonable but not high performance power.  I think 0-60 is about 7 sec.  Neither was ever intended to be a full-on sports car, so it's a bit unfair to compare it that way.

 

I think the complete miss was the first Corvette.  Powerglide???

[John Kelso]

My first car in 1966 was a 1960 Thunderbird Convertible. Loved everything about the car and had it for several years and many miles. Have owned a

couple early birds but never liked them.

[Pfeil]

12 hours ago, rocketraider said:

Diamond white I could live with! It's the plain solid white that bores me and makes me keep me money in me pocket!🤑

I live in Prescott Arizona, down in the valley of the sun (Phoenix) the percentage of white cars is off the charts, and for good reason. In 2019 I bought a new truck. I must admit I wanted black-super black. The only reason I ordered super white was because they didn't offer a real black. The black was metallic, I believe silver flakes in it. My other driver car is a 2012 and is painted in super black. If you get a ding or worse, it's easy to match that paint.  

[Gunsmoke]

Interesting commentary on my original post. My initial focus was on the matter of visual design, i.e. clean cut versus cluttered, clunky or "pimped. While the move to seating for 4 (and more HP) was likely responsible for increased sales (more a family car), no doubt a 4 seat version of the 1955/56 models could have been easily done without tossing out the clean and uncluttered look. The reality as someone suggested above was that the big 3 at the time were competing for sales, and changing "model looks" every year was their business model, and adding more and more cosmetic bumps, chrome, curves and fins, more horses, and "bigger and longer" was unfortunately their solution. They made very little attempt at refining anything, just deliver something "NEW" every year. If they had only focused on making the 55 Bird a higher performing car just as it looked with a smallish second row seating option, it may have been a real winner. 

Edited June 1, 2023 by Gunsmoke (see edit history)

[bryankazmer]

1 hour ago, Gunsmoke said:

 If they had only focused on making the 55 Bird a higher performing car just as it looked with a smallish second row seating option, it may have been a real winner. 

Sounds a bit like the 1955-6 Chrysler 300.

Chrome, fins, bulk were "in" in 1958.  I think Ford made the right call for the time.

The reception for the cleaner look would be better in the early 60's - Engel's designs, the Riviera, even the Avanti

 

[Gunsmoke]

The notion "Chrome, fins, bulk were "in" in 1958" is interesting because the "in" came about because of the aggressive marketing and design decisions made by the big 3. They dominated the marketplace and so in my view they abandoned good car design for a few years in an effort to increase their market share and started pimping up the cars until about 1960/61. I know it's a matter of taste of course and some love "less is more" (like the '55 Bird) and some love those late 50's land yachts the "more is more" crowd (like a '59 Bird or Caddy).  

[JamesR]

8 hours ago, Avanti Bill said:

I have an 05 and it has plenty of power and has been a good car, very low miles it stays in Florida and only gets a few miles per winter.  It's a 50th anniversary edition in Pearl which I think is a good color.   

I love the last series of two seater T-Birds from that era. When I was visiting my son in Phoenix a couple of years ago, I saw a young lady driving a really great looking light aqua/turquoise T-Bird of that vintage. I remember thinking it had so much more class than what many young people drive today. If I every get tired of crawling under cars from the '50's, '60's and '70's to deal with the constant maintenance they require, I might trade them off on a mid-2000's T-Bird.

[Pfeil]

3 hours ago, Gunsmoke said:

The notion "Chrome, fins, bulk were "in" in 1958" is interesting because the "in" came about because of the aggressive marketing and design decisions made by the big 3. They dominated the marketplace and so in my view they abandoned good car design for a few years in an effort to increase their market share and started pimping up the cars until about 1960/61. I know it's a matter of taste of course and some love "less is more" (like the '55 Bird) and some love those late 50's land yachts the "more is more" crowd (like a '59 Bird or Caddy).  

A 59 Bird and 59 Caddy are apples and oranges. In the 58-60 T-Birds they are basically the same, it's just bits and pieces but IMO the 59 is the best looking, especially the front end. I remember one of the car shows on TV and the host who didn't know much asked the owner of a 59 if the front grille was customized or not. It's the front grille of the 59 that does it for me. And all three years, and later T birds as well show other car makers how to stow a convertible top. They look so clean without all that hardware sitting out back, even the ones with fiberglass covers.

From worst to best.

 

1960>>1958

>1959

 

And that flush rear deck when the top is down is the way to do it. A+ Ford! Some of you know I'm an Olds/Pontiac guy.

Edited June 2, 2023 by Pfeil (see edit history)

[Ed Luddy]

On 5/31/2023 at 5:30 PM, 8E45E said:

They got their second chance in 2004.

 

Craig

It was 2002, 1st year for the new T-Bird 2seater.

[John Bloom]

Of all the older collectible cars I’ve had in my lifetime, if you asked me which one just really didn’t live up to my expectations, it would probably be the 55 Tbird.  I have always thought they were good looking and I still do. I was really excited when I got this car, but over the seven or eight years I had it, it just never really impressed me. I was trying to describe this to a buddy who had one as well, and as we were talking he was nodding his head up and down and used  the phrase “kit car”.  I think he was onto something. I used to wonder is it just my example???  but I have since heard from many people who had those early Tbird‘s say the same thing. The build quality just was not up to the standards of what other Makes offered.  I still smile when I see them, but I think I got it out of my system.

 

I can’t really speak about the square birds since I’ve never had one. 

Maybe I could fall again for a 57 Coral sand Bird. 

 

[JamesR]

40 minutes ago, John Bloom said:

Of all the older collectible cars I’ve had in my lifetime, if you asked me which one just really didn’t live up to my expectations, it would probably be the 55 Tbird.  I have always thought they were good looking and I still do. I was really excited when I got this car, but over the seven or eight years I had it, it just never really impressed me. I was trying to describe this to a buddy who had one as well, and as we were talking he was nodding his head up and down and used  the phrase “kit car”.  I think he was onto something. I used to wonder is it just my example???  but I have since heard from many people who had those early Tbird‘s say the same thing. The build quality just was not up to the standards of what other Makes offered.  I still smile when I see them, but I think I got it out of my system.

 

I can’t really speak about the square birds since I’ve never had one. 

Maybe I could fall again for a 57 Coral sand Bird. 

 

 

Yes, it sure is pretty, John. I also love that styling. It really is timeless.

[Duck Flower]

😄😅🤣

Edited June 3, 2023 by Swedish Car Nut (see edit history)

[Ed Luddy]

Back in 1979 I had a 78 Trans Am SE (Bandit) and my buddy bought a 55 T-Bird. White, 3 speed stick. His girlfriend hated it, and loved my Trans Am.

So he always asked me to trade cars when he had a date with her. I always said yes. He sold the Bird and bought my Trans Am in 80.

[Pfeil]

4 hours ago, Ed Luddy said:

Back in 1979 I had a 78 Trans Am SE (Bandit) and my buddy bought a 55 T-Bird. White, 3 speed stick. His girlfriend hated it, and loved my Trans Am.

So he always asked me to trade cars when he had a date with her. I always said yes. He sold the Bird and bought my Trans Am in 80.

But what happened to the girl???