Teach Me About 1966 Ford Thunderbirds

My grandmother drove one of these from about 1968 until she stopped driving in her 80s. It replaced a Chrysler Imperial that she couldn't see out of (she was height challenged).

Anyway, when I was much older I got to drive it a few times.

Ugh.

It's huge. And heavy. And surprisingly not roomy. The 390-4v isn't fast. You don't steer it; you aim it. When it needed a new brake booster you couldn't buy one; we had to send the original out to be rebuilt. As it was a family heirloom, I really, really wanted to like it.

I couldn't.

We wound up selling it after she could no longer drive. While it was a decent survivor, it was on the cusp of needing a restoration. And the chrome alone would have cost a fortune to do. Nobody reproduces anything for them so far as I know.

The Bird Nest, Larry's T-Bird, Eckler's, Wilson's all off the top of my head.

People love these cars, there's lots of parts available. Not all but lots of what you need to keep them on the road.

The power top mechanism isn't bad to service if you have the factory manual. All the functions and operations are laid out in a nice "if-then" diagnostic chart.

They're not my favourite T-bird but I've worked on quite a few and they're easy enough to deal with. They share plenty of parts with other F-M-L offerings so it's pretty easy to find and fix.

The FE engine isn't a delight to work on but they do the job well enough, they get poor mileage but it's consistently poor. Uphill, downhill, loaded or empty all seems to be the same.

stuart in mn said:

thatsnowinnebago said:

In reply to stuart in mn :

What would you do instead? (No snark, honest question)

Airbags and big wheels are really only for cosmetics when the car is parked, and won't do anything for its ride and handling.  While a '66 Thunderbird is a cool car, realistically they're not valuable enough to justify the expense and added work, and I think you'd end up with something that's not very enjoyable to drive.  Finally, I understand this is a matter of personal opinion, but in general I don't think pre -1970 cars look right with big wheels...they need tires with some sidewall on them.  I'd stick with 15", but you could go with 16" or maybe 17" at the biggest.

I thought airbags were supposed to ride really well. 

I am really torn with Thunderbirds...its because they split apart what would be the perfect interior/exterior styling from one generation to the other. The 64-66 exterior is definately the best looking...but the 63 had the best looking interior of any car ever IMO with the way the dash console and door panels all flow together:

I often wonder how feasible it would be to put a 63 interior into a 66 to make the perfect cruiser.

If you asked me ten years ago I would have told you 64-66 birds were my least favorite. I've always been partial to 61-63 birds, and yeah the interior has a lot to do with it.

More recently though I've been of the opinion that in the right hands any 60's car can be awesome.  White with a red interior is a great combo, so all you need to do is focus on making it a good runner and giving it some attitude .  They can be made to handle but in my mind they make better cruisers... I'd lean into that idea of steel wheels, those almost always look good on 60's cars..

Also I'm really digging this "sleeper" T-bird I found on the net, so it seems hard to go wrong with this formula:

In reply to jerrysarcastic (Forum Supporter) :

Oh yeah, those baby moons look great on there.