ps374

Was the 1959 Thunderbird Fords answer to the Corvette challenge of previous eariler Thunderbirds? Specs I found say 0 to 60 in 6;6 seconds with a quater mile of 15.4.The holman moody 59 430 almost won The Daytona 500 that year missing by inches against Richard Petty's Oldsmobile both averaging about 135 MPH.

68hemi

1955/56/57 T Birds were the direct competition for Corvettes. When they went to a 4 seater in 1958 they actually created a new class of car, the luxury sports car. They did so well that most of the American car makers introduce a luxury sports model. They were Buick Riviera, Olds Toronado, Pontiac Grand Prix, Dodge Charger and later Chevrolet Monte Carlo.

GTOguy

THIS^^^^. The four seater 'square-bird' of '58-'60 was in a totally different class than the Corvette and not its competition. The 430 Lincoln-Merc based engine was a good one, as well as the 352 High Performance, which put out 360 HP. Four seater T-Birds outsold the two-seaters something like 3 or 4 or 5 to 1. They were a huge marketing success. The two seaters, although sharp looking, are crappy drivers in my personal opinion. They are nowhere near the performance levels of their contemporary Corvettes....even the dual quad and supercharged ones.

2KREDVert

I had a 60 Mercury with the 430 engine. Ran great but horrible gas mileage. Those cubes get hungry. Best I could do was 10 on the road. Gas was only 29 cents a gallon so we didn't much care.

GTOguy

I fell in love with the '60 Merc at age 2 when visiting friends of the family. They had a white '60 and it had the coolest tail lamps I've ever seen. Have been trying to buy one for the past 40+ years off and on but they are a rare bird indeed. 430 was a gas hog, but smooth as glass and understressed.

polo91

[QUOTE although sharp looking, are crappy drivers in my personal opinion. .[/QUOTE]

I can attest to that, had the dubious honor making and four+ hour trip in a 55 Tbird a couple of years ago. It drove bad, rode bad, uncomfortable, and hot--------other than that it was fine.

jim lockwood

I've read about the cars being uncomfortable and bad drivers many times. What is exactly is wrong with them? And for those who have C1s and have driven the early Birds, how do they compare?

Expiring minds want to know....

larebob

Many 2 seat 'Birds were "restored" many years ago, when standards were poor. I owned a '58 and '59 "Vette and even drove the '59 for 1 100 straight, non stop miles. Spent much time driving and riding in 2 seat 'Birds, as a good friend was an early hoarder (circa 1967). I think you need to compare the T-Birds to the king pin, solid axle Corvettes, and take into account the Corvettes were restored often in a later era, and to a better standard. The 'Birds have long front control arms and not much camber change as a result and the same rear suspension as a Corvette, but worse quality leaf springs. The seating position is poor in both cases, the steering wheel in the Ford is somewhat adjustable, a plus. The Ford had only a non synchro 1st gear 3-speed, but had overdrive, which worked well, but a rare option. The Ford auto was actually a 3 speed, but most guys don't know that because you needed to shift it in and odd manner to get 2nd gear - left alone it was a 2 speed. The Ford Y-Block was, of course, not as good a design as the Chevy, but the rare good ones with the shaft rockers and oiling in order and no sludge behind the filter plate was not really that bad. It seemed like the production quality was pretty good, so they were at least screwed together pretty good (can you say MoPar assembly line work?). The '55 'Bird had no foot level air vent and was 6 volt, the '56 had that conti kit hanging off the back. The best driving one would be a '56 with the continental kit removed and a '57 dash installed - not a realistic dream, as changing stuff isn't a fair comparison. A '57 'Bird with a 292 , overdrive and no heavy hardtop on it was a good match against a '57 Corvette as a "car". The corvette with a 4 speed was more nimble feeling and the current market shows it is more desirable, but a good Ford isn't chopped liver.

polo91

I have driven a later model C1, never a 55-57 so I can't say how they drive. I have driven a 55 and 56 Tbird, they strike me a very heavy for their size. I looked at one here in Texas last Summer for a friend who lives overseas. They rust in places that I don't think can be fixed because the way the one piece body is designed. As much as I dislike a Powerglide, I would take it any day over a Ford-O-Matic, and finally, the valve train is noisy on those old Ford V8s. Put me down for a "no" on old Tbirds.

jim lockwood

You sure about that?

One of my buddies had a '55 F*rd with a F*rdomatic. My memory is that the transmission started out in 2nd gear unless you pulled the gear selector to "LO" (or whatever that range was called) in which case the transmission would start out in 1st gear. I don't remember any odd shifting. It was very straight forward.

SI67

It was Lee Petty, The King's dad, who won the 1959 Daytona 500..

larebob

You pulled the lever up into the above gear, then back down to access the "missing" gear. The Powerglide was a better trans, the Ford-o-matic was, I think, not sure, a Borg Warner rather than a complete Ford design. One of those Ford transmissions was said to be efficient as far as power loss, while another was the opposite. None had the good press of the torqueflight from that era. All obsolete now, of course. Only drove the T-Bird Fordomatics to any extent, which were all floor shifted. Hold the button, start in low, up one notch, pull lever back down the move up once second wound out.
Odd trans note - had a '55 Nomad with a floor shift which wasn't optimised for the 3 speed GM side cover, so shift pattern was reversed - goofy to say the least. Car had a cigarette sucker which sucked your cig into a jar under the hood, power windows, red and white interior.
Also the '55 for sure and maybe the '56 had the trans air cooled, no trans cooler.
Just realized the discrepancy between memories - you needed to shift as I suggested to hold 2nd. If you started in low and just moved the lever up, the 2-3 shift was when the trans "wanted to", if you pulled the lever back to low it would not upshift until you shifted up back into drive. We beat those old cars pretty hard and the wind out was as common as the granny.

tuxnharley

A few years ago I worked for a very successful collector (150+ Cars) who had a 56 and a 57 T birds both semi race prepared by Bill Stroppe. They had 430 Lincoln engines, 4 spd transmissions. HD suspension, and Halibrand mags. I got to drive one for a short distance and was absolutely miserable.

Yes, it had tons of power and was scary fast, but the driving position was ridiculous for me. I think the car must have been designed for someone about 5’7” tall. At 6’2” and 220 lbs that didn’t work for me. The steering wheel was on my chest, there was no leg room to speak of, my thighs were jammed under the steering wheel and my head was so tight against thee underside of the hardtop that I had to bend my neck forward so that my chin was in my chest. It was one of the most miserable driving position I have ever experienced! I couldn’t tolerate it for more than about 15 minutes and my ability to utilize the car properly was severely compromised.

I was very disappointed as I had been really looking forward to the experience.

jim lockwood

I think our memories are converging now. And these are really old memories.... dating back to '64 or so for me. It'd be foolish of me to believe I remember that far back with 100% accuracy.

GTOguy

I concur that I used to want a '55-'56 T-bird until I worked on and drove a few. That changed my mind in a hurry. Same reason I was never really into the '68-up Mopars. They look great but are cheesy crap except for the drivetrains compared to their competition.

polo91

I learned to drive in my parent's 57 Ford with the Thunderbird Special V8. The Ford-O-Matic would start out in 2nd under normal conditions. You could manually put it in low to start if you wanted to, or you could "floor board" it. In the later case the car would move a few feet in second and then shift into low then shift back to 2nd when the speed increased. A few years later I owned a 57 Chevy, much better car.

dplotkin

The original FordOmatic was a Borg Warner design. In 58 Ford improved it and built the Cruise-O-Matic allowing 1st or second gear starts, Your "hold second" routine applies to the Cruise O. They were tough cast iron case units used by Checker in NYC cabs for a long time. I have one of those in a 63 Galaxie. I agree the Torqueflight(s) A466 & 727 are better. I have both of those too. Probably the best torque converter 3 speed ever.

As many note above the T Bird was an imperfect car notwithstanding having sold 16,000 against 600 Corvette for 55. Ford always had a better marketing calculus to offset its mostly lesser automobiles. So when it saw the 53 Corvette show car it decided to bring out something along its lines but that it knew it could sell and likely make a few bucks. Ford used the Corvettes 102" wheelbase to cut down a Fairlane. That's why a mid percentile adult males crown was in line with the windshield header. The car was not designed to be a T Bird so much as a Fairlane shaved like a carrot until it looked like one. So driving position was never good, ride and handling not great either but the car could have power windows and other accessories. The ad below was not aimed at a Corvette buyer and the Corvette no mink coat.

Dan

68hemi

Back in the mid 70s a good friend of mine had a 56 bird he commented on how tight they were to drive and he was only 5’6”s tall. The average People were definitely of smaller stature when these cars were new.

Greg

I currently own a 1957 T-bird and I can tell you, all the above complaints are spot on.
I would say, without fear of contraction, that this is one of the most poorly engineered cars I have ever owned.
As far as I'm concerned the only thing they got right was the styling. The cars look great.
It seems most who buy them (at least those who like to drive their collector cars) will keep them for a year or two and then put them back on the market. Resale is nowhere near as strong or consistent as the Corvette market.
And, compared to Corvette, Camaro, Mustang, etc. the reproduction parts available are just a fraction of those, so it can leave one looking for many used parts, which are way overpriced.
Cheers, Greg

ps374

Actually after doing some research I found the 1959 Thunderbird was faster in straight line performance then most Corvettes of that year. 1959 270 horsepower Corvette did the quater mile in 15.6 seconds. That is a tad slower the 1959 Thunderbird Special 430. I believe Ford put the 430 in the Thunderbird in part to win some customers from Chevrolet and to improve their performance image.