Wonderful description John, what an amazing viewpoint. I never thought of the Thunderbird or the Continental in that way, but it fits so perfectly.
The '61 gets my vote.
John Merritt
South Lyon, Michigan - USA
I don't mind being in the minority on this one...I vote for the '60.
Barry Levittan
Long Island, NY
I liked the Square Birds. But the '61 Bird and its counterpart, the '61 Continental, set the styling standard for the sixties. It was understated classic elegance. Every line complements the other starting from the sleek bullet nose, that character line running along the shoulder of the car all the way to the back taillights running parallel to the accent just above the rocker panels. It lengthens the car and adds to the illusion of a finely honed instrument designed to cleave the air smoothly. There's just enough of a hood bulge with two sleek creases at each side to connote power as the shut line-free hood sweeps down smoothly into the grille with the contours mimicked at the side view. Standing on the sidewalk, watching one go by, was like seeing a rocketship cleaving the air and watching the afterburners fade into the distance. Car design went from huge and ostentatious in the late fifties to smooth and elegant, starting in 1961 and led by the T-Bird and the Continental. Ford took the rocketship themes of the fifties, refined them, and put good taste on display for the world to see.
This is why America is great. You can have your opinion and favorites and I can have mine. And, we can still like each other because we love cars. Everything you stated about the '61 T-Bird and '61 Lincoln, are exactly the reasons I don't like them.
I was 9 years old when they debuted back in 1961, and I was honestly mortified at their unattractiveness...to my eyes anyway. That dislike for their look and styling is the same today. Just completely odd looking cars with absolutely no character at all.
Hey John, the next rounds on me...two more beers please. God bless you sir!
George Schire
Oakdale, Minnesota
Two very beautiful but different cars. I'm going with the '60 because to me it appears more substantial.
John Bono
North Jersey
I like both but vote for the '61. Question: The early 60s Lincolns tend to be respected as clean and elegant, and whose designs redefined styling trends. Why so few models of them?
I like them both. In person, I find them to be very appealing automobiles. Today I give a slight edge to the '61. I like the '62-'63 Sports Roadster versions even better, but those are not among today's choices.
Quick answer: Lincoln production was around 30K per year, and Cadillac outsold Lincoln nearly 5 to 1 in the early to mid-sixties. One reason for this is that Cadillac had multiple models and series, while Lincoln only had two, 4-door sedan and 4-door convertible. Also, Cadillacs were over $1,000 cheaper than Continentals.
@pete-rovero, the Turbo Coupe was a great car. But, the Super Coupe was awesome. I ran a Ford dealership during that era and usually drove a Turbo Coupe in the summer. Equipped with a 5-speed, it was comfortable and entertaining. When they redesigned the T-Bird in '89, I ordered an Arctic White Super Coupe with a gray leather interior, 5-speed, and a 3.90 rear end. I was astonished by the leap in performance and handling. Neither car gets credit for how well sorted out they were and how great the interiors were.
John Kuvakas
Warrenton, VA
@jkuvakas I couldn't agree more. I ordered my Turbo Coupe with a 5-speed. It actually had more horsepower than the V8 Birds---145 vs 135, and over 30 mpg highway. But the black/black leather SC was incredible. Mine had the 4-speed overdrive automatic. Very comfortable car with adjustable suspension, JBL audio, etc. I added a computer chip and an underdrive pulley to the supercharger and got 30 more horsepower out of it, 215 to 245. It sure had a nice whine to it under acceleration.
@pete-rovero I had an new 85 6 cyl black with grey cloth interior and a new 94 6 cyl both very good vehicles.
Frank Reed
Chesapeake, VA

