Ask the Car People.SM


Lincoln Continental Convertibles of the 1960's

66 messages,  Last post on Mar 16, 2010 at 7:02 PM

You are in the Classic Cars Forum.

What is this discussion about? Lincoln Continental, Convertible

Messages Page 1 of 7

#1 of 66 Here we go again. by parm

Jul 02, 2002 (9:48 pm)

In talking to a classic Cadillac owner who's also a Lincoln owner, he asked if I'd ever considered a 1960's Lincoln Continental convertible.
 
I told him I had, but not seriously like I have Cadillacs. However, he got me thinking and the "wheels in my head" (they're small) started to turn ever so slowly.
 
So, rather than jump into the deep end, I thought it best to start in the "baby pool" with regard to building my personal knowledge base on this marque.
 
Therefore, I'm turning to you folks, my cavalcade of classic car experts, as my initial foray into this marque. In terms of this forum discussion, I'd like to learn about '66-'67 Continental convertibles, but I'm certainly open to hearing about other years as well.
 
So, at the risk of being "shunned" by the Edmunds flock for excessive waffling, I'd appreciate any comments about Continentals of the 60's, but would prefer specific advice/input on 66-67's.
 
I'll probably also pick brochures on Ebay for 66-67 Continentals. I'm pretty sure '67 was the last year for the Continental convertible.
 
According to some price guides, it looks like the value of a 66-67 Continental convertible is generally less (by $2K to $5K) than a 62-64 Cadillac convertible (my favorite years) even when compared to an Eldorado. So, one could make the argument that by going Continental, I'd get more car for the money.
 
But, is this a car I want more of?

#2 of 66 parm by ghulet

Jul 02, 2002 (10:44 pm)

Is there a reason (other than styling) that you prefer the '66-67 over the '61-65? I like the styling on both, the '66-67s are generally a bit cheaper. Do know that they are GIGANTIC cars (221 inches long, 5500 pounds, which is about 800 pounds heavier than a '62 Eldo) and that the top mechanism is beyond complicated. I'm guessing a suuuper nice convertible should be around $15k. I probably wouldn't touch a needy example, they're not cheap to restore.

#3 of 66 Preference by parm

Jul 03, 2002 (6:03 am)

I don't car for the styling of the 61-65's. But, I do like the 66-67 models. Yeah, these things are huge. At 221 inches, they're almost identical in length to a '62 Eldorado (222 inches).
 
Anybody know how much trunk space is available when the convertible top is down? Do you have to use the mechanism to open the trunk or is there a separate conventional pop-up trunk deck?

#4 of 66 I think my favorites... by andre1969

Jul 03, 2002 (6:17 am)

...are the '62-64. I didn't care too much for the '61's grille...has that T-bird-era "peakiness" to it. And the '65 just has kind of a cheap, pretentious look to it. More like a Mercury or Chrysler than a Lincoln.

Not sure about the convertible's trunk room, but here's a pic of a '65 sedan's trunk...

http://www.bumpertobumperinc.com/images/65%20lincoln/MVC-017F.JPG

It's kinda hard to tell from a pic, but it doesn't really look like there's a whole lot of room in there. The car looks like it should have a lot of room, but because it's so low-slung, stuff like the suspension, sub-frame rails, gas tank, etc are going to intrude into trunk space. I'm guessing the spare tire would have to go down in that well for the 'vert, taking up even more room.

#5 of 66 Trunk space with convertible by parm

Jul 03, 2002 (7:35 pm)

The convertible "Flair Bird" (64-66 T-Birds) had nearly zero useable trunk space when the top was folded down. I would think buyers of a Lincoln convertible would demand some useable trunk space with the top down.
 
Does anyone know if the only access to the trunk was via the power rear lid apparatus or was there also a pop-up trunk thus allowing more conventional trunk access. I suspect the former is true.

#6 of 66 I'm pretty sure... by ghulet

Jul 03, 2002 (8:11 pm)

...the trunk was 'normally' accessible (via rear opening with regular hinges).

#7 of 66 by grbeck

Jul 03, 2002 (9:32 pm)

In his book, Lincoln and Continental 1946-1980: the Classic Postwar Years, Paul Woundenburg has this to say about the convertible's trunk: "The convertible's trunk was nearly useless with the top down and extremely awkward for loading with the top up. Side loading over the fenders was difficult with luggage and it was nearly impossible to reach the spare tire."
 
A bigger concern is the mechanical complexity of these cars. The top mechanism requires eleven relays, motors and switches. (Ford probably used a lot of the technology and engineering from the 1957-59 Skyliners.) The rear door glass automatically lowers six inches when the door is opened to clear the convertible top. The power window motors were sealed in rubber at the factory.
 
These cars are beautiful - I especially like the 1961 with its Thunderbird-like grille - but undoubtedly a nightmare to restore. They are probably considerably more complicated than Cadillac or Imperial convertibles.

#8 of 66 by Mr_Shiftright HOST

Jul 04, 2002 (11:11 am)

One of the best looking post WW II American cars ever made, hands down (my other favorite for beauty is the '65 Corvair hardtop coupe). From 1964 on, however, the Lincoln convert got messier and messier, and became a grotesque car eventually after the convertible was dropped.

#9 of 66 by jrosasmc

Jul 04, 2002 (11:30 am)

No wonder the Lincoln ragtop was dropped in 1967, right?

#10 of 66 by Mr_Shiftright HOST

Jul 04, 2002 (12:16 pm)

Yes, '67, I think that's right. Sometimes the convertible of a car looks better than the hardtop, and vice-versa. In this case, the 60s convertible Lincolns were in my opinion by far the more handsome, as they cut the cars height and bulky slab-sided look.

Messages Page 1 of 7

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement