- #16051 of 19387
-
Re: Bird Land [lokki]
by andre1969
-
Dec 05, 2008 (5:09 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: lokki (Dec 05, 2008 4:58 pm)
I don't think it registers very high on most people's radar list, but I LOVE the '66 T-bird! Except for one little detail...I hate that landau style with the huge blind C-pillar. I love the base hardtop coupe though, or better yet, the convertible. I think the landau was the most popular body style that year, though.
That Roadrunner pic looks kinda like an aborted Dukes of Hazzard stunt. Maybe for the pilot they tried using a '71 Roadrunner but discovered it sucked at jumping, so they went with the '69 Charger (and a few '68's and an occasional '70 ) instead?
|
- #16052 of 19387
-
Re: Bird Land [andre1969]
by xwesx
-
Dec 05, 2008 (5:34 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Dec 05, 2008 5:09 pm)
Well, the photo obviously shows the car being loaded onto a trailer with a forklift (doesn't bode well for its condition!), but I have to wonder why someone would pick *that* photo for a sale ad. Something smells, and it is probably that "bird."
|
- #16053 of 19387
-
Re: Bird Land [lokki]
by Mr_Shiftright HOST
-
Dec 05, 2008 (5:41 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: lokki (Dec 05, 2008 4:58 pm)
76 T-Bird -- I'd really enjoy machine-gunning that car.
Let's see---we got yer Classic Birds or "Little Birds", then yer Square Birds ("lets give the market away to Corvette") , then yer Bullet Birds, then yer Jet Birds (why that name?) and then the Dark Ages aka the "Big Birds" (appropriate as they weighed 4,300 lbs)......
2002 T-Bird: "Let's make them all 6 cylinder automatics. No one will notice!"
|
- #16054 of 19387
-
Re: Bird Land [Mr_Shiftright]
by andre1969
-
Dec 05, 2008 (5:51 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Dec 05, 2008 5:41 pm)
The '02 T-bird used a V-8 engine, not a 6-cyl. I forget its displacement now...I want to say 3.9L, but it was the same one used in the Lincoln LS sedan. But I think they were all automatics. I just never cared for the style of those cars. I know it's supposed to evoke the style of the '55-57 T-bird, but I just don't see it. I swear it looks more like a 1953 Corvette than it does a first-gen Bird. The biggest problem is that the 2002 Bird has a raked-back front-end, like a Corvette. The original Bird had more of a forward thrust to it, especially the '57. Plus, the proportioning just isn't right. Those original Birds had a long hood, closely coupled compartment, and a long-ish rear deck. Comfort probably sucked for anybody taller than maybe 5'7", but damn those cars looked good! With the 2002 model though, the cowl is too far forward, and the hood too short.
I think the only time I've ever heard the word "pig" used as an adjective was in describing the handling of a mid-60's T-bird, but how bad, really, would a '66 be? I mean, if I'm comfortable driving a '67 Catalina and a '57 DeSoto, could a '66 T-bird be any more of a challenge? I know it would be a joke by today's standards, but would it be bad, even by the standards of the time?
Oh, as for that early 70's Bird, it was a lot more than 4300 lb. Try more like 5,000+! The thing was basically an uglied-up Mark IV. When they went to the intermediate Torino/LTD-II platform, THAT got them down to about 4000-4300 lb!
|
- #16055 of 19387
-
Re: Bird Land [andre1969]
by Mr_Shiftright HOST
-
Dec 05, 2008 (6:06 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Dec 05, 2008 5:51 pm)
Well right you are...a 3.9 liter V8! I obviously got it mixed up with the other retro misstep--the Prowler.
Some people like the new Birds---ladies love 'em.
66 T-Bird -- you would not believe how badly they handle. You wouldn't believe me if I told you how bad. You'd think me unkind, you'd accuse me of exaggeration, bias, distortion.
But I'll try--- think of driving your Mom's old sofa on the freeway.
|
- #16056 of 19387
-
Re: Bird Land [Mr_Shiftright]
by andre1969
-
Dec 05, 2008 (6:52 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Dec 05, 2008 6:06 pm)
66 T-Bird -- you would not believe how badly they handle. You wouldn't believe me if I told you how bad. You'd think me unkind, you'd accuse me of exaggeration, bias, distortion. .
In a perverse sort of way, you have me curious to experience one! What did Ford do to those cars to make them handle so badly? If I can handle a '67 Catalina, would I be okay with a '66 T-bird? Or does the Bird take it to a whole new level?
|
- #16057 of 19387
-
Re: Bird Land [andre1969]
by Mr_Shiftright HOST
-
Dec 05, 2008 (7:01 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Dec 05, 2008 6:52 pm)
Oh I think the large overhangs, the gushy tires, the enormous unsprung weight inherent in the suspension design, etc. Hard to say, but the car always felt way out of balance to me. I've driven many big heavy cars but those later Birds always seems to be to be particularly clumsy. I don't think I'm the first to mention this.
|
- #16058 of 19387
-
Re: Bird Land [lokki]
by fintail
-
Dec 05, 2008 (7:05 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: lokki (Dec 05, 2008 4:58 pm)
When I was very young my mother drove one of those big Birds, white on white. My parents loved that car. It was replaced by a Ciera...different world.
NADA prices are for ignorants.
|
- #16059 of 19387
-
holy cow
by qbrozen
-
Dec 05, 2008 (7:13 pm)
-
|
|
This just goes WAY beyond poor spelling!
|
- #16060 of 19387
-
Re: holy cow [qbrozen]
by andre1969
-
Dec 05, 2008 (7:49 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: qbrozen (Dec 05, 2008 7:13 pm)
I'll give him bonus points for the Comic Sans font, though. Gives it sort of a playful atmosphere...like mixing Ice House and Monster and then watching Mama's Family outtakes on Youtube.
|