![]() ![]() It has a somewhat European look to it from certain angles, particularly from the front, and it was no bad looker from the back, either.ġ967's Thunderbird, on the other hand, looked like nothing else at the time, and its very striking looks are definitely in the ' love it or hate it' category. ![]() Attractive and sporty looking, and with a knack for seeming a much smaller, nimbler car than it really was, it's really hard to hate the '66 styling. The 1966 model, while not the most striking Thunderbird ever, certainly drew few detractors in the looks department. Let's examine the changes in the 1967 model year compared to the 1966 Ford Thunderbird. I must admit to substantial bias up front I own a '67 myself. So what happened in the 1967 model year that was so awful? Is the opinion of the vast majority of car enthusiasts and Thunderbird fans a valid one? In fact, you'd be forgiven for believing there were no Thunderbirds between '66 and a few 1990s ones you still see kicking around. ![]() Save for the few ultra-purists who would rather forget about any Thunderbird produced after 1957 and the ending of two-seater production, the opinion is nigh-on universal. A web site about Thunderbird history produced at the time of the 2002 model year T-Bird relaunch mentions nothing between that year and the modern day, and it's the same with many unofficial web sites, parts dealers, catalogs, clubs and events. Even the Ford Motor Company, it seems, likes to pretend these days that the Ford Thunderbird line ended in 1966. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |