Yes. Cars of the 1960s had a lot of flaws but at least you could tell brands, and even models, apart at a distance. These days the only difference in modern car styling is the badge. Oh, and their outrageous pricing.
Not in 65. They did make 50 lightweight R code 427/425hp cars though. The 289/271hp that the 65 was readily available with was a quick car in its day. Too bad this video applies opinions based upon views from over 50 years later. Cars are typically designed to understeer, front tires loose traction first, good luck "driving" your way out of that. Overseer is very easily to "drive" out of as anyone that drives on ice and snow 4 to 5 months a year. Never understood why Nader never pointed out how dangerous every vehicle is when driven beyond the drivers talent.
@22099dscott Nader became rich with the power he had developed by bad mouthing certain vehicles back then. Typical commy dumbacrat, creating lies and falsehoods about a topic to generate a negative, widespread public opinion about it. He had the power to destroy any product produced in America with a negative analysis.
@@22099dscott dyno Don raced a 1964 Mercury Comet station wagon that ford built with a 427 SOHC! People Accused Nickelson of having an unfair advantage because the Wagon had more rear wheel weight.
The SOHC engine came out in 65 and Dyno Don was running A/FX Comet coupes by then. His 64 wagon had the hi-riser 427 in it and he ran part of the season before switching over to the coupe and setting the A/FX record first time out.
My buddy's Dad had a 1966 Thunderbird convertible, when I was in high School, It was the best Chick magnet I ever seen. We didn't have to cruise for Chicks the girls came to us at the Drive in's.
I must disagree that 65 Thunderbird was a beautiful car If you're out of your mind it doesn't belong on this list It had style and class and it looked beautiful And I'm 74 I know I was there
I liked the mid 60s Thunderbird body styling. I will say that the landau roof and the faux wood stickers I could do without. It was the 70s stylings I thought were what really ruined it. The 2 seater was originally meant to compete with the Chevrolet Corvette, but by the time it appeared, it was suffering many of the same problems the Vette encountered and The Chevrolet team had already started fixing them. So I think the decision to make it into a sporty luxury car wasn't completely bonkers.
Macnamara was in business to sell cars, the two seat T bird outsold the Corvette by 20 to 1 but that was not enough to make Macnamara happy, the 4 seat T bird outsold the 2-seat car by 3 to 1 so in his Eyes he did the right thing. When Ford really killed the T bird was when they made it into a four door in 1967.
@@mylanmiller9656 I even liked the 4 door. It was the styling in the 70s that killed it for me. That's when I noticed that all the manufacturers made all the sporty 2 door cars bigger and added the 2 doors making them 4 door semi- luxury cars. It's happens whether you want it or not. I had a mid 90s Dodge Avenger 2 door, then at the end of the 90s they redesigned the body and turned it into a sedan and tried to say it was sporty. Which looks sportier a 4 door sedan or a 2 door coup. It's the same thing Chevy did to the Monte Carlo. In 1970 they introduced the Monte Carlo, a two door Coup. I was mistaken I searched up to 1980 and the Monte was still a two door. What they did do was redesign it making it more of a luxury coup than a sport coup. The Thunder Birds of the 70s lost all connection to the 60s T-Birds. They keep messing with a sporty design then start trying to suck in the luxury crowd. Or they think that the people who originally bought it as a sport coup are aging and they don't want to lose them so they start padding all the corners and turn the seats into overstuffed chairs that wouldn't look out of place in an up scale upper middle class home. Car manufacturers are a bunch of idiots, that try to second guess the market demographics. Most times they barely keep some models fairly popular and therefore profitable. But sometimes they miss the mark. Take GM deciding to bring back the GTO badge. Did they start with last GTO that was popular, the Judge? Nope they brought the Australian design, that wasn't much more than the last design Pontiac did for most of the 90s and early 2k models. They didn't go back to the drawing board and update the last of the older GTO popular design with the Nose, nope they missed and opportunity to reintroduce the GTO that was nostalgic but with a more modern take on the design like Chevy did with the Camero. They shorted us and ultimately themselves by building a ho hum body with a GTO BADGE AND A high performance engine. Even though some appreciated the engine, I think ultimately it didn't really sell that well.
That Landau roof was awful. It made a good looking car look like your grandma's ride. Even today it just looks like it was a bad, BAD, idea for a good looking car.
I would take any one of these cars. They all made the best “sleepers” of the day. A friend of mine has a 428 in a 65 Comet that makes 500 hp and they cruise SoCal on the hottest days. The 65 Barracuda was equipped with a 273 LA v8. You could put any LA engine like a 340 with a roller cam and a 727 automatic or an 833 Hemi 4 speed manual. The T-Bird had the 428 PI available and you could get a dealer installed 427 425 hp and a 4 speed installed. The 65 Dart was like the Barracuda. A 340 could go right where the 273 was. I’m a hot rodder. The 65 up Corvairs are beautiful and the Monza was available with turbocharging. The idea is that you learn to drive it. Porsche is the same way. The 65 Monza was a sweet car. Don Yenko built some for track duty. Not one of those cars are a stupid choice. The Studebaker with the Paxton Supercharger? Give me a break. I hate AI.
A rear engine vehicle is terrific for a bus or a very low powered vehicle. Even Porsche stopped making their prototype racers with a rear engine as of 1960. They continued to make street cars which were rear engined, because there were so many macho men who liked to brag that they were man enough to drive the dangerous car. It took until (I think it was) 2018 before they finally made their 911 racing version a mid engine design, because they needed to compete with all the other mid engine designs, as even the 'balance of performance' adjustments couldn't bring the old rear engine 911s up to the performance of the other manufacturer's cars.
@@d.e.b.b5788 I agree with you. A Mid Engine boxer Six in a 66 Corvair Monza water cooled Spyder with an air/water intercooler and a pair of T4 VS 45s with a 4.125x4.125 330 ci FI would be an astounding accomplishment of Old and New750 hp aluminum and the most beautiful car of the 60s together in a sweet 2 seat.
You keep harping on the "boxy" designs. Every car I remember from the mid 60s to the early 1970s, every car including some very sporty cars like the Mustang and the Camero were boxy and had sharp lines.
Thunderbird by the mid-'60s had become bloated and overweight. Interior cheapness stood out. Not a great look if you're going to market yourself as an upscale personal luxury coupe.
@@MarinCipollina The 4 seat T bird was always overweight, but it was not bought as a go-fast car. After 1959, When the 430 was dropped. T bird only had a Mediocre 390 engine From 1960 to 65. in 66 T bird could be had with a 428. When Ford released the Mustang in 1964 it Really hurt the T bird because the Mustang was sportier and it was Cheap enough that anybody could aford to buy one.
@@MarinCipollina i sure wouldn't say that, My Buddy's first car was a 1959 T bird with a 430 engine, I owned a 1959 Belair with 283, I don't remember the exact weight now but we took our cars to t Scales and his car was more than 500 pounds more than my car was.
Yes. But back then we all knew it and it was not a hot selling car. All we could see was that Valient look with the Valient dash design. They stuck a fastback on it, some bucket seats with a console and pretended it DIDN"T just have a Valient look from the doors forward. I don't recall anyone thinking it was a hot looking car compared to so many others like the 65 Impala two door hardtop, the Mustang (with the 289, not that crappy inline 6), even the early Malibu hardtop.
I’ll forgive your obvious youth and lack of knowledge. The CorVAIR had an air cooled boxer motor. And the only “handling” problems existed in the trial lawyer hackery of Ralph “Unsafe at any Speed” Nader. It was no more or less safe than any other swing axle vehicle being produced in the world at the time….time was one was expected to learn to handle their vehicles.
Baloney to whomever wrote all this each model had their appeal & as far as performance goes re: Mercury Comet Caliente & Cyclone My H.S. Buddy had 65 Caliente with just a H.O.289 3spd Manual & near every other smallblock model on street then couldn't touch him racing qtr mile & reality check folks falcon comet mustang are essentially identical cars
Except for the rambler marlin, all these cars on this list were good sellers in 1965. The studebaker commander sold better than expected. Studebaker actually had competitive and successful designs and models in the early to mid 60’s. Studebaker left the American car marker because of a corporate decision to leave the market, not because they had bad or ugly cars. The 65 studebaker actually had pretty good styling for the mid 60’s period. They also had the fiberglass bodied avanti which could run with corvettes and for a short while the fastest car you could buy in America off the showroom floor. The 65 dart was a huge sales success. And they were very popular for many owners and families. They were cars that were very good compact cars and also had overall good performance for their market. The barracuda was not a hit and home run like the Mustang, but it was a solid car. It pointed the way to the better next generation models. And you could not be more wrong about the 1965 thunderbird. It was fords halo car for 1965 and it sold reasonably well and conveyed the upscale airline pilot luxury image for the period. Chevrolet did not have a competing model in 1965. The closest cars were the Pontiac Grand Prix, Buick Rivera and olds jet fire/star fire. And it sold quite well against those models. The comet cyclone? While not a huge hit, it had a solid following. A dressed up ford Fairlane. And it sold accordingly. Not a failure. The Corvair, again, you missed the boat. The 1965 2nd gen sold well for 1965 and 1966. But the writing was on the wall. Buyers wanted the Mustang. Not the Corvair. The 65 Corvair was the poor man’s Porsche or corvette. You could get the Corvair from mild to totally wild in performance. The Monza corsa turbo was definitely no slouch. Neither was the Corvair Monza with the 140hp with the four 1 Barrel carburetors and dual exhausts. Big block high output engines were not yet a thing in 1965. Compact cars got small V8’s or six cylinder engines in 1965. Intermediates the same, but the midsize cars like the Pontiac GTO, Olds 442, Plymouth Belvedere and Chevrolet Malibu were starting to see hot big block V8’s on a limited basis.
Whoever it is that produced this video should be libal for law suites for the extremely critical content. The bottom line is the extreme critisiam of this video is a load of crap and should not be taken seriously.
I had a 65’ cuda with a 273 ci V8 and 4 speed trans. It only had a 2 bbl carb but was quick enough to waste other similar vehicles of the time. So I don’t really know where you got your info but it was a sweet, quick sleeper on the road and it proved itself Countless times.
Honestly, before I clicked on this, a list of good, bad, dumbest, best...whatever is simply TOO subjective and this channel just proved this in spades. It's almost hilarious. I lived through those model years. The ONLY one that people hated was the Rambler Marlin at the beginning. From there it went downhill for these reasons. The narrator believes the Thunderbird was suppose to be anything but a chick car. It was underpowered, uncomfortable even though it's styling was pleasing. The 1965 Thunderbird was a dream car for many, appealing to a slightly older crowd than the ones looking at a 65 Chevy Impala two door hardtop, or the early Malibu two door. The narrator/producer fell into the lies of Ralph Nader. I owned two Corvairs, a 62 Monza Spyder convertible and it was a great car as was my 65 Corvair hardtop although not the Spyder version. The original Barracuda..yes...I remember a lot of people said it was just a Plymoth Valiant with a fastback rear end. Maybe it was not the best in the beginning. The Studebaker Commander I never would have considered but the Studebaker drivetrains were bulletproof and suffered more from a lack of an expansive dealer network as much as anything else. And compared to the 65 Chevy sedan and Ford sedans it was indeed dated. The Dart was what it was, a cheap ride and performed as expected and was reliable for a middle aged crowd. And he's just dead wrong about the Mercury Cyclone. In handling and build, it was actually better than the 65 Mustang even with it's 289 V8 and the horrible in-line 6 cylinders and even WORSE three speed standard shift. Good looking but it ended there.
Nonsense, this is an AI, Artificial Intelligence, generated "report". Each section uses many of the same sentences and evaluation as well as showing a general disconnect from real life analysis.
Of all the many cars I’ve owned my 1966 Thunderbird Landau, maroon with a black vinyl top is the One I wish I still had. It had the 390 V8, not a dragster but quiet and smooth and powerful enough. If I could only travel back in time……….
The word "dumb" was used in the title. But dumb must be applied to the speaker when it comes to Studebaker. Wow sheer idiocy boxy design? Sure just like the falcon,Plymouth, dodge and chevs of the same exact time. Dumb again applies to the performance talk . The 64 predecessor Daytona was faster than almost every big 3 in 63-64 model years. Corvette topped at 138 mph, while the Studes did 150,158,171 mph. Faster than Anything from the Big 3. But in65 the Chev engines used were at best lackluster. Design? The 1962-64 Avanti by Studebaker forced the big 3 to finally stop producing barges bathtubs and refridges and get modern. But the post herein only goes to show the ineptness of the writers and the speaker. DUMB? Oh ya.
Are you nuts? The 64 to 66 T-birds are gorgeous. The models in the 70s lost their charm and just looked blocky like everyday cars, whereas the mid 60s models are distinctive and beautiful.
I've never forgiven Ford for taking a sporty 2 seater T-bird to a lumbering turd in the punchbowl of an automotive nightmare. After the Edsel this in my opinion is Fords biggest blunder.
I loved my 1963 Corvair Monza convertible. One of my favorite summer cars. What killed it was Nader's thinking he knew what he was talking about and the fact that the later Corvairs looked too much like the same year's Camaro. I saw them side by side in a dealer's showroom. Corvair could not compete with the space in the line meant for the Camaro. As far as the Thunderbird, I had one of them too and also a great car. Mine was a 1961 but I think this guy is way off critiquing the marque. . Thunderbird styling came and went and came back again through the years, but the 4-passenger Birds were very nice cars. I'm not sure of the Landau styling. Might have been a bit overdone.
You think the Corvair design was problematic. Tell that to VW and Porsche. And just try to buy one today. I have owned two, A van and a 64 Corsa. I could drive the wheels off that Corsa. But I know how to drive, not just point it in the direction you want to go and depend on the car to do the rest.
i get a real charge out of some wiz kid from 2020 trying to tell old people about the cars they drove back in the 1960's, They never even seen these cars other in a car show let alone know anything about them.
65 Barracuda!? Dude. I am 72 yrs old and have been a car lover( and flipper)since I got my first car at age 14. I have owned most of the cars this Classic car site Trashes. These people don't have a clue. I have gone into U Tube and deleted permanently, This stupid site. This isn't the first post from these idiots, and their misinformed BS.
Não existe automóvel ruim ou por do que, e sim péssimas manutenções e piores mecânicos, etc. There is no such thing as a bad car, just lax mechanical and electrical maintenance. And also terrible mechanics who only know how to loosen screws and tighten them again.maneco - Porto Alegre-RS - Brasil.
I highly disagree having owned a 65’ thunderbird, the point was the luxury! Believe it or not I beat a Porsche in a drag race featuring obstacles. I was quicker.
Ralph Nader did a hatchet job on the Corvair treating an economy car as a sports car should have compared to VW not Porsche to 65 after 64 Corvair could be compared to Porsche Never believe anything from Nader
Studebaker should not have bought Packard dumped the four door cars made more Hawk GTs and brought the AVANTI forward two years and maintained the Paxton super çharger
The Chevy Corvair's handling issues was only cause people were putting the same amount of PSI air in the tires which had it riding strangely and like every video I've been seeing about this car this was seldom said also Chevy CORVAIR was the 1st AMERICAN CAR of the 1960's with the engine in the rear which was NEW to the USA cars
14:06 was any research done here? The Barracuda debuted in 1964 1 week befote the Mustang.15:05 "The Barracuda's engine options for 1965 were underwhelming compared to the expectations set by it's later iterations". WTF does that mean? So were comparing the '65 Cuda to a '69 Cuda?15:08 which was also the base engine for the Mustang a 273 which was only slightly smaller than the 'stangs 289. So your point? 18:02 no it was the symbol of a automaker on it's way out. Do like the right hand drive model, was unaware Sudebaker sent any cars overseas. 21:17 maybe the fact that they were drowning in red ink had something to do with it, dunce.22:19 no, stupid it a product of a company trying to make something out of nothing.
I own a 1965 Ford Thunderbird Roadster Convertible and your Ai (Artificial Intelligence) presentation is completely wrong. This car is a work of art and an absolute pleasure to drive. There is no faux woodgrain in my car...just beautiful white leather. The car is heavy and has plenty of power...it will burn rubber ! It has every option ever available in 1965, including optional speed control. I despise these automobile Ai presentations as they are filled with misinformation from top to bottom. If you intend to be accurate, get of your A_s and go look and drive one of these cars. Many viewers are getting tired of your videos that are so off base from the truth they are laughable ! You personally know nothing about cars !
The Mercury Cyclone The front end has the vertical headlights of the Ford Galaxy. From the side it's reminiscent of the Ford Falcon. Although it looks much longer than the Falcon. The hood looks weird with the air scoops right there on the leading edge. 😊
I was around back then and I have to say in my opinion you could not be more wrong about 80% of what your trying to say. It was a time of change and innovation and if you were there and drove those cars you would change your mind. No car except a very small % were either all luxury or performance. The cars were heavy and even with the regular performance engines none were that fast unless you put on bolt on performance parts.
You're talking about a car that is 58 years old most people that drove those cars brand new would be 18 or 25 years old they would be in your seventies or eighties I've owned a corvair it was so less powerful it couldn't get out of his own wake
As an automotive reviewer, this one comes up lacking in both knowledge and style of delivery, an unimpressive example of mediocre performance typical of failing UA-cam channels.
Mr AI here - find another pastime to waste your energy on as you are DEAD WRONG on every case here. Granted, not all of these are on my favorites list but they are NOT dumb. Oh and yes, I am old enough to judge them, are you?
This green-on-white AMC Marlin Fastback is one of the most stunning cars I have ever seen. What is this guy babbling about, for crying out loud? Chevrolet Corvair = equally stunning. They surely knew how to make them back then. Moving on -- the '65 Ford T-bird -- as a WORST and DUMBEST?? Who the heck made this "review", the Chinese Communist Party Chief? moving on, the '65 Plymouth Barracuda. It looks markedly better than the corresponding 1965 Aston-Martin. Gee-whiz, Louis. Dodge Darrt? A classic. What is this chap fumigating about? Also, all of this model-specific "reviews" are 3 minutes too long. This is a bonafide time-a-waster clip, folks.
Sorry pal but you're full of it! I grew up with these cars and for the most part you don't know what you're talking about. Used to race a Corvair and had a T-Bird a lot like that '65. They were great cars, and a lot of fun. You deserve my thumbs down.
Yes. Cars of the 1960s had a lot of flaws but at least you could tell brands, and even models, apart at a distance. These days the only difference in modern car styling is the badge. Oh, and their outrageous pricing.
I wouldn't ask for this guy's opinion on anything. Many owners liked all of these cars !
It's AI generated, no people involved. Click bate.
Agreed. His take down of the 65 T-bird is wrong on every level. It's an absolute beauty.
The Mercury Comet Cyclone had a 390 CID. that was a fast car -
Not in 65. They did make 50 lightweight R code 427/425hp cars though. The 289/271hp that the 65 was readily available with was a quick car in its day. Too bad this video applies opinions based upon views from over 50 years later.
Cars are typically designed to understeer, front tires loose traction first, good luck "driving" your way out of that. Overseer is very easily to "drive" out of as anyone that drives on ice and snow 4 to 5 months a year. Never understood why Nader never pointed out how dangerous every vehicle is when driven beyond the drivers talent.
@22099dscott Nader became rich with the power he had developed by bad mouthing certain vehicles back then. Typical commy dumbacrat, creating lies and falsehoods about a topic to generate a negative, widespread public opinion about it. He had the power to destroy any product produced in America with a negative analysis.
@@22099dscott dyno Don raced a 1964 Mercury Comet station wagon that ford built with a 427 SOHC! People Accused Nickelson of having an unfair advantage because the Wagon had more rear wheel weight.
The SOHC engine came out in 65 and Dyno Don was running A/FX Comet coupes by then. His 64 wagon had the hi-riser 427 in it and he ran part of the season before switching over to the coupe and setting the A/FX record first time out.
I would take a Corvair or cyclone happily.
LOVED THE CYCLONE
Loved both
My buddy's Dad had a 1966 Thunderbird convertible, when I was in high School, It was the best Chick magnet I ever seen. We didn't have to cruise for Chicks the girls came to us at the Drive in's.
I loved them all..we had the thunderbird
So did I and came to love it.
I must disagree that 65 Thunderbird was a beautiful car If you're out of your mind it doesn't belong on this list It had style and class and it looked beautiful And I'm 74 I know I was there
Whoever runs this channels has no taste.
I liked the mid 60s Thunderbird body styling.
I will say that the landau roof and the faux wood stickers I could do without.
It was the 70s stylings I thought were what really ruined it.
The 2 seater was originally meant to compete with the Chevrolet Corvette, but by the time it appeared, it was suffering many of the same problems the Vette encountered and The Chevrolet team had already started fixing them.
So I think the decision to make it into a sporty luxury car wasn't completely bonkers.
Macnamara was in business to sell cars, the two seat T bird outsold the Corvette by 20 to 1 but that was not enough to make Macnamara happy, the 4 seat T bird outsold the 2-seat car by 3 to 1 so in his Eyes he did the right thing. When Ford really killed the T bird was when they made it into a four door in 1967.
@@mylanmiller9656
I even liked the 4 door. It was the styling in the 70s that killed it for me. That's when I noticed that all the manufacturers made all the sporty 2 door cars bigger and added the 2 doors making them 4 door semi- luxury cars. It's happens whether you want it or not.
I had a mid 90s Dodge Avenger 2 door, then at the end of the 90s they redesigned the body and turned it into a sedan and tried to say it was sporty.
Which looks sportier a 4 door sedan or a 2 door coup.
It's the same thing Chevy did to the Monte Carlo. In 1970 they introduced the Monte Carlo, a two door Coup. I was mistaken I searched up to 1980 and the Monte was still a two door. What they did do was redesign it making it more of a luxury coup than a sport coup.
The Thunder Birds of the 70s lost all connection to the 60s T-Birds.
They keep messing with a sporty design then start trying to suck in the luxury crowd. Or they think that the people who originally bought it as a sport coup are aging and they don't want to lose them so they start padding all the corners and turn the seats into overstuffed chairs that wouldn't look out of place in an up scale upper middle class home.
Car manufacturers are a bunch of idiots, that try to second guess the market demographics.
Most times they barely keep some models fairly popular and therefore profitable. But sometimes they miss the mark.
Take GM deciding to bring back the GTO badge. Did they start with last GTO that was popular, the Judge? Nope they brought the Australian design, that wasn't much more than the last design Pontiac did for most of the 90s and early 2k models. They didn't go back to the drawing board and update the last of the older GTO popular design with the Nose, nope they missed and opportunity to reintroduce the GTO that was nostalgic but with a more modern take on the design like Chevy did with the Camero.
They shorted us and ultimately themselves by building a ho hum body with a GTO BADGE AND A high performance engine. Even though some appreciated the engine, I think ultimately it didn't really sell that well.
That Landau roof was awful. It made a good looking car look like your grandma's ride. Even today it just looks like it was a bad, BAD, idea for a good looking car.
@@Theywaswrong I have to agree with you
I liked the 1966 T bird but the Landau was not the Model I would pick.
I would take any one of these cars. They all made the best “sleepers” of the day. A friend of mine has a 428 in a 65 Comet that makes 500 hp and they cruise SoCal on the hottest days. The 65 Barracuda was equipped with a 273 LA v8. You could put any LA engine like a 340 with a roller cam and a 727 automatic or an 833 Hemi 4 speed manual. The T-Bird had the 428 PI available and you could get a dealer installed 427 425 hp and a 4 speed installed. The 65 Dart was like the Barracuda. A 340 could go right where the 273 was. I’m a hot rodder. The 65 up Corvairs are beautiful and the Monza was available with turbocharging. The idea is that you learn to drive it. Porsche is the same way. The 65 Monza was a sweet car. Don Yenko built some for track duty. Not one of those cars are a stupid choice. The Studebaker with the Paxton Supercharger? Give me a break. I hate AI.
A rear engine vehicle is terrific for a bus or a very low powered vehicle. Even Porsche stopped making their prototype racers with a rear engine as of 1960. They continued to make street cars which were rear engined, because there were so many macho men who liked to brag that they were man enough to drive the dangerous car. It took until (I think it was) 2018 before they finally made their 911 racing version a mid engine design, because they needed to compete with all the other mid engine designs, as even the 'balance of performance' adjustments couldn't bring the old rear engine 911s up to the performance of the other manufacturer's cars.
Ford never offered a four speed transmission for the Thunderbird.
I know that they didn’t, but if you had the money, the dealer would do it.
@@d.e.b.b5788 I agree with you. A Mid Engine boxer Six in a 66 Corvair Monza water cooled Spyder with an air/water intercooler and a pair of T4 VS 45s with a 4.125x4.125 330 ci FI would be an astounding accomplishment of Old and New750 hp aluminum and the most beautiful car of the 60s together in a sweet 2 seat.
I don’t where you got your info, but you are way off base with several of these cars
You keep harping on the "boxy" designs.
Every car I remember from the mid 60s to the early 1970s, every car including some very sporty cars like the Mustang and the Camero were boxy and had sharp lines.
MARLIN WAS A BEAUTIFUL CAR
Agree
I think the Ford Mustang simply sucked up the business.
You are off your nut if you think the thunderbird is dumb. A American classic!!!
Give me a '66 Light Blue / White interior Convertible top.... I wish I could before I pass... LOVE those things.
Thunderbird by the mid-'60s had become bloated and overweight. Interior cheapness stood out. Not a great look if you're going to market yourself as an upscale personal luxury coupe.
@@MarinCipollina The 4 seat T bird was always overweight, but it was not bought as a go-fast car. After 1959, When the 430 was dropped. T bird only had a Mediocre 390 engine From 1960 to 65. in 66 T bird could be had with a 428. When Ford released the Mustang in 1964 it Really hurt the T bird because the Mustang was sportier and it was Cheap enough that anybody could aford to buy one.
@@mylanmiller9656 The four place 1958 "Sqaure Bird" wasn't nearly as overweight as what came later. The nadir was the 1971 "Beak Bird".
@@MarinCipollina i sure wouldn't say that, My Buddy's first car was a 1959 T bird with a 430 engine, I owned a 1959 Belair with 283, I don't remember the exact weight now but we took our cars to t Scales and his car was more than 500 pounds more than my car was.
BARRACUDA WAS PLYMOUTH VALIENT
Yes. But back then we all knew it and it was not a hot selling car. All we could see was that Valient look with the Valient dash design. They stuck a fastback on it, some bucket seats with a console and pretended it DIDN"T just have a Valient look from the doors forward. I don't recall anyone thinking it was a hot looking car compared to so many others like the 65 Impala two door hardtop, the Mustang (with the 289, not that crappy inline 6), even the early Malibu hardtop.
I had a 1964 Comet Cyclone, with a 289 cu. inch. It was a nice car!!
Not a word about the handling of the mid-engine small block powerplant in the corsair Rocket Ship with the factory four-speed manual
I’ll forgive your obvious youth and lack of knowledge. The CorVAIR had an air cooled boxer motor. And the only “handling” problems existed in the trial lawyer hackery of Ralph “Unsafe at any Speed” Nader. It was no more or less safe than any other swing axle vehicle being produced in the world at the time….time was one was expected to learn to handle their vehicles.
Baloney to whomever wrote all this each model had their appeal & as far as performance goes re: Mercury Comet Caliente & Cyclone My H.S. Buddy had 65 Caliente with just a H.O.289 3spd Manual & near every other smallblock model on street then couldn't touch him racing qtr mile & reality check folks falcon comet mustang are essentially identical cars
Except for the rambler marlin, all these cars on this list were good sellers in 1965. The studebaker commander sold better than expected. Studebaker actually had competitive and successful designs and models in the early to mid 60’s. Studebaker left the American car marker because of a corporate decision to leave the market, not because they had bad or ugly cars. The 65 studebaker actually had pretty good styling for the mid 60’s period. They also had the fiberglass bodied avanti which could run with corvettes and for a short while the fastest car you could buy in America off the showroom floor. The 65 dart was a huge sales success. And they were very popular for many owners and families. They were cars that were very good compact cars and also had overall good performance for their market. The barracuda was not a hit and home run like the Mustang, but it was a solid car. It pointed the way to the better next generation models. And you could not be more wrong about the 1965 thunderbird. It was fords halo car for 1965 and it sold reasonably well and conveyed the upscale airline pilot luxury image for the period. Chevrolet did not have a competing model in 1965. The closest cars were the Pontiac Grand Prix, Buick Rivera and olds jet fire/star fire. And it sold quite well against those models. The comet cyclone? While not a huge hit, it had a solid following. A dressed up ford Fairlane. And it sold accordingly. Not a failure. The Corvair, again, you missed the boat. The 1965 2nd gen sold well for 1965 and 1966. But the writing was on the wall. Buyers wanted the Mustang. Not the Corvair. The 65 Corvair was the poor man’s Porsche or corvette. You could get the Corvair from mild to totally wild in performance. The Monza corsa turbo was definitely no slouch. Neither was the Corvair Monza with the 140hp with the four 1 Barrel carburetors and dual exhausts. Big block high output engines were not yet a thing in 1965. Compact cars got small V8’s or six cylinder engines in 1965. Intermediates the same, but the midsize cars like the Pontiac GTO, Olds 442, Plymouth Belvedere and Chevrolet Malibu were starting to see hot big block V8’s on a limited basis.
Boy did they beat this to deay
Whoever it is that produced this video should be libal for law suites for the extremely critical content. The bottom line is the extreme critisiam of this video is a load of crap and should not be taken seriously.
We have what is called Freedom of Speach, so you are allowed to lie.
Word salad. Also, you showed a '64 Dart. A good-looking car.
The 'Cuda' dawned in 64...I had one.
I had a 65’ cuda with a 273 ci V8 and 4 speed trans. It only had a 2 bbl carb but was quick enough to waste other similar vehicles of the time. So I don’t really know where you got your info but it was a sweet, quick sleeper on the road and it proved itself Countless times.
Honestly, before I clicked on this, a list of good, bad, dumbest, best...whatever is simply TOO subjective and this channel just proved this in spades. It's almost hilarious. I lived through those model years. The ONLY one that people hated was the Rambler Marlin at the beginning. From there it went downhill for these reasons. The narrator believes the Thunderbird was suppose to be anything but a chick car. It was underpowered, uncomfortable even though it's styling was pleasing. The 1965 Thunderbird was a dream car for many, appealing to a slightly older crowd than the ones looking at a 65 Chevy Impala two door hardtop, or the early Malibu two door. The narrator/producer fell into the lies of Ralph Nader. I owned two Corvairs, a 62 Monza Spyder convertible and it was a great car as was my 65 Corvair hardtop although not the Spyder version. The original Barracuda..yes...I remember a lot of people said it was just a Plymoth Valiant with a fastback rear end. Maybe it was not the best in the beginning. The Studebaker Commander I never would have considered but the Studebaker drivetrains were bulletproof and suffered more from a lack of an expansive dealer network as much as anything else. And compared to the 65 Chevy sedan and Ford sedans it was indeed dated. The Dart was what it was, a cheap ride and performed as expected and was reliable for a middle aged crowd. And he's just dead wrong about the Mercury Cyclone. In handling and build, it was actually better than the 65 Mustang even with it's 289 V8 and the horrible in-line 6 cylinders and even WORSE three speed standard shift. Good looking but it ended there.
Nonsense, this is an AI, Artificial Intelligence, generated "report". Each section uses many of the same sentences and evaluation as well as showing a general disconnect from real life analysis.
Ha Ha. My first car was a 1965 Dodge Dart. I bought it at Ft Huachuca, AZ in 1972. Served me well for years getting me from point A to point B.
This guy is a drama queen. I would enjoy driving anyone of these cars
None of these were bad cars, and I don't think any deserve to be called "dumb". There's still alot of older drivers who miss them.
I call the 1st gen camaro the corvairo.. its the same design.. only a stretched out hood and shortened trunk...
Of all the many cars I’ve owned my 1966 Thunderbird Landau, maroon with a black vinyl top is the One I wish I still had. It had the 390 V8, not a dragster but quiet and smooth and powerful enough. If I could only travel back in time……….
they should have never turned the T Bird into a 5 seat boat
The word "dumb" was used in the title.
But dumb must be applied to the speaker when it comes to Studebaker.
Wow sheer idiocy boxy design? Sure just like the falcon,Plymouth, dodge and chevs of the same exact time.
Dumb again applies to the performance talk .
The 64 predecessor Daytona was faster than almost every big 3 in 63-64 model years. Corvette topped at 138 mph, while the Studes did
150,158,171 mph. Faster than Anything from the Big 3. But in65 the Chev engines used were at best lackluster.
Design? The 1962-64 Avanti by Studebaker forced the big 3 to finally stop producing barges bathtubs and refridges and get modern.
But the post herein only goes to show the ineptness of the writers and the speaker. DUMB? Oh ya.
Are you nuts? The 64 to 66 T-birds are gorgeous. The models in the 70s lost their charm and just looked blocky like everyday cars, whereas the mid 60s models are distinctive and beautiful.
The Cyclone under powered?!? 🤣
I remember the Monza spider fast but the v belt twisted set up kept flying off or breaking....
7 beautiful cars. But why is a 1964 Dart in the video about 1965 cars??
I've never forgiven Ford for taking a sporty 2 seater T-bird to a lumbering turd in the punchbowl of an automotive nightmare. After the Edsel this in my opinion is Fords biggest blunder.
Very interesting, enjoyed it.
This YT series is a joke. Don't waste your time going through it.
Just get to the point,a picture alone is good
I loved my 1963 Corvair Monza convertible. One of my favorite summer cars. What killed it was Nader's thinking he knew what he was talking about and the fact that the later Corvairs looked too much like the same year's Camaro. I saw them side by side in a dealer's showroom. Corvair could not compete with the space in the line meant for the Camaro. As far as the Thunderbird, I had one of them too and also a great car. Mine was a 1961 but I think this guy is way off critiquing the marque. . Thunderbird styling came and went and came back again through the years, but the 4-passenger Birds were very nice cars. I'm not sure of the Landau styling. Might have been a bit overdone.
Sure rather have one of these "Dumb" cars than a Tesla, for sure!!
66 LANDAU WAS VERY COMFORTABLE
65 tbird " gimmicky " fuax wood....still used today. Sequential tailights...still used today. Yea, gimmicky.
How are you legally able to use Jay Leno's likeness in something he obviously did not have a hand in producing? Identity theft??
I once had a 1964 T bird with a fold away convertible top. When the top got wonky.. even the Ford mechanics were flummoxed.
You think the Corvair design was problematic. Tell that to VW and Porsche. And just try to buy one today. I have owned two, A van and a 64 Corsa. I could drive the wheels off that Corsa. But I know how to drive, not just point it in the direction you want to go and depend on the car to do the rest.
I HAD A 66 LANDAU GREAT HANDLEING
i get a real charge out of some wiz kid from 2020 trying to tell old people about the cars they drove back in the 1960's, They never even seen these cars other in a car show let alone know anything about them.
The Corvair, TBird and Cyclone do not belong on this list... and thats almost half this poorly presented list
I agree!
65 Barracuda!? Dude. I am 72 yrs old and have been a car lover( and flipper)since I got my first car at age 14. I have owned most of the cars this Classic car site Trashes. These people don't have a clue. I have gone into U Tube and deleted permanently, This stupid site. This isn't the first post from these idiots, and their misinformed BS.
Não existe automóvel ruim ou por do que, e sim péssimas manutenções e piores mecânicos, etc. There is no such thing as a bad car, just lax mechanical and electrical maintenance. And also terrible mechanics who only know how to loosen screws and tighten them again.maneco - Porto Alegre-RS - Brasil.
I had a 65 Thunderbird white with blue interior a beautiful car would have another
Disappointed to see Jay Leno in the still picture and nowhere in the video.
I highly disagree having owned a 65’ thunderbird, the point was the luxury! Believe it or not I beat a Porsche in a drag race featuring obstacles. I was quicker.
Ralph Nader did a hatchet job on the Corvair treating an economy car as a sports car should have compared to VW not Porsche to 65 after 64 Corvair could be compared to Porsche Never believe anything from Nader
You don't know 💩 when it comes to cars, I have a Thunderbird convertible and it's a beautiful car..
Whoever did the camera work needs to get off the sauce, not to mention filming cars in a junkyard is a good comparison with the video itself. Junk!
Trying to make a big story out of boring cars. Except for the Corvair. There were many boring cars in 1965.
Studebaker should not have bought Packard dumped the four door cars made more Hawk GTs and brought the AVANTI forward two years and maintained the Paxton super çharger
Packard acquired Studebaker and its massive debts in 1954 which turned out to be a disastrous mistake for Packard.
Interesting topic poorly done.
- Crappy camera work on cheesy backyard customized cars.
- Synthetic audio. Just do actual narration by a real person.
Advice if you choose to watch this video- turn off sound.
The Chevy Corvair's handling issues was only cause people were putting the same amount of PSI air in the tires which had it riding strangely and like every video I've been seeing about this car this was seldom said also Chevy CORVAIR was the 1st AMERICAN CAR of the 1960's with the engine in the rear which was NEW to the USA cars
15:00: 'Expectations set by it's LATER iterations'...... Exactly how do future vehicles set expectations for past vehicles????? This video is absurd.
14:06 was any research done here? The Barracuda debuted in 1964 1 week befote the Mustang.15:05 "The Barracuda's engine options for 1965 were underwhelming compared to the expectations set by it's later iterations". WTF does that mean? So were comparing the '65 Cuda to a '69 Cuda?15:08 which was also the base engine for the Mustang a 273 which was only slightly smaller than the 'stangs 289. So your point? 18:02 no it was the symbol of a automaker on it's way out. Do like the right hand drive model, was unaware Sudebaker sent any cars overseas. 21:17 maybe the fact that they were drowning in red ink had something to do with it, dunce.22:19 no, stupid it a product of a company trying to make something out of nothing.
I own a 1965 Ford Thunderbird Roadster Convertible and your Ai (Artificial Intelligence) presentation is completely wrong. This car is a work of art and an absolute pleasure to drive. There is no faux woodgrain in my car...just beautiful white leather. The car is heavy and has plenty of power...it will burn rubber ! It has every option ever available in 1965, including optional speed control. I despise these automobile Ai presentations as they are filled with misinformation from top to bottom. If you intend to be accurate, get of your A_s and go look and drive one of these cars. Many viewers are getting tired of your videos that are so off base from the truth they are laughable ! You personally know nothing about cars !
The Mercury Cyclone
The front end has the vertical headlights of the Ford Galaxy.
From the side it's reminiscent of the Ford Falcon. Although it looks much longer than the Falcon.
The hood looks weird with the air scoops right there on the leading edge. 😊
I love them all.
I was around back then and I have to say in my opinion you could not be more wrong about 80% of what your trying to say. It was a time of change and innovation and if you were there and drove those cars you would change your mind. No car except a very small % were either all luxury or performance. The cars were heavy and even with the regular performance engines none were that fast unless you put on bolt on performance parts.
Imagine a 69 cuda that weighed what a 65 did lol
I saw many 65 289 Comets put the compaction on the trailer.
You're talking about a car that is 58 years old most people that drove those cars brand new would be 18 or 25 years old they would be in your seventies or eighties I've owned a corvair it was so less powerful it couldn't get out of his own wake
Corsair were great cars and handled well actually
The problem it's a Rambler. It's like polishing up a turd. No matter what you say it's still a turd
Like the democratic presidential hopefuls.
I like the marlin
everybody has an opinion…
As an automotive reviewer, this one comes up lacking in both knowledge and style of delivery, an unimpressive example of mediocre performance typical of failing UA-cam channels.
BLAME THAT ON THE CORPORATE GREED😊
Mr AI here - find another pastime to waste your energy on as you are DEAD WRONG on every case here. Granted, not all of these are on my favorites list but they are NOT dumb. Oh and yes, I am old enough to judge them, are you?
Oh well, just another subjective list.
CORPORATE GREED DESTOYED THE THUNDERBIRD BIRD
So doesJAY LENO know that you use his image in your thumbnails to promote your videos?
This guy hasn't a clue.
Where oh where did you get your information from? WOW! You were more NITPICKING than fact finding. This was (NOT) a good video, nope it wasn't.
having a Jay Leno clone in every thumbnail is shameless and lame
You don't know what looks good!!
This green-on-white AMC Marlin Fastback is one of the most stunning cars I have ever seen. What is this guy babbling about, for crying out loud? Chevrolet Corvair = equally stunning. They surely knew how to make them back then. Moving on -- the '65 Ford T-bird -- as a WORST and DUMBEST?? Who the heck made this "review", the Chinese Communist Party Chief? moving on, the '65 Plymouth Barracuda. It looks markedly better than the corresponding 1965 Aston-Martin. Gee-whiz, Louis. Dodge Darrt? A classic. What is this chap fumigating about? Also, all of this model-specific "reviews" are 3 minutes too long. This is a bonafide time-a-waster clip, folks.
Another video about cars by someone who doesn't know anything about cars.
The narration was terrible I'm thinking it was AI generated and very repetitive extremely boring.
He likes the word ostentatious. His grandiose language is BS
The commentator of this video doesn't know what he's talking about with maybe the exception of the Marlin ..
The rest is all BS
Sorry pal but you're full of it! I grew up with these cars and for the most part you don't know what you're talking about. Used to race a Corvair and had a T-Bird a lot like that '65. They were great cars, and a lot of fun. You deserve my thumbs down.
This has to be one of 7 stupidest u tube videos ever made
This video is an utter waste of time.
Lose the restaurant piano music. Ugh!
What is your car euphen favorite oh hell no hell no werst electric in my book