Well, here’s a ’57 Thunderbird that sounds promising, but the seller is very skimpy on basic details and photos. All the seller states in the ad is: “1 owner with 58,000 original miles, “No Rust,” Automatic, 8 cylinder, convertible, White Top, White Interior, White Exterior, GARAGE Kept. Owner Eager to sell! It’s a must see.” If it is indeed a one-owner ’57 T-Bird with 58,000 original miles, that’s a check in the plus column, but it’s hard to assess the condition of this classic based on the description and provided photos. One photo shows the ‘Bird parked in a garage beside a wall, stuff stored around it, with a bag of some type sitting on the hood. There appears to be three chipped paint spots below the front hood.
There’s another photo showing the T-Bird in another part of the garage with nothing on its hood or stuff stored around it. Although the seller doesn’t say if it runs, I’m assuming it got to this part of the garage on its own power. Except for the three chipped areas mentioned, the rest of the Colonial White paint looks presentable although the lower passenger door appears to be brighter white in color. It has that classic ’57 Thunderbird good-looking profile with the porthole removable hardtop, optional fender skirts, period-correct whitewalls and those very attractive optional turbine wheel covers. It also has the optional convertible top, which is a plus, but the seller doesn’t say what condition or what color it’s in.
1957 was the first year that solid-colored interiors were available for Thunderbirds. Although the seller says it has a white interior, it doesn’t have the solid white Code XK interior, but the more common XA black and white vinyl interior. It needs cleaning but otherwise looks to be in good shape. It left the factory with optional power windows and an automatic transmission, so I’m going to assume it also has power steering and brakes. The black optional Lifeguard Padded Instrument Panel looks good and I’m also spotting some black floor mats with a white Thunderbird logo on them.
For some unknown (and inexcusable) reason, no photos of the engine are provided. All Thunderbirds came with V8’s, and for 1957, the standard power plant was a 292-cubic inch Y-Block V8 that generated 212 horsepower. An optional 312 that produced 245 horses was also available as well as a 312 with a supercharger. The seller says the 58,000 miles on the odometer are original, and the engine is paired with a Ford-O-Matic automatic transmission which was a pricey option for the day at $215. (That’s equivalent to $2,390 in today’s dollars). This garaged ‘Bird is currently nesting in the township of Tom’s River, New Jersey and is for sale here on craigslist for $25,000. Could its second owner in sixty-seven years be you?
Too much to do to pull it out, give it a wash, clean the interior and take it for spin to see if it is roadworthy? It’s so tough to sell a car these days. Probably the family selling it.
Full disclosure, I will admit that I only know enough about “baby birds” to be dangerous, but given that, I have a couple of opinions about this thing. First is that I have always been somewhat curious as to why these cars don’t bring better money. Whatever the reason, they just don’t seem to be all that desirable. Second is the fact that this owner apparently either doesn’t care whether this car sells or not, or that they think that it will sell itself because its collectable. In any case, I would be pretty hesitant about even looking at it unless I lived relatively close by.
If it’s truly a straight nice car it’s a nice deal. I had a New York car and will only buy a California car if ever again.
Hi. They don’t bring the big bucks anymore because back in the old BJ days not many coulafford them and they sold for much more but today the younger crowd doesn’t care much about them. I had a 55 in the 80’s up until about 2005??? Redid it and did not like the way it drove. Sold it, have a 02 now that is of course nicer. But I do keep my eye open, this time however I will only buy a restored calif or similar dry climate one and they really are not much more. There is no drunk money for these cars like there is for the 60’s muscle cars.
Optimistically priced. These are $30k cars today at best even when fully sorted. You can even find nicer ones than this for under $30k (check the completed auctions at the well-known site) and more like $20k if you wouldn’t mind a ’55 so why would you pay $25k for this one or even $20k given its needs? Ad doesn’t even say if it runs or not.
As for the engine, since this is an automatic it’s a 312, likely the most common D-code 245-hp. The 292 was 3-speed manual only for ’57.
As for why the values aren’t higher: The nostalgia factor for these is fading fast as those who remember them new are in their 70s and 80s and well past being interested in old cars like this while younger buyers find early Mustangs more appealing. JMO.
Is that the same “nostalgia factor” that has ’57 Vettes going for 3 times that much. I think not. There is just something about these old T-Birds that doesn’t make them all the desirable.
Maybe they aren’t that much fun to drive, while the Vette at least is fast. They still make Corvettes, so you don’t have to be a nostalgia buff to know what they are while the ‘Birds have had so many iterations the name doesn’t mean much anymore. Also C1 Vettes are much rarer than the ‘Birds (F and E code ’57s excepted) so would command a higher price given higher demand. I just think the early Mustang vert serves the role the T-Bird would otherwise and that keeps prices down.
Rumored to be used in a movie around 1973……………..j/k
I’m in the early 80’s, and if I still lived 30 miles from Tom’s River, I’d definitely do a look see. Living 1100 miles south now make the trip across NJ Rte 70 a little more difficult. As much as I liked the 57 ‘Bird, couldn’t afford it then and can’t afford it now, either. Just a wishin’…/
There WAS a time when these were particularly pricey — but no longer, evidently. When I first saw the lighter area on the lower passenger door, I almost thought it was a dent — since I could not imagine such a serious mis-match on a paint touch-up. I loved these when they first came out; then, years later, some television show featured a ’57 T-Bird. I could not see a white one: this is a car that screams to be red. That said, at my age, I would not consider either a T-Bird or Corvette — too difficult to climb down INto and climb back up OUT of. I don’t like driving where I am sitting almost as low as my feet out in front of me. Nice car, though… I vividly remember, in 1954, my excitement at the announcement of the coming Thunderbird in Ford Times (which I read, cover-to-cover, every month, and loved figuring out the strange close-up photographs and other puzzles in the back). If memory serves, the July, 1953 issue had a yellow cover and a picture of late 19th century row-houses, and was the Ford 50th Annivesary issue (I lost all of my Ford Times magazines in a 1972 house fire, so someone with a better memory will have to correct me). But I always thought that the ’57 was the best of the T-Birds, and that the ’58 ruined everything. At one time, the collector’s market affirmed that — but now it is the other way around, and few care about the ’55-’57 Thunderbirds, it seems. Strange.
I just saw a vision! I saw a goddess.
I think she said, I love you!