NON-sequential taillights on a '65

[DannyInNJ]

I'm looking at buying a '65 that has NON-sequential tail lights, and that bothers me. All the '65s I've seen all had the sequential ones (making all my '64 Bird friends jealous - when they worked).
What bothers me is not lacking the feature but wondering if perhaps the car had a bad rear-end collision and they slapped the older rear on her in the repair.
Does anyone know if it's possible a '65 DIDN'T ship with sequentials? Were they an option, or standard? The title and VIN are pure '65, the deco is correct on the front fenders, all else looks good.
Thanks all!

 

[inspector]

The taillight you show in your picture is a 64. Obviously the tail lights have been changed at some time. All 65's came with sequential lights. Do you still have the sequential electrics at the back of the trunk? (see photo) Maybe you can get them working again or maybe you will have to buy an electronic sequencer for a few hundred bucks.

 

[Gary Tayman]

Yes, that taillight is for a 64. Are you sure you're buying a 65? Other differences I can think of, the 64 has the script on the front fender, the 65 has a scoop emblem, and the script is moved to the rear. The 64 has THUNDERBIRD on the hood; the 65 has a bird emblem. The 65 has front disk brakes. The 65 has an oil filler on the valve covers. Even on the back, the 64 has THUNDERBIRD between the taillights while the 65 has a bird emblem.

Assuming you have a 65 with 64 taillights, you can't help but wonder why those lights were changed. Maybe the lenses rotted out and the owner found some 64's cheap, or maybe the back end was replaced from collision (especially if you don't have the bird emblem between the lights).

If everything is 65 except the sequentials, I might guess that the sequential motor quit working and someone simply removed it and tied some wires together. But what you have certainly raises an eyebrow, and I would ask the owner if he knows what happened.

 

[DannyInNJ]

Haven't bought the car yet, but the fact that the taillights are wrong is a huge red flag. She was smacked pretty hard in the back, I'd guess. I can't get underneath to look so I think I might just pass. Besides, it's just too cheap to be any good. The other taillight picture I posted earlier was just an example; here's the actual listing, from Hemmings:
https://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/dealer/ford/thunderbird/1802106.html

 

[Gary Tayman]

It certainly looks like it's a 65, but you've got 64 taillights and no center insert. So it's not just the taillight lenses; someone has replaced that bumper with, most likely something out of a junkyard. So yes, the question is, what happened?

 

[OneAmongOthers]

A rear end collision on a unibody car... hmmm. I say run away. Run away fast! No telling what kind of body or frame damage has happened underneath. And then them trying to put it on a rack (if the even bothered), to try and straighten it out. If you are interested I say make sure to put the car on a lift and look underneath. Make sure nothing is bent or cracked. Check for fresh paint/undercoating spray. Weld marks and such.

 

[DannyInNJ]

Agreed. The amazing price tag beckons but that car must have taken a helluva hit. Your point that it's unibody construction is well taken. The ad says "good straight body" but I tried texting them last week specifically about frame damage and warranty and their answer was curt to say the least. NO warranty of any kind. Has anyone else dealt with these guys? They're all over Hemmings.

 

[DannyInNJ]

There are parts - including what looks like the "Bird logo" and a housing for one of the original sequentials in the trunk, but that leads to another issue - is that a lot of rust in there or some kind of rug? Anyone have better eyes than me?