(first posted 6/8/2016) In a desirable combination of white and red, this 1964 Fury convertible stands like an elegant stone arch between the outlandishness of Exner’s 1962 and ’63 Chryslers and the attractively pedestrian conformity of Engel’s ’65 and ’66 models. Regardless of your take on the abilities of these two men and the machines they helped to create, the ’64 Plymouth is convincing evidence that an Exner/Engel collaboration would make a worthwhile piece of historical fiction.
The story of the 1962 models’ genesis is classic car-lovers’ folklore, whose more likely circumstances have been laid out here. It resulted in a rushed restyle that meant good things for drag racers, but bad things for Chrysler’s bottom line. The plus side was that Chrysler got a lot of mileage out of the B-Body platform after a few aggressive tweaks; however, Exner’s reputation has really never recovered from his perceived faux-pas regarding the, um, polarizing styling of the ’62s.
The Plymouth emerged from the debacle as arguably the less heinous of the two, but time has shown that both the Dodge and Plymouth possess a “so ugly that I like it” vibe, a mantle carried for years by the otherwise dissonant Volkswagen Type 1.
In the meantime at Ford, of course, Elwood Engel was simply designing one of the most timelessly beautiful luxury cars, the Lincoln Continental, whose basic shape was so perfect, it lasted the whole of the 1960s. A genius is often judged by his greatest masterpiece or his most spectacular failure. Unfortunately for Exner, the early 1960s were not as kind as they were to Engel, so people sometimes forget his beautiful Ghia concepts and forward-thinking “Forward Look” cars and focus on the Valiant and 1962 models.
Engel, on the other hand, although he produced some mediocre designs throughout his career and leaned too heavily on his favored Continental and Thunderbird motifs, produced relatively few stinkers, leaving his reputation comparatively untarnished.
The other side of the styling bridge between Exner and Engel is the 1965 Chrysler. Some deride it for being too much like a Ford or a Lincoln or a Pontiac, but it is tasteful and conservative, and it set the tone for all of Engel’s tenure as Chrysler’s styling chief.
And that leaves us with our featured Fury, a 1964 model. Equal parts Exner and Engel, it just might be the most appealing of all. With Max Wedge flair and fuselage-like elegance, this Fury is a menace that anyone who likes 1960s cars would like to own. With no fins to speak of and a tasteful red stripe, the Fury seems far removed from the hastily revised 1962 models, as Engel chipped away all the awkwardness, revealing the basic goodness of Exner’s original body.
Under the hood is where Chryslers often shine, and this engine compartment shines indeed. Chrysler’s body colored engine bays may present more work to an intrepid modern restorer, but offer a stunning result when done correctly. Of course, wide open starter relays, bulkhead connectors, ballast resistors, and ammeters may alternate (ha!) between endearing and enraging, depending on the “Mopar or No Car” level of the mechanic working on them; however, few can deny that the B/RB engine was an outstanding design.
This Fury has a Carter AFB sitting atop its manifold, meaning it’s most likely propelled by the 330-horsepower 383, one of Chrysler’s workaday mills that provided plenteous power to the performance-minded proletariat.
The Fury was also available with a Poly 318, a two-barrel 361, and the 426 Street Wedge, in addition to the base slant six. From what I can find in my research, the Street Wedge would likely have chromed valve covers and air cleaner, and my photo cropping of the lead picture seems to reveal a “383” hood ornament, so that’s where I’ll stand on our featured car’s engine choice.
The original owner of this Fury also specified the four-speed transmission, although s/he didn’t opt for the top of the line “Sport Fury,” which would have included bucket seats and a console for the four-speed shifter. A white and red bench seat four-speed Fury convertible? Expect this one to receive top billing at your local overblown circus auto auction.
Yes, this attractively unassuming Fury checks all the right boxes for anyone who likes 1960s cars, and we certainly can thank two great designers for the clean styling. Here’s one time in life where picking sides is unnecessary.
I’m not gonna argue Exner vs Engel, (though I’m more Exner) The ’64 Plymouth was pretty much a 13 year preview of the ’77 Chevrolet. Tight styling, right size,…Just too early. (I know the ’62s were first at bat, but that aside…) Just like the Airflow, the “little guy” led the way..but, the market in the 60s demanded Chrysler sized Plymouths. So ’65 got to be a “C” ,But the “B” body MoPar had the longest legs…..Untill the Panther FoMoCos… BTW, I’ll take ANYTHING Exner penned before a VW Type 1…..Runs for cover……
I am sure OPEC had something to do with the success of the 77 GM B & C bodies. No OPEC no CAFE world would be different.
Perhaps, But there were efforts to revert to a roughly mid 1950s size (115″ or so WB) for fullsize for Chevy/Pontiac within GM before 1973. I believe John Delorean was a proponent. IIRC. Remember the ’75 “a” body (considered “mid-sized” in it’s time.) was closer to a ’55 “a” in size (considered “standard” in it’s time.) than a ’75 “b” (considered “standard” in it’s time).
That’s correct. According to his book, Delorean had his staff pen a full line of A-Body based Bonnevilles & Catalinas. He was nixed by management, but the ’69 G-P was a surviving remnant which went to production.
GM was already working on a smaller replacement for the ’71-’76 B-C bodies before the ’73-’74 energy crisis. They knew they had gone too far with that generation. But it appears that they reduced the final size a bit more due to the energy crisis.
+1!
CAFE wasn’t put into law until 1975, and GM started writing up the 77’s blueprints in fall ’73. They were debating downsizing a few months before, but kicked into high gear the day the tap was turned off. *
*Embellishment from story in Collectible Automobile.
Having owned several vintage Mopars, it is interesting to see the nearly endless variety of ways they arranged those familiar components under different hoods.
I am curious where the wiper motor hides on these. Is it under the dash?
Not sure which I would pick, the Fury, or the ’65 New Yorker.
Dan:
Yes , the wiper motor is under the dash. That turned out to be a good thing for me one day in my father’s hand-me-down ’64 Sport Fury…
Driving north on Telegraph in a heavy downpour in Detroit, the wipers just quit moving, so I dove into the nearest parking lot, which was our hangout at the Burger King just south of 6-Mile.
From inside the car, Tom Woolcox & I were able to determine that the motor was still running, but the the e-clip had fallen off the linkage arm and it was adrift of its driven peg. I shut off the electric motor, put the pantograph-like arm back on and snapped the e-clip back in place. Voila! Functioning wipers again, the rain had let up and it was time to celebrate with a Whopper!
However, from that day forward, when the wipers were shut off, they now parked themselves at the opposite end of their stroke, pointing straight up at the outboard ends of the windshield, not unlike the referee pronouncing that the kicker made a field goal!
I have lots of stories about that car…
Long overhangs seem to be forbidden now, but look what it does for the Fury. The engine bay can accommodate a 426 V8 and the trunk has 25 cubic feet.
There is something psychotic, or at least typo driven, about the way trunk capacity is measured in cars. The ’65 Plymouth, generally accepted as a longer and wider car, lists just 16.8 cubic feet of trunk space – which sounds a bit more rational. I’m wondering if the ’64 was actually 15.3 cubic feet.
From the ’65 brochure………..
AARON65, You are in the heart of my part of the 20th century with this post.
I was 17 when the 1962 Chrysler cars came out. I loved them; they were weird and cool and fast. Most 17 year old males liked weird and cool, but we loved fast.
I couldn’t afford anything so new as a 1962 model in 1962, but I poured over the magazines, memorized the statistics, and lusted for the over-the-top weirdness of the 1962 Dodge. With a big V8. With torque-flight. Convertible, of course.
It’s 2016 now and I am a mature, reasonable, responsible adult.
And I still love the weird wild look of that 1962 Dodge.
Thank you for a pleasant morning memory trip.
I had a rather powerful attraction to these when they came out new too, despite their eccentric styling. They made the ’62 Fords and Chevys look like yesterday’s soggy white bread. I preferred the Plymouth over the Dodge, though.
You and I both, Paul! I understand that the ’62 Plymouth was rejected for its styling, but I happen to like it—front, side, rear, and especially that unusually well designed, easy-to-read instrument cluster.
And I still love the weird wild look of that 1962 Dodge.
You probably enjoy the scenes of Dick Shawn on the road in “It’s A Mad Mad Mad Mad World”
(after the dancing scene)
LOL! Now I’ve got another movie to watch again this weekend!
I love that movie, many CCs in it and most are driven by some of the greatest movie and stage stars of the middle 20th century.
Also some great shots of a classic twin Beech flying through a billboard.
Dodge driver Sylvester is played by Dick Shawn and Milton Berle’s line “be careful of him, he’s not normal” not only applies to the character Sylvester, it also applies to Shawn himself. Shawn is also in Mel Brooks’ “The Producers” and plays Lorenzo St. DuBois (L.S.D.) who in turn plays Hitler in the Broadway play within the movie called “Springtime for Hitler”.
Boy, do I have a lot of worthless information in my mind. I should do some spring cleaning.
My odd tastes come to the forefront in this article. Despite having been raised in a Chevrolet household (not just car ownership, but flat out putting food on the table) two of my favorite designs from the 60’s are the ’62 Plymouth and the ’65 Chrysler, which I like better than anything GM did that decade. OK, maybe not the C2 Corvette, but anything else GM did during that decade.
And I rather like the ’62 Dodge, too.
C2 Corvettes, of course.
GM also did some interesting downsizing in 1961 and my family picked up a leftover 1961 Pontiac Ventura in Honduras Maroon (I mean Coronado Red) so I have always had a soft spot for that model and color.
Maybe downsizing a car just makes it leaner and meaner and more attractive.
And faster.
The full size Oldsmobiles and Buicks were also downsized, but their designs were not as attractive to me as the Pontiac.
It ran a long time (about 110,000 miles) before it was stolen from a NYC parking lot and used in an armed robbery. My family never got it back from the police impound lot.
The ’64 Plymouth always caught my eye, even as a kid. Knowing the backstory only helps me appreciate it more.
This post was a mini-masterpiece. I’m usually more interested in the artistic / aesthetic origins of car design, and this article provided some meaningful facts and commentary. Really enjoyed it. Love that shot of the ’65 Chrysler with the sun glinting off the chrome. I’m so excited car show season is finally here.
IMO one of the smartest things Chryco did with these, but not until the final 1965 models, was to rebrand them. Instead of too-small “full size” cars they became red-hot “intermediates”, a sleight of hand they should’ve pulled off in 1963.
Grandpa got what he knew was a bargain with his ’65 Belvedere II. Same car as a ’64 Fury (but with two headlights) at a lower price.
I will be one of the dissenters – the 64 Plymouth never did much for me. It was neither Exner nor Engle, a mishmash of a design that tried to make the car into something it was not. The 62 may have been kind of “out there”, but it was at least a coherent design. Even the 63 models retained enough of the “so weird it’s cool” vibe that this car seems to have lost.
These 62-64 Mopar B bodies never seemed to develop much of a following outside of the hot rod/performance crowd. Probably the most noteworthy feature about this one is that it has gone un-modded, which separates it from perhaps 98% of the survivors of these. And even with this one, a guy has to wonder if the floor shift was original or if the urge to modify was just too strong to resist completely.
Final thought: this car exhibits what I think of as the “Studebaker Problem” with every one it did after 1954. I see what the designers were trying to do, and in some ways they did it, but somehow the ghost of the original design hangs over it.
It’s usually not too difficult to tell if a manual floor-shift Mopar is original. Chrysler actually had a specific floor pan for floor manuals with a raised platform for the shift boot so it didn’t have the awkward curve that followed the transmission tunnel. IOW, if the shift boot is parallel with the floor, it’s OEM. If it follows the curve of the tunnel, than it’s aftermarket. I think I read somewhere that the point of it was to maintain the integrity of the shift boot, which would come apart and tear more rapidly if it had the additional curve to it.
I agree with you about these ’64s: neither fish nor fowl.
One of the biggest unanswered questions for me is the take rate on four speeds in big American cars after they became available. The manufacturers promoted them reasonably aggressively, in ads and brochures. And I remember seeing them from time to time back then, as I made a point to look into just about every car I walked by as a kid.
But nowadays everyone almost assumes that when they see a four speed that it was added later. Undoubtedly many were, but on the other hand, there were a good number of guys who liked manual transmissions, and the four speeds were a very attractive alternative to the three speeds, since they were fully synchronized and of course had that extra gear.
Four speed stick shifts had become a popular part of the lexicon in the 60s, thanks to all of the British sports cars, and all the imports, especially the VW.
I can easily imagine someone ordering a Fury convertible with a four speed, even if they didn’t want to spend the extra bucks for the Sport Fury version. Especially with the 383! These trim-sized Mopars tended to attract serious drivers, and they were the kind who would appreciate a four speed.
Doing some research, I bumped into rare option stats for the ’63 and ’64 Plymouth, four speeds were in 1.2% of ’63 cars, and 4.1% of ’64 cars. That’s actually an interesting jump in an era when automatics were still seeing upward leaps in installation rates.
The ’64 Sport Fury convertible was the most expensive Plymouth, starting at $3,095. That had to look stratospheric in showrooms – the most popular ’64 Plymouth was the Valiant V-200 four door sedan starting at $2,112. The most popular large Plymouth was the Belvedere four door sedan starting at $2,417. Ordering a full-on loaded Sport Fury convertible was an exercise in confidence for a dealer manager, there just weren’t that many takers – 3,858 to be exact. The regular Fury convertible saved you about $150.00, not inconsequential in ’64, especially for Plymouth buyers.
A very large percentage of new cars back then were ordered by the buyers, not bought from dealer stock. certainly a dealer would never order a four speed Fury convertible.
Interesting stat about the four-speed take rate. That’s not as rare as they’re often made out to be, and supports my assumption.
One of my father’s co-workers ordered a 1967 Fury III two door hardtop with the 440 4-bbl and four speed transmission. It was his family’s only car for several years until Mrs. Co-worker complained enough that they bought something else (automatic, of course) for her to drive. I got to ride in the Plymouth a couple of times, including a memorable trip to St. Louis (about 165 miles away). Even with the relatively heavy Fury body this car was a beast; I don’t know what ratio was in the final drive but the car accelerated strongly. I tried to get him to sell the car to me ca 1971 but all he would do was smile.
A friend of mine in the 70’s owned a ’67 Impala coupe he bought from the original owner. It was NOT an SS but had been ordered with a four-speed from the factory.
I have a friend who bought a new, 1963 Sport Fury equipped with an OEM 383/3-speed floor shift combination. He swears that the 4-speed wasn’t available in 1963. While I suspect his memory is faulty, I wonder if he’s recalling the beginning of the model year (the 4-speed might have been a mid-year release) and/or just 383 cars. Further, maybe it would be possible to extrapolate the actual number of ‘non’ Max Wedge cars that got a 4-speed from that 12% figure. Surely 12% of total production is a number high enough to assume that most (if not all) of them had to have the 383. I have no idea how many of the 426 cars had a 4-speed and how many got the Torqueflite, but the total number can’t be that great.
I had spent some time researching various points leading to a similar opinion, and you beat me too it. The ’64 Plymouth front end may just be the generic American car front clip for the ’62-’65 era.
The ’63 represented the excising of much of Exner’s Exnuberance. It’s not entirely clear (from reading allpar.com), but it appears that Engel was on hand and pushed for more than just the ’63 front clip on the ’62 car, but rather an extensive clean up of the lines, in particular the belt line, removing the kick-up that was a distinctive part of the ’62.
The resulting ’63 was a rather tidy car, but the big white lens oval turn signals on the front gave it a rather distinctive look, and the headlight bezels created a nice offset to the grill. The ’64 was a mildly face lifted ’63, and truly a holdover for the big changes coming in ’65.
A face I’ve come to like…………
That transition from Exner to Engel is one that has not been tremendously well documented. I did a really deep dive into that pool some time back ( https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1963-chrysler-new-yorker-virgil-exner-comes-full-circle-with-some-help/ ). My conclusion is that Engel was there in time to do some minor adjustments to trim pieces for 1963 models, but not much else. (The 64s are much more Engel-ized.)
I believe that the bigger driver of the more conservative 1963 models was Lynn Townsend becoming president in 1961. The 1962 models had already been put to bed by then, but there was still time to do something with the 63s, and he undoubtedly laid down the law to Chrysler styling to knock off the weird shit.
Originally Lynn Townsend wanted the only the front and rear of the Dodge and Plymouth changed, but he then released enough money to change the sides, as well.
According to Chrysler historian (and former Chrysler stylist) Jeff Godshall, the 1963 line-up was basically complete when Engel joined the company. He made a few changes – the most noteworthy change was raising the outer rear quarter panels of the 1963 Valiant. Apparently the original design featured rear quarter panels that sloped at the same angle as the trunk lid.
Supposedly, when Engel was shown the 1963 Plymouth and Dodge, he told Townsend that these cars were fine, and didn’t need any major last-minute changes. As jpcavanaugh notes, except for some minor details, the corporation’s 1963 line-up was styled by Exner. The dealers, however, had been up in arms over the wacky styling in 1961 and 1962, so it was probably advantageous for Chrysler to credit Engel with the 1963 styling.
I’ve always thought this looks much more like Exner – Aussie ’63 AP5 Valiant.
My Uncle had a blue Plymouth Sport Fury like this. It had buckets and a console but I remember that it had pushbuttons for the auto trans in the dash. My Uncle was a real Mopar guy, his last one was a first gen Dodge Magnum-Yum.
Yes, the 1963 front end is much better than the more generic and also awkward ’64. I too am a fan of both the ’62 Plymouth and Dodges, but the one mistake to me was the flattish and slightly V’ed windshield with rising cowl, kind of like a ’53 Studebaker. This wasn’t fixed on the ’63’s but was on the 1964 models.
And nothing compares with the Sport Fury or Polara 500 (the bucket seat models) of any year.
When I was a kid (in the mid 50s to late 60s), my mother’s maiden aunt had a 56 Plymouth followed by a 64 Plymouth….a Belvedere 2 door sedan. I was old enough to be able to drive the 64, legally, and while it’s slant 6 was no match for my parents 64 Country Squire with a 289, I remember the interior as a high point of that Plymouth. The 64 Ford was in the 4th year of the same basic gauge cluster that first appeared in 1961. The Plymouth? As was typical for a Chrysler product, it had more than a speedometer and gas gauge.
As far as the 64 Plymouth or 65 Chrysler? I never considered the 65 Chrysler to be all that much of a look-a-like car. I’ve always considered the glass covered headlights to be a distinctive styling touch, and the “silver-tone” tail light lens were a great touch, too.
The ’64 Plymouth; I still receive daily ebay alerts when one gets listed for auction (in fact, that’s what I had initially thought this CC e-mail was for this morning).
My father took delivery of his new ’64 Sport Fury on November 23rd, 1963 (Chestnut w/Sandalwood top, matching 2-tone bucket seat/console interior, 318 V8/automatic, an AM radio and power steering rounded out the options). Most people remember that date for JFK’s assassination.
From Detroit, we took several family vacations in that car, two (2) to visit my brother in the Army (Louisville & San Antonio) my Mother’s brother in Santa Rosa, then up through San Francisco, Michigan’s UP, and numerous trips to relatives in Elkhart, IN. Great Car. Gorgeous body styling!
In 1970 at 106,000 miles, the ’64 Sport Fury became my first car, racking up another 30k-some miles until I replaced it with a brand new MGB Tourer, the Friday before Labor Day weekend in 1973.
I cannot recall any mechanical issues, beyond replacing the brakes and normal maintenance items, with the single exceptions of the LH motor mount failing, costing me an upper radiator hose after the fan sliced through it, and the mounting bolts nearly all falling out of the steering box (!!). The car was a bit “magnetized” in that other cars were prone to running into it (for both my father, 2 or 3 times and once myself).
One of my many automotive fantasies is to replicate that car, but substituting a 440/4-speed to make a 426 Street Wedge clone; doesn’t have to be authentic, just accurate in detail.
Nice car! And I’d bet the engine bay didn’t look that nice when it rolled off the assembly line!
Well, you can’t please everyone. My favourite Plymouth cars have always been the 1962-64 Belvedere and Fury.
If we’re ranking ’62-’64 Plymouths, my first-place pick is the ’62, followed by the ’63 and then the ’64. I just have never liked the ’64 front end, which has always looked much too much like a ’63 Chevrolet (another one I don’t like).
Allpar.com website has good analysis of what was done to the B body for ’63/’64, from ’62. See link here http://www.allpar.com/history/plymouth/1963.html
At first, the ’63 was to keep the rear end of the ’62, but it got squared off some more. Drawing shown in link.
These sure won drag races, but not sales contests. Middle class America still wanted 120″ wheelbases for big family cars [approx.] in 60’s. But at least, these led to the later Road Runner and Charger.
The ’62 “b”s sure led to a lot! like FoMoCo’s Falcon (US) and Fox, They made just about every “format” of car on the platform over the years.
My parents seemed amused that my mother’s maiden aunt (a school secretary) bought a new 1965 or 1966 Plymouth Fury III two-door hardtop, white with a red interior.
Even at 10 years old, I thought it was cool.
I agree that the Exner cars had just got too crazy looking, almost to the point of looking like an abstract art sculpture. These ’64’s still look great, to me, and Engel had filed off a few of the more far out designs.
I would find it hard to choose between this convertible or the 2 door hardtop with that great C pillar design that was completely different to what anyone else did before or since.
I cannot say conclusively whether I prefer the grille and front end treatment on this 1964 Plymouth, or that of the 1964 Dodge. The Plymouth was nice and clean, straight lines very business man like. On the other hand, the Dodge had the barbell grille look, with a bit more personality to it if you will.
I do remember walking home from school – Grade 3 or 4 maybe and seeing one of these, in white passing by on its way home. I saw that car most every day and I liked its clean lines.
Either way, these were nice looking cars, but were vastly outgunned by the slightly larger appearing Chevy/Pontiac of the same year.
I had not noticed before, but that 1965 Chrysler sure bears some resemblance to a 1964 Oldsmobile Jetstar, with the just-a-bit recessed grille.
Excellent article.
The 1964 Plymouth seems like the year when Engel really began copying GM vehicles in earnest. They were already kind of doing it over at Dodge with the Custom 880 which had a quasi Oldsmobile look to it. Plymouth would continue going back and forth with the last model cycle Chevrolet or Pontiac while Chrysler got to be last year’s Mercury.
Sadly, the next time Chrysler would try something truly different (the 1969 fuselage cars), it would end up being only slightly better than the 1962 fiasco. So, they went right back to last year’s big GM cars for 1974. Unfortunately for them, outside influences beyond their control put Chrysler into a death spiral from which they were only saved by the two bright spots of the Cordoba and Omnirizon, along with Iacocca’s arrival, the minivan, and an almost wholesale conversion to smaller FWD cars.