(posted at the Cohort by Curtis Perry)
Jim Cavanaugh’s recent CC on a 1964 Dodge Custom 880 pointed out that the 880 was the last relic of Chrysler Design Chief Virgil Exner’s “Forward Look”. By 1965, Chrysler’s full size cars were completely made over under the direction of its new design head Elwood Engel. The same happened in 1966 to the mid-sized cars. That left the ’66 Dart and Valiant as the last living relics of the Exner era. And it’s still on mostly full display, even if the front end was been fully Engelasized.
The original ’63 Dart (along with the Valiant and cleaned-up semi-full size Dodges and Plymouths) was a farewell shot by Exner, and went a long way to redeem himself for the numerous awkward cars that somehow found themselves being released and built during the difficult 1960-1962 model years. Some of these cars were designed and approved during his absence recovering from a heart attack, others just somehow slipped by, and of course the ’62 cars were downsized due to corporate edict.
But he left having largely righted the listing Chrysler design ship. The ’63 Dart was of course still a bit out of the mainstream, with its prominent single front headlights and protruding front fenders, a design that it shared with the Chrysler Turbine car. The Turbine is typically associated with Engel, but undoubtedly much of it was already in the works, at least the basic front end design, before he put his stamp on it, which is quite visible on the sides, predicting the ’65 Chryslers.
In 1965, the Dart got a new grille which toned down the prominent headlights. The transition was underway. But the front fenders were still the same, or certainly mostly so.
For its 1966 finale, Chrysler saw fit to tool up new front fenders for the Dart (as well as the Valiant), to make the transition to the Engel era complete at least from the cowl forward.
But as can be seen here, that did not apply to the back two-thirds, although they were toned down as much as possible. Which means very little. The distinct roof line and rear fenders and tail lights were still classic late Exner; the last production cars to sport his influence. The end of an era.
Exner had some great ideas, but some of them went way too wild, and it’s easy to see why Chrysler had fired him. If he had reined in some of the crazier concepts (the square steering wheels rank as some of the weirdest styling that I can think of), I think that he could have made the 60’s transition into the next forward look that all of the car companies had undergone in about 64-66. For my tastes, 64-66 really started to become a major styling phase in all of the car companies, where they managed to grow out of the generic slab siding and transition into a very modern look that had some square elements, but enough soft curves and fastback styling that really still looks great to this day. Earlier in the 60’s, the styling became a bit too safe looking; no doubt a knee jerk reaction to the flamboyant jet aircraft styling of the late 50’s. There’s so many of his elements in the 60’s that could have really been trend setters, had he toned them down and softened them a bit.
The general prevailing attitude on Exner in the early sixties is the he got a raw deal when the downsized ’62 Mopars turned out to be disasters and he was terminated as the scapegoat. But, honestly, aside from the ’63-’66 A-body, Exner had already pulled a couple of whoppers with the ’60-’61 cars. After seeing some of the original ’62 full-size clays, well, I’m not sure that if Exner’s non-downsized cars had made production, they’d have done all that much better.
Still, a huge automotive ‘what if’ (at least for Chrysler aficionados) will always be how things might have turned out if Exner hadn’t been cashiered and there wouldn’t have been any of the Engel-era ‘me-too’ GM lookalike cars that followed all the way up to the Iacocca days. I mean, it’s not like GM and Ford fired all of their late fifties’ stylists; they managed to come up with some of the nicest styled cars, ever, in the sixties. Surely, Exner could have adapted and shown similar restraint as his GM and Ford counterparts.
Of course, Exner championed the whole bizarre asymmetrical thing which could have been where he took sixties Chryslers, so maybe it was all for the best he was let go.
Also, we could wonder if Chrysler president at the time Bill Newberg didn’t care about the rumors of smaller Chevy and Ford (Chevy II and Fairlane) or heard instead a new kind of car coming like a mid-size intermediate?
Or having the Valiant being marketed as a Plymouth right from the start instead of being “not your kid brother” and being a separate division while Dodge and DeSoto inherit a slightly bigger version going against the Comet and the BOP senior compacts?
And if Exner hadn’t got an heart attack, how the 1959-60-61 models would had turned on?
Upon further thought, I doubt things would have turned out any differently. With the big “Suddenly, it’s 1960!” marketing campaign, Chrysler had pretty much locked themselves into the Forward Look through 1960.
And the originally planned 1962 full-size cars probably wouldn’t have saved Newberg or Tex Colbert, either. That means that it would have been Lynn Townsend who Exner answered to, and I just can’t see that working. So, Townsend would have replaced Exner with Engel, anyway, and things would have worked out exactly the same.
Newberg was forced out as a result of a growing “payola” scandal involving key Chrysler executives and several suppliers. He was gone well before the fall of 1961. Colbert was out soon after Newberg.
Newberg’s ouster didn’t have anything to do with his product planning decisions. Colbert was ousted because a lot of this had occurred under his watch, and stockholders and board members were increasingly upset over the corporation’s dismal sales performance after 1957.
Collectible Automobile ran a story on the planned 1962 Plymouth back in 1996. The story even featured accurate drawings of the Plymouth if it had debuted as Exner had originally envisioned it. There are also photos of the final full-size clays of the planned 1962 DeSoto and Chrysler.
The original 1962 Plymouth probably would have sold better, as that car looked considerably less awkward – and more substantial – than the shrunken 1962 Plymouth.
The Chrysler, however, would have landed with a thud. The front end was simply too wacky, and the rounded “turtle” deck was not what buyers in that class wanted.
It is interesting that Bill Schmidt never gets any of the stink from the 61s to stick to him. Exner was gone when they were being done and Schmidt was there every day. Exner was undoubtedly exercising some influence but those cars are a stew of departmental dysfunction.
Yes, as the Exner bio notes, Schmidt was a very destructive influence. Still it’s hard to sort out who/what was involved. The heavy front ends of the ’59s feel like a lot of Schmidt designs from Packard, yet were clearly well along by the time of Exner’s heart attack.
The ’60 Chrysler, DeSoto and Imperial all carried forward Exner themes, very well in the case of the Chrysler at least, but Plymouth and Dodge were losing direction. The Valiant is clearly a product of Exner’s direction. Much of the work here was done with Exner recuperating, but I wonder i the added challenges of adding the compact and moving to unibody overwhelmed internal controls. Still, Schmidt was around forming dissent for part of the team.
I think Ex gets full credit, both good and bad, for everything from ’61 through ’63 , with a notable caveat. The Division heads, especially at Dodge, seemed to have a lot of power over styling, as you and others have noted. The ’63 A Bodies and Chryslers were quite nice, as was the Sweptline pickup and the A-100 van, but the ’61 full size cars and the planned and built ’62s were dreadful.
As for these, the front ends were painful, much like the ’65 Fairlane.
Exner had a worthwhile design direction for the 1960’s in classic-inspired long hood, central grille, airfoil fender blades, monocoque passenger compartment, short deck, all seen in the 1960 Valiant. Which because the design was first applied to a economy compact rather than the full-sized Chrysler and Imperials nixed its use as a overall corporate design direction. What a waste.
Exner should have known not to apply sophisticated styling to a bottom-of-the-line car which sold primarily based on price and utility. The Falcon had dishwater dull styling but that’s all that segment demanded or deserved.
Had Ex applied the Valiant styling themes to ’60 Chryslers, DeSotos and large Dodges, and even Imperials the early 1960’s could have been the second blossoming of the Forward Look.
Some great points. I kind of wonder if Exner’s philosophy of giving the lowest priced cars some very high end styling didn’t contribute to the excess and craziness of the highest priced ones, where every higher priced car that he designed had to be wilder and more flamboyant than the rest.
The Dart wasn’t sold here in Canada but the ’66 Valiant Signet was identical to a Dart GT. I had one in the same colour as the car in the last 2 photos. White interior, and a 273 automatic. I think I paid 350 bucks for it in decent shape. I cleaned it up, gave it a tune up and used it as a winter car for a couple of years. It was a good car and served me well, but I always found the contrast between the front end and the rear end styling awkward. I always preferred the looks of the ’65.
I wouldn’t mind having my old ’66 back today though.
It’s interesting that not only did these get new fenders but the Valiant did too. Two *different* one-year-only front clips, plus rather than having them rely on grille texture alone just in ’66 until the full model change for ’67 arrived. Plus a new hood that at least might’ve been shared between divisions (I can’t tell from searches of internet pics alone) and at Plymouth a different grille for the Barracuda. That’s a lot of tooling for such a short run.
The 66 Valiant also had a squared off rear roofline, at least on the 2 doors, both sedan and hardtop.
Another one year change.
Wow, I never noticed the subtle change in the roofline for the 1966 Valiant. That’s not an inexpensive change and quite odd that Chrysler would spend the money for it when the very next year would be similar but, again, use an entirely different stamping.
Of course, it’s Chrysler…
Nor have I!
The ’66 stamping was less complex (therefore less costly) than the ’63 or ’64-’65 stampings. The ’66 backglass was less complex (therefore less costly) than the ’63-’65 backglass. Add in the fairly decent chance that some or all of the tooling was sufficiently worn to warrant replacement, and the improved marketability brought by the restyled roofline, and it starts to look easily worthwhile.
Chrysler forgot to inform AMT model company about the change to the roof. Because of that 66 Valiant promo models are hard to find and expensive. Once someone realized the promos had the wrong roof they stopped making them.
66:
Geez, that ’66 is pretty damn sharp!
65
Not rear jet pod in the rear fenders as well
Those 1966 fenders made it to Australia as well, though I think they were stamped here.
My favourite front of these early Valiants.
The 66 sedans also got the lowered rear wheel cut outs of the US cars, The wagons and utes continued to use the fully rounded cut outs of the first gen cars.
Lots of mix and match styles to play with here.
The 63 to 65 model shown
Always liked the 65 “hairpin’ better than the one on the 63-64.
I still like the ’63 front grille the best.
Make mine a ’64.
I like the ’64 Dart convertible as well as the ’65 Barracuda and Valiant Signet ragtop, They had a panache that few compacts had. No wonder that Aussies and Canucks loved their Valiants so much, I know I do.
These early ’60’s 2-Dr hardtops from Chrysler seemed to predict the big change at GM in 1965.
That’s when the GM passenger side-windows began to use curved glass, and the chrome/rubber framing was greatly reduced from prior years.
Those new GM 2-Dr hardtops were spectacular ……. but Chrysler did the windows first.
Curved side windows? What curved side windows? Chrysler didn’t have any except on the Imperial until their new big C-Bodies in 1965.
In an effort to be concise on this site, I may have lacked clarity. My point was —
Many early 60’s Chrysler hartdtops had minimal chrome/rubber frame structures.
Meantime, GM retained the full chrome frames they’d had since their 1st hardtops, of ’48-’49.
GM finally went to thinner frames in ’65. Chrysler had already beaten them to it.
Trivial, for sure. But that’s what we’re all about here.
Er-ruh…no, there’s not really much of any similarity between early-’60s Chrysler 2-door hardtops and ’65 GM 2-door hardtops. If we want to talk about GM imitating Chrysler in 2-door hardtops, see attached.
A lot of 63 Chrysler in GM’s 65s
Don’t forget the ’65 Dodge Charger, a Dart GT with special accessories, available, I believe, through the Orange County(CA) dealer association.
There is a mindbendingly picayune and thorough restoration of a ’65 Dart Charger by a very dedicated Swede, chronicled in words and pics here (grab snacks and settle in; it’s a 132-page thread with nearly 3,300 posts).
picayune, before I googled the word I made a guess that it meant having lots of pictures, but no.
Never stop learning. 🙂
Something’s been bothering me for the last few days about my use here of “picayune”. Having consulted the dictionaries, I have to admit I misused it; that word doesn’t mean what I used it to mean. I should’ve used fastidious.
A great deal of my professional life involves writing and editing, so I really don’t like it when this kind of thing happens, but it occasionally does, and I regret my error and whatever confusion it caused. On the other hand, I’m pleased if it caused any mirth.
I’m glad you tumbled to that. I was rather confused by your original comment, but then that was probably not the first time. 🙂
My Dad had a ’66 Valiant Signet, with three on the tree. I don’t think he even got an AM radio in the thing. It only lasted a year however before he cracked it up while driving from Toronto to Halifax. Too many pops perhaps, I was left to assume or infer the cause. It was brought home somehow, or maybe fixed while in some distant Quebec town maybe, and sold for cheap. After that debacle my Mom would allow him no further cars, and none were purchased until I achieved driving age.
Too many pops…?
“Beers” in this Canadian context.
“Wobbly Pops”
Moparlee: my 63 Signet has nothing but was ordered with a radio and heater. Perhaps whitewalls. 170 [originally, now a 225], three speed on the column. It’s been the only column mounted manual shift Valiant of it’s kind in the rare shows it’s been in.
My Uncle George and Aunt Lenore, who lived in DC, had a ’65 or ’66 GT, with bucket seats, automatic in the console, and the slant six. They would make a once-a-year trip to Arkansas and Oklahoma to see my mom and the other 4 sisters with their two cats in the Dodge. Uncle George (who had a beard, which was quite a statement in my family in the ’60’s) would sit around in the evenings, drinking a six-pack, getting mildly, but belligerently, soused, but handing out $20’s to the nieces and nephews. Mom was scandalized, as we were pretty staunch Baptists at the time and alcohol was strictly verboten (I write, as I sip a blueberry gose). I loved the guy. They kept that GT until 1977, when they traded it for a green Aspen or Volare coupe, I can’t remember which. Poor old George died in the ’90’s. I last saw Aunt Lenore in 2011, when I went to her 90th birthday party. She’s still kicking as far as I know.
Anyway, I’ve never been a MOPAR man, but have always loved these oddly styled GTs, probably because of Uncle George and his $20’s.
For the last Exner-mobile, we should include also the 1961 Dodge light pick-up truck who kept the same basic bodyshell until 1971!
For that matter, the mediums kept the 1961 cab for another year or two.
That meant that Dodge had four generations of truck cab in production in 1972 or thereabouts, with the pickups using the new ’72 cab, the mediums using the 1961 cab, the heavy-duties still with the 1955 cab and the WM300 Power Wagon with its’ 1939 cab still in production for export only.
To add to that, in 1973 Dodge designed a brand-new, owner-operator focused heavy-duty long conventional semi tractor, the Bighorn, using that 1955 pickup cab instead of at least going with the state-of-the-art one they already had…
Good point, the new-for-’61 Dodge truck line did show a lot of Exner influence. If you want to get really specific, the medium duty Dodge D-500 through D-700 models continued the 1961 style through the 1973 model year.
The Dodge Bighorn would make quite a ‘Curbside Classic’ episode!
We covered the LCF and Big Horn here: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/cc-capsule-dodge-lcf-truck-motorhome-a-dodge-lover-lives-inhere/
What’s really cool is the ’66 through ’69 Dodge Dart from an alternate universe (okeh, Spain), which—aside from being available with much nicer trim and fittings than the US version, had great big rectangular headlamps. See here (YouTube vid with irritating autoplay music), here (side turn signal repeater not used in USA also visible), and here (vinyl roof, baybay!). A close look at the red car reveals the headlamps were made by Hella, and have a backsweep near the top of the lens strongly suggesting they were not originally designed for this car—which makes sense.
You mean these guys?
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/fancy-a-gen-3-dart-wagon-with-four-wheel-dis-brakes-and-four-speed-stick-they-made-them-in-spain-along-with-some-other-unique-dart-variants/
The one in the 2nd pic at that link, yes (the others are later descendents).
Continuing the Detroit-parallel-universe theme, I think those are Opel Rekord C headlights.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Rekord_C.jpg
I think you’re right!
The Turbine is typically associated with Engel, but undoubtedly much of it was already in the works, at least the basic front end design, before he put his stamp on it, which is quite visible on the sides, predicting the ’65 Chryslers.
On the other hand, it’s been brought up before that the basic front end design of it does bear a rather significant resemblance to the 61-63 Thunderbird’s rear end design.
The 64-66 hardtop back half always looked a bit awkward to me regardless of front end, the lines make the rear wheels look awkward, like they’re too small and misplaced. I actually do prefer the 66 or the 65 to the turbine car like 64s. The body seems to be a scaled down copy of the 63-64 Chrysler New Yorker body, so the first year design purity argument in favor of it is off the table anyway IMO
The were did the very similar ’63 Dart front end come from? It wa slaready finished by the time Engel arrived, and he did not change it except for some minor details of the grille, according to one source.
Here’s the thing: guys like Engel didn’t do the actual styling; they just picked and chose what they liked, and guided the direction. It would appear that someone at Chrysler was already being influenced by Ford design; I seem to remember something about a Ford designer moving to Chrysler ahead of Engel.
Daniel Stern;
I don’t know about the States but another slang for beer north of the border is “Wobbly Pop”
Huh. I never heard it the 11 years I lived in TO, and I never hear it in Vancouver, either. Must’ve been local and/or temporal. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Definitely in Toronto – I had a friend explain “They’re wobbly pops because if you drink enough of them, they make you wobble!” Reminded me of the 1970s toys “Wheebles”
Weebles, no h. “Weebles wobble, but they don’t fall down.” Still a thing, as it seems.
As for “wobbly pop” in Toronto: maybe it was gone by the time I moved there in 2001.
You make me feel old! I would have heard that term around 1985!!!
Thanks re: Weebles – I remember the commercials as a kid.
Around these parts (n.e. Ohio) we call ’em “Wobble Pops”.
In Australia, where beer is classed as an essential food group, the only popping ever associated with it is directed at anyone in the garden later at night who moves towards the house, as in “If you’re popping down the shops, can you get more?”. But I think I’ll adopt Wobbly Pop, I like it. It is causally accurate, as it does indeed leave the consumer less than directional and windy.
I never realized before how much the ’66 front fenders made the Dart look like the ’66 Falcon.
Just put your hand over everything from the fender decorations on back:
Not mentioned here yet, but I noticed the blue Spanish Dart is diesel powered. Wish they’d shown the engine.
Happy Motoring, Mark
The lowest-end Barreiros Darts had a grossly underpowered diesel engine and round taillamps from a Simca. Wikipedia says, These models, mainly intended for taxi use, were very basic and very slow. They have 7-inch round headlamps rather than the large oblong units on fancier Spanish Darts, and use the round taillights from the first generation Simca 1000. The engine was the Barreiros C65, a 2,007 cc (122.5 cu in) inline-four with 65 PS (48 kW) at 4,500 rpm. Top speed was claimed to be 124 km/h (77 mph). There may be engine bay pics in Los Dodge Espanoles, a fascinating book with a self-explanatory title. It’s out of print; I have at least one copy, but for the next 11 days they’re on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean from me so I can’t look right now.
It’d be interesting to see pictures of this era of Dart/Valiant under development–How much more Exner-esque was it?
Not sure if it’s been mentioned but there is a Toyota T-100 photobombing the last picture from inside the parking garage.
It’s hard to tell from the photos, but there are small ridges atop the rear quarter panels that loop over the rear window and terminate at each taillight. This feature was lifted from the 1961 Dodge Flite Wing concept car that had been designed under Exner.
My grandmother had a 1966 Dart 270 four-door sedan in dark blue. It was the quintessential grandmother’s car – it had the slant six, Torqueflite, AM radio and full wheel covers. She kept it until the summer of 1977, when she traded it on a used 1973 Maverick four-door sedan with a six and automatic. That was a move she regretted, as the Maverick was quite the gas guzzler.
It’s interesting that the 1967 Dart, which was completely styled under Engel, featured a more pronounced break between the C-pillar and the quarter panel, as compared to this car. The roof of the 1967 and later Dart hardtops and sedans was “nestled” between the fenders and quarter panels. GM, meanwhile, was moving in the opposite direction in that regard.
I also spent some time in a 66 Dart. My Scoutmaster’s wife drove one around 1971, while his car was a 69 Ford Cortina wagon. Our troop was taking a day trip from Fort Wayne to Chicago with several other fathers driving too. Ted wisely decided that the Dart was the car for that trip instead of the Cortina, which had been a constant series of failures and breakages, despite being much newer. Unlike many of our outings in the Cortina, the trip in the Dart was completely uneventful.
As time has gone by I’ve developed a bit of a liking for the Exner Darts. In my younger day I thought the ’66 was the best looking but as I’ve aged (not matured, that’s for sure 😀 !) I now think the ’63 and ’64’s are the best. For some reason the just look “right” to me, well proportioned and, well, “right”. YMMV, of course 🙂 .
if I had a big house and a five car garage I think I would have one of these nice
little mopars in there ! what dandy cars they are