(first posted 5/13/2013) Every time we purchase a car, we need to balance the rational with the emotional. Should we choose a car because it meets all the critical factors on our needs list, a car that strikes the perfect balance between size, efficiency and cost, or should we choose a car because it presents the image we desire? Over time, most of us have trod on both sides of this street, often making emotional purchases at a young age, and after learning the downside to emotional purchases, moving over to the rational side of the street.
Speaking from the emotional side of the street, I’d love to own this 1968 Coronet 500 simply for its visual appeal.
As a kid, a similar car resided in my neighborhood, and I wanted it. Looking back, I recall the elements that thrilled my young psyche- the tapered rear fenders with bright trim, the red “500” floating in the grill, and the bright fill panel between the tail lights. Not one of these features improved the cars performance, but taken together, they created an image that cried out “This car is the one to have!”
But a Dodge Coronet provided a rational choice as well. Sporting fresh sheet metal and a solid power train lineup, the Coronet helped deliver a good year for Dodge. Division sales were the second highest in the decade, trailing their best year (1966) by a mere 5,125 units. 1968 also represented the best sales year for Dodge B-bodies in the 60’s, toting up just over 285,000 units (both Coronet and Charger).
Dodge used the Coronet nameplate several times over the years, starting out as a full size car in 1949. The name continued on throughout the fifties, but was dropped after 1959. In 1965, Dodge brought back nameplate for their mid sized cars (which were in fact the previous years “plucked chicken” full size models with refreshed sheet metal), and offered the Coronet 500 trim level as the top of the line hardtop and convertible models. By 1968, buyers could also buy the Coronet 500 as a four door sedan or station wagon, but most 500s still came as a coupe or soft top.
Before moving on, if we’re discussing a sixties era Chrysler B-body, we have to mention the 426 Hemi. After all, this was an engine with so much emotional appeal that the mere mention of it’s name brings forth images of the God of Thunder. Unfortunately, this car did NOT come from the factory with a Hemi. While every Coronet 500 came equipped with a V-8 in 1968, Chrysler limited Hemi availability in their intermediate to the two performance trim levels, the Coronet R/T and the (Coronet) Super Bee. While I don’t know which motor resides under the hood, my heart desires the 350 HP 440 four barrel V-8 (doesn’t yours?).
Nineteen sixty eight also marked a turning point in the American auto market. 1968 marked the first year for tailpipe emission standards and seat belts (for the front seats). In addition, 1968 regulations broadened exterior lighting standards, as shown by the mandated side marker lights on this car. Of even greater concern for the domestics, imported cars now grabbed more than 10 % of the market (for the first time since 1959). While Detroit would continue to rely on rear wheel drive, chrome bumpers and big engines for another 10 years or so, these external factors meant the Coronet was a dead car walking.
In addition to regulatory threats, the Coronet 500 also faced death by Charger. A second coupe body based on the B-body platform, the Charger angled further up market and provided even more emotional appeal than the Coronet 500. After a slow start in 1966 and 1967, the new ‘68 Charger took the market by storm, ringing up nearly 100,000 sales. These sales cut into Cornet 500 sales, and Charger out sold the Coronet 500 by a factor of three to one. Of course, if my neighbor owned a Charger, I’d probably be lusting over it rather than today’s Curbside Classic.
OK, back to our object of lust. The interior demonstrates that the Coronet 500 interior nicely matched the flashy exterior. The chrome nameplate on the door, the shiny center console and the bright chrome horn ring all reinforced the upscale image represented by the Coronet 500 name.
The stick on side trim provided more eye candy for my ten year old eyes. Current thought dismisses this sort of gingerbread as tacky and non-functional, but it served an important role in establishing vehicle pecking order back in 1968. Without these pieces, the car was mere transportation. This additional trim told the neighbors you’ve arrived, with the style needed to set yourself apart!
I’ve already mentioned the “500” floating in the grille, but here’s a close-up for those of you who arrived on the scene after this fine machine. Some would argue the 1968 Coronet grille was a bit plain and perhaps derivative. They may have a point- I view the grille as the weakest design element on the the car, but think the 500 badge punches up the look nicely. If I have a criticism, it’s toward the “Knock-Off” hub caps on the styled steel wheels. I’m fine with knock-off center caps if they actually hold the wheel to the hub, but these Magnum 500 wheels use five lug nuts, and look just fine with a simple hub cap.
Let’s take one more look at the complete package. The Coronet 500 from my childhood had maroon paint and a white vinyl top, which may have fit the times a bit better then this simple blue paintjob. Still, the overall effect is very pleasing, and demonstrates why Dodge saw success in 1968. Despite that, in just three years the Coronet 500 nameplate disappeared, along with the Coronet coupe. Chrysler chose to offer the Charger as the only two door B-body that year, in a move to simplify their product line. Because of that, the Coronet 500 walked the earth for a brief six year lifespan, but its emotional hold over my ten year old psyche continues to this day.
Wonderful find! I love this car in this light blue. The front end seems almost AMC-esque to me — Ambassador-like.
More like the 1967-70 mid-size Rebel, who got a Plymouth-esque rear tailights from 1967 to 1969 (1970 got a redesigned rear as well as a C-pillar for the coupe who looked like the 1967-68 C-body Chrysler/Dodge/Plymouth).
You’re right – Rebel!
As I said in the article, the front end is certainly derivative, but it bears noting that the “Bumblebee Wings” dual loop grille used in 1970 recieved far more criticism, and saw reduced sales. In this case, simple = good.
D/S
I’m a 70 fan there’s a few of us here.A moulin rouge/panther pink Superbee has been on my wanted list for a long time
The 68-70 MOPAR intermediates were some of the most beautiful US cars I’ve seen. Even in sedan form, these cars were so pretty. Not until the “Cloud” cars did they have such striking good looks. YMMV.
Stunning cars,the Coke bottle B bodies were real lookers and like curry came in several flavours from mild to scorching hot
Beautiful car. I’d probably be happy with the 318 V8–by all period accounts it was a nice, unfussy daily driver that still packed a fair bit of punch. I’ve never driven a B-body, but the one thing that always seems to get criticised is the high dash and steering wheel making you feel like you’re riding a custom bike with ‘ape-hangers’.
You know, when people think what it would be like if America was perfect and we could drive whatever we wanted, it would be cars like these. Sometimes happiness is not always so objective but an intangible feeling that you get when you want to just continue doing what you are doing no matter what. Cars used to be like that, no completely gone but much less so. So I get into my Kia this morning and I think, yea ok good car fairly reliable no dead slow and safe but it’s missing the emotional appeal and satisfaction that a car like this gives. Sometimes even a beater version of something you really want makes you feel good. And it’s usually more healthy than drinking or cigarettes.
That’s one thing the Japanese automakers never truly figured out, or at least put much value on, the emotional appeal of a car. The Europeans do, probably too much since a lot of people love Alfas but it’s a true labor of love, cars shows are always two day affairs, one for people to come look, and the other trying to get it started and go on home. It’s like dating, first something catches your eye, then fall in love with the rest of the package. It’s never always perfect even on the hardest days you still can fathom life without it. A car is never just about utility but part of who we are as a person.
Well put. My personal example to this is how I’ve always wanted to own a Saab, particularly a 90’s 9000 hatch or 900 convertible. However, the likely cost of ownership would be way more than what the car would be actually worth. It’s too bad that practicality often outweighs emotions.
For what it’s worth, Brendan, I’ve owned both, and I can honestly recommend either as a good solid second car, although a primary daily driver over 25 years old is a spotty proposition no matter the car.
I got 360,000 miles out of a ’93 9000CSE, and it remains one of my favorite cars. It wasn’t trouble free by any stretch, but it was so satisfying in so many ways that its average $2500 annual maintenance cost (it was long paid for, obviously) justified keeping it in daily service.
An ’86 900S was what started my love affair with the marque, and it was a solid tank of a car with great handling and decent pep thrown in for good measure. The first generation 900’s are classics (many appropriately Curbside Classics still in regular use), and they’ve still got a solid following for all the right reasons. All of this blather to make the point that aside from rust issues in your neck of the woods, these particular “impractical lust objects” are far more practical than you might think. Now, if your object of desire was a 1985 Eldorado…well…this would be a whole different diatribe;)
Good writeup, pretty car. Nice to see one un-cloned.
“Current thought dismisses this sort of gingerbread as tacky and non-functional…”
Funny how the decorative urge hasn’t gone away, though. But now, instead of adding a little chrome jewelry, everything must be decorated with Conspicuous Functionality.
My truck can climb El Capitan and pull a house off its foundation! And I actually use it to get from house to office park to mall and back.
these are much more beautiful than their Plymouth siblings, nice beast !
I will join you in longing for one of these. Somehow, I hit the Mopar menu on either side of these, but never got a B body. The 71 and up never did that much for me, but the 66-70 B body remains a favorite of mine.
My one significant memory of these was from a ratty 1970 Coronet wagon owned by the pizza place I drove delivery for while in college. The faded yellow paint and peeling di-noc stopped mattering as soon as that 4 bbl 383 fired up. The car was pure pleasure if you like bulk and torque (and I do).
In the 80s, there was an elderly lady who lived in an apartment building down the block from my own building. I could see her Coronet 2 door hardtop parked in the carport, and she would rarely take it out somewhere. It was olive green, of course, but I so wanted to try to buy that car. Now, these things have been run up so much in value, they are way too expensive to serve as a driver. This particular one is beautiful.
That’s pretty much where I came from too…lots of A-body Mopars in my past, and quite a few C-bodies too, but nary a B-body car.
I did have one of my Mopar pals almost ready to trade his 1970 Coronet 2-door hardtop with 383 4-barrel and Torqueflite for my sweet old 1960 Lincoln Premiere, but he backed out when it came time to do the deal.
I think just about the only way you could manage a B-body car as a driver nowadays would be for it to be a 4-door sedan.
A small clarification: In 1968 driver and right front passenger shoulder harnesses, not “seat belts for the front seats” generally, were first mandated (for non-convertibles). In domestic cars, those early shoulder belts were separate from lap belts; three-point belts were already in Volvos but didn’t become widespread until the mid-1970s.
You beat me to it. Integrated 3 points with inertia reels became standard in 1974 to coincide with the short-lived Interlock System.
Canada didn’t get the interlock, either.
Thanks for this.
I had forgotten how drop-dead-gorgeous the Charger was that year.
Also of note, the horn ring in the Coronet 500 is not shiny chrome, but rather a flat-looking grey color. This was done supposedly for safety reasons: reducing interior glare. If I recall correctly, 1968 was the first year for this.
Mopar had the right stuff in the late ’60s: cars that, at worst, no longer looked odd, and with rock-solid mechanicals too.
That’s what it takes car-makers; try to get it back.
“1968 marked the first year for tailpipe emission standards and seat belts (for the front seats).”
Actually front seatbelts were mandated on July 1, 1964 with rear seatbelts required for model year 1966. Front shoulder belts, which were separate from the lapbelts, were required for the 1968 model year.
Those early ones without inertia reels were a cynical, do-the-minimum-required response to the law. Once done up tightly enough to do any good, it was often impossible to lean forward and operate the controls properly. I remember going into junkyards back in the day and many cars still had them tautly snugged up on their storage hooks, just as they left the assembly line. Never used. Then there was the spaghetti tangle of buckles, 3 females for bench seat lap belts plus another 2 for the shoulders. At least the big 3 had the initiative to eliminate those 2 extra ones via a “uni-lock”, where the shoulder belt could be locked into the male tab of the lap belt. It took further legislation to get retractors on them, though.
Agreed – I almost never saw 1968-73 shoulder belts removed from their clips back in the day. When I owned a 68 Newport in the 90s, I used mine. For at least that year, Chrysler’s was unique. IIRC, the buckle was in the upper belt, while the tab that went into the buckle was attached to the inboard half of the lap belt, down near the seat cushion. This design at least cut down on the number of buckles floating around on the seat. You are right, some of the dash controls were out of reach, or nearly so. Still, I had been in one decent accident and was happy for the sense of security.
Between the evolving legislation, and the crappy initial seatbelt designs, this sounds like a great topic for a CC article-
I do remember those early designs, with the detactable shoulder belt connections and sliding length adjusters. Over the years, my father owned a 1972 Pinto sedan, and a 1977 Pinto wagon. The ’77’s single belt style with a floating buckle and automatic retractor was a HUGE improvement over the belts in the ’72.
D/S
The really interesting thing about seat belts in the US is that they started with an Air Force CO in Texas noticing that he was losing more men to car accidents than airplane crashes.
He went to Europe to see if anyone was researching automotive safety and at that time two companies were: Mercedes and Volvo.
There was a great writeup of the whole history in a Volvo Owners Club magazine I’m sure I no longer have, if someone wants a place to start an article.
I thought this was going to be an article on the psychology of automobile purchasing. This would make an interesting article in itself. Discussing the choices we make in our young and single years to the decisions we have to make as we age and acquire additional responsibilities such as marriage, kids, higher rents or mortgages, insurance costs, etc. I guess the story would be rather typical for a lot of people in this regard, though.
At least some guys get to finally purchase the cars they want after the kids have moved out. Then you finally get to enjoy that Camaro/Firebird/Corvette/Cuda/Mustang/Coronet that you’ve always wanted.
Your article idea sounds very interesting, but my working of knowledge of psychology is a little too shallow to do it justice.
To give it a Curbside Classic spin, perhaps someone could compare the motivations of 1960 buyers to the buyers in 1980 and 2000. I think twenty year jumps would show the rise of certain vehicle features over time (safety, certainly), and the decline of other elements (broughamification?).
D/S
Bought a new 69 dodge 440. Looked like this except trim and post vs hardtop. Orders to so east Asia meant a bargain for someone. 318 auto. Fast with good economy. Bozo who bought it wrecked it. Hate that.
Yes, the 1968-70 Coronet 440 (not the 500) offered a post coupe as well as a hardtop coupe. The post coupe had frameless door glass and, I think, a swing-out rear quarter window. Same for the equivalent 1968-70 Plymouths such as the base Road Runner.
As a kid one of my many uncles had a 69 Coronet 500, dark blue with black vinyl roof. I greatly admired how flashy and curvy it was compared to dad’s Rambler American.
That shot of the console brought back the memory, thanks!
What a nice color on that car. The taillight cove is my favorite feature, closely followed by the chromey console and color combination. I’m in total agreement with the spinner caps but would probably go one step farther and ditch the Magnums for some full wheelcovers. Dog dishes are cool but not quite right for a 500-level car like this.
I like this style, common on the C-body cars…maybe not for this style. The other style , not pictured and much more common..not so much.
The Coronet is just drop dead gorgeous in the blue color. Much nicer than the avocado green or the brown tones.
WOW!
Aesthetics and emotions have nearly always been the driver for every vehicle I’ve purchased for myself including “utility vehicles”. My fleet of carbureted ’70s -’80s GM workmobiles have treated me amazingly well over the years despite the fact that newer equipment would make more sense.
My vehicle is nearly always the oldest vehicle the parking decks here at work…decks containing hundreds of newer expensive cars. Sure, daily 70-mile commutes in 12-16 mpg vehicles (exception: Fiero) is impractical. But every time I walk out to whatever-that-day’s-selection-was, that “Man, that car is so awesome!” thought runs through my head and I don’t even worry about it not starting. I just love that.
I chose yellow today and am about to go enjoy the next 45 minutes.
Hehehehe!, Same feeling for me.
Thanks for the great write up. My first car was this car’s sister, a Sport Satellite, white with Burgundy Buckets and the long chrome console. It made for a great bar! I loved that car, bought in Dec of 1973 with only 22000 miles on it from an older couple who just bought a 73 Charger SE to replace it with. Mine had the Dog Dish wheel covers ( I dressed them up by adding trim rings) but was well equipped beyond that with AC, PS, PB, tinted glass. It was the 3 speed auto with the 318. Pretty good blend of power and economy. Unfortunately my Dad got rear ended in it when I left it at home my first year of College. It never drove right after that and eventually got sold with only about 50000 miles on her.
The upscale south-of-the-border version was the 440, with a 318 V-8 and automatic transmission. Most of them were sold as 4-door sedans, a good number of coupes, even smalles figures for the station wagon and no convertibles. I had one ’68 back in 1979. It had yellow body and navy blue interiors, tinted windows but no air conditioning. A very reliable car as well as comfortable. In the ’60s, it was the top of the offerings Chrysler had in México, coming down the Dodge Dart and then the Plymouth Valiant. The Coronet was very common, being the luxury model; I believe that there are a few stowed away in some wealthy neighborhood in town. They really were something beautiful to see and posess.
B-Bodies best kept secret…………stay small block if Your heart is set in carving corners. I had a 69 charger, a 69 Coronet and a 68 Coronet(favorite), all 318 grocery getters, and slapped the crap out of a lot of exotic and quasi-exotic foreigners on hwy one in nor-cal….911 type, beemers, corvettes were a joke and in the tight stuff i could hang with lotus elans and minis i’m talking about 100 mph and less the long wheelbases were one big homologation run and my cars were all under 1K…..no sway bars, no links,,worn shocks…..just relieved the front torsions and put decent footprints on em and wheee….the funny part was that for lateral support….leave the car in second(tight stuff under a 100), open the wind wing and grab the strut, with my elbow on the door sill, and palm the steering wheel….so the unlucky one behind me getting His or Her ass handed to them by a used car got the full slap in the face by a one armed cruzer. When BMW first introduced the six into the 300 series(325)…one of those lit up the forest in Muir Woods doing a full spin trying to run with me….i always maintained my own side of the road too. Got a CHP on my ass one night headed towards Stinson Beach……put major distance tween us until unexpected road construction killed the game…too long of a story, but the Guy’s comment was that He had been driving the graveyard on Hwy One for 25 years and He had never been so challenged and never had so much fun on the job. And He also got to see my elbow languishing on the door sill…….he had had some of the most revelled sports/hot/exotic etc. face Him off and the one that got Him, was a used B-Body grocery getter. I slid that night and kept my car. I had a deTomaso Mangusta in the past as well, and loved that “Spooky Goose”, but i couldn’t coax near out of it what i could aggressively slam out of the Dodges……dem’s canyon carvin’ cars babes. Trying to find a 68 “POST” Coronet builder,,,have a 360/727 to insert.
This is great stuff!
I don’t care what the masses found more appealing, but for me, the 68 and 69 Coronets were far prettier than the sister Charger…..the Charger is “fat” looking from certain angles, in the roof buttress/quarter panel area….the Coro is slimmer and a little more feminine……
*note* with the “button” corner marker lights……Blue Dot lenses will exchange perfectly with the plastic red and amber lenses. The front markers have tin speed nuts, so they are no-brainers….the rears have cast “pinch ears”, so You have to be delicate in opening them up. The look at night is outstanding!
The 1968 Coronet has the prettiest butt ever tacked on a car and I love it in blue, looks like UU1 medium blue metallic.
I have a TT1 68 R/T that I bought off the original owner in 1998. He ordered the car new while he was a Marine in Vietnam and wanted the “fastest car on the street” that he could afford when he got home so he spec’d out a Coronet (vice the heavier Charger) and for street use, only a 440 Magnum with a 4 speed and a Dana rear would do; the 396s and GTOs didn’t have a chance against the Mopar 440s, 428 Cobra Jets weren’t out yet when he ordered this car, and 427 Vettes and Hemis were out of his price range.
beautiful
I must not have gotten the memo. I’ve never purchased a car subject to what it did for my “image”. Nor a house. Nor clothing.
Beautiful Coronet, though.
+1. Ive always been of the mind that I set my ‘image’, if there is such a thing. The things I choose, are chosen because they fit ME. Not the other way around.
Glad to know. A lot of people got wiped out in the housing crash using their houses as ATMs to maintain an “image”.
I think Chrysler Corp. was the only manufactuer in 1968 to use round side markers. I had heard they were nicknamed “Nader Eyes”. In ’69 they went rectangular.
I always felt like the 69 Coronet nose should have been used on the 68 and vice versa. The squared off front end of the 68 always looked too formal and disconnected with the rest of the swoopy coke bottle shaped rear body and aggressive taillight panel. The Belvedere looked much more cohesive, and the Charger especially so.
Best. Side. Markers. Ever.
Theres one in town here faded red dressed like a pseudo NASCAR entrant numbers sponsor stickers etc looks good no idea what powers it.
Fantastic looking car, even if Id prefer a darker blue. These don’t give up much to the Charger in the way of curb appeal either. Funny how sometimes a particular car works its way into your head and just stays there by way of circumstance. Awesome writeup, even if its a few years old!
not seat belts but side marker lights required by federal mandate 1968
I had a 1968 Jeep Commando, and it did not have side marker lights.
I think 1968 was Chrysler’s best year for styling, and I would find it hard to choose between this or a Satellite. I can study these cars for hours, so many cool styling details.
>> Should we choose a car because it meets all the critical factors on our needs list, a car that strikes the perfect balance between size, efficiency and cost, or should we choose a car because it presents the image we desire?
I enjoy waging car options that fulfill both roles well. I figure a car that’s more than halfways on the rational scale as well as more than halfway on the image scale is better than a car that’s entirely rational or entirely image. 50+% + 50+% > 100% + 0%
young Rick Brown down the street had a 69 coronet a red one with chromed cragars
his first car Just gorgeous!
Say, that looks a lot like the parking lot of that Japanese carmaker who also makes motorcycles.