(first posted 3/15/2013) I’m a bit prone to spending occasional nights on Craigslist, hoping to hit on the perfect feasible-classic-to-modest-budget ratio. Today, I’m telling the story of how I will be haunted, at least for the foreseeable future, by this cream puff of a Custom 880. And as long as we’re at it, we’ll also take a look at the odd history of the “emergency edition” big Dodge.
Dodge entered the 1960s on a rebound; or, as some say, a murderous conquest. While Dodge sales grew substantially over their 1959 totals, that growth came at great cost to others. For example, the popularly priced, Plymouth-based Dart models stole a host of Fury, Belvedere and Savoy sales. Meanwhile, the Matador and Polara were not only priced very close to the DeSotos, but offered buyers an alternative to the latter’s Chrysler-look-a-like styling.
However, the traditional Big Dodges hadn’t done bang-up business, and in the frantic plan to shrink the upcoming 1962 models, they wouldn’t return for that year’s debut date. If you really needed or wanted 122 inches of wheelbase, you had to (at least initially) visit your Chrysler dealer for your REALLY big Mopar and buy a Newport.
When the new Lean Breed Dodges proved to be such a resounding failure, Dodge dealers screamed for relief. Thankfully, the tooling existed to solve the problem rather quickly, and at minimal cost.
As it happened. the 1961 Dodge front end mated perfectly with the newly finless 1962 Chrysler Newport/300 body. In truth, the lines of the resulting vehicle looked more cohesive than the undulating curves and reverse fins of the 1961 Dodge. Even as an automotive Frankenstein, the new big Dodge turned out to be one of Highland Park’s most appealing offerings of the year. It also wore a new Custom 880 moniker, a rather curious nameplate perhaps more appropriate to the bastard produced by an unholy union of a Ford and an Oldsmobile.
Marketed at the same price point at which DeSoto exited the market in 1961, it was modestly successful, and one of the few bright spots for Chrysler Corporation in 1962. Some 17,500 examples found homes in the abbreviated introductory year. If that figure wasn’t terribly impressive, it was still better than the final tally for DeSoto or, for that matter, Edsel.
Model year 1963 brought an oddly bland originality to the 880. Although the ’63 Chryslers shared the 880’s inner shell, they adopted the Imperials hand-me-down suits in the form of the proposed “S-Series” design.
Since there wouldn’t be a big Plymouth until 1965, there wasn’t an urgent need to significantly update; thus, model year changes were pretty much limited to a more-modern looking front end and elaborate chrome housings for the tail lamps. For Dodge, it was pure sales gravy: Production picked up to nearly 28,000 units for the year, as buyers got a pretty solid 361 V8, plus all the other virtues of Big Mopars, without spending more for a Chrysler.
One effect of continuing the “old-look” Custom 880 was that a comparable Chrysler now seemed a little more worthy of its higher price, which had been a thorny issue with the 1962 models. Although I’ve always admired the look of the 1963-64 Chryslers, I can also appreciate the nonchalant frumpiness of the 1963-64 880s. There’s a sense of whimsy in that dullness that few other nondescript cars can match. Maybe it’s those vestigial fins out back.
I’ve had ample time to think about the looks of the Custom 880, and this particular well-maintained, 73,000-mile example first came into my life last August, when I saw it for sale on Craigslist. I was tempted, but the $4,500 asking price was a bit outside my budget at the time. I let go of the the fantasy, although I knew that with this early-’60s big American cars, I couldn’t have gone wrong: These aren’t particularly horrendous on gas, they drive well enough, they’re stone-reliable…and oh, yes, there’s also that push-button transmission!
Apparently, fate likes to taunt me. A guy who works at Crown Customs, just four blocks away from my workplace, wound up buying it; I saw it, in all of its cherry-vanilla glory, as I was heading to work one Wednesday. Since this was one of those fortunate instances in which I run across an owner who is completely enthused about their classic, I got to touch the perfectly preserved fabric interior and hear the 361 come to life. It was a one-owner car, and the first owner, now in his early 90s, had given up driving. Seriously, now, how often do such things happen anymore?
In such moments does a classic car actually seems a rational choice as one’s only automobile–the moments when I sincerely feel foolish for not having taking the plunge, nor owning a car significantly older than I am, even if for only a year or so. For as long as I work in this neighborhood, the enthusiastically unassuming face of my latest episode of cold feet is sure to haunt me on a regular basis.
It looks quite the opposite to many of today’s cars, in that the designers seem to spend much effort on the rear of the car, and did not spend much effort on the front of the car. The front end is so bland and generic, compared to the fancy rear end.
Considering the “interesting” front-end designs of the ’62 Lancer and particularly the standard-size Dodge, generic seems comparatively merciful. It does look an awful lot like a 1960 Oldsmobile, though.
Hmmm . . . I think the front end is all right . . . carries some Dodge DNA from the ’62 Lancer . . . .
The ’62 Lancer’s front end is certainly less egregious than the ’62 ‘big’ (non-880) Dodges, I’ll grant you.
They could have cured that face of blandness by using the 1961-’62 bumper. I have sketched that combination and it’s very attractive to my eyes. However, during that period using the same bumper for three years was a recipe for disaster. Making the car look brand new–not easy to mistake for last year’s model–was more important than making it look good.
Not that the new bumper cost them anything. It’s not only the same bumper used on the ’63 Chryslers, I believe it’s the same bumper used on the rear of the ’63 and ’64 Chryslers and the ’64 880.
Yup, once designers and engineers really discovered aerodynamics, car soon morphed into a homogeneous shape.
My thought exactly. If it weren’t for the grill logo, I couldn’t tell a Hyundai from a Ford. And they’ve all swallowed the TR-7 Wedge Kool-Aid with the resultant high (invisible) trunk.
Well, in this case, they managed to achieve very generic look (for its time) while being very un-aerodynamic! The older Dodges and Plymouths are much more interesting, if not to everyone’s taste.
I’m not entirely convinced. They managed to get the boxy Eagle Premier’s drag coefficient down to .31—I’m guessing it’s other factors are contributing as much, if not more. Part of it is fashion and trying to reduce the average age of the car buyer (I’m guessing this is responsible for the horrid coupe-meets-CUV thing we’re at now) . Another part is likely bean counting: automaking is, at least in the developed world, a low-margin, low-growth industry. Companies in low-margin, low-growth industries tend to make very conservative, focus-group-approved decisions (which is where I’m guessing our bland front ends mostly come from). Looking at midsize sedans, the only way you get some adventurousness is if you’re making a profit and are probably overconfident about your potential to increase market share (Ford) or if you’re a bit player who thinks somewhat more adventurous styling well help you solidify your niche (Mazda).
I was thinking Mercury. I had to go back to make sure there wasn’t a Mercury tie-in or misplaced photo in there somewhere.
That’s one more amazing find; an equally-amazing backstory…but, though it’s a bit off-topic, I can’t help wondering WHY the 1962 Dodges bombed so bad. Color me weird; but I sort of liked the “warthog” snout; and the size itself wasn’t so much small as rational.
But that’s me. Where I hail from, in the Salt Belt…there were quite a few warthogs roaming when I was a kid; and a few Chryslers of that vintage (I remember the rear quarter and waterfall taillights) but never did I see a Dodge of this nature.
The people who lived two houses away from us were faithful Mopar buyers, and had a white 1962 Dodge Dart wagon until 1973 or so. I thought it was a strange-looking car even then.
I can appreciate the engineering that went into these cars, but park a 1962 Dodge next to a 1962 Oldsmobile 88 or Pontiac Catalina – it’s no contest. The amazing part is that ANYONE bought a brand-new Dodge Dart/Polara in 1962.
The smaller size didn’t resonate with buyers all that much. In 1962, the thinking was that, if you wanted a small car, you bought a compact, the Rambler Classic/Ambassador or that all-new Ford Fairlane.
People who bought big cars expected them to be big.
Also remember that, during 1961-62, every GM and Ford full-size car was dechromed, slightly downsized, and generally “cleaned up” compared to its 1958-60 counterpart. Wraparound windshields, large tailfins (except for Cadillac) and wild body sculpturing were all gone.
There wasn’t a sense that the full-size cars offered by GM and Ford in 1962 were all that outlandish or overblown. Compared to what people had been offered just 3-4 years earlier, they were rational and much, much better looking (not to mention better built).
The regular Dodge for ’62 bombed not so much because OF the weird styling (yes, it did turn some buyers off), but because of it’s truncated size. In ’62, “bigger is better” which meant to the masses “a better value.” Stack up a ’62 Pontiac against a ’62 regular Dodge, you’ll know why Mopar had to scramble, hence the 1962 1/2 880. Not only that, but Dodge was the “squeaky wheel” division of Chrysler that bitched and moaned if they didn’t get first dibs on something and freely cribbed on it’s sister divisions much to their demise (I mean DeSoto and Plymouth).
“The front end is so bland and generic, compared to the fancy rear end.”
With those mighty Mopar mills the rear end was what the competitors saw most often.
What a beautiful find !!!!
For the name “Custom 880”, Jeffrey Godshall, writer for Collectible Automobile, once written in a article about the Custom 880, why not reviving “Custom Royal”? If Dodge had used the Custom Royal or even Coronet monickers (although Coronet would be revive for the 1965 “plucked chicken” who became an intermediate by default), if they could had attracted more customers?
I always thought the same thing . . . . a “Custom Royal” or “Royal” (which would be used later on in front of Monaco) . . . . could’ve been worse . . . “Meadowbrook” perhaps . . . .
Or how about “Dodge LeFemme!?”
Don’t make me photoshop a tri-tone pink 63 Dodge! LOL
How about photoshopping a pic of a Dodge 880 4-door sedan with the 1957-59 roofline of the 4-door sedan to see how it might look?
What an intriguing find! I thought I had a reasonable idea of the various Chrysler brands from the 50s on, but I have never heard of or seen a Custom 880. That ’63 front end is just so not like I expected from any of the Chrysler brands. Fascinating!
What a beauty,chances like that don’t happen often.Another car I’d never seen before
These are totally alien to me. They were never sold in Canada. The dealer structure here always paired either Dodge or Plymouth with Chrysler, so there really wasn’t any reason for it. This type of thing continued well into the 90s. The list of these Mopar Canuckanomalies is a long one.
That would explain it. I was looking at the car thinking, “I have never seen those taillights before.”
Totally new to me as well. It is an odd looking duck – the front and rear seem years apart in styling.
Sounds like this example is a cherry.
The rear of the Custom 880 was restyled in 1964, modernizing the back half. If you squint your eyes, the 1964 tail looks an awful lot like the backside of the 1969 Plymouth Fury.
I always thought the rear of the ’64 880 was vaguely Imperial-like.
Very sharp.
I do like the Canadian variants of Mopars; the “Plodges” and the Windsor built full size 60’s Dodges (with Plymouth interiors), the “hybrid” Canadian Valiant, the carryover names of “Windsor” and “Saratoga” . . . . I also thought the later “Chrysler Dynasty” and “Chrysler Intrepids” were interesting. Different marketing for different dealership set ups . . . .
Nice! Never seen one in the flesh. Any interior shots, Laurence? IIRC the dashes stayed weird a few years longer than the bodies did.
The interiors were a bit weird by normal standards, but for early 1960s Chrysler standards, they were fairly tame.
’62-’63 Interiors were a literal carry over of the ’61 DeSoto . . . as was the standard equipment 2-bbl 361. Matter of fact, if you could’ve used another ’62 style variant of the Chrysler front end clip and grille, it could’ve been a ’62 DeSoto (although the real ’62 DeSoto was/would’ve been a plucked chicken variant).
I have long had a huge crush on the Custom 880. It is the only version of this very attractive basic body that was not slathered with styling gimmicks. The early ones had all manner of fins tacked on, and the 62 Chrysler had the slanty headlights. My actual favorite is the 64 version with the bigger, wide taillights. This is the car with all of the goodness of this era of Mopar without the weird looks. The 1963-64 880 is one of the few times I prefer the big Dodge to a Chrysler of the same year.
I have always wondered how these would have sold if Chrysler had brought these out in 1960 or 61 instead, complete with the conservative front end.
I recall a few years ago falling in love with a turquoise 64 convertible that I saw on Ebay. It was beautiful and priced like it. These came as a 4 door hardtop-style station wagon, as well.
> I have always wondered how these would have sold if Chrysler had brought these out in 1960 or 61 instead, complete with the conservative front end.
Laurence’s find is a nice car, but I prefer the fullsize 1960 Dodges that they did build. I guess I must be in the minority.
For ’61 I like the back but think the front is bland and ugly at the same time. It’s too bad that they carried over the front-end for ’62. I prefer this person’s re-imagining of the ’61 Dodge with a Plymouth front-end. Don’t believe the story on the page though, it has since been debunked.
http://www.moparts.org/moparts/picture/oldweb/Garlick.html
Matador?! I thought that name was only used by AMC for their mid size cars in the 70s!
Nope, Dodge used the Matador name first. In the 50’s there were also a DeSoto Explorer station wagon, Dodge Sierra wagon and a Plymouth Suburban wagon. All names that were later reused by non-Mopar brands.
Don’t forget the Dodge Dart Phoenix.
Thanks! One that’s not on my list.
Always bothered me how Plymouth (’49-’78) and Chevy (’35 on) both used Suburban at the same time, both presumably trademarked. No chance of confusing the early Chevy truck Suburbans with the Plymouth cars, but as the sixties and seventies wore on, the Suburban got much more car-like.
I suspect that one was a truck and the other was a car. I would also suspect that if Chrysler tried to resurrect a passenger car “Suburban” today, it would have a big fight on its hands.
My understanding was that for quite a while (though maybe not that early), the AMA handled registration and exclusivity of automotive model names — new names would be registered with the AMA and manufacturers would check possible names against that list. There was a certain amount of horsetrading from time to time and the occasional handshake agreement over the use of certain names. In general, I’ve gotten the impression it was a less intensely legalistic thing than it is today.
I’m happy to see people who noticed this and are curious about it! You seem to be smart, interesting people.
The explanation is simple and makes perfect sense, once you find out about it. Lots of carmakers and light truck makers sold Suburbans from the ‘twenties through the ‘forties. Plymouth, Chevy and Dodge did sell the most, but Studebaker was among several others which sold quite a few. This wasn’t because they didn’t yet have ways of ensuring that they didn’t use each others’ names, though.
We remember LeBaron as a Chrysler model name. But if we pay attention to the Classic Era, we are also familiar with Packards, Deusies, Pierces, Marmons and a host of others with bodies by LeBaron. This is because LeBaron was a coachbuilder which built fine bodies for all of these chassis and more. Briggs later bought it, and Chrysler merged with Briggs, so Chrysler wound up with the trademark.
Suburban was the trademark of U.S. Body and Forging–another custom coachbuilder, but one that didn’t do luxury cars. They built woodie station wagons. And they did them for both auto and light truck chassis.
So, when U.S. Body folded, two of their biggest customers (Chevy’s light truck division and Mother Mopar) were closely associated with the Suburban name and both glommed onto it. Furthermore, neither had more right to it than the other.
Chevy can probably lay claim to the name today. But this is purely squatters’ rights. They didn’t invent the name. They bought Suburban bodies–from the greatest builder of woodies and one of the most popular custom coachbuilders of the classic era!
I never knew that’s where the “suburban” name came from, but did know it had become a generic term used for station wagon-type bodies usually on commercial/truck frames. Though anyone could use the name back then, by the late 1970s only Chevrolet and Plymouth were selling vehicles called the Suburban. And after Plymouth discontinued their big wagon, someone at General Motors kept close watch, then trademarked the term in 1988 which they could legally do since nobody else had used it for the last 10 years.
It seems quite a few car names came from old coachbuilders; LeBaron, Fleetwood, and Karmann Ghia come to mind.
I wonder how much the desperation-move Custom 880 contributed to keeping Chrysler afloat after the 1962 downsizing fiasco. Chrysler dealers were livid that Dodge dealers got a look-alike Chrysler Newport. If sales had continued to tank, would Plymouth have gotten their own version of the Newport, too (or would they have just pulled the plug on Plymouth much sooner than they eventually did)?
With Ford and GM (particularly Pontiac) seemingly unable to do anything wrong during the late fifties and early sixties, it’s nothing short of a miracle that, with all their colossal blundering (even during the wild success of the ‘Forward Look’ cars), Chrysler was able to survive at all.
No, there was no danger of Chrysler going under back then. They had so much going on with defense and the space race, being one of the Big Three Automakers was almost a sideline for them.
And no, Plymouth could never have been treated as well as Dodge was, after they combined Chrysler and Plymouth in the same dealerships. The 880 came about because Dodge dealers were not content to have no full-sized car to sell in 1963. Chrysler dealers had quite a few full-sized cars, even if none of them were popularly priced Plymouths.
This perfectly illustrates how Plymouth failed so spectacularly. It was the red-headed stepchild of the low priced three. Even the dealers that sold it didn’t much care about it.
Police cars and Taxicabs kept ChryCo in business. It wasn’t until 1978 when Chrysler ended production on the ‘B’ block engine, the 440 in particular, that police departments and others went more heavily to Ford or GM for their pursuit cars. Also Chrysler ended production on that yet enduring 880 body style, which came to be designated the ‘C’ Body in 1967, then named the Polara and Monaco. Remember the Bluesmobile?
I used to see a blue 63 coupe at a repair garage in a neighboring rural township. It sat there for years, in poor condition. One day, the garage was closed and the car was gone. I hope the Dodge found a home. One of the most striking things about the car was the blue/green tinted glass. In those days, everyone knew you had tinted glass.
There was a seriously decayed ’63 Custom 880 sitting in the tree row of our neighbor’s pasture when I was growing up. I was just learning getting into IDing old cars and it took me forever to figure out what it was.
Yeah, the Dodge Custom 880 had such a short, low-production run and was so non-descript and generic in appearance (sort of like a funky old Rambler), a lot of people had a tough time figuring out what they were (if they ever saw one at all).
Somewhere I have read law enforcement was a wee bit vocal (primarily in California) about the reduced wheelbase of the ’62 Dodge. This was yet another contributing factor to the creation of the 880.
I first saw one at a car show in the early ’90’s. I was instantly enchanted.
California Highway Patrol did express concern that their requirements for a car of at least 122″ in wheelbase was not met by Dodge or Plymouth. Chrysler DID listen . . . but the result was a Chrysler Newport “Enforcer” for California (with a 413). Dodge 880s did wind up as CHP issue for ’63 and ’64 . . . .
Hmmm…I really don’t know if I like this car or not. It does look to be in pretty good shape, however…
Can’t add anything else.
I fell in love with Chrysler’s styling in 1958 when my aunt bought a leftover DeSoto Firesweep. My dad bought a brand new 1959 Impala at that time, and, even as a little kid, I was enchanted by the Forward Look DeSoto and a tad embarrassed by the Chevy. By the time my dad traded in the strange 59 for a very clean-looking 1962 Impala, Chrysler had wandered off the grid, producing the oddest arrangement of cars on the road.
Things were so bad for Chrysler in 1962 that my aunt traded in her 1958 DeSoto for a leftover 1961 Plymouth Fury, which might be the strangest car Detroit ever produced, because the 62 Chrysler line was so ugly. She was doubly upset when the 880’s came out later in the model year, because she actually liked them.
Oh year, I adored my dad’s 62 Impala right up until he brought home our new 65 Impala, which just might be the prettiest full-sized car ever produced.
As a kid, we had family friends who were Mopar people. The wife drove a baby blue 61 Valiant, and the husband had some sort of oddball bigger Plymouth or Dodge. Then later, they showed up in a beautiful maroon 64 Custom 880. Even as a little kid, I remember thinking “My, how normal this looks for a Dodge.” By 64, the only outdated lines on the car were the roofline (particularly on the hardtops) with that really high back window. A new roof with wide C pillars would have looked to all the world like an Olds or Buick.
Some friends of ours bought a new ’63 880 3-row station wagon; a big beast of a car. What really shocked me was the first time I sat in the front seat: it had a floor shifter! For the standard three-speed. “How odd”, I thought. “Chryslers really are different.” The whole idea of this great big American wagon with a big V8 and a floor-shifted three-speed was dissonant.
Of course, all Chrysler products had only floor shifters for their manuals during the push-button Torqueflite era, but this was my introduction.
It was a stripper; now I wonder whether it had manual steering too?
With the low sales numbers of these, you may have seen the only one ever built that way. 🙂 I have seen a few 880s over the years, but every last one had the pushbuttons.
I can tell you that at least in the smaller Plymouth/Dodge body, 3 speeds had a column shifter. I test drove a 6 cylinder 3 speed 63 Dodge (either a 330 or a Polara, I have forgotten) but did not buy it. I made an offer on it, but the seller had a crazy idea of its value and I passed. I recall being impressed with the smooth action of the shifting mechanism. Perhaps the floor shift was only in the big Chrysler/DeSoto/880 body?
Yes; that would be a rare bird. I just assumed that all big Chrysler products came with pushbuttons then.
When I first saw it, I though maybe they’d ordered it especially with a four speed, and my heart skipped a beat. “Maybe they ordered it with a hi-po 413 too!” But as soon as I saw that it didn’t have a shift diagram on the knob, and she dropped down for first gear, that though evaporated.
Too bad they didn’t make it in a two-door wagon version!
Of course, the “intermediate” ones did have a column shifter. But the early Valiant had a floor shifter. And so did this 880. Your comment made me question my memory, but I confirmed it from the brochure (see snip attached): “shifting lever floor-mounted”
I suspect it was because they didn’t tool up a column shifter for the big Chryslers, and of course used that in the 880s. Now I have to check to see if the Newport had automatic standard.
Yup; the Chrysler Newport and 300 standard transmission was a floor-mounted three-speed.
This explains it. Way back in my dim memory, I believe I remember a road test of a 63 Newport with a 3 speed. Must have been on the floor. Maybe Popular Science or Popular Mechanics?
It was because of the “Astra Dome” aka Gum Machine dash used on Chryslers.
The assembly flared back far enough to ensheath the entire steering column. There was no place to put a column shift. Admittedly Dodges (and DeSotos) do have space for one because the dash design leaves the upper part of the column exposed like most other cars. My theory is that they just didn’t bother tooling up for it even if the dash shape allowed it. I also surmise that they figured out that the take rate for a 3-speed manual couldn’t justify the expense.
Make them all floor-shifters regardless of division.
The reason for the floor mounted shifter was twofold; Chrysler had spent a lot of bucks on the electro-translucent dashboard with the “rocket ship” steering column that, engineering a column shifter for this and with the low volume of people would want a column shifted Chrysler, (or DeSoto for that matter); the effort and monies to have been spent weren’t worth it. So . . . . for this period, Chrysler reached in the parts bins and used the Valiant shifter linkage . . . . Can’t say I dont’ blame Mopar. I think in my almost 54 years on this earth, I can count on one hand how many full size, medium priced cars from the ’60’s I’ve seen in the flesh with a manual shift (not counting some Bonnevilles or a Mercu Marauder with a four-speed).
Also, the fact that Chrysler’s automatic was so good, there was really no performance gains to be made with a stick. Weren’t there some 4 speed 300s in 1960-62 also? I don’t blame Chrysler here – there would be no reason to cater to a customer who insisted on a 3 on the tree Newport. Sell them a Plymouth instead. Also, were Buick or Oldsmobile still selling a 3 speed car in 1962 or so? If not, there would be no reason for Chrysler to go there either.
I think Olds still offered a stick through the mid 60’s but didn’t All Buick Big cars go Automatic in 1962 or 1963? Although I remember seeing a Wildcat with an optional 4 speed on Youtube….
@Laurence: Only the top-line Buick and Oldsmobile full-sizers came with automatic in ’62-’63. The LeSabre, Wildcat/Invicta, Eighty-Eight, and Super Eighty-Eight, and all big Pontiacs nominally had a three-speed stick as standard. Very few were actually built that way, so I think the main rationale was to subtract the $200-$250 price of the automatic from the list price.
I believe Dodge had a four-speed starting sometime in ’62, Plymouth midway through ’63. Definitely not in 1960 or 1961, at least not from the factory.
Of course there are a few Pont A Moussons floating around from when Chrysler engined the Facel Vega.
The latest 3 speed column shift non muscle car Chrysler product I have seen in the flesh was a 1965 Fury coupe it was around 2010.
My father once drove a 67 Bel Air sedan with 3 on the tree and a 283 V8 with nothing much else. One day when he was driving, one of the motor mounts gave way and the engine tilted in such a way to disrupt the travel for the clutch lever and no matter how hard you pushed you could not get the clutch to freewheel. Let me tell you, it was not fun getting that car off the road safely.
3-on-the tree was standard on many full-sized BOP B-bodies thru 1971.
In the early 1960s there were plenty of older American car buyers who had never owned an automatic trans, and still bought full size cars with stick shift. In the late 1970s my shop was servicing these cars, many still owned by their original purchasers.
I seem to recall that those Rambler American “X-Ray” comparisons condescendingly pointed out that the American’s manual shift was on the column whereas some competitors (e.g., VW, Corvair, Valiant) were on the floor, i.e., old-fashioned. At the time I thought the floor shifts were very cool (and my first car was a Beetle).
Well, column shifts were to free up floor room; and also to minimize the impact of the shift linkage.
Look…they were in the SPACE AGE! Anyone who was anyone had an automatic; and poor people who couldn’t AFFORD an automatic could pretend/not advertise their lowly status with a column shift that looked just like an automatic PNRD2L quadrant selector!
Floor-mounted shifters on those cheap little Euro penalty boxes – just showed how backwards and benighted they were. Lever on the floor…just like a 1931 Plymouth!
I actually had a few cars with column-mounted three-speeds…maybe it was the novelty; but I liked them. Even though the linkage tended to be anything BUT robust…sloppy, no feel, and one Chevrolet truck, the linkage would hook together in the engine bay and have to be unhooked and separated under the hood.
I didn’t know that, about the floor-shifters.
I remember the three-on-the-floor Gremlins (had one; God have mercy on you if that transmission goes out) but, oddly, the Hornet manuals had a column shift. And just to add to the fun…over on the Jeep side, Wagoneers in the Kaiser era had column shift threes; but when AMC started setting specs it went with three-on-the-floor. At least until 1974 when the Torque-Flite became standard on the Waggy.
This makes me wonder: Was AMC, in one more instance, modeling after what Chrysler made available in the parts bin? Remember, too, they went with push-button automatics when Chrysler did, even though in those days the automatic they used was a Borg-Warner model. They ended that experiment a few years before MoPar did…but it was all curious.
Pushbuttons were an industry fad in the ’50s and didn’t originate with Chrysler (in fact, a Plymouth designer later said they were inspired by a pushbutton Ford prototype). Chrysler just stuck with them longer than most rivals did.
Too bad they haven’t tried to resurrect them. With today’s electronics, pushbuttons would actually be cheaper, better and safer than a mechanical quadrant.
Drove some city buses back in the mid-1990s…they were Neoplans (USA models) with ZF transmissions. Electronic shift…what a difference it was from the GMC New Look holdovers the company had, with two-speed cable-linkage shifters, no protection against grinding when moving it into gear!
The new Lincoln MKZ uses electronic pushbuttons mounted in the center stack. Seems like a good idea to me.
There is a 1970 Plymouth Road Runner with 3 speed on the floor that I have seen at NCPC shows. Man that must be a heck to keep it going on the highway. And it is a convertible to boot.
In season 2 of “Mad Men”, lead character Don Draper has an accident [DUI] in a 1962 Custom 880. They show the car flipping over, and I recognized its ’61 front end with Newport rear.
To show that he is ‘moving up’, he got a new Caddy convertible after wrecking the Dodge.
I doubt the Custom 880 sold well enough to keep the company afloat in 1962. Chrysler did much better — roughly 130,000 were produced.
It’s odd that Dodge didn’t get a variation of the new Chrysler body in 1963. By that point the existing body had become rather stale. Perhaps the biggest problem was that as clean as the new body looked, it didn’t lend itself to brand variations nearly as well as the old one.
Not surprised that Dodge stayed away from old names such as the Custom Royal, which was last used in the over-the-top 1959s. By 1963-64 bland was in. Indeed, might the Custom 880 be seen as an apology for all of Exner’s stylistic sins?
Also, by then the lower models were the 330 and 440. I kind of always wondered why not just 550? But then in 1963, there was a Polara 500. In 1961, the top end Lancer was the 770. Why the little Dodge had higher numbers than the bigger one – another mystery. By 1963 the Darts came in 170 and 270 versions. I don’t think there ever was a 550 or a 660. Even odder was that AMC was using a similar numbering system, and I believe that the Ambassador was the 990. No wonder nobody bought these – it was impossible to figure out what they were. “Hi, I’d like to look at a new Dodge 550.” “Sorry, there is only 440 and 500. Or I can show you an 880. We do have some leftover 770s, but they are smaller.” “Gee, the 880 is kind of expensive. Can I try it in maybe 650 or 675?”
Convair 880 & 990 has a have nice rings to them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_990
A few people brought up AMC and Rambler. When I first glimpsed that front end, that’s what immediately flashed in my mind.
AMC front end, Chrysler tail.
Quite a combination.
Lovely old car.
I had a 1962 Newport 2-door hardtop that was a real stripper – the floor-shift 3-speed transmission and no power steering or brakes. It did have a radio though. It was not terribly different from the Custom 880 except that it did have the Chrysler instrument panel that was carried over for its final year in 1962. The 361 engine was the easiest-starting, cold or warm, of any of the 50’s and 60’s Chrysler products I owned. There was a pretty wide gap between second and third on the transmission, but not nearly so much as between those two gears on the early 1950’s Chrysler cars, which seemed like first, second, and fifth of a 5-speed. There was no synchromesh on first gear, and while I’d had some success double-clutching into first gear with most 3-speed cars I’d owned, it was nearly impossible with this gearbox. Many times when I drove it I wondered how much of a job it would be to swap a 4-speed tranny into it.
I remember looking at a (1964) 300K hardtop that was being parted out, and discovered that the bucket seats would have interchanged rather easily into my car, and also that the inside door panels would have fit without modification. The inside rear quarter trim would also have fit except for the changed shape of the rear quarter window. It was only then that I realized how little was actually changed in Chrysler’s major facelift in 1963. By the same token it wasn’t until I owned a 1963 300 2-door hardtop that I realized how many detail differences there were between the 63 and 64.
These were in general well-built and relatively trouble-free cars, and I suspect, Laurence, that you may well be seeing that ivory Dodge sedan for some time to come.
Very interesting observations. Until today, I had never understood just how similar the 63 Chrysler was to the 62 under the skin. I always knew that the windshield/A pillar area looked similar, but that was all I knew. I spent a lot of time around a 63 Newport in high school, but never a 60-62.
I had to laugh when I read that you 361 engined Chrysler was the easiest car to start that you ever owned. In the late 1960’s I had a 1963 Plymouth with the 361 (yes, it used up back tires at a rapid rate). For some reason the automatic choke didn’t work correctly and it was impossible to start the car without the choke being set, if the ambient air temperature was below 45 degrees or so. Fortunately, after running the battery down a couple of times, I realized this and also found out that one could raise the hood, reach under the air cleaner, and set the choke. This was only a minor nuisance (one is more flexible about these things when one is young), but it was somewhat embarrassing when out on a date. I put about 40,000 miles on that Plymouth in two years, most of the time going nowhere, just out cruising around. The longer that I owned it, the more things quit working (heater fan, turn signals, etc.; even at the end though, the motor was as strong as ever.
I see this isn’t too far from the Oakland Civic Auditorium, east side of the 880/Nimitz about a mile or so before the 23rd Street exit . . . . nice 880. My Grandmother had a ’64; my Dad bought a ’65. To hear the Hammtramck Whiner fire up the 361 would’ve been a Mopar symphony to my ears!
280 and the Cesar Chavez (Formerly Army Street)/Pennsylvania exit. If you look over the shoulder of the drivers side headlamp, you can see the 280 Southbound signs to Daly City and San Jose.
It’s a positively beautiful car. Just the gas gauge doesn’t work (probably a fuse or a wire). THAT ALL THAT’S WRONG WITH IT.
(Goes and breathes in a paper bag).
Boy, was I off! On the way to/from the ‘stick . . .
Hamtramck Whiner? I thought it was the Highland Park Hummingbird.
Strange body/parts bin engineering. The ’62 Chryslers used the ’61 Dodge Matador/Polara rear bumper; the ‘62.5 Dodge 880 used the ’62 Chrysler rear bumper which was cribbed from the ’61 Big Dodge . . . .
One other reason the ‘lean’ 1962 Dodge/Plyms bombed was pricing. A mid size car for full size price. Ford Fairlane and Rambler had middies priced right.
Regarding Dodge being a ‘squeaky wheel’ and surviving all these year. It was once a separate car company, ‘Dodge Bros.’ Not just a brand created to compete with GM, as DeSoto and Plymouth. Walter P Chrysler bought it since the Brothers died, so it was more of a merger.
Can wax poetic about Plymouth and DeSoto, but Dodge was started by actual folks named ‘Dodge’.
Good point, Chicagoland. Chrysler hedged his bets by starting up DeSoto as the Dodge deal wasn’t finalized until late 1928, a few months before DeSoto debuted. Originally, DeSoto was below Dodge. That would shift around 1931 to where DeSoto was more closely related to Chrysler in price and style. When it comes down to brass tacks, the first Chryslers (and the Plymouth for that matter) were “new and improved Maxwells!”
I must disagree with you on the first Chrysler being an improved Maxwell. The original 1924 Chrysler 70 shared virtually nothing with any Maxwell, but was a clean sheet design, perhaps the very first car that was engineered from front to back, top to bottom. It was the product of that legendary Chrysler engineering triumvirate of Fred Zeder, Owen Skelton and Carl Breer, who had done much of the design work when working for Walter Chrysler at Willys-Overland. Within a year, the old Maxwell was renamed as the Chrysler 50 (or 58, I cannot remember). That car WAS a re-badged Maxwell. I think that by 1927 or so, most of the Maxwell DNA had quietly slipped underwater, and even the lesser cars were more Chrysler than Maxwell.
By the time the Dodge purchase was concluded in 1928, Dodge was sinking fast. The brothers had been dead for four years, and the company had been under the control of the brokerage firm Dillon Reed, whose principals had no idea how to run an auto company. Chrysler installed his own people to run the place immediately. The top level was all Chrysler people, though everyone in the lower levels was a holdover from Dodge Brothers.
I could not have gone into this a month ago, but am well into a very good Bio of Walter Chrysler and his company.
Was another reason Walter C. bought Dodge Bros was to aquire the Dodge Main Plant? At the time wasn’t it a state of the art factory?
Very much. He also saw it as crucial to obtain some serious production capacity, which the old Maxwell-Chalmers facilities were unable to provide. The book I am reading makes the very good point that Chrysler pulled everything together in 1928 – The Dodge purchase, and the intro of both DeSoto and Plymouth (which was a fairly low-production car at first, until more capacity could be found). Had this happened any later, Chrysler may have just been one of a large number of independents who would not make it out of the depression. But as it was, Chrysler was the only company in the entire industry that in either 1932 or 1933 (I forget which) outsold its 1929 figure. In 1933, Chrysler Corp passed Ford to become No. 2 of the big 3, where it would remain until the early 1950s. This would never have been possible without the Dodge Main plant (and the Lynch Road Plymouth plant, also a state of the art facility in the era).
Not only did Chrysler gain a huge amount of production capacity by taking over Dodge, I think it ended up being a lot cheaper than building that capacity from scratch. Chrysler had to take over Dodge’s debts, but those were paid off by ’36 or so and I imagine there were some accounting advantages (machinery and factories have to be amortized, but I think there’s more flexibility in paying off debt).
Yes among other things, Dodge Main ran all the way until 1980. But the biggest problem that Main had was that it was multi story and became very tedious and expensive to operate that way. Not to mention the ventilation costs.
I always found that a bit of irony, since wasn’t 1961-62 around the same time the Chrysler made a bunch of ballyhoo about how they’d never offer a “small” car in Newport advertisements? Something about not watering down the prestige of owning a “Full Chrysler” (paraphrasing of course).
Which is interesting to think of how the Chrysler division saw themselves until the personal luxury market made a case for the Cordoba. From my perspective I’ve always looked at Chryslers as Mopar Buicks,
But Chrysler always seemed (at least Postwar) to not always be willing to slum it out in the lower ends of the Medium price market like Olds, Buick and Mercury (perpetually in Identity crisis mode) did. Whether that be with smaller models or some really compromised full sized options (Here’s looking at you Jetstar 88).
Granted a 1961 Newport slummed it out there, but I doubt few of them went out the door at their below $3,000 (barely) asking price. But that kind of schizophrenia reminds me of a postwar Packard a lot, when, well, Chrysler did have Imperial above them. So why the didn’t go toe to toe with Oldsmobile and Buick once DeSoto was gone is a bit confusing to me, other than, well, that Dodge defensive line tackle if they pushed too far.
Interestingly, in the mid-’50s, during Colbert’s tenure, there was actually talk of dropping the Windsor (then the low-line Chrysler) so that Chrysler wouldn’t tread on Dodge and DeSoto; Chrysler couldn’t afford to let their mid-level divisions fight it out the way GM did. The dealers objected because the Windsor was the lion’s share of their business.
I suspect that had a lot to do with the way the dealerships were set up. Most Chrysler dealers also carried Plymouth so they didn’t need a cheaper smaller car for volume the way a standalone Olds or Buick dealer did.
After GM, I like Chryslers and have always studied them over time. Virgil Exner was a hell of a designer, but like many creative geniuses, he was subject to pretty wide yo-yos with this designs. These early 60s cars were the swan songs of Exner, and many feel that the 62s sealed his fate at Chrysler. He was best with the 55-59 cars when the rocket ship look was in and the cars were considered classic in design. When the fins began to be toned down in the 60s, it seems like instead of tacking into a new direction, it was as though Exner was trying out all the ways that one could add a sculpture line to a car. Of course it wasn’t until Elwood Engel came on board that things began to settle down to the familiar 60s box look.
It seems as though Chrysler felt the need to always be different in a major way until the 1970s when they became known for utter sameness.
So much for acting on rumors…
I always thought the 1965 six window Custom 880 was attractive in the boxy 60s kind of way.
Chrysler always suffered from the problem that they tried to cover all the markets to match GM. Ford could do it most of the time but for Chrysler it was a stretch at times. AMC tried some but eventually gave up.
Exner was more the scapegoat than the culprit of the ’62 cars’ oddball styling. He objected strenuously to the hasty downsizing, which played hob with the proportions, and to the various measures to take out costs — in fact, he was one of the few senior executives who actually said, loudly, that the ’62s as they were finalized were going to be commercial disasters. However, when that turned out to be the case, the board wanted someone to swing for it and Bill Newberg, who actually ordered the downsizing, was already gone.
The original designs were eccentric and I do think he was reaching for a new theme, but they weren’t nearly that gawky or weird.
A lot of change happened in a short period of time then similar to what happened 15 years later. It was about that time that Lynn Townsend bubbled to the top of Chrysler. I don’t blame Exner for all of those woes, but he was exceptionally enamored with the Forward Look that he played it out too far since styles changes more rapidly in those years. I know the actual downsizing call was thought to be based on a rumor GM was going to do the same of course which wasn’t the case. Part of Exner’s problem was that he was a bit prickly and did not mingle easily with the studios. He was often unapproachable. Eventually Chrysler quit trying to make the market and strictly offered their version of basic design themes. That was probably Townsend’s biggest gift, he realized Chrysler would probably always be #3 and he made the best of it. Which generally served them well for about 15 years or so until the big downsizing push in the 70s when they simply could not afford to do it right. Chrysler really got bad timing investing a lot in their 74s and to have OPEC happen. Sort of like the reverse of the Mustang II which was planned before OPEC but just happened to drop right into the market at almost precisely the right time. Sometimes timing can be a b*tch…
While Exner technically didn’t deserve the blame for the 1962 full-size downsizing debacle, he didn’t do himself any favors with his demeanor and the way he insisted on sticking with the Forward Look for far too long. His dismissal probably wasn’t so much for the ’62 styling but more for a culmination of feathers he’d ruffled in the past.
Exner might not have been responsible for the ’62 cars, but he was certainly the reason for the nearly as awkward 1960 and 1961 line-ups. Just put a 1961 Plymouth Fury, with that god-awful mug, next to a clean ’61 Pontiac Ventura, and it’s easy to see why Pontiac overtook Plymouth for third place and there would be some on the Chrysler board eager to see Exner go.
In another all-too-typical irony, the clean designs that were used by Exner’s replacement brought over from Ford, Elwood Engel, to replace the 1962 ‘plucked chickens’ were actually Exner’s proposals with little to no changes.
Nowhere was this more evident than in the sharp 1963 Valiant, which was an Exner design all the way. And, although it might be said that Engel got undeserved credit, it’s worth noting that Engel was an astute enough stylist to realize that Exner’s designs were fine and there was no need to supplant them with anything else.
Collectible Automobile has run photos of the 1962 full-size cars as originally envisioned by Exner. The full-size Dodges and Plymouths probably would have sold better than the 1962s that did show up at the dealerships. They still would have been considered “out there” compared to that year’s full-size GM and Ford cars.
The hardtop coupes featured a roofline that bore a striking resemblance to the roofline on the 1965 full-size Chevrolets and Pontiacs, while the four-door hardtop greenhouse predicted the style of GM’s 1971 full-size B-bodies!
The proposed 1962 Chryslers, however, probably would have sold much worse than the the “real” 1962 Chryslers.
The 1962 DeSoto Proposal. Offered with no further comment.
There was also another alternative for the proposed 1962 DeSoto that was designed by Don Kopka http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1960s-chrysler-concept-cars1.htm The 6 window design predicted a bit the 4-door sedan of the 1965 Dodge 880 and 1965-66 Chrysler Newport (and Canadian Windsor). The front end predicted the 1961-64 full-size Mercury (ironically, Don Kopka moved later to Ford).
Additional comment here; It turned out to be the 1962 Plymouth instead, in basic body design. That platform went on to become the 1963-1965 Plymouth Savoy, Belvedere, and Fury and also basically the Dodge 330, 440 and 500 as well. A 1964 Belvedere won the Daytona 500, I certainly enjoyed being in attendance for that event.
Thank you, Laurence. This looks like the exact car that I learned to drive on in about 1970. My grandfather bought it new, and my parents bought it from him at the time he bought a 1969 Dodge. It was my Mom’s car, and I got to drive it around town with my Mom, and also also on some trips out of town. Although I don’t recall how many miles were on it, it was still like new with absolutely nothing wrong with it. To this day, I have fond memories of a large, solid, great running car. It of course had the Torqueflite transmission with pushbuttons on the dash. It was a smooth, great riding car around town or on the road.
And, truthfully, I’d actually take a low-mileage, well-kept one like this over just about any sports car or muscle car. The car simply had no faults, and had an enormous trunk.
That white ’62 Lancer was my first car; bought it in 1967 for $250.00.
A great uncle of mine had a ’62 Newport. The attached photo is not my great uncle’s car, but it is the front view of a ’62 Newport; the car that the Dodge 880 was based on.
These pics sure take me back!
This sounds similar to my story only I bought mine! I picked up my 1963 Dodge 880 Custom 4 door hardtop the fall of 2012 for $800 and drove it home. I wasn’t in love with it but the price was SO right I had to have her. I am the 3rd owner. The car has always been inside. It does have an old lacquer repaint on it and 108K miles on it. I recently put a couple hundred dollars into her to fix the mechanical problems it had when I purchased it. I am finally going to be able to cruise this cool classic in a couple of weeks.
The 4 door hardtop body makes this one a winner. Cool car! 383 by chance?
361 cid. Just put in new points, condensor, cap rotor and valve cover gaskets today. Tomorrow I rebuild the carb and she is ready to rock!
Hi everyone,
I am the proud owner of the above shown and mentioned 880. When purchased she only had an original 23, 000 miles on her, and I only bought her for $3,400. I have spent one whole year with her on jacks stands doing everything I saw it needed. On my birthday, Oct. 18 of this year 2013, I got to drive her to Jimmy’s Old Car Picnic for her first car show EVER. She is my daily driver and fires almost without even touching the gas pedal, (thank you electronic ignition) It’s funny that some of you guys were also mentioning Ramblers because my wifes daily driver (that I also maintain) is a 63 Rambler American two door hardtop. I guess it’s in my D.N.A to spot beautiful odd balls. If you ever want to swing by and see her, she is parked in front of Crown Customs new location at 1435 Vandyke SF. or call me anytime at 415 368-3526 she is a beauty and I’m always ready to talk about her, how I got her and why I got her is a pretty damn good story. Both my girls in the picture attached.
We recently celebrated 1963 Days here at CC, but it appears that at your house, EVERY day is 1963 day. I happen to love Dodge 880s. I still wonder if Chrysler made buyers who didn’t want that beige color pay extra. 🙂
Yesterday my 63 880 arrived in Amsterdam at my garage.
Did see this one for sale in the US in maryland. Called and bought it off 5 pictures.
Pretty expensive cars these days ! But just had to have it.
It has a 440 engine in it with a lokar shifter.
It it almost completely rust free. Has spend its entire life till 2011 in california.
Have the original black plates as well.
Truely fantastic model, am a mopar man but never did see one in real life untill now.
Sold my 69 chrysler 300 convertible since the 880 will be my car for the coming years.
Nice to read everything about 880s here above.
Don’t think I’ve ever actually seen a 2-door 1963 Custom 880. I definitely like the looks of the one you’ve got!
look at my car
HI I have a 1963 880 I’m looking for drums front and rear don’t whant to modify the car it’s all original also ” FOR SALE” any body can help m it’s 5 years been looking for original parts got evrythink but the drums
Mike Timu,
Have you tried Andy Bernbaum in Mass? His website: https://www.oldmoparts.com/
Andy specializes in vintage Chrysler product spare parts.
In the early 1980s I used to work on a 1-owner, beautiful 1964 “50th Anniversary” Dodge 880 convertible, metallic blue with blue interior. The car was fully loaded including very cold factory A/C and had about 35,000 miles showing. One day the wife of the owner I had dealt with, called to tell me he had passed away, and his instructions were to call me and offer it to me. The price? Free. I explained it was worth a fair amount of money, but she was adamant — he said it was to be offered to me and not to let me pay anything, as I was one of the few guys who appreciated it.
I had that Dodge for quite a few years, loved it. I had a 1963 Chrysler 300 convertible at the time, it didn’t have A/C, so I kept the Dodge & sold the 300.
A “30 Cubic Foot Trunk”???
For reference, a 2010 Lincoln Town Car had only 21 Cubic feet.
I own a 1964 dodge custom 880 with that aqua green color with the big bock 361. She drives great. We have matching #s but modified it with a weyand intake an avs2 edelbrock 4 barrel carb custom dual side discharge 3 inch exhaust air shocks high energy ignition to name a few
Michael Cyr,
For many years I’ve had a soft spot for the 1964 Custom 880 cars.
In the late 1980s I found a 1964 Custom 880 convertible quite by accident while looking for another old car. The Dodge had light blue metallic paint & blue interior, white top. It was a 1-owner car, always garaged. It had been driven under 25,000 miles, and it was near mint. A nice plus was the working factory Airtemp A/C!
The owners were moving to a Florida retirement community and didn’t need the car anymore, mentioning all they needed was a golf cart! They had planned on selling the Dodge the next weekend, so I asked them how much they wanted for the car. My question was answered with more questions as to what I would do with the car, did I have a safe place to keep it inside [yes], and would I make any changes to the car. I also said yes to the last question, but quickly explained I would put a nice set of radial tires on it, nothing more.
Satisfied that I was going to take good care of their baby, they told me I could have it for $100. I had a little over $300 in cash on me. I said that was too low and offered them the $300. It was refused, so I bought the car for $100. We stayed in touch by mail for a few more years, I often sent them photos of the car at various car shows, until one day my mail was returned by the post office. Someone wrote on the envelope “She passed away”. I sold it in the mid 1990s to a Chrysler collector in the mid-west. The photo I have included here came off Flickr, and I’m pretty sure it’s my old car.
That car is still on my list of “Cars I regret selling”.