(first posted 10/13/2012) In the same week Ed caught a sweet ’66 Sport Fury hardtop on the freeway during his vacation, we enjoyed this ’65 Sport Fury convertible that appeared in our neighborhood. Long, cool and elegant, don’t you agree? (That’s Lily saying “Are you crazy? Get out of the middle of the street!”) Nineteen sixty-five was not only a very good year for Plymouth, but their best since 1957, the year of the radical Forward Look. After years of offering less bloated, more Space-Age, poor-selling alternatives, they finally gave up; as you can see, today’s ’65 Plymouth Sport Fury is conventional in every way, and it sold well.
Chrysler execs, believing that Detroit’s length explosion had gone too far, suddenly cut the length of the full-size 1962 Plymouths (CC here) from 210″ to 202″. They were wrong. Although I quite like the trim, Space-Age shape of this ’62 Sport Fury, few buyers did. With sensible compacts and intermediates like Ford’s Fairlane available to fill the gap, Americans expected their big cars to be long and even longer. In 1962, Chevy, which had stayed at 210″, sold 1.2 million full-size cars. Likewise Ford, who sold three-quarter-million of its big ’62s. In contrast, Plymouth sales crashed to an eighth-place 183,000 units. Plymouth, which had owned third place from 1932 to 1960, was devastated. Despite his strong objection to the downsizing, styling chief Virgil Exner took the fall. He was replaced by the conservative Elwood Engel, who came over from Ford. Engel managed to give the ’63 and ’64 Plymouths more conventional styling, despite being stuck with their 116″ short-wheelbase platform.
With the new, fully unitized, 119″ wheelbase full-sized C-body of 1965, Plymouth got their big Fury back, 500 pounds heavier, 7.4″ longer and 2.4″ wider than in ’62. Its long, straight lines–nothing exciting or disturbing, please–maintained a safe, sleek ’60s-generic style. (Dual exhausts here indicate one of the big V8s–more on that later.)
Here’s our ’65 Sport Fury convertible, lined up with a ’64 at the door handles: Little dimensional change in front, but in back the ’65 has three additional inches of wheelbase and more rear overhang. Its parallel sculpted lines and fender skirts make it look even longer.
Pontiac took third place from Plymouth in ’62 and stayed there for the rest of the decade. The 1963 Pontiacs set a new style–especially up front, with their stacked headlights, split grille and long, straight lines. The look proved so popular that Ford and Plymouth copied it for their own ’65s.
Big-Plymouth sales jumped to almost one-half million, including 45,000 Sport Fury 2-door hardtops and 2-door convertibles. Unique Sport Fury standard equipment (some of which was available optionally on other Furys) included a center console, full-length body-side moldings with engine-turned insert, engine-turned lower-deck panel appliqué, bucket seats and custom wheel covers with a spinner hub.
What, no push-button automatic? Actually, Sport Furys had been using a console shift lever for several years when Plymouth finally dropped the buttons across the board in 1965 (lesser Furys got the usual, above-the-column Park-R-N-D-2-1).
One of my favorite things about 1960s Detroit convertibles is the rear-seat speaker. With its grille, logo and chrome trim, this one makes the back bench seat look a little more like buckets.
Our CC convertible is equipped with one of the Commando V8s–and its dual exhausts say that it’s not a two-barrel 383 with 9.2:1 compression. This four-barrel V8 is either the 383 or the 426 Wedge, so let’s pretend it’s the 426.
Here’s a 426 Wedge under the hood of another ’65 Fury: A 10.3:1 compression ratio, 365 hp @ 4800 rpm, 470 lb-ft @ 3200 and a 5,500-rpm redline.
Sport Fury must have been the Plymouth you bought for sports…but what sports? Fishing? Hunting? Tailgating at the big game? Looks like Plymouth recommends the Sport Fury for Peek-a-boo.
Is sand dancing with banjo and bongos a sport? “Medium Red Metallic” looks great.
How about straight-line sports, then? Motor Trend tested a ’65 Sport Fury hardtop with the 426 Wedge, three-speed Torqueflite and 3.23 rear end: Zero-to-60 in 8.2 seconds. Quarter-mile in 16.1 seconds at 86 mph. And a top speed of 120 mph.
It’s funny how we can get used to a model name like “Fury” while forgetting what the word means. Ask someone about “Sport Fury” today, and they’ll think of the photo on the right.
But in 1965, Plymouth’s Sport Fury convertible did indeed pace the Greatest Spectacle in Racing. Goodbye fins, goodbye Forward Look, goodbye sensible size and spacey styling. Goodbye push-button shifting. Plymouths became as conventional as white bread, and so they prospered. Sometimes, even white bread can be delicious.
Even according to Elwood Engel, the ’63 Plymouths were still 90% Exner. Engel made a few minor tweaks here and there, but after looking over Exner’s more-conventional ’63 designs, proclaimed them basically fine. Engel had a greater influence on the ’64 models (not just at Plymouth — the ’64 Imperial has his stamp all over it, with its pronounced resemblance to the ’61 Continental that Engel developed while at Ford).
I think the mid-sixties Plymouths look better in isolation than they necessarily did at the time. Taken by itself, the ’65 Fury is a pretty handsome car, albeit with some overly fussy detailing (the vertical chrome bit in the center of the grille, for example), but compared to contemporary Pontiacs it looked rather fusty. I’ve always liked the shape of the sail panels on the Plymouth hardtops, though.
One of my very favorite cars. There was quite a styling choice among the big 3 in 1965. The Ford was extreme angularity with super-sharp creases everywhere. The Chevy was all liquid and flow. The Plymouth sort of split the difference. By 1968, Ford and Plymouth would swap positions, with Ford becoming Mr. Average and Plymouth being all straightedge and creases.
The 65 is the only one of the batch that, to me, does not have a single bad line. From 66-68, there was always some small detail that came off as awkward.
I owned a 66 Fury III sedan for 4 years, and it was a very, very good car. No big block, unfortunately. But all the while I owned it, I had wished that it had been a 65 – for two reasons. First, the 66 rear end never looked right to me, and second, the 65 suspension (at least in the rear) was a bit stiffer and more biased towards handling than ride. Someone has a mighty sweet car here. A great find and its story is nicely told.
For very little money you could have taken your Fury to a spring shop and had a couple of extra leaves added to each rear spring. Slap on a pair of HD Monroes or Gabriels and you would have had the handling that you wanted with no loss of ride comfort.
Quite true. However, it was a garden-variety 4 door sedan with a wideblock 318, so I was content to just leave it alone. I guess the more accurate statement would be that it bothered me, but not enough to actually do something about it by messing with an otherwise really nice 20k mile car.
Man! At that time a 20k car would have been a real luxury. So it had four doors! So what? My ’60 Plymouth had four doors and a wide block 318. But it was bought with 65k miles on it for $300. It had a nasty habit of breaking rear springs so having the things rebuilt was part of its routine maintenance. I had seven leaves in each rear spring and Monroe Load Levelers. Rode great.
Or more cheaply and simply those coil over “overload” shocks that were widely available. Stiffening up the rear reduces understeer. Those things really made a difference in handling of the family Falcon wagon (besides fixing the loaded up wagon sag).
November 1965’s Popular Science compares the ’66 Ford Galaxie 500, Chevy Impala and Plymouth Fury, little changed from ’65.
It’s an interesting read. I expected a report of superior handling from the Plymouth’s torsion bars, but PS found “strong roll oversteer” and other complaints due to the cushy ride. They found things to like in each car, but finished by saying they’d rather have the intermediate car from each brand than the big ones.
Starting on page 65 of this issue is an article by Robert Kennedy promoting his bill that created the NHTSA.
Nice piece, Mike. Wish the owner would put some new shoes on the poor ol’ gal.
The McEnroe angle on the name is a hoot! Reminds me of a passage from some police-procedural crime novel set in the 70s that had a little aside about cop cars. I’m quoting somebody’s else’s quoting here, but it was something like, “Cops are only going to stop driving cars called ‘Fury’ when somebody makes a car called ‘Kill.'”
The author was the late Donald Westlake, pretty sure the book was “The Dancing Aztecs” one of his great comic/crime caper novels.
The owner or manager at a gas station down the road has one of these. I like my 300 better, but his is definitely in better shape.
Is it just me or do the stacked headlights make the Fury look narrower?
I didn’t notice we have another DryDocker over here. 🙂
Looks like Plymouth recommends the Sport Fury for Peek-a-boo.
Foreplay, my friend, foreplay.
I’ve never seen a 62 convertible and actually I think the convertible with the top down is better looking than any of the other variants.
The 65 is nice and it sure would look great in my driveway.
Agreed; I’d take that ’62 Convertible; over the ’65, actually. Considerably more interesting. As well as original.
I might be a tad less than enthusiastic about the ’65 Fury because my best friend’s family had one: a Fury III four-door sedan with the slant six. They lived on a really long steep hill, and listening to the six moan against the torque converter the rare occasions I rode with them was rather depressing. There should have been a law against top-line big cars with sixes.
There should have been a law against top-line big cars with sixes.
I would fully agree with you, Paul. Just as I personally detest mid-size cars with 4 cyl engines I think a full-size car with a 6 cyl during the 60s, 70s, and 80s was a pretty foolish and low powered proposition.
However I’m sure Zachman would disagree with us. 😛
I said “top-line” big cars; if someone wanted a six, make them buy a Fury I or II, or a Biscayne. I’m not against sixes per se. But a six cylinder Impala is an oxymoron.
Aren’t we getting all caught up in the cylinder wars here? What’s wrong with a 300HP smooth-as-silk torquey inline six in a top-line luxury car? Inline sixes can be more smooth than fours, and have more torque than eights of comparable displacement. Old American sixes were mostly outdated junk due to the cylinder wars (which have given way to the high-RPM HP wars), where all the glamour was in the V8s. It doesn’t take much work to make a monster of a slant six, or Falcon six. Just look at what the Aussies are doing!
I was specifically talking about the engines available at the time, not theoretical engines.
I’m saying the sixes of the time were pitiful because they were deliberately gimped, in marketing as in construction. The original slant six had the mettle to go up with overheating European sixes (of the time) if it was developed. No need to perpetuate the cylinder wars.
To add insult to injury, some Super Sport Impalas were six-cylinders.
Yes, like a ’65 SS Convertible. We covered that subject here quite thoroughly: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/rarest-1965-chevrolet-model-16567-super-sport-convertible-six-and-what-was-the-last-big-chevy-six/
You missed a bunch of stuff before you came here. BTW, how did you find us?
I was searching for a pic of a particular old car (which I can’t remember) via Google images & found this site. Yeah, I missed a whole lot unfortunately but really really like it here now. No politics or name-calling…I have no idea how much you have to moderate but I’m glad you do — it forces me to behave & it keeps the riffraff out.
I used to go to the “other site” where that Murilee girl writes (ha!) but never posted there…I don’t really understand what happened there but I suddenly got sick of it & only check out “Down on the Junkyard” every once in awhile.
I’m curious about the origins of this site & did not know there was a tie-in between “that other place” at first but I suppose that subject may not be appropriately discussed out here in the “wide open”.
There’s no big deal about our roots. I started writing at TTAC at the end of 2006. In 2008, my son Edward started blogging there too, focusing on industry/political issues and the GM/Chryselr Bail Out, which soon dominated TTAC’s coverage. (TTAC was against it; I was for it).
In 2009 I started doing Curbside Classics there; and in the fall of 2009, Ed took over when TTAC founder Farago left abruptly (I’m skimming over some history there). I became Managing Editor; working “for” ones son is a potentially fraught proposition. I also had recurring issues with one or two other of the writers there. It just got too uncomfortable for me, so I quit in December of 2010, and started CC in Feb 2011. I’m poorer but much happier for it.
But there’s no particular lingering issues with TTAC anymore, although I’m even less happy with certain aspects of their current regime (Ed left last year for other ventures).
I often wondered about the history too, thanks for clarifying some of the details Paul. I first found you at TTAC, where your CC write-ups really appealed to me, then followed you here. CC is my favourite website ever.
Thanks for the synopsis Paul. I just remembered that I was doing a Google Image search on a ’66 Caprice & that maroon one sitting at the gas station was the example that brought me here.
Not that it matters, but when I was at the scrapyard last Friday on my day off…someone brought in a ’65 Fury III sedan still equipped with its slant 6 engine and automatic transmission. First one I ever saw. Bummer.
I must confess that, for the first time in my life, I am starting to come under the spell of the 62 Plymouth. At least the convertible. But being the midwestern conformist that I am, I believe that I would still choose the 65 between the two (rarity and value aside).
Don’t forget, though, that full sized 6 cylinder cars were the reason that the early Valiants were so powerful. Chrysler’s new 1960 slant 6 was designed for the big cars, and the lightweight Valiant was the lucky beneficiary. Falcon and Corvair were not so lucky with their all-new compact-exclusive powerplants.
Yup. I had a hard time with the believability of _Duel_ for this reason. It was a very great stretch to believe that a Peterbilt was *outrunning* a Valiant. Even with the six it was > 110 hp in a light car. Spielberg himself must have felt doubtful, so he used the overheating due to burst pipe ruse, but that didn’t help much. This is one of those movies that a car guy finds difficult to watch, while all others can enjoy.
Yup. Even empty, and even twenty years after it was filmed (and thirty years after that Pete was built) 1990-era trucks couldn’t keep up with the speeds of even imported economy cars…and even when empty. My cabover International (Cat engine; Fuller 9-speed) would hit the governor at 70. There were higher geared trucks out there, obviously…but not something that could go over fifty-percent faster, and still make the Grapevine in California.
Spielberg, and the author of the short story his movie was based on, were probably counting on the likelihood that most people who would read the story and later watch the movie, knew nothing of trucks. Surely truckers would be bored by a pedestrian movie about crazed truckers, written by someone who knows nothing about them or their machines.
Over at Allpar, their write-up of development of the Slant Six says that it was intended for the developing Valiant line (which remember, was initially to be a brand-within-a-brand).
You may be right; it would explain why the Slant Six went into mid-size cars and trucks so quickly. But the excellent writeup of the development of that engine, stressed it was intended for the new compact line and market.
And what was Chrysler going to replace their ancient flathead sixes in the big cars with?
It may have started out primarily as the Valiant engine, but necessity demanded a version for the big cars. But given that the 225 had a raised block and a very long stroke (undersquare), I’m inclined to believe that it may have initially started out as a Valiant engine. But the opportunity to make it work for with a raised block was obviously compelling.
Agreed on the “compelling” remark. Especially since, as the Allpar writeup noted, engineers were surprised at the potential of their new engine. It wasn’t engineered to be a racer, what with three main bearings (or was it four? But it wasn’t a seven-bearing setup); but the long intake manifold runners gave it excellent breathing and startling performance on the dynamometer.
It was 4 mains. They were over-engineered though. The Forged crank and Hemi sized journals were not lacking in strength.
Don’t forget that the Falcon light six started out at only 140 ci. It grew to 170, 200 and finally 250 ci. It became a seven main bearing motor at 200 ci. It’s a good motor but power and fuel economy suffered and really got worse as it was continued into the Eighties.
It may have been due to the taxes imposed on US cars here but ourCanadian CKD packs were all V8s after the demise of the flathead six, It didnt matter what brand of car if it was a US model it had a V8 engine possibly to justify the price possibly prestige who knows.
I always thought these were pretty slick rides. I’m a bit surprised at the 1/4 mile and trap speed.
I have a bad attitude about the 1965-66 Plymouth Fury. It’s an unconditional surrender car.
Whatever else one could say about the 1962-64 Plymouths, at least they represented one of the relatively rare moments when Chrysler deviated from the norm in more substantive ways than relatively minor styling gimmicks or engineering feats. Beyond that, the “lean breeds” ultimately withstood the test of time — the downsized 1977 Chevrolet is strikingly similar in dimensions.
Might the 1962-64 Plymouths have fared better if they had kept the original design proposal’s curved side glass, which would have given them a meaningful styling advantage, particularly after the 1963 reskinning?
For 1965 not only did Plymouth go back to competing directly against Ford and Chevy, but it did so with a design that ranks right up there with the 1964 Chevelle as the most anonymous looking American car of that decade. The only hint that this is even a Plymouth is a vague reference to the pointed grille from 1964 and three-pod taillights brought back from 1961-62. Hey, who else has three-pod taillights?
The 1965 Fury wasn’t terribly beautiful either. The overall look is bland and blocky — very much like a bar of soap. Compare that to the 1964, with its trim sides and subtle curves. I particularly like the lovely arc of the rear wheel cutouts and the simple but cleverly detailed rear.
The 1965 Fury is a much weaker design than its sister Dodge. The latter actually looks like a Dodge and its side sculpting is much more graceful than the Plymouth’s.
From the side the 1965 Fury looks much like a fullsize Chevy of the 60s. Very much a “if you can’t beat em” join em design.
Agreed. Very lacking in any inspiration or originality. And it was behind the times the minute the ’65 Chevy came out. And, yes, the ’65 Dodge was a much superior design.
Might the 1962-64 Plymouths have fared better if they had kept the original design proposal’s curved side glass, which would have given them a meaningful styling advantage, particularly after the 1963 reskinning?
I think the same thing but at the condition if they hadn’t shrunked a lot. Then on the other hand, if they had used the 1963 Valiant design theme for the ’62 full-size. The “plucked chicken” would had fared more better against the new mid-size Fairlane and even the redesigned for ’63 Rambler Classic and Ambassador.
I would go so far as to say the ’65 Fury could even be considered a Chrysler ‘Deadly Sin’ due solely to the dramatically increased sales numbers over the downsized ’62-’64 models. The comeback of the ’65 ‘me,too’ design cemented Chrysler’s design department into doing nothing but rehashing GM’s designs for the next 15 years, meaning that if you didn’t want the current GM design, all you had to do was wait two years and Chrysler would come out with their version.
This worked okay so long as the economy would support it. But when oil prices went ballistic, Chrysler couldn’t change course fast enough and their old GM-style gas-guzzlers caught them flat-footed. It took a near-bankruptcy, Lee Iacocca, and federal loan guarantees to get Chrysler to finally change their ways.
Interestingly, the 1965 Dodge Custom 880/Polara/Monaco did not sell very well. It was the laggard of the corporation’s three all-new full-size cars that year – even the Chrysler outsold it. Dodge depended very heavily on the compact Dart for sales, which was not a good thing for a supposedly medium-price brand.
Geeber, Dodge was in a difficult situation. A big part of the problem was that Dodge’s mid-sized Coronet was a new entry — but not a new body — and its full-sized models had fallen off people’s radar during 1962-64. Aggressively marketing both would have been a challenge for anyone.
That said, for 1966 sales were pretty flat for the mid- and full-sized lines while Dart sales dropped off. This was the year when the brand started its “Dodge rebellion” ad campaign, which was much livelier (and had more cheesecake) than in 1965.
I wonder if reviving the Coronet nameplate for ’65 after last being used in 1959 had stolen some potential Polara/Custom 880 buyers? Imagine what if Dodge continued to use the Polara name for the former full-size rechristened for ’65 as a mid-size intermediate while reviving the Coronet name for the full-size C-body?
To my eye, these were the best looking big Plymouths until the fuselage-styled models came out. Something about the 67-68s that was so stodgy.
It’s that killer gas filler door!
A high school buddy had a ’65 Sport Fury hardtop with a 383 automatic. It was a surprisingly pleasant car to drive with much better brakes and suspension than my ’65 Impala. In those days 10+ year old full size cars were nearly worthless so they were common first cars for budding teenage gearheads like myself. Most of them, like my Impala, were beaters but this particular Fury was pretty cherry. I’d be surprised if he paid $500.00 for it at the time though.
I borrowed it one night to take my girlfriend out and when we came out of the theatre we noticed someone had hit the right front fender pretty hard, damaging the fender and the chrome trim. Since this had happened while the car was in my possesion I of course offered to repair the damage. A replacement fender was easy to find, I painted it white to match and installed it. Then the “quest” began. The trim for the Sport Fury used a special finish that gave it a “fish scale” appearance in the inset of the trim. Other Furys used paint in the same location. Lots of those around, but no Sport Fury trim pieces.
I must have looked at every wrecked ’65 Fury in every junkyard in southern BC that summer. I eventually found one in Spokane by shear luck. I think it cost me a whole $15.00 for all the side trim from both sides of the car. He still had the car 10 years later, and may still for all I know. When the clue was posted yesterday I had no trouble identifying what that car was!
That explains it! I knew that you must have been intimately familiar with that piece to recognize it so quickly.
That’s a wonderful coincidence and a great story. At CC, even the Clue has a story!
Nice car. I would like to point out that the underhood shot supposedly of a 426 wedge in a 65 Fury is not in a 65 Fury. While definitely a Mopar big block, that is not the engine compartment of a C-body. Appears to be a 64 Fury.
Thanks for catching that! Google images led me to that photo in this for-sale ad. The image with “Sport Fury” heading came up, not the title page, which is obviously wrong. It’s a Satellite. I must be more careful!
I replaced it with one from a well-known auction house. Thanks again.
That’s more like it. 🙂 Wow, the big engine but non-power steering and non-power brakes in that car.
The U-shaped bracket at the back of the intake manifold is a guide for the transmission linkage from a newer model Mopar, not correct for this car. I see no transmission linkage whatsoever though. Possibly this car has a 4-speed? Can you post a link to your source for the replacement underhood picture?
Another error is referring to the console automatic as a Hurst shifter. Those Chrysler console automatics weren’t sourced from Hurst, and there’s nothing particularly special about them, either. That’s just what they looked like for a couple of years between the push-button dash versions and the later sixties, full-length style which had the spring-loaded top button detent selector.
I was certain the brochure said it was a factory Hurst shifter on the automatic, Hurst did do automatics, but darn it, the ’65 Sport Fury came with the Hurst shifter only on the four-speed manual. Fixed it, thanks.
There was an old joke that the ’65 Galaxie was the box that the ’65 Impala came in. It could apply to the Fury as well, although I think the Plymouth is more attractive than the Ford overall. But the Chevy blows them both out of the water.
All three have the fastback two-door hardtops, so there’s some degree of sleekness, but when you look at the four-door hardtops, the Impala is still sleek and flowing compared to the boxy Galaxie, and the Fury is downright frumpy.
Wasn’t instead the ’65 Galaxie was the box that the ’63 Pontiac came in?
Okay, stop me if you’ve heard this one…I read through the thread and I don’t think I saw any one bring this up , but we know God is a Plymouth man, because he drove Adam and Eve out of the garden of eden in a fury….
And since Tomatoes are probably being thrown at me already I’ll go out on a ledge here and say the Impala coke bottle fenders are over rated. I’ll take an LTD please (Ducks and runs back stage)
Looking at the Fury picture…it really shows the difference the rear fender skirts make on these cars – to me, the skirts totally improve their appearance.
Agree. As a little kid when these came out, this was my idea of what a modern car should look like. The 65 Oldsmobile with those big round full wheel cutouts looked so wrong to me. However, one look turned out to be a dead end while the other was predictive of styling for the next fifty years.
All this negativity about a Mopar greatest hit! Jeez, they sold a half-million of them, a feat they wouldn’t pull off again, AFAIK. I’d prefer a ’67 Satellite from this era but this is a charming old ride, gimme a mellow 383-2v, white over red, and let’s go cruisin’.
I’m with you Cap’n. I find this a very attractive car. The low beltline, fender skirts, CommandoV8 emblems & even those aftermarket exhaust tip turndowns make me wish it was mine. I’ve never seen a floor-shift Fury — I think all the Sport Furys I’ve seen had that “buddy seat” instead.
I like it when old cars are a little rough around the edges like this one. It tells me they’re being enjoyed and used as directed.
“they sold a half-million of them”
I don’t think they actually sold quite that many. My copy of the Standard Catalog has a model year figure of 329,950 and a calendar year figure of 305,325. Combined 1965 model year production of Belvederes and Furys was about 489K, compared to about 297K for the 1964 standard-size Plymouths, so the 1965 model lineup was certainly an improvement over the 1962-64 arrangement. But after the debacle of ’62, Plymouth’s fullsize cars would never sell as well, proportional to their overall market size, as its rivals would.
Going by the model year figures in the above book, fullsize Plymouth production remained over 300K every year but one through 1971, but never reached as many as 400K (the peak was 366K in 1969). It stayed over 250K through 1973, then fell to 120K in 1974 in the wake of the energy crisis, then fell below 100K for 1975.
1965. An interesting year for cars. Dad brought home his 1960 Chevy and our neighbor brought home a brand-new 1965 Impala Sports Coupe. Silver. Black interior. Compared to Ford and Chryslers of that year – in my book, no comparison, style-wise, Chevys were just so modern-looking. That doesn’t mean the others were slouches. I also agree Chryslers were the mid-point between Ford and Chevy. No hate at all from here, that’s for sure!
However, that upside-down C pillar on the full-sized Chryslers – well, that moved me. Down the street someone bought one and I couldn’t take my eyes off it every time I went up the hill to our house. It was gorgeous. Nothing else like it.
If I had to choose a full-sized car from that year, of course it would be a Chevy, but probably being unaffordable, I’d have to have the Sport Fury.
BTW, on the clue, I was under the impression that the machine-turned aluminum trim was proprietary to Chevrolet, as I don’t recall seeing that on anything else, or, just didn’t pay attention, which was most likely.
“Plymouth Fury”. “Fury”…surely one of the greatest model names in history!
Trust me, the ’65 Sport Fury had machine turned trim. See post above. The first car to have it ASFAIK was the ’62 Impala SS, regular ’62 Impalas had contrasting paint.
Others have commented on Mopar’s tendancy to ape GM styling cues from a couple of years before and this was likely what happened here.
The only other place I remember seeing it was on the dashboard of ’70s Pontiac Trans-Ams, probably because Pontiac couldn’t figure out how to hang a glitter ball from the courtesy light…..
Oh, I don’t doubt you – I had to go back and look at the CC clue photo several times. I believe you are also correct on the 1962 Chevys about the machine-turned trim.
It has been years since I have seen any old iron up close – sick of trailer-queen car shows – and I just plain forget.
The only other place I remember seeing it was on the dashboard of ’70s Pontiac Trans-Ams, probably because Pontiac couldn’t figure out how to hang a glitter ball from the courtesy light…..
The best comment of the day, or week, or….
Tired,
Try the 1960 Lincoln dash…
In another example of the Reverse CC effect, I saw a red Sport Fury convertible from this era (not sure of the exact year, but definitely similar to this one) on the street about half an hour before I first saw this article. And this is in Massachusetts, in October. It was probably going to or coming from some “end of the season” car show.
Speaking of, MCT, me and the barge will be at Extinct Car Day at Larz Anderson in Brookline on 10/27. If you can make it, stop by and say hi!
My parents’ bought a ’65 Sport Fury convertible. It was delivered Christmas Eve 1964. Gold, gold interior, white top, 383 2bbl, automatic. Power brakes, no AC, no console mounted tach, no rear seas speaker.
I particularly regretted the lack of a rear seat speaker as I spent almost all of my tiime in the back seat of that car.
The car looked real sharp, no matter whether it was driving or parked, top up or down.
My parents drove it until November 1971. It has about 107,000mi and a badly leaking rear main seal. In the last year or so that they owned it, it got a few unsighly parking lot dents, caused by other drivers.
The funniest thing that happened when driving was an incidence of car sickness on my part. When the 9-year-old me couldn’t prevent the barf I covered my mouth with both hands. This had the effect of creating a high-pressure sprinkler head spraying the inside of the convertible top with little streams of barf. It took hours of scrubbing the barf out of the inside of the convertible top.
Ha! I did that too! My parents bought a 65′ Fury III 383 2bbl. 2dr Htp. Medium turquoise (like in 426 pic). No a/c. It was around 1973, my father was driving and it was hot we were stuck in NYC traffic. I was about three or four, I puked right down my father’s neck… He went and installed aftermarket a/c after that. Great car, I own it now. I am the second and also 4th owner. I had sold it to my friend before moving to a new job. I later moved back and bought it back from my friend who had the interior done and barely drove it. I will not sell it again.
“Medium Red Metallic looks great.”
Amen. It’s one color, besides silver, I consider for my vehicles. Something about the ‘marooness’ plays off chrome highlights very well….
“Chrysler execs, believing that Detroit’s length explosion had gone too far, suddenly cut the length of the full-size 1962 Plymouths..”
The story told in other car history books, and Allpar.com is that a Chrysler exec incorrectly heard at a party that “Chevy was downsizing their ’62 big cars”. And then had a crash program to make standard size cars from Valients. When shown at dealer meetings, some quit on the spot, and big uproar.
No source says anything about Chrysler “believing cars had gotten too big” at all. This is revisionist history.
Also, saying that the 62’s were original is odd since they were reacting to a rumor of what GM was planning, so again copying GM.
I loved the ’62 Plymouths and Dodges then and still do now. Too quirky for Americans of the time, but extremely well done by Exner. They weren’t just shorter but also narrower than Fords and Chevys. With the advent of the big ’65 cars they were shortened with shorter overhangs and marketed as intermediates, the Plymouth Satellite and Dodge, uh, whatever it was called. Under Engel they at that point became square and awkward inside and out (even though he was responsible for one of the most important and awesome cars ever, the 1961 Continental.)
Besides being unit bodies, which Chrysler went to throughout the range in 1960. Of course today they would be big cars. Between the smaller stiffer unit body and different suspension engineering and full time integrated power steering with 3.5 turns lock to lock (all unlike the others) these cars did not feel at all like the competition.
They also had integrated air conditioning which Ford and did not get to until 1965.
The ’62 bodies lasted only one year. The ’63’s were a very facelifted version which shared no body panels with the ’62’s. If they were still basically Exner designs they must have been the result of an emergency directive from management to make them more mainstream. The windshield and cowl (non-parallel wipers) were the only things in common. The cowl rose up to the windshield which had an angle change at the center, more fitting for the ’62’s. It got changed for the ’64’s.
I had a ’63 Plymouth Sport Fury, bought seven years later. The interior was the same as a ’62 but with a few things done to make it more mainstream like different instrument graphics and a different pad on the dashboard. It had the rear seat bucket seat-like bench like the ’65 full size model.
I’m more “Exner” than “Engel” (the “market”,I guess proves me wrong,but, Who Cares?) I love straight lines on a luxury car. (Hell,in that I’m a Broughamantic!) But in this case (not that I’d toss it out of my garage!) Give me the 64! – Actually give me the ’62!
Stationed in CA in ’74, I had the opportunity to pick up one of these, a yellow Sport Fury Convertible. White top, nicely done yellow interior with white trim. A really ‘bright’ sort of car. It was immaculate, and only $450. I passed, in favor of a 1963 Alfa 2600 Spyder for $1500 instead. Every time I see one of these tho, I have some regrets. Good looking cars.
The engine size (at least for v8’s, can’t remember for slant 6) was cast into the hood ornament on these.
The style of these, which I always liked since my buddy’s mom had a 2dr ht brand new, would come across better without the waves and dings, I think. Some styles can take “heavy patina” better than others …
“… goodbye sensible size…”
The ’62 B body was still around for ’65, just the Fury was upsized. Belvidere and Satellite were still mid sized.
Sure, the 62 was a great drag race car, but families wanted 6 passenger room and large trunks. Along with full size wagons. Ma and Pop are not going to the track to win trophies.
As an eight year old kid when these were new, I liked the Ford best. It’s edgy styling was such a change from the blobby ‘64 that it really made an impression. I loved the vertical lights like the ‘63 Pontiac I liked so much, perhaps because one of my favorite teachers (3rd grade) drove one, but the Ford looked cleaner. And they dominated NASCAR that year, which was pretty much the only regularly visible motorsport at the time. Over time, I got to appreciate the ‘65 Chevy for the masterpiece it is. The ‘65 Plymouth? Honestly I don’t remember it.