Writing a full-CC on the Dart would be difficult given all that’s already been said about them on these pages. The sheer number of A-bodies we’ve managed to find is a real testament to the fact that they’re tough little buggers. Still, it’s rare that you see one in this sort of condition, especially in sedan form.
Call them dowdy all you like, the 67-75 A-body sedans were some of the most attractive, timeless “compacts” ever. If early Accords and Datsun 510s are classy, and if contemporary Benzes defined elegance, these are up there. The muscle car era decal on the decklid doesn’t spoil the effect either; nothing like straight lines and big windows on a four-door.
Up close, there are some signs of a sloppy re-do. For as smooth and the paint is, there is some overspray on the chrome trim. Looking at the inside, you see the same problem, only with the blue vinyl paint used on the upholstery. Surprising given the attention to detail seen elsewhere on the car.
It’s a sign of Chrysler’s bi-polarity that these were sold alongside the Fuselage cars of the early ’70s, and my love of both shapes is a testament to my own tendency toward extreme thinking. Give me curves or give me straight lines; don’t mess around.
Of course, Chrysler did mess around with revised versions of the car; they still looked good, but the initial versions with the blocky rear end were the most cohesive. Even still, later versions avoided looking as plain as all but the most fully-optioned Coronets, Polaras and Monacos. That was not so good for sales of those more profitable cars, but still beneficial to me; since fate has handed me yet another white classic, I’m lucky it’s one with such a well-defined shape. I don’t think a Dart Demon would look as nice in this color, nor would a Chevy II or a Falcon.
Perhaps it’s just preparation for my ultimate sedan-in-white, a ’91 Legacy Turbo. This unlikely substitute for that early ’90s curiosity was similarly known for its above-average driving experience and I’m pretty sure it’s used as a daily, at least during the warm months. And compared to a Chevy II, with its two-speed automatic, it’s a much more practical proposition (also reportedly more up to modern expectations than a Falcon), and a great attention-getter.
Looking a bit more expensive than their rivals, with more modern powertrain components, it’s easy to see why these were so popular (and easy to find now). In fact, Dodge sold more Darts than Plymouth sold Valiants in 1968, with the bigger proportion of sales going to higher-trim Dart 270s (which this car is not), so buyers felt comfortable buying upmarket variants. And, if you combine Valiant and Dart sales (about 283k units), they outnumber Falcon and Comet sales (at about 210k) and Chevy II and Corvair sales (216k). By keeping his or her car so presentable, the owner of this particular Dart provides a living testament to what was so right about these cars. I honestly can’t think of a better classic American to (eventually) replace my Civic; make mine a 1970 Valiant Signet four-door with the 318 and Airtemp.
Related reading:
Curbside Classic: 1968 Plymouth Valiant Two Hundred – One Mean-Looking Compact
Curbside Classic: 1968 Dodge Dart – “Which Old Folks Remember As A POS”
I’ve said before that Chrysler could have become a “7/10” American Mercedes if they had better management. I agree the Dart has a timeless classy quality to it while still having some style.
That’s about as close to my dad’s ’68 Dart as anything I’ve found. His was a stripper two-door, in baby shit brown, with zero options. It had the 170 slant six, three-on-the-tree, and mis-matched upholstery, in black. The front seat was the cheapo thin flat vinyl, but the rear seat came in the deluxe pleated vinyl as shown here. They must have been out of the proper rear seat upholstery the day it came down the line.
It lived up to its reputation in every way: very reliable, rugged and handled pretty decently, given the limitations of its skinny little bias-ply tires. With only the small six and the manual transmission in front, it was not nose-heavy, and would squeal through corners in a very neutral attitude. That made it a fun car to toss around the back roads of Northern Balto county.
It’s biggest shortcoming was the lack of four gears; the three-speed had a big hole between second and third, especially for the little 170. But that engine was willing and eager, and would rev like no other American six, except maybe the Pontiac OHC Sprint.
Somehow I have never gotten to drive a 170. All of my slant 6 experience has been in the 225, which seems to have been the polar opposite. The 225 was a down-low torque-maker that was happiest at around 1800 rpm.
My piano teacher had the Plymouth version of your father’s car – a 69 Valiant 100 2 door in that medium metallic green with dark tan interior. That one was built right, but maybe they left out all of the rustproofing. It died of rust after a life of about 45K miles (although in a salty climate and in the 1980s.)
I’m possibly exaggerating a bit. The 170 made its horsepower at 4400 rpm; the 225 at 4000. But rather curiously, both made their peak torque at 2400 rpm.
All my experience with the 170 was with my dad’s car, with the manual. And all my 225 experience is with automatic cars, so that also skews my impressions some. But the 170, with its drastically shorter stroke, was much more willing to rev, although I doubt pushing it past 5000 rpm was of any real use, except to minimize the big rpm drop into third when coming out of second.
The 170 teamed up with a modern5 speed manual would make a very nice combination, especially maybe warmed up just a bit. There’s some slant six lovers that have done that, and can get a very nice balance of performance and economy out of such a combination. I’d like a Valiant sedan set up like that.
You haven’t missed much by not driving a 170 /6. I had a 67 Valiant with one it was adequate for one person or two. The engine even looked dinky in the engine compartment as compared to the 225.
Yawn – another white CC from Perry. 🙂
I love the “Dodge” script that they were using at that time. These early (1967-69) versions look so much more delicate than the later ones. I have always found the styling fascinating on these – so rectangular, but still with a lot of eye candy and interesting tweaks to the basic lines. I am especially thinking of the concave rear glass and the little kickup of the body line over the rear wheel arch.
I’m guessing that the three on the tree is mated to a slant 6. It is also interesting that despite the decal on the back, the owner has resisted the temptation to use those basic Mopar dog dish hubcaps of the 70s (the Mopar equivalent of the Chevy rally wheel.) These earlier ones with the fratzog are so much more interesting. Excellent find, Perry.
I just got back from a walk where I found a white ’69 Falcon. This is beyond the point that it’s funny.
“This is beyond the point that it’s funny.”
Uhhh . . maybe to you. I am laughing very hard right now. 🙂
It’s all good, said he who had a painfully long streak of baby blue findings.
Another interesting tweak on these is the last appearance of the Engel crimp on the C-pillar – it starts parallel to the rear door, and then bends. Chrysler had a real thing for odd C-pillar treatments back then.
Of course, my favorite Dart of this era is Joe Mannix’s mildly customized GT convertible. Same year (I think), same color as Steve McQueen’s Mustang in Bullitt, but a totally different vibe.
Perry, re: Dart outselling Valiant in ’67, that was partially a function of the Valiant losing it’s convertible and hardtop models to the newly expanded Barracuda lineup. A ’67 Signet convertible would have looked just right.
Those pedals are also in my 95 Voyager and in my 03 Caravan.
“..make mine a 1970 Valiant Signet four-door with the 318 and Airtemp.” You’ll wait a long time to find one – the Signet trim was discontinued after ’69.
It is surprising to see one in such nice shape, great find. I think that sticker on the back ruins what otherwise is such a great example of a basic car that usually isn’t preserved.
Great Car! My brothers first car was a 68 Valiant 100 2 dr. that my Dad got from an Auto Auction in 76. It had some sort of Decor package on it which Chrysler did a lot of starting around that time. It had the cheap 100 basic interior with the rubber mats covering the floor and the plain vinyl seat material, but also had most of the exterior trim off the 200 which included chrome window moldings, and a body side molding. His was a golden green color with a black interior. It was pretty well loaded for an A body, factory under dash air, radio, deluxe wheel covers, tinted glass, automatic and power steering, The car did have an oil problem though. I guess the rings were shot. Used a quart about every 2 to 300 miles. We called it the Arab, “loved its oil” It never let him down in the 3 years he had it, though it did make several 400 plus mile long trips. Slow but steady and just add oil.
My Grandmother had a 71 Valiant 4dr. which was stripped except for an Automatic, a super 225 slant six and a radio. That car eventually became my sisters and then was sold to a friend and then one of my employees in around 1990. That car was bulletproof and never gave us any problems. Both were very basic but dependable transportation
I’ve ahda lot of experience with tehse car and would love to have one now. We had a 65 V100 2-door, medium blue inside and out, 225, 3 on the tree. Then a 68 Signet 4-door, beige over red, 273 V8 and Torqueflite. Then a 72 4-door sedan, 318, Torqueflight and A/C. Kept that one for 16 years! Later I also had a 72 Duster, 225, Torqueflite, A/C. That one had led a hard life and I couldn’t afford to keep up with the repairs at that time.
A 68 Signet 2-door, V8, Torqueflite and A/C would be ideal.
Great car.
If I could buy a brand new one of these with a few modern upgrades:
3 Point Retractor Seatbelts
EFI
5-Speed Transmission
I would be even happier..
I totally agree with “Of course, Chrysler did mess around with revised versions of the car; they still looked good, but the initial versions with the blocky rear end were the most cohesive” – Chrysler do Brasil also messed around with the brilliant original design, one that has no sign of “fat” or excess anything, this design is an improvement over the straight lined bodies of the larger Chryslers that came out in 65. Here an example of the very goofy front that appeared in 1975. Brazilian Darts were offered with V8 only, and for a while they were the most powerful Brazilian made engines and the Dart the fastest domestic car.
Love those hidden headlights!
And in Argentina, the A-body Dart/Valiant was known as Coronado, Polara, GTX and the A-body was stretched for the case of the Argentinian GTX almost to a size of a intermediate/mid-size car and they got squared headlights.
Here some links to Argentine websites who got some good photos and here a clip posted on Youtube.
http://www.cocheargentino.com.ar/d/dodge_sedan_cupe.htm
http://www.argentochrysler.com.ar/Index.htm
When I see hipsters rolling around in their Falcons, I really wonder if they’re owning those for the irony, because a Valiant/Dart is light years the better classic “average” car than the Falcon could be.
Agreed that at this point in their story arch they seemed a half step above the Nova/Falcon (The Dart, especially with its longer wheelbase seems “almost” midsized). I think the Dart, especially for ’67-’69 had to make up for not having a Firebird/Cougar equivalent in the line up though, given the Charger was a pretty unique, but size class-wise closer to the intermediate Muscle Cars than Pony Cars.
That gave the full sweep of the Dart line to offer a full swath of models until the Challenger and Demon came along. Having to compete in that sweep where Ford and Chevy abandoned (as did Plymouth) allowed for specialty “compacts” such as convertibles and hardtops. AMC held on a bit longer, but given the size and perceived “newness” of the Dart probably stole a bit of the American’s thunder as well. So along with the endless parade of the basic sedans, you could get a “just my size” hardtop or convertible as well without as much “form dictating function” as it did with Pony Car. While those were not the bulk of sales, probably rounded out the bottom end pretty well.
For all the bone headed decisions Chrysler has made in nearly 70 years after WWII, the 68-75 A bodies sure do help make up for quite a few.
I freaking love the A-bodies; and it’s odd given my Fuselage fetish. Like I said, it’s a symptom of my appreciation for extremes. ANYway, I just got back from a walk where I found a ’69 Falcon and there’s really no comparison. The Dodge seems like such a better car to touch and to behold.
FWIW, I think a Dart is a rather hipster-y car, too. But don’t get too annoyed; a walk to the record store today, hipster owned and operated, really drove the point home. It’s such a nineties-hangover subculture; so played out. It was incredible when I found that the guy who owned the Falcon was the same one I was talking to at the record store. Funny dude, though.
I know, just the ratio of Falcons and Comets to Skinny Jeans I’ve seen in the Bay Area, is higher. Then again there were so many more early Falcons to re-purpose. It’s more me being defensive against being categorized as a hipster as well because too often a Dart 270 with a 273 V8 has been tempting. Actually there was a Avocado Green ’69 sedan for sale equipped as such before I bought Audrey…..
Brings back memories! A teenage friend of mine’s family had a yellow base 2-door 68 Dart–he was so proud of their car! It was an auto, probably 225.
The 67-76 Dart was the best compact of it’s era (at least till the 75 GMs)
Paul comments on the ‘revability’ and light weight of the 170. While I can accept that it was smoother at higher rpms than the 225 due to the shorter stroke, did it really weight that much less?
Didn’t they use the same block? I would think the slant sixes were with 10 lbs of each other. I always wonder, if it’s the same engine, is the smaller engine that much lighter? Whether it’s a 305 Chevy or a 350? Commentariat, please weigh in!
Also, I’m fascinated this engine known for it’s durability only has FOUR main bearing–not seven.
The 225 has a one inch taller deck, and a one inch longer stroke. I don’t know the weight difference, but the blocks are definitely different. Later 198s apparently used the same block as a 225.
Nice find, Perry.
Thanks; it’s very pretty, isn’t it? I’m more of a small-displacement, high-revving fan, but I can see replacing such a device with one of these.
Interesting point about the four main bearings. Rick Ehrenberg of Mopar Action wrote something about that and other aspects of the /6 design a while back. If I find the issue I’ll post a recap. 🙂
Please do. Looking forward to it, if you can.
I haven’t ever read anything about why that choice was made (four bearings), but they are hefty ones, and it certainly didn’t impact its ruggedness. But the 225 wasn’t exactly known for being very refined, and the lack of a fully counter weighted seven-bearing crank undoubtedly played a part in that, as well as the mechanical lifters (until its later years).
I suspect that the Chrysler engineers felt very comfortable with their experience with the very rugged flathead sizes, and decided that was good enough. But I bet if the slant six had been designed just a few years later, it would have had seven bearings.
Part of the original design criteria for the Slant 6 family was to make the shortest (fan to flywheel) inline 6 possible. This was one of the reasons for the canted design, it allowed the water pump to be mounted on the side of the block. It was also the reason the original 2 displacements have the same bore but differ in stroke, (the Slant 6’s had narrow bore spacing), and the 4 main bearing crank. It was a clever design.
By “having a light front end” I was referring to the combination of the 170, the manual transmission, and zero power accessories, etc. That made it the lightest version that one could possibly have.
As to the 170 itself, as Aaron pointed out, it has a shorter deck and probably weighs some 10-20 lbs less.
I love these A Bodies .
-Nate
VE Valiant except for the front parklights and grille even the dash is a mirror image, Ive never even seen a 170 the baby engine wasnt on the local menu only the 225 was assembled into the Aussie version and they go ok on nearly on par with big Vauxhalls.
…do yer reckon the 140hp 3.3 Cresta can out accelerate the 160 hp 3.7 slant six?? lol ..c’monnnnn 🙂
Believe it or not they can, fastest accelerating 4door available it took untill the advent of V8 Valiants and Holdens for anything to out run 3.3 Victors an Crestas. 6 cylinder record at Thunder Park Vauxhall not Valiant.
From the depths of my memory I seem to remember a road test at the time of a two tone dark blue ’65 Cresta 3.3 with four on the floor, having a zero to 50 miles per hour time of 7.5 seconds, which WAS very quick for the time! I was intrigued with the twin spouted air cleaner arrangement which was obviously designed to suck in heaps of air..lol !
I always thought the ’65 Velox or Cresta was a darned handsome machine actually, although the PC Cresta didn’t do it for me as I think they ruined the goods looks with that one. The FD Ventora 3.3 was the all time good looker of the day and I would have preferred one of those to the early Mk 3 Cortina 2000 OHC.
I sometimes dream of being teleported back in time to various years, and thinking which NZ available vehicle would I choose .. ’39 Deluxe Coupe ..’48 Mercury 4 door ..’50 Pilot ..’53 TwinSpinner ..’55 Mk 1 ..’57 Mk 2 ..’59 Mk2 Jag ..’61 Studebaker Hawk 289 …’63 E-Type ..’65 AP6 273 (and 3.3 Cresta!) ..’67 Impala 283 ..’69 VF VIP 318 ..’71 FD 3.3 ..’73 Charger 265 ..after that it gets less and less interesting as the Jap invasion begins in earnest ..bugger (lol)
PB 3.3 was the fastest 4door to 50mph available in England in 65 a local 3.3 auto was the first car to accelerate to 100mph up the Pohuehue viaduct the owner tried the same in his fathers 350 66 Impala and failed, there was a very good reason traffic cops used 3.3 Vauxhalls back in the day nothing could get away from one, I had a 65 3.3 bored 60 thou planed head extractors yada yada very very fast could accelerate from 30mph to 100mph up the Taupo Control gate hill actually outran a local car dealers 318 VH up there too he bought it on memory of that event, sucker the bigends were shot. most5 of those cars you mention were common here back in the day first decent crash I was in 48 Merc coupe, hardly hurt it.
I had a 70 PC Cresta and it definitely had a fair turn of speed.Ultra reliable,comfortable and great looks and if you drove sensibly the MPG was acceptable for a big car
And of course their “new car” is a Cutlass Ciera… too perfect.
I can only echo what others have said; never met a Slant/6 or A-body I didn’t love. The only weak part of this era Dart was that grille, but it’s not horrible. One of the rare instances where a car got better looking at the dawn of the 70s.
Nice find! They sure are timeless, especially in this kind of condition.
Dad had a plain vanilla 4 door 6 cylinder 68 Dart for 3 years.Very reliable and comfortable as was it’s Australian relative the 66 Valiant we had also.
“It’s a sign of Chrysler’s bi-polarity that these were sold alongside the Fuselage cars of the early ’70s”
Just wondering – here in Australia we not only got the bigger Hemi six to replace the Slant, but also got a bigger, fuselage-styled Valiant – which bombed. I wonder whether the fuselage design we got was originally intended to replace this generation in the US, but for some reason got exiled to Australia?
Yeah the Ethnic Express good cars despite what people said about them, they were cheap to buy hard on tyres and fuel but great travelling cars and great for towing. Shocking for rust but so was everything else.
My aunt had a 1970 Plymouth Valiant 4-door slant six basic transportation car that was nice except for a rust problem on the rear quarters. She traded it in for a 1975 Ford Maverick when she retired and moved to Florida. She used the Maverick for years until she got too old to drive, and then gave the Maverick to me. The Maverick is now fully restored and in mint condition, but I wish I also had the Valiant also. Both of them were wonderful cars and I’d like to see more of those kind of cars find loving homes and be restored to all original condition and sustained with a lot of TLC.
The best thing about a sedan other than you can carry the family around is they make great sleepers.
There was a very fast 4 door Australian Valiant known as the Brisbane Taxi at UK street legal drags around 1999.Quite a few muscle car drivers left the drag strips with red faces after a race with the Brisbane Taxi!
Remarkably solid little cars. I’m glad mine had a few more options.
Whatever one thinks of these – I only like the hardtop coupe – go figure, NOBODY can ever beat the bull’s-eye marker lights for pure art in design! Sears even sold them as an aftermarket add-on for older cars, and I almost bought a set for dad’s ’66 Impala, but didn’t have the heart to drill holes in the body of his beautiful car.
Built when ‘base’ meant just enough to get it to move and stop and steer. But it does have a lighter and ashtray, something you don’t get nowadays. Put this Dodge in my garage. At least the heater was included, those were even optional at one time.