These shots of a ’68 Dodge Monaco four door hardtop by Tim Finn made me wonder: what’s the least attractive of the ’65-’68 C Bodies, which get so much love here?
I’m not necessarily nominating this one, although its front end seems a bit contrived and busy for the sake of being busy. Its the color combo is unusual too, with that black painted top. I like that and its intense lower body color for being bold, but I’m not sure it’s the most flattering for this car.
Admittedly, this question is a bit narrow in focus, but if you’ve got an answer…
That’s easy to answer – 1967 Dodge Polara / Monaco.
When I was a kid our neighbor had a 5-6 y/o 1967 Polara wagon, at the time I thought this model came before the ‘65-‘66 version – it looked more out of date to me. The 1968 Dodge was not much better in MHO, but it was toned down from the slightly over the top ‘67.
The two door hardtop version, but a tossup between ’67 Polara and ’68 Monaco.
In the mid/late 1950’s and all of the 1960’s I always found the Plymouth model more attractive than the Dodge version.
Definitely the Dodges, with the winner (loser?) being the 1965 Polara and its Oldsmobile copy front end. I wouldn’t call them bad, per se, it’s just that they’re nowhere near as good-looking as the Plymouths and Chryslers of those years.
It was actually kind of an odd situation, as Dodge was always positioned more of a competitor to Pontiac, yet it was the Plymouths that got the stacked-headlight Pontiac look, while the Dodges leaned towards horizontal-headlight Oldsmobile. I can only surmise that the logic must have been to move the Mopar styling up the GM Sloan ladder.
1965 or 1966 Dodge, can’t decide which I dislike more.
Pillared sedan Imperials. (Or maybe pillared sedan versions of any of them.) They’re just so right as hard tops!
Can I vote for the ’67 Imperial? Is that a C-body?
The front end is undistinguished, but the rear is awesome and Imperialish.
I used to hate these cars, especially in comparison to the Engelized ’64-’66. But over time, I’ve come to appreciate them as a much better design. Yes, they shared their innards with Chrysler, but all of the exterior sheet metal below the belt was unique – something that wouldn’t be the case come ’69.
Of the two years, much prefer the ’67 to the ’68 front-end treatment. It wasn’t dynamic, but the body color grill separators bring back memories of the early to mid-fifties Chrysler grille designs.
I don’t think that there is a bad one in the bunch.
The ‘67 New Yorker (a C body, I believe) features incredibly tortured and overwrought rear end styling.
Bug, or feature?
Wow! Incredibly contrived and, yes, tortured, but – wow!
I owned for a brief time a $100 ’68 New Yorker like this, same color. I always thought it was the least desirable looking of the ’65-’68 offerings.
I don’t much care for the 1968 300 either. The front seemed contrived, combining the 1967 model’s pointy center section with headlamp doors. That was also the year they started spelling out “THREE HUNDRED” on the rear fenders, which seemed a silly affectation, as did the “vents” tacked onto the front fenders just ahead of the doors.
That is one of my favorites!
Well, if we are to take this Wikipedia article for fact (scroll down after clicking the link), then my vote for least favorite would be the 1988 thru 1993 Dodge Dynasty and Chrysler New Yorker….
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_C_platform
Never was much of a K-car fan, although I had a soft spot for a Labaron Convertible.
Of the Fuselage and Pre-Fuselage years, I almost like them all, the favorites being a pre-fuselage Polar 4 door with those trapezoidal taillights, or a fuselage 2 door like that Hurst car that was done up in white and gold that was written up here a while back. *
* Sorry for being dumb here, but I didn’t follow the Mopars much in my youth.
Ok, I’m an idiot… you asked ‘65 – ‘68… DOH!
Then least favorite is probably the New Yorker that FSDusk cited above.
My least favourite is any of them with the fast top roof, very awkward looking, thats the only thing I can dislike on any of them. my brain just won’t allow any thing else to not love
The “fasttop” roof was more well suited for Dodge compared to Plymouth and Chrysler.
Still a wonder then Dick Teague and his designers at AMC seem to like the fast top roof style when they did a makeover of the 1970 Rebel and Ambassador hardtop coupe.
I think the AMC cars look ok with that style roof, but they are not as square cut and angular as the big Chryslers, and maybe its a size thing as well, I think that style roof and C pillar works better on a smaller size.
Agree! The Ford Galaxie and Chevy Impala had much prettier and graceful “fastback” roof lines/rear windows, IMO.
I may be in the minority but I like that fast top coupe.
For me, it’s the coupes that have the C pillar wide at the top and narrow at the bottom, they’ve always looked really weird to me. I feel they’d look a lot better if it was wide at bottom, narrower at top.
I have to say the base `66-`68 Coronet and Belvedere 2 door post coupes. Aside from those, I`m generally a fan of Mopar styling of this era. My favorites? The `65 and `66 New Yorker 4 door, 6 window sedans. Just an elegant, classy looking car.
Those are B bodies — the descendants of the plucked chickens. I assume that you don’t mean the restyled 68 coupes, which had the same shells as the hardtops. The 66–67 post coupes used the 4 door sedan roof, which at least had the excuse of function in that application .
I was a pretty big fan of the Dodge and Chrysler’s of this period but just never had much feeling for the Plymouth’s.
Best:. 68 Fury 4 door hard top
Worst:. 67 Chrysler 2 door fastback
Yeh, that Chrysler was indeed…unfortunate.
For a while in high school, I had a ’68 Fury 4 door hardtop. 318 2 barrel engine, torqueflite, factory A/C & power steering, Bench seat with fold down armrest, 3.23 rear end gearing. Just your usual middle row used car Plymouth 4 door. Friends would joking call it “June Cleaver’s car”.
My best friend of the time was SO proud of his ’67 Caprice 2 door hardtop, 327 4 barrel engine, 3 speed turbohydramatic transmission, power windows/4 way power bucket seats, tilt wheel, dual “Cherry Bomb” mufflers….
Until my Fury quietly sucked his headlights out, several times, during impromptu stoplight races. IDK what his “Shufflin’ Chevy” had for gearing; must have been taller than my Fury’s.
The Fury held 7 full sized American high school boys (and whoever volunteered to ride in it’s mafia hood sized trunk) on drive in night.
“Nuttin’ Special” at the time; wish I had it back!
Your high-school ride sounds almost identical to my first car (was yours the metallic aqua?). It was one of my dad’s ex-company cars (he bought quite a number of these, after the company was done with ’em). I loved it, passed my first drivers’ test in it, but wrecked it at the infamous Lone Tree Rock on Interstate 80 in Wyoming–in part because of the extremely sensitive and grabby power brakes. The cop who dealt with the accident said that the Highway Patrol had been complaining about this particular roadside attraction for years; mine was far from the first wreck there.
It was a deep burgundy enamel color with off-white interior.
I had to scrub the driver’s seat with Turtle Wax upholstery cleaner every other week to keep it from looking too shabby.
The green tinted “floodlights” for the instrument panel was SO boss!
One of the widest gas pedals I have ever seen.
Easy, sort of. Based on family experiences before I was born .
My grandma picked out a slightly used 67 Plymouth fury III
My mom told me it was the first “cool “ car they had.
Apparently the car was garbage.
But it was cool and pretty in my grandmothers fav color of bright red
But then again grandma bought a brown Ford Granada, another pretty but awful car
68 Chryslers other than the 300. A face not even a mother could love.
Hard pass on any ’65-68 Plymouth C-Body. Sorry Jason Shafer but I can’t stand stacked headlights. Only Pontiac did them well in the 60s, in my opinion. The Plymouths just look dorky.
I can’t really say I have a ‘least favorite’ of any ’65-’68 full-size C body. One could still tell if it was a Plymouth, Dodge, or a Chrysler a block away. However, I will critique a couple.
1968 Newport: Too low-budget in appearance for a Chrysler, and taillights look too cheap for the market it was intended for.
1968 Dodge station wagons. The rear is a warmed-over 1967 with slight alterations to the taillights. It should have got the full-width taillight appearance like the rest of the 1968 line.
I love the 65 Big Chryslers even a Newport looks good. As for the front of the 67 Dodge Monaco/Polara, thought was given to vertical headlights, which is why there was an arched brow and mirror image on the Bumper stamping. But the bumpers proved prone to buckling with the cut for the lower headlight was carved out. so it was decided to retain the already approved stampings for fender, hood and bumper, and go with horizontal lights. I was never a fan of the concave sides of the 67/68 big Chryslers. made htem look structurally weak. Nothing actually of those years I consider ugly. But my preference would be the 65 Chryslers.
Earlier I posted a pic of the ugly butt of a 67 New Yorker. Here’s a front view. Just as unfortunate and overdone. All I can think is that they were aping the Electra 225.
Easy – the 66 Dodge. That heavy side sculpting unique to the 66 ruined the car for me. It dips too far down behind the front wheel then rises uphill all the way back in complete dissonance with the bright trim line that follows a totally unrelated path.
Literally every other 1965-68 C body would be lovingly accepted by me without reservation. The 66 Dodge is the only one I would have to think about.
Agree. And I’d put the ’66 Plymouth a close second. The grille, aside from the token hourglass Plymouth toyed with for a few years, was non-descript, and a step back from the richness of the ’65s. (Ford, IMO, went the opposite direction with it’s ’66s).
The rear was no picnic, either, with the taillights kicked up above a flatter bumper.
The ’66 Chrysler completes my trifecta. Again, both front and rear clips were a step back from the ’65s, especially on the Newports.
I was never crazy about the ’67-’68 Chryslers, they were so-so. Some of it is Grandad had a ’66 C&T wagon, and I liked the 65’s too. Seemed like in ’67, to me they tried too hard to look like Buick/Olds.
I liked the Dodges, looked sporty, but my favorite C’s are the 65-68 Furys! Even one of favorite full size 60’s cars.
My first car was a ’68 Fury II so I am a little biased but I think the ’65-68 Furies are the best looking! My family had quite a few and I never warmed up to the Dodge versions, especially ’67-68. Definitely not a fan of the fast-top roof on any model, it’s just awkward! Again, I find the Plymouth version more agreeable than the others for the 69-71 models, but honestly those huge bodies with tiny greenhouses never appealed to me.