A week or so ago, we looked at a ’65 Plymouth Belvedere in the light of being one of the last of the Mopars to still have a major part of its body designed under Virgil Exner. Since Jon O’Grady posted this ’64 Plymouth Fury sedan, here’s a chance to reverse that Engelization process one year further back.
The changes from the ’63, which was Exner’s last design, are both subtle and more obvious. Let’s start at the back and work out way forward.
From the rear, the changes are quite subtle, the main one being the rear window, which has lost its trailing top edge. I think that’s all and I presume the actual glass interchanges, although in looking at it closer, it looks like the ’63’s glass top edge is a bit straighter across, and the ’64’s has a bit of a curve.
But the rest of the body us essentially unchanged, except for the trim and such.
The front is where Engel went to work. The grille and such are of course obvious, and rather duller. But he made another change, getting rid of Exner’s “speedboat cowl”, where the front cowl/vent panel slopes up to the windshield a bit, and the bottom of the windshield has a curve to meet it. Engel did not like that, and made it very conventional.
Here’s the ’63 front end. I find the grille and it protruding turn signal nacelles more interesting than the dull ’64. And here one can see the raised cowl better. It was an important feature of his “fuselage” styling, and originated on the 1960 Valiant. But it does look a bit out of the mainstream of the times, and Engel quickly rectified that.
Did these changes help much, in terms of sales and market share? Somewhat. Sales for the “full size” (116″ wb) cars were 183k in ’62, and rose to 263k in ’63 and to 297k in ’64. The new genuinely big C-Body Fury in ’65 upped that to 329k. Market share went from 2.6% in ’62 to 3.4% in ’65. The days when Plymouth was a sold #3 were of course done for.
Dodge improved even less during those years, from 2.1% share in ’62 to a 2.9% share in ’64, only to fall back to 1.4% for the new big ’65 Polara/Monaco, which must have stung.
Chrysler might just as well not have bothered with the new big ’65 C-Bodies, at least for Dodge and Plymouth, although it was presumably essential for the Chrysler brand anyway.
I remember as a kid being fascinated by these 1962-64 Plymouths and Dodges. I knew instinctively that the 63 and 64 had sold far better because there seemed to be 2 or 3 times more of the later cars than the 62s. That cannot be right, of course, but then again I wonder what was the change in retail sales vs. all sales – the evidence on the ground was that the retail resurgence was dramatic.
Until today, I had never noticed how that upper crease in the front fenders of both the 63 and 64 resolves into a slight ridge that curves around the front of the hood and joins back up to the other fender. I had also never noticed the cowl change until you pointed it out just now. Also, somewhere I had developed the idea that the wheelbase got stretched to 119 inches in 63, but that was apparently just on the Dodge.
I wonder if there is another basic vehicle that ran for was in production for only 4 years but that had three such distinct design periods as these did: 1962, 1963-64, and 1965.
Hi, in 1992 I bought an original Dinky 1963 Plymouth Fury convertible in 1/43 scale for about £1 in a charity shop in my hometown in England. It was in extremely poor condition. I restored it to look new, & 30 years later I still have it on display. Awesome story, thanks!
In 1962-3 Plymouth’s front styling was slightly less weird than Dodge’s. In retrospect it’s weird that it took until 1965 to rebrand the B-body into an “intermediate”.
To reference a term from the comments on the ’36 Chevy rerun the other day, Engel’s early work – these leading to the 1965 C-bodies – are the archetypal “flat cars” even more than Bill Mitchell’s work.
My Grandpa had a ’62 Dodge Dart 440 4 door hardtop and being 12 then I still recall how impressed I was with it over our perpetual family full-size Fords. It seemed much more sprightly, sporty even, and the perfect size for a family sedan. Same with a friend’s family Dodge 330 4 dr sedan, and another neighbor’s ’64 Dodge Polara sedan in Anniversary Gold.
I feel that these ’62 to ’64 Plymouth and Dodges really were an optimum combination of size, power, (with 318 poly) and utility for an America full size car. If Detroit had followed this formula into into the ’70s instead of the ponderous oversized malaise-era boats that proved a dead-end, the classic American sedan may have fared better than was their fate. This ’64 Plymouth is handsome, functional, and I’d love to be able to buy one like this today.
My first car, handed down to me by my Dad. At the time, I wished it had been a two door, but the hardtop made it okay! 🙂
I always thought that these ’64 Plymouths and Dodges looked trim and well proportioned. From these photos, they were a good step forward from the previous design. The scooped out front end was a good feature to get rid of. The new grille gave the front end a meaner look. Others see it as drab, I can understand that too.
The big question, is if these had been more in line size-wise with full size Chevys and Fords, would their sales have been any better. These Furys were more proportionate with Chevelles and Fairlanes visually.
These actually were closer to the big Chevrolet and Fords than the Chevelle and Fairlane in size, exterior and interior. here’s the overall lengths of each:
Chevelle: 197″
Fairlane: 197.6″
Plymouth: 206.5″
Dodge: 209.8″
Ford: 209.9″
Chevrolet: 210.8″
Interior dimensions were very close to full size too. Keep in mind these were designed to be “full size” cars, but just more efficiently packaged, like the 1977 GM B-Bodies. They only became Chrysler’s “mid-size” cars in 1965 because the new C-Bodies were even bigger yet.
The 1964 Dodge is just a hair longer than the 1961 Chevrolet at 209.3. While the ’62 Dodge was relatively trim at 202 inches, I’m inclined to think the 1962 styling was a far bigger issue than size holding down sales of the Mopars. Size seems to get equal billing with the styling, especially with the legends behind the ’62 cars, but I’m not sure it should.
I’m inclined to agree with you that styling was more of issue affecting sales of the ‘62s than size.
Add to this the fact that the bizarro styling of the previous two model years probably didn’t do any favors for trade-in values, and perhaps there were some lingering doubts regarding quality (from the ‘57s).
I agree the total package is a pretty good look. The ’64 front is a bit too generic for me, sort of a duller version of the 1963 Impala.
The slightly quirky 1963 front end is a cool transition form the ’62 Plymouth.
My mother’s maiden aunt traded her 56 Plymouth Savoy for a 64 Belvedere, going from a 2 door hardtop to a 2 door sedan in the process. My family had a 64 Ford Country Squire so it was possible to compare these 2 quite closely. The Ford had the same instrument panel it had had for years, with it’s horizontal speedometer and idiot gouges while the Plymouth had 4 (or was it 3?) round dials with real gauges. Of course the ” biggie ” was that automatic transmission lever of the Plymouth.
To look at I just saw each car as an expression of their respective brands. The 63 Plymouth, to me, will always seem(?) smaller than its Ford or Chevy contemporary, until 64, but then the 65 especially
These cars were well ahead of their time in terms of packaging and unit body construction. My grandfather purchased a ’65 Belvidere 4 door as his last car, kept it until the early 1990s when he turned 100. He didn’t drive after he was about 96. It was a slant 6 torqueflite and never gave him a lick of trouble and really didn’t rust that much even tho it was a northern Illinois environment.
I never thought much of it in my youth. Everything was GTO or Chevelle back then. In hindsight the Mopars seem to be much better cars.
Interesting comparison, I would not have noticed (or looked long enough to) the differences on the lower windhsield.
I think the 63 Plymouth looks “decent”. Infinitely better than the painfully tortured sheetmetal of most early 1960s Mopar cars.
The 1964 looks like Chrysler tried to copy the 63 Chevelle front end and graft it onto the car, and the 1964 rear, to me, has less character (you don’t have a picture of the revised tail lamps on the 64).
As a kid, one of the first things I noticed about cars were the rear license plates had “two” positions: “American” position was under the rear bumper, European cars had it above the rear bumper.
And then in the mid-70s, GM was the first to put the plate above the rear bumper, which coincided with the 5-mph bumpers, like non-American cars did.
Interestingly, the 63 has the “euro” license look.
The 1960-’65 Dodges and Plymouths would like a word with you about that.
Not just them, I think many cars would like a word on that. License plate above the bumper seemed to be the norm on 50s and many early 60s American cars
As well as a billion Tri-five Chevys, all of which had the rear license plate above the bumper.
The intermediate Chevelle didn’t arrive until 1964. The 1964 Plymouth seems much more like the ’62-’63 full-size Chevrolet, the first of Townsend’s long-range copying of the last model cycle GM products. In the go-go sixties, that strategy worked well enough for Chrysler’s bottom line, especially since the GM-look Mopars were usually an improvement, both in style and engineering.
It wasn’t until the mid-seventies that copying GM didn’t work so well for Chrysler, especially when downsizing became all the rage. Chrysler simply didn’t have the funds to react anywhere as quickly as GM or Ford to market trends.
I think Chrysler reacted to trends as quickly as Ford did, except for the Taurus. It had the Omni/Horizon 3 years before Ford had the Escort. It had the Aries/Reliant 2 1/2 years before the Tempo/Topaz, and the K cars were roomier and better packaged. It had the R body the same year the Panthers debuted. Chrysler had FWD minivans 11 years before Ford. Chrysler’s quality may have been a bit worse than Fords. Of course, Chrysler didn’t have a good response to Taurus until the 1993 LH, and its pickups were inferior until the 1994 models. I think Mr. Niedermeyer makes a good point about the 1965 Dodge/Chrysler C bodies being unnecessary.
It took Chrysler a full seven years before they came out with a domestic competitor to Ford’s subcompact Pinto.
Likewise, GM downsized their big cars for 1977, Ford followed in 1978, and Chrysler was late to the party (as usual) with the R-body version of the B-body for 1979.
Panther debuted in 1979, same year as R body. Chrysler did import the Plymouth Cricket and Dodge Colt for 1971. I remember Sandy Duncan drove a Plymouth Cricket on her early 70’s TV show.
Knowing those just from photos, the biggest loss in 64 was that of the googie dash. The engelized exterior works fine, bar the really generic front. The 63 is a liveable compromise over all, but the 62 stays the truest form in my book, love that front, can live with the weird protrusions on the flanks, 225 and 4speed for me, please, body style doesn’t matter at all.
+1 agreed. Pure Jetson’s style.
Yes. I once had a ’63 Sport Fury. Interior and dash similar to the ’62, a car that I also still like (Dodges too). The replacement normalized dash is boringly conventional.
Engel was right about changing the cowl and windshield as well as bringing out the rear window though. The original windshield had a bit of a crease in the middle as well, like a 1951 Studebaker with the one piece windshield in the frame of the previous two flat panes split one.
Engels bailed out the hole Exner tossed Chrysler into. Each year under his guidance, their brands increased in production and each styling step helped bring these once ridiculous looking cars into the main market successfully. The sole exception being the 1965 Dodge.
As to Dodge, please recall that the original Dart sucked away Plymouth sales and left Plymouth depending upon that flying potato looking Valiant for sustenance. The drop Dodge experiences in 1965 could be a return to Plymouth from those Dart trade-ins?
Dodge B body got longer wheelbase for ’63-’64, so was closer to full size and ’65 Coronet was #1 selling Dodge line. Was higher than expected pricing a factor with Dodge Monaco not selling well? After pushing Dodge to be a ‘low price’ brand in 1960, maybe some backlash in ’65 trying to match Pontiac/Olds?
My dad had a ’63 Belvedere which I remember well. It was his favourite of all of his cars over the years. Scott from Cold War Motors waxes rhapsodic over a ’63 Belvedere in one of their recent videos.
As the owner of a 1968 Plymouth C-body, I’m very glad Chrysler bothered making the big 1965 Plymouth C bodies.
’63 for me – it just looks more interesting, though those indicators are pretty vulnerable
I love the furys. I, myself own a 1959 Plymouth fury. It has 19,000 original miles. To me it’s literally a work of art. Great article and keep up the great work
If anyone’s heart is sent aflutter at the prospect of having a ’64 Fury of your very own – go here: https://eugene.craigslist.org/cto/d/springfield-1964-plymouth-fury/7454715665.html
It looks like a pretty decent specimen. Grab it before someone parts it out, to supply bits for another (yawn) Super Stock clone.
Long live the four doors!
Hollywheels guys had a aluminum light weight cat, 4spd hemi car, with 250 original miles me and Daniel meet them in lagrange ,tn and saw it
The 63 Plymouth front was intended for a refresh of the Exner 62 Plymouth body, then was adapted to the Exner complete restyle of the Plymouth for 63 before he was pushed out. The only Engel sheet metal on the 63 Plymouth line was the straight rear fender line on Valiants; the original rear fender sloped with the trunk lid. Wagons and all Aussie Valiants kept the Exner rear fenders.