Perhaps not, but there is something about the Dodge where it stands out more, at least to my eyes. Perhaps it is an optical illusion. The Plymouth has a couple of minor differences, like the horizontal marker light in the fender and the way the area under the bumper seems to curve back towards the wheel more. Or maybe it’s just that we see these from a square-on profile so seldom. This is far from the car’s best angle, particularly for the 2 doors.
The large front and rear overhang on the fuselages was to me a key styling feature, for better or for worse.
Dave B
Posted July 24, 2020 at 11:37 AM
I can’t find anything to cite right now, I was hoping maybe on Allpar.
At some point I recall reading that when the fuselage styling was being worked on, opinion was that the early roof design was too low to engineer appropriate passenger space, so it was raised. Then, opinion was the greenhouse was too tall for the look they were trying to achieve, so they stretched the car even longer to give it its final proportions.
To me, Chrysler seemed to be trying to have another 1957 moment with the fuselage where their styling would lead the market. Reaction was obviously mixed, and GM’s ’71-’76 large cars had enough fuselage styling in them to dilute what Chrysler had going.
Brother had a nice metallic green hand-me-down one of these in his younger days. He gutted the back seat, trunk lid, divider and rear window to create his Dodge-a-Mino. I recall my first ride, getting thrown around with all the bare metal and jagged edges, of course they really spin the tires with all that weight gone. Fun times but it tended to attract the Police for some reason…
This angle certainly emphasizes the poor space utilization of the fuselage cars. Bloated trunks and front overhang, with pretty limited passenger space and narrow windows.
I rather like the fuselage Chryslers, and the ’70 Monaco is fairly high on my preferred fuselage list. I like several of the details and oddities it includes, and of course the Super-Lite fifth headlight is a must have.
It’s possible the subject car started life as a base Polara. It lacks any evidence of fasteners for the Monaco trim, and does not have the chrome fender edge behind the front bumper. That bit would have been a pain to remove if the owner was trying for a minimalist look.
Right there with you on the front of the 72 Polara, G Poon. A buddy in college had a 72 Polara wagon that was an overall decent looking car except for that front, that I never got used to.
It always looked like one of those stares you got from parents and teachers when they didn’t believe what you were telling them. 🙂
Anybody says overhang and fuselage? 🙂 Here is my 69 Polara 500, the side trimming makes the car look longer. New HD leaf springs improved the sagging rear and makes the feel of car much more solid.
Daily drove a ‘71 Imperial LeBaron coupe for years- amazing handling for a 19.5’ vehicle: torsion quiet ride with a ‘floating sub frame’ under the unibody as 1971 catalog stated: The Imperial of Luxury . . . that Black Beauty and my B7 Jamaica Blue Iridescent ‘70 300 Convertible are to my MOPAR Vision FUSELAGE Icons!!
My favorite Fuselage and one of my favorite cars of all time. Would love to find a mint, stock ’70 or ’71 Polara or Monaco hardtop coupe or hardtop sedan.
Great car, kind of reminds me of this cartoon:
Perfect! In fact, this Dodge sort of has the stance of the cat in your cartoon, the way it is sitting up too high on its suspension.
Classic Gary Larson.
Not a fan of the fuselage look at all.
I had never really noticed the amount of ungainly front overhang on these, though it’s not like these Dodges were ever all that thick on the ground.
Are you suggesting that the overhang on the Dodges was more than the other fuselages?
Perhaps not, but there is something about the Dodge where it stands out more, at least to my eyes. Perhaps it is an optical illusion. The Plymouth has a couple of minor differences, like the horizontal marker light in the fender and the way the area under the bumper seems to curve back towards the wheel more. Or maybe it’s just that we see these from a square-on profile so seldom. This is far from the car’s best angle, particularly for the 2 doors.
The large front and rear overhang on the fuselages was to me a key styling feature, for better or for worse.
I can’t find anything to cite right now, I was hoping maybe on Allpar.
At some point I recall reading that when the fuselage styling was being worked on, opinion was that the early roof design was too low to engineer appropriate passenger space, so it was raised. Then, opinion was the greenhouse was too tall for the look they were trying to achieve, so they stretched the car even longer to give it its final proportions.
To me, Chrysler seemed to be trying to have another 1957 moment with the fuselage where their styling would lead the market. Reaction was obviously mixed, and GM’s ’71-’76 large cars had enough fuselage styling in them to dilute what Chrysler had going.
Whose full glory was of course seen on the ’73 Imp, the longest production passenger car ever (235″)
Then much thinner, forward sloping C-pillar does make the trunk look much larger/longer than on the Plymouth or Chrysler
Brother had a nice metallic green hand-me-down one of these in his younger days. He gutted the back seat, trunk lid, divider and rear window to create his Dodge-a-Mino. I recall my first ride, getting thrown around with all the bare metal and jagged edges, of course they really spin the tires with all that weight gone. Fun times but it tended to attract the Police for some reason…
This angle certainly emphasizes the poor space utilization of the fuselage cars. Bloated trunks and front overhang, with pretty limited passenger space and narrow windows.
As in a Duster with extra long hood and trunk. 🙂
I rather like the fuselage Chryslers, and the ’70 Monaco is fairly high on my preferred fuselage list. I like several of the details and oddities it includes, and of course the Super-Lite fifth headlight is a must have.
It’s possible the subject car started life as a base Polara. It lacks any evidence of fasteners for the Monaco trim, and does not have the chrome fender edge behind the front bumper. That bit would have been a pain to remove if the owner was trying for a minimalist look.
In full glory with its extra eye…
The dumbell front end doesn’t work too well here. Weird how Chrysler bounced that look back and forth between Dodge and Plymouth.
The ’70-71 looked better than the 1972 Polara, with one headlight on each side in the grill and the other in the bumper.
I had one and thought it was rather ugly. Strong engine and bulletproof transmission, and an acre of rear seat room.
Right there with you on the front of the 72 Polara, G Poon. A buddy in college had a 72 Polara wagon that was an overall decent looking car except for that front, that I never got used to.
It always looked like one of those stares you got from parents and teachers when they didn’t believe what you were telling them. 🙂
Totally agree with you, DaveB.
The sorta-fuselage. The inset of the c-pillars is very noticeable here.
Somehow it all comes off. The profile view of these designs is underappreciated.
Anybody says overhang and fuselage? 🙂 Here is my 69 Polara 500, the side trimming makes the car look longer. New HD leaf springs improved the sagging rear and makes the feel of car much more solid.
Picture were not attached first time
Reduce it to max. 1200 pixels width. That’s about the limit for attachments.
Ok it should work now 🙂
Daily drove a ‘71 Imperial LeBaron coupe for years- amazing handling for a 19.5’ vehicle: torsion quiet ride with a ‘floating sub frame’ under the unibody as 1971 catalog stated: The Imperial of Luxury . . . that Black Beauty and my B7 Jamaica Blue Iridescent ‘70 300 Convertible are to my MOPAR Vision FUSELAGE Icons!!
My favorite Fuselage and one of my favorite cars of all time. Would love to find a mint, stock ’70 or ’71 Polara or Monaco hardtop coupe or hardtop sedan.