posted at the Cohort by nifticus
Cohort Pic(k)s of the Day: 1967 Chrysler 300 and 1966 Barracuda – A Mopar Lover Lives Here
– Posted on May 22, 2020
-
-
Curbside Classics Archives
posted at the Cohort by nifticus
You guys can fight over the Barracuda – sign me up for that luscious 300. The paint color looks a little vivified but that might be what happens when someone tried to match an old formula.
There would be a great QOTD – what is the most gorgeous butt on a Chrysler. I would nominate this one.
The color may seem a bit…eccentric, but it does a great job of showing off the 300’s design. There are details I’ve never noticed on the more common antique white or red ones.
The Barracuda is a good car, as long as it has A/C. I’d still like to see some 273 Commando call-outs.
A/C indeed! I vividly recall enjoying trips in my dad’s red ’66 Barracuda, stretched out in the wagon-like expanse of the wayback. Trouble was, the greenhouse effect of the wondrously large rear glass reliably induced car-sickness. Without A/C to help quell the nausea, my dad made an admirable production out of opening a mysterious vent-tunnel-door somewhere in the far reaches of the footwell. In time we learned to beg him to open the super-vent, so I suspect that he had some success at creating a placebo effect; if nothing else he gave us something to distract us from our nausea, if only for a few minutes!
My Dad had a 1966 Dodge Coronet 440 2-door hardtop and a 1971 Plymouth Scamp that had those footwell vents. They were fantastic in the days before directable dashboard fresh-air vents, but they were only effective up to a certain level of sun and heat.
Agreed, JPC! Looking at that paint makes me feel like I just had cataract surgery, and am seeing things clearly now. But that rear end has come straight from the drawing board, and looks to have bypassed all the usual productionizing gremlins who think they know better. I’ve always loved this generation of Chrysler. Maybe the front fender ‘blades’ are a bit overdone, but that rear end is perfect.
Hi Old Pete, I have an original ’68 Monaco, also a 440 L code car with factory a/c too. I thought it may bring back memories also.
That’s a beauty. A great looking car all around, but I especially admire the rear end and tail light styling on the cars featured in this article and replies. Very Mid Mod.
Beautiful! They weren’t sold in my country (Australia) but there was a lovely ’67 wagon parked outside the doctors when I went the other week. So long, low and sleek, with just-slightly larger than stock wheels but in a period style. Guess who had forgotten his phone?
Sorry JP, that’s my 300! Absolute stunner!
For the most attractive nose I nominate the 73 dodge monaco
I agree with you that 300 is beautiful!!
You’ve got my vote.
I owned a 67 300 2dr ht in high school in 1976. With bucket seats and console, 15 inch wheels, disc brakes, and a 440 Commando engine to push it around, all this from the factory, it was the fastest car in town. The only cars that were any better looking were the 69 charger and 67 firebird at school and even that was debatable.
I was always proud of the luxury and the high performance at my fingertips any time I was out for a drive.
These cars have always held a special place in my heart, always will.
Hard to believe that those modest taillights came from the same manufacturer as the extravagant triangular units on the rear of that year’s Dodge Monaco.
Although I like the 300’s tail treatment, I remain amazed that anyone at Chrysler was able to make a business case for three completely different rear treatments for the full-size 1967 Chryslers (Newport, 300, and New Yorker). At least the Newport and New Yorker shared trunklid sheetmetal, but still.
The tail light styling emigrated to Australia and was used on the 68/70 VF model Valiants, last model with the 225.
I have long wondered that, too. Chrysler wasn’t selling in high volume, so how could they afford three different rear end treatments?
Still, I’d take any one of them today, if I could fit it in my garage.
C-body Chryslers sold over 200,000 for 1967, which is not a small number. It’s comparable to several of the corporation’s less expensive lines, such as B-body Plymouth.
The function of the unique bodywork is to collect more money for basically the same car. Note that Buick had three distinctly different big car lines with different shells for the same purpose. Chrysler just changed some exterior sheet metal. Equipment levels make comparisons of Chrysler products tricky, but the New Yorker buyer paid at least 30 percent more for his car than the buyer of the cheapest Newport. In addition to the extra equipment and trim, there was some visual distinction.
The 300 tail is something I don’t recall ever seeing on the street. Most of the cars of the 60s I can name on sight, but not this one, maybe until now.
I don’t recall seeing the ‘67 300 tail either. (I was born in ‘67) What was the production of these? All-par has the numbers combined with Newports… There cannot have been a lot of these…
My younger brother had a blue 300 67 440 also with DISC FRONT BRAKES which were impossible to locate 10 yrs later. TOOK quite a hunt to find a manufacturer in Toronto but I got the car done for him.3 speed auto with buckets and console John It is in Milton now. Either way I can fix them all still 50s-90’s fix them all.Troubleshoot 20 minutes or less
Thanks for featuring my pictures, Paul!
I have to drive by that house again. I didn’t get any pictures of the front end of the Barracuda in order to check whether it’s a US Plymouth or Canadian-market Valiant Barracuda. The tenant of this house also has a couple more old Mopars parked in his driveway in the back alley. I didn’t get a chance to photograph those yet.
Great find! Does he leave these cars on the street all the time?
As far as i know, yes. He also has two or three more in the driveway behind his house.
Interesting, the 300, in addition to being in very nice condition paint and convertible top wise, also doesn’t even have a speck of dust visible on it. Either you just happened to catch it on bath day or the owner goes to great lengths to keep it clean every day.
IMHO, people shouldn’t have more fair or better condition classic cars than they have sheltered parking for. Kind of like you shouldn’t have a great dane if you don’t have a back yard.
One of my favorite slab sides. Love both the front end and rear end treatment of the 66-68 300 and New Yorker. Would give anything to have one of them. Not picky.
I’m not a huge fan of the 1967 300 (I like the ’66 or ’68 better), but can’t disparage anyone who does. Just about any ’65 to ’68 Chrysler is okay.
Was nobody in the ’60s bothered by those huge front fender blades on the 300 that needlessly make parking more difficult? This is one area where new car styling wipes the floor with old cars, with large-radius curved corners that make even parallel parking easy.
I agree the 300 rear is very elegant. Not sure I’ve seen these before, even in pics, probably because it’s a one-year 300 only design.
I don’t recall parking being all that difficult back then in any car. One less cars then, and two, parking spots were sized for the big cars of the time. Today the spots are smaller and we have seen enough pictures of big cars from that era in those spots which are now sized for an Accord. Not much parallel parking needed in San Diego as compared to N.Y. and S.F. but then like I said a lot less cars.
If anything parking would be more difficult now given all the massive trucks being used as daily drivers. When I now park in my Focus or Mazda I try to park far away from everything if possible because many times I’m surrounded by a tall forest of truck/SUV types and need to pray before backing out.
Those blades made parking infinitely easier than it is in cars where sometimes the base of the windshield is the furthest forward part of the car you can see from the driver’s seat. Same with horizontal trunk lids and back windows that extended down low enough to see them.
Most of the comments are on the 300, but a word is warranted on the Barracuda: the ’66 is the worst styled of the A-body cars. The problem is, of all the A-body Barracudas, the ’66 is the one that looks the most like a Valiant. Even the initial car had a Barracuda-specific grille with some stylish turn signals that looked like foglights. The squared-off ’66 Valiant front end, evidently, left no room for any kind of a more sporting Barracuda grille. So, the same Valiant front end was used with nothing more than a lame Barracuda fish in the center (instead of the arguably nicer Valiant emblem). Kind of a shame since the new instrument cluster for that year did have a sporty flavor with a more integrated tachometer.
The main thing that spoils the ’66 Cuda for me is those heavy bumpers. The body wasn’t designed for them. It’s odd, because the next year they went back to the more delicate blades rather than these chrome logs. The grille looks coarse, too. Not a happy look.
While I might not kick it out of my driveway (I’d be concerned about breaking a toe), I’d prefer it was a year older. Or younger.
I would take either one. For my money Chrysler product’s are far more interesting than GM or Ford. I will say I do prefer the ’68 300 over the ’67, and yes, the ’66 Barracuda maybe a little less unique compared to the ’64 or 5, I have seen some gorgeous ’66 Barracuda’s in my day. A ’66 dark green with white stripes Formula S would have no problem sharing garage space with my Challenger’s.
That 300 is wonderful, if a little bulky for the roads round here.
And the more I look at the Barracuda, the more Sunbeam Rapier (Alpine GT) I see. Or the other way round.
All this swooning and cooing at the 300 is a bit of a riddle to me, as the front looks like The Flying Nun with chromey gigantism, the sides a great plane of plain, and the decently-interesting rear is altogether too far away from the cabin to be considered as belonging to the same car. Might also have been good to fit 18 inch wheels, rather than these shy little 10 inch ones hiding demurely under the middle of the car, as it makes The Big Square look even heavier than the immense amount it probably is.
The Continental somehow made flat and severe into elegant and chic. At Chrysler, it over-topped somehow into just huge and square.
I admire the man who can pay that acreage of new paint, and applaud his taste – it’s not an ugly barge, ofcourse – but I have to favour the Barracuda. It just tries a bit harder: doesn’t necessarily succeed, but at least it goes outside the box that is too many of the Chrysler Engelmobiles.
The title of this post makes me wonder,
Is there any other manufacturer, whose cars are comonally referred to by the name of their spare parts division ?
Multipart, from British Leyland.
But mainly because the buyer’s ’70’s ride often ended up consisting more of their replacement bits than original installments, so without the nostalgia of the Chrysler outfit.
Largely forgotten, of course.
Mainly because the only Multipart bits that didn’t rust or burn usually fell off anyway.
Good question. Ford products could have been called ‘Motorcrafts’ but there are too many syllables. It doesn’t roll off the tongue like ‘Mopar’.
And GM products had too much differentiation built into the divisions. Otherwise, ‘Delco’ might have worked.
I love the tail lights on the 1967 300 but prefer the hidden headlights on the front of the 1968 300. Regardless, I would take this 300, especially a convertible, in a heartbeat.
I am right there with you – which is why the 67 and 68 300s balance evenly in my eyes. The 67 has the best rear (and a somewhat better interior) but the 68 has the coolest front end ever put on a really big car.
I never had a really good look at the interior of either a ’67 or ’68 300; how is it that the ’67 is somewhat better? Is it really as noticeably better as, for example, the 1967 Thunderbird versus the ’68?
(As a preteen being dropped off at summer camp in 1968, I distinctly remember seeing a gorgeous dark green ’68 300 four-door hardtop. I don’t think any ’67 300 could have been as attractive.)
FUSELAGE ‘70 300 to my eye is the pinnacle of C Body Chrysler ‘faces’!
I appreciate the older styling on the Barracuda. But being in my teens when the 1970 and newer Barracudas and Cudas hit the market, they made the Plymouth Division exciting and fresh..
The poor Barracuda just couldn’t catch a break. Stomped by the original Mustang since the Plymouth looked way too much like a Valiant from ’64-’66, when it finally got its own front end sheetmetal in ’67, here comes the brand-new GM ponycars.
Then, when the Barracuda went to the B-body derived E-body to more easily take the big-blocks, here’s the cheap and flashy A-body Duster coupe, which was effectively a reborn ’64 Barracuda, but with much better styling and the hot 340 engine. The original Barracuda product planners must have been eating their hearts out over the explosive Duster sales since the execution was virtually identical to the ’64-’66 Barracuda.
Seeing that Barracuda makes me want to wash it and then follow up by breaking out a can of Maguire’s car wax and a soft dry cotton towel. I bet that paint would buff out great. Just the project for a Memorial Day weekend.
I see a vague likeness in the rear end to the ’68-9 Skylarks Only from the side, as the tail light treatment is completely different.
Taillights remind me of the 74 LeMans
I have a 1967 300 convertible too. Also a 67 numbers matching Newport convertible that is next on the list to restore.
Anyone remember this era of the transformed Barracuda’s “Hemi under Glass” spectacle at the raceways?