I went to Craigslist to look for a ladder (found a nice low-mileage one for $50), and since I was there, I though I’d take a quick look at the cars. Meh…until I ran into this, a former CC of mine, from 2017. I was pretty chuffed to find it at the curb at the time, as these were fairly rare even when new (only 28k sold). Well, I’m going to pass, but if you just have to have one…
It’s got some authentic patina, but looks to be pretty straight mostly.
The seller says of the interior: nice interior for a 50 year old car. It would be a lot nice if it had the optional Sundance interior option.
Back seat is even better, not surprisingly.
In my CC I said “I’ll wager a day’s worth of Google Ad revenue that this one, like 97.638% of the ones ever built has the 318 V8“. I was right, but this one has been warmed over some:
it has a rebuilt 318 engine with a performance cam and timing chain,and lifters…has a Holley 4160 carburetor….has a rebuilt 904 transmission and new- low stall torque converter…has a high-rise intake manifold.
That means it can now keep up with modern traffic.
And the obligatory: SERIOUS BUYERS ONLY….NO SCAMS AND NO CODES NO TIRE KICKERS!
My CC is here:
Curbside Classic; 1975 Plymouth Fury Sport – Suddenly It’s 1962
I’ve seen pictures of this style, over the years, with the rear windows rolled down (or at least taken out) to give it that “true hardtop” look. However, I don’t think I’ve ever seen one “in the wild”, either in person or pics. I believe it was always factory photos or brochure pics.
Can anyone confirm or deny that roll down rear windows on these ’75-78 coupes were an option, at least in some years? I seem to recall hearing that if you got them with power windows, all four of them rolled down? I don’t think I’ve ever seen one with power windows, though!
Perhaps one of Chrysler’s weakest domestic cars of the 1970s, IMO. Bloated, unattractive, overweight, not especially well-built, poor space utilization, dated dashboard design, and prone to rust. Many of the same reasons, the Ford Gran Torino gets vilified. I always try to say something positive, but I find it hard for these.
In a reverse of the Chevrolet Monte Carlo, I find the four headlight version looks better, than this earlier round headlight version. But it is faint praise.
Genuinely, wish I could say something positive about these.
And like many Chrysler products during this era, two-door versions don’t have full fender liners. Not just to prevent rust, but also to mask that open daylight cavity that appears behind all their rear wheels. Makes the lower rear quarter panel look flimsy visually. Quite noticeable, on the Duster.
Sadly, near the top of the list, as one of my least desirable domestic cars of the ’70s.
In an ironic twist, I do find the four-door version in police car form, alternately one of the most iconic Detroit cars of the 1970s. Primarily, because of their iconic looks. Not their build-quality, which I suspect, wouldn’t be any better than the two-door. Always liked the Ontario Provincial Police version. Looked much like the CHP Fury.
I had the opposite reaction – I found these a breath of fresh air in late 1974. As much as I like the 1974 Charger/Satellite coupes now, I thought they were terribly out of fashion at the time. I only wish Chrysler had updated the sedans too, which I had never really found attractive.
However. I must acknowledge that this design falls flat. Chrysler stylists had trouble with large 2-door cars with the onset of their fuselage designs. With the exception of the 71-72 Satellite and the 73-74 Charger, I don’t think any of them ever really looked right until maybe the 74-75 Imperial. The original Cordoba was the only one that really nailed it.
I liked the Cordoba at the time. But found them bloaty since. Not a favourite ’70s PLC. Impossible to conceal, the dated muscle car looks of the Charger/Satellite, by 1973.
The general issue I had with the original Cordoba, was they looked like a General Motors design. To me, they didn’t look like Chrysler products, as much as Mopar emulating GM styling. Given their sales, it was obviously a good thing.
I didn’t find the two-door Fury, especially distinctive-looking. The Cordoba, corrected that.
As for the Fury sedans, they appeared as dated as the Charger and Satellite. But they looked ’70s boss, in law enforcement guise.
I’ve never been enamored with the Cordoba, personally, but I don’t think I’d ever call it bloated looking compared to Collonade Monte Carlos and Ford Elites. It’s front end is the Cordobas strongest asset, the second they facelifted it for the stacked rectangular headlights it loses all of its appeal, which can’t really be said about the Monte Carlo’s facelift, which was a visual downgrade sure, but the overall swoopy body still was still the primary visual draw.
As I said the fury coupe body grew on me, it’s very plain but I think it looks more like a distinctively Chrysler design the the Cordoba does, in fact it’s squared and ever so slightly flared fender arches were resurrected from the 71-72s, after the 73-74s de emphasized those (at least in the front). There’s things it draws inspiration from like the grille/parking light arrangement looking similar to a 74 Gran Torino, but it wears it completely differently with it flanked by single headlights and being flat shaped rather than pointed, even the vertical taillights, a cliche 70s car hallmark, had that inward angle and tilt Chrysler had a habit of doing on their taillights(think 67-69 Dart, 69 Belvedere/Satellite etc).
I agree the sedans looked right as cop cars, much like the last Panther Crown Vics and whale Caprices, but like those without the black and white livery dressed in full civilian guise they look incredibly dumpy.
Regarding, the first gen Cordoba, and bloat. Check out the chipmunk cheek fenders. Filled with acorns. 🙂
And how much the tires/wheels are recessed within the wheelwell arches.
That is ’70s-style bloat!
There was one cool detail about the original Cordoba, I liked then, and now. I was impressed, how deeply they recessed the headlights, and parking lights, within their chrome bezels. They could easily have only recessed the lights three or four inches, but by recessing the headlights more deeply, lent a more elegant, classic look. Same for the recessed parking lights, and those small circular metal (plastic?) centres, they placed within the parking lights. Chrysler usually did a terrible job, on details like this, in the ’70s. They got it right here. They probably paid extra attention, because they knew they had a winner. And the attractive nose, was a big reason why.
That “bloat” is easily solved with the right wheels and tires to fill it. You see those flares as bloat, I see those as muscle poking out, no different than a 944 or Starion. I think that’s part of what I like on both the Fury(coupe) and Cordoba.
To me bloat is the 74-76 Torino, which really isn’t “flared” on the sides much, it’s just so puffy as a whole with its generous tumblehome, teeny side windows and coke bottle hips it literally looks bloated. As do modern crossovers, but that’s a can of worms I’ll not quite kick open.
This should make it obvious. 🙂
The Cordoba and same year LTD Landau, have very similar slab-side bodies. However, the Cordoba body, looks overfilled with air. It looks puffy all over, compared to the Ford. I consider that bloat, that 99.9% of ‘Doba owners, would never address with wider tires and wheels. Its body, looks chubby, compared to the LTD body. And the ’75 Landau, was not a lean car. This is the bloat, I see. It looks pudgy. Not muscle.
Unbelievably, it actually makes the Ford appear lean.
Well I guess between those two very different design paradigms, I prefer the “bloat” to the bladed box styling Ford overused on their larger cars in the 70s. It’s kind of apples and oranges to compare those two though since intermediate PLCs all largely were largely in the vein of Monte Carlos, and I think between that, the Ford Elite, 74-76 Cougar and Grand Prix the Cordoba is the most athletic looking(even though the Chevy actually was in substance)
Talking Ford’s, THIS is bloated
I think the problem is that the Charger/Satellite were still going for that musclecar look, in an era where the personal luxury coupe was becoming all the rage. There was a time that I didn’t care for any of the ’71-79 B-bodies, with the exception of the Magnum. Part of that is probably just bias, because I really like the ’68-70 B-bodies a lot. But, now that none of these cars are exactly everyday sights anymore, I’m finding that I warm up to them more and more. Even some versions I didn’t like, back in the day.
Filled cavity. Makes the rear quarter (and whole car) look more solid visually.
This! I’ve always felt the ability to see light there made these cars look cheap.
As that lower rear fender started to rust (typically prematurely), that open daylight cavity, added to the look/impression the lower fender sheetmetal could be folded upward. Like a piece of tinfoil.
A bad ’70s look, and memory. Chrysler (and others), never saw it as something to address, for years.
I had a brief but memorably positive experience with a Fury of this vintage. In the Spring of 1977 I took a Manufacturing Process class as a senior elective in my engineering studies. I attended UC Berkeley and the focus in those days was pretty academic; we learned how to design and especially analyze things, but actually study how to build them? That’s for San Jose State or Cal Poly. But this was a fun course and the best part was a few field trips to local manufacturing plants. One in particular was DeLaval-Enterprise which made huge 12-16-20 cylinder diesels for stationary and marine use. Their factory was about 10 miles away, and as hard as it is to believe in the modern safety and litigation era, we carpooled down in a handful of State of California fleet vehicles. With student drivers. As in students from the class, not students who worked in the motor pool. I raised my hand to volunteer and got a fairly late model white Fury, vinyl bench seat, no A/C, dog dish hubcaps; but radial tires and a surprisingly taut suspension and quick power steering with very good road feel and on-center stability. At the time I had my Vega GT, and had driven many sporty imports, but also had a fair amount of behind the wheel time in big American barges, including a couple of ‘68-70 Satellites, and that Plymouth left a lasting, positive impression. And at least visually, it didn’t look like an ex-police car. But maybe all the fleet vehicles got heavy duty suspension, high-effort steering etc.
The Enterprise factory tour was amazing. Very vertically integrated, with a foundry pouring massive cylinder castings, machining of crankshafts with strokes measured in feet and complex articulating connecting rods, and assembly and test of these massive engines. All this in Oakland, California, just north of where Tesla is perhaps the only remaining large vertically integrated manufacturing left in the area.
I’ve developed a soft spot for these later B body coupes. Perhaps it’s the contrarianism, or my intrinsic desire to save a buck in a time where 1974 and older are nearly unobtainable in even project car condition, or maybe just my consistent desire in cars to have something few others do, but I think when you shake the stigma of mid 70s= bad and the jolting difference in design philosophy from the sleek 71-74s, there’s some nice looking lines in a much tidied up looking package. Collonades and Gran Torino’s were this cars peer, and I can’t help but think this is the most coherently styled of the three.
Most of these came in grandma spec with hubcaps, whitewalls vinyl canopy tops and 70s earth tone colors, but silver on black(which I have to say the rust patina on silver is possibly the coolest I’ve seen) is a standout. Throw on a set of 15” Rallye wheels and reproduction Goodyear Eagle GTs in that 70s outline lettering and that’s all it needs, not a bad way to get a cool B body at $3500. Beats the half rusted piece of VIN plate for a 1969 Charger $3500 gets you now.
Ironically i think the 4 door versions of these look better, just nicer lines. Just doesnt seam like much thought was put into the styling and looks cobbled together.
Finally a seller asking a reasonable price. I think these look okay, a stripper Cordoba, and a basic car holds up better over the years. This one has a plain steel roof. I wouldn’t mind a car like this but since it’s a ’76 it would have to pass smog and the aftermarket carb and the cam might keep it from passing smog. I won’t bother with that.
Here’s a few thoughts on this Plymouth:
I look at this engine and do not see a serpentine belt, or a computer with an assortment of sensors that are the source of many headaches for today’s do it yourselfer’s, including yours truly. I also do not see Chrysler’s huge mistake known as the Lean Burn System … this one has straight electronic ignition. Lean Burn was introduced in ’77.
Looking at its overall appearance, I do not see rusted out rocker panels, a bubbled up vinyl top around the rear window, ugly four-spoke road wheels, a trashed interior, cracked or missing glass, missing parts, rotted out floor pans or the usual whiskey dents.
It looks like a pretty good car; Chrysler offered a nice set of factory wire wheel covers for these cars back in ’75 and Cooper makes a nice 40,000 mile whitewall; that would take care of the wheels. The 318 and TorqueFlite automatic have been rebuilt, so that’s done. It has a Holly 4-bbl, so it is a runner. All this Plymouth needs is a paint job and maybe a new set of brakes … stuff you can do in a weekend. It doesn’t have AC as there is no two cylinder V-shaped compressor sitting in the usual place behind the radiator; that’s why it has one fan belt.
It has power steering, power brakes, a three-speed automatic that will run forever, a 318 that’s been slightly modified and an AM radio that can be upgraded to a new aftermarket unit that will tie into your smartphone via Bluetooth. That way you could listen to vintage 70’s music as you cruise around in the summer of ’23. No AC or power windows, but you can’t have everything in a classic car … that’s why they’re called classics.
This one won’t last long on Craigslist … it’s a pretty nice car at very good price; by the time I could get out to Oregon to look at it, it would be gone. This is the type of car that you would want to restore, regardless of its make or model … most of the costly hard stuff has been done … if you can believe the seller. But the seller is correct about one thing … it’s a pretty nice car at almost 50 years old.
Finally, as the owner of a 1970 Plymouth Sport Fury GT, I have to point out that this car is a 1975 Plymouth Fury Sport … not a Sport Fury … Plymouth changed the model name when this car was introduced in 1975. The last Plymouth Sport Fury was offered in 1971.
Thanks; I fixed the title.
Yes, it seems like a pretty solid car at a decent price.
Hello Paul, I was thinking about my comment of this morning and I’m not by any means putting my Plymouth on a pedestal … I tried to send a picture of my ’70 Plymouth Sport Fury GT and ’65 Chrysler Newport but we’re on slow data and it wouldn’t upload.
Anyway, that ’75 Plymouth Fury Sport in today’s CC is in far better shape than my ’70 Plymouth Sport Fury. I have owned the Plymouth since 1980 and the Newport has been in our family since 1966. The Plymouth has the typical trunk and floor pan rot … the Chrysler Newport is solid as a rock … and neither has run in about twenty years.
The plan is to get ’em both moved to our backyard out of the weather and then go from there … after we move what is sitting in front of them … our 1974 Airstream.
I again tried to send the picture but it was a no-go … so I’ll attempt to describe it … a 1970 Dark Green Plymouth Sport Fury GT sitting beside a tan 1965 Chrysler Newport 4-door sedan with a 1974 Airstream Land Yacht sitting in front of them. They’re all three going to be restored … one project at a time.
Lean Burn was introduced for 1976. I had one on a Gran Fury with 400 V8.
Traded it for a ’77 Gran Fury 360 without Lean Burn.
Lean Burn was introduced in ’76 on some Chryco cars;
Second generation Lean Burn was installed on the big Chryslers with the 400 cid engines in ’77; my folks’ 77 New Yorker had the Lean Burn … my dad finally went “old school” ignition and kept it tuned up with his feeler gauge and his timing light from the old days.
Lean Burn was pretty much standard on all Chryco cars from ’78 on.
I had a ’85 Fifth Avenue with the Lean Burn … when mine stranded me one time too many, I finally got it running. They either went into “limp mode” or “not running mode.” The next day, I “limped” it to the local Ford/Mercury dealership and traded for a 1988 Mercury Grand Marquis with 79,000 on the odometer. I also traded out of the Lean Burn System as I didn’t have time to convert Chrysler’s early attempt at computerized ignition to the electronic or the “old school” version, and dump the Carter Thermoquad for a Rochester or a Holly.
That was the “fix” for Chrysler’s Lean Burn System.
It was a “hideous” feature on our “79 Lebaron”. That “computerized” thing had to be replaced before the car’s third birthday.
That, coupled with the cars amazingly, poor, build quality made for way to many service appointments.
Was an attractive car though.
“Amazingly poor build quality” was such a sad state of affairs for the entire American auto industry in the seventies. It describes all of Detroit, but Chrysler was at the very bottom at the time, which is quite possibly almost the worst the company had ever seen, second only to those first-year Forward Look cars. It’s no wonder the company nearly went belly-up back then.
To this day, whomever is building Chrysler products (right now, PSA, aka Stellantis) invariably rests at the very bottom of nearly any customer satisfaction survey.
Ironically, the baddest of the bad is typically the Jeep Wrangler, which has had a loyal following for decades and is one of Stellantis’ consistantly better sellers.
Be kind of cool to turn it into the last intermediate size Road Runner.
Okay, maybe not…
Mine’s a year or two later. 🙂
I ‘fixed the ELB’ with a 440.
Do the original promo-based coupe kits have the same “floating” rear chassis as the 4-door copcar kit derived from it?
From memory, I think so, nlpnt. It’s been about forty years since I built this. It might rest on tabs from the bumper, mine’s packed away now so I can’t go check. The chassis is rather rudimentary; I wouldn’t be surprised if it derived from their sixties Mopar kits, just cut and spliced to approximately fit under different bodies.