Let’s get one thing out of the way. As far as car “faces” go, this one looks upset. I still can’t figure out if it looks more shocked, sad, or angry, compared to the 1970 / ’71 Challengers. Maybe it’s salty because it barely outsold the AMC Javelin for ’72 by less than 500 units**, despite AMC’s comparatively tiny overall market share. And I do understand that it can’t be easy being a Mopar cruising the downtown streets of the birthplace of General Motors, and so I empathize. But really, it’s going to be alright.
Though I’m glad the stylists behind the 2015 Challenger refresh didn’t draw inspiration from this front end, I like this Challenger. A lot. From its confident stance, to its Bright Blue Metallic paint, to the severe tumblehome of the greenhouse, to the raised white-letter tires…it gives me Dodge Fever. Looking at this car makes me want to watch “Vanishing Point” tonight. Maybe I will.
Downtown Flint, Michigan.
Friday, August 19, 2011.
** Total ’72 Challenger production: 26,663. Total ’72 Javelin production: 26,184. A difference of less 2%.
Related reading:
Curbside Classic: 1970 Dodge Challenger: The Life Of The Party
Dismayed, perhaps. That’s what it says to me. I agree, though, that the rest of the car is so right, it makes up for the frown. I also like how it appears to be the only car on the cracked, sun-flooded street. Nicely done!
..by the look on it’s face i’d say the car in front has dropped a massive fart right up those two slitty nostrils
I’d say forlorn.
I never was a big E Body fan , one of my High School buddies bought one in ” Plum Crazy ” and made a serious Hot Rod out of it using the 413 CID engine , he always wanted to add a turbo charger , this in 1977 or so , I thought it crazy but he was dead bang on .
Poor Grant ~ it drove him batsh*t when everyone always said ” hey ~ nice Charger ! ” .
-Nate
And people still make the same Charger/Challenger mix up now with the LX cars. Which is absurd since they couldn’t be further apart in terms of looks. Guess the names are similar though.
A Challenger never had the 413. It was long gone, it would have been a 440.
Yep, people were always calling my Challenger a Charger. Funny thing is, I was looking at one of our town’s new Charger police cars a while back and referred to it as a Challenger myself.
“Stark” is the way I’d describe it. And vaguely fish-y. But also simple, which is always a plus with me.
I’ve never cared for the front end treatment of this year Challenger. I’ve never understood why I didn’t like it. The rest of the car looked beautiful.
Same here. Just somehow not as nice as the previous model.
I’ve never owned or driven a 1971 or 1973 Dodge Challenger, but I agree.
Part of the problem may be hindsight, knowing this relatively minor refresh came along with the end of the hot big block engines, the end of the real high impact colors, the end of the R/T package… This frowning face has a lot to frown about. On the other hand it’s the most fussy and unattractive of the three Challenger noses between 70 and 74, and the two truly attractive ones were only one year wonders, so it’s definitely not as special.
The E-body has to be one of the sadder pages in the big-book of Chrysler failures. So much expense (but not enough time) was spent to make the ultimate ponycar with a dizzying array of options, only to be immediately snuffed-out by the hot little A-body Duster. Add in a level of quality that was getting precipitously close to Chrysler’s all-time worst, the 1957 Forward Look cars, and the attractive last Barracudas and Challengers just never had a chance. They were one of those cars where the people on the outside looking at one were getting a much better deal than the person driving it.
Then there’s the irony of the most valuable classic domestic cars today being early E-bodies with the biggest engines and least produced body styles, i.e, Hemi convertibles. If not for that little caveat, the E-body would easily rank alongside other Chrysler losers like the 1962 downsized Mopars and 1976 Aspen/Volaré.
It has plenty of reason to frown; it was dismayed by the lack of its success in sales, and probably saw the writing on the wall. Some 23k were sold in ’73, and a mere 16k in ’74, after which the plug was pulled.
You’re right, Paul – that Chally probably didn’t need to be smiling. Doing some internet research on ’74 production figures, I discovered the AMC Javelin handily outsold the combined total of Chrysler’s E-Bodies (27,539 for the Javelin, vs. 11,354 Challengers + 8,931 Plymouth Barracudas / 20,285 total).
I do also understand that by model year ’74, the ponycar party was over, and Chrysler Corp. still had the hot-selling Duster and Dart Sport as sporty coupes, but still, it’s curious (and kind of awesome) that little AMC wasn’t dead last in a given (dying) market segment, for a brief moment.
One thing to keep in mind in regard to 1974 sales figures is that Chrysler stopped production of both the Barracuda and Challenger at the end of March that year. This is partially why there is a sizable drop from the year before.
..and no doubt it was ashamed and dismayed with the emissions-sucking power reduced wheezing lump of ‘flumpity-flump’ soft iron under the hood
A ’73-74 340/360 4 barrel ran pretty well, definitely one of the quicker cars made those years, at least in any quantity.
Where are the 5mph bumpers at if it’s a 1973, did someone take them off or replace them with the earlier bumpers? I could have guessed that it’s a 1972 Challenger judging by the bumpers.
That’s a good point – the black rubber pads were added to the front bumper for ’73. In my research on model year (since I didn’t actually ask the occupants), it led me back to factory paint options. I thought this particular color (and again, I’ve post-processed the photo to make it look more like a period piece) looked closer to “Bright Blue” (available for ’73) than “Super Blue” (also available for ’73), and also closer to Bright Blue than to “Blue Streak” or “Brite Blue”, both of which were available for ’72.
This may be a ’72 – any Mopar experts out there who can weigh in as to whether any ’73s were produced without the rubber cow-catchers on the front bumper?
The large bumper guards were standard, both front and rear, on all 1973’s. Small bumper guards were an option on the 1972 models.
I should have looked harder the first time around… The photo car is indeed a 1973 or 1974. Upon looking at the bumper, you can clearly make out where the original bumper guards were, as the chrome is noticeably brighter.
I’d guess a ’74 with the guards removed. I think the lineage was:
1972 – No bumper guards.
1973 – Bumper guards with large pads.
1974 – Bumper guards with small pads.
(Thanks for clarifying! I appreciate it. I had attempted to delete my comment that I had “fixed” the title from “1973” to “1972”, since I had changed it back to ’73 as original, but when I deleted that comment, it then deleted your comment about the chrome bumper being lighter where the bumper guards had been removed, and also a subsequent comment from another poster that they thought it might be a ’74. I wasn’t trying to delete your later comment or the next one. My bad!)
Beat me to it. Those bumper guards may not be as bad as the I beam girders some got after ’73, but it still gives the car a case of the fuggy uggies. Those are commonly removed, with the remaining holes plugged by polished stainless carriage bolts.
Great photo, great car, great color, what’s not to like?
Though it may be frowning, it should be smiling. The ’73 and even the final ’74 avoided the ugly stick of the Federalized bumper. The laws governing implementation were quite peculiar, and Chrysler seemed to the greatest beneficiary of some loopholes.
For example, all of the 1973 full-size cars, except Imperial, got the full Federal bumper treatment – despite that being the last year of the Fuselage era body.
Imperial carried on its loop style bumper, despite being mainly just a luxury trim variant of the full-size Chrysler. I think its identity as a very low selling model allowed this, probably in some conjunction with being the final year for the basic shell that had been around since 1969.
The Challenger must have also been low enough in terms of sales, but Chrysler still cranked out almost 40,000 of them in ’73 -’74. I can’t think of another U.S. ’74 model that still had a basic bolt on bumper with no shock absorption feature (Nonwithstanding the rubber baby buggy bumpers that were tacked on). If 1974 had not been the economic / fuel price mess that it had been, Chrysler might have cranked out closer to 80,000 of them.
I think the Javelin had a similar exemption for the final year 74, which I believe AMC extended to the end of calendar year 74.
Great photo and nicely written. I prefer the earlier Challengers, but still overall a beautiful car even with the front. Sort of defines an era. Besides the “Vanishing Point” reference, reminds me too of Brock Yate’s Cannonball Run ’72 Challenger.
Thank you, and I got to thinking of another movie reference. Remember the original “Gone In Sixty Seconds” from ’74? If I recall correctly, the red 1970 Challenger which gets stolen and promptly destroyed was named “Jill”. I always cringe when I see the red metal bits come out of the shredder.
It was a 72 or 73 like this one, same frowny grille treatment, although the one that got shredded was a 71 if you look closely
I hadn’t thought about this much, but I don’t dislike the face on these.
To me it looks curious or guarded, sort of like a little kid peering over the edge of his plate to see what’s for dinner.
I used to think E bodies were big but the current Challenger is such a whale that these seem rather svelte by comparison.
I liked all of the old Challenger’s styles, the new ones look overweight and bloated.
What destroys the newer ones is the factory ‘clown shoe’ wheels which are usually 20s. When you see them on 18s it totally changes the look of the car, and you see the classic lines really pop. When get one, Ill probably go down to 17″ torq thrusts, with a nice deep lip…they WILL if you stick to an R/T. SRT-8s have big brakes.
I really like the new Challenger and Mustang but the Camaro does nothing for me.There was a mean looking yellow new Challenger in the car park at a show last week
I agree MR74, but I’ve got to wonder if a smaller wheel will clear the brake calipers.
18’s were available stanard up to about the ’14 model year if i remember right. Ive seen R/Ts with 17’s, the style of the wheel is the determining factor. TorqThrust M’s are specific to large brake applications.
On my ’05 Ram I have 17×8 Torq Thrust Originals (TTO) and they clear my calipers, no grinding necessary. Best of all they maintain all the proportions of the old school TT D’s. If 17″ TTO’s will fit a Chally or Magnum its be a done deal.
Proportionally 18s best mimic the classic proportions given the massive vertical size difference, 17s on the current body are like 13s on the original bodies, you end up with a mud tire looking sidewall.
Trouble is, wheels in 18″ rarely ever keep the old school proportions or deep dish look, which is very important to me. I dont mind a chunky sidewall, but like on my truck, another option is to run a slightly smaller diameter tire (lighter and has the affect of a mild re -gear) and the slightly lower it.
This guy is running 17×7 ARE Ansen Sprints on his R/T…looks damn good to me, but id need at least. 8″ wide, especially out back. Notice how this car looks slimmer and more muscular just because of the wheels/tires.
Nice but that pissed off looking face spoils it.Why wasn’t it out in 67 to take on the Firebird and Cougar?(I’m guessing these were the more expensive competition rather than the Mustang, Camaro and Javelin).I still think I’d take an A body over an E body nice as they are and so did a lot of others.
While I do slightly prefer the 1970-71 front end I wouldn’t write the 1972-74 Challenger/Barracuda off of my list, I wish you could still get the 440 V8’s on the later Challenger/Barracuda’s.
Great photo! It is a treat to see one of these in reasonably stock form, in a non-high-impact color, and on the street.
This reminds me of a 72-ish Camaro I saw in a parking lot over the weekend with whitewalls and wheelcovers and a vinyl roof. I was going to get pictures but it left before I could catch it. I need to do a piece on all the cars I have missed photographing recently. Inserting pictures would be easy because there aren’t any. 🙂
Nice (and thank you)! That Camaro seems like quite the rare find, given how it was accessorized. I’m trying to think of the last time I saw an early second-generation Camaro with a vinyl roof. I like the idea of some of these Camaros (the Type LT comes to mind) and Firebird (Esprit) as personal touring cars, versus how these F-bodies tend to be perceived among our peers today as hot rods in low-rent districts.
I’d go with apprehensive or just plain anxious. Great shot of a cool car.
I guess I’m the oddball here, but I prefer this front to the ’70-’71. I owned a ’73 a few years back with a bored 440 dropped in and some other mods. It was scary fast, but I finally sold it because of it’s high strung manners. I prefer something a little more suited for driving around or for short trips. I liked the front end on these long before I had one.
Maybe it’s salty because it barely outsold the AMC Javelin for ’72 by less than 500 units**, despite AMC’s comparatively tiny overall market share.
Well, the ’72 Javelin was a pretty tempting automobile. Yes, I’m aware the exaggerated, C2-like fender bulges aren’t there for any actual reason, but I would still put the styling of an AMX edition last-gen Jav up against anything from the Golden Age of Muscle. As much as I adore Challengers — partly from Vanishing Point and partly from driving somebody’s 340 pistol-grip several decades ago — if it was 1972 and I had to choose between the cartoonish “Humpster” and the frowny-faced Challenger, my hard-earned pay would’ve wound up in Kenosha, not Auburn Hills.
Javs are among my favorite cars of all time. Im torn between the first and second generation. True gen 1 cars are cleaner and more timeless, but the gen 2 is about the practical limit for going completely apesh!t with a car’s styling and yet having it somehow just work. There’s a LOT to be said for that.
I’ve since warmed up a bit in my feelings to the 71 Javelins(and the Mopar B bodies and Mustang from 71).I hated these at the time and thought they were a big step back in style but compared with what happened later they weren’t too bad.The first Javelin is a car I always wanted which I actually owned(69 6 cylinder auto in dark green).It was my big brother’s first American car and then my little sister’s.
Gem, I’m curious (and I’m assuming your ’69 Javelin was LHD). Was it hard getting used to the left hand drive?
I found it a bit strange overtaking driving solo at first,I had a 64 Mercury Comet for my first American car for a year before so I soon got used to LHD.Mum never liked driving LHD solo but my Dad, brother,sister and cousin had no problems.
I have always loved the Javelin, both iterations. Before I could even drive, I had made up my mind I wanted one. (Sadly, hasn’t come to pass…yet.)
Here’s a shot of me as a young teenager in the late 1980’s in my dream car at an Auto Show in Flint. When the owner told me “yes” I could sit in the driver’s seat, I was in heaven. I still carry a torch for the Javelin. This one was positively rockin’, with those Cragars and everything.
Some of you see the ‘frown’ in this grille, I see it more looking like a horseshoe moustache. Kinda like Big Paul Teutel rocks. The earlier models, and any Barracuda are more attractive, no doubt but it doesn’t look ‘bad’ to my eye.
These cars get bashed over shoddy build quality all the time. My dad had a ’71 Cuda that my gramma couldn’t handle (what was grampa thinking, a 340 ‘Cuda?!?!) and from what he said, it was a solid, well put together car that he had for several years until I was born. My buddy had a ’70 340 Challenger back in ’93 and as I remember it was a tight and rattle free car, even though we drove it HARD. So that’s all the E body experience I have personally, but there ya go. That said, I definitely understand why these didn’t sell better. The Duster/Demon looked nearly as good and had 90% of the performance for a significant discount. With the money saved, you could stuff quite a few of Ma Mopar’s enhancements on a 340 Duster and go tear up the pavement.
Call that a moustache? Sam Elliott is one of the few who can make them look good
Now I will think of Sam every time I see one of these. He is one of my favorites. BTW, I think I wear a mustache pretty well, too. LOL
What a gorgeous photo, Joseph!
I guess I like to root for the underdog, so I like the 72-74 Challenger. But yes, aesthetically speaking, it is inferior to the 70-71 in my (and many others’) opinion.
Joseph: GREAT photo! It looks just like my ’74 (69k actual miles!). This car has the blackout grille, indicating that it has the 340 c.i. engine for ’73. It appears to have the engine callouts on the side of the hood bulge. The bumper pads were approximately 1′ shorter in back on the ’73 (2.5 mph impact requirement), but matched the front for ’74’s required 5 mph standard for the rear. I can’t tell you how many times I have WHACKED my (bad) knee walking around the back!! LOL! I even acquired a set of 73 pads, but have not yet swapped them out! I also LOVE Javelins and Vanishing Point & Gone In Sixty Seconds are two of my favorite movies! 🙂
Great minds, Elliott! Do you have a picture of your ’74 you can post? Would love to see a picture. (And thanks RE: the photo.)
I have the “Gone In Sixty Seconds” reissue on DVD and while I love the extra features and trailers from H. B. Halicki’s other movies (i.e. “The Junkman”, etc.), they replaced the very-70’s incidental/soundtrack music (which I liked) with what sounds like smooth jazz background music. The polka music from the wedding scene at the Kosciuszko Club was even replaced! (Dang it.)
I’m really going to have to get my old photos scanned! I don’t have any digital ones that I can post at present, unfortunately.
Looks like it showing its upper gums while trying to smile. Great pic; perfect angle, and I really mean that’s the perfect angle. Straight out of a brochure.
I just came across this writeup. First, great photo, as stated above by others. Second, I do love the look of the front end of this car. One has to look at the complete treatment of the grille to see that oval being completed below the bumper to appreciate the full look. Being framed by the dual headlights on either side completes the look. I loved these cars then as I do now. If I happen upon one at a car show I hasten to photograph them. I am most enamoured by this gen of the Challenger. I wish today’s model offered an option with this style of grille and taillights in back. Thanks for this post, oh so many years ago Joseph.