I’m a pretty big fella. Standing erect, I’m 6’2″ and depending on the day, the time of year, or what I had for lunch, I’m somewhere between 280 and 290 lbs. Now before you get an image in your mind that I’m a walking beach ball and a heart attack waiting to happen, and even though my doctor reminds me that I need to lose 20-30 lbs every year when I go for my physical, let me put my size into context. I have a 21″ neck, a 52″ chest and a 40″ waist. I was a football lineman and a lacrosse defenseman in high school. In my 20s, I was benching 325 lbs, dead lifting almost 500 lbs, and leg pressing almost 1000 lbs. I picked up bare V8 engine blocks. Into my 30s though, things started hurting and now that I am halfway through my 40s, and in an active career in the military and emergency response, my knees and shoulders are destroyed, I’ve had a hernia and my lower back is constantly reminding me that my days of ‘lifting heavy’ are over. My workouts are cardio-based now, but I still like to push cars and flip tractor tires as part of my gym routine.
I tell my tales of size and physicality not in an effort to amuse or amaze you, but to put it in simple terms, that should you find yourself in the unfortunate circumstance of getting trapped in a burning building, under combat fire, or stuck on a sinking fishing boat, the one that’s going to pick you up and carry you to safety is a guy my size, not the 150 lb marathon runner with 3% body fat. Ask me how I know. The marathon runner is the Z06 Corvette and I’m the Cummins Turbo Diesel Ram pickup; horsepower VS torque.
What I’m trying to say is, I take up a lot of space. And that’s a major consideration when car shopping. The fun little sports cars that are often talked about here are nowhere on my radar. I’ve driven many of them, both current and classics, and pretty much any Euro or Asian sports car requires feats of contortionism and upper body strength for me to get in and out of.
Even most modern mid-sized and smaller sedans are out for me; a recent drive in a friend’s Fusion reminded me of that. In the modern spectrum of vehicles, since full sized sedans are all but extinct, that leaves me with pretty much full sized trucks and SUVs as my personal driver options. My late model Challenger is a big, comfortable car but my wife’s Charger, even though its built on the same platform, but with its much smaller door openings, requires more effort. Smaller SUVs are out too.
When I was younger and more limber, vehicle ingress and egress was not the consideration that it is now. Classic compacts like Mopar A-Bodys, GM X-Bodys and even Corvairs aren’t too hard to get in and out of. I had a couple of second generation Firebirds that were quite comfortable and easy to get in and out of, but their 30 foot long doors probably helped with that.
As I have written about before, there’s a lot of ’70s and ’80s “malaise”-era cars that I like, but the problem is that most of them are awful to drive in their factory default settings. Underpowered and sloppy handling are unacceptable to me, so, as you have seen via my 1977 Grand Prix and 1983 Malibu, and my current work in progress 1984 Delta 88, it’s easy to “de-malaise” them and make them quite respectable performers, even by modern standards.
I always liked the F-Body Volares and Aspens; I think they are great-looking cars, especially the wagons. The history of their design, sales and reliability has been talked about pretty extensively here so I won’t spend any more time on it. Whatever their history, they were pretty thick on the streets through the 1980s and into the ’90s.
While I always liked the F-Bodies, and I like the Volare trim just a little better than the Aspen, it was never a car that I had to have like a Charger or a Road Runner. Obviously, they were never the hot musclecars that car kid’s dreams are made of, and I didn’t really have any sentimental attachment to them like I do with some other cars, but I thought they were cool-looking cars with a lot of hot rod potential.
In my garage is a roughly 450 HP 408 c.i. small block Mopar V8 that I built in 2005 based on a 1994 360 Magnum that I pulled from a van in a junkyard. I ran the engine in my ’96 Ram for a few years in an effort to make it a Lightning killer and it had about 25K miles on it when a lifter failed and wiped out the camshaft in 2012. I repaired the engine but swapped the original 360 back into the Ram since I was never was able to get the engine, transmission and computer to talk to each other correctly and the truck never ran the way I thought it should. That’s when I swore off building modern hot rod computer cars and decided to stick with what I know, which is old, carbureted engines, mostly built before I was born. I did keep the intake, injectors, throttle body, ignition, computer and headers from the 408 and swapped them over onto the 360 and it actually runs really strong with those upgrades.
So, I pushed the 408 into a dark corner in my garage and for the next couple of years, I started casually looking for a clean and affordable Duster or a Volare to swap it into, and when it came to the F-bodies, the wagons were actually my bodystyle of choice, not just for looks and utility but also for weight distribution. And so it was in early 2015, when glancing through the list of Craig that I found this sweet little ’79 Volare wagon just outside of Charlotte, NC.
The car turned out to be a gem. This is a picture from the original CL ad; I couldn’t get those hubcaps off fast enough. 85K miles from two owners, mostly from its original owner in Tennessee. No rust, one repaint of its original metallic brown sometime in the 1990’s I assumed, when the original woodgrain trim was stripped and painted over but they left the chrome trim.
The interior’s tan vinyl was in great shape but a lot of the plastic trim was starting to disintegrate and wear down.
The 318 started immediately and ran great, at least as ’70s emissions-choked V8s go. The original R12 air conditioner worked as did the original stereo and other electrical accessories. The suspension was in good shape and the car tracked fine.
I made a deal with the owner, trailered it home with TBT, cleaned it up and got it ready for road duty as the latest of my classic daily drivers, while also getting it ready for the violent small block I had ready for it.
I thoroughly checked it for rust and filler by running a paint meter over the entire car; there was none and no sign that there ever was any; all of the body panels were original and untouched.
These cars were notorious for hard starting and stalling. The Lean Burn system was still intact and worked as it should; it was fairly easy to start and never stalled.
I realized that mine was a ’79, built a full 4 years after the initial model year, which is a lifetime in the world of car building, where Chrysler had time to address the initial shortcomings.
I got it home and swapped on a set of 15″ Magnum 500 wheels that I had leftover from another car. I ditched the Lean Burn system with a Mopar electronic ignition distributor and ignition box I had in my shop. Like other malaisemobiles, even with a V8 in a relatively light body, the smog-choked 318 was slooooow, but the conventional electronic ignition woke it up some and the car kept up with modern traffic OK. That is, if modern traffic was comprised of mostly Kia Rios.
I broke it in for about 100 miles around town before I put it out on road duty. As a 1970’s transportation appliance, it was fine, it ran fine and would get you where you needed to go, but from a driving enthusiast’s perspective, I was not impressed with its handling, especially compared to the GM G-Bodys of the same generation, and even the earlier generation Mopar A-Bodys that these cars replaced. The Volare was much more soft and wallowy. The steering ratio was very slow and the turning radius is probably the widest I have ever seen in any passenger car.
After owning this original Volare and now an original ’73 Duster, I can say without question the A-Bodys were the superior cars.
However, what I didn’t plan for was getting in and out of it. I’ve owned several A-Body Mopars but they were all coupes; this is the first compact sedan I have ever owned and I found that the door openings were just too small for my XXL frame to comfortably get in and out of. Even with the tall roofline, I was always bumping my head or knees on something, and even once inside, I took up the entire driver space. I remember driving it in front of a mirrored wall on a building one day and looking over and seeing myself taking up the entire front drivers seat area of the Volare; it looked and felt like I was driving a circus clown car. I could just never get comfortable in it. And so, within a couple of months of ownership, and driving it with muscle spasms and a sore back that I decided that this was not the car for me.
See that big slab of white behind the Road Runner’s wheel? Thats me. Now imagine that in a car three quarters that size.
A few months after I bought it, I took a trip out to the Street Rod Nationals in Louisville, KY, about a 12 hour drive. However, a couple of days before the trip, I noticed an antifreeze puddle under the car and traced it to a pinhole in the radiator. I couldn’t get a replacement radiator in time for the trip and there are no local shops that service copper radiators anymore so I took my trusty Delta 88 and its chocolate brown pillowy interior goodness and epic-sized trunk instead. The Nats wouldn’t let any post-1980 cars into the show so I registered the Olds as a ’79. Don’t tell anyone though.
I wound up holding onto the Volare for a little more than a year and put about 3000 miles on it, with no additional problems after the radiator repair, and it often got compliments. I think time has been kind to the F-Bodys as many admired the car. While they are not setting the collector car market on fire, nice, low mileage, well-optioned, original V8 coupes can fetch five figures and the special edition Super Coupes and Petty Kit Cars sell for respectable coinage.
That is, except my aunt, who bought the new ’78 Volare wagon that I liked. I told her that I picked one up and she said, “oh what a horrible car!” as she remembered making many trips to the dealer for repairs. But, her car couldn’t have been too terribly bad, as she kept it until 1987. Anyway, I sold it to a fellow who also has a penchant for ’70s-era cars, and I replaced it with my ’71 Satellite, which is much easier to get in and out of but I’m not interested in hot rodding it with the 408.
While on the prowl for a new potential candidate at the Carlisle swap meet last year, I picked up this clean, low mileage 318 ’73 Gold Duster that’s just too clean and too low mileage to hack up for a big engine. I have no problem getting in and out of it either.
Eight years later, that 408 engine is still in my garage, and at this point I really should just sell the damn thing or turn it into a planter.
If that engine was in my garage, I’d be on the lookout for a base, 2WD, second-gen, RCSB Dakota. If I recall, there was a factory-built R/T 5.9 that was a muscle car in pickup guise, and with this 408, well… I’d probably be buying rear tires every few months
Interesting you said that. About a week or 2 ago, as I was working on this article, a ran into a guy with a really clean Gen1 ’95 Dakota V6/5 speed 4X2/reg cab/short bed and he said he would consider selling it, so I left him my name and #. Havent heard back from him yet but that would be a super fun burnout machine
A great choice, and story Dan. Thank you! When launched the F-Body wagons were so wildly popular, as they seemed such a well-sized and practical design for the era. And I thought the Volare Premier wagon with the Magnum road wheels, was one of the most attractive versions.
There was a Harvest Gold ’76 Volare Premier wagon with the 360, and a Mocha Tan ’78 Aspen wagon with the Super Six in my family, so I am well familiar with them. Not surprisingly, the ’78 wagon was significantly more long-lived, rust-free, and reliable. I also found the rear seat entry/exit very accommodating. Chrysler probably could have lengthened the front doors an inch or two, to improve entry for the driver and front seat passenger. Though, I did find the front seat accommodations among the most comfortable of the 70s cars I’ve driven. These were very practical cars, designed for a large audience. Which made their recall and reliability issues that much more painful.
Those ridiculous Dodge 600 craplastic wheel covers couldn’t have looked more out of place. 🙂 I am also impressed the dash pad has no major cracks, other than at the far right, in spite of the bad fading on the A pillar plastic.
At the time, I noted how popular the Magnum wheels were on Premier/SE coupes and wagons. However, the Magnums were extremely rare on sedans. And while Chrysler Rallye wheels were shown on wagons in brochures, they seemed non-existent on wagons in the real world. The chrome and black woodgrain surround on the Volare Premier wagon did look more attractive than the light wood surround found on the Aspen SE.
I myself always prefer any more Country Squiresque looking station wagon with the look of rear wood outlining the fake wood decal siding.
A 360 Volare wagon sounds like fun. I also agree, the Magums look great on these cars. I really liked that car and I figured with the high roofline it would be more comfortable but it wasnt. I did like the seats though
My mom had a ’79 Chrysler T&C, emerald green with tan leather and that great T&C fake wood paneling. Engine was a 318. Beautiful car, drove great and she loved it. She even let me take it, packed with 5 of my buddies and all our stuff, for a week-long post-HS graduation road trip to Colorado. I won’t go into all the finer details of all that transpired on that epic trip, but let’s just say we beat the hell out that T&C. Great car!
I understand your problem, while I only wear a size 46 suit jacket, the Subaru BRZ was undriveable because the seat bolsters pinched my shoulders. I had plenty of room at waist level. I have similar issues with Land Rovers, the only way I could comfortably drive a Defender was with the window rolled down and my arm sticking out.
Your specific issue with door width is why the 4 door Morris Minor was never sold in the US, they only imported the 2 door because the opening was wider.
I’ve never particularly liked the Aspen/Volare since it seemed inferior to the legendary Dart/Valiant although the later Dodge Diplomat cop car seemed OK. If I had to choose a Detroit misdsize wagon in 78-79 I’d have probably bought a Fairmont done up Neidermeyer style. Given the money and free choice probably a Volvo or Mercedes since the 300TD came out around 79.
Ive driven the BRZ and I wish I could fit comfortably in one because thats a hella fun car. Never drove a Defender though but they look roomy; I guess they just look bigger than they are.
A Morris Minor with a blown small block would be a car I would find a way to make myself fit into
Nice car. At the time (70’s emissions aside) these seemed like great successors to the Dart and Valiant, but time hasn’t been kind to their reputation. In general, I think in a lot of ways these malaise era cars were improved over their predecessors – brakes, handling, ventilation, ergonomics – but the smog stuff dragged them down. Unfortunately my state with its strict regulation and inspection of post-1975 cars makes ownership of them less attractive.
Great story as always Dan. It’s too bad the car didn’t fit you, it was a great find. I have been a long roof fan for many years and always liked the look of these Aspen/Volare wagons. As tall guy I can understand the lack of room as being enough to part with this fine wagon. It is why I tended to favor larger cars and trucks as my personal vehicles. Now you just need to find another cool Mopar to bring home to house that 408!
Thanks Vince. I begrudgingly sold that car but there was no sense in keeping a car I didnt like driving. The 408 will find a home, even if it winds up getting rehomed
Perhaps, for the motor this coupe would do?
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/car-show-classic-1979-chrysler-lebaron-this-ones-under-the-brougham-radar/
Or?
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1981-chrysler-cordoba-ls-a-quick-nip-tuck/
I would take either one of those. I had a chance at a nice ’82 Mirada with T-Tops a couple of years ago that I could have had ridiculously cheap but didnt feel like making the trip out to western MD to get it. I still regret that decision and keep hoping I’ll see it pop up on the internet somewhere
Interesting article, but it just goes to show… Am 6’1″ however more like your marathon runner. But, and it’s a big but, I have a bad back which means that the seat shape is vital for my choice of car(s), and the reason I went for my daily (2015 Mazda 3) was the seat which is essentially the best seat in the house and I can survive almost non-stop 600 mile non-stop trips in it. When I bought my fun car (1964 Mercury Comet Caliente h/t) one of the first things to go was the instrument of torture otherwise known as the bench seat, I could not stretch to more than one hour drive at a time!
So you have nothing to explain. Hope you find something to put that 408 in.
Glad your Mazda worked out for you! I actually find bench seats more comfy than most buckets, if for no other reason I can spread out and put my arm across the back of the seat for support
Seat comfort and driving position are mission critical! I am not overly tall at 6′, but have long legs for my height. Most vehicles are pretty uncomfortable, with either my knee up against the door or the steering wheel too far away to be comfortable when the seat is back far enough. IMO this is one of the reasons full size trucks have come to be so popular, most have wide range of seat adjustments and can fit the vast majority of people , comfortably.
I would love to do research into how each of the American car makers came up with measurements and ergonomics. I am Mr. Average when it comes to size and build. My suits come off the rack and after they are finished for inseam length, I’m ready to go. But for reasons I cannot fathom, I have tended to be quite comfortable in cars built by Ford and Chrysler over the years, and much less so in cars built by GM. I was really disappointed in how uncomfortable I was in my mother’s 06 Lacrosse – that was the kind of sweet low-mile car I have tended to gravitate towards. However, it seems to accommodate my 6’7″ middle son just fine.
I am a former employee of a major seat supplier. Without getting into too much detail, automotive companies use a mannequin called OSCAR. (It’s an acronym for something. Don’t quite remember). Anyhow, there’s a 5th percentile female OSCAR , a 50th percentile male and. 95th percentile male OSCAR. I used to qualify for the 5th percentile female version and did many seat pressure mapping tests as well as ride and drives, for which testing engineers would collect data. I’m not sure how final decisions were made regarding the seats, but all that data was collected and used to make adjustments for seat firmness, sizes, etc
I seem to remember Asian OEM’s preferred firmer seats and European OEM’s preferred a certain style of recliner mechanism.
That’s a sweet wagon! The wagon was the only body style I considered really attractive and Chrysler sold the heck out of them until word of their problems got out.
A year or two ago I got tempted by a 78 or 79 LeBaron wagon that looked to be in about the same shape, but sanity prevailed and I moved on.
What you need for that 408 is a Dodge Magnum!
Magnums are boss, I would love to find a decent, affordable one but they are few and far between and nice ones are getting pricey
I agree that the A-body is a better car; often being better built, having a better front suspension design, and being built at a time when Mopar wasn’t struggling to meet CAFE. Wouldn’t some of your accessibility issues have been addressed by getting a two-door Volare or Aspen though? Did they really shorten the seat tracks in going from the Valiant to the Volare?
Here we go again, you and Vanilla Dude blaming everything on CAFE.
These F Body cars were already fully developed before congress ever even discussed CAFE. Which explains why they’re heavier than the A Bodies they replaced.
Is CAFE responsible for the corona virus too?
I’m not saying the cars were badly built because of CAFE, or that the front suspension was ridiculous because of CAFE. Customers were repulsed by their ownership experiences because of intergalactic final drive ratios and the pricing of big engines off scale because of CAFE however.
Just about sprayed coffee over my computer! “Intergalactic final drive ratios” indeed!
Apparently the 2.42:1 rear axles and similar abominations were more of a Ford and GM thing than something Chrysler inflicted on its customers. Volares and Aspens were more than 10% heavier than most of the A-bodies produced, but they generally had the same final drive ratios as A-bodies with comparable option loads. The street racer off-the-line-dig ratios were gone, but they weren’t running wide open throttle to hit 55 mph at 1,000 rpm in 3rd either.
As Paul said CAFE wasn’t in play with these (that more likely drove the model name shuffling that morphed these into “full size” M bodies), but I do recall that the impetuous behind the transverse torsion bars was to allow for more floorpan clearance for catalytic converters that the A body torsion bars likely would have interfered with.
The F body was intended as a sort of two birds with with one stone replacement for both the aging but popular A bodies and the poor selling B bodies, and the ride and handling compromises were to make them similarly plushy as expected in the intermediate class. B bodies got isolated suspension mounts in 1973 for improved NVH, I’m not sure if it affected handling to such a negative extent, but the same principals went into the F body.
Informative stuff. Thank you.
I’ve also heard that it was to further isolate road shocks from the passenger compartment. Probably several reasons behind such a major engineering change.
The way the transverse bars isolated road shocks was by placing the anchor points within the isolated K member, so it was all contained as unit. But same effect was achieved on the 73 B bodies, they used bushings between the K member and body too, but also isolated the torsion bar anchors under the passenger compartment by using longer bars run through the “old” mounting points and into a new isolated crossmember behind. This in theory could have been accomplished with the A body too, but clearances were tighter on the narrower chassis, so the F body got its bespoke design instead.
Note the crossmember behind the crossmember
Thanks – hadn’t seen that setup.
Matt, many ’75 and ’76 A-bodies had catalytic converters—full-size double-biscuit ones that fit just fine without any contortions of anything, and so this “more floorpan clearance for catalytic converters” thing of yours doesn’t strike me as any more correct now than when you put it forth here on CC before (and got dinged for a mix of guessing, making stuff up, and treating Allpar as a reliable source).
Please enlighten me then. What is the definitive explanation for transverse torsion bars that couldn’t be achieved by doing something more along the lines of the 73 B bodies with traditional longitudinal bars?
I genuinely would like to know, but being berated over how wrong I am for the sake of it, in this case in a month old comment with a double “gotcha” from a two year old comment hasn’t exactly shown me the error of my ways.
Please excuse me for the necro-comment; I followed a CC rabbit hole and wasn’t paying attention to article or comment dates.
The only people who know the canonical list of reasons why the F-body had transverse torsion bars are a few former Chrysler executives who are probably mostly or all dead now, so we’re left to eyeball what information the company and its people put out.
One good source of publicly-available, primary-source information is a 1977 SAE paper, “Chrysler Corporation’s Isolated Transverse Torsion Bar Front Suspension”. I bought a copy 18 years ago (when SAE wasn’t nearly such a bunch of greedy moneygrubbers as they now are) and haven’t read it since then. I know which group of boxes at my storage lockup contains it, but my recent move has created higher priorities, so for the time being it’s not readily available—when I do dig it up, if you’d like, I’ll circle back here.
I won’t claim to have anywhere near a perfect memory, so I could be wrong about this, but I am pretty good at remembering technical papers on subjects that interest me, and I am pretty sure “more room for emission control equipment” was not on the list of reasons. I do see that claim made twice on Allpar, both attributed to one Lanny Knutson, of the Plymouth Owners Club. That club did (maybe still does?) have a nice magazine, but I can’t find any evidence or indication that Knutson’s claim is more than just a guess. Moreover, Allpar is peppered with flatly-wrong claims (guesses phrased as statements of fact) by Knutson; just pure applesauce pulled out of thin air. This is the trouble with Allpar: a not-very-good signal/noise ratio, and it can be very difficult to separate the signal from the noise. The site owner (before he sold it to AutoGuide in 2018) was able to edit the writing to a good standard, but was not in a position to verify, validate, or fact-check the assertions of the many people who wrote articles for the site on a volunteer basis. As a result—leaving aside matters of opinion or viewpoint—the site contains a lot of assertions that don’t square with reality.
Here’s the abstract from the SAE Paper:
To satisfy the objectives of Chrysler’s new generation of compact vehicles, a unique front suspension system was created. This system has achieved an outstanding level of ride comfort while providing significant advantages in the basic vehicle packaging. The key to the system is the transverse torsion bar and bushings which serve the dual function of suspension spring and fore and aft restraint for the lower control arm.
From this, the primary goals of the transverse torsion bar setup seem to have been:
• A “big-car ride” (this stands to reason; at that time cars were downsizing and buyers were traumatised by it)
• Cheaper construction (deleted separate strut rods and associated parts—this stands to reason because duh…double-duh because it’s Chrysler, triple-duh because it’s the 1970s).
• More compact packaging (this stands to reason because again, downsizing: trying to give buyers newly “forced” into smaller cars as much as possible about what they liked in bigger cars, and deleting the longitudinal T-bars would have freed up some floor space)
I will grant you that deleting the longitudinal T-bars would also have freed up space under the car, but again, I don’t see where this was needed for catalytic converters; the ’75-’76 A-bodies had full-size cats with no space crisis under the car, and the cats Chrysler used didn’t grow any larger right up through the F-body to the end of the M-body. I think this reality weighs more than Knutson’s unsupported claim on Allpar.
I think I’m right about this, but I’m not going to sit here and insist (yet, LOL). I’ll dig for that paper, and I’ve just sent an enquiry to a reliable Chrysler historian with an enormous library, much of which was not generally published. I’ll circle back.
Thanks, those all make sense, I obviously knew about the NVH improvement but the lower cost potential I hadn’t really considered before. I didn’t mean to parrot the catalytic converters thing, it’s just something I had taken it at face value since it makes sense on the surface, and I actually believe that I read it here first before Allpar. its actually interesting knowing the source on Allpar. I never felt they steered me that wrong, but often times articles sometimes feel incomplete or filtered through enthusiast bias.
I didn’t mean to be so defensive in response, and apologize for being crass. I was having a rough night and it just hit me wrong. I don’t like to bring bad tech to the table, and if I do I am glad to learn why
And I apologise for my own snark about it.
Another unfortunate “othe edge of the sword” problem with Allpar involves retired engineers telling about stuff they and their fellows did. They do a lot of talking about stuff that never actually happened. Even at its best, the human memory is nothing like the camcorder we like to think it is. There is a reason people retire, and there is a thing that happens to our minds and memories with advancing age.
And on top of that, these are people who were just doing their damn job. There wouldn’t have been much sense of making history; no where-were-you-when-the-F-bodies-launched, nothing like that. Bent metal, motors and wheels, emission controls…different than last year and next year…engineered and built to tight cost constraints…handed off to the marketers to do their thing…then focus on the next one. Nowhere near as stultifying as assembly line work, and a big chunk of the recollections are true and correct, but lather-rinse-repeat for however many years and decades; of course the recollection’s going to stand a chance of being a bit of a soup.
And pardon me for “guessing and making stuff up” dang grade school science class drilled in the ability to form a working hypotheses from information presented to me and I just can’t drop that bad habit. Anyway, I’ll brace myself for the dinging. I didn’t get live through the F body experience but it’s fun gaining my own unique bad memories from them one way or another! 😁
Yeah I’d probably have no problem with a coupe, but I liked the wagons better so… I dont know about the seat tracks. The bench seats seem like they never go back far enough for me, even in the B-Bodys, but I never had a problem with buckets
I have the wrong classic car for my physical condition that has become obvious since I put it back on the road, touted as a medium family car when new its really not big enough, whether I keep it sell it swap it or just store it in a corner is yet to be determined, meanwhile I use it for short trips around town occasionally.
Why does it sound like there isn’t a market for it?
Bryce, back in the day your Minx was new, we were all so much smaller. Whenever I look at period photos I’m reminded of that. People seemed to tolerate pain and discomfort better too, for the luxury/privilege of having a car, any car!
My dad was 5’6″, 36″ chest, and at 11 stone he looked like a fattie back then. I’m 5’10”, 44″ chest, 17 stone, and I don’t stand out as being visibly overweight nowadays (unless you’re in the medical profession!).
A car that was just the right size for people of average build back in the fifties will always seem a tight fit today. And Auntie Merle’s old A30 would be impossible for me to get into now – how my 80+ grannie managed it with her bung legs and sore hip I don’t know!
Great story Dan. Like you, I am also 6’1″… but when I drove my Aspen wagon i was definitely more towards the marathon runner in size even though I don’t run. I think at most I was about 160# when I was driving it, a fraction of your big barrel chested frame. I can imagine it being uncomfortable for you. I’m sorry it didn’t work out for you.
It is amazing what just a set of wheels and tires will do for a car. Those Magnum 500s on that wagon look excellent, and really give the car road presence.
Glad you liked it Brian, I thought it was funny that you ran your F-Body tribute Magnum article at the same time time I was putting this together.
That’s a beautiful car and a great find. It looks and sounds like it was loaded for its day with the 318, air, and upgraded interior.
One thing chrysler did well even to the very last of the k car era was produce a better interior than gm or ford. The Fairmont was rational to the point of being really cheap feeling and so was a base gm model, but even the base mopars had nice interiors and Chrysler put more button tufts, lights, padding, chrome, and fake woodgrain in its plush interiors than did gm or ford.
The a body was probably overall a better car because it was engineered and assembled at a better time for Chrysler. If chrysler wasn’t flush with cash in 1974ish, it was surviving. By the time these came out, chrysler was in bad shape.
These and hornet sportabouts are my favorite wagon bodystyles of all time, I feel the F body styling gets unfairly lumped in with the more substantive shortcomings, and am surprised I don’t see more street machine versions like you do Dusters.
But I get it if they’re uncomfortable. Only one I ever sat in was a coupe at a junkyard I pulled a stereo out of and it fit my 5’8” frame like a glove, I could see how taller people would have a hard time with it. I would imagine the ride/handling deficiencies could be mitigated with Police spec M body parts, minus the turning radius anyway – is that the consequence of transverse torsion bars?
Whether it ever finds a car or not, that 408 is wonderful garage art!
I assumed the transverse torsion bars were the difference for the wide turning radius but I really dont know. Ive driven later M-bodys and they werent that bad as far as handling and turning radius and the earlier A-bodys were much better handlers as well, as long as they came with a sway bar. As far as the 408 goes, its a big, expensive piece of garage art! I’m cleaning house and it needs a home
Tall here as well, but wearing just 210 lbs on what should be a 190 lb frame.
But, I hear you on these F Bodies. I liked the coupe with its bigger door, and with an utter disregard for rear seat passengers, the driver’s cockpit was fine.
As a family car, I recall these being a bit cramped, and any regard given to rear seat passengers meant both rows were not exactly capacious.
@LT Dan: At 6’4″ and 210+/- and more along the lines of the runner, I have always preferred two door cars because no could sit behind me, once I adjusted the seat. Like you, a lot of cars i lusted after, simply didn’t fit! I really liked your wagon, and I once briefly had a 75 Dart Sport identical to your Duster. I wanted to buy a Dodge Aspen, after trying one on for size, but it didn’t happen. I have a DD Honda Fit, which “fits” me (barely), but I find that I spend more time driving my X-cab S-10 (downsizing from a Silverado). At this stage, I find trucks to be the most easily accessible and comfortable for my frame and its attendant physical quirks! 🙂
Agreed on all. Like I said in the article, getting in and out of cars wasn’t the consideration 10 years ago like it is now and I don’t imagine it gets easier through the aging process. The big old cars and modern full sized trucks are about it for me,
It surely doesn’t get easier through the aging process. I’m 6’2″ and 190, and owned a couple of MG Midgets in my youth. Despite being in fairly good shape and staying active, nearing my mid 50’s it’s becoming a real bitch to get in and out of anything too low. I carpool with a co-worker who drives a BMW 3-Series convertible, and it constantly amazes me how much thought I have to put into ingress and egress, and how uncomfortable it is when I do it the wrong way. What a drag it is getting old(er).
Ok here’s my crazy suggestion for what to do with that built 408: find a nice 1979-1981 R-body New Yorker, Newport or St. Regis and put it in that. Keep the rest of the car 100% stock so it just looks like a malaise-mobile until you put your right foot down and leave everyone in your dust.
That would be righteous!
I applaud that idea. A nice 1981 New Yorker with that engine would be a fun terror on the streets.
But I think that Dan might have the same ingress/egress problem. Those door openings on an R-body dont look much larger than on the F-body. The R- really only was the next size up from the F-. The F- repalced the A-body, and the R- is just a reskin of the old B-body.
Good point Brian, might have to do a Córdoba instead. Let’s see how fast fine Corinthian leather can go!
Good looking wagon. Shame it had to go.
So sick of the over used phrase “malaise era”. Who came up with that anyway?
Murliee Martin
Don’t be sick of it, embrace it. There is a lot of love for all these cars over in the Facebook group Malaise Motors. I’ve been to a few of their car shows here in LA. Lovely group, amazing cars, and a lot of love for the “Malaise Era” vehicles.
Dan, that was a good looking wagon, but I understand letting it go.
My mother’s now late younger brother, whom I’ve referred to here as my Uncle Ron, was 6’8″ with a big frame. He was around 280 in his early 20s and had no table muscle. After his ’76 Monte Carlo and ’84 LeSabre, he was in pickups or SUVs for the rest of his life. He once tried to get in my cousin’s Camaro and cussed it the whole time.
Good or bad, I’m exactly average height and build. Knowing some vehicles don’t fit me, I feel bad for those who are taller and / or stockier. It is a challenge I’ve seen many times.
interesting about Uncle Ron….I never had a problem fitting in Camaros and Firebirds, at least the first 3 generations, but I do prefer the larger cars.
I assume the later ones are better built as I still see them once in a while, but havent seen an early one in a long time.
Ah, the Roadrunner photo clarifies it all. It’s not a small vehicle, but not many folk except the Lt get in one of them and make it look like they need a second one for the passenger.
Funny thing is that the Volare is not exactly a small car itself in many parts of the world, except in the US context. And, of course, yours, where it must have fit like scuba wetsuit. A pity, for it was a very decent original by the looks.
I have the leg issue others above complain of. My height (6’1″) is all in my thighs. (I’m not built for carrying anyone out of danger or running a marathon, more for being gangly and clumsy and needing such rescue). When sitting down, I’m short, so I’m built for driving the poor ergonomics of certain big cars up till the later ’70’s, wherein the steering wheel is often closer to the back seat than the windscreen, and the pedals are at some unseen distance near what might be the headlights. The result is that there are some moderns I just don’t really fit into – my knees are pressed against the dash – and every car I drive I spend sometime turning off wipers or indicators my skyward-pointing knees have decided to operate as I change gear or brake.
On a greatly lesser scale than a 408, I had years ago – and for years after – a proudly rebuilt Honda engine sitting about. (God knows if it actually ran decently, btw). It eventually got very dusty, forgotten, and donated to landfill.
Indeed Aspens and Volares had their numerous faults, but faults aside they were far better looking (and safer) cars than the tin can Aries and Reliant. Chrysler Corpation had some of the best looking RWD cars they ever built in the late 70s and early 80s. Even though quality control issues were still a major problem, Dodge and Chrysler scored a winning touchdown with the styling on the 80-83 Mirada and Córdoba (without the fake convertible top of course:) I still think the Mirada is the prettiest dodge coupe ever built.
Another great car story Lt Dan – I have a soft spot for Malaise era vehicles as well having grown up with Cutlass Cieras, Dodge Aries, and the gutless HT4100 under the hood of my first car (84 Sedan deVille). I’m 6ft and 300lbs so I don’t get into small cars easily either – without help from Crisco or WD40. However the 2002 PT Cruiser that was a radio station vehicle was a great fit for me – if I could find a 2002 Dream Cruiser I would snap one up in a heartbeat.
Pictured is me stuffed into my friends rental Fiat 500 – they wanted to see if I could actually fit in the damn thing. This is why fullsize vehicles or trucks/SUVs are my go to as well.
you look quite cozy in the Fiat! Several years ago, I almost pulled the trigger on a 5 speed PT Cruiser as a DD/commuter car since it too is the only compact car that I can comfortably fit in but I decided I didnt want a car payment and kept on driving my old cars
You gave me some good laughs. When I owned my 1978 Aspen wagon (loaded by the way), I was 5′ 6″ tall and 155 pounds. It was fine for me. i have shrunken two inches and gained twenty pounds but I can still get into one of those cars. However, occasionally even I banged my head on the roof live above the door! Overall, these cars were great for every day driving. We used ours for 185,000 miles before switching to a 1986 GMC Safari, which I ran for 318,000 miles. Thanks for your great article, BIG GUY!
LT Dan, it’s interesting to think about the practical, ergonomic aspects to owning a classic / vintage car like your former Volare wagon. Though few of us would probably have the same issues as you with actually fitting into some cars (great read, BTW), I wonder how many of the classic’s I’ve pined about owning might be uncomfortable after maybe a half hour behind the wheel.
I’m with you in that I always liked the Volare’s minor details better than the Aspen’s, but that’s probably partially because my family had the Plymouth. And like others have commented, the swap to the Magnum 500s did wonders for this car’s looks. (Especially given that the aftermarket wheel covers on it weren’t great.)
I think the smallest car I’ve ever driven that I realized after the fact was probably too “small” for me was one of the last Hyundai Tiburons. I rented one about ten years ago to drive from Chicago to Dayton, Ohio. Maybe an hour into that trip, I realized how their deft styling really hid how small they are.
Looking forward to reading about that red Duster!
Thanks Joseph! Ask and ye shall receive
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/cars-of-a-lifetime/coal-another-one-bites-the-duster/
This whole topic has me curious. North Americans as a whole tend to prefer full size cars and trucks. Obviously people in other countries are “growing” at the same rate we are. How do they get by when they can’t daily drive full size cars and trucks like we do?
Bob
Hi LT Dan,
Did you take the 5th photograph, of the Volare in a driveway? The way the striping on the car is picked up by the house in the background, with the way the paint harmonizes with the overcast sky, is absolutely fantastic! I love the picture, despite never having strong feelings about the subject itself.
This was a great article to read as well. Like the photography, the added colour in your writing made a great story that much more enjoyable. Please keep them coming!