(first posted 5/25/2014) Popularity is a strange thing. For those who have it, all the attention and adoration seems to come naturally. For those who don’t, attempts to emulate the influential trendsetters seem to miss the mark. Chrysler didn’t often have the easiest time winning people and their money over and the story behind this big Dodge coupe, apparently named Priscilla, is an instructive example.
As if often discussed, mighty GM generally–but certainly not always–set the trend for automotive style in the 1960s. The long, lean and angular style of the Chrysler’s 1965 C-body fullsizers may have offended few people, but when you consider the sporty swagger of such cars as the Pontiac Catalina and Chevy Impala, newly redone for ’65 in coke bottle style with available fastbacks, Mopar’s biggest offerings began to look a bit cold.
The solution was a restyle on the same basic body for 1967. All C-bodies were given new, less rectilinear rear styling, but hardtop coupes were the most dramatically altered. With a fastback rear window and reverse slant rear quarter windows, the cars looked very different than they did in 65 and 66. The Dodge Polara and Monaco were given a particularly aggressive look, in keeping with the Dodge Rebellion/Dodge Fever ethos, with mean, very distinctive, trapezoidal taillights.
As an aside, the Dodge Rebellion and Dodge Fever ad campaigns are favorites of mine, being both memorable and light hearted. It’s impossible to ignore the obvious sexism, but don’t tell me Pam Austin’s facial expression while holding that bazooka isn’t absolutely hilarious. The ads didn’t take themselves too seriously, and in their irreverence, highlighted both the unique nature of the product and the red-blooded nature of intended buyers.
Ultimately, beyond the taillights, the new styling didn’t come across very dynamically. Aside from the new fastback and front and rear clips, it was still evident the ’67 Monaco and Polara were based on the 1965 body and as a result, two design languages competed to define the new hardtop coupes’ styling. The slightly inset greenhouse with very little tumblehome was particularly at odds with the elongated (by six inches) panels aft of the newly fat C-pillar and the raised strakes over the rear wheels.
Sedans and convertibles, on the other hand, kept more of the older car’s look intact and as a result, retained their lean appearance. That green four-door hardtop is sex on wheels.
For anyone not familiar with the evolution of the Chrysler C-body who may think my criticism a bit harsh, consider the mixture of elements on display. For 1967 and 1968, the elegant linearity of the 65 and 66 cars was mixed with the zaftig splendor on display in the 1969-1971. I don’t think it’s an especially successful combination, but when popularity is at stake, you can’t always stick to your guns, and a convex interpretation of the earlier shape was the easiest answer. The dramatic Fuselage cars would more successfully flaunt their curves, just in time for the public’s mood to change. The ad on the left, with a ’67 Dart (which looked like shrunken version the ’65 and ’66 Polara) placed next to a ’67 Monaco, shows the progression of styling themes, which would ultimately take the form of the car on the right (click to enlarge). Just to put it out there, I think they’re all damn cool.
In front, Dodge studiously avoided making any statement of its own, with a grille and headlights that loosely echoed the look worn by the 1967 Mercury. Previously, Oldsmobile’s “dog bone” front clip seemingly provided Dodge’s inspiration. At top is a cutaway of the ’65 Polara/Monaco sedan next to a ’65 Olds 88 sedan; at bottom is a ’67 Polara coupe next to a ’67 Mercury Montclair. When you consider Dodge’s upmarket aspirations, the lingering pain from the Forward Look years, and potential clashing with the Chrysler Newport, the nod to convention is understandable.
Luckily, behind that innocuous face, things were very different. The company was justifiably famous for its outstanding engines, and while it’s anyone’s guess which V8 is housed in this car’s beautiful blue body, each of the options were competitive. Newly available was the 440 Magnum, which managed 375 gross horsepower and 480 lb-ft of torque with a single four-barrel carburetor and mild 10.1:1 compression ratio.
The standard engine was now a 318, but you could get the 383, an engine fondly remembered by most everybody, in 2-barrel and 4-barrel form. At between 4,000 and 4,500 pounds, I hope this at least has the 383, though in its lower trim, I suspect it has a 318, which made 230 gross horsepower and 340 lb-ft of torque on regular gas.
A less than positive change, from this author’s standpoint, was the new dashboard. Less distinctive than the dramatic piece with preceded it, it’s completely understandable that many would favor the older design’s flair. And it’s just odd that as the exterior got a more hippy design, the interior went for a sober, rectilinear theme.
Here’s a better picture to compare, with a 1966 on the left and another 1967 on the right. Chryslers also got a revised dashboard, but it was an altogether much more modern and high quality piece. I guess you get what you pay for. But regardless of this, and despite declining sales, those who shelled out for a late sixties C-body were rewarded in their effort to be different.
Questionable redesign aside, the Mopar performance years were in full swing when this Polara was built and the promise put forth by that angry rear end was backed up with solid engineering. Despite its maker’s best efforts, it was a case of substance over style.
For those looking for a classic today, this is still true. Quality had yet to take the disastrous turn waiting just around the corner and big Dodges today don’t command the kind of money a Charger does. As a bonus, even on the classic-happy West coast, a Polara is not the sort of car you see everyday. A hat tip to Eric Clem for capturing this nonconformist full-sizer.
Related reading: 1966 Dodge Monaco 500: A First Love Song In C Major, 1967 Plymouth Fury III Coupe: 1963 Revisited
I think the highest and best use for cars this size is as an engine donor. Speaking of which, my 69 coronet had a 318. I think it was about all one could ask for in the coronet and/or dart sizes. I cannot make myself love these big old things. Too many years of buying gas.
> I think the highest and best use for cars this size is as an engine donor.
Sacrilege! Burn the heretic!
At least send him to the woodshed.
Love is sometimes irrational. If you imagine a world of cheap, plentiful gas, and very different standards of efficiency, it’s hard not to love a car like this. To behold one of these in person today might change your mind, with their very low, long proportions. There’s a combination of decadence and aesthetic restraint which is hard for me to ignore, and convincing quality in the fittings and trim. Best of all, these are rather cheap, and you can find many of them for around $5,000 in decent condition.
Lee, Lee, Lee, we are SO disappointed in you. 🙂
I think what scarred me was the loaner car that I drove just before leaving Panama. This time frame, a chrysler with a 440 (I think) and 4mpg (I know). We had that chrysler and an old split window van to drive. The van (1500) would barely make it over the gold star bridge so I drove the chrysler.
Now give me the next smaller body (belvedare or coronet) and I am helplessly in love. I have really tried to help myself and deserve your derision but there does not seem to be a program for this. I can hear myself saying “Hi, I’m Lee and I hate big Chryslers” but it seems to do no good. I’m sorry and deserve your scorn.
It’s ok, you’ll be quite pleased with your accommodations. Well, at least, the trunk has plenty of room to stretch out. 🙂
I love, love, love the tail lights on these. 20 years ago I knew where a yellow ’67 Polara was parked and I always hoped to find a for-sale sign on it. Alas.
Not a bad looking car, but I do like the earlier dash a lot better. I bet she really loves gas, though. Looks to be in really nice condition.
I like the roof line,when it comes to Mopar styling I’m a fan of the ones everyone else hates.55 & 56s,the VIP Plymouth(which I’ve seen a few of,didn’t know Dodge had their own version),70 Coronet & Superbee and the Panther Pink/Moulin Rouge cars.
I’ve driven a 68 4 door Polara with a 383 2 barrel my cousin owned and a workmates 318 69 2 door.Big,thirsty but comfortable, reliable and nice looking.
Thanks for another car I never knew about
Also, Canadian full-size Dodge got the same interior as their American counterparts for 1967 and looked less “Plodge”. In 1965-66, Canadian Polara/Monaco got the Plymouth Fury dash. Monaco still got some Canadian exclusivities like a convertible version and being available with the 318 V8 and the slant six while in the U.S, the smaller engine offering in the Monaco was the 383. http://www.oldcarscanada.com/2011_08_01_archive.html
As a child in the 70s, I found these didn’t age well in to their middle years. Especially, when compared to the later fuselage styled versions. They definitely looked downright dated and stodgy amongst more modern styled cars. Even the AMCs, looked fresher. But I have since found an appreciation for their mid 60s styling cues, even though this is a ’67.
You make a good point on the sedans. They use this styling more successfully; I not at all a fan of the trapezoidal C pillar, and the one featured here is just a tad cumbersome. That white sedan you featured got me rethinking my usual default that the two door is better looking than the four doors. Wagons still win overall, though. I hope you find one to feature.
Having said that, my Valiant VG hardtop, which is essentially the 1967 Dart with a better front clip, had the perfect C pillar. Parallel lines, as Blondie might say.
No copycat look here. These look nothing like the same year offerings from GM and Ford. The ’65 – ’66 models, were clean and crisp, although the new Impalas suddenly made them look old. The ’67 restyle with the strange tail lights and reverse slant rear side window on the coupe just made them look weird. When cross shopping Impalas, Catalina’s and Galaxie 500’s, I can’t see many choosing this. The fuselage to come was a major improvement.
They don’t look like the ’65-66 GMs and Fords, but unfortunately look alot like ’63-’64 GMs and Fords, particularly the Chevrolet Impala which seems to have been pinned to the wall when the ’65 Mopars were designed. It’s an attractive look, but was instantly dated. The ’67-68 mods were an attempt to give this square car some curves, but the results were less than satisfactory. I do love the ’65-66 Dodges and Chryslers for what they are, and those majestic instrument panels and high-quality interiors.
I didn’t know anything about these cars but I would keep finding a few on sale as project cars in Canada. I never heard of them before or seen one in person ever. I also like the taillights on these.
$1200 for a ’66:
http://www.kijiji.ca/v-classic-cars/oshawa-durham-region/original-1966-dodge-polara/579036832?enableSearchNavigationFlag=true
$3500 for a ’67 plus a parts car:
http://www.kijiji.ca/v-classic-cars/city-of-toronto/reduced-must-go-two-1967-dodge-polaras-3500-takes-both-cars/593623725?enableSearchNavigationFlag=true
Actually one could say of the ’67-’68 Dodge coupes, “Suddenly it’s 1970” (borrowing from the Mopar 1957 slogan); they are beautiful and unique. If you remember the time period (1967 art, music and culture) the boldness of the Dodge (tail lights were ‘mod’) fit right in to that period.
Who else had the reverse-cant C-pillar with a slight fastback? Chrysler wasn’t copying anyone there: that C-pillar, together with the slant of the rear qtr-panel-edge-trunk lid area, gave the car a forward-motion look.
As for the grill resembling a Mercury? True only if you’re reducing the design down to the presence of horizontal headlights and horizontal grill bars; but the Dodge had the vertical center grill bars to break it up- hardly like a Merc. Take a look at a ’67 Impala -there’s more in common with the Mercury on that Chevy.
Moreover the sculpting/beveling of the leading edge of the Dodge hood (symmetrically echoed in the bumper below it) integrated the bumper, hood, and grill into a complete front-end design (which may be love-it-or-hate-it, but see my comment about the ’67 Pontiac below). It wasn’t just a grill with a hood above and a bumper below (the Merc was).
Take a look at the convertible roof line also: although a bit too tall, the C-pillar on it was graceful.
Last item, the dashboard. The ’67 was a wonderful update from the ’65-66; a very integrated combination of rectangles, all with a slight concave aspect. (Unfortunately, the plastics don’t hold up too well 40+ years later.)
IMHO, the ’67 Pontiac’s design is arguably more disparate a styling exercise than this Dodge.
Maybe I’m in the minority, but I think the styling works best on the fastback. That angry back end and fat C-pillar work beautifully together IMHO. The angry lights just don’t work on the sedan at all.
I can see how the front of the 67-68 was supposed to be an evolution of the 65-66 barbell-shaped grille opening, but I can’t help but think that the car has eyes that are open really, really wide as if surprised. Taken on its own, I prefer the front end of the 65-66 Polaras.
I think that the ’67 restyle was well executed overall though. I don’t see two competing design languages, the way Perry does. I particularly like the fastback 2-door roofline on the Polara. It complements the slightly curving downward slope of the beltline crease as it extends from front to back. The 4-door roofs, on the other hand, look too staid on the swoopy new bodywork.
The fastback 2-door roofline doesn’t work as well on the 67-68 Chryslers, which also adopted it. The styling of the Polara/Monaco suits the roof better. Also, Chryslers were supposed to have a more upscale image, and the fastback roof doesn’t suit that.
The taillights on these remind me of the cats-eye 1959 Chevy taillights, which I also like. The Monaco taillights are nicer than the Polaras because they have an extra chrome ring inset in the lens, giving it added depth. I like the 1968 Polara/Monaco tail end even more. Even though only the ends actually light up, it has the look of a full width taillight across the back of the car.
Love these. Great color as well. Hate to admit it, but I also think the vinyl top is a great addition. A black one on this would be terrific. Make mine a 383 4 with automatic, power steering, brakes (discs maybe?), AC, and the best sound system available.
Make mine a 66 New Yorker Town Sedan with the 440 TNT or the 68 Fury III hardtop sedan with the 440 Super Commando or the 67 Monaco hardtop sedan with the 440 Magnum.
Except for some stripper sedans, I could love just about any ’65 – ’68 full-size Mopar. It just has to have AC so I can have that Air Temp sticker in the window. Your choices would be excellent.
Grandparents of one of the kids on our block had the six window NY Town Sedan in robin’s egg blue. In excellent condition well into the 1970’s. Beautiful car. Most likely a ’66 as I don’t recall it having the glass headlight covers.
The mid-late 60s Mopar “sporty” roof styles always looked odd to me, with the only exception perhaps the Challenger.
They still couldn’t touch the Fords and Chevys style-wise.
Count me as another lover of the 67-68 big Dodge. Oddly, these never sold as well as Furys or Newports. A couple of years ago, there was one of these for sale locally that tempted me. Same color even. I think the fastback roof worked better on the Dodge than on any of the other C coupes.
I know it makes about as much sense as wearing a dinner jacket and a diving helmet in Wal-Mart but I think that the blue hardtop is to die for!
Looking at this car reminds me of the car my friend’s father had – a 68 Polara four-door. By the late 70’s early 80’s it was known as “the bomb”. He finally bought a new car – an Olds Cutlas Supreme – burgundy on burgundy – and kept the Polara as a second car. This led us to take the Polara out for night cruises – before we had our licenses! We would cruise around the neighborhood and the back roads in that big car – never got caught!
I prefer the 1965-71 Furys over the Dodge versions, but mostly due to familiarity. Had 3 Furys in our extended family, so the Dodges were like ‘Wacky-Spacey’ versions of conservative Plymouths.
Even today, 65-68 Furys show up at car shows, auctions, or blog articles more than same year Dodges.
The Chargers overshadow the other 60’s Dodges, to where some [casual car nuts] don’t even know that Dodge made other cars!
You might like these Australians Dodge Phoenix who used from 1965 to 1971, the Plymouth Fury body Down Under.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/42220226@N07/13211175825/in/pool-australiandodgephoenix
https://www.flickr.com/photos/42220226@N07/13211331993/in/pool-australiandodgephoenix/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/50415738@N04/10435391955/in/pool-australiandodgephoenix
Oh my god, I’m so in love with that green hardtop sedan!! Everything about it even down to the wheel covers.
If I ever see one of these, it’s a coupe… but like pretty much everyone else alive, I’ve always thought that roof/C-pillar was a little too funky and/or poorly matched to the rest of the car. And even those, I like – but I’ve never really given them tons of thought beyond “wow, those taillights are awesome”. The dashboard isn’t as excellent as the earlier ones, but that’s par for the course when it comes to American cars in the late 60s, and I think it’s still pretty nice looking. GM and Ford went downhill bigtime around ’67/’68 when it came to interior styling and I’m inclined to say this is better than their efforts during those years, but that’s just going off my foggy memory rather than actual references.
I actually like the c-pillar/fastback. It’s “out there” but I do think it works, especially with the ’67 “angry taillights”. The sedans look better with the full-width units of ’68, particularly the grillework-covered version on the Polara. (But I’d still be quite happy with the green hardtop pictured up there as well).
I had a 1967 Dodge Polara in the early 1970s. I bought an ex-Indiana Highway Patrol squad car for$500 at auction. It was heavy duty all the way 440 ci 4v carbureation, 375 HP with Torqueflite automatic. Dual exhausts and it had 4 piston Budd disc brakes on the front wheels. It was very fast – I had it above 100 mph on the turnpike. I sold it in 1973 for a 1968 Dart because the Dodge Polara was a terrible gas hog – 13 mpg on the highway and that was about it. Even with gas costing 44 cents a gallon for hi-test premium I was losing money. Still wish I had it though.
My parents had a ’67 Monaco 2-door fastback, dark aqua metallic with a black vinyl top and black vinyl interior. Equipped with the 383 (4V), AC and the usual power options, they used it to tow our travel trailer all over Northern/Central California and Southern Oregon for a few years. It was quite the workhorse, I have to say, and was 9 years old by the time for me to start driving. Still in great shape, the two things I remember most about it were the easy power steering and the rear ventilation system (shades of certain FoMoCo products, like the Flair Birds and Mark III). Oh, and the AC always worked and never made the car run hot, even towing the trailer in OR in the summer.
Dodge couldn’t seem to help itself from screwing up the C-Pillar. First the weird trapezoid shape. For ’67 they fixed that but decided to go with reverse slant windows. Why would you do that?
I agree and I did then too about both. The trapezoid, a version also on the intermediates, was to get a fast window shape but retaining the rear headroom without extending the roof necessitating a different shorter trunk lid and surrounding metal.
Also, huge cars look better and make more sense with four doors. In those days, a four door hardtop of course.
I liked these cars, although the dash foreshadowed the direction of the 1968-70 Charger/Coronet slanted dash, which I did not prefer. This Polara had a look of huge heft, and I liked the styling. That little Dodge circle emblem thing (I forget the name of it again) was a neat little fungo design that stuck around for some years.
I’m sure these were good consumers of vast amounts of fossil fuels however.
“Fratzog”.
As I recall, they had a 24 gallon gas tank. Good for about 200 miles before you started looking for a station.
I have always liked the fasttop and those tail lights, ah those tail lights. Make mine with the 383-4V engine rather than the 440 as the 383-4V is a rare bird.
I have its Fury VIP sister car. The 67-68 Mopar fasttops are all pretty much on my dream car list followed closely by its 57-60 Forward Look ancestors. Mine has a 318 and I have no complaint about its power on the highway or its gas mileage. My car has been in the family since the late 70’s and survived a 13 year slumber in a field and it’s still one of the most reliable cars I’ve ever owned. My previous fasttop C-body was a ’67 Sport Fury some of whose parts live on in my ’68 Fury VIP
Why does this not consistently attach photos? Trying again…
Never mind.
Patrick, try reducing the file size. When I post photos here, I typically reduce them to be no more than 1,200 pixels in the bigger dimension. Doing that, they almost always post.
Interesting design analysis with same era Oldsmobile and Mercury. The odd shape to the hood edges, mirrored in the bumper had a two fold purpose, according to a Collectible Automobile article from 1998. It was a continuation of the 65-66 barbell look but it also was done to facilitate stacked headlights. They were trying to keep up with Pontiac, though I think Plymouth was already trying that with the stacked lights on 65-68’s. According to the article, they went with horizontal lights at the 11th hour. I’ll try to post the sketch from the article showing it. Personally I like it with the horizontal lights better.