(first posted 2/27/2012) Here I am again, resident defender of some underdog car (whether it be in looks, sales, relevancy, etc.) This time I’m going to go as far as saying the 1962 Plymouth was the best concept of what a full sized American car should be, fifteen years too early and in a questionable wrapper.
We’ve already covered how bad it got, at least in looks. The 1961 Plymouth full size models were pretty much the most cartoonish production cars of the 1960s, and managed to make the canted-eyed Chryslers and reverse fin Dodges from the same year look relatively sane.
We also know that what ended up at Plymouth dealerships in 1962 wasn’t quite what was intended. The well-told story of how Bill Newberg “overheard” that Chevrolet would further downsize its 1962 standard line (actually the Chevy II) led to a directive to downsize the planned Plymouth’s and Dodge Dart from their customary 119 inch span to a 116 inch wheelbase loosely based on the Valiant/Lancer bodyshell. (ED: Here’s a more complete look at what actually happened)
What Exner intended for his follow-up to the Forward Look ended up sacrificed, notably the curved side glass to eliminate the catwalk section in the body. Also notable is how much of a narrow track the prototypes had, which seems decidedly out of touch with where automotive styling was going.
So take my opinion with a grain of salt: What Virgil Exner really intended for these cars in looks was a lot worse than what actually appeared in the fall of 1961, at least for the Plymouth. And they did point to one future trend, the re-emergence of long hood, short deck proportions in American car styling that had been thrown out, in irony, by Exner with the wildly befinned second wave of the Forward Look.
The total effect seems half Valiant/Half Corvair. Notably there’s a start of the Corvair’s universal character line that almost encircles the large Plymouths, but goes missing on the rear quarter panel/door. On the Valiant it branched out from canted tail lamps and gives hips to the rear where it follows the radius around the rear wheels.
Ideally the presentation would have been leaner and crisper like the 1961 Asymmetrica concept. Thankfully one idea from the asymmetric series of cars was the lining up of bulges and trim to the drivers side. The 1962 Plymouths almost shared that ridiculous fate.
No, that’s not a styling clay left out in the sun too long. That’s what Virgil Exner intended to do. Anyways, at least the Plymouth (and Dodge Dart/Polara) accidentally showed a return to sanity in size, perhaps too early, and for too much money. At just over 202 inches long, they were once again around the size of standard Low Price 3 full-sizers only 7 years before, in the days when Chevrolets (in particular) didn’t start their quest to be cut rate Cadillacs.
And with the reduced size (and weight, now in the 3,300 to 3,500 pound range) all engines had a lighter load to carry. That meant the basic 225 Slant Six was possibly the liveliest of base big car sixes in 1962, and each incremental step in V8 power brought more fun, all the way into some quite furious parings of the 413 Wedge body and this body. A 361/305 equipped Fury was good for mid 8 second 0-60 runs, perfectly brisk for the times.
Combined with the lighter body and the last few years that Mopar didn’t decide to soften their Torsion-Aire suspension and you had some of the best balanced, best driving cars on the road. They were everything the 1977 B-bodies were to be, except in the looks department.
It’s quite obvious whoever thought the face of the 1962 standard Dodges was a good idea (or even good looking) was born and raised near the first nuclear waste site.
The Fury face is interesting, in the way some people are intriguing looking, but not hands down attractive. It’s not as angry and alien compared to Plymouths of the recent past, but it’s nowhere near normal. Although there’s a lot of delightful detail, like the inboard headlamps being the same size as the outboard “tunneled” headlamps that make it an interesting case study, instead of a Maalox moment.
And from the rear, the mounted pods in a concave shelf turned into what really looks like an ornate interpretation of the first generation Corvairs. It is less apparent on upper level Sport Fury models that had an Impala-like three tail lamps per side, but that break line between the upper and lower body is too obvious to ignore.
And it all but disappeared in the crisply tailored and squared off 1963 Plymouths. Gone were the awkward aquatic bulges and the semi wrap around rear window. All that remained was the athletic proportioning and similar size. And the more rational looks lead to more sales, but in the early 1960s, the traditional family car buyer still looked to outward size as a symbol of value, and Chevrolet sold about four Impalas to every Fury, even in the improved sales years of 1963-64.
So finally it was recast as what it was, one of those “just right” sized intermediates, in 1965. It retained the Belvedere name, but adding the intergalactic Satellite as top line models. Too bad they really didn’t take off. That’s the problem with trying to be different, and when that doesn’t work, trying to conform: You end up alienating both crowds, and then you have no audience. Plymouth would remain an also ran in both the Mid sized and Full Sized markets, from this point on, never to really recover any seriously competitive traction in either market.
It’s hard to cast the 1962 Plymouth as anything but the awkward good idea dressed in suspenders and a bowtie in an era of seersucker suits. It would take another 15 years and a few fuel crises, and the magic of Bill Mitchell to get the “Smart Sized” motoring concept right and ready for the motoring public.
Related:
Automotive & Design History: 1962 Plymouth and Dodge – Brilliant Blunder, or Suddenly It’s 1977 PN
OK, I’m odd. I’ve always considered the Plymouth as the best looking 1962 low-priced car, even back then when I was 12 and dad owned the Chevrolet dealership (I kept my opinions to myself, of course). I still consider the Plymouth the best looking of the three, and the one who’s design has aged the best. Of course, H. L. Mencken was right, as Chevrolet’s sales showed.
Partially agree, because I think each year after the ’61, the big Chevy increasingly got dumbed down to the point it was in 1964 (Generic Big Car) and the big Fords peaked in ’63 before they got slathered with too much trim for 1964.
I think the Plymouth works in the looks department for me so much because it’s soo different, the point that it’s refreshing against a lot of look-a-like cars from 1962.
I’ve always loved the ’62 B-bodies, even when I was a kid sitting in back of my grandfather’s ’62 Dart. To me, they epitomized space-age modern, not only in their way-out styling but with that year’s much-lighter weight, added scat, and much-improved engineering. My Canadian Fury gets thumbs-up everywhere, often from people born long after it came out. So perhaps these cars really were just too far ahead of their time …
They were about 15 years ahead of their time in size and weight, but the styling was just too odd. Even if their size and weight had been right for the times, they still wouldn’t have sold well because of the avant-garde styling.
As the article says, a good idea in a questionable wrapper.
I actually liked these a lot and later ended up with a ’63 Sports Fury. But please for god’s sake find some full wheel covers for that thing like in the photo at the top of the article. It would have been rare to see anything above a Savoy with the little hub caps and the wheel covers revolutionize the look. Heck, I’d rather see a set of modern plastic fake alloy style wheel covers from WalMart on that.
Me again. Check out the 1962 wagon. Metallic brown. *sigh*
Oops. 1960. Still cool though. Here’s the right one. If I had my top ten cars ever collection, this exact one would be in it.
The basic proportions of this brown 62 remind me of the Plymouth Volare wagon.
Looking at these now, Chrysler was merely ‘way ahead of their time. Too bad it didn’t translate into sales, but I’m sure the quality may not have measured up to the competition, either.
It always baffles me that with Chrysler’s engineering prowness back then, they couldn’t build a car that would simply blow away any and all competitors in durability and style, but GM, and to a lesser extent Ford, was too well financed and had the market momentum to override anything No.3 could do.
I don’t think these cars were all that bad, proportion-wise in size, but the styling clearly turned most of the market off. Compare this to the 1962 Chevy – a very clean-lined, linear-styled vehicle keeping in touch with styling trends at the time. The Chryslers? Odd and ill-proportioned in the styling cues that simply just didn’t quite work. Nothing really pulled together, but it was as if each part of the car had a different styling department without knowing what the other stylists were doing, and just stuck everything together and hoped for the best!
Great article to start my week.
I don’t think quality did measure up. I was in grade school and a classmate’s father purchased a new 1962 Fury 2 door hardtop for her mother to drive back and forth to work, trading in their 1959 Fury 4 door hardtop. The 62 gave them problems from day one and ended their relationship with Chrysler products; they traded it the very next year for a new Galaxie 500XL (a car neither of them liked – it was traded for a Buick Wildcat in 1964 and Buick became the family make from then on).
I love mid-century modern and I thought the 1962 Plymouth was pretty cool back in the day. I only liked it in the 2 door version; the shorter body seemed to work better on that model than it did on the 4 door.
It almost seems miraculous that the Chrysler Corporation survived the early 1960s, between the William Newberg scandal, the styling missteps in Exner’s last days, and the downsizing of the ’62s. And then something else: Like a mistress who stayed just behind in the shadows, causing distraction and requiring copious amounts of cash and attention, the turbine engine project went on far too long.
While we say that the B-platform was 15 years too early, in a twist of irony a modified version of it was used for the 1979 R-platform. Unfortunately – and possibly another misstep – these were only offered as a four-door sedan, while Chevrolet and Ford also offered two-doors and wagons.
Of course, it’s difficult to say definitively that Chrysler would have been more successful without these missteps, but it certainly seems that there was a pattern of having the wrong product at the wrong time.
Chrysler got lots of high-tech marketing cred out of the Turbine. It was a big deal when one appeared on display at the mall. I knew I was looking at what I’d be driving in 1976. It appeared in movies (clip from The Lively Set) and TV, looking and sounding fabulous. Clearly the future. Turned out the future isn’t what it used to be.
Turbine experience did help them develop the M1 Abrams tank in the ’70s, says Wikipedia.
I confess, the 62 Plymouth is one of my all time favorites. I think they look great.
When I was working in bootheel of Missouri there was one that ran at the Sikeston 1/8 mile drag strip.
There was also a wagon sitting behind a garage in town (one of many old cars sitting in that town) which I was sorely temped to bring home but as we were expecting kid #1 I had a different sort of project to undertake…
There was also an alternate design then Don Kopka designed for the planned and aborted ’62 DeSoto http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1960s-chrysler-concept-cars1.htm with a more conservative design. When we check the front end, it looked a bit like the 1961-64 full-size Mercury front (ironically Kopka worked later at Ford) and the roofline seem to predict the 4-door/6-windows sedan design who was available for the 1965-66 Chrysler Newport and 1965 Dodge 880. We could wonder what if Chrysler had chosen to got a more mainstream design for the 1962 Dodge and Plymouth a bit similar to the mid-size Fairlane or the 1963 Rambler Classic/Ambassador?
I have to go against the crowd here (and with the crowd in the world at large) and state that I have always considered the 62 Plymouth to be simply butt-ugly. It’s not the size, and not the proportions. The odd headlight treatment, the bulbous shape reminiscent of an inflatable toy, except for the big blades pasted onto the sides – its all just too much of a hash. True, it looks better than the 62 Dart, but then, what doesn’t?
The interior of the Plymouth was just as bad. The dashboard is really strange, in an asymmetrical way rather than in the earlier Chrysler jukebox motif. I could deal with the strange layout if the panel had not been silver-finished plastic that looked bad at first, and tapered off from there with age.
I love Mopars of this era for their mechanical attributes and chassis dynamics. But make mine a Chrysler or a Dodge 880, please. The only thing this car has going for it in my view is the camp factor.
Oops – I forgot to paste in the dash photo.
Love this dash (it’s a “Googie” dash!). I sort of like the rest of the car, just for the weird factor.
Space age! Love the ’62 (and ’63) Plymouth dashes. The whole cars, too! Make mine a ’62 Savoy with the 413 Max Wedge. Fastest thing on wheels!
Exactly, it’s a futuristic Googie car, the best looking car of the sixties Space Age. (Fins don’t do you much good in space.)
My favorite at the time, my favorite ever since. I especially like the front end. Circles – the headlight nozzles nicely set off by the concave curved fine mesh grill. The Valiant look works great for me, especially the way the C pillar flows smoothly into body. Compound curved shapes, wraparound rear window, nice. It has always looked well proportioned and nicely integrated to me. Love that Googie dash too, stylish and very functional.
Its Dodge sibling looks horrible to me, a mutant face. Ugliest car of all time. Remarkable how that works.
I was very sad when the Space Age of cars suddenly ended in ’63. That squared-off Plymouth looks like a ranch house.
I’m an child of Sputnik. I outgrew the steel, glass and plastic modern look in architecture, and treasure our 1910 bungalow. But in machines, especially cars, that ’62 Fury tickles my inner Jetson.
Darned site ate my picture of Googie architecture.
Again.
I think the dash was great. They didn’t have time or money to change the windshield and dash for the facelifted 1963, so they did what they could with it. The instrument bezels were made deeper and the typeface changed to something bolder – sort of Wild West font. The dash pad on the rest of the dashboard was changed to something making the rest of it look more normal. This is a bench seat 1963 sedan, but the steering wheel is the one usually on the Sport Fury.
“– sort of Wild West font.”
Love it!
Call me crazy but I like these cars, even the Dodge…then again, my dream girl is Kelly Clarkson and I love mid-century modern so I guess my taste is a bit esoteric. As noted, these cars could have been a whole lot worse had Exner had his way. Honestly,I think the guy lost it starting with the 1960 models, which set a standard for aesthetic weirdness that would be raised by the 1961s. Polarizing styling aside, I understand that the 1962s enjoyed great success on the track. Is that true?
And BuzzDog, your Turbine/mistress analogy is brilliant. I never understood why Chrysler kept throwing money into that technology long after the point of diminishing returns — just as Mazda continues to do with the Wankel.
Never noticed the similarity to the Corvair in the rear, but now I see it plainly. Looks like a Kustomizer “frenched” the plate and added rocket tail light lenses. All in all this car looks like it was designed in at least 3 or 4 different studios with none of them knowing what the other was doing until it was all tacked together and too late to change it into a cohesive design.
I honestly think I’ve developed a kind of traumatic aversion to the various Exnerian dead-ends of 1962. I could sketch most ’55 and up Mopars on a napkin, well enough for Pictionary at least, but the ’62s make me look away too soon to form an impression.
I guess I could do a Chrysler…’61 front end, pluck the wings…but the Plymouth? Oof.
I applaud your fortitude, Laurence, great pics and story. 🙂
Add me to the list of ’62 Plymouth fans! Guess there weren’t enough of them back then. My first new car was a ’62 Valiant…excellent vehicle, especially when compared to the competition.
Time has softened my feelings toward the ’62 Plymouths (I’ve always had a soft spot for most things Mopar), but I can’t ever forgive the Dodge’s hideous face.
I don’t think anyone can ever forgive the Dodge, I’ve yet to see one in person. They might as well be unicorns.
Back in the early 90s, I almost bought a 63 Dodge 330 sedan. It was a slant 6/3 speed car (beige, of course) that was a fairly low mileage original, except for upholstery. I found it at a multi-car dealer tent sale at a mall. I test drove it and offered some money, but they had it priced way too high. “This is a classic!” I walked away. I would bet that those guys were later sorry that they didn’t take my money. A few minutes later, I found the 86 fox body Marquis wagon that I went out there for in the first place, and bought it the next day.
Anyway, the 63 wasn’t THAT much better looking than the 62. If it had been a V8/pushbutton, I may have been more tempted.
I have. It made me think of the underground comix character Wonder Warthog…
From an article titled ‘The Dodge That (Almost) Ate Detroit’ on the ‘Ate Up with Motor’ website:
“The hasty, last-minute downsizing of the 1962 Dodge Dart from its original, full-size dimensions was responsible for its awkward proportions, but not the hideous, warthog-like convex grille, which was created at the insistence of Dodge general manager M.C. Patterson.”
So, although most of what became the 1962 Dodges and Plymouths was Newburg’s fault, at least the grille of the Dodge can’t be blamed on him.
I agree on the Dodge, I’ve seen a few and you really wonder what they were thinking – did they clinic cars in those days?
I’d liken it to the US version of Australia’s 1998 AU Falcon, which was too out-there aero-blob for popular taste, so both weird styling but fundamentally a well-engineered, durable car. No annual styling changes these days however so they changed the grille first and later put the upper trim level front clip across the board within 18 months.
I don’t mind the Plymouth though – but are those headlights 5.5″ or 7″? One of each would probably have made the look they were trying for work.
The headlights were both 5.5″ but the headlight surrounds on the outboard headlights of the Plymouth made them look like 7″. I never quite understood what Chrysler was going for with the ‘headlights in the grill’ look they kept using for a while there. I guess they were just trying to be different.
Whatever the reason, Chrysler’s ‘grill headlights’ were a styling gimmick that just didn’t work, and it was never more evident than with the 1962 cars that were badly styled everywhere else, as well.
The problem with the AU was that it was too far ahead of public taste. Ten years later it was a reasonably good looking car (Forte grille aside). Still hard to get into the back seat, but not so bad looking.
These though? Well, they’re coming up on sixty years old, and this Plymouth and its Dodge running mate have never looked good. Not yet.
Before reading the article, just wanted to comment on the first pic, the way the shadow on the brick building follows the lines of the top and deck lid.
…and now, after reading it, I’ll just mention the 1962 Plymouth that a fellow Mopar freak bought for a parts car. It was brown inside and out, a top-line four-door sedan with slant 6, Torqueflite, manual steering, power brakes, air, and dog-dish hubcaps. That one had it all…weird styling, odd combination of options.
I suppose the rear of the 1962 Plymouths was styled to provide a family resemblance to the rear of the 1961’s a la Frank and Fanny Farkle’s red-headed, freckled kids on Laugh-In.
I never noticed that detail about the photo before. Thanks!
That photo reminds me of an Edward Hopper painting with its use of shadow and an ordinary subject.
A ’62 Plymouth has been at the top of my wish list for years. Unfortunately, the only ones that survive do so because of an enormous V8 under the hood.
Cars (or anything else) designed to cater to the largest possible share of the market are committee-driven compromises. Why not strike out with something different?
On another point, if there is one unwavering rule in the car market, the bigger offering in any size category will always outsell (way outsell) the smaller choice. For most people, at the moment of decision, it seems you are “getting more for your money” with the bigger one. Innumerable case histories prove the point. Even in trucks, the longer wheelbase outsells the shorter one, the larger capacity van outsells the smaller.
This is why every car company, including those that made their reputation by catering to those fed up with bloated barges, ends up producing bloated barges as they seek greater market share.
I’ve always liked these cars, but I, too, only now notice the similarities to the Corvair. And, I used to own a Corvair. Maybe that’s a reason I like the looks.
But my loyalty to Chrysler of that vintage ends abruptly with the first Valiant. I don’t know what they were on when they designed that first issue of what later became a much better-looking smaller car.
I love these because they were so weird and unique. If you want your ride to look like nothing else on the road, go for Chrysler! The ’61 Plymouth especially. Looks so alien! The only car fit for a Mothra.
Mr Whopee: My 63 Valiant Signet has been called “Mothra” for the past three decades. Yes, they are just like something out of a Japanese Sci-Fi movie.
In ’62 a local used to drive around Laramie, Wyoming in a Savoy with the 413 engine. Compared with the cars real men drove, it looked hideously plain. To prove the point a 327 SS decided to show the Savoy who really owned the road when it started to pass him. It was all over as soon as the second four barrel kicked in.
Truth be told the Roger Christian/Brian Wilson penned “Shut Down”, the “hot with ram induction” 413 would’ve eaten ANY fuel-injected Stingray for breakfast. Wishful thinking for KFWB radio’s Christian who was a rod & Chevy loyalist.
Factoid: At the time, Brian Wilson drove a ’63 Grand Prix. Dennis his drummer brother, had a ’63 327 four-lot Stingray (seen on the cover of the March, 1964 album, “Shut Down, Vol II”. That cover shows Brian’s trade, a ’64 T-Bird and brother Carl’s ’64 Grand Prix).
Gotta love those old Mopars…still own a 62 Sport Fury, bought new inJanuary 62. 361 ..305 standard shift and 323′ s…ran high 12’s with only head work I performed in 1963. Still a great car converted to an auto in 1967. Also have two 63 convertibles and a 65 Satellite. The early Plymouths were the best handling. Have eleven other B and E body Dodges and Plymouths.So much for old Mopars and even older owners.
Back in ’62 a local used to drive around Laramie, Wyoming in a Savoy with the 413 engine. Compared with the cars real men drove, it looked hideously plain. To prove the point a 327 SS decided to show the Savoy who really owned the road when it started to pass him. It was all over as soon as the second four barrel kicked in.
I hated the ’62 Plymouth and Dodge when they came out, but at least for the Plymouth, it looks better after the passage of nearly 50 years. I still don’t understand Exner’s predilection for the headlamp weirdness, not putting the quad lamps in the same bezel.
My aunt and uncle had a wagon version of the Plymouth, bought used, and one day while they were visiting us, it dumped all of its engine oil on our fairly new concrete driveway entrance. What a mess!
I know where a reasonably nice ’62 Dodge Polara resides. It’s in a nearby town in a restored but unused Shell gas station, sharing space under covered aprons with a ’67 GTO and ’67 Coronet R/T. I don’t think any of the cars are operable.
The ’62 Plymouth and Dodge was one of the great mind-expanding experiences of my childhood, ever since a neighbor two doors down traded his ’56 Chrysler New Yorker (!) on a ’62 Dodge. Evolution or devolution? This was progress? How could one car company be so different from the others? That dash???
I’d love to have one, and have wanted one off and on since 1962. Great write-up, Laurence. I’ve been assuming I would find one eventually, but no such luck yet. Maybe I’ll find the Dodge! Hope springs eternal. I’m almost scared, though….
Agree!
I’d sell my ’66 Corvair Monza 4 door hardtop for a very nice ’62 Fury.
The dashboard of the ’62 Fury/Savoy is one of my all time favorites.
I’m also a big fan of the 1960/61 Valiant.
…in the early 1960s, the traditional family car buyer still looked to outward size as a symbol of value…”
Chrysler was not only 15 years early, but their specific timing couldn’t have been worse. The downsized Plymouths and Dodges were introduced just as the 1958-61 recession eased up and the economy came roaring back, driving consumers who had gone small during the downturn back towards larger cars. While no year in that era would have been a good time for the downsizing, I wonder if they may have done less bad had they come out a year or two earlier, right in the middle of the recession/boom market for smaller cars.
“So finally it was recast as what it was, one of those “just right” sized intermediates, in 1965. It retained the Belvedere name, but adding the intergalactic Satellite as top line models. Too bad they really didn’t take off. That’s the problem with trying to be different, and when that doesn’t work, trying to conform: You end up alienating both crowds, and then you have no audience. Plymouth would remain an also ran in both the Mid sized and Full Sized markets, from this point on, never to really recover any seriously competitive traction in either market.”
The downsized ’62s just killed Plymouth and Dodge in the full-size market. Full-size cars continued to be the bread-and-butter models of the U.S. market until at least the ’73 energy crisis (arguably even beyond), but Plymouth and Dodge were just never competitive after 1962. The big Plymouths would have some decent sales years in the late ’60s, sometimes even ranking as Plymouth’s best-selling product line, but their sales were always a much smaller proportion of Plymouth’s overall total than at Chevy or Ford. Dodge was a rare example in this era of a U.S. Big Three brand whose full-size cars were not even close to being its best-selling product line.
Sales seemed to drop off even further after the fuselage styling was introduced for the 1969 model year. I don’t know if the styling just didn’t click with the public, or if it was due to Chrysler’s growing reputation for poor quality (though the Chrysler brand itself didn’t seem to suffer as much as Plymouth or Dodge). Then came the ’73 energy crisis. Every manufacturer’s full-size sales were dealt a serious blow, but Plymouth/Dodge’s full-size market presence was so weak to begin with that they were pretty much knocked into irrelevance.
As for Chrysler’s mid-sizes, I think they actually were reasonably competitive in the 1965-70 era. They never sold in the same numbers as their GM and Ford counterparts, but given Chrysler’s overall market share compared to GM and Ford, I don’t think they did too badly. They were certainly more competitive than the full-size Plymouths and Dodges were. The new design introduced in ’71 did for the midsizes what the ’69 restyle had done for the full-sizes. Whether it was people just not liking the styling, or a reputation for quality issues, intermediate customers seemed to abandon Chrysler in droves. The energy crisis would leave the Plymouth/Dodge mid-sizes in only slightly better shape than the full-sizes.
You seem to have forgotten about the 1965/66 full sized Plymouth line up?
The ’75 Cordoba helped stem the losses for Mopar in the mid size market. But Oil Crisis II and the plainer versions for 80’s killed the name.
Would have to agree with MCT. Mopar sales stats in the mid-70’s showed high sales for the compacts, low numbers for full sizers, especially vis-a-vis w/the competition.
hi trev here from new zealand i am the very proud owner of a mint 1962 fury the happiest day of my life when we got her out of arizona where people laughed at her very sexy shape similar to my wife we drive her everywhere and not yet have i had any one comment that she is anything other than a very strange but sexy beast and whats more i love her
God help me, but I’ve thought the ’62s were handsome cars from sometime in late ’61 when I first laid eyes on my grandfather’s new Dart 440 four-door hardtop. Sorry, but I love these cars’ long hoods and short decks, the “speed lines” on their sides, and, yes, the Dart’s trapezoidal grille with its built-in inner lights. Even the base 318 V8 was different—a polysphere that always felt more powerful than it should for its size, won a string of Mobilgas Economy Runs, and harmonized sweetly with the authoritative whine of the Torqueflite.
So when I saw the online ad for a white/red, 318-equipped ’62 Fury last summer, I drove to see it—and left owning the car. It even has the relatively symmetrical dash from the Dart, since it’s Canadian, and at just 3,100 pounds, is both brisk and relatively frugal. And if the many compliments it gets are any indication, its Jetsons styling just may be getting better with age.
I too have always felt a special attraction to the ’62 Plymouth. It’s the fantastic, Buck Rodgers styling and it’s uniqueness — total unlike the ’61 and ’63 Plymouth. and anything else really. Even it’s “half brother” stablemate the “62 Dodge, while equally futuristic, was ungainly and just plain weird.
i have one plymouth and i want to sell this car it in mexico puebla do you want to sell
After the attractive “Forward Look” cars of 1957, Virgil Exner Sr. and his staff lost their touch. For example, they apparently tried to apply some of the styling themes of the Plymouth XNR roadster to the 1960 Valiant and the 1962 Plymouth. What looked good on the low-slung XNR looked awkward on 4-passenger sedans.
Around the same time, Exner began to rely on old styling cliches from the past, with free-standing headlights in front and spare tire bulges in back of the late-50s Imperials.
His 1966 Dusenberg, 1965 Bugatti T101, and 1965 Mercer-Cobra dream cars took the long-hood, spoke-wheel, winged-fender, chrome radiator shell grill, and free-standing headlights theme to their ultimate heights.
Paradoxically, this 1920s interpretation of elegance was aped by the Big 3 in cars like the 1969 Pontiac Grand Prix, 1969 Lincoln Continental MkIII, 1970 Chevy Monte Carlo, 1972 Ford Thunderbird, and the 1975 Chrysler Cordoba. I guess he had the last laugh!
His ultimate “masterpiece” was the Stutz Blackhawk, which actually went into limited production beginning in 1970 and continuing into the 1990s. They weren’t bad looking if you like that sort of thing, but they certainly didn’t move the ball forward in terms of styling.
I’m one of the few people who likes both the 61 and 62 Plymouth….the 62 Dodge? As others have asked: what were they thinking?
I should also add that I think the 60 and 61 Chevy are as ugly as many folks think the aforementioned Plymouths are. A 62 Chevy or Ford? There isn’t all that much difference between them, even the dashboards are quite similar.
When it comes to the mid-sized versions of these cars, if I had to chose between a 65 Chevelle, Fairlane, or Belvedere…..it would be the Belvedere, no hesitation.
The pre down-sized ’62 prototypes aren’t bad, they likely would have done better than the final result.
I’d be willing to by a ’62 Plymouth today, for the weirdness factor as others have called it, but I could not imagine buying one back in ’62.
The ’63 reskin is actually pretty handsome. It makes you wonder how things might have gone if that had come out in ’62.
I’m surprised that the dash survived into ’63 – it is both weird and looks almost truck like in finish quality. When you think about buyers in 1962 or 1963 looking at Chevy’s rather handsome and more modern dash in front of a long expanse of hood, or looking at this dash, with its cheap looking metal grill speaker panel, its not hard to see why the Chevy outsold it by huge numbers.
I seem to recall the ’63 Chevy’s no gauges, ribbon speedometer dashboard to be as bland and blahhhhhh and dull as the exterior of this year Chevy.
Never liked these,I remember seeing a fawn coloured one from the USAF base as a kid in the mid 60s.Mopar redeemed themselves for 63 though.
@ Laurence: My first car (handed down from my Dad) was a ’62 Dodge Dart 440, identical to the attached picture, except that my interior was gray. At the time, I thought it was QUITE handsome, and STILL do, regardless of your “nuclear waste” comment, LOL!! (c:
I also own a 69 Dodge A-100 Sportsman window van (like the one behind the car) powered by a 340 & 727 Torqueflite!!
That alnost looks like Captain Culpepers car from ‘Its a Mad Mad Mad Mad World’….His might have been a 4 door though.
1962 and 63 Dodge Polaras and Plymouth Furys played a big role in the 1963 movie ‘Its a Mad Mad Mad Mad World’…. Spencer Tracy’s character Captain Culpeper drove a black 62 Polara in the movie
Ahh, my first new car — a ’62 Savoy 2-door with a 318 and three on the tree. It had plenty of scat, was economical (and yes, a bit ugly in some views.) Chrysler products could not be beat in those days for handling.
The photo of the dash reminded me the Savoy had no horn ring. I ordered the deluxe wheel to get that horn ring, at just over $10. What I got was not that wheel, but the Sport Fury wheel! Incidentally, heater and cigar lighter were extras, and total cost was $2510.
My dear departed Father had this very same car (White Savoy, 318, 3 on the tree, add on A/C) for his personal car for years; leaving the varying station wagons to my Mother.
He talked about that car, literally, to the day he died! One of our last coherent conversations was about that car, the Mopar Highland Park distinctive sounding “nang nang nang” reduction geared starter, the large round speedometer, the round raised circles on Mopar’s pedals, how many kids in new first generation Mustangs got “shut down” by that 318, it’s 355 to 1 gearing and my Father’s shifting and driving abilities, gas mileage that was almost double of some of Mom’s later station wagons, how well it took the curves on River Road here in New Orleans (pre- Interstate 10 days).
Of all the various domestic and foreign cars Dad went thru (thanks to his high paying, strong 1960’s union job pay scale and tight budgeting); I believe that ’62 Plymouth was his overall favorite.
Funny how some of Dad’s and my most intimate, enjoyable conservations were about our various cars.
Pleased to read that Paul and I are not the only two ’62 Plymouth admirers here.
Ward and June Cleaver seemed to like their red ’62 Fury III 4 door hardtop also.
If this was a GM car, we’d be at Deadly Sin #486, I quite like the Plymouth front end, the Dodge…………….well, distinctive is being kind.
It’s kind of a love hate thing…love the mid century style cues like grill textures and subtle detail touches, hate the overall look and odd trim placement. You’ve got a give to Chrysler, going for it in such a non conforming way. I imagine there must have been a lot of disappointed guys in the design dept. when sales were slow. But lesson learned by ’65, those designs were mainstream, but nicely done. I would have bought one!
I don’t know if Chrysler was even building RHD cars at this time. If they had been, the asymmetric idea would have required separate hoods and trunk lids for LHD and RHD cars. Maybe that’s one reason they didn’t go that route.
I don’t think the Dodge Dart front end is that bad, the grille aside. If it had been up to me, the grille would have had a finer texture (honeycomb or egg crate) and a body-colored surround.
I am shocked to see an article about these cars and no one talks about the Belvederes and Savoys with 413 engines
These keep growing on me. And you have to wonder how things would have turned out if they released the ’64 Plymouth and Dodge in ’62. Or even the ’63s. Yes, they would have been shorter, but less so – especially the Dodge – and their styling wouldn’t have been that far off from either Ford or Chevy…
I had (for my 1st car) a 61 Plymouth Belvedere 4 door. Wish it had been a 2 door. Thing was a tank. I liked the styling of the 61 better than the 62 especially the dash. I liked the way the horizontal speedo bar appeared to fill with red liquid as speed increased. I don’t know what it was about the early 318 engines, but they had some serious torque and power for their displacement. I had the speedo filled red to 120+ mph quite a few times. The cloth for the seats was horrid. The colors didn’t contrast with the vinyl at all and wasn’t very durable. It was a good car mechanically and had a good tight body that didn’t have any squeaks or rattles nor did windows or trunk leak.(can’t say that about my 03 Cadillac Deville) With over 120k miles I traded it for a 67 Dodge Dart GT.
Customers were born with working eyes back in the 1960’s – they generally avoided awful design like the plague.
Today we have the opposite – Honduh buyers being easily fooled and conned into thinking that Honduhs are reliable based solely on their history 20 years ago are worth buying even as they get uglier and uglier every year. Toyoduh buyers are equally bullish on ugly for the same reason – perception of the past, not on the actual reality.
I think the 1963 Plymouth was sharp and tight and thankfully not as bloated as what GM was putting out. I can’t say the 1962 is good looking in any way.
You cannot blame Exner for the 1962 downsized cars. The intended 1962 Super Sport that Exner had intended was a much better design. See Allpar dot com. Or wikipedia.
Exner’s concepts were extreme. With common sense and a “good eye” Chrysler could have had decent styling in production models.
Exner was in poor health back then and his associates created the downsized 1962s which Exner called plucked chickens-the 1962 Plymouth is the obvious plucked chicken, the Dodge to a lesser extent. Exner has been demonized and the object of false myths. He did not mean “plucked chicken” as a reference to the removal of fins.
Exner created some good looking concept cars in the early 1950s. But these concept ideas were not well integrated into then production cars. Exner shares blame for this.
Exner contributed to the “Detroit Look” which influences all automotive stylists worldwide. GM stylists and Ford stylists and others of course contributed to this as well.
I think that a large proportion of people cannot really “see” good styling, including many auto executives which could explain why the 1962 Plymouth was built as is.
The 1963 Plymouth and Dodge were Exner’s restyling of the 1962 models according to some sources, when his health improved. Engle approved them. Exner was stuck with the reality of the downsize attempt. The ’63s were not greatly styled autos.
The article above is poorly informed. Too much Exner myth, and Exner bashing.
I am going to argue with you just a little. Virgil Exner’s ideas were quite outside of the mainstream after his stunning 1957 Forward Look designs. Yes, he was ill for a time but he retained his title and his designers knew the themes that he was going after. The 1960 Plymouth XNR roadster and the 1961 Dodge Flite Wing clearly show the direction his styling was going.
It is true that the 1962 Plymouth and Dodge were rush jobs and it is also true that their downsized proportions were out of Exner’s control. However, can we say that the 1960-61 models (that gave him full-sized cars to style) were any better? But Exner was way out front of the market with long hood/short deck proportions and full open wheels which the 1962 Plymouth and Dodge displayed. Proportions that were quite unlike what was selling in big numbers at the time.
I love Exner designs just for their sheer audacity. But his styling leadership that vaulted Chrysler to the forefront in 1955-57 would also bring it crashing back down onto the rocks by 1960-62. And arguably beyond, as the disaster borne of Exner’s desire to lead the industry in styling resulted in Lynn Townsend’s equally disastrous styling conservatism that would typically result in cars 3 years behind the styles in GM and Ford showrooms. The early 1960s belonged to Bill Mitchel and Elwood Engel, who both had a much better handle on what the public would find attractive.
All you have to do is look at the cancelled full-size ’62 prototypes to see he’d lost the plot.
And in reply to the post you commented on, Exner was referring to being forced to pull the fins off the ’61 Plymouth, and the ’62 Chrysler and Imperial, not the downsized B-bodies when he made that comment. Because there was nary a fin to pluck in the cancelled full size designs preceding them.
The ’62 Plymouth wasn’t all that bad, the Dodge was a total styling disaster! It looked like pieces of several other cars and some of a Picasso painting thrown together. Almost as bad was the original Valiant. Compared to the clean and simple Falcon and the daring Corvair, it was a mess, from its mismatched front and rear and awkward greenhouse to the phony spare on the trunk. No wonder it never held its own in the compact car wars. Too bad, as it had the best engine of the bunch, the Slant Six. And all from the pen of the guy who made the most beautiful total car line ever, the ’57 Forward Look. From Plymouth business coupe to Imperial convertible, not a bad one in the bunch. Oh well, all styling under the bridge now.
I love my 1962 Plymouth Sport Fury! It was formerly owned by singer/producer, Richard L. Carpenter and was on display in his museum for many years. I love the styling and the interest it generates at car shows and cruise-ins!
The shape and proportions of the 62 Plymouth predicted the Ford Fairlane, Chevrolet Chevelle (and cousins) and finally the 1977 Chevrolet Impala (and cousins). But Chrysler didn’t have the money to produce the compact Valiant, a mid-size car, AND a full size Fury. I think if they had toned down the odd styling just a little, it could have been a home run.
I wonder this too – just how essential was the 65 C-body? Their development came in the wake of the 62s reception, but by 1964-65 the platform’s polarizing styling was so thoroughly toned town that they could pass for a big car with more modest dimensions, which was the goal all along. If Chrysler would have committed to the B body being standard size, at least with Dodge and Plymouth, it surely would have saved them considerable money on developing the biggies, and B bodies were always intermediate plus in their dimensions anyway, with more width and longer wheelbases than Ford or GM intermediates.
The need for a C-body Plymouth and Dodge is a good question. A mere two years after the goofy ’62 cars, the ’64 Fury looked okay (although the ’64 Polara now had the ’62 Plymouth’s ‘dumb-bell’ front end). One of the biggest ‘what ifs’ for Chrysler is how the 1962 downsized cars might have sold if they originally looked like what they would by 1964.
What’s more, consider what happened after Iacocca took over and Chrysler’s sole big car became none other than a rebodied Volare/Aspen.
The irony is that, eventually, Chrysler would be the last domestic marque to sell a RWD big car with an available V8 drivetrain.
The ’65 C was derived from the ’64 full size Chrysler and Dodge 880, not as if they did a ‘clean sheet’ design. Needed to match the huge selling GM and Ford lines at the time, and bring in profit. No one could have imagined any sort of ‘gas crisis’ a decade later.
Oh this is good. 60 years from now they will still be talking about these cars. Bizarre styling. Sorry, it hurts my brain to look at these things.
The half Valiant/half Corvair very succinctly sums up what I always thought of the ’62 Chryslers and never could find the exact words. I’ve always been surprised that Chrysler didn’t declare bankruptcy in 1962 due to the terrible reception and sales they engendered. Conversely, the 1963 Chryslers were fabulous looking cars-the exact opposite of the ’62s.
I’m another always-loved-them guy for the ’62s. My dream car then would have been a black Fury convertible, though now I like the wagons the most. The only one I’ve driven was a red hardtop, a loaner when my recently-bought Volvo 544 had broken its fuel-pump diaphragm, filling the crankcase and instantly running the bearings. Had it been irreparable I’d have gladly taken the Plymouth! The pillarless top and automatic were not on my want list, but the car drove exactly like a big Volvo, all big-hearted and big-footed rowdy fun. I got about two weeks of that, and then a very well-rebuilt Volvo engine (the guy built dirt-trackers as his main thing) out of it as well. Good times!
All I remember about these early 60s Chrysler cars is they hauled ass when adorned with a V8. I think it was the automatic transmissions they had. Seemed more efficient than Ford or GM.
The Savoy series is the best looking version of this car. Too much bling- including full hubcaps- distracts from styling elements that still have currency: the long hood/short deck, the back window shape, the wheel openings. The 62 Chevy with its long rear deck looks ridiculous today. This car still looks like an original- standing outside of time, a little like the Avanti.
I agree about the Savoy being the best-looking, for the same reasons.
Conservative. Does anyone recognize the meaning? I am not speaking ‘Politically’!
Here is a 1963 Plymouth Belvedere which I gave my high school graduating son as a gift some 35 years ago. The car remains on the road with multiple 100,000 miles having passed under it’s wheels. Thousands of taxi cabs and police cars wore this exact body, Those of you old enough will remember. If not exposed to rust and corrosive environments or neglect, these cars were so well made that they could still be on the road as this one is.
The transmission was and is the nearly indestructible 727 Torqueflite, famous in drag racing behind the mighty cross-ram 413 and 426 engines. Yes, it still looks this good because it was cherished and maintained! They were GREAT cars.
These write ups are only really one persons opinion. However I think the Author has been derailed by the unconventional appearance of these cars. They were a downsized from previous years and the beginning of unibody for chrysler. As far as 15 years ahead? No not at all. This is by no means comparable to the cars of 76-77.
Not in style or amenities. The cars with the big fins were not ahead of there time because of the outlandish style. They were in their time. A specific four year window
If this article was written about a 53 studebaker that actually did look more like the cars of 15 years later I would be a lot more understanding of the Authors point of view.
If there was a Chrysler product of the era that was a decade or more ahead of its time in style and offerings it would probably be the Imperial.
The comparison to cars such as the 77 Chevrolet are based on the proportion of the cars only, not the styling. The long hood, short deck smaller size “full size” car. It predicted the intermediates of the mid to late 60’s and then the downsized full size cars of 77-79. I don’t think anyone believes that the styling of the 62 could have been introduced in 77.
I always loved Laurence Jones’ pictures when he was a regular contributor. He has a very distinct style that really goes well with the subjects of CC.
They look rather like film pictures. Paul: do you know if they are?
No. Photoshop. Or the equivalent.
I love this ad above shouting “Alive!” It brings to my mind either (1) the 1993 American biographical survival drama film based on the true story of men living through a catastrophic plane crash (by means of cannibalism), or (2), the desperate ad pitch for the final 1960 Edsel – “New! Nifty! Thrifty!”. I think more of the latter. As my Ex-Partner used to say to me often; “keep trying to convince me!”
“They were about 15 years ahead of their time in size and weight…”
Exterior size, yeah. But, compared to 1977 GM full size cars’ interior room and trunk space, Mopar B’s were smaller. The ’77 Fury/Monaco descendant of ’62 Fury, sold at same time, were mid size cars in and out. If the 62’s had true full size room/cargo area, then sure, “ahead of time.”