(first posted 6/14/2015. updated 6/13/2021) Poor Virgil Exner; poor Dodge. The early sixties were such a rough time for them both; they were so misunderstood. Or they just misunderstood the American buyer. Both, realistically. But the damage from the 1962 models was done, and now the clean-up crew—headed by new Design VP Elwood Engel—had to get Dodge (and the other Chrysler lines) sanitized and looking less alien. By 1964, the job was pretty much finished, although it didn’t exactly result in a very compelling car. But it was bland and safe.
We’ve covered the whole 1962 fiasco here and several other times. And while I thought the ’62 Plymouths and Dodges were a bit…different when they first appeared in 1962, there were certain compelling aspects. They certainly weren’t boring; beat looking at 1962 Rambler Classics any day.
And when our neighbor two houses down traded his ’55 DeSoto for a red ’62 Dart 440 four door hardtop, I got plenty of time to see it up close. Refreshingly different, actually.
Most folks think the ’62 Dodge got the short end of the ugly stick, and I admit the Plymouth goes down a bit easier. But in recent times, I’ve become only increasingly fond of the Dodge, perhaps because of that early exposure. Appreciating the Dodge may be an acquired taste. Part of that may be that it’s just such an exceptional period piece, but as I’ve read more about Exners, I’ve come to appreciate more what he was trying to accomplish. Undoubtedly, the ’62s might have looked better on a longer wheelbase, but much of the styling details would likely have carried over; regardless, the Dodge is a veritable palette of Exnerisms.
I’d take that white 1962 Polara 500 convertible (two photos up, sporting a non-Exner add-on side marker light the its front fender) over our featured 1964 Polara in a heartbeat. In fact, the longer I look at this car, the more I really want it. It’s anything but bland, which is what Chevrolet and Ford were dishing up that year by the boatload.
To find the origins of all the details of the 1962 Dodge would require a more in-depth investigation of all of Exner’s projects at the time, so we’ll save that for a 1962 Dodge CC. But his 1961 Plymouth Asymmetrica is probably the richest source of its front end. The only surprising thing about the production ’62s was that none of the asymmetrical details made it to the end. Now that would have been something.
Of course much of the rest of the 62’s design direction had already been seen on the 1960 Valiant, except the front end. Exner’s big mistake was to introduce radically new styling on a compact, and then reprising it on the large cars in 1962. That’s considered a cardinal sin. Of course, I’m not sure holding off until 1962 would have really helped the ’62s.
It’s also a bit surprising that the rather less-than stellar reaction to the Valiant wasn’t enough to turn the design for the ’62s toward a safer direction. But by then it was probably too late anyway.
It’s been firmly established that the sanitized 1963 line was styled under the direction of Exner at the very clear behest of new CEO Lynn Townsend. The original plan had been to just change the front ends of the Dodge and Plymouth. But Townsend, who had never liked the ’62’s, pushed hard to have the whole body to be worked over, substantially changing the roof line to a more Ford-like one, and the rear end extended and squared off.
When new Design VP Elwood Engel saw them for the first time, he is said “These are good-looking cars. What’s the big deal?” The only known change to these cars were an extra trim piece to be added at the outside edge of the Dodge grille, but production problems nixed them in the end anyway. It showed that Exner was quite capable of doing conventional cars, when forced to.
But there’s also the curious convergence of designs from both Exner and Engel in the form of the Turbine car.
Engel is credited with the 1963 Chrysler Turbine car, which reflected the 1961 T-Bird in overall concept. Its slab sides and unbroken horizontal lines make that all-too obvious.
Its prominent front end headlights (and rear end ) seem to be inspired by the 1958 Ford La Galaxia concept, which is credited to Engel.
Given the similarities, I used to assume that the 1963 Dart front end must also have been a last-minute change by Engel. Not so. The ’63 Dart front end with its prominent headlights and tucked-under grille was finished before Engel ever set a foot at Chrysler, and it was not touched by him. I have to assume that Engel decided to use a similar front end for the Turbine Car in large part because of that ’63 dart front end, likely more than any lingering thoughts about the La Galaxia. The Turbine Car has more Exner in it than is typically credited.
The 1963 Dodge front end is obviously quite similar to both the ’63 Dart.
Those prominent headlights would have one last fling for 1964, but toned down considerably by Engel.
It was the transition to the dog-bone front end of the all-new 1965 big Dodges, which were of course the first cars to be fully developed under Engel, in all of their rectilinear splendor. The last vestiges of Exneruberance was gone, forever.
Well, not totally, yet. The 1965 Dodge Coronet was essentially the 1962-1964 Dodge re-branded as an “intermediate”, and sporting a 117″ wb for all versions other than the wagons, which kept their original 1962 116″ wb throughout. Chrysler couldn’t afford to “Engelize” the rear end of the wagons, so the Niedermeyer family 1965 Coronet wagon sported a highly authentic Exner rear end,
as well as a very bland Engel front end. It was the most extreme manifestation of a hybrid of the two. And needless to say, these Chrysler B-Bodies were never quite realy “intermediates” thanks to their having started life as a slightly downsized full-size car with essentially full-size interiors. They were roomier than the Fairlane by a healthy margin (ask me how I know), and of course sported optional big block engines. It was an expedient solution to re-brand them as intermediates, and helped save Chrysler’s bacon as it recuperated from the dark 1962 era.
The 1963 and 1964 Dodges had a wheelbase stretch to 119″ (1962: 116″), which was actually the same as the big Chevrolet and Ford of the era. And this Dodge Polara matched the Chevrolet in over-all length; well, it was one-tenth of an inch shorter, actually. So with their increased length to match their interiors room, in 1963 and 1964 these were legitimately full-sized cars.
When I say “Dodge”, I’ve been referring of course to their primary “full-sized’ line of cars, which were dubbed Dart and Polara in 1962, and 330, 440, and Polara in 1963-1964. But Dodge was also selling a premium-sized car too. When the sales of the downsized-full sized 1962 cars were obviously heading into the toilet, Dodge rushed out the big Custom 880, an amalgam of the Chrysler Newport body and the 1961 dart front clip. It sat on a long 122″ wb, and clearly bridged the low-end full-sized market with the next step up.
For 1963, the 880 got a new front end, and in 1964, the rear end was Engelized too. Frankly, I’d forgotten that these 880s were even available as convertibles, as I don’t think I’ve ever seen one. Their 1957-era windshields gave them away as rolling relics of the early Exner era, just like the Imperial. This 1964 880 convertible listed for $3264, or some 10% more than our featured Polara, but almost exactly the same as a Polara 500, which had buckets as standard. A bit confusing, all of it. But that was Chrysler at the time.
If the 880 convertible was a veritable unicorn, this Polara rag-top wasn’t exactly a common sight ever either. These Dodges were very weak sellers compared to the ubiquitous Impalas and Galaxies. Finding this nicely-kept original Polara convertible at the beach near Half Moon bay, CA was about as unexpected as seeing a marlin (the fish) in the ocean out past the beach there. Its a classic California-mobile; original; a wee bit faded, not a hint of rust anywhere, and obviously garaged by its primary owners for decades. Now it’s an extremely cool car to drive for lunch at equally-cool Sam’s Chowder House.
Although it’s not a Polara 500, it does have split front seats with a fold down arm rest, a much nicer arrangement than the plain benches in Impalas and Glaxies. It was a classic Chrysler touch: forward-looking, if not fully appreciated in its time. Let’s face it: the 1962 116″ Dodge and Plymouth were actually a great size, avoiding the excess of America’s ever-growing full size cars with plenty of room, and better performance and handling thanks to trimmer weight. The predicted the downsized GM B-Bodies with their 116″ wheelbases perfectly.
1964 was the last year for Chrysler’s push-button controls for its excellent Torqueflite automatic transmission. This car most likely has the polysphere 318 V8 under the hood, but if one wanted more performance, Dodge had the answer, in spades. Two versions of the 383 were the first steps up, and the might wedge 426 was next, in a sane 365 hp version, or the ram-inductions versions with 415 and 425 hp.
The Polara’s dash is pretty basic, and some of the chromed parts show signs of the underlying yellow plastic base. That goes along with the California sun-bleached look.
Ideally, I’d have taken a few more shots, but I’m out. And so is my story. I wish it had been a ’62, but until one appears, this Engelized version will have to do. And quite nicely, at that.
Related:
Automotive History: 1962 Plymouth and Dodge – Brilliant Blunder PN
CC 1963 Chrysler New Yorker: Virgil Exner Comes Full Circle With Some Help by Jim Cavenaugh
CC 1963 Dodge Custom 880: The One That Got Away by Laurence Jones
My older brother, Bruce’s first car was a used, black ’64 Dodge 330 4 door with red interior and a 225 cid Slant Six. It was a more than adequate performer with that venerable mill, and refreshingly nimble. One thing you couldn’t complain about relative to the Exner “cocktail party gaffe” downsizing was the handling in those years. And if the styling of the ’64s was bland, it was substantial looking, especially in front, which was an Engel trademark, even if not directly attributable to him by conflicting historical evidence.
That car also plays a part in a recurring memory for me, the kind of one-scene flashback that certain conditions bring to mind along well worn nerve paths.
It happens in the campfire colored light of late afternoon.
It’s around 1970. Summertime. I’m driving, solo, down to Providence, Rhode Island on Route 495 just after dinner in Bruce’s Dodge from our home in Bolton, MA to visit college friends at RISD. The interior of the car is bathed in bright yellow from behind that makes the red bits glow like ripened jalapeños on the vine. I’m squinting against the sun’s reflection, flipping the day/night switch on the rearview mirror. The Dodge’s front windows might be open, as I can hear the whoosh of cars around me, and am aware that they are loosely connected to mine at speed, like a flight of bombers in formation. The radio might be on. If the blinding light is slightly disturbing, it’s accompanied by the anticipation of fun at college with buddies who stayed on for the summer.
I’m betting I’m not the only one with fond memories of a car and the setting sun. Mine just happen to include a ’64 Dodge…
Back in the mid ’90’s, our next-door neighbor had a ’64 Polara convertible in a slightly darker shade of blue. He’d bought it new (trading a ’57 Chevy for it) and kept it as strictly a summer car, with a mid-80’s New Yorker as a daily driver. By the time he died in 2002 I believe it still had less than 40,000 miles on the clock. I always liked that series of Mopars – they had a more trim, athletic look than their Ford and GM counterparts.
My first car was a ’65 Dodge Polara convertible. Primer grey. 125 bucks. Bought at a bar made payments.
Great discussion. That range looks like it was put together in the middle of a fight. The excellence of the 65 fullsizer sticks out like the proverbials.
Misread that as “in the middle of the night”. That might also apply.
The 880 might have made some sense as the rear seat of this Polara looks a little short on legroom. Now that I think about it, the B52s were singing about Chryslers. This Dodge doesn’t look like it could seat about 20.
Exner always seemed to me a bad fit for Chrysler. He is always ready to throw up interesting period details that look so great all these years later. But I wonder if The good engineering/ high value market where this Polara had to fight, would have been better served by boxier shapes that would have emphasized the rationality of Dodges offering. Chryslers biggest success in the 60’s market were Valiants. The space efficiency of the 67-76 saw them far roomier/ larger trunk than the other domestic compacts and even some mid size. With Torqueflites and competitive slant sixes and V8s, a midsize with full size room could have hit. Engel did a good job with formal detailing and giving presence to cars. The flashy types would have stayed away, but I can see many a cheap, but rational buyer lining up, the way they did for the Valiants.
Thanks for the writeup. Lots of detail new to me.
The fight theme makes sense. It’s hard to entirely blame Exner, considering that he was still capable of beautiful work. The ’63 was a partial return to his best work, somewhat resembling the ’55 DeSoto at the rear.
Blame really belongs to upper management for failing to PROOFREAD Exner’s horrible ’62s. If anyone with a sales mind had been able to give orders, those designs would have been tossed at the pencil sketch stage. Somebody would have reminded Exner that he knew how to design salable autos.
+1
As someone who grew up in the 1970s I always thought these early 60s Chrysler products were just weird. But I grew up in a Ford and GM household. But I have come to like them lately, and probably would not kick one out of the driveway. Especially a 64 Valiant drop top with a 273 and 4 speed. 🙂
Growing up in the ’70s and as a GM guy, I loved early ’60 Mopars BECAUSE they were “weird”, there was nothing like them from Ford or GM. Styling is a personal thing but admittedly the 1962 Plymouth and Dodge lines “failed” due to their size. It would take the market a decade and a half to catch up.
Grew up in the 70s also had many a Mopar. Fury, Polara, Valient, Barracuda. to name a few. Oh to have those today. I’d be at Mecum.
All I really remember about Mopars of this era was that they were weird. Nobody in my family ever owned one, although I recall my father driving a brown 63 Polara one weekend, most likely because a coworker borrowed Dad’s station wagon. Even though I was probaby only 4, I remember insisting on a ride. It was strange. Not “cool” strange, more like “woah, these are for, like, other people, but never us” strange.
Funny, I don’t even remember the 64 as a new or late model car. Not until I found a model kit of one in the early 70s did I start to pay attention to these.
The 64 is, to me, a fascinating design. It is at the intersection of odd and normal. The 2 door hardtops got that trapezoidal C pillar that Chrysler liked so much in the mid 60s, but so much of the rest of the car was just a little off. Almost really attractive, but not quite. But I like it better than any of the others. The 65 was cleaner, but lacked character and was no more attractive. The only real letdown on these is the cheap plastichrome dash that Chrysler was really into in those years.
“It was strange. Not “cool” strange, more like “woah, these are for, like, other people, but never us” strange.”
There is something to your comment. Not a single Mopar on my street when we moved in in 1969. The street was a GM B and C fest with a few Fords to shake things up – not surprisingly, a Country Squire was one of the two Fords – one of only two wagons on the street – the other was a ’62 Buick wagon – a bit of a unicorn itself.
The first Mopars to make it in were visiting grandparents at one house that had a ’65 New Yorker, and that family eventually bought a ’73 New Yorker Brougham for themselves. The kid next door became a ‘Cuda fan and brought in at least three used ones.
When I was a kid, my mother’s aunt had a 64 Plymouth Savoy 2 door sedan and friends of my folks had a 64 Dodge wagon (440, I think). Nearly everyone else I knew seemed to have a Ford or Chevy. I thought my “grand aunt’s” car was kind of cool because except for a tinted windshield, automatic transmission, and power brakes and steering….it was a real stripper, not even an AM radio. The Dodge I thought was so cool because it was different without being weird. It was a stripper, too, baving “3 on the tree” and body colored wheels with tiny (dog dish) hubcaps and black wall tires. It may even have had a slant 6 like the Savoy.
BTW, I’d rather have a 65 Belvedere wagon than the Coronet pictured as the Plymouth grille isn’t nearly as anonymous looking.
Ya’ll say what ya want……but I STILL want a ’62 Plymouth Belvedere/Fury and a ’60/’61 Valiant V200 in my driveway.
’62 plymouth sport fury 2door hardtop was a cool car.
Yet another instance of where powder/baby blue makes all the difference for me. If this car were white or even red I’d not give it a second look, but this one makes me want to capture it as exactly as Laurence Jones. It’s the blue, man…
Also great to learn a lot of Chrysler history, as I hadn’t read the other links previously.
Agree, Orrin, this shade of “Baby Blue” looks awesome on certain cars.
My Father (Mom soon stole it from him) had a baby blue ’71 Opel 1900/Manta.
That color made the car quite handsome, to my eyes.
My second grade teacher and her husband followed up their all-white ’60 Dart Phoenix convertible with an all-white ’64 Polara convertible, this car only all white. Summer days would see them towing their boat, convertible top up, out of town to a regional lake where they had a small cabin. Only at the lake did the top get folded, never here in the small town, too showy for this conservative couple. As he is short and stocky, wearing his captain’s hat as he drove, and she tall and lean, my mother used to note “there goes Popeye and Olive Oyl off to the lake”. Both are still with us, well into their 80’s, active….but have driven LeSabres and Impalas for decades, the days of the all-white Dodge convertibles now only a memory.
Count me as a Virgil Exner fan. I think he was arguably the best U.S. designer in the 1950s, and was always a master of proportion and form. From what I have read, between Ex’s heart attack and much political turmoil at Ma Mopar in the late 1950s and early 1960s, he wasn’t fully in control of the 1962 designs and they were “bastard” children as a result. In general, Exner foresaw the “long hood, short deck” look that would become the defining characteristic of the late 1960s through the early 1970s. I think his eccentric detailing was his weakness.
Elwood Engel had his moments, though primarily at FoMoCo. At Chrysler, I think he was forced by exceedingly risk averse management to primarily execute reworks of his past successes. I love the 1965 through 1968 Mopar full-sizers, but I don’t think they broke any new ground and were arguably the most conservative of the Big Three. Ditto for the 1968 Charger–a gorgeous car, but basically a rehash of already prevalent themes. When Engel did break out, as with the fuselage cars, something was just a little “off” with the proportions.
With both Exner and Engel, I think Chrysler’s dysfunctional management limited their ultimate capabilities. For this whole era, Chrysler was a mixture of “flawed” and “genius” and the designs reflected that reality as well.
Count me as one who loves early 60s Mopar styling.My grandather had a `64 Dodge Polara coupe,black with red interior and a 383. Even that push button gear shift was cool.Build quality wasn`t up to GM standards, but that 383 really left a nice patch of rubber through the posi rear.Very impressive , especially to a car crazy 15 year old.
I don’t what color that second ’62 Polara 500 is called in this article, but that car epitomizes all that I liked about the ’62 Dodges as a 9 year old. It was “space-age”, perhaps overdone, but I loved it and still do. And the ’63 Dart GT pictured is a handsome car to me, we had one, and I feel that similar to yesterday’s ’67 Chevelle article, the succeeding years of that Dart didn’t match the appeal of the ’63. Overall, Chrysler Corp products from the 1960’s just fascinate me.
I think Chrysler went through something of a midlife crisis in the late 50’s and it worked for them for a while but then it didn’t. The 60’s got weirder as the years went by but people didn’t want weird cars to do weird things in. Weird.
While the ’64 Dodge wasn’t exactly a huge seller, they sold enough in the American Midwest that I recall seeing them with some frequency in decrepit condition in the early 1970’s. The triple taillight arrangement (if somewhat stolen from Chevy) along with the Dodge fratzog was fairly distinctive.
Not a bad looking car, but not a great look either. I’ve been sympathetic to Mopar over the years, and have purchased three of their modern products since the mid 1990s. In ’64, as much later, Chrysler offered some great features – the drive train is way more appealing than a typical Chevy of the era, and nice touches – that front seat really stands out. But, that dash is a pretty tough compromise to live with. Way too basic for a mildly upscale car. It looks like it was penned by the stylist’s kid when he was too drunk one morning to show up for work, and junior had to step in to save the mortgage money.
A unicorn, but a handsome one. It actually comes across as more prestigious than the ’64 Chrysler – as Paul makes clear, confusing times at Chrysler that didn’t get sorted out until 1965.
A pretty good effort for a mish mash of stuff from the parts bin and a mild restyle on those parts, I’d love to have one of these ’64 880s.
you know the story how the ’62’s were a rushed downsize. I think the ’62 Dodge would have looked great with the proposed curved side glass. I think alot of NASA engineers drove early ’60’s Mopars and that’s what i think of when i see one. Like someone said, spaceage.
The 1962 Chrysler models always struck me as as an enormously missed opportunity to really make some cool cars that had solid engineering and were not gargantuan for the sake of simply delivering more car poundage for your shopping dollar. The basic engineering on these cars was top of field in the day, and discerning buyers knew it. Unit bodies were not weaker than body on frame, not by a long shot. The cars had torsion bar suspension and the best automatic in the business. It had a alternator so battery woes were gone. The cars, in my opinion, since I have driven pretty much all the iron of the era, simply drove better than the Ford and GM stuff of the time. Finally, the size was right.
But the cars were butt-ugly, sprouting doo-hickies and weird stampings all over the place. Weird impresses stylists, ad managers and marketers. It does not impress the buying public. The Corvair is a perfect example of this, it was all over for it long after Nader castigated it in his book, although he has been misquoted all over the place.
The public still doesn’t like weird and the car makers are just the same. That’s why in 2015, the vast majority of us are driving with the technology that was used in the Great War. I mean, what other tech from that time are we still using? Boring gasoline powered cars are what drives the market, the Camry everyone so loves to hate. And even it’s available as a hybrid!
Agreed. The ’62s were excellent cars; the GM ’77 B Body 15 years earlier.
One wonders how they would have been received if the styling was conventional.
It’s hard to say. In one way, it’s hard to see how a smaller “standard” line could have been successful, since bigger really was better in 1962. On the other hand, the 1962’s were the basis of the very successful Coronet-Satellite series, which sold very well. In fact, the Coronet could be said to have vindicated the concept, since by 1965 it was Dodge’s top seller, with more than 200k a year being sold. Were I to buy a new car in 1966, it would almost definitely been a Coronet with 318 and Torqueflight. The size was right and the drive train tried and true. Mopars always handled better, too.
Good question, the 1963 models was more mainstream, more conventional in the case of Plymouth and we could wonder what if they skipped the 1962 design to go straight with the 1963 proposals.
As for the last “Exneruberance”, the Dodge Sweptline pick-up truck survived until 1971.
On a off-topic sidenote, one guy transformed a 1964 Dodge 880 into a 1959 Custom Royal. https://mystarcollectorcar.com/march-2021-the-original-transformer-a-1964-dodge-880-transformed-into-a-59-dodge-custom-royal/
Which reminds me why Dodge didn’t revived the Custom Royal monicker instead of using “Custom 880”?
Thanks for the link. That’s a great website, it seems to concentrate on the ordinary everyday cars that we grew up with.
I like the full-Exner. When I was a kid, we had a ’62 Dodge sedan, then a ’64 Dodge wagon the same color as your feature car. Both were beaters my dad had picked up for cheap. At the time I thought the ’62 just looked weird, half-baked. But I’ve grown to appreciate the Exner designs. My fav design was the one in between, the 1963 Dodge. Oh, and my grandfather had the first year of Valiant.
I love the 62 Dodge and Plymouth. Seems Ford did too. The Mustang borrowed not just the long hood and short deck, but also major elements of the front.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Dodge-1962-Polara-conv.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/Red_1968_gtcs_front.JPG
http://bringatrailer.com/wp-content/plugins/PostviaEmail/images/1965_Ford_Mustang_Fastback_For_Sale_Front_Grass_resize.jpg
“The 1963 and 1964 Dodges had a wheelbase stretch to 119″ (1962: 116″), which was actually the same as the big Chevrolet and Ford of the era.”
Does anyone know where the three inches was added?
Plymouth, of course, was stuck with the original 1962 116″ wheelbase all the way through to 1964.
Classic cars would be a lot more boring without Elwood Engel. The downsizing was not his idea, he just took the fall for it.
I’m thinking you mean Virgil Exner?
The 1962 Polara 500 was always interesting to me because for just that model the designers took all the chrome off all the sculpturing, slapped a huge fake louver panel on the rear fender, and added a major car-long trim piece that created a line that wasn’t really there. Also a really cool interior, although I Iike the Plymouth instrument pod better. I had a ’63 Plymouth Sports Fury with the completely different, more conservative but still mostly Exnerish body and about the same interior as the ’62. They made a couple quick changes to make the instrument panel a little more normal: a different pad on the top and deeper rings etc. and different type face on the instruments to bolden the look. The Dodge might have had the same instruments both years. Unlike everyone else I liked the hated ’62 Dodge and Plymouths a lot.
They did drive completely differently from the GM and Ford competition. Far better handling with I assume better geometry and tighter springs and shocks. Far lighter and faster power steering (3.5 turns), which wasn’t even integrated in to the steering boxes of the others until 1965, while Chrysler’s always was. The unit body was probably a lot stiffer than a frame. And the air conditioning was integrated with vacuum doors, very similar to modern systems, while Ford and Chevy were not yet. Well, maybe Chevy?
One little note: the windshield shape on the 880 was indeed from 1960, but the whole basic Imperial structure was from 1957, and body on frame unlike the 880. It kept the same windshield even when heavily disguised by Engel with the slab sided boxy ones from ’64-’66.
Our neighbors had a white 1962 Dodge Dart station wagon as their “old” car in the early 1970s, and I loved looking at it because it was so different and unusual looking. They were a Mopar family, so parked next to the 1962 Dart was a blue 1969 Coronet 440 sedan. It was hard to believe that both cars were based on the same platform!
The 1962 models were nicely sized, but their details have a 1950s air about them. This is particularly true of the Dart and Polara. The haphazard placement of character lines and chrome trim, along with the staggered headlights of the Dodges, were woefully out of step with the times in the early 1960s. Park a 1962 Pontiac Catalina or Chevrolet Impala next to the Mopars – particularly the Dodges – and it’s easy to see why these cars were duds in the marketplace, despite their mechanical excellence.
The heavily face-lifted 1963 and 1964 cars did better in the marketplace – particularly the Plymouth. But Chrysler Corporation never truly recovered from the 1962 fiasco. Dodge and Plymouth full-size cars accounted for a relatively low percentage of the total sales of their respective divisions, even after they were “upsized” in 1965. The full-size Dodge was either the lowest selling, or second lowest selling (before Mercury), full-size car for the remainder of the 1960s.
I’ve always liked the “weird for weird’s sake” look of the late Exner-mobiles, but at the same time, it’s clear why they didn’t sell originally. By ’65 a change was needed, with Engel’s sharp-edged designs fitting the bill perfectly.
I really don’t care for the front end of the ’64. It has a suggestion of the truck/van “pie plate” headlight trim, and in general strikes an odd balance between conservative and peculiar. The ’63 is much more like it. I do have some passing experience with the ’64 though. When I was a student at NC State University, back in the early ’00s, I would regularly see a ’64 Polara in one of the student parking areas. White sedan, in quite good condition, looked mostly stock. It definitely stood out amongst all the late-model surroundings. And that car was the first one where I took notice of the Fratzog. When did it appear, exactly?
The Fratzog debuted for 1962.
I have to wonder why they didn’t rebrand the ’62 B-bodies as intermediate/midsize a year or two sooner.
They weren’t branded as “Intermediates” in 1965 either, In fact, the tag line for ’65 Coronet advertising was “Coming On Big For ’65”. Chrysler didn’t use the term “intermediate”. It was just something that industry watchers or the media coined, and lumped these technically full-size cars into that, because the new C0Bodies were even bigger.
If only the ’62 cars could’ve had 1965’s build/materials quality and warranty with 1968’s reputation…then we in 2021 might know just how much of their commercial unsuccess was down to the styling.
In a word, money. The likely malarky about Newberg’s cocktail party eavesdropping being the primary reason for it aside, everyone in the auto industry knew downsizing was coming, thanks largely to the success of the 1960 compacts. Ford and GM, with their much deeper pockets, could more easily come out with smaller, model lines separate from their traditional big cars.
Chrysler, OTOH, with tighter purse strings, had to be a bit more creative but still wanted to match the competition, if not get an outright jump on them, a la 1957. Thus were born the 1962 Mopars.
In fact, I would guess that the hope for a ‘Forward Look’ success of 1957 was what really drove the radical appearance of the downsized 1962 cars. And, to be honest, if they’d have just been executed a bit more conservatively, it might have worked. Just look at the nicely refreshed 1964 full-size Plymouth Fury. That’s the real ‘what if’ the ’64 Fury had come out in 1962, instead.
But early sixties’ Chrysler management must have been complete mayhem. It’s a wonder that anything got through, at all.
Ugh, the ’64 Plymouth. Im happy to smile at a ’62 or ’63, but.
Ironically I find the front end styling of these more toned down 64s more weird looking than the 63s that were transitional. It’s tamer than the 62s by a mile of course but the proportions are out of whack, the front overhang in particular appears so long with the squaring job Engel did, where the 62-63s look just fine in that respect, even if you disagreed with the styling elsewhere. The Dash design is super dull, I totally understand the desire to tone down the exterior of the 62s but does anyone actually find that Jeep like utilitarian 64 dash a tasteful improvement to this?
My favorite thing on that ’63 dashboard is the labels on the buttons and gauges being in all lower case. The lower cowl I noted below necessitated a redesigned dash for the ’64.
And the redesigned dash was recycled when the 1964 Polara morphed into the 1965 Coronet.
I’m quite knocked out by that ’61 Plymouth Asimmetrica, even though that ‘hood scoop leading back to the instrument cluster’ treatment was stolen from Raymond Loewy, who’d used it as far back as 1950 in drawings before making it into production on the Studebaker Avanti. The interior still looks up to date today.
The 1964 Polara has a considerably lower cowl than the 62-63 models, which I understand is a costly modification. That’s a more obvious Engelism to my eyes than the revised grille; the 65-68 big Mopars had that wonderfully low cowl that made it feel like the dash is almost in your lap.
Ahh. You beat me to it!
I’ve long been a Studebaker fan, but it took me awhile to warm up to the Avanti… and I still much prefer the round headlamp surrounds of the early cars. Anyhow, that hood bulge seemingly passing through the windshield to form the top of the instrument cluster is finally what caught my attention one day while taking in a beautifully restored black ’63. Brilliant! From there, I probably spent close to an hour poring over the details of that car, and being amazed. Asymmetrical details on automobiles often come off a bit awkward, but Loewy’s team knocked that one out of the park.
This is the 1950 Loewy drawing I referred to.
I go back and forth on the round vs. square bezels; right now I’m feeling the round ones.
I’ve grown to really appreciate Exner’s last efforts at Chrysler, as well as the transitional years before Engel squeezed most of the cars back into a conventional box by the mid-60’s. Cars like the 1964 Plymouth, 1965 Dodge, 1965 Plymouth Belvedere were a styling snoozefest. Fortunately, Mopar started getting some styling mojo back after a few years of pushing out rectilinear bricks.
One of my favorite Exner details are the quad headlamps being placed in positions other than in a perfectly horizontal or vertical plane. I remember looking at a number of 1959 GM styling proposals placing headlamps in various locations; it seems that stylists weren’t quite sure what to do with a quartet of sealed beams. In the end, all of the cars ended up with them in what would become the standard arrangement, save for the one year only 1959 Buick; 1959 Oldsmobile deviated slightly by placing the park/turn signals between the high and low beams. But the 1962 and 1963 Dodge took that concept and ran with it! The 1962 Plymouth and to a lesser extent, this 1964 Dodge, place their lights in different sections of body/grillework to achieve a similar effect.
My best memory of one of these cars was a 1963 Dodge 330 or 440 sedan I frequently encountered on the road in my small town. It was a beater, being 25-30 years old at this point, and featured a rough cut 2×6 for a front bumper. In fact, most of the 1960’s-70’s Mopars I encountered while growing up were like this… Usually a battered A or B body with a Slant 6 or 318 that never got the message it was time to retire. #respect