(first posted 10/9/2014) From the end of WWII until the minivan-Cherokee era, Chrysler rode a stylistic see-saw—as well as a financial one. One minute its designs were too conservative, the next they were aliens from another planet. As the perpetual number three, it lacked the gravitas to set market trends, at least for more than a few fleeting finny moments. With the exception of the Forward Look 1957s, Chrysler was perpetually chasing GM’s tail, or even the rumors of its tail.
After licking its ’62 wounds and playing it safe from 1963-1968, Chrysler once again got the gumption to get back in the ring with GM. Their dramatic new 1971 coupes were the second of its fuselage design one-two punch, after the 1969 big cars. While it may well have been a stylistic knockout, the punch missed its mark and hit a brick wall instead. This time, Chrysler almost didn’t get back up at all. But one has to admire their pluck, as well as the weapon of choice.
Before we begin a look at the influences that shaped the featured Sebring, let’s briefly pause for a moment’s meditation at this 1970 Chrysler 300 Hurst. The 1969 full sized cars pioneered the loop grille and were the next expression of the “fuselage” look that Exner first used on the 1960 Valiant, as well as some earlier concept car. It was defined by the rounded body sides that continued unbroken into the C-pillar without the typical “shoulder”, a feature that had pretty much always defined the lower from the upper body half.
These big fuselage cars certainly made a big impression in 1969—and they still do today—but it was a compromised design on a number of levels. Yes, the sides were rounded and continuous, to an extent never seen before on a big American car. But extruding a very long, perfectly straight body out of a rounded die does not make for a truly fine design, at least one that doesn’t get boring and predictable in certain respects all too soon. It was the some problem the early “pontoon” cars had back in the immediate post-war era. Endless unbroken planes rather bring that on, and these big cars had acres of that, on the hood and trunk alone. The greenhouse exhibits symptoms of microcephaly, as if a compact car was hiding inside daddy’s suit. But it’s an imposing mofo, and compelling in part because of its exaggerated proportions.
Clearly, those issues were addressed and rather effectively resolved with the new 1971 intermediate coupes; the front and rear ends have a good deal of taper in plan view (looking down from the top), and substantial fender bulges break up the rounded sides. Strictly speaking, it’s not really a true “fuselage”. And it’s much the better for that.
The front loop bumper in these ’71-’72 Satellites were the most expressive and bold of the bunch; with its undercut and stark, glaring eyeballs, it creates a rather different effect than the symmetrical gaping maw of the big Chrysler. The loop bumper was one of the more unique design affectations of the late sixties, and Chrysler was its chief protagonist. Which only makes sense, as it was essentially pioneered by Chrysler, although some years earlier.
It first saw the light of day on Virgil Exner’s 1961 XNR 500 sports car, a Valiant-based roadster that packed a 250 hp Hyper-Pak slant six and exceeded 150 mph on the test track. Exner wanted desperately to see a slightly civilized version go into production as a cheaper alternative to the Corvette, but it was not to be. Of all the production loop bumpers, the Satellite’s most closely evokes the XNR’s.
But Exner’s contribution to the ’71 Satellite didn’t end with the loop bumper. The XNR 500’s body, like the Valiant itself, were the true pioneers of the “fuselage” design theme, and Exner used that term in referring to it.
It can be a bit hard to see, as all the busy extrusions on their front and rear fenders distract the eye from the underlying fuselage body shape. The real breakthroughs on the Valiant were the way the C-Pillar melded directly into the (underlying) body without a shoulder and how the doors tapered in at the belt line, without any break where the window glass started. That’s the essence of the fuselage design.
No one else was doing that on a production car; in fact, at the time, wide “shoulders” were not only ubiquitous, but even exaggerated as a design feature, especially so by Ford. The green house was clearly a separate entity that sat on top of the lower half of the car. Not so on the Valiant.
This fuselage design originated on Exner’s 1953 Ghia D’Elegance. Note how flush the side window is in relation to the door.
It was brought to its next level in the rather wild 1958 Imperial D’Elegance, which foreshadowed the 1960 Valiant’s greenhouse. Chrysler’s big mistake was in premiering the fuselage on a compact, instead of an actual Imperial. Compact buyers were mostly conservative, as the 1960 Falcon proved.
But here’s Exner’s closest forerunner of the 1971 Satellite, the 1962 Plymouth, and in more ways than one. For starters, the down-sized ’62s morphed into the mid-sized B-Bodies, and lent their basic underpinnings to our featured car. But that’s not all; take a look at that C-Pillar: again there’s no break between it and the lower body. And with a bit of imagination, its front end with those expressive recessed headlights in that concave grille rather predicts the Satellite’s too. It just needed that bumper to loop all the way around.
Of course these unfortunate 1962s were the end of Exner’s fuselage period, and hastened his departure as the convenient scapegoat of a decision by Chrysler’s management to downsize and reduce costs, in response to the fiasco of 1958.
Elwood Engel brought lots of straight edges and carpenter’s squares with him from Ford when he was hired to replace Exner. The classic Engel period at Chrysler came into full fruition in 1965 with the C-Bodies and 1966 with the B-Bodies. Engel was responsible for perhaps the biggest “shoulders” ever, on his 1961 Continental, and although they were toned down a bit in concession to the changing times, they’re quite evident here on this ’66 Satellite.
Although these “square era” Chryslers were handsome, they were obviously out of step with the times, given GM’s wholesale adoption of “Coke bottle” styling in 1965. And although they sold well enough, the writing was on the wall: curves were the hot thing, and Engel had to throw out the carpenter’s squares and invest in a lot of French curves for his designers.
The result was the “stop gap” 1968-1970 B-Bodies, obviously a re-skin of the previous cars. It too was a reasonably successful job in its own right, but with GM’s bold new 1968 intermediates, they were instantly behind the times, once again. Like so many Chryslers, if the styling wasn’t your thing, they still had plenty of appeal under the skin.
The 1968 Pontiac GTO/LeMans is most often cited as the inspiration for the ’71 Chrysler B-Body coupes, and it’s certainly hard to deny its influence. Obviously, GM’s decision to break up these cars into distinct coupe and sedan/wagon bodies, with different wheelbases even, was pretty radical, somewhat analogous to the 1953 Studebakers, except in reverse—the coupes were shorter than the sedans (duh!), and they were madly successful. Undoubtedly Chrysler’s decision to do the same for its 1971s was a case of follow-the-leader. But the actual styling was clearly an attempt to leap-frog GM, once and for all.
All of the 1968 GM A-Body coupes had a decided fuselage aspect to them, especially in the way the C-Pillar/sail panel was now one continuous and large extension of the body. GM had taken the fuselage to heart, but not in the “extrusion look” that would plague the ’69 Chrysler C-Bodies. Instead, the GM coupes were curvaceous and dynamic from every angle, something that was of course easier to accomplish on a relatively short 112″ wheelbase compared the very long, big Chryslers.
The 1971 Dodge Charger, especially the R/T version with its body-colored divided loop bumper, paid tribute to the GTO’s pioneering Endura loop bumper in the most sincere fashion. But just where exactly did that slab-sided, shoulder-less continuous C-Pillar/rear quarter originate, other than in vestigial form on Exner’s fuselages v1.0 ?
GM first used it on its bold 1966 Oldsmobile Toronado, but with very pronounced wheel arch flares and a character line to tie them together, to break up what would have been a huge expanse of slab-sidedness a lá the big Chryslers. Despite that, the experiment was deemed not very successful, as far as its buyers were concerned; the Toronado did not achieve its sales targets. What would work well on a mid-sized coupe targeting the younger demographic was too different for the Toro’s older demo.
Within a couple of years (1969), a rather artificial break line between an extended lower body and the roof appeared, ending that bit of pioneering. The Brougham influence was becoming inexorable, and soon big padded shoulders would be in again. Take heed, Satellite!
In Europe, the shoulder-less sail-panel fuselage theme was taken up with great vigor and had a huge and lasting impact. Marcello Gandini’s brilliant 1966 Lamborghini Marzal was a bold milestone in the development and wholesale adoption of this theme. It was an evolution of his seminal 1966 Miura, which still sported a distinct shoulder over its husky rear wheel hips, as well as the precursor to the Espada, Lamborghini’s long-running and successful 2+2 coupe.
Gandini’s 1967 Alfa Romeo Montreal coupe concept carried the theme a bit closer to earth (metaphorically speaking), on a front-engine chassis and a body design suitable in size and scope for mass production, although the production Montreal was hardly a big seller. But it was a very influential car, and dozens of Italian and other European coupes soon carried the look, for seemingly forever. It even had a delicate loop bumper, broken only by the headlight covers. In the US, its influence would be seen most evidently on the 1971 Satellite coupe.
Even the Road Runner’s bold graphics emulate the vents in the Montreal’s broad and continuous C-Pillar. And you though those were home-grown?
So much for this car’s origin myth speculations; let’s take a look at the Satellite Sebring Plus coupe as it is, in cold steel and slippery vinyl. First off, we should note is that although there were two distinct bodies for the coupes and sedans/wagons, Chrysler didn’t differentiate their wheelbases to the extent that GM did. The Sebring coupe sat on a 115″ wheelbase; the sedans/wagons had 117″; the GM coupes sat on a 112″ wb; the sedans/wagons had 116″. These Chrysler coupes were still bigger than the competition at GM.
The advertising for them drove the point of their differentiation home, but then that was old hat by 1971, as GM had been doing this for three years.
Also not totally unlike the 1953 Studebakers, the sedans turned out to be decidedly less exciting than the coupes, and were particularly ill-suited for Broughamification.
GM’s 1973 Colonnade sedans (top) were dynamic, airy and bold, if not everyone’s cup of tea. Ford’s flabby Torino sedan (middle) typified the excesses of the Brougham era. And the Satellite sedan soon took on the image of fleet, cop, and thrifty grandpa-mobiles.
But in 1971, it was all about the coupes. The sporty-coupe era had been building for years, and in the mid-sixties, the mid-sized coupes became the focus of attention, as younger buyers swelled into the marketplace, often for the first time. The muscle-car variants, led by Pontiac’s smash-hit GTO and Plymouth’s own Road Runner propelled the segment to its all-time heights. GM had an outsized share of that market, and the ’71 Sebring and Dodge Charger were Chrysler’s bold shot for the gold.
Stylistically, it just barely caught the tail end of the late-sixties flamboyant, cartoonish design zeitgeist, as well as the golden performance era. But that window of opportunity was already closing quickly, thanks to exorbitant insurance rates, smog controls, and rising gas prices. And although these coupes made an outsized visual impact at the time, on me as well as everyone else under the age of 30 or so, their actual sales were anything but outsized.
Combined sales for the comparable coupe versions of Satellites, Sebrings/Plus, Road Runners and GTX for the years 1968 – 1974 are:
1968: 131k; 1969: 149k (swelled by 80k RR sales); 1970: 85k; 1971: 81k; 1972: 63k; 1973 (restyle): 115k; 1974: 62k.
The numbers tell a sad tale: these ’71 coupes fell on their loop-bumper faces, with sales down from the stale 1970 models.
And when Chrysler ditched the loopy front end for 1973 and modified the roof line and front fender a bit to make the Sebring coupe look more mainstream, sales jumped back into triple digits for the first time since 1969, although that turned out to be a one-year phenomena. The beep-beep era was truly over, the boomers were getting married, and the Brougham Epoch was in full fury.
Speaking of, the Satellite and Sebring were completely tossed overboard for 1975, as Chrysler belatedly and desperately tried to get on board the SS Brougham with a substantial re-skin and re-name: Fury (the full-sized cars were now elevated to Gran(pa) Fury status). Now that was really coming full circle with Exner’s downsized 1962 Fury. And they a bit similar, to boot. Or is my Exneruberance running away again? And as was so often the case with Chrysler, they couldn’t afford a truly new body, the tell-tale being the 1971’s windshield.
Since we’re on the subject of Chrysler’s perpetual windshield development investment capital challenges, we should point out that the 1971 mid-sized coupes shared much of their body structure (and pretty much everything underneath) with the 1971 E-Body Barracuda and Dodge Challenger. These were simply shortened in the back seat area, and treated to some cosmetic surgery. But if that ’75 Fury’s windshield above looks familiar, that’s because it is.
One might be tempted to give the weak Satellite/Sebring sales showing a bit of a break since these Clydesdale-pony cars undoubtedly ate into their sales. But the ’71-’74 Barracuda was a major flop too; ’71 sales were less than half of the outgoing ’70’s. Ouch! Well, the Duster 340 was significantly cheaper, and fast as all get-out. The Dodge Challenger did a bit better, but both were axed after sales plunged in 1974. The original pony car era was over, except for the Camaro which galloped off to the bank with the gold.
Enough of the downer stuff. Like pretty much all Chryslers of the 60s and 70s, regardless of whether you liked the styling or not, the best was likely under the hood anyway. And 1971 was pretty much the peak-experience in that regard; at least in terms of what was to come. Compression ratios were still in double-digits, and it took two hands’ worth of digits to count all the carburetor venturies on the hottest engines.
The line-up ranged from the venerable 145 hp 225 CID slant six all the way to the mighty 426 Hemi, in its farewell outing. With two four-barrel carbs, it was rated at a conservative 425 hp (all hp numbers are gross). But with its rather peaky torque curve, the hairy hemi wasn’t really the ideal street daily driver.
That role was played by the 440, preferably in Six-Pak form, with its triple two-barrel carbs and 385 rated hp; the four-barrel version was supposedly good for 370 hp. The Road Runner’s standard 383 made 300 hp, while the two-barrel version had 275. Oddly, both of those 383s had only 8.5:1 compression ratios. The excellent LA 340 V8 was not on the list, presumably because they couldn’t make them fast enough what with the Duster 340’s success.
The Satellite Sebring Plus came standard with the 230 hp 318, and was available with 275 and 300 hp versions of the 383.
Somewhat surprisingly, this Sebring Plus is not Torqueflite-equipped, but appears to have a four speed stick with the legendary pistol grip at that; ah, what a period piece. And from the looks of the two fat Road Runner exhaust pipes (if they’re original), it presumably has a 383 under the hood.
Like many of the so-called bucket seats of the era, these weren’t really helpful in keeping one’s butt remotely in place during spirited cornering. At least there was the console to keep one from sliding into the passenger seat.
The rear seats in these coupes weren’t exactly inviting and accommodation either. Space utilization wasn’t even on the brief when these cars were designed. The youthful boomers or kids who might end up there were obviously presumed to be skinny and limber. Does that help explain why four doors are the norm these days?
I found this pristine period piece sitting curbside among the many architectural period pieces in Bolivar, WVA, which is adjacent to historic Harper’s Ferry. I’ve long wanted to find one of these ’71s, and I had to travel to a designated historical site to do so. Makes sense.
In the long history of the automobile, these cars were the proverbial flash in the pan, a two year experiment that caused a lot of eyes to open wide, if not the wallets. Chrysler succeeded in its goal, of surpassing GM in terms of design leadership. But that only applied to the mid-size sporty-coupe market, which was shriveling up in front of its soon-to-be weepy eyes. A Pyrrhic victory, one for the pages of CC but not for the stockholders.
Chrysler chased the wrong GM car. Instead of the GTO and Malibu, they should have been hot on the heels of the ’69 Grand Prix and the ’70 Monte Carlo, whose long noses were pointed in the direction of the future, not the past. While Chrysler was plotting to leapfrog the Malibu, GM cooked up a new category that would soon dominate the top of the sales stats. Nice landing; wrong airport.
Chrysler’s blunder led to desperate measures in the mid-late seventies, none of which amounted to anything approaching true success except for the Chrysler Cordoba. Acres of soft Corinthian leather weren’t enough to stem Chrysler’s late-seventies slide towards bankruptcy.
With these cars, Chrysler misread the market direction as badly as it had with the “plucked chicken” 1962s, and with similar consequences. And in both cases, Chrysler was chasing a phantom Chevy: a non-existent downsized ’62 Chevrolet, and a sportier/zoomier Malibu that never really materialized.
The blunder was near-fatal, as mid-sized profits shriveled to non-existent ones. But unlike the non-conformist and oft-shunned ’62s, these ’71s suck the casual in observer in with its chrome lips surrounding the black maw, and the swoopy shark-like body that follows it.
Of course Mopar maniacs have long embraced both of these vintage Chrysler coupes, and with good reason: They are the bookends to some of the finest performance cars of the era, a series of B-Body coupes that dominated drag racing, NASCAR and Main Street with their husky good looks (except maybe the ’62s) and splendid power trains. They may both have over-reached in their styling and under-performed in sales, but they never disappointed in the enthusiasm they engender in their fans. Count me in.
Great article. These coupes have always caught my eye–the early ones like this have such a clean, unfussy execution, even if their design is a little bit polarizing. I like them. Very interesting to see the Alfa Romeo that clearly inspired some of the styling decisions. Ma Mopar was really reaching for the stars. Your example here looks like it has a Pistol Grip 4 speed–I wonder if that is original to this Satellite or if someone has made a mashup with some Roadrunner interior parts.
The Super Bee and GTX versions of these loop-bumper Chryslers are among the most attractive cars ever built, as far as I’m concerned. The Montreal rip-offs are both blatantly obvious and altogether welcome. Oh, and don’t get me started on that rusty, dented Hurst 300 – that just brings a tear to my eye.
In between the XNR and the ’69 Chryslers I think there are a couple more missing links.
While they all have completely separate bumpers, the ’66-67 and especially the ’68 Chargers have a similar loop of trim around the grill. There are even hints of it on the ’65 & ’68 Chryslers.
True; there are always a number of influences in most new designs. After 3,000 words, I just had to call it quits.
Yes, some cars just get into a story and can’t stop. I recently started a piece on a 63 Stude Lark and went so far afield that I forgot all about the car. 🙂
…and went so far afield that I forgot all about the car.
If you get too far into other models and other companies, start breaking the article up into a series. How many articles were there during AMC week? By the time the AMC series ended, a reader had been introduced to every styling theme, corporate honcho, stylist, bit of bad luck and pivotal decision made over a 30 year period.
Nice job. I wouldn’t have thought of some of these connections, and I didn’t realize Exner had used the term “fuselage” for the Valiant.
I think a lot of late ’60s and early ’70s American intermediates really feel like the four-door models were a reluctant afterthought. With two more doors and a B-pillar, all the swoopy curves end up just looking contrived and awkward. (I feel the same way, as I’ve said before, about the Chris Bangle-era BMW sedans — a lot of busyness in search of a theme.) It lends a greater admiration to the Dart/Valiant of the time. They may not have been the most stylish cars on the block, but their basic honesty is refreshing.
I am rather fond of the ’68–’70 Chrysler B-bodies entirely because they look a lot like the ’66–’67 GM intermediates. I really like those cars stylistically, particularly the Tempest/Le Mans/GTO, because they strike a good balance between curvaceousness and solidity. I’m obviously in the minority, but I thought the ’68 A-body intermediates were generally dreadful even in two-door hardtop form. The only one I think works aesthetically is the F-85/Cutlass two-door Holiday, which has the most unified profile (spoiled a bit by an overly fussy nose treatment). The semi-fastback roof just makes the two-doors look bulky, and not in an impressive way. The ’71 Chrysler B-bodies have the same problem, although the jutting nose is aggressive enough to distract from it except from the rear or rear three-quarter view.
It’s also hard to get around how inefficiently packaged these cars are. Obviously, people don’t buy cars based solely on box volume or space efficiency or we’d all be driving first-generation Scion xBs, but the B-bodies are imposingly large and much of that size is wasted on front overhang and extreme tumblehome. If it were an exotic sports car, no one would care, but for something people bought as a family car, it’s pretty hard to take.
My feelings about these cars have softened over the years.I hated them when new(along with the new for 71 Mustang & Javelin),compared with what was to come they weren’t so bad after all!
A spectacular example in a great color. I think the garish RR appearance packages actually hurt the styling of the coupes. This particular car looks the part with just the simple addition of the rallies.
Agreed on the color. If factory, it’s rarely seen, and a good deal more subtle than the flaming reds and yellows and the plum crazys of the era. But it’s a very nice shade of…I almost want to say blue spruce. And it works really well on the interior, too, with a simple, classy two-tone treatment.
They may be overshadowed by the more iconic ’69-’70 models, but these Satellite coupes and their derivatives take the cake for aggressive beauty. Even the similar Charger can’t quite compare.
I would guess most folks reading this would know an added attraction of the “Plus” versus the non plus Sebring is the nicer instrument panel. That was the big buying point for me when I came close to buying a nice, yellow over black 1971 Sebring back in 1978. I passed on that NON “Plus” Sebring because it was let down by it’s taxi cab dashboard. That, and power steering that I felt was too light in feeling. But that pale yellow paint job….
I always figured the 69 Plymouth “inspired” the stylists for the 71 full-sized Chevy as they do look somewhat alike. My high school had three driver’s ed cars when I was in my junior year, all 69s. The one I really wanted to drive was the Plymouth Fury III but my luck always had me behind the wheel of the Ford LTD which was no “treat” as my folks also owned one. Ours differed from the school’s car by having a black instead of white vinyl roof.
I always thought that the 1969 Plymouth Fury was a fuselage version of the 1966 full-size Chevrolet, down to the rear taillight treatment and “peaked” front fenders. The 1971 full-size Chevrolet has always struck me as a junior edition of the 1969-70 Cadillac DeVille.
One of my all time favorites, in a very attractive (if uncommon) color (Winchester Gray). I think this is the first example I’ve ever seen with the gunmetal vinyl interior. Per Jason Engle’s comment above, that’s definitely a 4-speed boot in the console. While there are aftermarket pistol grips available now, the console automatic had the “slapstick” ‘T’ shifter.
Yep, what Stumack and Jason Engle said. Pistol grip handles were for manual transmissions, not Torqueflite automatic equipped cars.
I’ll probably comment more on this article later when I’m not swamped, but I’ll say now that I certainly enjoyed reading it.
My bad on the pistol grip; I jumped the shark there. 🙂
I’ve amended the text.
Both that interior and exterior colors are quite uncommon. In fact, I don’t even remember that interior color – could it have been 1971-only? So much nicer than that electrified blue interior that was a mainstay of 70s Mopars.
It appears to have been ’71 only – it’s gone from the ’72 color/trim book. It was only available with this gray, black or white exteriors.
With what appears to be an OEM 4-speed, combined with what may be a one-year-only color combo, I would guess that’s quite a rare car, perhaps even one-of-one. A four-speed and 383 was generally reserved for the Roadrunners. A Sebring Plus almost always had a Torqueflite and, if it was a big-block engine at all, it would have been the pedestrian two-barrel.
if it was a big-block engine at all, it would have been the pedestrian two-barrel.
Both the two and four-barrel 383s were optional on the Sebring Plus. In my estimation, if this is an original car, the original owner clearly picked his options carefully, and given the four speed and the dual exhausts, it was almost inevitably the four-barrel 383 under the hood.
There were buyers who wanted a performance car without the trappings of a Road Runner or GTX.
Another informative and thought provoking article, thanks! You know, in the back of my mind I always thought the Alfa Montreal over the top C pillar vents to be a rip off from the Road Runner’s Strobe stripe; how surprised to find the Montreal was first, appearing in ’67!
It also occurred to me when the 71’s came out that Mopar was eternally chasing the tail of GM in a game of catch up. But what great designs these cars were in the new fuselage styling. For the life of me, I don’t know what they were thinking in the 73’s awful front end styling except to ready the public on the coming government crash standards.
Count me in as a stripe and tape guy; it was a perfect addition for this particular time frame. The name of the game was to sell power, speed and muscle. As GM was rather more restrained, Dodge and Plymouth upped the ante with strobe stripes, cartoon road runners and slab sided billboard stripes with engine displacement called out in nearly foot and a half numbers. Nobody did it better then Mopar.
Incredible finding of the 71 Satellite Sebring Plus. I’ll leave it to a real Mopar guy to tell us if the Pistol Grip could have been had in this car; but it would have been an easy enough change over for any Mopar owner to make if he wanted a 4 speed in his car. The rear tailpipe extensions appear to be what was found on the hi performance Road Runners, GTX’s, Chargers and Super Bee’s too. All in all, tasteful additions for just one beautiful automobile!
History repeats itself.
In the late 1940s, GM made history by adding tailfins to a car, but Chrysler ultimately topped GM in that department with the Exner-designed cars built from 1957 through 1960.
In the 1960s, GM (or, more accurately, Pontiac) made history by developing the mid-size muscle car with the GTO, but Chrysler ultimately topped GM there with the street Hemi, Dodge Charger and Plymouth Road Runner.
So nice to see a non Roadrunner or GTX–I think the 71’s make the 70 B bodies look like bricks.
Very well written article, nice research going back to ’58.
So much for failures – it must say something about me that the ’62 Fury and ’71 Sebring coupes are my favorite Plymouths. Period. I always found them both very attractive.
Agree, Syke.
My appreciation for the ’62 Plymouth has just taken another jump after writing this. I’d love to have one 🙂
You, MikePDX and some others here have gotten me to rethink my formerly harsh view of the ’62 Plymouth. The ’62 Dodge, on the other hand, is beyond redemption.
Agreed on both counts. And the ’62 Plymouth dash is a gem in and of itself.
Excellent article on a great car! Looks like its a pretty rare 383 4 barrel 4 speed (not a Torqueflite) Satellite in 1971-only Gunmetal Grey.
I never could understand why the 71s are such a polarizing design among Mopar people. I think its drop dead sexy from any angle and to me, right behind the 68-69 Charger, is the best looking Mopar of the musclecar years. Its just a great looking car that also looks mean. Designer John Herlitz, who also designed the 1970 E-Bodies, the original minivans and the cab-forward cars was very proud of the design. Im restoring a 71 440+6 Road Runner so of course Im biased but I have always loved them. They ride and drive a lot nicer than the 68-70 B-Bodys as well.
I like these and did at the time too… but I saw the influence of the 1969 Big Chevrolets on the Satellite Sebring… and it actually looked better!
the Satellite looked better is what I meant!
Another well researched, thoughtful, logical and informative article by P. N.
I would have never made the connection in the fuselage styling cues of the 1960 Valiant and the 1971 Sebring if Paul had not pointed it out. For me, it was a mental forehead slapping “D’OH” moment.
I must me an automotive “non-conformist”?
I’d love to have a ’60 Valiant, ’62 Fury and ’71 Sebring in my driveway.
Me too!
Me too too! wonderful how this article ties the styling strands together, thanks Paul!
I’m an outspoken fuselage fan, and these are one of my favorites. As you’ve clearly explained, these cars corrected many of the styling “mistakes” of the bigger ’69 C-bodies. The Satellite sedans looked like mini Furies from the side. The loop bumper versions like this one were by far the best. Larger bumpers and a redesigned front fascia ruined the look of the car.
The featured car you photographed is one of the nicest Satellite coupes I’ve ever seen. Most of them appear to have come in brown, orangey colors with all black interiors. The exterior and matching interior look similar to Acura’s “Canterbury Green” of the early 1990s, one of my favorite car colors ever. These interiors were hardly luxurious or high quality, but this is one of the nicest I’ve ever seen on a Satellite.
exactly right Brendan… these loop bumper Satellites were beautiful.
Excellent, much appreciated article Paul. I found the interiors of many 70s Chrysler products, a big letdown from the stylish exteriors. These, and most early 70s mid-sized Chrysler disappeared pretty quickly where I grew up. They didn’t age well in a practical sense, and the build quality/rust resistance seemed below GM.
I always learn a lot every time I come to your site. I notice a number of Wikipedia editors now link their car pages to your site. Wikipedia offers the dry stats and common knowledge history on a car. While your site offers another layer of invaluable candid, anecdotal, living experience background.
“,,,build quality/rust resistance seemed below GM…”
?
IDK what the rest of the country experienced; but here in the Heat & Humidity pit of the Deep South (New Orleans), Mopars of this era rusted much less than General Motors cars do/did.
Chevy’s, Pontiac’s, Old’s & Buick’s of this era are known for their windshield/back window rust and flapping vinyl tops. Surviving Mopars are much less rust prone.
My brother’s 9 year old ’68 GTO had such a severe case of back window cancer that the trunk would get enough rain water in it to make audible “sloshing” sounds when going around corners! He and I drilled a couple of drain holes in the lowest part of the trunk to stop the noise….if not the water.
These are such a period piece. Whenever I see one, I think of Space Food Sticks.
Excellent piece on a car that has so many things to say.
When new, I didn’t really like these. The mother of my sister’s best friend traded a gold 66 Satellite convertible on a red 72 Satellite Sebring. I considered the new car a real come-down. Years later, a family friend bought it, and I actually got to drive it.
These had a very thin/tinfoil quality to the bodies. They were rusters and were nowhere near as solid feeling as the 1966-70 B body. I hated the way the steering column shook when you shut the door. I spent a lot of time in a 74 Charger – same deal. Mechanically, though, they were quite good. I am warming up to these now and this particular one makes me quite the enthusiastic fan.
These had a very thin/tinfoil quality to the bodies. They were rusters and were nowhere near as solid feeling as the 1966-70 B body. I hated the way the steering column shook when you shut the door.
I didn’t notice the steering column shaking in my 66 Belvedere. What I remember about that car was the combination of stiff ride and vile handling, though the one broken leaf on one side and two broken leaves on the other side, probably brought rear axle control down a peg, while the Monroe “load levelers” added stiffness without axle control.
What I remember of GM intermediates of the 70s is it seemed, after a few years, everything in the doors came loose and slamming the door provoked a chorus of rattles.
The GM Colonnade two-doors also had very heavy doors that would start to sag after a few years.
Yes, but they ran forever. Forty years later, you still see the occasional colonnade car pottering along, leaving a trail of smoke.
I meant to say that the 66-70 was fairly solid while the 71 and up was the one that felt cheap.
Very good article. I’ve always summarized the ’71 B coupes as the best of the ’70s Bs, too many cheap feeling parts inside and out, a tendency to make them a bit cheaper each year, and subject to a complete trouncing by the brougham era when the ’73 Colonnades rolled out.
I thought I had read somewhere, probably Motor Trend, that Tom Gale, who I believe finished at Chrysler with the 2nd Gen LH cars, got his major start with influence on the ’71 B. He spoke positively of the car in recent years.
I’m a fan of the ’71, and wish they had done a smarter job with quality and packaging. It might have done better, but GM was a juggernaut in the segment and the Monte Cordoba Prix was the only solution that worked.
It’s been my (somewhat biased) personal observation that Mopar’s quality control was quite “bipolar” during the 1970’s and 1980’s.
If your car was built on a “good day” the quality control was on par with many Pacific rim cars of the time period.
But if you purchased a “Monday car’…….Gawd help you!
Allow me to provide some first-hand details on the super Satellite.
In 1979, my mother needed a car to get to work and back. We found a green ’72 Satellite Sebring (with torn half-vinyl roof) for just 300 dollars. It had the 318 V-8/TorqueFlite combination, along with power steering, manual (drum) brakes, air conditioning and green vinyl bench seats.
One thing about the Satellite: You sat low to the floor (even with the slippery bench) and felt as if you were in a sports car. And the engine-transmission combination was great; it went like heck and the handling made the Sebring feel like a lighter machine. I agree with jpcavanaugh; it did feel a bit tinny and had the typical erratic Mopar quality control of the era. But it was a tough machine; the engine ran and ran even after the timing chain broke (and was replaced with a new one). And even with its weather-worn avocado green paint, peeling vinyl roof and torn seats, I loved the way it looked. It had…well, presence.
After my mother died in 1982, I sold the Satellite and started a new life in my ’74 Dodge Monaco. But I still think about Mom and the B52’s song “Planet Clare”: “She drove a Plymouth Satellite…faster than the speed of light”.
The B52s did love their Mopars, didn’t they?
Yeh, GM’s “Colonnade” cars were built to such high quality levels….NOT!!
Anyone remember slipping Turbo350 trannys, Olds 350 engines overheating and burning valves, early, low mileage fan clutch failures, peeling vinyl tops, flaking, cracking & crazing metallic clear coat paint jobs, weather stripping crumbling to powder in 4 years’ time, plastic interior panels turning white and fragile from sun exposure before the warranty expired, cruise control servos dying in 3 or 4 years’ usage, the (in)famous windshield antennas’ terrible FM distance reception, their “one person sitting sideways” back seat…..
Clear coat on Colonnades? And slipping TH 350s? You can have a TH 350 with no reverse clutches left and it will still shift 1-2-3 just fine.
An excellent article! What I remember about these cars is how quickly they became “dated.” The 1969 Pontiac Grand Prix and 1970 Chevrolet Monte Carlo set the trend for the 1970s, as the article notes. Even though the GM entries evoked the past with their blunt, upright grilles and formal rooflines.
With its 1971 intermediates, it wasn’t just that Chrysler had expended all of its efforts on the coupes while phoning in the sedans and wagons. The coupes looked as though they were designed primarily as muscle cars. As a result, the more pedestrian coupes somehow looked like “plucked chickens” (cribbing a phrase Exner used to describe the production 1962 fill-size Dodges and Plymouths). They came across as plain and de-contented, no matter how well-equipped they were. A Malibu or Cutlass coupe, meanwhile, did not have this problem. Nor did a Ford Torino from this era.
While insurance rates and impending government regulations hardly helped, what really killed muscle car sales were changing tastes. By the early 1970s, muscle cars had a “juvenile” or slightly disreputable image. That was the hardly the image that most suburbanites of that time wanted to project with their car. A Cutlass Supreme, Monte Carlo and Grand Prix, meanwhile, came across as sophisticated and youthful, but without the negative images of a muscle car.
I must reluctantly agree with Geeber. All too often, Mopar was 4 or 5 years too late and “behind the trend” with their new car styling changes during the late 1960’s and 1970’s.
Even though, as Paul has mentioned, what was under the body (engine, transmission, chassis) was just as good/if not better than Ford or GM.
I don’t recall the interiors being “cheap looking” when compared to a Ford or Chevy of the same era? Mopars always had a better dashboard as standard equipment, with full instrumentation, than did the competition.
Their unitized bodies did transmit more NVH (noise, vibration & harshness) than did the body on frame isolation chambers of Ford or GM. A generous application of under body undercoating did wonders for these Mopars.
The Chrysler drivetrains were great, but, in those days, people traded more often than they do today. A six-year-old car was considered to be “old,” and keeping a car beyond 100,000 miles was considered risky (not to mention an admission that you couldn’t afford a new car). So Chrysler didn’t get much credit for long-lasting drivetrains.
Unlike today, very few people bragged about keeping a car for years, let alone for 150-200,000 miles. More frequent styling changes “dated” cars much more quickly at that time, so everyone knew if your car was old.
The interiors of the intermediate Mopars from this era just looked more utilitarian than their GM and Ford competitors – not much in the way of plush materials or carpeting, or detailing. The dashboards did feature full instrumentation but, again, that was something most people really didn’t care about. They didn’t monitor the instruments closely. A warning light was probably better, as it notified the person immediately that there was a problem. I’m sure plenty of people drove around with the temperature gauge needle in the red zone, and didn’t notice that anything was wrong until steam started coming out from under the hood.
My parents had one Chevrolet – a 1965 Bel Air wagon with the V-8 (I believe a 327) and Powerglide. It was basically used up by 100,000 miles. It was the same with other Chevrolets owned by friends and family members. But they didn’t hold that against GM, because you were supposed to get a new car by that point anyway.
I’m guessing that warning lights (A.K.A. “Idiot Lights”) were prolly ignored just as much/more often than functioning gauges were by most of “The Great Unwashed” American driving public.
According to the factory shop manual, the water temperature light on my ’71 Buick didn’t start glowing until the temperature got past 260 degrees…WAYYYY too hot for a 1970’s engine to be operating at.
My understanding is that the light came on that late because on a hot day, when you first started a hot engine, the temp could be quite high until the circulating coolant cooled things down.
That is one handsome car w/a nice & dignified paint color.
I hope that ’70 300H will be restored one of these days.
Here’s a link to a company that actually makes 1971 Daytonas & Superbirds:based on Chrysler tests & blueprints for the proposed 1971 wing cars that never got off the ground (pun somewhat intended 😉 ):
http://www.71wingcars.com/categories.aspx?id=4
The website don’t exist but the Wayback Machine had kept a little souvenir. https://web.archive.org/web/20110425165205/http://www.71wingcars.com/categories.aspx?id=4
Geeber beat my to it, but even by 1967 the writing was on the wall for big-engined midsize cars. Insurance rates simply made them unobtainable for their target market. This is why we got the Monte Carlo and the Great Brougham Epic. At the same time, the Boomers were hitting wife and kids stage and emission laws were starting to kick in and thank God for that: every time I drive behind a pre-emission control car, I practically gag. I remember what it was like to have whole cities full of these fume belching monsters, and I don’t want to go back to that.
GM nailed it with the “personal luxury cars,” they were the right products for the right time and sold in droves. Chrysler was, as usual, a day late and a dollar short. For example, leaf springs were pretty archaic by 1970, and the build quality was completely hit and miss on these cars.
Yes, in the continuing American tradition of “selling the sizzle without the steak”……
I love the smell of hydrocarbons in the morning!
When I moved to Vancouver as a kid in 1976, on a hot summer day, it was not possible to see the North Shore Mountains, a mere 5 km from downtown.
That NEVER happens anymore, and the worst we get is a slight haze, and then only after an extended warm spell. I DO NOT want to go back to breathing purple haze and tetra-ethyl lead and I am glad the asthma it caused me as a kid will never affect my children.
The big Eastern fall meet of the Antique Automobile Club of America (AACA) at Hershey, Pa., is this weekend. I love to look at the old cars, but when they line up to leave the show field at about 3 p.m. – you realize that the good old days weren’t always that good.
GM’s X and F bodies used rear leafs until 1981,which garner pretty high praise for their handling attributes in that era, most notably the 75-79 Xs.
Which was also totally archaic, even at the time, as all other cars, Chrysler’s and those GM cars excepted, had switched to multi-link coil systems.
” Boomers were hitting wife and kids stage ”
This is where I disagree here. Boomers weren’t all born in a 3 year span. Its like 1940 to 1965 or so depending on the source. So while the first few waves of boomers were in the settle down phase, there were all new waves who were younger and wanted performance. The insurance and federal beauracrat killjoys conspired on one side to squash the fun, and the manufactured fuel crisis on the other side. There has ALWAYS been a strong market segment that wants performance cars, every so-called ‘reason’ for squelching it has been something that fit a political or economic agenda. And despite that, gearheads persevere.
Ill agree that in some areas, emissions could be a problem but the solution was to target ALL vehicles…which is dead wrong. From day one, the feds should’ve had more license to regulate pedestrian vehicles, and not be able to touch anything that falls under an ‘enthusiast’ category. Much like how motorcycles aren’t regulated like cars. Best way to keep everyone happy.
Many thanks for a superb article!! The 68-70 B bodies were always my favorites. I have owned 68-70 model year Road Runners over the years with a smattering of other Mopars for good measure. I never cared for the 71 bodies until much later on.
One thing that hasn’t been mentioned here is that these cars were very similar in their dimensions to the second-generation Camaros and Firebirds. I discovered this when I parked my 1980 Firebird next to my friend’s 1973 Sebring Plus. Height, width, and length were very close; both cars had bucket seats and consoles, and the seating position was remarkably similar. This makes the point that the 1971-up B-body coupes were farther in the direction of being low and sporty than their GM competitors. One didn’t see this comparison in any of the advertising of the time though.
Great ah hah! moment for me about the Montreal Strobes. The 71 Sebring Plus was my dream car when it came out. I hated the 73 restyle- the dissonance between the new front wheelwell and the old rear wheelwell was like fingernails on a chalkboard to me. Still!
What has always fascinated me was the progressive facelift of the Toro. Loop bumper for 68 on the old tail, then the 69 has the defined edge that you pointed out, then the revised front end and wheelwell arches of the 70. A lot of tooling money spent. I’d love to see one of your talented scribes write up the E Body transitions.
Excellent article! I have been in the love it camp for the 71 Bs since I first laid eyes on one, plus my Dad’s first car was a 71 Charger so I was instilled with them pretty early on. I never put the fuselage connection with the Valiant together until now, nor the strobe stripe to the Alpha’s vents, that’s really interesting to see.
I agree, good article and explains why Mopar nearly died in late 70’s. And reality of Muscel car era ending. While enthusiasts and collectors go ga ga over Hemi E bodies from 1970, reality is these did not sell to real car buyers of the time. Also, muscle cars got too expensive for teenage fans.
Car nuts will go on and and about how Detroit “Wimped out”, when cancelled most muscle cars. But they just do not know the reality of running a business.
Those high priced Hemi Cudas at Barrett Jackson actaully sat on dealer lots unsold. Kids could not afford them. The High Winged Superbird was a money loser, leading to Lee Iacocca bailing out the company.
You must not think too highly of car nuts. I’ve never once in my life heard any one car nut I’ve encountered(and I know many, since I am one), ages 8-80, say Muscle Cars died because Detroit “wimped out”. Most people are genuinely aware of prohibitive insurance rates and government regulations playing the big roles.
The High Winged Superbird was a money loser, leading to Lee Iacocca bailing out the company.
The Daytona/Superbird were homologation cars to make them competitive in Nascar, which they were very successful at(too successful as it turned out), they didn’t require much investment to build since they were simply modified Chargers/Roadrunners using cheap to build fiberglass molds and other homemade tricks to build them. No assembly line tooling investments of any kind, just labor rates for the people doing the modifications. To say those led to Lee Lacocca bailing out the company is akin to saying GM got bailed out for making the 1967 Camaro Z28.
The Plymouth Superbird was a successful race car, but it was a sales dud. Many sat on the lots until well into the 1971 model year. Some dealers even removed the wing and front nose cone and converted the cars to “regular” Road Runners to make them more saleable. But, yes, I don’t believe that one can blame Chrysler’s 1970s woes on the Superbird.
As this article shows, Chrysler’s entire 1971 intermediate line was a major miscalculation. The 1968-70 models had been very successful, and increased Chrysler’s share of the intermediate market, if I recall correctly. This generation never sold all that well, but undoubtedly incurred higher tooling costs, given that the coupes shared little, if any, outer sheet metal with the sedans and wagons. Betting on the continuation of the muscle car era was simply a major mistake, and one that cost the corporation dearly, given that intermediates were a very hot segment in the early 1970s.
Chrysler’s full-size cars and intermediates lost ground in the marketplace, despite major investments by the corporation in new bodies, regular restyles, etc. Meanwhile, the Valiant and Dart soldiered on with little change during this period, and scored increasing sales. That was one bit of good news, but the problem was that Chrysler Corporation was strongest in the segment were profit margins were among the lowest. That was a key factor that led to the need for a government bailout by 1979.
The Chrysler NASCAR wing specials were ‘big’ money losers. There was the R&D involved, then the actual assembly was all by hand, for a very low volume car. That’s real expensive, particularly with the number of Superbirds built. So they were all sold at a loss, which became even worse when they wouldn’t even sell at those prices. There are a few stories of Superbirds being sold as late as 1972 at Valiant prices. Some dealers even resorted to putting a standard Roadrunner front end on them (which was required in Maryland since that state didn’t recognize the nose cone as a bumper).
In fact, although there’s history with the emulation of Pontiac’s loop bumpers, I’ve always suspected that, starting in 1970, Chrysler’s stylists were trying to incorporate loop bumpers in such a way to make the NASCAR nose cones much easier to install on the assembly line. Chrysler was gearing up to stay in NASCAR for the long haul.
As a kid, I had a model of a 1971 GTX that actually included a NASCAR nose cone and rear wing. Chrysler, indeed, was planning just such a car before NASCAR clamped-down and killed the whole thing.
It’s worth noting that the Superbird used the fenders and a modified hood from the 1970 Dodge Coronet. Again, I always suspected that the odd front end of the Coronet was directly related to needing a fender-to-bumper setup that would facilitate nose cone installation. It just ended up being a Plymouth instead of a Dodge, thanks to Richard Petty. The front end of the 1971 Sebring certainly seems to go along with this line of thought.
ALL homologation cars are money losers, that’s why the companies usually build a bare minimum of them. Hand assembly at that low of volume is still cheaper than tooling up the line for them. Let’s not forget that the cars weren’t that involved to produce, they were off the line Chargers and Road Runners and the hand assembly team just installed nose cones wings and backlight filler panels to them, and shoddily I may add. These weren’t Ferrari F40s, they were more like an aftermarket landau roof conversion on a late model car for a Florida dealer. As for R&D, the notion at the time was win on Sunday, sell on Monday, and considering how successful those cars were I think they met that goal, the wins were meant to bolster the whole company’s image, not just of the winged cars.
The ‘big’ money losers were the E-bodies and the 74 C-bodies, Those took massive investments in production tooling and were flops. Whatever money lost on the Daytona/Superbird at best amounted to the equivalent sales loss of maybe a few hundred cars. The Es and Cs on the other hand missed their targets by a few hundred thousand cars each year, that’s what I’d call ‘big’ money losers, the winged warriors were barely a drop in the bucket.
TomCatt, I strongly recommend that you check out the excellent, well researched and logical articles written by “Ate Up With Motor” on Chrysler’s almost demise.
At the 1971 Auto Show, GM was promoting that their luxurious cars that could run on no/low lead gas, while Chrysler had Go-Go dancers and neon colors as if it was still 1968. Even when I was 10 y/o, I thought their display was outdated. For the 1972 Show, Mopar had all woodgrain displays and no more orange/yellow, to catch up.
By 1972-73, the mid size market went to GM and Ford’s plush mid size coupes, while Mopar dealers were begging for buyers, promoting the ‘Charger Topper’ for example. And, their biggest sellers were the low profit A bodies. Loyal C-P/Dodge buyers shunned racy looks saying “I dont want to get a speeding ticket” or “Insurance is too high on those Chargers”, and got Dusters, Darts, and Valients instead.
But also, the teenage/20s car market had tons of used 60’s muscle cars to pick from and a new 1971 muscle coupe was out of reach. So they withered away. Those that could afford sporty went to GM F bodies.
Magnificent piece on my second favourite US car in the history of the world.
Joe Herlitz on Engel’s 70 Barracuda proposal:
“… Elwood would take an active hand from time to time in design, and he had his own bodyside going which was the goddamndest thing you’ve ever seen in your life! It started narrow in the back and then grew wider as it went forward and had fully skirted front wheels. It was an awful-looking model. … All the designers stayed away from that platform because they didn’t even want to be seen by it.” (CA, Oct 2001)
A really sophisticated design; of its time but still an exemplar. The only reason its not my first favourite US car is because they didn’t do enough with the rear end.
Nice epic, Paul. I will never, ever again look at one of these without thinking of Montreal venting.
The quoted text does not appear to describe the pictured car. At least, it does not have skirted front wheels. It also doesn’t looks as bad as the description suggests, except for the stepped C-pillar. It’s like the back window was too big for the rest of the body, but they tried to make it work anyhow.
I tried a Google image search, to see what other online sources say about it, but couldn’t find another copy of this picture anywhere.
Sorry BOC. This pic is from Collectible Automobile, Oct 01 in an interview with 71 Sebring designer Joe Herlitz. The rendering is an example of his work for that car, I was using it to show a better rear end.
It’s a great interview, with great pics. The stuff about Engel is interesting for his late-period flourish. The car described above from the same guy who gave us the 61 Conty?
How about this ?
Elwood Engel’s 1970 Chrysler Cordoba de Oro concept.
Source: http://www.amcarguide.com/concept/1970-chrysler-cordoba-de-oro-concept/
I love it where you said of the big fuselage cars “The greenhouse exhibits symptoms of microcephaly”
That’s it exactly. I’ve always had trouble putting my finger on just what was wrong with those designs, but that nails it.
Fantastic article!
Count me as a fan of these cars! I think its tidier than the contemporary Charger, looks much leaner and more purposeful. While I drool over the balls to the wall muscle versions of these cars as much as many Mopar-philes, theres a certain appeal to the lower end car optioned up with the muscle car bits. This particular color looks great on the bodystyle…as Paul said very shark-like. These are weird for me…Im known for my visceral hatred of chrome, but on the more earth toned colors, the bodystyle wears the loop grille better than the hi-impacts done in monochrome setups. Those DEFINITELY look contrived with the chrome bumpers on bright colors. A blackout scheme would’ve been much better there.
I cant decide if I like the facelifted version better or not. Of all 5mph bumpered cars, the ’73-74s wore that look very well. A much sleeker blade bumper with that recessed grill woudlve been nicer but at least it isn’t an I beam. But the loop grille looks like its biting its lower lip. Something closer to what that Hurst 300 has with an ovoid loop and hidden lights would’ve flowed better, IMHO.
Still a great find! I love that gunmetal color…the argent rallys really play well with that color. The shifter question has been answered but its worth noting that there HAVE been pistol grip autobox shifters for the TF thru the aftermarket. Paul, I would disagree HARD with the /6 assumption. A 318/TF is much more likely in these. That this is a non RR and has buckets and 4spd makes it either something the owner restored to his own liking or a VERY rare bird.
My oldest sister’s purchase of a 71 Charger (318/Torqueflite) made it possible for me to buy her 66 Impala convertible as my first car. I was a new driver in 71, so it was a while before she let me drive her baby. When I did I noticed the handling was a step above my Impala, and even with the 318 it was a fairly quick car. The Charger went to my dad to replace his 76 Aspen wagon when my sister bought a Regal in about 81. When he and Mom got a Topaz in 84, he sold it to a mechanic at the gas station they used, who was really hot for it and no doubt dropped a 383 or 440/4 speed into it. I do remember the seating position being really low, so the beltline felt really high.
Very interesting (and thorough!) article. I had never really understood what this “fuselage” business was all about, and now I do.
Of course, to my un-American eyes, this Plymouth has a flavour of Citroen SM and Renault 15. SM in the back…
…..And the 15 in the front. These are contemporaries of the Plymouth, so it’s a case of convergent evolution (unlike, say, the Montreal).
Paul – fantastic job on this article and wow, what a load of comparison information!
FTR I never ‘got’ the fuselage attraction – they all seemed swollen to me. I also wasn’t enamored by the new GM B-bodies…I’ve always liked clean, linear styling, and to me the Collonades were much cleaner, easpecially the sedans. In the picture of the 5 years of GTOs, the ’64 appeals most to me. The most ‘swoopy’ Mopar design to me was the Scamp of the early ’70s perhaps, but the slight rebody of the 2 door Fury in ’75 wasn’t too bad either.
I too would have been attracted to the ’62s just because they were smaller than the competition.
Again, great job.
The ’62 Fury has a most attractive interior with a large, round speedometer, full instrumentation, pushbutton control for the superior TorqueFilte automatic tranny and HVAC controls, two toned interiors, in-dash (unlike Ford!) factory air conditioning, fold down armrest front bench seat and restrained (for the time period) use of chrome trim.
As Paul mentioned in this article, often Mopar’s best features were what was below/under the exterior skin.
Terrific article, Paul. Despite their poor showing in the marketplace, I’ve always had warm feelings for fuselage-era Mopars. Growing up during that period I saw a lot of them around. My father was a police officer, and his department got Satellite patrol cars in ’71. He was impressed enough with their durability to decide our next family car should be a Chrysler product (see my avatar pic).
The car you found and photographed is in outstanding condition, and in a beautiful color—Winchester Gray, I think. And I love the triple-block side marker lights, which I think were only used in ’71.
Always amazed how Paul is able to find the connections between a featured car and other makes and styling clues from earlier models that are only obvious after being pointed out. A friend’s Dad had a new 71-72 Charger and these cars really look more impressive in the metal than in pictures. I seem to remember dual exhaust, was probably a 383 4bbl auto. It was white with black interior, and on this body style white actually looks really good. It’s true you need to be young and limber to ride in the back seat, good thing we were back then. I don’t recall it feeling cheaply built, but it was new at the time. Maybe not a sales success, but an impressive machine none the less. The example found is a great survivor, the look may not have been all that original, but it was well executed none the less. Great article.
Truly inspired: I’d never thought of a Roadrunner and a Montreal on the same day, so as to see what these pictures make so clear. I like the connection with the early Valiant and the spacey Mopars of 1957-62…but I’ve never been able to like the extruding, overhanging shape above the wheels on these coupes.
Southern California is crawling with Mopar A-bodies of nearly every kind, but I can’t remember the last one of these I’ve seen.
Oboy, Paul. I love it when someone asks for a photoshopped car. Plus, I’m a Valiant guy, so I jumped on your suggestion to imagine an unfinned first gen Valiant. Here’s my first attempt. Not an easy task, as the horizontal bulges do contribute a visual break in the “plop of poop” body shape, and I hope Exner would not have designed the car this way without raising the waistline a bit. I tried to change it as little as possible, and the roofline looks even more bizarre against the round flanks than on the original. One change that I had to incorporate was to get rid of the wheel arch flares in front, as they were much too high relative to the lowered fender line. I think the car starts to resemble an oversized Subaru 360. Even Subaru utilized a stylized ’30s fender bulge to add some interest along the sides of their little toy, so they recognized that the turret top needed something below to keep Mr. Boredom away.
That’s really great work ! You created some sort of Plymouth 504.
Wow! Nice reference, Johannes. Even the same color!
Much to my pleasant surprise I came across a 504 in the same color pretty quickly. A classic French cars specialist here had it in stock.
http://www.delest.nl/autoarchief/421/Peugeot-504-GL-Diesel-1979.html
Barko; Thank you! It really was a bit hard to imagine what it would look like….but here it is. And yes, that tail is mighty (504ish) droopy.
Are you available for other “What If” photoshops? One of my biggest frustrations is not having the time to learn it, but maybe I’ll send some ideas your way. Or maybe you’ve got some of your own. I love alternate reality posts.
Absolutely–you just asked the baker if he likes bread! I love doing these things, and would welcome the challenge, as I am forever re-imagining cars in my head. I use photoshop every day in my work, so I should be able to handle any weird requests, although the ones that are best are those that are the most plausible, and make you think, “why didn’t they do it that way?”
Great! I’m sending you an e-mail.
Wow, what a change. Its what the Lark might have looked like if Studebaker styling nad been given a bigger budget.
Here’s the Subaru 360 for comparison.
Great article. I remember these looking oldish when they were new and as a 9-to-11 year old car kid thinking they were imitating GM. And we were a Chrysler family, sort of – my Dad loved our 64 Fury and I always had a soft spot for all Mopars. Weirdly, I actually really liked the 75 Fury coupe that replaced the Sebring, although you’ll recall the by-then-old-looking Satellite sedan lived on as the Fury sedan, complete with a chunky front end and “euro” amber/red taillights. Few were fooled, but I can recall my Dad liking a rental Fury sedan we had in the Summer of 76 (seemed luxurious compared to our VW 411).
I think Chrysler made a bigger statement with the bigger cars, not the B-bodies. I actually quite like the 69-71 C-body big dogs but consider the 72-73 restyle a disaster (look at the coupes. Biggest. C-Pillars. Ever.). You’ll find the 69-71 tv ads on YouTube and the 69 TV campaign used the fuselage styling as the centrepiece (apart from a cool Dave Duvall-narrated Canadian ad, filmed in front of Toronto’s Mies Van Der Rohe-designed TD Centre, that refers only to the “new wide stance”).
The B-bodies never impressed in the same way, and I am just young enough to have missed the muscle car thing and was import-mad (still have my Matchbox Marzai and Corgi Alfa Montreal, so enjoyed the hat tip, which had never occurred to me).
What I do recall about both the C-bodies and B-bodies, and all Chryslers of this era, is that quality was a real issue, even by the standards of the day. They aged poorly and seemed to disappear from the roads more quickly than their contemporary Ford, GM, and AMC equivalents (I think the last one only because AMC drivers were always, well, a little different, and despite much effort the Matador always attracted a sedate crowd (although that has been well-covered elsewhere!))….
Very good article. In fact the light blue metalic Satellite Sebring Plus was mine 3 years ago. I regret selling it and wish I had it back.
I wish I could’ve heard your opinion on the 1966/67 Dodge Chargers
Rereading this article and noting my original short comment really drives home just how off the mark my personal tastes are from the “average American buyer”. Actually, not just off the mark, more like I absolutely loathe his/her complete lack of taste.
That ’71 Plymouth coupe, to me, is one of best looking designs of the Seventies, especially if you’re talking a model where the bumper is color matched, rather than chrome (I still consider the chrome version almost as good). It only has one stinking, single, problem as a design.
It’s too damn big!
Look at that car, then visualize it somewhere between 3/4ths and 7/8ths the actual design, all proportions kept exactly. THAT’S how the car should have looked.
And it seems to be a Chrysler/FCA problem. Despite my being on a homing beacon for a Nissan Leaf or Chevrolet Bolt as my next car sometime next year, the two cars that could short circuit those plans completely are the Dodge Charger or Challenger – if they were 3/4ths to 7/8ths their current size. Gorgeous, mother*****g, automobiles . . . . but in a size that there’s no way whatsoever I could ever see myself comfortable driving.
Chrysler had this habit of just being slightly off the mark as to where the market was going back in those days. And I still consider the ’62 Plymouth Fury two door hardtop the best looking full sized car of the Sixties. No doubt my late father is spinning in his grave at my making that statement.
Always liked the 1971 taillights much better than the ‘72s.
I guess some guys at Dodge saw the light and tried to do their best to compare the 1970 Charger vs the Chevrolet Monte Carlo instead of the Chevelle SS in this vintage dealer movie film strip beside the Pontiac GTO.
I love this car and color. And if it was all about the coupes with the ’71 intermediates, I definitely think the ’69 full-sizes look better in four-door form, much better proportioned. Even better as wagons. The 2-door C bodies are definitely an afterthought.
Paul, your essay is erudite and has laughs, too. I see how interested we all are in this era. Great laughs, good information. My aunt bought a 1960 Valiant. It was a tight car, with a solid feel to the doors for opening and closing. Great comments from the members! Quirk of Satellite/Fury models. By 1975 the rear seat glazing was fixed UNLESS you ordered P31 option – power windows. Then you had four windows that opened.
I’ve been seeing a ’71 or ’72 Charger in fairly good shape recently parked next to a small shopping center. It’s being driven as it’s not parked all that well sometimes. Every time I see it, I wish I had the cash to buy it, or my friend’s 71 RR 383, or one of the restored cars from ’71 to ’74. I had a ’74 Roadrunner for the first car I ever bought, and I would love to have another one as an old man’s toy. A Petty Blue with white stripes ’71 with a 440 four barrel , 3.92 gears with an added on Gear Vendors overdrive and 727 would be fantastic.
Even after 46 years, I still think it looks great. A duplicate of my car:
I seem to recall even at the time there was commentary that the interior was compact for the extreme size of the vehicle. It may not have had any legroom in the back, but you sure had hiproom