(Updated 4/15/2026) There are plenty of beautiful cars from the muscle car era of 1964-74, but is the 1968 Dodge Charger the most beautiful of them all? I think it is, but what makes this burly Mopar such a dreamboat?
Let’s begin at the rear. By the way, the now-closed Walter P. Chrysler Museum in Auburn Hills, MI, owns TWO ’68 Charger R/Ts, one 440-powered, the other with a Hemi. I don’t even own one, so there goes the idea of equity in our tumultuous world. The 440 model above displays, in my opinion, superior (compared to the ’69 and ’70 Charger) round taillights in a truncated tail section, and the trunk lid is upswept into a small lip spoiler. The ’68-only round marker lights on the side have, in my opinion, more character than their ’69 replacements.
The double-stripes around the tail are just flashy enough, but not ostentatious like the later billboards on the E-Bodies. The term “automotive pornography” might have become cliche over time, but if ever there was an image that made the term relevant, the above photograph might be it.
Taken as a whole, especially on this black Hemi version, the look is somehow equally graceful and menacing. Chrysler’s designers, working under Elwood Engel, might have committed a forgery in the design of the rear window and C-pillars, as they bear a striking resemblance to the ’66 GM A-Bodies, but the swelling rear quarter panels could belong to nothing but a Charger.
Above, you can see how clean the Charger’s bodyside is, with no unnecessary chrome trim. Additionally, the Charger is one of the rare cars that looks better with a vinyl top than it does without. Some cars, like the original Oldsmobile Toronado, don’t seem to go well with vinyl, but the Charger looks great either way.
One of my favorite features of the second-generation Charger is the beltline that sweeps down underneath the front fender line. This “dueling body lines” motif adds some tension to the doorskin, but the front and rear ends still look homogenous. Chrysler has even cribbed this look for its most recent Charger, less successfully. Two door “scoops” flank the emblem that was most likely to strike fear into any potential mark out on Woodward, the rare “Hemi” emblem. Although it may seem odd for a Hemi R/T to wear dog dish hubcaps and black steel rims, it only adds to the businesslike appearance of this particular Charger.
As we swing around front, the perfect round marker light again makes an appearance, just behind a severely recessed grill with hidden headlamps. Many 1960s cars look great with hidden lamps, such as the 1965 Riviera, the 1967 Camaro, and the 1969 Caprice, and the Charger is no exception. Another facet I prefer about the 1968 (over the 1969) is the uninterrupted grille. The “snout” in the middle ruined the cleanliness for me, although I might be in the minority in that regard.
Most car fans are aware of Bullitt, and Steve McQueen’s Mustang still fascinates viewers as the hero car, which inspires countless Highland Green imitators. I come from a Ford family and grew up on Mustangs, and have driven my ’65 Mustang since 1994. But now that I’ve owned a little bit of everything, I must admit that the Charger was the one that kept me rewinding that famous chase scene. Both cars are movie and TV stars, but the Charger was the looker in this contest, if only by a little.
As far as all 1960s cars are concerned, I would probably prefer a first-gen Riviera and, in a perfect world, an early Miura from a purely aesthetic perspective. However, if we’re talking muscle cars, this is the one. Even the gas cap, sitting out in chrome plated glory right atop the quarter panel, makes this Charger appear as if it thundered straight from Daytona’s pit lane (where this car was almost completely unsuccessful against the Torinos and Cyclones until the 1969 Daytona came along). Even my wife thinks this is the baddest car ever made, and if they didn’t command stupid money, I think we’d all own one.
Chrysler knew it had a hit when it advertised “the only car that looks as good as it goes.” And even though the Duke Boys and much of America may prefer the ’69, you know where my allegiance lies. This is the pinnacle of the muscle car era.
agree. the best styled full production car ever.
Great piece Aaron, thank you from a hard core Charger lover.
I agree, the 68-70 Chargers are brutally sexy. Theres a reason they are the car of choice for so many movies. I dont think Ive ever heard any car guy say they didnt like Chargers, regardless of marque affiliation.
Im partial to the split grille and the wide taillights of the ’69s and I dont really like the loop bumper ’70s as much as the 68/69 but any one of the 3 model years are welcome in my garage. I wouldnt trade my DD 69 Charger for anything.
The only thing with Chargers is though, they need a big tire to fill up those wheelwells and huge quarters or they look dorky.
I like the ’69-’70 taillights and side reflectors, and the ’68 ‘electric razor’ grille. But, yeah, any ’68-’70 Charger is A-OK. I was always puzzled why Chrysler did a retro 1970 Challenger when the vast majority of people seem to agree that the 2nd generation Charger was one of the best styled cars to ever come out of Detroit.
I mean, c’mon, how hard would it have been for Chrysler to do a decent, retro, 2-door Charger instead of a Challenger?
You might like this Chrysler 300 SRT8 converted into a B-body Charger
http://www.streetlegaltv.com/news/from-new-to-old-chrysler-300c-srt8-converted-into-69-charger/
Lt Dan – is this big enough?
John, close but not quite, haha
IMO, this one has The Perfect Stance:
Great case you make, Aaron. My personal preference is for Joe Herlitz’s 71 GTX/Road Runner, but I agree as far as the 60s are concerned. The 68 Charger is a really sophisticated shape without coming across as pretentious when the others were using brute as the aesthetic language. I think the fact that you’re a Mustang guy just adds credence to your appraisal. Nice.
Attractive, but I’m more in the 1968 GTO camp.
A difficult choice especially with the Cyclone & Torino,late 60s fastbacks are some of America’s best looking cars
Boy what a difficult choice. The ’68-’69 Goats are at the top of my desirability list. Liked the ’69 a bit better due to the tailights.
’68-’69 Charger also a favorite. Like the ’68 better, again because of the tailights. The round ’68’s are cool and classic. The wide ’69’s, gaudy like a polyester suit. Nicer front grille too on the ’68.
I read that in Bulllitt, Steve McQueen’s 390 Mustang had quite the time trying to keep up with the bad guys 440 Charger R/T. Noted stunt driver Bill Hickman (who also drove the Pontiac Grand Ville in the 7-Ups) drove the Charger, which cut quite the figure in triple black. Made the Mustang look like a toy in comparison.
You know, I more admire ’68-’70 GTOs than want one. I can see how they must have been pretty earth shattering when they came out; they’re definitely more modern than the previous generation and the Charger, though I still prefer ’64/’65 A-Bodies. I had an uncle who let me drive his beater ’69 GTO convertible, and that made my transformation from a Ford guy to a whatever guy complete.
Ya heard that
I love the ’68 Charger, had a triple Avacado,BUT also had/have my 1964 and 1965 RIVIERA’S love the shape of both bodies (also prefer the ’68 of the Charger’s) my silver Riv still does it for me
Cover your ears.
The double stripes at the tail are just absurd. They look as if they were supposed to be installed fore/aft by a team of two and the guys were just too lazy to walk around and put them on correctly. W/o the strips, it’s a good looking car. With the tail strips, it’s just tacky.
It’s worth noting that the Chrysler stylists hated the ‘bumblebee’ stripes. They felt they had spent the time to go through design school to learn how to style cars, only to have marketing guys ruin their designs with tape stripes.
Yes they are nice! And the 1970 Challenger and Cuda cousins are cool too! But he later Challengers after ’71 particularly were ruined with a ‘goonish’ frontal stare that makes you want to just retch..yuk!
I’v often said US car makers get it right first time,here’s proof they got it right second time!I’ve missed the boat a long time ago with 68/70 Chargers,even a near wreck goes for silly money and if it’s got a hemi you need to be a rock star or lottery winner.
A beautiful car. A great year for the Charger, and quite unique compared to the standard Coronet models.
Agree, this generation of Charger looks beautiful – especially with this nose.
This front end reminds me a bit of a jet engine intake on some jet fighters. Other cars with such front are some of Ford Thunderbirds and I like them for the same reason
For me, the ’68-’69 Charger is the definitive muscle car design. The crisp, double diamond side profile looks like clenched muscular arm. The GTO is comparable, but in my eye, the softer Coke bottle curves on the Goat don’t elicit the same masculine sense of strength.
The Charger is one of the few cars that looks as good with a vinyl roof as without, and it looks good in just about all of the colors available at the time.
The 1970 Charger was of course from the same generation, but I’ve always felt the heavy looped chrome bumper detracted from the clean design. The ’70s also had a reverse scoop covering the door scallops – never understood why they did that. I’d spring for one if I could get one in Panther Pink with a white vinyl roof, though.
The Charger was my favorite car as a 15-year old kid, and remains my favorite in my mid-40s.
Yeah, that big, fake, door panel reverse scoop on the 1970 R/T killed it. In the pantheon of 2nd generation Chargers, it would be one of the least desirable. For 1970, a mid-level trim Charger 500, without the door scoop and the biggest engine option (probably a 383-4v), would be the one to have.
Honestly, though, any ’68-’70 Charger is okay and certainly better than any later year.
Given the scallops were presumably imitating fender vents, I can see a larger open vent being a logical extension – of something fundamentally not logical of course! Not that Dodge were Robinson Crusoe in that regard of course.
I like it, but I think I like the ’69 a bit better, with no vinyl.
Of course, my taste could be influenced by a certain TV car, the matchbox version of which spent considerable time flying through the air (and into walls) during my childhood. I must have went though a dozen of them. Just like real life I suppose.
The second generation Charger is definitely one of the best of its era. Off the top of my head, I can only think of the Sting Ray, XK-E and first generation Riviera that’s playing in the same ballpark. Although, I have to admit, my perfect charger is an combination of touches: ’68 front end, ’69 rear, no vinyl roof. It’s a pity that, at the time, annual changes were mandatory because they just got further and further away from the original, and none of those changes were really necessary (I like the ’69 tail lights better, but have no complaints about the ’68’s).
And like LTDan, any year of this series would be welcome in my garage. The Charger and the like year Road Runner are the only muscle cars that have ever turned me on.
Very nice, although the 69 Coronet 500 is my favorite late 60s B body.
Like the Series I Jag Etype, the Charger was an instant classic that couldn’t be improved on, just messed with and muddled.
I love the looks of these. I see a dozen of these every year at the big Mecum auction here, and always photograph the Charger logo on that sail panel. It’s always a great shot. To wit:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/mobilene/5781022590
Love the look of the 68-70 Chargers, especially the 69s. But as others have said, hard to find a bad muscle car from any of the Big 3 during the late 60s.
I’m very surprised and disappointed to see that the Chrysler Museum has closed to the public! I was there in 2011 and enjoyed it a lot. I hope they maintain it and reopen it to the public sometime soon.
It is open every June 7 for the Chrysler Employee Motorsport Association show. The show has great cars (everything from 440 New Yorkers, Volare Road Runners with slant 6’s, Citroen CX’s, and everything in between).
So it is! Hadn’t you or someone else mentioned it as a possible CC meet-up earlier this year?
Yes I did, but the parental units called it off… Sigh…
I agree, the ’68 looks much better than the ’69 or ’70. The ’68-’70 Charger is one of the most masculine and sexy cars out there. Usually, cars get compared to women, but the Charger is definitely an alpha male.
Perry, don’t you think the ’69 Mach 1 Mustang Fastback is just even more masculine?!?! That is ridiculously ‘macho’ to a point that gaping bull shark shovel nose in the rear view mirror is downright frightening, notwithstanding a cd number of a Mack truck, lol.
The front end treatment of the early Challenger is quite feminine to my eyes, whereas the rear end treatment is quite the opposite.
It’s all in the eyes .. thank goodness we all have our preferences .. otherwise what a boring automotive world it would be .. 🙂
I totally agree with you .. the Challenger pictured is just a magnificent, beautiful, beautiful motor vehicle, par none.
ps.. the other day i saw a silver and black ’73 De Tomaso Pantera 351C driving slowly by ..the Cleveland “thumping” at slow lazy revs ..MY GOD ..the rear end on that machine is M A C H O ! !
We could mention, a rare edition of the 1968 Charger, the Bengal Charger when Tom Kneer, a Dodge dealer in Cincinnati, celebrated the news of the coming of the Cincinnati Bengals in the AFL before the big merge with the NHL with the Bengal Charger.
http://tommyscarblog.wordpress.com/2012/10/30/1968-dodge-charger/
The Charger is nice, but the most beautiful muscle car is the 1970 (non-Judge) GTO, either coupe or convertible.
While I can’t say it’s my favorite, the 2nd-gen Charger was a mean and beautiful machine. Too bad the bodies and interiors were made of papier mache. However, the drive train was unsurpassed, even to this Chevy-lover!
Still, I’d take a Chevelle, but no one could ever beat those bull’s eye side markers, and Sears used to sell aftermarket ones, and I almost put them on my 1961 Bel Air!
I love the look of these. However, Carmine makes one good point (perhaps not the one he intended) – in the eyes of the American public in 1968, the Charger was probably a bit old fashioned and conservative. The 1968-1972 GM intermediates sort of set the “taste curve” back then, and these Mopars were a few years behind that curve in 1968.
However, time is the great equalizer. Even in 1968, I preferred the slightly older look of the Charger, and today, its good design has held up extremely well.
I only wish I had known my eventual best friend Dan when his father bought the first 68 Charger R/T in Fort Wayne. He traded a 66 Charger on it. A 440/Torqueflite car, it was unfortunately destroyed in an intersection accident in maybe 1969 or 70. I forget what came next (he was a frequent trader) but more ordinary family cars seemed to rule after the 2 Chargers.
I totally agree, the clean design and great touches like the gas filler make the ’68 stand out for me. Well that, and the fact that they were the first Chargers I ever saw. Because there’s not only one, but two ’68 R/Ts here in Regensburg. Although I’ve seen neither of them for a couple of years now. Here are a couple of photos:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/robotriot/8705972047/in/set-72157630896762954
https://www.flickr.com/photos/robotriot/8705972213/in/set-72157630896762954
https://www.flickr.com/photos/robotriot/8707095314/in/set-72157630896762954
https://www.flickr.com/photos/robotriot/4832338020/in/set-72157622054995414
https://www.flickr.com/photos/robotriot/2658928012/in/set-72157622054995414
When were you at the Chrysler Museum?!
I’m a Michiganian, so I’ve been to all the museums many times.
So am I (Genesee County).
1968 Chargers are driven by naughty boys.
HAHA ~ did Jack Nicholson own one??????
Dennis Hopper in Blue Velvet.
I prefer the first gen 66-67 Charger to the 2nd gen Charger. I like the fastback look, the chrome strip outlining the beltline, the full-width taillight panel, interior with full-length console and real bucket seats in the rear, wicked electro-luminescent gauges….
Speaking of taillights, of all Chargers I like the ’68 taillights the least. A rectangular opening filled by round taillights. Plain round taillights remind me of a Chevy. Sorry, I’ll take the 69-70 Charger taillights over these. I think I like the divided ’69 grille better too. However, it would be a tossup for me whether I like the ’69 Charger, ’70 Coronet Super Bee or ’71 Cuda (preferably WITH billboard graphics) more.
However, if you’re counting “full-size muscle”, the answer is clearly the 1966 Chrysler 300. 🙂
Only the first gen had the electro-luminescent gauges? For some reason I thought the second gen did too.
The first generation is quite the looker too.
I think I’ll just take one from each generation up to the third and a current one for when I’m feeling modern.
BOC, what I liked about the 1966 Charger was the full length console which extended into the back seats, with a total of four bucket seats. Pretty sure the back seats folded flat to give an enormous amount of cargo space. In some ways, the first gen Charger was to the Coronet what the first gen Barracuda was to the Valiant, basically a sportier, more youth-oriented version. I especially like the first gen Charger in silver with Magnum 500 rims. Mine would have a 383-4 barrel. Oh, and the other cool thing about the first gen Charger was the full width taillights with sequential turn signals. Always thought that was so cool when stopped behind one at a traffic light.
Just goes to show you it’s all subjective. I think the 1st gen Charger is, well, hideous, to be nice about it. The 2nd gen is fantastic(all years, but the ’68 is the best), the 3rd a little less so, give me a ’71-’74 Roadrunner instead. I love the Super Bee. I would be happy with any of the 68-70 B body cars, even a “tribute” car would be fine.
If I had a ton of cash, I would drive out to Vegas, contact the present owner of my ’74 Roadrunner, pay him whatever he wants and get my old car back that I bought 40 years ago, with a 478 F.I stroker in it, along with a built torqueflite with an overdrive added to it so it can be driven on highways without any real penalty with the 3.90 gears it has now. It looks better than new, and the original 360 is sitting in his garage, ready to go in, if anyone wanted to be “correct”.
I’d have to tie it with the 66/67 GTO, of which much of the Charger’s styling seems to be derived from.
I don’t think I’ve ever rated which muscle car I consider the best looking (it sounds like an exercise in futility), but for some reason the 1971 Chevelle SS always comes to mind.
From a ’60s design standpoint, then as previously stated, the Sting Ray, E-Type and Miura come into play.
A GTO is in the top too, but looking at the pictures of these Chargers, I fell in love even more. So many nice details and that dashboard with all the gauges is what a dashboard should be.
It’s hard to find a fault.
I’d have a hard time picking a year from ’68-’70 though. Either tail light setup is good looking in my eyes, though when I think Charger, I think the more full width setup.
The first gen is really nice too and I like the third gen as well. Can’t forget about those.
Interesting that all three of the years have been used prominently in film or TV. ’68 for Bullitt, ’69 for Dukes, and ’70 for Fast and the Furious.
Richard Hammond would approve of this article.
No other car is simultaneously drop-dead gorgeous and menacing as a triple-black ’68 Charger R/T. I fell in lust the first time I saw Bill Hickman buckle his seatbelt and smoke the tires for several blocks going uphill. Best looking Mopar ever.
Totally agree. Unbelievably not only does the vinyl roof work here, but the full wheel covers do to.
Its menacing even though it has conservative touches, the same way the occupants of the Charger were menacing and yet conservative, Bill Hickmans’ thick black glasses and dark suit and skinny black tie wouldn’t have looked out of place in an office, but looking at them and the car, you knew they meant business.
That is a great looking car. I always loved the flying butresses. I think if I had to pick one favorite styling trend of all time, it would have to be hidden headlights, especially when the covers were styled to look like extensions of the grille. Cars like this, the 67-68 Eldorado, early Cougars, Camaros…I just love that look.
Mopar copied GM with the flying butresses, which were on the 1966 A bodies.
Chargers driven by bad guys? I have only been in one 1968 Charger 440 R/T and that was in high school. That was the newest car in the lot next to my 1968 Cougar. The owner was a young teacher around 30 years of age. Impressive car given the pay at a Catholic high school. In my senior year, 1971, we had two night car rallies. The first time out my navigator and I are in the Cougar at a light for Midway and La Jolla Blvd. Down La Jolla Blvd. flies a metallic brown Charger. My navigator asks who the hell was that? I answer… Father Byrnes. He left the priesthood seven years later.
This era Charger is elevated by “Bullit” and “Dukes” exposure. To me, they’re just another 1966-70 Mopar B body.
You say that like it’s a bad thing 🙂
Right? 68-70 Roadrunner or 68-69 SuperBees aren’t exactly far behind the Charger in the looks department themselves. They all inherently share a similar look with their bodystructures but it’s a look the 64-67 GM A bodies didn’t quite have, and a look their 68-72 follow ups lost with a change in styling direction.
I’m really not a Mopar guy, but I would take this era B body coupe over about just about any other car I can think of.
66-70 Chargers all look great. I don’t care for the vinyl roof on any of these cars, however. The golden years of automotive styling, it’s hard to go wrong on any of the big three in this era.
I agree on the vinyl tops, I didn’t get it then, I don’t get it now. When my mom ordered her ’72 Cutlass (That I would wind up driving for almost 2 years), I was able to get her to order a good color, red, with black interior, but I couldn’t get her to leave off the vinyl top, and she got white! I hated that white top, black would have been better
The late 60’s was when, to me, Ford went off the rails, styling wise. They wouldn’t come back to sanity for many years. GM lost it’s way with the Colonade cars in ’73, but they weren’t any uglier than the best Ford products of the same era. Some of the 70’s Mopars were kind of dull, but that was a plus IMHO compared to the awful looking Ford and GM cars.
’68 is without a doubt the best looking of all the Chargers. That grille….a big black maw of death! These definitely need some big fat meats out back though, typical of many muscle cars.
Its no suprise that these are a staple in movies. The F & F Charger looks pretty sweet with the perfect wheels and that huge tower of nastiness punching thru the hood. But ultimately, Blade’s version is best for conveying the ‘Im a total badass’ look. You just cant beat a flat black one. And the car suits the Blade character perfectly.
I agree that the ’68 is the best looking charger, my neighbor had a green 440 magnum when I was a kid and I couldn’t take my eyes off that car. You mention the ’70 chevelle-great looker, but I’ve always felt the ’69 is so superior and completely gorgeous and completely under-appreciated, as-is the ’66.
There’s one of these that prowls my neighborhood during the summer months. All in black with the hemi. just as straight as the black one above. No vinyl roof or stripe though. The pavement trembles in it’s wake, windows rattle, mothers grab their children off the streets and the ricers forget what they’re talking about. As if anyone cares about what they have to say anyway. Lots of old school hot rodders in the area.
Man, bullitt dukes, bullitt dukes, blah blah blah. No one here ever see Dirty Mary Crazy Larry?
great movie, almost forgot about that one, terrible ending to a great car.
Still miss Vic Morrow…
There was a twin to the yellow Charger here locally that came up for sale in 1973, and I tried to talk my mom into letting me buy it. I was 17, and had the money (I worked at my dad’s store from 14 on, and sold stereo equipment on the side), but I couldn’t get her to sign for a 4+ year old car, even though it had never been in snow or been “salted”. Later on in 1981, I had a chance to buy an amazing 1974 SD-455 Trans Am, in showroom condition for a good price, but I knew mom wouldn’t go for it, as she would have wanted to see it first and the exhaust sounds would have scared her off. I always wonder where that car is now..
Based on a book called ‘Pursuit’. Story is pretty much the same except, no girl, and the book written before the Chargers came out, also, the robbery car was a souped, white w/blue saddle 1957 Olds Super 88, the second car was a 1961 Chevy Impala w/ 409 and set up for heavy duty racing, the ending, instead of a train, running high speed, evading police, hit’s a semi head on, at over 140 mph
I developed an interest in and passion for the new body style Charger in Junior High. In the fall of 1967, when I was in 7th grade, my principal bought a brand new Charger. The color was an aqua or teal with a white vinyl top. Not positive but I think it had a 318 V-8. I took an immediate liking to that car. The shape of the car was for me rather like a female with curves in all the right places. You know, just irresistible and hard not to just stare at. He owned it for at least the three years I was in Junior High, and I never tired of staring at it. This was a time I really loved reading about and learning about cars in all the popular car magazines. I went on to like the 1969 and 1970 Charger just as much. Also have to mention that I was in an unsupervised study hall in 9th grade. What I was even more excited and passionate about was the wild and awesome-looking 1969 1/2 Dodge Charger Daytona. So, at least a couple of times I sketched a Charger Daytona on the blackboard.
Now, as far as a favorite year of Charger, of the 3, the 1969 was and still is my favorite, long before The Dukes Of Hazzard. I owned one, an R/T, about 1974-75. Actually, I like them all. I especially like the taillights of the 1968, and I like the highback bucket seats of the 1970. And, I’ll also add that when the new, 1971 Charger came out in the fall of 1970, I ended up liking it even better, especially in the Super Bee or R/T trim. Then for 1972, the R/T and Super Bee high performance models were gone, replaced by a Rallye model. The Chargers I most liked for 1972-74 were the Rallye model. OK, technically, it was a trim package on a 1973-74 Charger.
mmm.. well ..blonde or brunette regardless..we are just hard wired to ‘like’ (a LOT) that certain hip to waist ratio .. and the guys from the automotive sheet metal design school knew this only too well ‘methink for sure’ says the irishman.. 🙂
I’m partial to the 68 Charger but wouldn’t turn down a 69 or 70. I have a 70 RT that I’m restoring right now.
I’d raise two points, first being I can’t call the Charger the “most beautiful car” of the muscle car era, as opposed to the “most beautiful muscle car” – things like the Miura, Maserati Ghibli, Ferrari Daytona, Corvette, De Tomaso Mangusta, Datsun 240Z and countless other sports cars are more “beautiful” than any muscle car. Most beautiful muscle car, perhaps, but…
Second, I’m not sure the Charger isn’t too menacing to be called beautiful. Should muscle cars ‘do’ beautiful? If so I’m happy with the nomination of the 68 Charger but I’d also agree there are several contenders for the ‘crown’ even without getting into ‘pony cars’, as mentioned the GTO (first or second gen), 70-72 Torino GT, even the Challenger/Cuda. I’d put fastback Mustangs or early 2nd-gen Camaro/Firebird as more beautiful though, pony cars are ‘prettier’ than muscle cars.
I think we may be hair-splitting with semantics here. The spirit of the entry was to express my opinion of the most beautiful muscle car, obviously, which is why I included the bit about the Riv and the Miura.
In the same vein, there was no ’72 Torino GT, it was the Gran Torino Sport.
I dont disagree about that, I was just adding to the discussion.
I actually owned a ’63 Buick Riviera back in my late twenties, which my Grandmother had given to me. She was mint, with every 1963 GM luxury option, and the 425cid Nailhead engine. When I got the car, she had 68k miles on her, and only had been, literally, to the grocery store and back, for 30-plus years. I loved my Riviera, and she was fast!
She was the top of the line Buick in 1963, and also the fastest American production car of that year, even made better numbers than the ’63 corvette. That being said, I would have traded her for a mint 1968 Dodge Charger R/T with a HEMI or 440 Six Pack in a hot second, even trade. I’m not joking, even a little. The 1968 Dodge Charger is the sexiest muscle car ever produced; truly a work of automotive art.
I’m sorry, but the definition of beauty is: “the qualities in a person or a thing that give pleasure to the senses or the mind”. It really doesn’t matter if it’s menacing, or feminine, or whatever. Beauty is beauty, and in the end we’re still looking at cars, not T&A so trying to subcatagorize designs that aren’t curvacious with wide birthing hips as a different category than beautiful really is, I agree, semantics, because you’re effectively basing all beauty on just one measure of the natural world. A sunset for example is beautiful and serene, while a volcanic eruption is beautiful and menacing.
The thing with exotics is ubiquity and exclusivity clouds judgement. Take away the exclusivity, performance, build quality, ect. of exotics and judge them PURELY on looks, I’d easily place certain “muscular” Detroit designs right among the cars you mentioned and ahead of a few.
…guess we are talking 100% ‘subjectivity’ right ..everyone’s take is different and unique.. some even find the ‘ugly’ beautiful in some perverse measure
i forced myself to go down to the Thames firth waterline yesterday to look at the current rat invasion hopping around all over the rocks (‘yuck’ right?) ..well actually they have quite cute little faces ..just don’t look at the tails .. 🙂
I like dogs with squashed faces,I have a cute French Bulldog and have had a Pug and Boston Terrier.
The 2nd generation Charger was by far the most beautiful car ever designed. The 70 Charger R/T was the ultimate Charger in my books….the best of everything.
I took one in trade on a ’73 Cutlass Supreme.Was just a car then(1977)I loved the Gas cap.Mine had a 383.For purely bang for bucks, bought a ’74 state police car…Dodge W/a 440 in 1977; $175. Donuts,pavement rattler,WOW!
Never liked the 69 Charger. The split grill looks wimpy, no side lamps. The 68 front end looks good but the round tail lights are meh. The 70 Charger got it right. High back bucket seats, open grille, best rear end. the funky impact colors, pistol grip shifter etc. I’d love one.
Wimpy! There’s nothing wimpy about a 2nd generation Charger it’s totally badass.They look like the sort of car the guy who breaks legs behind the pool hall in gangster films would drive.I’d expect Tig or Happy from Sons of Anarchy to drive one.
Well, you’re close. The correct answer is of course the ’69 Charger. 😉
There’s an incredible amount of bickering in the 2nd gen Charger camps between the 3 years between 68, 69 and 70. I always equate it with baking cookies. 68 was undercooked, 69 was perfect and 70 was burnt on the bottom. 🙂
In the end we are brothers in arms because we all know we are driving the most beautiful musclecar ever made.
I couldn’t agree more. 🙂
Disclaimer: I am somewhat biased having owned a 1968 Charger for 38 years.
Thanks for the great article.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/1968_dodge_charger/
I’ve enjoyed your many images Scott – you’re the ultimate Charger enthusiast and artist!
Thanks Bart! Very much appreciated!
I’m up to 49 years of ownership now. Here’s a link to my Facebook page where I did a little (big) post on owning it all these years. Check it out if you like. 🙂
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1CqzLso2Bg/
I’ll be the contrarian here, while the 68-70 Charger is attractive when not painted orange with a confederate flag I find its Bullitt quarry the 68 Mustang Fastback the best looking muscle car of the era, If pony cars are excluded, number 2 is a 1967 Chevelle SS. Growing up in the 80s made me appreciate sharp edged styling more than swoopy.
I’ve never thought much of the Mustang’s styling, some generations, it’s been really bad, some OK, never to the “WOW!” level of the Charger, Roadrunner, Super Bee, GTO, Chevelle SS, Camaro (second gen for me, thanks)Trans Am, 442, and the Buick GS-1. All the above, even in their worst colors, rank above any Mustang, or Ford product, period. A friend of mine has a Bullitt Mustang, and IF there wasn’t a Challenger or even a Charger available, I could see myself driving a GT, but I love nothing about the car other than it’s fantastic exhaust note. It’s ehhhh, OK, but nothing close to “Wow!”
Charger all the way, the Bullitt Mustang was not so much and in reality it couldn’t keep up w/ the Charger in performance too, not just looks
I think it’s a terrifically attractive car, but far too many of them are ruined with vinyl roofs and Confederate flags. I also agree that the round taillights are more attractive than the light bars.
That said, the most attractive muscle car for me is the 2nd-generation AMC Javelin, particularly with the 4-taillights instead of the light bar and the ducktail spoiler. But that’s just my opinion, I’m not wrong and you are, and that’s OK.
This is probably the best looking muscle car. I have a personal preference for the 1966 Dodge Coronet 440 2-door hardtop, which was available with the solid-lifter 426 Hemi that spun to 7,000 RPM like it was falling off a log and was much more powerful than the Hemis produced after emissions controls started being phased in for 1967.
The Charger sports that “double diamond” look where the diamond from the rear blends with the one starting from the front and they merge in the middle aft of the A pillar – it is artistry in motion. I love this car.
I never noticed the C pillar resembling the ’66 GM and would not argue that it does, but it adds gracefully to the effect of the style of this beautiful car. I never heard the term “sail panel” until this car came along.
I agree about these one year only taillights. I like both the ’68 and the ’69 grille and the hidden headlights.
My only nudge on these is that the design of the dash is too industrial. I would have it more upright, and a bit less massive in appearance. A truly great car.
I agree that the ‘68 Charger is the most beautiful muscle car of all time. I’ve always loved the ‘68 taillights, especially the unique placement of the backup lights. Perhaps the ‘61 Pontiac Bonneville taillights provided some inspiration? It’s a shame the electroluminescent gauges were dropped on the 2nd gen Chargers.
I also agree that Mustangs, Camaros and Challengers are not true definition of a muscle car – they are pony cars. Although big block engines do confuse things.
My honorable mention muscle cars (lots of GTOs and Dodges):
-1968 GTO
-1967 GTO
-1969 GTO
-1969 Charger
-1966 GTO
-1968 Coronet R/T
-1969 Coronet R/T
-1970 Coronet R/T – (pure hutzpah)
I LOVE my ’70 Charger 500, bought from the original owner’s daughter, and mine for the past 16 years! White w/ bright blue metallic interior, 142k on original drive train. No, it’s not an immaculate big block car, but it puts a smile on my face when I drive it, and I get thumbs up and offers to buy when I take it out. It replaces my original “first car” ’70 that was totaled in an accident. I have a ’69 X-head 340 c.i. awaiting for transplantation when the 318 c.i. dies! 🙂
Moparman, I love your car. Chargers look great in white and the Magnum 500s look cool. Nice, original, base model Chargers are few and far between anymore and Id rather stop and look at your car than another General Lee or purple R/T clone
I got very excited when i read your comment and then i clicked on your pic. Something is very wrong with your 500. 500s are supposed to have flush rear windows
1969 was the only year the 500 had the flush rear glass, which was part of NASCAR homologation for better aerodynamics. In 1970 the 500 became a trim line under the R/T using the standard body, and continued that way into the new 1971 models.
All the effort Dodge went through to homologate the Daytona 500 leads me ask: wouldn’t it have easier just to run Coronets in NASCAR? The backlight was already flush, and the front grille was less concave than that on the Charger.
The Coronet grille was just as inset as the Charger grille, I suspect it was used on the 500 simply because it was easier to mount it flush to the a Charger without coming up with a new mechanism for the headlight doors if its grille assembly were moved few inches forward instead.
The Coronet and Satellite rear window was apparently just as unsuited to high speed aerodynamics as the tunneled Charger roof, the 1970 Superbird used a plug just like the Daytona, only cruder(which is why they all had standard vinyl tops)
This generation of Charger is probably my pick for best looking vintage muscle car, slightly ahead of various GTOs and the ’67 Mustang, but I slightly prefer the 1970 to the 1968. The four round taillights look decent enough themselves but don’t really fit the overall design, and they look too Chevy-ish.
Glamorous relic of a departed age.
No doubt the ’68-’70 Dodge Chargers are good looking “muscle” cars..IF they have wheels and tires to visually fit them. Sadly their stock ones really did not.
I’d submit that ’68-’69 GM’s like the GTO and 442 were indeed a cleaner, more modern look. 70 1/2 Camaros maintain their clean, classic good looks; well the earlier ones do. After ’75….not so much… 🙁
For a few years in mid to late 60s and early 70s many beautiful designs did come out of Detroit!! 🙂 Some were very limited production off of mass produced versions, like the ’68 Hurst/Olds. DFO
Hard to beat any ’68 to ’70 Charger for styling. Definitlet prefer without a vinyl top, but even those do work somehow on these gorgeous bodies.
In a truly just world, your enthusiasm would be rewarded and you’d have been the winner of all SEVEN Chargers in Dr Pepper’s summer-1968 sweepstakes. Wow!
‘68 is an altogether interesting style year…on the one hand, you have these lovely exteriors (olds cutlass, charger, cuda, Cadillac) but the interiors… the mandate of de-stab-ifying and anti-reflection on dashes and interiors + the advent of vacuum forming plastic equals a definite downgrade visually and comfort. To me it’s the first year of schlock in American cars, at least…the ‘68 -71 VWs and British cars didn’t suffer the same indignation.
That said I’d rather have a ‘68 Charger than just about any other American car of this era.
Image to illustrate the double diamond.
I can’t argue with you on that point at all Mya.
Just one year before, the1967 Charger was a mile of chrome, metal, and soft upholstery with very little plastic anywhere. It’s just the way the world was changing in 1968, but they certainly did the most of what they had.
And to be fair, at least it still had it’s share of stainless steel, something that disappeared not that long afterward.
Still have mine after 49 years. 🙂
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1CqzLso2Bg/
Having the Double Diamond concept built in to the design, invisible to the naked eye but there for all to see, was a beautifully nuanced way to innovate such a design. One direction sweeps from the front, the other from the rear, meeting at the front of the door is just so cool. Combine that with a great grille and sexy taillights and a great C pillar even if cribbed from the general, is a great design.
Great color! 🙂
It is way to hard for me to pick the most beautiful car of the muscle car era, it depends on which day it is. But with Chargers, the 68 is best without a doubt, but please, no vinyl roof,
Although Dead Dodge Garage on Youtube has a red 68 with a white vinyl roof which does look nice.
Wheelcovers and base hub caps should be avoided,
Whether the Charger was the looker compared to McQueens Mustang is a matter of opinion. But in spite of the fact that the 390 Stang holds a special place in my automotive heart, the Chargers 440 was fast enough that the it had to slow down at times to keep from overtaking or outrunning the Mustang. Regardless, this was a time of American muscle at its finest.
I wish I had kept my 68 440 Charger. What a great car.