(first posted 9/21/2016) 1967 was a banner year for the American big car: each of the U.S. makers served up heavily revamped offerings. It was a smart investment by the manufacturers, as the Luxury and Full Size segments still accounted for over 50% of U.S. car sales and a tremendous amount of the profit. Take a look at what Motor Trend had to say about all the updates.
The 1967 Imperial was the most thoroughly redone car in the U.S. Luxury Car segment. Though the Imperial switched to Mopar’s full sized C-Body platform, it rode on an exclusive 127″ wheelbase and was just under 225″ long. Exterior styling followed the established Chrysler styling themes with long, linear lines and crisp detailing. Inside, the Imperial was lavishly trimmed, though very much in keeping with the interiors found in the senior Chryslers. Still, buyers responded well, as sales rose 28%. Even with that volume increase, however, the Imperial did not come close to either Lincoln or Cadillac in the sales race.
The least-changed big car offering for 1967 came from Lincoln. Other than very minor detail modifications, the Continental for 1967 was a virtual repeat of 1966. Little wonder then that sales dipped 17%, for 1967, though the Lincoln was still a landmark beauty–and the only automaker to offer a 4-door convertible body style (for the last time, as it would turn out).
Cadillac in the 1960s was a master of styling continuity. Major refreshes, like the one deployed for 1967, always retained familiar Cadillac styling cues, but repackaged in updated forms, so the neighbors would always know who had the newest one. In spite of the significant changes for ’67, sales dipped by 7%, though some of that decrease could be attributed to customers choosing the new Eldorado instead of a traditional Calais/DeVille/Fleetwood model.
The car that had the highest percentage sales increase in the Full Size category for 1967 came from AMC. No Joke! With an 83% increase over 1966, the totally redesigned Ambassador enjoyed bigger sales growth than any other car in the segment. Really nothing more than a mid size Rebel with a longer nose and fancier trim, AMC nonetheless positioned the Ambassador as a value-priced “right sized” full size car. The only problem was that the Ambassador and Rebel overlapped so closely that buyers seemingly cross-shopped the two cars and then picked one. ’67 Ambassador sales went up by 28,392 units from the year prior, but Rebel (Rambler Classic) went down by 30,836. Hence, AMC wound up losing market share for the year despite all the new product investment.
Besides the AMC Ambassador and the Chrysler Imperial, Buick was the only other car in the Luxury and Full Size category to post a sales increase for 1967. Though up only a modest 3% compared to 1966, the big Buicks did better than all their GM siblings on a percentage increase basis. Maybe it was the flowing new “sweep spear” body side contouring, or the new freer-breathing Big Block 430 V8 that drove the lift. No matter, the 1967 Buick was a successful and profitable part of GM’s “upper middle” market focus.
Of the high volume big car brands, Chevrolet suffered the largest sales tumble compared to 1966, dropping 20%. That relatively poor performance was surprising, since the full size Chevrolet offered sweeping new styling and thoroughly redone interiors. Motor Trend was right in stating that no competitor would take Chevrolet’s leadership position for 1967–even with the sales drop, the big Chevy was still tops, with over 1.2 million units sold.
1967 marked the first comprehensive refresh of Elwood Engel’s handsome, square-cut 1965 Chrysler design. The rectilinear themes established for 1965 were continued, but with more elaborate concave body side sculpting and new rooflines for the 2-door hardtops. Aiming at the likes of Mercury and Oldsmobile, a new “middle” model joined the Chrysler line-up as well: the Newport Custom slotted in above the base Newport and below the New Yorker. The 300 Series still served as Chrysler’s big car “performance” variant, though the nameplate’s glory days were rapidly receding in the rear view mirror. Even with all the changes, however, sales dipped by 17% as buyer interest shifted elsewhere…
The big Dodge was the shocker of 1967. Like its Mopar siblings, the full size Dodge was totally reworked with new styling, increased dimensions and improved engines. Unlike sister divisions, Dodge sales took an alarming nosedive, plunging 61% compared to 1966. Dodge sales suffered worse than any other car in the Full Size segment! Perhaps the dramatic “Delta” tail lights were too extreme for buyers…
Ford also undertook a considerable refresh on its full size range for 1967. Lines continued the styling themes established for 1965, but were much “softer” and more flowing. Inside, the quest for quiet reigned supreme, as Ford continued its “luxury for less” positioning. Unfortunately, sales were softer as well: unit volume fell below the 1 million mark, though on a percentage basis the decline of 16% was less severe than the 20% drop suffered by arch rival Chevrolet.
My Granddaddy Will had a 1967 Ford Galaxie 500 4-door sedan, and I still have vague memories of the car from when I was a little boy. The most striking thing about his Ford was the bizarre color combination: outside it was dark green (Dark Moss Green according to Ford paint chips) with a black vinyl top, while the interior was dressed up in a silvery blue vinyl. Since Granddaddy Will always bought remnants at the end of the model year for the lowest possible price, I imagine his Galaxie 500 had been “lot poison” due to its unusual color mix. Granddaddy Will was happy with that Ford though, since it was inexpensive to run and tough as nails, just like he liked. He couldn’t have cared less what color it was, as long as it was cheap!
Like its big Ford sibling, the full size Mercury also received more flowing styling for 1967. Front and rear treatments also continued to mimic Lincoln looks, and interiors were made more posh. A new top-of-the-line 2-door hardtop was added as well, and it was the first Mercury to wear the Marquis name, which would later become synonymous with the brand. The odd Breezeway rooflines were no more, though the power-operated rear window was still offered on certain models, though it would only open about 2 inches. Buyers were apparently unmoved by the changes, however, as sales declined 20% from 1966.
Oldsmobile touted Toronado-inspired styling as the highlight for its 1967 full sizers. Nameplates in the 88 series were rejiggered as well, with the new Delmont 88 becoming the entry-level full size Olds. Ninety-Eights continued with the conservative “almost-a-Cadillac” approach for the top-end of the big car range. Still, like most full size lines for 1967, Oldsmobile suffered a decline, with sales off 16%.
Full size Plymouths were a Mopar bright spot for 1967. Styling was new and quite handsome. Under hood, buyers enjoyed refined and updated powertrains. Interior trim was nicely done for the most part, while value-oriented pricing was retained. This combination of attributes allowed Plymouth to enjoy fairly minimal year-over-year sales declines, dropping just 4%–though the Fury still significantly trailed the sales results achieved by the full size Chevrolets and Fords.
Full Size Pontiacs featured swoopy new styling, and were the first cars to offer “hidden” windshield wipers–a styling feature that would soon become commonplace. Motor Trend lumped the Grand Prix in with the Catalina/Executive/Bonneville, rather than breaking it out into the Specialty category with other personal luxury cars, likely because the GP essentially was a trim variant of a full size car at this point. It was also the least popular big Pontiac: including the one-year-only convertible Grand Prix offered for 1967, sales topped out at 42,981 (about the same as the Buick Riviera). Even the unexciting Executive series sold more units: 46,987 of the mid-range big Ponchos found homes. Overall, sales for Pontiac’s full size line-up dipped 9% compared to 1966, though that actually was one of the smallest declines in the segment.
So how did all the Luxury and Full Size cars sell for the year? Here they are, in rank order:
| Chevrolet | 1,201,700 |
| Ford | 877,127 |
| Pontiac | 433,714 |
| Plymouth | 317,310 |
| Buick | 313,969 |
| Oldsmobile | 265,360 |
| Chrysler | 218,742 |
| Cadillac | 179,737 |
| Mercury | 138,123 |
| AMC Ambassador | 62,615 |
| Dodge | 55,600 |
| Lincoln | 45,667 |
| Imperial | 17,614 |
Luxury and Full Size cars managed to hang on to 54% of the U.S. car market for 1967. Given the investment in new product and plethora of nameplates, however, manufacturers were probably hoping for more. Though industry executives surely did not want to admit it, the peak Big Car era was beginning to wane.
1967 is one of my favorite car years, with hardly a bad choice offered. I have spent extensive time in almost all of these (give or take a year) in childhood, as a teen and as an adult. I would have a genuinely tough time choosing if I were a new car buyer of 1967. And this is absotively the segment I would have been buying in.
My sentimental fave is the 67 Ford Galaxie 500, which was my first car. However, the C body Mopar has climbed to the top of my wish list in the years since.
That sales number for Dodge is truly mystifying. Getting beat by the Ambassador must have been humbling, for a Division that 20 years earlier had been a perennial contender in its segment.
My personal view is that the ’67 update of the ’65 shape was not well-judged. I love the ’65 and ’66 versions but the ’67s and ’68s look trapped between two schools of thought, style-wise. The Dodges, with that aggressive rear treatment and generic front end, suffered the most.
The pick for me, styling-wise, would be Buick or Chevy, which both flaunted the Coke-bottle look without distracting front/rear end treatments. The Pontiacs and Ambassador look good too.
But the pick, ultimately, would be a Chrysler 300 with the 440 TNT and front-disc package.
My “Encyclopedia of American Cars” shows 1967 full size Dodge production as 115,866:
Polara – 69,798
Polara 500 – 5,606
Monaco – 35,225
Monaco 500 – 5,237
I knew that had to be a typo. It just didn’t make sense. Thanks for the update.
I will need to double-check. I have been referring to J. Kelly Flory’s comprehensive series, American Cars 1960 – 1972 for all my sales data. Bill Mitchell made a comment on yesterday’s 1967 Intermediates post, noting a discrepancy on 1966 versus 1967 Fairlane sales. Turns out to have been from a number-typo in the Flory book that threw off the Fairlane totals for 1966. Maybe that has happened again…
Let me check a few other sources and see if I can figure out the root cause for the different numbers.
The mystery continues. I saw the numbers you are referencing in the Encyclopedia of American Cars, but when I checked the Standard Catalog of Chrysler, 1914 to 2000, those numbers matched the data I pulled from J. Kelly Flory’s book. In the Chrysler book, the data is noted as being for the “1967 model year”–maybe that accounts for the difference? Sometimes production numbers were tallied on an annualized basis rather than by model years? I also looked at 1968 full size Dodge data, and once again American Cars, 1960 to 1972 and Standard Catalog of Chrysler match-up, but are miles apart from the data in Encyclopedia of American Cars for the big Dodges (other model series are closer, though still off by thousands of units). In general these source books all line-up pretty closely on data, so this large Dodge discrepancy is quite odd.
Can anyone else shed some light on this?
Allpar has this statement about the 1967-68 Polara/Monaco: “Production for this model fell below that of the 1965-1966, but was augmented by imports from Canada.”
I was wondering about Canada…
I just checked The Dodge Story by Crestline, and though unfortunately they don’t break out sales for ’67, they do talk about Dodge in Canada–seems that a lot of full size Dodges were produced for north of the U.S. border. My best guess is that Encyclopedia of American Cars is using North American Production data, while American Cars, 1960 to 1972 and Standard Catalog of Chrysler are using U.S.-only data.
By either measure, ’67 was a disappointing year for Dodge… The only question is whether or not it was beaten by the Ambassador–no matter which number is correct, the big Dodge was ranked at the “bottom two” for full size cars.
The book Chrysler Chronicle (which references sources such as the Chrysler Historical Collection, Chrysler Archives, and Steven J. Harris; Executive Director of Chrysler Public Relations) lists the same numbers as Stumack’s: 115,866.
Polara – 69,798
Polara 500 – 5,606
Monaco – 35,225
Monaco 500 – 5,237
Another book of mine, Illustrated Dodge Buyer’s Guide, also lists those figures.
cjiguy’s numbers, totaling 115,866 look reasonable. I’ve noticed that Mopar wagon production was frequently broken out as different from “passenger cars.” With my old edition of the Standard Catalog listing 8,900 full-size wagons, all models, we may have roughly the right total full-size at 124,766.
My edition of the Standard Catalog 1945-1975 was printed in the early 1980s. The data for 1967 seems incomplete at best, and has an odd presentation, implying data is incomplete.
It lists the following:
Polara 24,000
Polara 318 5,600
Polara 500 3,200
Wagons All Models 8,900
Monaco 11,400
Monaco 500 2,500
Total 1967, with breakouts incomplete: 55,600
1966, 1968, and 1969 data are much more concrete:
1966 Full Size: 155,000
1968 Full Size: 138,933
1969 Full Size: 117,152
My theory is that the Standard Catalog long ago seeded other sources with bad data for 1967.
I’m not normally a GM guy, but in the full size category I’ll take the Impala SS with 327 and a four speed please.
In the Intermediate article the other day I liked all of them, but most of this leaves me cold..
327, or did you mean 427? By 1967, a 327 Impala (down to 275 hp) was just barely above average, performance wise. It had put on a few pounds and inches over the years.
A 427 Impala SS would be more satisfying.
I’d actually want to drive it, so 327 for me. Remember my current classic has 40 horsepower and gas is four dollars a gallon here.
Remember my current classic has 40 horsepower
All the more reason for your other classic to have ten times as many. 🙂
An SS427 really is rather the polar opposite of a 40 hp Beetle. They’d make quite the pair.
Although my family were all-GM as a kid, I ended up collecting a couple of Fords from that era, a T-bird and a ’67 Lincoln. Even as a kid, I thought Fords of the era were prettier. Some of my earliest childhood memories were of ’67 Galaxie and Meteor (this was Canada) tail lights. To my 3 year-old eyes they looked so attractive.
I’ve noticed today’s newest compact Jeeps have Galaxie-themed taillights, too. Its impressive how such a theme comes back after 50 years.
I worked with a guy who inherited a ’67 Caprice 2 door, 327 auto, from his parents who bought it new. It was a really nice riding and driving car.
My Avatar is from the ’67 Chevy owners manual that came in my Grandfather’s ’67 Caprice coupe. A well equipped black vinyl over Marina Blue car, with the blue interior. Very attractive, and a very nice place to spend time.
The fender skirts featured on the Motor Trend car were actually a fairly rare option on the Caprice. The press car also has an extra Caprice emblem below the Caprice script on the sail panel. I’ve seen that emblem in some brochure photos, but never on production cars.
It’s interesting to compare sales of the full-size cars, which, in 1967, were still considered to be the “standard” offering from each marque (except for AMC) with their counterparts in the late 1950s, when each marque offered only a full-size car (except for Chevrolet, Ford and AMC/Rambler).
Among non-luxury marques, sales of the full-size Chevrolet, Pontiac and Chrysler had held up the best, although it could be said that Chrysler was mopping up the sales of the discontinued DeSoto Division. There was undoubtedly a fair amount of cannibalization occurring, with intermediates stealing sales from the full-size cars. The exception was AMC – the Ambassador was stealing sales from the Classic/Rebel.
The performance of the full-size Dodge was mystifying. In those days, the Dodge and Chrysler-Plymouth dealer networks were separate. The full-size Dodges thus weren’t sharing lot and showroom space with Chryslers, unlike the Plymouth Fury. But the Plymouth Fury hammered the full-size Dodges in sales, and Chrysler Division was also setting sales records during this era. (Although, again, Chrysler was most likely the division picking up any residual DeSoto business.)
Apparently, Chrysler Corporation loyalists who wanted a full-size car were visiting their Chrysler-Plymouth dealer. Meanwhile, the Dodge Coronet and Dart easily outsold their Plymouth counterparts.
The AMC portion of your comments reminds me that this was a really awkward time for what people called them. There were Fords, Buicks, Dodges and . . . American Motors or Rambler. And once they started phasing the Rambler name out, there was not really a name for the brand. The “AMC” name didn’t really take hold until the early 70s, as I recall it. The cars’ badging sometimes said “AM”, but I don’t recall anyone ever calling them that. Someone who had an Ambassador would call it either an American Motors Ambassador or just an Ambassador. It was all model names but no brand name.
I think some old timers still referred to them as Nashes as well, JP.
Don’t forget the ultimate naming goofiness for hapless Ambassador promoted as being “by Rambler”. So, it was a luxury series offspring of a compact economy car built by American Motors, itself the offspring of the Nash-Hudson marriage…..what a confused parentage.
Maybe it’s because I was 14 in 1967, but DeSoto seemed like a very distant memory by 1967. Weren’t DeSoto sales minute in its last few years? And I rather suspect most DeSoto buyers didn’t hang on to them for 6-8 years.
The big Dodge just didn’t “connect” at the time. It’s like it was trying a bit too hard, or something like that. An old man wearing a too flashy shirt…
The Fury just worked better, and was organically a more appealing package. In 1967, I would have taken a Fury over the big Dodge by a large margin.The difference is perhaps subtle now, but ti was pretty apparent then,
A couple years ago, I actually owned a ’67 Monaco hard top. Times change… These days, people love the delta tail lights!
Oooo, Turbine Bronze and a 4 door hardtop. Double points!
Love it! But, I’ve got a thing for expressive Monacos.
A face Ma Mopar, and I, love………..
My father bought a ’67 Monaco. The taillights we’re actually my favorite feature! In my (admittedly) warped head, They looked like a “modern” update to the ’59 Chevy taillights! It also was the first car in our family to have factory A/C.
Seemed like Dodge Monaco was the “middle kid” of big Mopars. Didn’t know if it was competing with Buick, Pontiac, or even Ford/Chevy.
Plymouth got the working class, Chrysler the upper class. Dodge was known for Darts and Coronets, and then Chargers.
By the time the GM look ’74 Monacos came out, ready to battle LeSabres, was too late.
I was looking at DeSoto and Chrysler volume in the 1950s, when, during their good years, both divisions managed to sell over 100,000 vehicles in a year. The medium-price marked declined dramatically with the 1958 recession, which eventually killed DeSoto, but did bounce back by the mid-1960s.
At that point, there wasn’t a DeSoto for Mopar loyalists, but there was a Chrysler Newport, which was heavily promoted as a “Chrysler for not too much more money than the lower priced full-size cars.”
But, you’re right, most buyers didn’t hold on to cars for 6-8 years at that time. At that time, an eight-year-old car was considered to be quite “old.” So a fair number of DeSoto owners had probably defected from the corporation completely by the mid-1960s, particularly with some of the far-out cars offered by the corporation during 1961 and 1962.
It was the Newport and upmarket Dodges that killed DeSoto. Chrysler allowed too much market overlap between the brands that rendered DeSoto redundant. Prior to that, DeSoto was slotted just below Chrysler, but since the two were not sold in the same showrooms, Chrysler dealers angled for a car to sneak in between Plymouth and the New Yorker.
It wasn’t the only reason, but loss of market segment did help speed the brand’s demise. Much like the loss of Oldsmobile and Pontiac years later.
Desoto should have been glancing nervously over its shoulder at conniving Dodge and Chrysler from 1956 on.
First, Dodge kindly offers to “help ya out with that low-priced Firesweep” by building them in the Dodge factory then moves aggressively up market in ’59 and ’60 with flashy Custom Royal Lancers and Polaras.
Next, Chrysler, greedy for more volume as in the days of the Royal and Windsor sixes, sick of letting a “cut-rate” version have those sales, stirs up the Newport, conveniently priced exactly the same as a Desoto.
After offing Desoto, Plymouth dealers receive a Chrysler franchise as consolation, and Dodge gins up the Custom 880 for those dwindling Desoto loyalist to sop their hurt feeling, something middle-market to trade for since they still view Chrysler as “too fancy”…….
I didn’t appreciate the hit that the full-size segment was taking by 1967, but it makes sense if GM was selling a million intermediates a year by then – in a segment that basically didn’t exist 7 years earlier.
A bright spot for the manufacturers was that the intermediates were generally taking volume away from the poverty spec base model full-size cars – and buyers generally bought nicer Chevelle Malibus than the Biscaynes and Bel-Airs they may have settled for in earlier years. Sort of a win all around.
The trend for full-size cars as luxury cars accelerated in the early ’70s, with the differentiation between a top spec Ford and Lincoln in particular becoming quite blurred in terms of interior design and features. OPEC I in the fall of ’73 sealed this deal even further, with non luxury buyers seeking refuge in the fast expanding compact segment – cars like the Ford Granada became big sellers just a few years later.
I’ll second JPCs comments about Dodge – an unfortunate state of affairs, and tooling for all that unique metal and trim had to be bleeding the balance sheet. I always thought the delta taillights were a cool feature, and spent some serious time in the early ’80s thinking about how to better differentiate the Mopar products of the times. Delta taillights on an M body?
Most of these cars are very appealing, among peak years for me for most of these cars except Pontiac, Oldsmobile and AMC – which for me were far more appealing in their ’65-’66 iterations.
Finally, I need to add my rant regarding the ’67 Imperial. Even Motor Trend has it wrong – it shares very little with the full-size Chrysler except the roof, windshield, and basic platform. It would be no easier to build an Imperial from a Plymouth than it would a Chrysler. I’ve driven the ’67 Imperial and Chrysler. And, the Imperial is no Chrysler.
Chrysler did more or less give up on Imperial in 1969, when it really was mostly a trim variant of the Chrysler.
I do wonder how many people (as in, not fleet operators) were buying Biscayne/Custom/Fury I-level cars by ’67.
I’m guessing that the police agencies were the biggest of them.
Police agencies aren’t fleet buyers?
To answer the question, not very many. One would see some in driveways or in front of houses here and there, but by 1967, the number was really dwindling. Affluence was growing strongly during the second half of the 60s, and poverty-spec cars were quickly dying out in the large sizes.
It’s also possible that some of those cars were fleet cars that its driver was allowed to take home at night.
We had a 68 Biscayne, bought used in 1970. It wasn’t very often that we saw another one. When I’d see the 4 taillights instead of 6, up ahead I’d always look to see what it was and it was almost always a Bel Air. But the big Chevy’s almost always wore 6 tail lights.
And Canadians…
By the late 60’s, mostly elderly folks were still getting the cheap, stripped big cars. Like my great-uncle who had a ’66 and ’72 Custom, and not the 500 version.
Young adults of the time fell in love with middies and compacts and never got big cars, ever. {Not counting later trucks or Utes}
Just because your great uncle bought one doesn’t mean “most elderly folks were”. Where I lived, most elderly folks drove something nicer. Maybe it depends where one lived.
My grandmother’s “gentleman friend,” who was in his mid-50s, drove a 1968 Chevrolet Bel Air four-door sedan with a three-speed, column-mounted manual transmission, dog-dish hubcaps and no radio. This was around 1972. That car stuck out for being spartan even then. Most senior citizens we knew didn’t drive anything that sparsely equipped, particularly if they had bothered to spring for a full-size car.
And it wasn’t because he didn’t have the money to buy something nicer. He was simply tight with a dollar. Even my parents looked at that car as being TOO frugal.
Not hard to figure out which one is my favorite of these cars. I was surprised to read how much heavier the ’67 Conti was than any of the other cars, even the starting weight of the Cadillac vs. the Lincoln was 500 lbs less. Dad’s 2 door Conti hardtop started at 5147 lbs vs 4631 for the Cadillac, making it by far the heaviest car of all the listed cars. It had a great color combination, silver with black vinyl roof and black leather interior. It did do a great job of pulling his 25 ft Shasta trailer. Interesting how low the Continental’s sales were, only the Imperial sold less. My base Titan pickup only weighs about 4800 lbs.
Later the family had a ’67 Monterey 4 door, bought used when it was about 5 years old. Really had the Lincoln look. But the puke green in and out was not a flattering color. It ran poorly when purchased, no power. First road trip the family took it was crawling up the Grapevine, pinging away and getting passed by everyone no matter what they were driving, except for maybe a VW Bus. After a un-needed valve job and transmission replacement, the real problem was finally discovered, the muffler had collapsed internally and was almost completely plugged up. All that money spent on it because of a worn out muffler! This car had the 390 2 barrel.
I bought a ’68 New Yorker 440 for $100 from a neighbor around 1983, that car was a torque monster, even in it’s by this time well worn condition. It had around 90k miles on it. It was also in awful pea soup green, in and out. It had a few dents, the reason he sold it was because he lost his license due to too many DUI’s. The paint was pretty faded, but the interior was still like brand new. I loaned it to my sister, after about 6 months it blew a freeze plug and was driven until the engine seized, that was the end for this car.
The Mercury’s drop down rear window might have been more useful than it seems if not for air conditioning becoming common very quickly at this time. I have the power vent window in the back glass on my F-150, and opening it allows you to drive with the side windows down without the awful thumping / buffeting you get when air can’t escape the cabin.
Of course, that feature only seems to get used a few times a year. Not exactly a necessity.
Change was in the air (big time) in 1967, and big cars were the victim of that. They just weren’t cool anymore, and that really was a factor. Smaller cars had been the new growing thing for quite some time, and the Mustang really accelerated that. After it came along, the big cars started to really look like what they were: oversized, thirsty barges trying way too hard to still look relevant. Yes, they could still be for a large family, but in reality, the overwhelming majority of America’s modern households, which increasingly had 2+ cars, fewer kids, and were better educated, smaller and medium sized cars were a more stylish and pragmatic choice.
The Mustang was the re-set point; it turned out to be too small, but in its wake, buyers flocked increasingly to mid-sized coupes. And big cars became increasingly the domain of older folks.
Here’s my theory: The full-size cars were getting too big, which is why the mid-size cars were introduced in the first place.
It’s been said elsewhere that the full-size Fords and Chevys of the mid-1950’s were the perfect size for mass-market cars, and the Chevelles and Fairlanes were approximately that size, as are Malibus and Fusions today. Or maybe Impalas and Tauruses, which are only slightly bigger.
Even the full-size Crown Victoria became a niche car by the end of its production life, used primarily as police cruisers and taxis with few civilian sales.
Since the mid-size cars were actually the right size, they began to take on more and more market share, as the full-size cars became bigger and more bloated. The 1973-74 fuel crisis accelerated the process, but I wonder if the GM downsizing of 1977 would have happened anyway.
For those that say that the new intermediates were the replacement for the full size cars of the early-mid 50s needed to actually try out their interiors side-by-side. Our ’54 Ford was vastly more roomy than our ’62 Fairlane. The older cars were considerably taller, and had much higher seats. Rear seat legroom was in a different league.
Yes, the full size cars in the 60s got too big on the outside, but they were in many ways less comfortable to sit in except perhaps in width. And the new intermediates were even more cramped.
It’s amazing how much nicer mid-1950’s cars are. It helps to be tall, but it’s not stylish.
1967 is a unique year for certain kinds of classic-car collectors (such as me). I wanted a car that had:
-Real wood and chrome interior (Cadillac lost this in 1966)
-No emissions plumbing (1967 was the last year for 100% non-emissions engines)
-Collapsable steering column (Cadillac didn’t have this until 1967, Lincoln didn’t get this until 1968)
That’s why I drive a 1967 Imperial. It’s a compromise, but it’s a remarkably usable classic luxury car. I use it as a 25% daily driver. (For sheer style and quality, I would have preferred a 1966 New Yorker or Fleetwood, but why take the safety risk when a 1967 Imperial is still a super-enjoyable car?)
I agree about the collapsible column for a daily driver. Old pics of vintage cars in serious crashes are spooky because the column and wheel get shoved far back. Its easy to add seat belts, but tough to avoid a shifting column,
“Even the unexciting Executive series sold more units: 46,987 of the mid-range big Ponchos found homes.” One reason for this would be the introduction of the Executive station wagon for ’67 – Pontiac’s first year offering wagons with the then-popular “woodgrain” side trim. From 1959 to ’66, the only full-size wagons offered by Pontiac had been Catalinas or Bonnevilles, the former on the plain side and the latter a bit too fancy (carpeted cargo floor, etc.) for all-around utility.
We ourselves had a ’67 Executive three-row wagon, which followed a ’65 two-row Bonneville and a ’63 two-row Catalina. It had a black vinyl roof as well as the woodgrain (and turquoise paint!) and many options, some of which were new for ’67: cruise control (redesigned for simplicity versus ’66), cornering lights, automatic temperature control a/c, 8-track stereo (with two speakers, one in the front center and the other over the right rear wheel), roof rack with rear air deflector, power seat and windows, and the same wheel covers as the one in this photo.
(The article should have specified that all large Pontiac wagons used the shorter 121″ wheelbase, even though all other versions of the Executive and Bonneville used the 124″ wheelbase.)
Top 3, in this order: Imperial, Cadillac, Electra 225. These mid to late 60s Imperials are my favorites of that marque other than the final ’75. I like the Cadillac because it’s the first one with the “Chris Craft” lines such that the nose appears to point up. The Buick is not quite the stand out of the other two, but it is solid, conservative, and clean, which is exactly what a big Buick is supposed to be. The Ford products don’t do it for me…the Lincoln is just another revamp of the ’61 which is not my favorite design anyway, and the Mercury really doesn’t look that substantial. Of the FoMoCos I think I like the Ford the best, in particular the wagon. The Chrysler and Plymouth sedans are attractive though I can’t put them in the same category as the ones I picked above. I had never really thought about them before! The AMC looks pretty forgettable in these pictures.
Most of these ’67’s were refreshes of the ’65 models, all of which were quite attractive in their own individual way. IMHO none of the ’67 refreshes were an improvement, all the cars being larger and heavier, starting to show the bloat that would get out of hand with the next generation.
The ’67-’68 Chrysler 300 was about the best differentiation from the standard Chrysler in the post letter years. It was probably cross shopped to a degree with Grand Prix, Riviera and Thunderbird, at least that was probably Chrysler’s hope.
Looking at the comments the other day regarding the Specialty cars, I think Grand Prix, and possibly 300 should have made the cut for specialty. The Grand Prix coupe had a unique roof not available on any other Pontiac that year – roughly the standard that allowed the AMC Marlin and Dodge Charger to make the cut.
I’m probably being generous with the 300, but I like to root for Chrysler where I can, and the ’67-’68 cars had some neat touches between the Newport, 300 and New Yorker that disappeared in later years. They were definitely trying to chase the big Olds and Buick lines as hard as they could, and were probably energized after the success of ’65-’66.
But the roof of the ’67 Grand Prix (and the front and rear sheetmetal and bumper changes of the 300) constituted much less of a radical change versus the standard Pontiac and Chrysler bodies, relative to the changes in the 1966-67 Charger and ’67 Marlin versus the standard Coronet and Ambassador bodies.
Assuming Motor Trend did similar coverage a year earlier, how did it treat the Olds Starfire? That car was canceled for ’67 but shared the Grand Prix’s 1965-67 roofline.
This was about the time when DeLoreon would have ordered the new for ’69 mid size GP. Saw the writing on the wall and went it the right direction.
67 was the big GP’s swan song, and the ’68 GP is kind of overshadowed to say the least.
Full size kind of loses my interest by 1967, I’ve accumulated, or at least actively seek to accumulate as much knowledge as I can on virtually every Post-war American car, but 1965ish and above full size utterly makes my eyes glaze over, they just aren’t pretty enough, interesting enough, or relevant enough to keep my mind focused.
The Impala and Cadillac are the only ones I find particularly appealing in the GM bunch. Cadillac hit it’s pinnacle this year IMO, and Chevy still had a youthful character for the segment, pulling every bodystyle off very well, vert, fastback, notchback, 4 door HT, all of them equally attractive. Pontiac, Olds and Buick all look extremely lumbering on the other hand, Buick being the least offensive but looking mighty Jurassic.
Ford’s newfound coke bottle like curves look more like the result of a minor collision a 66 was involved in, it just doesn’t gel together well. Mercury is too indistinct to even comment, but it does remind me my least favorite thing about all Ford products(minus Lincoln) is the chrome bits look so chintzy, kitschy and tinny, from the ventricles on the 67 Mustang to the ones on the front fenders of this Mercury. 68s cleaned this up a lot across the board(to a fault in some cases though). The Continental got boring after the 1965 facelift, and frankly, as a fan of 2 doors, the Continental looks better with 4.
Chrysler, eh, I just am not as smitten as some by the square mid 60s Elwood Engal designs like these. They all look the same! The Dodge is the one I actually find the most attractive, with those mean looking taillights and furrowed brow, it’s just too bad they’re affixed to that ruler drawn body.
The Ambassador’s stacked headlight front end was kind of like a dork figuring out how to look cool… right when the trends suddenly change again overnight.
AMC’s 1967 ‘bigger’ cars seemed to be saying “suddenly it’s 1964”, trying to conquer Big 3.
I am hoping CC will do 40th anniv coverage of 77’s, look forward to it if so!
Imperial all the way with a Pontiac Catalina a close second (sorry Grand Prix, I need the vent windows.)
67 was a peak year in styling for me. Favorites were always AMC Ambassador 2 door, 67 Ford and Mercury 2 doors. Rooflines, grilles and taillights are all just right on all three.
67 Plymouth had such nice detailing and then was screwed up for 68 by changes in minor things like grille, tail lights and body side sculpting.
I’d have to add the Olds 98 as an almost perfect design from any angle.
Very neat read, thanks for posting these.
Today:
Before restoring it in ’94
If I read the MT articles correctly, Cadillac was the only brand that did not offer disc brakes as a option or as a standard feature. Chrysler, Ford, AMC, and the rest of GM mention disc brakes as option or part of a package (i.e.: comes with V8 models)
I took a quick look at oldcarbrochures.org for 1967 Cadillac and I could find no mention of disc brakes.
How can Cadillac pass on something this important????
This was discussed at ateupwithmotor.com. Apparently disc brakes were only offered as an option on the 1967 Eldorado. They became standard on the 1968 Eldorado.
The “regular” Cadillacs offered disc brakes as an option for 1968, and then made them standard (with power assist) for 1969.
My Dad owned a new ’68 Renault R10 that had standard disc brakes. His “big” 1965 Olds F85 had drums, though in 1969 he traded it for a new Ford Country Squire (my Uncle had previously bought a new ’69 LTD 4 door hardtop which had the front drums, my Dad borrowed it once ). Yes, the bigger heavier cars could have benefitted with front discs.
I’ve had 4 wheel discs since I bought my ’86 GTi, though I’ve never liked winding in the brake cylinder on the rear parking brakes…I’ve been driving almost 50 years and have only had cars with front discs…also all were light cars, so hardly any experience with brake fade…maybe in the mountains, but also haven’t owned automatic since 1981, so can use engine braking. My next car will need to be automatic though, since I’m getting up in age and no one in my family can drive my car, it seldom is an issue but anticipating infirmities trying to avoid having it become one…guess if is kind a form of “forced” luxury.
Thanks for mentioning the oldcarbrochures.org website. I had not heard of it and I checked it out. Wow, good stuff!
Dodge was trying to ape Pontiac in the late 60s, but I suspect it’s traditional full size buyer was more in the Oldsmobile camp. And the ’67’s were definitely the most outre of the full size Mopars – with a nod to the, ah, “distinctive” rear end treatment of the 300s.
Interesting that Pontiac’s full sized sales also trended downward in this era.
Lastly, maybe it’s just me, but while many focus on those delta lights, I find more than a hint of the ’59 in the front end…
Yes, and the 1966 full-size Pontiac tail lent its origami corners to the headlamp enclosures of the ’67s.
See above. Thanks, Google Images!
When I was younger I used to not like the 1967 front end styling of the Pontiac’s because I didn’t think the stacked headlights looked right on the car like they did on the 1965-66’s, fortunately they’ve grown onto me a lot and now find myself liking them, I’ve thought it was a peak year for the Ford and Chrysler products but for GM I’ve thought the 1967 styling was a slight downgrade to the 1965-66’s on the Chevrolet’s, Pontiac’s and Buick’s and a major upgrade on the Oldsmobile’s and Cadillac’s, I always felt the 1967 full sized Mercury’s should’ve sold better than they did.
Styling wise I didn’t think the full sized cars started to go downhill until 1969 for Ford and Chrysler (with the exception of the Ford LTD and Mercury Marquis which were my favorite cars built during the 1969-72 era) and 1971 for the GM cars.
Up to that point having been indoctrinated with how frumpy and uncool Ramblers were, suddenly at 14 years old I came face to face with AMC’s first model I found thoroughly attractive: the ’67 Ambassador convertible. Although not familiar with the concept of derivative styling at the time, Teague and crew did a fine job of creating a smooth, elegant, cleanly-styled package. The DPL convertible was totally unlike any prior Rambler in my experience and I was hopeful we’d see more like it. But, unhappily not, except for a few bright spots like the Javelin/AMX and, for me, the 1969 Ambassador, though unhappy to the convertible was no longer included.
Imagine my disappointment the next year when the Lincoln Continental four door convertible was discontinued….
Looking at all these side by side (I have this issue of Motor Trend, although it’s been a long time since I actually leafed through the whole thing), it’s hard to avoid how frumpy a lot of these cars were becoming. The GM semi-fastback and Ford/Mercury two-door hardtops still have a little sporty vibe, but at least with the GM cars, it feels a little much. If you could combine the Polara tail with the Fury front end, I’d probably go for that — all the gimmicks at once.
Failing that, the Ford LTD seems the way to go. Probably a black four-door hardtop — with buckets if they were available, which I’m not clear on, and of course discs. I waver on 390 vs. 428, since this isn’t any kind of muscle car, although I suppose the 428 isn’t that much thirstier.
If I were looking at a ’67 Cadillac (assuming I could afford such a thing), I’d take a black Eldorado — with front discs, mind you — over any of the regular line.
The ultimate luxury in 1967 was the Imperial Lebaron 4 door hardtop, not even a Rolls or Mercedes would come close then and any cadillac or lincoln would pale next to the Imperial.
Production of this specific model was 2291 and my bill of sale shows a purchase price of 6987 USD in 67 dollars.
I am fortunate to own one with 24085 original miles. I drive it sparingly. There is a video of it on Youtube being driven on our property in Charlotte NC.
Ah, 1967 and the year the first baby boomers were turning 21. Things would not be the same from that point on.
Thanks to Paul and years of CC – I understand why there were these sales results. Much as I covet my childhood memories of these big comfy cars – they were just another vehicular fad that lasted a generation.