When we think “Dodge Dart” this one comes to mind, but the name had previously been used on full-size Dodges. In 1963, the rather modest-selling Lancer—a pretty thinly disguised Valiant—was replaced by a stretched version of the new 1963 A Body. The Dart was now almost ten inches longer than the Valiant, and had an additional five inches of wheelbase. This was clearly a response to the successful Comet, itself a stretched and restyled Falcon, as well as the 1961 Buick-Olds-Pontiac Y-Bodies. The category was dubbed “senior compacts”. Car Life tested the new Dart, equipped with the optional 225 CID slant six and the three-speed manual transmission.
The seats were both firm and higher off the floor than typical for the time; a good thing, in case you were wondering. The new A-Body unibody was improved in terms of its solidity and torsional stiffness, thanks new larger one-piece pressings, a more massive center pillar and straighter windshield, among other things. The result was a very solid-feeling car, and well-assembled. The Chrysler quality pendulum was at a relative high point here.
Handling characteristics were deemed “excellent”, with a firm ride. Rough surfaces were taken a bit “stiffly, but cornering is precise and comfortable”. The 10″ drum brakes were better than average. (Update: This was a pre-production car as these 10″ brakes were not available on production Darts and Valiants).
The optional 225 six was considered a wise choice, given that the Dart does weigh 215 lbs more than a comparable Valiant. Performance was “very respectable” (0-60 in 13.3 sec.; 1/4 mile in 19.3 sec. @72 mph). But the column mounted shift lever was balky, a very common complaint. “After wrestling with the lever between gears for a couple of days, we finally decided to leave it in 2nd for all about-town driving” (from a standing start up to 45 mph). The automatic was obviously a better choice.
Just leaving the car in second because the gear shift is too balky seems like a very bad choice. What will that do to clutch wear? Agricultural does seem like an apt description.
Probably not much, but I think it was pretty common with three-speeds, even less balky ones, that didn’t have first gear synchronized — unless you came to a complete stop, getting first was a hassle. Also, note that second gear in this box is 1.83:1, which is pretty short with a 3.23 axle.
Owning a ’65 Dart with a 225/three-speed/3.23 drivetrain (the transmission is admittedly from a 170, with a slightly shorter second gear), I can earnestly say that driving around town at 45 in second would be miserable. On surface streets, I’ll often leave it in second up to about 35 mph, but even then it sounds obnoxious (I don’t have a tach, but it’s surely turning under 3000 rpm).
With that being said, I’ll often get caught at lights that JUST turn green by creeping drivers, and I’ll have to leave it in second to avoid the inevitable grind. In those instances, I’ll have to slip the clutch a little more than normal. It does NOT like to start out in second, so if Car Life was doing that, there would be a bit more clutch wear than normal, but it would probably only become an issue if you kept the car for 100,000 miles.
The Torqueflite would be better simply because of the taller axle ratio. On the freeway going 70 (if my math is correct), my 225 is turning over 3100 rpm. As I mentioned before, the Dart seems to make a lot of engine noise (it’s nothing rackety – it simply sounds as if it’s turning 1000 rpm more than it actually is). The 2.94 gears would make for a much nicer drive, even without counting the in-town inconvenience of an unsynchronized first.
That’s a good point — I was thinking about it on the other end (whether you’d be lugging the engine to death at low speeds in second).
TorqueFlite did cost something. I have a Motor Trend from later in that year with a test of a ’64 Dart with the 225 and TorqueFlite. Even with a 3.55 axle, it was 1.4 seconds slower to 60 mph, and it was geared for 19 mph/1,000 rpm in top, which I imagine would be as obnoxious in local highway cruising as staying in second would be around town.
That gap between 2nd and third on all US three-speed manuals can be very annoying in city driving. Which is precisely why I love my 3/OD in my truck, as I end up in 2/OD most of the time. It’s perfect for 25-35 mph streets, and just a drop into 2/D is just a flick of the finger away.
My F100 has a 3.70 rear axle. I tried starting in second for a couple of days after reading about that in the period literature (1930s-1940s), and it’s doable on flat streets, but I soon stopped as it felt a wee bit less than ideal, especially since my clutch is not in the greatest of shape.
But there’s no way I can imagine driving 45 mph in that tested Dart in 2nd. I am a inveterate “lugger”, preferring to upshift quite soon. These sixes are all about the low torque peak, and running at 3000 rpm feels all kinds of wrong to me. But then I’m only doing about 2100 rpm at 70 in 3/OD, so I’m spoiled.
I do remember quite well how my dad’s Dart with the 170/3 manual revved pretty high scooting along at 70-80 mph. But then the 170 ran a fair bit smoother than the 225 thanks to its much shorter stroke.
I’ve become utterly convinced that the TF was the way to go with all of these.
I wonder what the take rate was on the automatic vs. the 3 speed that was on this car. I think that by 1963, most buyers interested in a “senior” compact (especially one in a mid or higher trim level) chose the automatic. I think the editors were wrong on this prediction.
My lone experience with Mopar 3 speed linkages is from a newer car (1974 Charger) but I found that linkage to be awful too, and one that made fast shifts impossible. It did not like the typical motion of pushing up and away for 2nd (often resulting in a binding that required under-hood attention), but required a much more deliberate negotiation of that “H” pattern. But I have also gathered that this was not a unique problem with Chrysler linkages.
It makes me wonder why Chrysler ever moved away from the ’60-61 Valiant’s floor shift. Certainly those buyers interested in a manual were trending that way.
I think the floor shift on the Valiant/Lancer was a marketing deficit, despite its better function. It looked odd, and made 3-across seating essentially impossible. If they had offered bucket seats with it from the get-go, that would have made a difference. But for the sporty set, a 4 speed manual would have sealed the deal.
Likewise on the 1961–1963 Tempest. With a four-speed, it was one thing, but with the three-speed stick, it made no sense at all, and it defeated the space advantage of the curved driveshaft. In that case, I suspect that Pontiac wanted to make automatic standard (as Chevrolet had with the Corvair), since the automatic shifter was a tidy little dash-mounted lever, but I have no explanation for the Chryslers.
Frankly, I think it was a mistake not to make PG standard on the Corvair and Tempest. It would have been a pretty bold and forward-looking move. The 3 speed was a really poor choice for the Corvair, and slower than a PG version.
And that applies to the Special; that light little automatic they designed for it was very effective.
Whenever I see this generation of Dart I’m always bothered by the narrow rear doors obviously sized for the shorter Valiant. The unusual distance from rear door opening to wheel opening, along with the bodyside molding that ends almost a foot short of the taillights, make it look like someone at Dodge didn’t get the memo that the car was going to be longer than the Valiant.
It’s been a long time since I’ve read any complaints (or complements) about windshield wiper coverage, but the Dart’s actually isn’t very good by modern standards. Most American cars had parallel wipers by 1963; I was thinking the Rambler American was the only one left, but it seems Pontiac full-sizers may have been the last holdout retaining opposing-action wipers.
Chrysler held on to opposing-action wipers on their luxury Imperial until 1966. Chevrolet used them on the Corvette until 1982.
And then, for some reason, GM went back to opposing-action wipers on the W-bodies, as did Chrysler on their third-generation minivans.
GM dustbuster vans too. All of these more recent opposing-action wipers had a fair amount of overlap of the two wipers, whereas 1950s setups looked more like hands clapping, leaving a substantial unwiped area between them and around the top corners.
My father had a “three on the tree” when I was a child (also on a ’63, but it was a Chevy Belair). I thought such was a normal part of driving until I was older and saw other parents just selecting “D”. That Belair lasted long enough for me to learn how to drive in it, and it started a love affair for me with manuals that I have only recently ended, out of necessity, since manuals on full-size autos are unicorns now.
I remember the Belair as being smoother to shift than the description of this Mopar; however, in its later life the Belair required the occasional opening of the hood in the driveway to pull a binding part of the shit linkage when going into reverse.
I think Car Life made a mistake with their brake size, unless they were testing a preproduction model or something. If I’m not mistaken, six-cylinder Darts and Valiants of this era all came with 9″ drums front and rear (I know my wagon has them). Without running out to the garage to check my service manual, I looked at Rock Auto’s online catalog for my ’65 model, and indeed they only sell 9″ drums for six-cylinders. (The ’63 catalog says the same thing.) Maybe Daniel can chime in if I’m wrong, but the brakes are none too big on mine, although it’s only been an issue once so far when I car merged into my lane on the freeway going 30 mph slower than I was. I was standing on that pedal wondering how much a front clip for a ’65 Dart would cost.
The Motor Trend I mention lists the brakes (for a ’64 Dart GT) as 9.0×2.5 drums in front, 9.0×2.0 in back.
The ’63 brochure doesn’t specify drum size, but it lists effective lining area as 153.5 square inches, which is the same number Motor Trend cites for ’64. (Car Life cites swept area, which isn’t the same thing.)
The brochure claims “more stopping power per pound than most any car near Dart’s size or price,” which I think is true — a Comet had 127.8 square inches, an F-85 or Special was a bit less than that, and a Tempest had even less. But it appears it was due to wider front drums, rather than bigger diameter. Since Car Life praised the brakes, maybe they mistakenly assumed the greater lining area meant larger drums.
Ack, no, I’m reading the Car Life text again and they quote 195.2 inches of effective lining area, so their car did have bigger brakes for some reason. You’re probably right that it was a preproduction prototype or something.
When I typed “10” brakes”, an orange light went off in my head. I should have heeded it, but it was getting late. Yes, these all had 9″ brakes. This must have been a pre-production special, or a major typo.
The 195.2 sq. in. lining area figure specified in the text is what Dodge quoted for the B-body cars, so it’s possible Dodge initially expected to use the bigger brakes on the Dart, since it was heavier than the Valiant, but decided at the last minute that the 9-inch drums were adequate.
You’re right, Aaron; 10″ drums weren’t available til ’65 (on paper; in metal likely mid-late in the ’64 model year). In ’63 the only brakes factory-installed on an A-body were 9-inch drums.
Remove the blade bumper from the front and you ahve a near copy of the 63 Chryler Turbine car. “What if”. Would Chrysler have had good luck in sales by positioning a Personal Luxury coupe to do battle with Thunderbird and Riviera by using U.S. stamped versions of the Ghia designed bodies of the turbine on the Dart platform with several V8s available?
You would think with all that vaunted Chrysler engineering they could have integrated the heater controls better. Ultra modern, push button Torqueflite, but crude, unlighted heater knobs that hung under the dash like something from the ‘30’s. And factory A/C on these was basically a hang on unit well into the ‘70’s. Such was a Chrysler Corporation car for many years. Some brilliant engineering with little thought to anything else.
Recall that my father was taken in by the forward look ‘57’s and bought a new Plymouth Belvedere hardtop. Easily the worst car he ever owned. Rusted away before our eyes, with body parts constantly falling off. The only thing reliable on it was the TorqueFlite. He never considered owning a Chrysler product ever again
While the vents were a separate piece under the dash that looked like an add on, the AC was completely integrated with the heat & fresh air system.
No, the only A/C available on a ’63 Dart or Valiant was a chunky under-dash knee-knocker. A combination HVAC system was not offered until mid-’65, and even then it just moved the condenser into the heater box behind the dashboard and integrated the temperature and fan speed controls with those of the heater and defogger; the air duct box, though slimmer, was an under-dash tack-on right up through the end of the A-bodies in ’76. And they didn’t get a proper reheat defogger (air first dehumidified by the A/C before being heated) until ’74, despite this technique being old news (“retained“) in re the clean-sheet new HVAC system for the ’62 Plymouth-Dodge cars.
(those schlock tossed-under-the-dash ’63 A-body heat-defog controls were moved up into the dash itself for ’64)
My parents bought a new “63 GT with the 225 and the 3 speed manual. It was a handsome car, and I still think it is all these years later. It seemed to serve us well for the 4 years we had it, except I remember both of my parents continuously complaining about that shift linkage. Sometimes my dad would have to stop the car, get out, and pull on the linkage under the hood to get us going again. This CL road test is the first affirmation I’ve read of my parents main complaint of the car. Too bad the car didn’t have the floor shifter.
I think my favorite feature of the car were the vents with doors underneath the dash – they delivered a fair amount of air right at you at freeway speeds. Obviously, our car didn’t have air conditioning.
I think I was unaware that the 225 had almost 50% more hp than the 170. That’s a lot!
In February, 1963, my indulgent parents bought me a new Dart 2dr, base model. The steering ratio had been lowered from that of earlier Valiants which made it steering it somewhat imprecise. I had trouble with the shift linkage which, because of my impatience, ultimately required transmission repair, under warranty. Overall, it was a very well-built car and the highway mileage was 22 mpg with the 170 CI. It spent 6 years in Michigan, but nevertheless had little rust when I traded it. I have always regretted that I did not drive it more gently because I am certain it would have given me several more years of good service. The car was more sensible than I.
Corvair and Tempest Powerglide as standard equipment is dead on arrival. Anyone driving a Corvair with the power glide, then driving the stick, would never go back to the automatic. The difference is night and day. All Corvair guys know the stick shift rules.
I’d suggest you reread this Car Life review, where the PG version was quicker than the 3-speed manual.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/vintage-reviews/vintage-motor-life-review-1960-chevrolet-corvair-part-1-of-a-three-car-comparison/2/
Yes, the 4-speed was quicker yet, but not all that much. But the 3-speed had poorly spaced ratios. The 4-speed should have been standard, if not the PG. The 3-speed was one too few.
Once again, Paul and I agree.
Stations wagons, it should be noted, share the same smaller body specifications.
Too bad. The wagon had a comely derrière and would have benefitted from an extra 5″ of wheelbase.
I owned a 65 wagon for several years into the 90s. I found it handled quite well and that the 225 with TF felt like it had the performance of a small V-8. It certainly is a torque mill.
About a year ago I tested out a 62 Valiant with the 100 floor shift. Although I thought I would prefer it to the column shifts on two Valiants I owned, it wasn’t great either, as the long throw and curved shift lever made it feel ancient –like a 1930s car.
Only the ’60-’61 Valiant-Lancer cars had that charmed-snake floor shifter; for ’62 the 3-speed manual A-bodies came only with column shifters. That remained the case for quite a few years.
I owned a ’63, ’64 and ’65 Dodge Dart, all with high mileage Slant Six and 3 speed Torqueflite automatic transmissions.
I found this powertrain quite “Real World Peppy” in these light curb weight cars; much quicker than the 2 speed automatic Falcons that I drove.
I did drive a “3 on the tree” Valiant and Falcon. I found both, with their non-synchro first gear trannys cumbersome and irritating to drive in city traffic.
I ordered a new 1964 Dodge Dart GT 2 door hardtop when I read that the 273 CI V8 was available. I ordered it with the 4 speed manual transmission. There were no engine options or brake options, it also came with 9″ Drum brakes front and rear.
I was in the USMC at the time and this car became the official “SWOOP” car for the last 10 months I was in the service. It was great on gas, getting up to 19.3 MPG on those sometimes 1,100 mile + round trips on weekends. Overall, I have not owned another RWD MOPAR that was so much fun to drive. Unfortunately X Wife #1 got it in the Divorce.