I will say this, unless the Avanti is black, I like the mid-year '63 addition of an actual grille below the bumper. I don't care for the square headlight enclosures and fake woodgrain inside on the '64's; I prefer the round headlights and simpler instrument panel of the '63's. I also like how everything inside an Avanti is deeply padded, wherever you look.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I'll also say, that you really wouldn't see the under-bumper scoop area of an Avanti like this unless you were squatting on the ground directly in front of the car. "No grille" was something seen handwritten on a lot of preliminary Raymond Loewy sketches of the car.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I'll also say, that you really wouldn't see the under-bumper scoop area of an Avanti like this unless you were squatting on the ground directly in front of the car.
True, you almost have to be lying down in front of the car to get that particular angle. From most normal angles, you probably wouldn't even notice that little "smiley face" grille...
And from this angle, I think the round headlights without the bezels do look better, being inset a bit. You can't see that inset from the head-on pic. Also, pictures tend to flatten things out, so the car would probably look better in real life, with 3-d perspective.
I'm corresponding with a lady from Leawood, KS now, who at age 20 bought the first Avanti delivered in the state of North Dakota and it would have been a clone of the gold one above...Avanti Gold, elk interior, R1 engine and Powershift automatic. A friend of mine has figured out, to a high degree, what the serial no. most likely was and we are in the process of verifying via the Studebaker Museum to the retail sale card there. We're hoping the car has survived. Avantis have a pretty high survival/collectibility rate out there. We're also in communication with the Avanti Owners Association International club to see if that number is on its roster anywhere.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I think I have seen it from the back and it looks a LITTLE better! It was shorn of its fins and the results, generally, remind me of what GM ended up doing for the '61 model year.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I liked the gold Avanti postcard above so much I used it at my website. Avantis do not look good from a full frontal view because the front looks flat. The square headlight covers reduce that area.
I go back and forth between favoring the round headlight enclosures or the square ones. Here are some Avanti IIs outside the factory around 1972. They look good from the front.
The building in the background was one of the oldest, used for building carriages, later bought by Newman & Altman as Standard Surplus and gone now. The conveyer that carried bodies to the assembly cbuildings can be seen crossing the road in the background. It is the upper, darker one.
Great pic, thanks for posting. I miss going in the old Newman and Altman building when it was loaded with NOS parts 'til about ten years ago. Those are new Avanti II's, aren't they?
Seriously, we better nix the Studebaker discusssion--we'll be reminded to take it to the "Postwar Studebakers" site.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
It's a nice looking car when you don't have to see the nose of it.
Not every car looks best when viewed from the front. I think the front end of the Avanti looks pretty good when compared to "Exhibit B" below.
The Studebaker Packard Hawk and Avanti are not the only cars that look like big fish out of water. I once caught a big mouth bass that looked like this baby, but it only had two eyes.
Start fishing around a nuclear power plant, and THEN you might catch one with four eyes! :P
Isn't the '58-62 Corvette front-end pretty much the same, except for having the heavy chrome "teeth" for the first three years, and then the finer mesh grille for the final two?
I don't really mind any of them. I think the '62 looks better, with the body-color headlight bezels, than the '61 that still had chrome. The chrome bezels worked when the grille was heavy and chromey, but not so much with the more subtle, blacked-out grille.
I think that from the front, you really get the picture that the '62 Corvette is really an old body style...especially around the windshield.
You could give me any '58-62 Corvette, but it couldn't be in red or white...or black, for that matter! It would have to be a lesser-'cherished' original color that I wouldn't see five other ones at every Corvette show!
Still, I have always loved the '62...cleaned-up sides, 327 engine, cleaned-up front. It's suspension is low-tech, like an Avanti (still has king pins), but in a collector car, I could care less. I could enjoy a 250 hp 327 with 'Powerslide', just to keep the acquisition cost down. Would have to have the hardtop though. I like Honduras Maroon and Fawn Beige.
Honestly though, since I'm a Stude guy (and not by birth, either!), given an opportunity to buy an Avanti that's bone-stock, in a color I like such as Turquoise or Black, and a '62 'Vette, I'd pick the Avanti due to rarity and just 'cause I tend to like things out of the mainstream. I know people rave about Sting Rays, but their styling does absolutely nothing for me and I'll go out on a limb here and say the '63 is so Buck-Rogers-like and the split window so stupid, I'd rather have a '64 if I had to pick one. I know that the engineering on Sting Rays, especially later ones with disc brakes and Turbo Hydramatic for automatics, is impeccable though.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
It might not be the best-looking Corvette of that era, but you could sell 10 of them for every one Avanti, and at twice the price. So really, the public has voted.
Oh, I don't think production numbers matter. If you had 10 Corvettes and 10 Avantis (or 10 T-Birds for that matter) of early 60s vintage, the Corvettes would be sold in a red hot minute, while the others would need dusting for a while. Some cars have more "juice" than others. GTO is a magic name, AMX is not. Life is not fair.
Also, a Vette and an Avanti or T-Bird are completely different cars. The Corvette is a sports car, the others aren't.
Being obscure or rare doesn't make a car any more desirable, except to people who like to own obscure cars---and certainly there is an "obscurity market" of sorts.
I was going to say the same thing. Corvettes are like '57 Chevys and '65 Mustangs...even people who know absolutely nothing about cars think they are the greatest.
Avantis prices do hold their own against Big Three four-seaters of the same period, as we discussed last week.
I think they were a daring vehicle for a company that was even smaller than AMC at the time. I mean, you couldn't get a Classic two-door hardtop 'til '64 nor a Classic V8 of any kind until mid-'63. And their effort at a four-seat "sporty" car, the Marlin, in '65, even though designed by a former Packard stylist, isn't held in the same esteem, generally, as the Avanti.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
IIRC the Marlin was originally supposed to be on the compact chassis, but at the last minute management switched it to the larger car chassis. Kind of the inverse of the 62 Plymouth and Dodge. Supposedly, it looked much better as a compact.
That makes sense, to explain it. At any rate, something went horribly wrong with the Marlin. The Avanti might need a nose job, but the Marlin is so badly proportioned I don't think there would be any fixing it.
With the Avanti, you could put a front end on it similar to this obscure car, and probably increase both the value and collectibility of it. (not that this obscure car doesn't have it's OWN set of problems!)
I have a lot of faith in good design (generally speaking) being rewarded and bad design punished in the collector car world.
I think the best-looking Marlin is the one least-seen: The '67, which was built on the Ambassador chassis. You still gotta love the trunk lid, about the size of three glove compartment lids!
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I remember Automobile Quarterly had an article on the Marlin - "A Fish Out of Water" IIRC, talking about what a failure it was. And this was only about 10 years after it came out...
Owners are always trying to rewrite history, and maybe sometimes history needs to be rewritten, but it would be the skilled apologist/spin doctor indeed who could make a case that the Marlin was even worth building, much less a success.
Not sure what a "sports-fastback" is supposed to be, and maybe that was a point of confusion in the marketplace.
I agree with you regarding the Marlin, Shifty, yet the support for the underdog in me finds a certain appeal in this car. I think it's tied to the unrealistic wish I have that the post WWII domestic independent brands were still in business.
Yes, the Marlin failed miserably in the martetplace, but I'm inclined to cut AMC a break on this car. Since this was an extremely competitve market segment, a me-too design from an independent didn't stand a chance. From a strategic standpoint, AMC correctly realized that they had to differentiate their product from the Mustangs, Camaros and the many other sporty compacts and midsize offerings. They got the strategy right, but, unfortunately, they botched the execution. I give them a C+ for trying.
"Supposedly" is the operative term. It might be a bit less awkward-looking, but to my eye it is still no beauty:
Hard for me to tell really. Part of the Marlin bloat is from having to stretch it out (including sideways) at the last minute. The original compact would have probably been wrapped a lot tighter. I'm guessing AMC enlarged it to compete in the growing larger coupe segment. A more successful compact might have gotten AMC some positive notice, but most buyers clung to the Big 3 regardless.
I think part of the problem lies right there in the ad copy... "here's the roomiest!" AMC products tended to be practical and space efficient. Well, very rare in the automotive world do "practical and space efficient" and "sleek, beautiful, etc" ever go together. Either you make a gorgeous design and force the people and luggage to fit, or you design makes something that's roomy and comfy, but has all the sex appeal of a Fridgidaire.
That fastback style became all the rage a bit later with cars like the Barracuda, first-gen Charger, fastback Mustangs, and GM, Ford, and Chrysler all fielded full-sized coupes in the later years with much more rakish, fastback roofs.
The main difference is that in those later years, the fastback was integrated better, although I'll say the '64-66 Barracuda and first-gen Charger aren't so hot IMO. AMC basically tried to work a fastback roof onto an existing boxy hardtop coupe that was probably more boxy and upright than most sedans. Roomy and comfy for its size, to be sure, but hardly beautiful.
It is a very nice-looking example that reminds me a lot of the Monaco dad bought when I was a kid. The 3 randomly-placed pull handles under the left side of the dash pictured here were bizarre back in late '70 when we took delivery of ours, and still look odd today.
The only thing that strikes me is how plain the upholstery looks. Our Monaco was much more upscale obviously, but this strikes me as a bit stark. I thought Polaras were generally a bit nicer. Still though, this is in outstanding condition and is in a very '70s color combo.
I just looked it up in my old car book, and in '71 the Polara came in three trim levels: base, Custom, and Brougham (hardtop coupe/sedan only). Then,the Monaco was priced above that.
That Polara, judging from the window sticker, is just the base model. Interestingly is has a base price listed of $3,098, and a total MSRP of $4217.80. My old car book lists the base price of a '71 Polara hardtop coupe at $3,319. And it also lists the slant six as the base engine.
However, inflation was starting to get pretty bad in those days, so maybe they had to raise prices a few times during the year? I notice the title says 1/7/71. Maybe my old car book listed a base price from later in the model year?
Just as a rough comparison, my grandparents' '72 Impala 4-door hardtop was around $5,000, out the door. My book lists it as having a base price of $3771. Oddly, it lists the '71 Impala 4-door hardtop as having a base MSRP of $3813. I wonder how Chevy was able to drop their price a bit, considering inflation.
The Impala did have nicer seats, with the full seating area being covered in cloth. Or jacquard or broacade or whatever they called it. There was still vinyl on the seatbacks and sides, though. Otherwise, the rest was a mixed bag. For instance, the Impala's dash looked nicer, but was more plasticky. And the Polara had more gauges. With door panels, the Impala had thicker vinyl, along with the cute little prancing deer emblems, and a bigger, integrated armrest. But, the lower half of the door panel was hard plastic, with the armrest molded into it, and then padding bolted to the plastic.
Also kinda interesting that the Polara has an inside hood release, and remote control mirror. I'm pretty sure our Impala had neither. The Impala did have a bigger engine, a 350 versus a 318, but that version of the 350 (255 hp gross/165 net) was pretty closely matched to the 318 (230 gross/150 net) in performance. 0-60 in around 12 seconds.
I'd guess the base Polara equated to a Biscayne, while the Polara Custom might've been a Bel Air, and the Brougham an Impala? And then the Monaco would have gone against the Caprice?
I can't believe how nice that Polara looks. I don't believe I've seen one that nice/stock since probably the mid-'70's!
I'm a little underwhelmed by the interior too. Looks "Bel Air" or "Custom 500" level to me, although neither of those lines offered a 2-door hardtop. I'm surprised there was a Polara Brougham in '71--I don't remember that, but didn't spend a whole lot of time checking out Mopars at the time. Polara Custom I definitely remember.
That green was ubiquitous on those cars!
About base prices...I don't know about Mopar, but Chevy always advertised a "standard six" and a "standard V8"--but both had different base prices! Maybe Dodge did that too. Also, in '71, midway through the model year, Chevy decided to advertise that "Turbo-Hydramatic, power steering and power brakes were standard equipment". I remember seeing the first ones come into our dealership...and the base prices were enough extra to cover the 'now standard' equipment! Maybe Dodge did that too. Ford and Chrysler often used to follow GM's lead in stuff like that.
Your '72 Impala had an inside hood release.
I always thought the '74 Dodge Monaco line was copied from the '71 full-size Chevy line...same huge curved windshield with completely chrome-covered windshield pillars, same cut of rear doors in both the sedan and 4-door hardtop, and same crowned front fenders. I did like how Dodge had a center glove compartment though.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I didn't realize Chrysler offered a Polara Brougham in '71, but I found a catalog online, and that car looks as nice or nicer inside than our Monaco! According to that catalog it was pretty close in equipment level also. Seemed a strange thing to do. You would be paying more for mostly a different grill and taillights.
I think this base Polara is equivalent to the BelAir. Dodge really didn't offer a true stripper like the Biscayne, though the Plymouth Fury I was pretty close to that.
For the most part, I'm really not that crazy about Mopar's "fuselage" era of cars, although I love the Imperials, with their hidden headlights. And any of the lesser models with optional hidden headlights were pretty cool. I thought Dodge pulled off that look pretty well though. The other divisions managed look a bit fat and tipsy, but the Dodge had a tougher, hunkered-down look to it. I think the full rear wheel openings helped.
I honestly couldn't rememer if my grandparents' '72 Impala had an inside hood release or not. My '76 Grand LeMans, as well-equipped as it is, still has an outside hood release, so I just figured it was still optional, or not even offered yet. Of course, that's not a direct comparison, as one's a midsize and one's a fullsize. I really liked their Impala though. When I was 8 or so, I asked them if I could have it when I turned 16, and I remember Granddad, and even my Mom, saying that car wasn't going to last until I was 16!
They sold it in 1982 for $600 to some friends. It had about 100,000 miles on it. Still ran well (although Granddad had done a valve job at 70K), but it was rusting pretty bad, and the vinyl top was shredding. I can't remember how the interior was holding up...towards the end of its life with us, I didn't ride in it that much. The people they sold it to put a new roof on it, and sold it about a year later for $700.
Yeah, the '74 Monaco and Fury were definitely inspired by GM, I thought, although a little more squared-off and bulky looking. I always thought they bore a strong resemblance to a Buick. Clean and handsome, although I thought Plymouth messed up when they went to that look with the big single headlight and rectangular turn signal, and the more upright, pretentious grille. I think that style first showed up as the top line Gran Fury Brougham in '75, but was then used on all Gran Furys in '76-77.
For some strange, nostalgic reason, I started watching the Dukes of Hazzard again. I had forgotten that in the first few episodes, the ones that were actually filmed in Georgia, Roscoe drove a good looking '75 Gran Fury sedan. Either a base model or a Custom. I think Enos was driving a '73 Fury. During the later part of the first season, when they moved filming to California (must've been a pain to coordinate the shooting of the Waltons, Little House on the Prairie, the Dukes, and God-knows what else all on the same lots) and they were using AMC Madators, the 1974+ "coffin-nose" models. I guess the B-body "small" Fury/Monacos weren't old and cheap enough yet, to start getting banged up in those stunts? Maybe it was the second season ('79-80) that they started using those?
Andre, I'm surprised your '76 LeMans has an outside hood release. A '76 Chevelle has an inside release; I figured all the A-bodies would have had it starting in '73. The only Chevys that had an outside hood release in '76 were the Nova and the Monza...even the Vega had an inside release. I wonder if shoehorning a V8 into the Monza meant they just didn't want to deal with routing the inside release under the hood.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Hmm, since the '76 Chevelle would have an inside hood release, I wonder if it would be difficult to fit one onto my LeMans? I always thought it a bit odd too, that it has an outside release. Especially since it's fairly well-equipped otherwise. Power windows, seat, AM/FM stereo, tilt wheel, a/c, Rally wheels, and it even has the high-beam switch on the turn signal, instead of on the floor. I think the Grand Prix, and Grand LeMans, were the first domestic cars to put it there?
I always liked the fuselage Mopars, and that probably had a bit to do with why dad bought his in '70. I mentioned before I think that we went and looked at the big 3 one night in late fall of 1970 and that dad liked a Ford LTD, but mom didn't; they both liked the new Pontiac full-sizer, but couldn't get one due to the GM strike; and I directed them to the Dodge dealer, where there was a '71 Chrysler on the showroom floor in a color combo they really liked, and they ended up ordering a '71 Monaco in that same combo. Dad let me spec the options, though I think he had a quiet word with the salesman after I stepped outside because when the car came in it had the 318 instead of the 383 I had specified. Ah well.
Anyway, since we owned that one, I think that's why I like them, even though they aren't as well-made or durable as the earlier boxy models of the mid-60s. Finding one in this kind of condition would be really uncommon these days. If it was a Polara Custom (or Brougham!!) in this shape, I would be all over it. The only thing I would lust after more would be a '70 Polara convertible.
When you think about it, I guess the GM divisions did have a little more autonomy back then. The first Chevy I remember with the dimmer switch on the turn signal was the 1977 full-size cars, of which we bought one in Nov. '76 (bright red Impala coupe). Honestly, at first I hated that feature, as I'd always end up turning on the turn signal when I wanted to dim the lights...or vice-versa!
Speaking of divisional autonomy, I can remember seeing a competitive analysis made to hand out to customers, for early '70's Pontiacs, that even showed them competing against Chevys!
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Oh c'mon, it's just a base model Dodge Polara, not a Bugatti. These are 2-door taxi-cabs. Putting a big block in it is just fine, because you could buy them that way...AND...you would increase the value.
I really like the '72-73 Monacos with the hidden headlights. Big bruiser of a car too, at something like 226". However, I wonder how much those big black rubber blocks on the bumpers contributed to that length? IIRC, when the 1974's came out, they were actually a bit shorter overall!
Pontiac started losing me a bit with their redesigned 1971 big cars. I thought Chevy, Buick, Olds, and Cadillac all looked good, although I never was crazy about the peaked headlights on Olds, or the turn signals mounted between the headlights on the Caddy. But with Pontiac, that beak was just too much.
As for fighting with Chevy, by 1971, there really wasn't much price difference. An Impala sedan with the 350 started at $3742 (only $3391 with the 6-cyl though), while the Catalina started at $3770. And worse, Pontiac was now making their 350 V-8 standard in the Catalina. At least in the past, Catalinas came with a 389 or 400 standard, while at Chevy you had to work your way up from a 283 or 307, through a 327 or 350, and then to a 396 to get something comparable. To be fair though, the 396 was usually pretty powerful even in base form, whereas Pontiac always offered a few watered-down versions of the 389 or 400.
But, all of a sudden, what, really, did the Catalina give you over the Impala? It still sold really well for 1971-73, but the '74 oil embargo hit hard, and with the exception of the Grand Prix, Pontiacs mid- and full-sized cars never really recovered the way Chevy, Olds, and Buick did.
Yeah, those '72 Monacos were really nice-looking. Some friends of my parents ran a bakery in town and they had a beige '72 Monaco wagon with woodgrain that was really handsome.
Rambler (later AMC) was not the only automaker who made a "sports-fastback" out of an existing model to cash in on the "pony car" market created by the Ford Mustang. The first Charger was basically a Dodge Coronet fastback.
Comments
True, you almost have to be lying down in front of the car to get that particular angle. From most normal angles, you probably wouldn't even notice that little "smiley face" grille...
And from this angle, I think the round headlights without the bezels do look better, being inset a bit. You can't see that inset from the head-on pic. Also, pictures tend to flatten things out, so the car would probably look better in real life, with 3-d perspective.
I think I have seen it from the back and it looks a LITTLE better! It was shorn of its fins and the results, generally, remind me of what GM ended up doing for the '61 model year.
I liked the gold Avanti postcard above so much I used it at my website. Avantis do not look good from a full frontal view because the front looks flat. The square headlight covers reduce that area.
I go back and forth between favoring the round headlight enclosures or the square ones. Here are some Avanti IIs outside the factory around 1972. They look good from the front.
The building in the background was one of the oldest, used for building carriages, later bought by Newman & Altman as Standard Surplus and gone now. The conveyer that carried bodies to the assembly cbuildings can be seen crossing the road in the background. It is the upper, darker one.
Seriously, we better nix the Studebaker discusssion--we'll be reminded to take it to the "Postwar Studebakers" site.
Not every car looks best when viewed from the front. I think the front end of the Avanti looks pretty good when compared to "Exhibit B" below.
The Studebaker Packard Hawk and Avanti are not the only cars that look like big fish out of water. I once caught a big mouth bass that looked like this baby, but it only had two eyes.
(Wonder what happened to Exhibit "A"?)
Isn't the '58-62 Corvette front-end pretty much the same, except for having the heavy chrome "teeth" for the first three years, and then the finer mesh grille for the final two?
I don't really mind any of them. I think the '62 looks better, with the body-color headlight bezels, than the '61 that still had chrome. The chrome bezels worked when the grille was heavy and chromey, but not so much with the more subtle, blacked-out grille.
You could give me any '58-62 Corvette, but it couldn't be in red or white...or black, for that matter! It would have to be a lesser-'cherished' original color that I wouldn't see five other ones at every Corvette show!
Still, I have always loved the '62...cleaned-up sides, 327 engine, cleaned-up front. It's suspension is low-tech, like an Avanti (still has king pins), but in a collector car, I could care less. I could enjoy a 250 hp 327 with 'Powerslide', just to keep the acquisition cost down. Would have to have the hardtop though. I like Honduras Maroon and Fawn Beige.
Honestly though, since I'm a Stude guy (and not by birth, either!), given an opportunity to buy an Avanti that's bone-stock, in a color I like such as Turquoise or Black, and a '62 'Vette, I'd pick the Avanti due to rarity and just 'cause I tend to like things out of the mainstream. I know people rave about Sting Rays, but their styling does absolutely nothing for me and I'll go out on a limb here and say the '63 is so Buck-Rogers-like and the split window so stupid, I'd rather have a '64 if I had to pick one. I know that the engineering on Sting Rays, especially later ones with disc brakes and Turbo Hydramatic for automatics, is impeccable though.
Also, a Vette and an Avanti or T-Bird are completely different cars. The Corvette is a sports car, the others aren't.
Being obscure or rare doesn't make a car any more desirable, except to people who like to own obscure cars---and certainly there is an "obscurity market" of sorts.
Avantis prices do hold their own against Big Three four-seaters of the same period, as we discussed last week.
I think they were a daring vehicle for a company that was even smaller than AMC at the time. I mean, you couldn't get a Classic two-door hardtop 'til '64 nor a Classic V8 of any kind until mid-'63. And their effort at a four-seat "sporty" car, the Marlin, in '65, even though designed by a former Packard stylist, isn't held in the same esteem, generally, as the Avanti.
With the Avanti, you could put a front end on it similar to this obscure car, and probably increase both the value and collectibility of it. (not that this obscure car doesn't have it's OWN set of problems!)
I have a lot of faith in good design (generally speaking) being rewarded and bad design punished in the collector car world.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e6/TarponChuckMashigan.jpg
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
Not sure what a "sports-fastback" is supposed to be, and maybe that was a point of confusion in the marketplace.
Yes, the Marlin failed miserably in the martetplace, but I'm inclined to cut AMC a break on this car. Since this was an extremely competitve market segment, a me-too design from an independent didn't stand a chance. From a strategic standpoint, AMC correctly realized that they had to differentiate their product from the Mustangs, Camaros and the many other sporty compacts and midsize offerings. They got the strategy right, but, unfortunately, they botched the execution. I give them a C+ for trying.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
Hard for me to tell really. Part of the Marlin bloat is from having to stretch it out (including sideways) at the last minute. The original compact would have probably been wrapped a lot tighter. I'm guessing AMC enlarged it to compete in the growing larger coupe segment. A more successful compact might have gotten AMC some positive notice, but most buyers clung to the Big 3 regardless.
1 and 2 are good, ok to skip 3.
Countach drive
IIRC the decision to put it on the midsize chassis came from the fact that at the time AMC didn't have a V-8 that would go into the compact one.
2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])
That fastback style became all the rage a bit later with cars like the Barracuda, first-gen Charger, fastback Mustangs, and GM, Ford, and Chrysler all fielded full-sized coupes in the later years with much more rakish, fastback roofs.
The main difference is that in those later years, the fastback was integrated better, although I'll say the '64-66 Barracuda and first-gen Charger aren't so hot IMO. AMC basically tried to work a fastback roof onto an existing boxy hardtop coupe that was probably more boxy and upright than most sedans. Roomy and comfy for its size, to be sure, but hardly beautiful.
'71 Dodge Polara hardtop
It is a very nice-looking example that reminds me a lot of the Monaco dad bought when I was a kid. The 3 randomly-placed pull handles under the left side of the dash pictured here were bizarre back in late '70 when we took delivery of ours, and still look odd today.
The only thing that strikes me is how plain the upholstery looks. Our Monaco was much more upscale obviously, but this strikes me as a bit stark. I thought Polaras were generally a bit nicer. Still though, this is in outstanding condition and is in a very '70s color combo.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
That Polara, judging from the window sticker, is just the base model. Interestingly is has a base price listed of $3,098, and a total MSRP of $4217.80. My old car book lists the base price of a '71 Polara hardtop coupe at $3,319. And it also lists the slant six as the base engine.
However, inflation was starting to get pretty bad in those days, so maybe they had to raise prices a few times during the year? I notice the title says 1/7/71. Maybe my old car book listed a base price from later in the model year?
Just as a rough comparison, my grandparents' '72 Impala 4-door hardtop was around $5,000, out the door. My book lists it as having a base price of $3771. Oddly, it lists the '71 Impala 4-door hardtop as having a base MSRP of $3813. I wonder how Chevy was able to drop their price a bit, considering inflation.
The Impala did have nicer seats, with the full seating area being covered in cloth. Or jacquard or broacade or whatever they called it. There was still vinyl on the seatbacks and sides, though. Otherwise, the rest was a mixed bag. For instance, the Impala's dash looked nicer, but was more plasticky. And the Polara had more gauges. With door panels, the Impala had thicker vinyl, along with the cute little prancing deer emblems, and a bigger, integrated armrest. But, the lower half of the door panel was hard plastic, with the armrest molded into it, and then padding bolted to the plastic.
Also kinda interesting that the Polara has an inside hood release, and remote control mirror. I'm pretty sure our Impala had neither. The Impala did have a bigger engine, a 350 versus a 318, but that version of the 350 (255 hp gross/165 net) was pretty closely matched to the 318 (230 gross/150 net) in performance. 0-60 in around 12 seconds.
I'd guess the base Polara equated to a Biscayne, while the Polara Custom might've been a Bel Air, and the Brougham an Impala? And then the Monaco would have gone against the Caprice?
I'm a little underwhelmed by the interior too. Looks "Bel Air" or "Custom 500" level to me, although neither of those lines offered a 2-door hardtop. I'm surprised there was a Polara Brougham in '71--I don't remember that, but didn't spend a whole lot of time checking out Mopars at the time. Polara Custom I definitely remember.
That green was ubiquitous on those cars!
About base prices...I don't know about Mopar, but Chevy always advertised a "standard six" and a "standard V8"--but both had different base prices! Maybe Dodge did that too. Also, in '71, midway through the model year, Chevy decided to advertise that "Turbo-Hydramatic, power steering and power brakes were standard equipment". I remember seeing the first ones come into our dealership...and the base prices were enough extra to cover the 'now standard' equipment! Maybe Dodge did that too. Ford and Chrysler often used to follow GM's lead in stuff like that.
Your '72 Impala had an inside hood release.
I always thought the '74 Dodge Monaco line was copied from the '71 full-size Chevy line...same huge curved windshield with completely chrome-covered windshield pillars, same cut of rear doors in both the sedan and 4-door hardtop, and same crowned front fenders. I did like how Dodge had a center glove compartment though.
I think this base Polara is equivalent to the BelAir. Dodge really didn't offer a true stripper like the Biscayne, though the Plymouth Fury I was pretty close to that.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
I know pictures can hide stuff, but I'm impressed with how nice that car looks with 93K miles...particularly interior pieces.
I honestly couldn't rememer if my grandparents' '72 Impala had an inside hood release or not. My '76 Grand LeMans, as well-equipped as it is, still has an outside hood release, so I just figured it was still optional, or not even offered yet. Of course, that's not a direct comparison, as one's a midsize and one's a fullsize. I really liked their Impala though. When I was 8 or so, I asked them if I could have it when I turned 16, and I remember Granddad, and even my Mom, saying that car wasn't going to last until I was 16!
They sold it in 1982 for $600 to some friends. It had about 100,000 miles on it. Still ran well (although Granddad had done a valve job at 70K), but it was rusting pretty bad, and the vinyl top was shredding. I can't remember how the interior was holding up...towards the end of its life with us, I didn't ride in it that much. The people they sold it to put a new roof on it, and sold it about a year later for $700.
Yeah, the '74 Monaco and Fury were definitely inspired by GM, I thought, although a little more squared-off and bulky looking. I always thought they bore a strong resemblance to a Buick. Clean and handsome, although I thought Plymouth messed up when they went to that look with the big single headlight and rectangular turn signal, and the more upright, pretentious grille. I think that style first showed up as the top line Gran Fury Brougham in '75, but was then used on all Gran Furys in '76-77.
For some strange, nostalgic reason, I started watching the Dukes of Hazzard again. I had forgotten that in the first few episodes, the ones that were actually filmed in Georgia, Roscoe drove a good looking '75 Gran Fury sedan. Either a base model or a Custom. I think Enos was driving a '73 Fury. During the later part of the first season, when they moved filming to California (must've been a pain to coordinate the shooting of the Waltons, Little House on the Prairie, the Dukes, and God-knows what else all on the same lots) and they were using AMC Madators, the 1974+ "coffin-nose" models. I guess the B-body "small" Fury/Monacos weren't old and cheap enough yet, to start getting banged up in those stunts? Maybe it was the second season ('79-80) that they started using those?
Anyway, since we owned that one, I think that's why I like them, even though they aren't as well-made or durable as the earlier boxy models of the mid-60s. Finding one in this kind of condition would be really uncommon these days. If it was a Polara Custom (or Brougham!!) in this shape, I would be all over it. The only thing I would lust after more would be a '70 Polara convertible.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
Speaking of divisional autonomy, I can remember seeing a competitive analysis made to hand out to customers, for early '70's Pontiacs, that even showed them competing against Chevys!
Pontiac started losing me a bit with their redesigned 1971 big cars. I thought Chevy, Buick, Olds, and Cadillac all looked good, although I never was crazy about the peaked headlights on Olds, or the turn signals mounted between the headlights on the Caddy. But with Pontiac, that beak was just too much.
As for fighting with Chevy, by 1971, there really wasn't much price difference. An Impala sedan with the 350 started at $3742 (only $3391 with the 6-cyl though), while the Catalina started at $3770. And worse, Pontiac was now making their 350 V-8 standard in the Catalina. At least in the past, Catalinas came with a 389 or 400 standard, while at Chevy you had to work your way up from a 283 or 307, through a 327 or 350, and then to a 396 to get something comparable. To be fair though, the 396 was usually pretty powerful even in base form, whereas Pontiac always offered a few watered-down versions of the 389 or 400.
But, all of a sudden, what, really, did the Catalina give you over the Impala? It still sold really well for 1971-73, but the '74 oil embargo hit hard, and with the exception of the Grand Prix, Pontiacs mid- and full-sized cars never really recovered the way Chevy, Olds, and Buick did.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Speaking of good looking vehicles (?), I had to post this for the Studebaker fans out there:
It's a Champ!