I spotted an (insert obscure car name here) classic car today!

ab348

I thought the '71 Plymouth Sebring and Dodge Charger looked totally different from each other. The Charger was the stylemaster that year and I really liked it at the time, but I don't think the design has aged very well, whereas the Sebring still looks pretty good to my eye. All the front overhang on the Charger looks odd to me now.

But C&D named the charger the best-styled car of 1971. I still remember the article and this picture of it:
Car & Driver Review of the '71 Charger

omarman

In 1971 a retired neighbor of mine bought one of these and it was the last new car he had. Looked good and comfortable to ride in. Was garaged and driven few miles until the owner passed away. His son used it as a daily driver "work" car for a long time after that.

omarman

ab348 said:

I thought the '71 Plymouth Sebring and Dodge Charger looked totally different from each other. The Charger was the stylemaster that year and I really liked it at the time, but I don't think the design has aged very well, whereas the Sebring still looks pretty good to my eye. All the front overhang on the Charger looks odd to me now.

But C&D named the charger the best-styled car of 1971. I still remember the article and this picture of it:
Car & Driver Review of the '71 Charger

That's a cool pic. They pick the "best style" car and wear that maxi coat thing at the same time. Good times!

berri

318 or 383 and Torqueflite auto transmission was a pretty durable combo for the times as I recall.

uplanderguy

Here's a factory photo of the '71 Coronet Brougham sedan. At the time I was generally averse to sedans, but I think the proportions and use of trim are good:

https://libwww.freelibrary.org/digital/item/45146

berri

I liked the 65-67 Coronet sedans. Clean lines, good driver and durable. They made lemonade out of the downsized 62 Polara's

uplanderguy

My sister's first car was a '65 Coronet 440 four-door with 318. Other than it rusted out on the top of the front fenders, it was a good car. The '66 and '67 were redesigned.

andre1969

berri said:

However, I never understood why Chevy went to single headlights on the 71 Malibu. An Intermediate from that era that I liked the looks of was the new for 72 Torino fastback coupe model.

It might have been because of the Monte Carlo. I think a lot of people still equated quad headlights with a more prestigious car, and single headlights tended to be relegated to cheaper compacts. But, then along came the Monte Carlo, which was helping to lead the trend that today we would call "retro", but in those days, it was called "neoclassic". The initial Monte Carlo was successful, but I have a feeling some buyers were put off by the fact that it had single headlights, whereas the cheaper Chevelle had quads.

It's interesting though, that Pontiac didn't see fit to do the same with the LeMans versus the Grand Prix. The GP went to single lights for '71-72, but the LeMans kept its quads. Then, of course, all the GM intermediates went single for '73. By then I think it was considered more "European", which was another theme that was taking hold, along with "neoclassic"...which might explain why some 70's car styles seemed a bit confused...blending too many different themes.

As for that '72 Torino fastback, it was interesting. But, again, thta neoclassic/personal luxury coupe look was becoming popular, so that's why the notchback ultimately won out, I guess.

roadburner

In 1971 Chrysler was trying a new strategy; the Dodge/Plymouth intermediate sedans would be the more traditional family car and the more adventurously styled coupes were intended to be the "Personal Luxury" cars- kind of as if Chevrolet sold Monte Carlos instead of 2 door Chevelles.

andre1969

uplanderguy said:

Here's a factory photo of the '71 Coronet Brougham sedan. At the time I was generally averse to sedans, but I think the proportions and use of trim are good:

https://libwww.freelibrary.org/digital/item/45146

It actually does look pretty good from that angle. Very nice proportions. To me, I think it's just some of the styling details that I'm not crazy about...the grille, taillight treatment, etc. With GM's intermediates, I think they got the details better, but I don't think the proportions on the sedans were all that great. You could tell that they designed the coupe first, and then worked the sedan around it.

The Mopar sedans were different enough from the coupes, that it showed up in trunk volume as well. At least, in the later years. The coupes were given a substantial restyle for '75 that angled them up some, made them less fat, and more personal-luxury coupe-ish. The sedans pretty much just got the new front end clip, and some sheetmetal perhaps, but retained the old structure from the cowl back...no change to the roof structure, shape of the trunk area, etc. As a result, the sedans had something like 20 cubic feet of trunk space, which compared well to the downsized big cars, and even some of the pre-downsized ones! The coupes, at least in '75-78, were more like 15 cubic feet, which was in range of your typical pre-downsized intermediate.

berri

For me, I liked the 75 Fury (now an Intermediate vice the Gran Fury) better than the squared off 73/74 update to the Sebring. Its all just personal preference. I thought the 75 Fury looked kind of classy for its price range.

uplanderguy

The similar Coronet coupes of that era are nice-looking too, and almost invisible today.

berri

Sadly, if a Mopar isn't a muscle car, people just kind of ignore it these days it seems.

andre1969

berri said:

For me, I liked the 75 Fury (now an Intermediate vice the Gran Fury) better than the squared off 73/74 update to the Sebring. Its all just personal preference. I thought the 75 Fury looked kind of classy for its price range.

When they were newer, I didn't care for them so much, but I think part of that might have been that they were just so common as taxis and police cars. But, like a lot of things, I'm finding that, the older I get, the more I can appreciate them. The coupes were pretty classy. In some ways, I prefer them to the Cordoba, Charger S/E, and Magnum, because of the B-pillarless styling. I hesitate to actually call them "hardtops" because the rear windows no longer rolled down in '75. At least, as far as I know. I've seen factory photos where it looks like they're down, but I think they actually pulled the window glass out for that look. I've never seen a '75-78 in person, that had roll-down rear windows. Not that I see a ton of them, but they actually do have a bit of a turnout at the Mopar show in Carlisle, PA.

fintail

Saw a Suzuki Cappuccino on the highway today, and a W210 E320 with "BENZO" applied with stick on letters on the trunklid, made me feel sorry for the car

xwesx

fintail said:

Saw a Suzuki Cappuccino on the highway today, and a W210 E320 with "BENZO" applied with stick on letters on the trunklid, made me feel sorry for the car

That Suzuki is a rather odd duck to see!

uplanderguy

I couldn't remember what a 'small Fury' sedan looked like; I had to Google it. Now I remember what happened. The 'small Fury' sedan is what was originally the '71 Coronet sedan, essentially, and the 'small Fury' coupe was the same as the Coronet coupe.

Growing up 'Chevy', I'll admit that I couldn't always keep up with what name meant what in Mopar circles, LOL.

ab348

andre1969 said:

I hesitate to actually call them "hardtops" because the rear windows no longer rolled down in '75. At least, as far as I know. I've seen factory photos where it looks like they're down, but I think they actually pulled the window glass out for that look. I've never seen a '75-78 in person, that had roll-down rear windows. Not that I see a ton of them, but they actually do have a bit of a turnout at the Mopar show in Carlisle, PA.

Maybe they were like the big Chryslers back in that era. I read a discussion thread on a Chrysler C-body forum that the full-size Chrysler C-body two-door in the mid-70s to the end of their run that had an opera window actually had a fully operating window mechanism there which did not have a handle or power motor switch and was buried under the interior door panel. Seems bizarre but apparently true.

andre1969

Yeah, I've actually seen one of those cars, a '74 or '75 New Yorker, I believe. It would show up fairly regularly at the Mopar show in Carlisle, PA, and I've also seen it once or twice at the "Das Awkscht Fescht" car show in Macungie, PA. I remember first noticing it when the owner was playing around with the power window switch while I was looking at the car and I mentioned that I didn't realize you could get a roll-down window with the opera window.

That's when he filled me on the information, that you technically couldn't. But, they were so hard up by this time that when you got the nicer model with the landau roof and opera windows, which was also more likely to be equipped with power windows, in the first place, they simply took away the power window switches, but kept the lift mechanism, motors and all, in there. So all you had to do is get the wiring out of a lesser model that didn't have the opera windows. Or, I guess a 4-door model might have worked as well.

So, I guess it's possible they did it with the '75-78 Coronet/Monaco and "small" Fury, as well.

fintail

RHD of course, zooming right along in the left lane of I5 south of Seattle, which was actually moving at ~10 over. Takes a tiny bit of courage in something that tiny stuck between gormless SUV/CUV drivers and Civrollas that blunder onto the highway on Sundays.

xwesx said:

That Suzuki is a rather odd duck to see!

stickguy

I’m amused at calling any early 70’s Fury “small”

andre1969

stickguy said:

I’m amused at calling any early 70’s Fury “small”

LOL.

Believe it or not, that's actually how they advertised it! All 213.8" of it. 217.9" if you got the 4-door model.

andre1969

Here's the 1975 Plymouth Fury brochure...

http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Plymouth/1975_Plymouth/1975_Plymouth_Fury_Brochure/dirindex.html

Interestingly, it shows a 2-door model on the cover, with all four windows down. And, a few pages in, there's a shot of a white-interior coupe, with four power window switches on the driver's door. So, apparently these were offered with roll-down rear windows. Or, at least they intended to offer them initially, and did a mockup or two.

stickguy

That coupe is longer than a new Ranger. And a foot longer than an Odyssey. Dang.

ab348

I remember the TV ads for the "Small Fury" and its musical jingle.

I never thought it was a particularly sage marketing strategy.

The brochure link shows a couple of shots of cars with the rear side windows down, but many more where the door window is down and the rear side window is not. No info in the brochure about it. A mystery!

berri

Maybe iy was like the previous Satellite and Sebring; the former had fixed rear glass, the latter roll down?

uplanderguy

That "small Fury" coupe to my eyes is a good-looking car! And you heard it here, from Mr. Studebaker and Mr. Chevy.

I think I'd rather have the nearly-identical Coronet, only because I like that old Dodge nameplate. I'm glad Dodge didn't call theirs the "small Monaco". They probably could've gotten away with calling it a "Polara", and I'd be OK with that.

xwesx

stickguy said:

That coupe is longer than a new Ranger. And a foot longer than an Odyssey. Dang.

Oh, speaking of new Ranger, I saw one in the wild for the first time on Friday! I am not sure it was a sold unit, as it had a window sticker on it yet. However, very pleasant to observe with an understated (but capable) vibe to it. Not sure how it will sell, but I imagine it must do better than Frontier.

andre1969

uplanderguy said:

That "small Fury" coupe to my eyes is a good-looking car! And you heard it here, from Mr. Studebaker and Mr. Chevy.

I think I'd rather have the nearly-identical Coronet, only because I like that old Dodge nameplate. I'm glad Dodge didn't call theirs the "small Monaco". They probably could've gotten away with calling it a "Polara", and I'd be OK with that.

Give them a few years...in '77 they did start calling it "Monaco", while the big one was "Royal Monaco". And they pulled a similar stunt to the Ford LTD and LTD-II, talking about giving you a "choice". At least Dodge admitted the Monaco was a midsize though. With Ford, they bragged about how "Only Ford gives you a choice in full sized cars!", taking a jab at the downsized GM cars.

Here's the '77 Monaco/Royal Monaco brochure...
http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Dodge/1977_Dodge/1977_Dodge_Monaco_Brochure/dirindex.html

uplanderguy

I'm sure I knew it at some time back then, but I totally forgot that Dodge ever had "Monaco" as the mid-size name! Thanks for the reminder!

On Facebook, a guy recently posted a pic of a beautiful '67 GTX. I always liked the exterior styling, but I also thought they had an instrument panel that looked more like a pickup truck's than any other car panel I can think of, LOL. All instruments though, of course, and I'd take this car, don't get me wrong.

uplanderguy

andre, I saw online that the Coronet Coupe was called the "Charger Sport" before being called "Monaco". Is that right? Sheesh, that car had three names in four model years!

omarman

This is a factory photo tagged 1976 Dodge Charger Sport - which I never heard of before.

Mr_Shiftright

It's just a re-badged Dodge Coronet 2D.

uplanderguy

Yes. That car was called Coronet, Charger Sport, and Monaco in three or four model years.

andre1969

In 1975, Dodge called its Cordoba clone the Charger S/E, and, for whatever reason, folded the lesser, more mainstream coupes back under the Coronet name. They offered a base, Brougham, and Custom.

For 1976, they put all the coupes back under the Charger name. My old car book just lists "2dr ht, 2dr coupe, and S/E". My guess is the 2-door hardtop was just called "Charger", while the "2dr coupe" was the model with the louvered opera window, and probably called "Sport". And, of course, the S/E was still the Cordoba clone.

For 1977, the regular coupes became Monacos, while the Cordoba clone was still called Charger S/E. In '78, the Magnum X/E came out, a step above the Charger S/E. For '79, the Monaco (and Fury) went away, and so did the Charger S/E, leaving just the Magnum.

imidazol97

No wonder I couldn't keep the various Mopars straight. All these name changes everyone is listing.
I liked some of the products that friends had when I drove them.

uplanderguy

My 'old skool' nature makes me prefer a Coronet to those other names, LOL. I also like the no-pillar look. I'll have to look on eBay for those. Haven't seen one in years.

ab348

andre1969 said:

One thing I didn't like about the redesign was Chrysler's move to single headlights. I can imagine they saw GM do it on the Colonnade cars and figured it would be accepted by customers, plus it undoubtedly saved them some money.

When they did a refresh a couple of years later they went to quad rectangulars in a stacked configuration which I don't thing ever looked good on any car.

berri

Stacked headlights, I'm thinking maybe Pontiac handled that design cue best.

fintail

Prowlers are much cooler with the front bumper removed. Not something I need, but I don't mind that they exist.

I think MB did stacked headlights pretty well too, it adds to the "classic" look of the 60s era cars, where the flush Euro lights look maybe too modern.

uplanderguy

I liked the stacked '76 Malibu Classic and Monte Carlo headlights right away, but I know people who can't stand the look. Of course, as was so often the case back then, Ford and Chrysler soon followed with that look.

The '76 Monte Carlo is my favorite Monte Carlo styling of that '73-77 era. I like the front, the tall taillights, and the lack of a hood ornament. The '77 added that, and had those strange capped taillights.

The Prowler was an interesting exercise. Seems like every one I ever saw was that dark purple, but I'll assume it was offered in other colors too.

fintail

Speaking of stacked lights, the late 70s Mazda Luce Legato/929 was a great cribbing of American design themes:

thebean

My first new car was a ‘76 Monte Carlo. Sadly, I had two wrecks in it within 2 years and traded it for a Toyota Celtics. But, the Monte was a nice looking comfortable car that was perfect for driving to the disco.

uplanderguy

The look of that long hood of that-era Monte used to impress me from the front seat. But of course, all wasted space. But they sure sold like crazy. They were very quiet and cornered better than one would expect from a car that size. The Monte had what would become known as the F41 suspension as standard equipment, from '73 to '80.

Man, that Mazda does look like those headlights might fit right into the hole of a '76 Chevelle front end, LOL!

texases

Today's mystery pic reminded me - I saw a '70-ish Dart four door Sunday, rough shape but on the road.

andre1969

I'm a bit on the fence about stacked headlights. I liked them on the Chevelle/Monte Carlo, as well as the Cordoba and Fury/Monaco. But, on the '76-77 Century sedans, they seemed like they were mounted too far outboard. And on the LTD-II, they were too far inboard.

Oh, on a different subject, how much would the placement of an engine, in relation to the front axle, determine how well a car handles? I was just looking at a '77 Monarch brochure, and they showed a cutaway drawing, and I thought it was odd how far the engine jutted ahead of the front axle. Below is a screen capture, with a '78 Malibu for comparison.



Now, it's not a completely direct comparison, as the Malibu is showing a V6 and the Monarch a V8...but look at the position of the transmission on both cars, and how far forward it is on the Monarch.

I guess it's possible that the proportioning is off, and that Monarch simply isn't drawn correctly. The transmission in that drawing doesn't look like it would take up that much space, but I remember the Granada/Monarch having a huge transmission hump.

These cars handled pretty sloppy, and some reviewers said they put automotive handling back a good 20 years or more! I wonder if the engine being that far forward made them too front-heavy, and that messed with the handling?

uplanderguy

They were somewhat of a long-hood design, compared to the Malibu which, like it or hate it, to my eyes didn't have an inch of wasted space.

I've mentioned that I liked how on the '78 Malibu Classic you could get a 50/50 front seat with individual center armrests. But one thing I remember about those Malibus and Monte Carlos, both, was how the floor of the right-front seat passenger was raised to clear the catalytic converter, which gave you a knees-up posture and how the seat cushion there was fairly thin/low. I wonder if that's why the Car and Driver '78 Malibu Classic 4-speed review car had a power bench seat when it had about every single other option--with the power seat, less chance of complaint from front-seat passengers.

I feel pretty sure the power seat would've been available only on the driver's side of the optional 50/50 front seat.

andre1969

I remember that raised floor section on the GM intermediates I had, now that you mention it. I don't think it bothered me so much, because being tall, I had the seat all the way back. And, whenever I was a passenger in one of those cars, I'd have my feet resting on the angled part under the dashboard, rather than the flat part of the floor.

Now that I think about it, even my Grandmother's '85 LeSabre had the floor raised a bit on the passenger side. I can remember one of her old lady friends complaining about the car being low and uncomfortable to get into and out of, seat too low, etc. And, this old lady was coming from a '75 Monte Carlo! Again, it didn't bother me because whenever I sat over there the seat was all the way back and my feet were on the angled part of the firewall. But, I'd imagine a short, little old lady would have her feet on the floor.

Years later though, I learned just how comfortable those '73-77 GM Colonades really were, though. After I bought my '76 LeMans, I took Grandmom to the doctor a few times in it. Even though it's a coupe, she had no trouble getting in and out of that seat. It was a good height off of the floor, and also off the pavement, for her, and fairly well-padded. It was easier for her to get in and out of than the 2000 Intrepid I used to have, so I started using the LeMans for her doctors runs. But, after the Intrepid got wrecked and I got the Park Ave, I started using that, as it was fairly easy for her to enter/exit, as well.

sda

I didn't care for the higher passenger floor in the GM intermediates. Even though I am 5'8'" I found it somewhat uncomfortable. In some ways I think GM did a better job with the downsizing of the full size vs intermediates. I found the '81 Cutlass 2dr especially good looking.

Wasn't the Granada/Monarch built on an archaic platform that dated back to the Falcon? It wasn't a bad looking car, but boy did it drive poorly. A friend's parents had a '76 and '77 with the 250 six. They were quiet, rode decently, but boy was it SLOW and it took constant steering correction to keep the car driving straight, it didn't track well at all. I think 0-60 was around 19 sec.

berri

I remember having several of the early Granada's as rental cars years back. Recall them as a bit stiffly suspended, but that probably went with the Euro comparison ads.

I think it was tough to stack the squared off headlights and make the headlights proportional to the rest of the front end. That's probably why stacked headlights seemed to look better with round headlights back in the 60's. Actually, buyers flocked to the 76 Cutlass with the new horizontal squared headlights, but I think in hindsight the earlier Cutlass Colonade front end looked better. I suppose back in 76 squared headlights showed everyone you had a new car.

Personally, I agree with sda that GM did a better job with the 77 full sized downsizing. I wonder if part of that may be that GM included more cost cutting actions when they downsized the Intermediates afterwards?