I didn't see the part about 'standard transmission' (I thought all '86 converts were automatics), that's nice. This is really close to my house, it's probably gone, though. Kinda cool it was owned by D'arcy of Smashing Pumpkins (wonder how much drug residue is under the seats, sorry). Of course, if I got this car, which I clearly don't need, then my mom finally were to give me her old Benz, I'd have more than my sure of old Eurotrash headaches.
Shifty, these ars were last sold ca. 1990 or so..so are survivors liable to be in good shape? The stsyling was pretty cool-except for that undecipherable dashboard-zillions of identical square plastic buttons-each with an unreadable euro symbol! Were the engines OK? :P
Yeah they were okay if you get one that was well-maintained and you know somebody who can work on an Alfa without screwing it up. Really fun car, even for a FWD. Never buy an automatic though. Reall pieces of junk those transmissions. 30K and it's done.
Is that a strip of rust down the center of the roof, or just something being reflected in the paint? Makes me think of how cars in the late 80's and early 90's that were assembled and painted here in the US often would peel off in that spot, giving them a bit of a skunk/mowhawk look.
what is one of those things worth, in real life? I always thought they were kinda neat, in an oddball sort of way. Although I think this is one of those examples of a design where the 4-door version actually looks better!
I believe the last year the 164 was sold here was '94 (maybe '95?). And, no, not all the survivors are in good shape. I've seen some pretty horrible ones. Like shifty said, they are fun as far as FWD sedans go, but talk about torque steer! Hold on to that wheel tight!
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Looks like a paint wear stripe to me. That car looks like it has been in a harsh hot dry climate...cars don't usually age like that here. That makes me think the car has other cosmetic issues, namely woodwork. Even shiny laminated woodwork as has been used in MB for some time now can fade and fall apart.
Shifty can probably chime in with more accuracy, but I would say a really decent one of those is worth no more than 5-6K...maybe up to 10 or so for a really perfect low mileage concours one. Even though the MB SLC is what I consider their most disco-fied car, I would take one over the Jag.
well at least we have verified our staggering expertise.... :P
You know, some cars really don't look good as coupes, and the XJ is one example of that, as are most of the Benzes....a coupe is NOT always better or even more valuable.
doesn't the difference in value between a coupe and a sedan almost disappear? For instance, a '68 Impala would be worth much more as a hardtop coupe, or even a 2-door sedan (guess that would be a Bel Air, though) than a 4-door sedan. But by, say, 1976, is my Grand LeMans coupe really worth any more than a Grand LeMans sedan?
I think the 70s is when that trend started. For MB anyway, ever since the 280SE coupes died off (1971), coupes do not carry any real premium over sedan values. Some MB coupes since then have been nice looking (W124 and 126 esp), but some have been kind of odd (107) or just boring (123).
Really it's the American cars that benefitted from the coupe style, since in the 40s-60s the sedans weren't very attractive as a rule. The 4-door sedan was the "utility" or "workhorse" of the line up and even the luxury models of the 4-doors looked just like the taxicabs but with more chrome.
Well, after another weekend of repairs, I am convinced that I am the proud owner of a project car. Haha...... but that is okay by me. My last major repair project from September was followed by a blown front crankshaft seal on Friday night that required a strap-tow home, $37 in parts, and 8 hours of my time to fix. The car runs like a top again, so no harm done! :P
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
Hahah.... no kidding! "This thing looks so good, no one will believe you when you tell them it doesn't run!" Hahah. That's one way to inspire confidence...... :sick:
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
You know, the 170hp, 24 valve V6 is pretty fun in those things, especially with a manual. The biggest issue is the self grenading water pump every ~60-70k. Around 150k, the thing that changes the intake runners gets weird, and evey now and again the thing eats a wheel bearing. The seats on the 95-97 SEs are really comfy with big bolsters to keep you in place. Not so comfy for those super-sized folks but I liked them.
So I can't remember if that was old enough to be from the BMW era with the two different V8 blocks, one was a N-something and one was a K-something, I think (not sure). Apparently, one of the blocks had a problem with the cylinder bores. Buying a car from that era was like a roulette game.
how many transmissions, water pumps, and a/c compressors this baby has gone through? At 163,000 miles, I'm sure a few! Now the engines on these cars are supposed to be very durable...this is one of the few pushrod-to-OHC conversions that the domestics got right. But it's just everything else that acted up!
This little pup looks like it could be a fun car, especially with the 273! If it's a 4-bbl, it could really be a little screamer. They were rated at 235 hp, but were down-rated so as to not take too much attention away from the bigger engines in the intermediates. Still, I'm sure even 235 hp (gross, of course) could be fun in a lightweight car like this.
Well, I think we all know by now I have goofy taste ... but I'm pretty sure I'd prefer the inline 6 in a car like that. I just find they are typically more durable and much easier to work on (although I'm not all too familiar with Darts). So when its not a collectible car, I'd rather keep it simple.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
I have always liked the darts and that could be a really fun cruise/weekend track car. Clean it up real good make sure it is in perfect tune and I know it would be fun at any of the vintage/stock drag race events.
that Cougar was posted a while back. Proving once again that there is nothing new on the internet.
I think the Dart GT looks like it could be the basis for a nice project. Pretty cheap, easy to work on, and not valuable if authentic, so you can pretty much do whatever you want to with it.
I personally would like a 1970ish Dart/Duster 340 4 speed. I know there was one year that was the best, but I forget which one.
American Muscle Car did a show on them not too long ago. Plus, my 2nd car was a Duster, so I still have fond memories of doing stupid things in it (the sunroof came in handy in quite a few ways..)
are the '67-69 style. As for the 340, I don't know if there was really a best year for it in the Duster/Demon or not. I don't think the 340 ever really went through a compression cut or strangulation by emissions controls. IIRC Chrysler just realized that the 340 wouldn't survive well as a smogger engine, so it was replaced in mid year (1973 I think) by a high-output version of the 360. I think the 360 put out a bit more hp and torque than the 340, but didn't like to rev like the 340 did.
If I was to pick a favorite year for the Demon/Duster/Sport style, I'd go for a '72 Demon. Just something about the front-end that year looks aggressive, almost evil!
Dart GT -- it would be fun as long as you don't want to stop or steer at high speed. But with some upgrades, it might be okay. Tires, shocks, sway bar, that sort of thing.
I still think any modern 4 cylinder car of decent displacement would easily keep pace with it, though. Those old engine/trans powertrains are very inefficient so they gobble up or waste a lot of horsepower.
the Dart was good for 0-60 in about 10 seconds with the 180 hp 2-bbl, and 8.2 seconds with the 235 hp 4-bbl version. Even Consumer Reports was able to get 0-60 in around 10 seconds out of a 2-bbl version once. For comparison though, the 225 slant six was good for more like 14 seconds, while the little 170 was probably more like 16-18 seconds, depending on gearing, and whether it was a Dart or Valiant it was in.
They might be inefficient by today's standards, but for the time were pretty good. One definite advantage the Dart/Valiant had was that it used a 3-speed automatic. Most compacts and even many larger cars were still stuck with archaic 2-speeds which would usually give you a 1-2 punch by hindering both acceleration AND fuel economy.
I dunno if a '65 Dart GT would have 10" brakes with the V-8. By the late 60's, I know they put in larger brakes for V-8 models. My '69 Dart 225 only had 9" drums, but my '68 318 has 10" drums all around. They're pretty good at stopping the car, provided they're adjusted correctly. Sure, you get some yahoo who's only used to modern cars behind the wheel, and you can have fun watching them kill themselves, but once you get used to 'em, they're not that bad. Heck, I've logged over 100,000 miles between my two Darts, and lived to tell about it! :P
Yeah, you have to drive them soberly and they're okay. But in strict engineering terms, the engines vastly overpower the chassis and brakes on many 60s V-8s. They are pretty incompetent, even for 1965, as the Europeans put out some very good handling cars in that era.
This is why there is such a brisk aftermarket in retro-rods. Modern owners of old cars want good steering and brakes.
with something like that Dart. If you find a clean one (good "bones") that is straight and generally rust free, you have a good foundation for mechanical upgrades. Disk brake conversion, better suspension, engine tweaks, etc. Usually not too expensive, and lot's of bang for the buck.
Best thing is, parts tend to be cheap on these, and you can often retrofit better components from other models (or later versions). There isn't that much of a difference between a '65 and '75 Dart, is there?
I remember reading once that you could take most of a modern car (A Camaro) chassis and stick it right onto a '57 Chevy 9suspension/steering/brakes), which sounds plausible.
it's popular to take the sub-frame of a 1970-1981 Camaro and use that as the basis for many customizations of older cars. That way you can bolt all the Camaro stuff to the older car.
As for Darts, you could get disc brakes for them back in the 60's...it was something like a $23.00 option. Nobody really cared, though. Part of the problem might have been that once you get disc brakes, a power booster is almost mandatory, and I think the power assist is where much of the cost came in.
I think it was 1973 when disc brakes became really common on Darts and Valiants. It'll swap onto the older drum-brake models, but I think you have to also swap either the upper or lower control arm, as one of them was changed for use with disc brakes. The '73-76 disc brakes also use the larger 4.5" bolt pattern, which brings the Dart in line with the rest of the Chrysler lineup of cars. The drum brake Darts and the pre-1973 disc brake ones used the smaller 4" bolt pattern.
I know a guy with a '59 Dodge Coronet with the D-500 option. He converted it to 4-wheel discs. There's actually a conversion kit you can get for the front that uses Aspen/Volare brakes. That bothers me a bit, because, I dunno, but I'd rather have drum brakes on a big car that were ENGINEERED for a big car, rather than disc brakes that were engineered for a compact! Unless it used copcar brakes. My '89 Gran Fury, which was Volare-based, used the same disc brakes as my '79 New Yorker.
As for the rear axle, his '59 Coronet has an 8 3/4 rear end out of an old Challenger/Barracuda (the E-body rear axle is within millimeters of the old full-sized Mopars) and the disc brakes come from, IIRC, a 1979-85 Eldorado.
I've thought about getting my '57 DeSoto's brakes converted, because they're annoying as hell. They actually do a commendable job stopping the car...12-inch "Total Contact" drums will do that for ya! But they're overly complicated. You need a special wheel puller to get to the rear brakes, and the front brakes actually employ TWO cylinders on each wheel! It makes the shoes apply to the drums more evenly, but it also adds complexity and there's just more to adjust. And I figure hell, the thing needs new brakes anyway, so maybe I'll just take the plunge and go disc!
Re-reading that post, I think the seller was trying to say that the car looks very good, AND it runs just as well. However, "looks like it runs" does not communicate that point very well at all. Haha.... and we are just a bunch of "project" trollers; I wonder how many shoppers the ad has turned away! :surprise:
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
I fyou are serious about restoring an old dodge dart 9and driving it), you really must upgrade the brakes-those old chrysler OEM rear drums were terrible=prone to lock-up and fade. and when one wheel locked, you lost a lot of sterring control. of course, those old Darts were really just basic transportation cars-mine had rubber flooring mats 9carpet was an option). But the old slant 6 was a very durable engine-many wopuld run over 160K miles with very little problems. the carbs though-another story-due to the crude float design, left hand turns at speed would ofetn cause an engine stall!
I remember the drums on my '73 duster. One day I ran through a big puddle coming out of a parking lot. Soaked the brakes, and they went away completely. Blew right through a stop sign, onto a main street (at a T intersection no less). Thankfully I made the turn and didn't hit anybody.
Didn't buy a car without front disks after that episode!
Sad thing was, the family car at the time (which I learned to drive on) was a 1969 Volvo 144. Fantastic 4 wheel disks (non power too, Andre), although they did squeal most of the time. At least we always knew when my parents where almost home.
I can lock up the 4-wheel discs on my Intrepid more easily than I could the 4-wheel 10" drums on my '68 Dart! I dunno what it is...maybe I just had more experience with the Dart and was used to it, and could modulate it better?
I've also driven cars without brakes though (don't worry, NOT for any long length of time...maybe 10 miles, tops) so maybe that's why it doesn't bother me so much.
For a brief period of time, I had a 1967 Chrysler Newport. 383-2bbl, nothing really fancy, but I'd guess it weighed about 2 tons. It had drum brakes, non-power. Before me it belonged to a little old lady. Now for me it was no big deal to drive (until the brakes failed on it), but I just can't imagine a fraile little old lady driving a 2-ton car like that with non-power brakes!
Oh, I've also run disc-brake cars through big puddles, and had loss of braking power. I remember doing it with my grandma's '85 LeSabre. And my 1980 Malibu. It's scary enough when you do it in an all-drum car and expect them to fail, but even scarier when you're in a disc car and DON'T expect them to fail! :surprise:
worst part is, it's my brother that really needs a cheap car right now. BUT, he is REALLY tough on cars and will make that poor volvo show its age real quick. And that would make me cry ... but its a volvo 240, fer cryin out loud. Why should i be upset?
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Correct me if I am wrong but I thought all, or just about all, mopar cars of that era were unibody so no way you could do a true frame off restoration of that type of car.
Yup, that's absolutely right. I think "frame off" restoration has really been more of a slang term for ages now, though.
Now some Mopars did have a sub-frame that was isolated from the structure by these big rubber grommets, so theoretically you could just unbolt it and the suspension, engine, and tranny would drop right out. My '79 NYer is like this, and I'm pretty sure my '89 Gran Fury was, too. I forget where the torsion bars hook in though...can't remember if it's part of the subframe assembly or some part that's welded to the body structure.
AFAIK though, the rear sub-frames were always welded in. I'd imagine that the Challenger's front sub-frame's welded in, too. It was based on the midsized platform, which didn't go to the isolated sub-frame until 1974-79 (and the '79-81 R-body derivative).
The last body-on-frame Mopar car was the 1966 Imperial, which used the same platform from 1957. All the other brands went unitized for 1960.
Comments
Were the engines OK? :P
what is one of those things worth, in real life? I always thought they were kinda neat, in an oddball sort of way. Although I think this is one of those examples of a design where the 4-door version actually looks better!
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
So this guy at $13,000 is about $11,000 overpriced at the moment, given the condition of what he is selling.
Another stunning example of: "It's rare, and nobody cares".
At that asking price, he'll be buying it lots of birthday cakes.
Shifty can probably chime in with more accuracy, but I would say a really decent one of those is worth no more than 5-6K...maybe up to 10 or so for a really perfect low mileage concours one. Even though the MB SLC is what I consider their most disco-fied car, I would take one over the Jag.
You know, some cars really don't look good as coupes, and the XJ is one example of that, as are most of the Benzes....a coupe is NOT always better or even more valuable.
I recall you saying that it was, and is, an extremely fun car to have and drive.
Really it's the American cars that benefitted from the coupe style, since in the 40s-60s the sedans weren't very attractive as a rule. The 4-door sedan was the "utility" or "workhorse" of the line up and even the luxury models of the 4-doors looked just like the taxicabs but with more chrome.
it "looks like it runs"! Wait, let me get my wallet...
http://newjersey.craigslist.org/car/133150777.html
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
The seats on the 95-97 SEs are really comfy with big bolsters to keep you in place. Not so comfy for those super-sized folks but I liked them.
So I can't remember if that was old enough to be from the BMW era with the two different V8 blocks, one was a N-something and one was a K-something, I think (not sure). Apparently, one of the blocks had a problem with the cylinder bores. Buying a car from that era was like a roulette game.
I remember the 12 cyl models of that style had depreciated to nothing even 10 years ago.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
I think the Dart GT looks like it could be the basis for a nice project. Pretty cheap, easy to work on, and not valuable if authentic, so you can pretty much do whatever you want to with it.
I personally would like a 1970ish Dart/Duster 340 4 speed. I know there was one year that was the best, but I forget which one.
American Muscle Car did a show on them not too long ago. Plus, my 2nd car was a Duster, so I still have fond memories of doing stupid things in it (the sunroof came in handy in quite a few ways..)
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
If I was to pick a favorite year for the Demon/Duster/Sport style, I'd go for a '72 Demon. Just something about the front-end that year looks aggressive, almost evil!
Dart GT -- it would be fun as long as you don't want to stop or steer at high speed. But with some upgrades, it might be okay. Tires, shocks, sway bar, that sort of thing.
I still think any modern 4 cylinder car of decent displacement would easily keep pace with it, though. Those old engine/trans powertrains are very inefficient so they gobble up or waste a lot of horsepower.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
They might be inefficient by today's standards, but for the time were pretty good. One definite advantage the Dart/Valiant had was that it used a 3-speed automatic. Most compacts and even many larger cars were still stuck with archaic 2-speeds which would usually give you a 1-2 punch by hindering both acceleration AND fuel economy.
I dunno if a '65 Dart GT would have 10" brakes with the V-8. By the late 60's, I know they put in larger brakes for V-8 models. My '69 Dart 225 only had 9" drums, but my '68 318 has 10" drums all around. They're pretty good at stopping the car, provided they're adjusted correctly. Sure, you get some yahoo who's only used to modern cars behind the wheel, and you can have fun watching them kill themselves, but once you get used to 'em, they're not that bad. Heck, I've logged over 100,000 miles between my two Darts, and lived to tell about it! :P
This is why there is such a brisk aftermarket in retro-rods. Modern owners of old cars want good steering and brakes.
Best thing is, parts tend to be cheap on these, and you can often retrofit better components from other models (or later versions). There isn't that much of a difference between a '65 and '75 Dart, is there?
I remember reading once that you could take most of a modern car (A Camaro) chassis and stick it right onto a '57 Chevy 9suspension/steering/brakes), which sounds plausible.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
As for Darts, you could get disc brakes for them back in the 60's...it was something like a $23.00 option. Nobody really cared, though. Part of the problem might have been that once you get disc brakes, a power booster is almost mandatory, and I think the power assist is where much of the cost came in.
I think it was 1973 when disc brakes became really common on Darts and Valiants. It'll swap onto the older drum-brake models, but I think you have to also swap either the upper or lower control arm, as one of them was changed for use with disc brakes. The '73-76 disc brakes also use the larger 4.5" bolt pattern, which brings the Dart in line with the rest of the Chrysler lineup of cars. The drum brake Darts and the pre-1973 disc brake ones used the smaller 4" bolt pattern.
I know a guy with a '59 Dodge Coronet with the D-500 option. He converted it to 4-wheel discs. There's actually a conversion kit you can get for the front that uses Aspen/Volare brakes. That bothers me a bit, because, I dunno, but I'd rather have drum brakes on a big car that were ENGINEERED for a big car, rather than disc brakes that were engineered for a compact! Unless it used copcar brakes. My '89 Gran Fury, which was Volare-based, used the same disc brakes as my '79 New Yorker.
As for the rear axle, his '59 Coronet has an 8 3/4 rear end out of an old Challenger/Barracuda (the E-body rear axle is within millimeters of the old full-sized Mopars) and the disc brakes come from, IIRC, a 1979-85 Eldorado.
I've thought about getting my '57 DeSoto's brakes converted, because they're annoying as hell. They actually do a commendable job stopping the car...12-inch "Total Contact" drums will do that for ya! But they're overly complicated. You need a special wheel puller to get to the rear brakes, and the front brakes actually employ TWO cylinders on each wheel! It makes the shoes apply to the drums more evenly, but it also adds complexity and there's just more to adjust. And I figure hell, the thing needs new brakes anyway, so maybe I'll just take the plunge and go disc!
Didn't buy a car without front disks after that episode!
Sad thing was, the family car at the time (which I learned to drive on) was a 1969 Volvo 144. Fantastic 4 wheel disks (non power too, Andre), although they did squeal most of the time. At least we always knew when my parents where almost home.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
I've also driven cars without brakes though (don't worry, NOT for any long length of time...maybe 10 miles, tops) so maybe that's why it doesn't bother me so much.
For a brief period of time, I had a 1967 Chrysler Newport. 383-2bbl, nothing really fancy, but I'd guess it weighed about 2 tons. It had drum brakes, non-power. Before me it belonged to a little old lady. Now for me it was no big deal to drive (until the brakes failed on it), but I just can't imagine a fraile little old lady driving a 2-ton car like that with non-power brakes!
Oh, I've also run disc-brake cars through big puddles, and had loss of braking power. I remember doing it with my grandma's '85 LeSabre. And my 1980 Malibu. It's scary enough when you do it in an all-drum car and expect them to fail, but even scarier when you're in a disc car and DON'T expect them to fail! :surprise:
http://newjersey.craigslist.org/car/133897655.html
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
http://newjersey.craigslist.org/car/133896111.html
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
And, for a NJ car, it seems to have held up quite well!
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Now some Mopars did have a sub-frame that was isolated from the structure by these big rubber grommets, so theoretically you could just unbolt it and the suspension, engine, and tranny would drop right out. My '79 NYer is like this, and I'm pretty sure my '89 Gran Fury was, too. I forget where the torsion bars hook in though...can't remember if it's part of the subframe assembly or some part that's welded to the body structure.
AFAIK though, the rear sub-frames were always welded in. I'd imagine that the Challenger's front sub-frame's welded in, too. It was based on the midsized platform, which didn't go to the isolated sub-frame until 1974-79 (and the '79-81 R-body derivative).
The last body-on-frame Mopar car was the 1966 Imperial, which used the same platform from 1957. All the other brands went unitized for 1960.