(EXPANDED FROM 5/16/2023)
In response to the interesting conversation in the comment thread about Chrysler’s early-70s compacts, I thought it could be useful to expand on a data dive I did a while back on the 1971-74 Dodge Charger. This was arguably the single most ambitious new Chrysler passenger car of the early-70s.
Chrysler’s 1971 mid-sized cars deviated from the usual way that U.S. automakers structured their lineups. Whereas most two-door models produced by General Motors and Ford shared sheetmetal with sedans and wagons, for 1971 Chrysler gave all two-door models a unique set of clothes.
In addition, whereas Plymouth adopted fairly understated styling for its coupes, Dodge went hog wild with an aggressive wedge shape. The design proved to be so exotic that it was effectively never emulated by any other U.S. automaker.
This was arguably the last time in the 1970s that Chrysler tried to be different rather than slavishly copy the competition. To a degree this new-found conservatism was understandable because the Charger and its corporate sibling, the Plymouth Satellite, did not sell very well. This deprived the automaker of a major competitive advantage it had in the second half of the 1960s, when its mid-sized cars ran neck and neck with those from Ford.
Charger went downmarket to replace Coronet
For 1971 the Charger replaced the Coronet’s two-door models, so it would now have to perform double duty. As a case in point, a decontented Charger model was priced only slightly higher than the previous year’s entry-level Coronet. Meanwhile, the high-end Chargers would continue to be offered.
This was a major shift because the Charger had functioned solely as a top-end halo car since it was introduced in 1966. Indeed, this nameplate was the first mid-sized personal coupe. GM didn’t enter this market until 1969, when the Pontiac Grand Prix was downsized.
Concentrating on only one line of mid-sized two-door models undoubtedly saved Dodge money. However, the downside was that the brand no longer offered conventional mid-sized coupes. This would prove to be a problem because of the Charger’s more aggressive styling.
Dodge’s approach partially deviated from Plymouth’s, which also gave its two-door models distinctive sheetmetal from its sedans and wagons, but still referred to its entire mid-sized lineup as Satellites.
Auto media lauded new Charger — but to no avail
When the newest Charger was introduced, Motor Trend suggested that it “took a great deal of courage and marketing judgment.” This was because the Dodge represented “such a radical departure from previous styling themes. It had been tried before without success” (Brokaw, 1970; p. 49).
It wasn’t clear what unsuccessful car writer Jim Brokaw was referring to, but he went on to explain the theory behind Dodge separating its mid-sized, two-door models from its family sedans and wagons. That allowed designers to avoid making compromises, thereby allowing “two completely different vehicles specifically designed and styled to fit their function” (1970; p. 50).
“The Charger is a stylist’s dream,” concluded Brokaw. “No longer do you have to pay a surcharge for a machine with bold lines and a strong name” (1970; p. 51). It even came in strippo trim with a six-cylinder engine.
Car and Driver (1971) was even more positive, to the point where it didn’t acknowledge the risk that Chrysler was taking. The magazine insisted that the Charger “retained some of its sporting flair but was not wild enough to turn off middle-aged, middle of the road, middle Americans. In other words a compromise between a Charger/ Pontiac Grand Prix/Chevrolet Monte CarÂlo-type car and a plain Jane business coupe or 2-door sedan.”
Car and Driver’s assessment turned out to be overly optimistic. Dodge’s mid-sized, two-door models saw output fall in 1971 by 20 percent. That was remarkable because fresh styling typically boosted coupe sales. The only reason total mid-sized production went up by 7 percent was because of sedans and wagons, whose output grew almost 26 percent.
Things tended to get worse from there. In 1972 Charger output fell 14 percent to under 68,000 units. Sales went up in 1973 but the next year dropped to under 66,000 units. Dodge’s weakness pulled down Chrysler’s mid-sized market share in 1974 to 11 percent — half of what it had been in the glory days of 1968-69.
Chrysler tried to regain altitude in a key market
Chrysler’s 1971 redesign was presumably intended to revive the automaker’s previously strong sales in the mid-sized field. In the late-60s, Plymouth and Dodge together typically outsold Ford’s mid-sized offerings. A big reason why was the strength of Chrysler’s sporty models — and the Charger in particular.
In 1968-69 the Charger sold around 90,000 units annually, which even surpassed the Pontiac GTO. But then in 1970 the so-called “muscle car” market collapsed, due to a recession as well as rising insurance rates. Charger production dropped by 45 percent to under 50,000 units. That translated into a 39-percent fall for Chrysler’s entire line of mid-sized cars.
In contrast, output for GM’s mid-sized cars was up 9 percent and Ford grew by 6 percent in 1970. GM benefitted from the expanded use of its two-door notchback body style. For 1969 only Pontiac had offered it on the Grand Prix, but for 1970 the notchback was also used on the Chevrolet Monte Carlo and the Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme. Meanwhile, Ford’s sales increase was apparently driven by a well-received reskinning of the Fairlane/Torino.
Chrysler’s 1971 redesign saw decreased sales when you add together Dodge and Plymouth, but at least it was the smallest loss of the Big Four automakers. Chrysler’s mid-sized market share inched up from 14 to 16 percent.
One might point to this market-share increase as evidence that the 1971 mid-sized Chryslers were successful. However, that wasn’t much of a bump given that Chrysler was the only automaker with an all-new body (and didn’t suffer from a United Auto Workers strike like GM did). Nor did Chrysler’s new B-body cars come anywhere near their market-share peak of 23 percent in 1968.
Perhaps the worst indignity of all was that after only one year, Chrysler was overshadowed by Ford’s new mid-sized cars. The Torino and Mercury Montego sported “fuselage” styling vaguely similar to Chrysler’s but with a brougham treatment. Output increased by a whopping 65 percent, which elevated Ford’s market share from 20 to 26 percent. That mostly came at the expense of Chrysler, whose market share fell to a dismal 11.6 percent.
Mid-sized car buyers turned away from sporty coupes
Richard M. Langworth and Jan P. Norbye suggested that it was “almost a shame that Chrysler restyled its intermediates when it did. With their curvy new contours, the muscle models looked a lot meaner than their blocky 1968-70 forebears, yet the ‘faster’ styling arrived just as interest in old-style performance cars was tapering off” (1985, pp. 238, 241).
Assuming that Chrysler needed to generate at least four years from the previous-generation platform, the earliest the new fuselage design could have come out was in 1970. Doing so might not have helped a whole lot. Sales were already falling for mid-sized, high-performance coupes. Even Ford’s reskinned Torino GT saw its output fall by 16 percent.
In addition, buyer interest was already starting to shift from sporty to luxury coupes in the mid-sized field. In 1970 the Grand Prix outproduced the Charger (almost 66,000 versus 50,000 units) even though its base price was almost $1,000 higher. Meanwhile, the Cutlass Supreme’s new notchback coupe surpassed 68,000 units — and almost hit 80,000 with a convertible.
The Chevrolet Monte Carlo best illustrated the growing popularity of mid-sized luxury coupes. Output almost reached 150,000 units in the nameplate’s introductory year of 1970. That represented 26 percent of Chevrolet’s total mid-sized production. By 1974 the Monte Carlo hit 312,000 units, which was 46 percent of the brand’s total mid-sized production.
In contrast, the Chevrolet Chevelle SS generated 63,000 units in 1968. By 1974, the Chevelle’s then top-of-line sporty model, the Laguna S-3, only saw 22,000 cars leave the factory.
You can see a similar shift in the Charger’s production mix. Whereas in 1971 the luxurious SE model made up only 19 percent of the nameplate’s output, by 1974 it had increased to 56 percent.
Meanwhile, the high-performance Super Bee and R/T models generated a meager 8,000 units in 1971. By 1974 these models had long since been replaced by a Rallye package whose production figures were not broken out.
To be fair, it should be noted that in 1971 the Charger did momentarily edge past both the Grand Prix and the Cutlass Supreme. However, that would never happen again — by 1973-74 the Charger was outsold by all other Big Three personal coupes except for the Buick Regal.
Plymouth mostly outsold the 1971-74 mid-sized Dodge
The SE pretty much saved the third-generation Charger from being a sales disaster. Even so, the Satellite’s two-door models slightly outsold the Charger from 1972-74 even though its top-of-line Sebring Plus had more of a sporty than a luxury sensibility. Perhaps the Plymouth’s more conventional styling was a better fit with the mid-sized market than the Charger’s.
The sales of Dodge and Plymouth’s sedans and wagons had a somewhat different pattern. Each brand traded off the lead between 1970 and 1974. Add all mid-sized body styles together and Plymouth led Dodge from roughly 11,000 units in 1972 to 25,000 in 1974. This was noteworthy because Dodge had consistently outsold Plymouth during the second-half of the 1960s.
For 1973 the Charger was gingerly changed
For the 1973 model year Chrysler once again attempted to regain its momentum with reskinned Satellite two-door models and more evolutionary changes for the Charger. Designers seemed hesitant to mess the basic Charger look but clearly wanted make the greenhouse work better for the SE model. The new rear-quarter window treatment allowed for a better-proportioned vinyl roof.
The changes paid off. Thanks largely to the SE, Charger production shot up 58 percent in 1973. However, the Satellite two-door models did even better. They almost hit 128,000 units — around 20,000 more than the Charger. Chrysler’s mid-sized market share went up by 2.4 percent, and it came mostly out of Ford’s hide. But then GM’s all-new mid-sized cars added 2.6 percent in market share, thereby capturing over 60 percent of the field.
Let’s step back for a moment and reflect on the basic dynamics of the mid-sized market. In 1973 total production almost reached 3 million cars. GM racked up a record 1.8 million units. Ford also hit a record: 653,000 Torinos and Montegos.
Chrysler’s 416,000 units were the highest that the automaker had yet achieved in the 1970s but well below its 1968 peak of 551,000 cars. Bringing up the rear was American Motors, whose output was under 102,000 units — far below the 358,000 Classics and Ambassadors it produced in 1963.
The 1973 Charger was hardly a commercial failure, but it also didn’t help return the Chrysler Corporation — and the Dodge brand — to its former glory in the mid-sized field.
For 1975 Chrysler played follow the leader
Chrysler abandoned its experimental ways when its mid-sized cars were reskinned in 1975. The Coronet and Satellite were given conservative-looking, two-door models and the Charger became a badge-engineered version of the automaker’s new personal coupe, the Chrysler Cordoba. The Cordoba, in turn, looked like a less flamboyant Chevrolet Monte Carlo.
In 1975 Cordoba output reached 150,000 units, which was a good 35,000 units higher than either the Plymouth or Dodge mid-sized lines. This bumped the automaker’s market share back up to 18 percent — although it would fall to 12 percent in 1976 when GM captured 68 percent of the mid-sized field.
The Charger was left in the dust. For 1975 production dropped by 52 percent to under 31,000 units. The car wasn’t given enough distinctive sheetmetal to develop its own niche. At the same time, the styling was so different from previous Chargers that the name no longer fit.
Chrysler milked what sales it could from the Charger until the nameplate was discontinued in 1979 in favor of the somewhat better-differentiated Magnum XE. Even that proved to be too little, too late (go here for further discussion).
What lessons can we draw from the 1971-74 Charger?
The luxury of hindsight might lead us to wonder whether Dodge’s mid-sized lineup might have sold better if it had stuck with its formula of offering both sedan-based Coronet coupes and the Charger. This could have appealed to a wider range of customers while protecting the cachet of the Charger nameplate.
If Chrysler insisted on only offering the Charger, it would have made sense to tone down the styling. Although the 1971 models carried over a wedge shape from the previous generation, it was arguably amped up too much, giving it a boy racer look. A more understated, grand touring vibe might have played better with those who wanted a more luxury-oriented personal coupe.
Also see ‘The 1969-73 Chrysler wasn’t a disaster, but it wasn’t a success’
Whatever else one might say about Chrysler, it’s hard to fault management for failing to invest in its mid-sized lineup. Between 1971-75 the Dodge and Plymouth received three sets of sheetmetal changes every two years. The problem was that the automaker was too slow in adjusting to market shifts.
As a case in point, the 1973 facelift of the Charger would have been more appropriate two years earlier. Alas, Chrysler management was still trying to play king of the muscle-car hill. This was despite seeing the success of the broughtastic 1969 Grand Prix during the 1971 Charger’s development.
NOTES:
This article was originally posted on May 7, 2021 and expanded on May 16, 2023 and Nov. 4, 2024. Production and market share figures were calculated from the auto editors of Consumer Guide (1993, 2006), Flammang and Kowalke (1999), and Gunnell (2002).
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES:
- Auto editors of Consumer Guide; 1993, 2006. Encyclopedia of American Cars. Publications International, Lincolnwood, IL.
- Brokaw, Jim; 1970. “Dodge Material.” Motor Trend. September issue: pp. 48-51.
- Car and Driver; 1971. “1971 Dodge Charger SE: By far and away it’s 1971’s best styled new car.” Posted March; accessed May 4, 2021.
- Flammang, James M. and Ron Kowalke; 1999. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1976-1999. Third Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Gunnell, John; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised 4th Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Langworth, Richard M. and Jan P. Norbye; 1985. The Complete History of Chrysler Corporation 1924-1985. Publications International, Skokie, IL.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES
- oldcaradvertising.com: AMC Matador (1974); Dodge Charger (1971, 1975)
- oldcarbrochures.org: Dodge Charger (1969, 1971, 1972, 1974); Dodge Coronet (1975); Ford Torino (1972); Plymouth Satellite (1971, 1973)
Dodge cheapened out by accepting a Cordoba-clone. Had the ’75 Charger SE looked like the later Magnum, and kept the SE’s luxury appointments inside, Dodge might have kept Charger buyers in the fold, giving Chrysler a much bigger piece of the mid-size pie at the time. Instead, Chrysler ignored an already iconic brand’s customer base and went on to downgrade the Charger name by applying it to some pretty unworthy cars in the years ahead.
Good points. The Magnum treatment would have preserved at least a modicum of the Charger’s dignity . . . and it wouldn’t have cost very much.
Also, the Cordoba was originally planned to be sold as a Plymouth model but the oil crisis and the sales of the Newport/New Yorker tanked Chrysler in 1974 and forced them to sold the Cordoba as a Chrysler where the Cordoba production in 1975 surpassed the 1974 model year. I wonder how the Cordoba would have done if it was sold as a Plymouth instead of Chrysler?
And if was sold as a Plymouth, maybe they could have used other nameplates like Mirada, recycling the Sebring name or using the Belmont nameplate once used for a show car in 1954.
Agree that Chrysler should never have turned the 1975-77 Charger into a “badge engineered” version of the Chrysler Cordoba. If the 1975 Charger had been as distinctive as the 1978-79 Dodge Magnum, it would have sold better, although it would not have outsold the Cordoba.
Regarding the sales decline of the 1970 Charger, a big culprit was the all-new Challenger. It scored a reasonable amount of sales during its first year on the market, but it’s apparent that a fair number of those came out of the Charger’s hide. Its platform mate, the Plymouth Barracuda, failed to meet sales expectations – largely because the new-for-1970 Duster stole its thunder among buyers looking for low-cost performance. Sales of both the Challenger and Barracuda collapsed for 1971, and never recovered.
Good point. I wonder if many potential 1971 Challenger buyers went instead with the redesigned Charger. It was a meaningfully larger car but was more versatile if you needed a rear back seat and trunk.
An interesting trivia about the Duster/Demon/Dart Sport, it was once briefly sold in South Africa as the Charger.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ifhp97/49438222607/in/photostream/
Looking at this article, I think there’s something of an interesting parallel between the 1971-1974 Dodge Charger and the 1974-1977 AMC Matador. Both of these models faced the upcoming Personal Luxury Coupe (PLC) onslaught in something of a similar fashion. But of course, AMC got there later and got punished far worse.
GM ‘called the shots’ in the fashion game in the late 1960’s and produced a brilliant pair of cars (1969 Grand Prix and 1970 Monte Carlo), just in time for the early cadre of the Baby Boomers to graduate out of their Mustangs and Camaros for something more ‘grown-up’. Even before the first Energy Crisis (Oil Embargo) of 1973, tastes had been trending toward more luxury, and larger sizes to accommodate Boomers with families.
Pity Chrysler and AMC, as they were seemingly in the perennial ‘runner-up’ positions in the fashion game. At the end of the 1960’s, Dodge Division had bet on a two-car system for their mid-sized cars; getting away from the two door version of the Coronet and replacing it with the Charger as that car. But, by the mid-1970’s they were back to the Coronet, the Charger PLC and the Coronet sedan and wagon. Hmmm…
AMC, perpetually strapped for funds and working on the 1974 Matador and 1975 Pacer, still had their older Matador in production during this time (1971-1973). Maybe, had they continued to produce that Matador with styling updates, they may have been able to ride out the PLC era fairly well. But clearly they didn’t recognize the light at the end of the tunnel as front of the oncoming train. I’m imagining they thought (possibly like Chrysler management in the late 1960’s) that the performance/muscle car idiom would last much longer than it did.
Dodge Division did a much better job of pivoting with their existing 1971-1974 car, lux-ing up the Charger to take on the PLC role until something suitable could be arranged. It was a competitor to the Monte Carlo/Grand Prix/Cutlass Supreme/Torino Elite/Cougar entries. Yes, the Magnum should have been the Dodge to release for 1975. But Chrysler was going through one of their budget crises again and most likely the 1975 Charger SE was the expedient way to get a competent entry in the PLC contest for Dodge dealers.
PIty AMC management… Their Matador product planning from the early 1970’s released right before the first Energy Crisis and landed into an environment that was rapidly abandoning the mid-sized muscle car. They gamely tried with the Barcelona and the Oleg Cassini editions, but they never seemed to gain much traction, even though the precedent had been set with the Gucci Hornets.
By 1978, the whole PLC universe had been largely settled. The major players had survived the 1970’s and the GM entries had even been downsized but continued on their ascendant path. The Matador was collateral damage, abandoned for a luxed-up Hornet re-boot, the Concord. The Charger SE was erased from memory and replaced by the Magnum and the Cordoba got stacked rectangular headlights. The Elite was replaced by the neo Thunderbird (one of many) with the LTD II reprising the early 1970’s Chrysler strategy of a PLC, a mid sized coupe, sedan and wagon. The Cougar soldiered on as a full-line marque, cheapening it’s appeal to the point of insignificance by the 1990’s.
Another Energy Crisis arrived at the end of the decade and we waited for the next big thing…
The ’76 Aspen coupe’s body was nicely styled. How about a Charger version with front and rear styling that mimicked the Monaco, including its hidden headlights, and maybe rear fender skirts to cover the lateral overhang? It would have been Dodge’s version of what Ford had done with the ’74 Mustang II: downsizing a level. The result would have been sporty sophistication and luxury in a smaller package that was more in keeping with the times.
Here’s a stab at it. Brochure image courtesy oldcarbrochures.com. Image upload courtesy AACA forum.
https://forums.aaca.org/topic/377876-76-aspen-photo-mod/
If called the new Charger there would have been a one year absence of the name in 1975. Another name could have been Monaco Gran Coupe.
Poor Chrysler: Always one to three-years behind G.M. and Ford, reacting rather than leading (with the exception of the Simca-based Omnirizon compact). Resources matter, as does leadership, as Chrysler in retrospect probably should have not introduced a new Barracuda and Challenger in 1970, but put the new B-body Plymouth coupes and Chargers in production for the fall of 1969.
As of this moment, I am watching the replays of the Mecum auto auctions in my hometown of Indianapolis. Yes, there are perfect Corvettes, Camaros, Shelby Mustangs, G.T.O.s and other exotics selling for what for me are unobtainable prices, but the cars that are generating real attention are the MoPars, especially the Chargers and the Road Runners from 1968 to 1974. All of these cars, even the 1967 Imperial Crown, are probably in better condition than when they left the factory and their enthusiastic acceptance today reminds me of the greatest years of Pontiac between 1961 and 1970. I was focused on trying to obtain a college degree, then to establish myself as a broadcaster between 1969 and 1975. While I was aware of the hottest 1970-era MoPars,
I don’t remember the local Plymouth or Dodge dealers pushing Road Runners, Satellites or Chargers with the same enthusiasm to match the local Chevy, Ford or Pontiac dealers. I worked for the very top-rated radio station in Indianapolis beginning in 1973, and most of the big dealers advertised heavily and consistently. The Chrysler-product dealers only advertised when there were co-op dollars available, but they were no match for the Chevrolet or Ford dealers, even when the first Arab oil embargo hit. When Chrysler-Plymouth and Dodge began to heavily advertise, it was “Buy a car ! Get a check !”
A bit more about the 1971 Charger, here a old clip where Bud Lindemann of Car & Track tested a Charger SE 440.
I find it rather telling that the page from the ’72 brochure showing profile views has artist’s drawings rather than photos. They somehow seem to reduce the wedginess and make the Charger appear much more of a conventional notchback. I had to read the article carefully to make sure they hadn’t actually reskinned those rear quarters for ’72.
Could we infer from this that there was some concern at the acceptance of the design? Otherwise you’d think they’d want accurate illustrations, surely?
For me as a teenager, this Charger was too much. Too bulky and heavy-looking. It was like a ’70 that had been overinflated with an air hose. I much preferred the look of the Plymouth. It also looked modern, styled in the same vein but cleaner somehow.
The ’75 Charger was a ‘grandpa car’ to me. I can see they needed it as a product by then, but it shouldn’t have been called Charger.
The 1975 Charger WAS a “grandpa car”. Bunkie Knudsen was right about the “youthful cars” having more overall sales appeal than an “old man’s car” when Knudsen set out to make Pontiac the genuine “excitement brand” in the industry in 1956. The 1975 Charger should have been named the Monaco or the Royal Lancer. Did Dodge really have a “hot” car after 1973 ? The “Ramchargers” era had died with the little old lady from Pasadena long before 1975 ! Once again, even in retirement, Lynn Townsend’s lack of a chairman’s vision after the release of the restyled 1968 intermediates led to Chrysler’s financial problem in the following decade.
Ironically, the 1965 Dodge Monaco was originally intended to fight against the Pontiac Grand Prix, then when Dodge dropped the Custon 880 for the 1966 model year, the Monaco became a full line model with sedans and wagons was added to its line-up while the Monaco 500 tried to pursue the original mission in vain.
https://auto.howstuffworks.com/1960s-chrysler-concept-cars.htm
Maybe Chrysler should have followed what their overseas subsdiaries did with the Charger nameplate, used it to the A-body like they did in Brazil, Australia and South Africa.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/cc-global-the-brazilian-dodge-dartcharger-genuine-mopar-v8-this-time-around/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ifhp97/49438222607
More details to mention, if Chrysler have adopted that strategy where the Charger became a A-body as a counterpart of the Duster instead of using the Demon monicker, the 1971 2-door Charger would have all been called Coronet or using other nameplates like Lancer, Magnum, Mirada, Coronado (used by Dodge in Argentina).