(EXPANDED FROM 6/3/2022)
The 1970 Plymouth Barracuda and its sibling the Dodge Challenger proved to be a costly mistake that epitomized Detroit’s slowness in responding to changing times. Indeed, the Chrysler Corporation’s early-1970s pony cars were a colossal market failure in the same league as the Edsel.
Ironically, Chrysler might have done much better both in terms of sales and profitability if it had instead offered a version of the Australian Valiant Charger — which was developed on a shoestring budget.
Rather than dramatically boosting pony car sales, Chrysler’s new “E-body” drained the financially shaky automaker of money desperately needed to respond to increasing competition as well as new governmental regulations.
Chrysler would have fared better if it had maintained a much-less-ambitious strategy it had used in the mid-1960s. Back then Chrysler only offered one pony car — the Barracuda — and based it off the automaker’s compact A-body. The first generation (1964-66) was merely a fastback version of the Valiant. So was the Australian Charger, except that it was shortened behind the B-pillar, which gave it the requisite long-hood, short-deck look.
I imagine that some auto historians — professional as well as armchair — might snicker at a “less-is-more” pony car strategy. As a case in point, Jeffrey I. Godshall argued that the second-generation Barracuda, which was produced from 1967-69, suffered from “significant stylistic consequences” because the car was still based upon the Valiant body even though it was given unique sheetmetal and two additional body styles: A convertible and a notchback coupe. Godshall noted that the Barracuda was almost two inches taller than the Ford Mustang and Chevrolet Camaro, which did not share bodies with their more sedate compact siblings (2011, p. 16).
It’s true that the first- and second-generation Barracudas were not as racy looking as the third-generation models, which were given their own platform. However, the A-body Barracudas were also a much less financially risky proposition than the E-body. That lower risk would prove to be no small thing.
It’s also true that the 1967-69 Barracuda did not sell very well compared to other pony cars. Thus, when it was time for the Barracuda to be redesigned for 1970, Chrysler management quite reasonably decided that they needed to do something different. Unfortunately, they decided to play follow the leader.
Almost everything about the E-body pony cars was derivative: the multi-brand lineup, a larger but less space-efficient body, and the addition of big-block engines. Even the styling had similarities to the previous-generation Camaro.
Chrysler’s pony car strategy was wildly over-optimistic
Burt Bouwkamp (2020), who was Dodge’s director of product planning at the time, wrote that he had “promised management that we could sell 200,000 cars a year.” The underlying assumption was that the pony car market would increase to 1.5 million units annually and Chrysler could capture 15 percent of it.
That strategy failed — spectacularly. Total pony car output peaked at just below 1 million in 1967 but by 1972 had fallen 65 percent to under 350,000 units.
Fewer than 127,000 third-generation Barracudas left the factory during its entire five-year run. This was a good 12,000 units below the second-generation models even though the latter were in production only three years.
Even in its peak year of 1970, the third-generation Barracuda only hit 55,000 units, which was well below volumes achieved in 1965 (roughly 65,000) and 1967 (63,000). From 1971-73 production hovered around 20,000 units before plunging to less than 12,000 units in 1974.
Sales don’t look a whole lot better when you add in the Challenger. Between 1971 and 1973 the two averaged less than 50,000 units per year. That was only slightly higher than average Barracuda volume from 1965-69.
Chrysler’s pony cars never came close to reaching their breakeven point of 200,000 units per year. Bouwkamp (2020) recalled that Chrysler President John Riccardo was so upset by E-body financial losses that whenever he saw a Barracuda or Challenger “he got mad at me.”
The E-body did triple Chrysler’s share of the pony car market to almost 13 percent between 1969 and 1973. Even so, that was a hollow victory. By the latter year, total pony car production was roughly 424,000 units. This was far too low to support seven entrants sporting distinct bodies. Not surprisingly, by 1975 only three pony cars had survived — the Mustang, Camaro and Firebird.
Also see ‘Lee Iacocca got lucky with the 1964-66 Ford Mustang’
Meanwhile, sales were booming for entry-level compact coupes. For 1970 Plymouth ditched the dowdy Valiant two-door sedan in favor of the Duster, which featured a new body style that had a lower, semi-fastback roofline and frameless door glass. In a very real sense the Duster was naught but a decontented 1969 Barracuda, yet it sold much better.
In 1970 more than 217,000 Dusters left the factory, which was almost four times the number of Barracudas. By 1973 Duster production had increased to almost 265,000 units, whereas the Barracuda fell to roughly 22,000 units. The ultimate insult was that the high-performance Duster 340 model hit almost 16,000 units — 70 percent of the entire Barracuda line’s volume.
Bouwkamp (2020) acknowledged that Chrysler’s market forecast for pony cars was “unrealistic” and that the E-body suffered from quality-control issues. However, he insisted that the “style, specifications and pricing were okay.”
Left unsaid was how Bouwkamp thought the E-body could have possibly turned a profit without significant cost cutting, such as by sharing some sheetmetal between the Barracuda and Challenger.
The E-body was arguably a bigger failure than the downsized 1962 Plymouth and Dodge. At least the mid-sized B-body recovered from initially poor sales. In contrast, E-body sales started off far below breakeven point and then fell even further . . . much like the Edsel.
The fundamental problem wasn’t bad timing
Some have minimized the Barracuda’s failure by arguing that it was a product of the long-lead times required to develop an automobile.
“If ever there was a right car at the wrong time, it was the third-generation Barracuda,” wrote Terry V. Boyce (2014, p. 59). “Who among those caught up in the tire-squealing hubris of 1967-68, when the car was under development, could have guessed it would work out that way?”
Boyce’s question is a classic example of Detroit groupthink. All of the domestic automakers were fixated on making their sporty coupes bigger, glitzier and more powerful during a time when Americans were increasingly drawn to smaller imported cars. For example, Volkswagen sales soared to roughly 455,000 units in 1967 and then to 582,000 in 1968. Something was happening here.
Not everyone at Chrysler succumbed to groupthink. Product planner Roger Struck (2020) recalled, “I often wondered if we had steered the light-and-nimble course, if the car would have had a much better chance at success. We would not have the Cuda Cult around, but we might have made some MONEY!!”
We know with the luxury of hindsight that the pony car market would decline so severely in the first half of the 1970s that Chrysler could have gotten away with ditching the Barracuda altogether and giving the Duster more of its high-end features. However, a more intriguing alternative would have been for Chrysler’s U.S. operations to have stolen a page from its inventive colleagues in Australia.
Chrysler Australia takes a different road
When the Australian Valiant lineup was redesigned in 1971, a sporty coupe called the Charger was added. It used the same front-end sheetmetal as the four-door sedan and wagon but was given slicker styling from the B-pillar back.
The Australians significantly copied Plymouth’s approach with the first-generation Barracuda because they were on a tight budget. The Charger reportedly cost only $2 million out of the $22 million spent on redesigning the entire Australian Valiant line. This required clever cost cutting, such as a flat rear window and a deck lid adapted from the sedans (Valiant.org, 2020).
The design team did splurge in one key way: To achieve the requisite long-hood, short-deck proportions, the Charger’s length was chopped 13 inches (six of which came from the wheelbase). This made the Charger around 170 pounds lighter than its sibling Valiant four-door sedan.
The Charger was 179.6 inches long, which was almost nine inches shorter than its American cousin, the Duster. Three of those inches came out of the wheelbase, which was only 105 inches. Those dimensions were close to the 1970 Ford Maverick, which was a new entry-level compact.
The entire line of Australian Valiants appear to have used the Duster’s new windshield, which was more rakish than the squared-off design that American Valiant sedans continued to use. If this is correct, then complaints about the Australian Valiants’ higher beltline (Johnh875, 2015) may instead have been due to the reduced glass area of a more rounded greenhouse.
If the Charger had kept the same width as the previous-generation Valiant, it could have been a more credible competitor to the Maverick. However, when Chrysler Australia reskinned the Valiant, it added 4.6 inches — reportedly to increase the track and fit beefier tires (Wikipedia, 2020a). That resulted in the Charger weighing roughly 70 pounds more than a comparably equipped Duster — and 480 pounds more than the Maverick.
Despite the added weight, the Charger was roughly 140 pounds lighter than a 1970 Barracuda. The A-body compact platform was too narrow to easily fit big-block V8s, so a shortened version of the mid-sized B-body platform was used.
This is why the Challenger was the widest pony car — 76.1 inches. The Barracuda was narrower at 74.9 inches. But that was still 5.3 inches wider than its A-body predecessor while offering only 2.1 inches more front shoulder room.
In addition, the E-body Barracudas “weren’t as fleet or agile as the lovely 1967-69s,” according to Richard M. Langworth and Jan P. Norbye (1985, p. 227).
Godshall argued that the third-generation Barracuda “finally received a truly competitive purpose-built ‘pony-car’ package” (2014, p. 26). The E-body was two inches lower than the 1967-69 Barracuda even though it shared a cowl with Chrysler’s mid-sized cars, which were redesigned for 1971.
Chrysler’s U.S. product planners turned out to be wrong about what would sell. Car buyers avoided the Barracuda in favor of the Duster. They very well might have found the Australian Charger even more appealing.
The Charger could have been a good compromise
The Australian Charger fit nicely between the Duster and the third-generation Barracuda. It looked more stylish than the former but would have been somewhat roomier, more fuel efficient and smaller than the latter. And because the Charger was only a reskinning of the A-body, it might not have suffered from E-body afflictions such as doors that shut with the hollow sound of eternity.
Another advantage of the Charger is it would have provided Chrysler’s U.S. operations with the basis for updating the entire A-body lineup. Although the Valiant and Dodge Dart sold quite well in the first half of the 1970s, they might have done even better with new sheetmetal.
With a fresher look, Chrysler might have squeezed a year or two more out of the A-body. That could have given the 1976 Plymouth Volare and Dodge Aspen more development time — which might have avoided epic quality-control issues.
Chrysler’s U.S. management might have also learned how to develop more modular platforms. The automaker’s Australian arm offered a broader range of vehicles off the A-body than in the United States.
In addition to the Australian Valiant four-door sedan and Charger, there was also a long-decked wagon, a sport-ute and a bigger luxury car. The latter — awkwardly called “Chrysler by Chrysler” — was a four-door sedan and two-door hardtop placed on a 115-inch wheelbase.
The top-of-line Chrysler essentially achieved the goal that escaped William C. Newberg’s 1962 downsized Plymouth and Dodge. The then-Chrysler president reportedly wanted his new mid-sized cars to share the same platform as the automaker’s compacts (go here for further discussion).
If Chrysler’s American product planners had paid more attention to their Australian counterparts, they might have even started to think outside the box when it came to engines. The Valiant Charger lineup included high-performance models powered by potent six-cylinder engines (Wikipedia, 2020). These engines arguably made more sense in such a small car because their lightness translated into better weight distribution — and more balanced handling.
Also see ‘1971 Plymouth Valiant sedan impressed media more than buying public’
Offering a sporty six-cylinder Charger could have helped Chrysler compensate for not offering a U.S.-built competitor to internationally flavored subcompacts from General Motors and Ford. The Vega and Pinto were unusual for American economy cars of that era because they offered a floor-mounted, four-speed manual transmission and bucket seats as standard equipment. In contrast, entry-level compacts came with bench seats and three on the tree.
Might Chrysler have grown a new market niche by outfitting even lower-end Chargers with import features?
Some redesigning would have been helpful
Chrysler would have done well to not bring its Australian cars to the U.S. without at least some changes. In addition to being too wide, the Valiant body also had styling quirks that may not have played as well with American car buyers.
For example, the inboard headlights used on all Valiants served to give the front an overly tall and narrow look. In addition, the Charger’s C-pillars were unduly busy. Ditching the almost vertical rear window in favor of one with a more horizontal rake could have allowed larger rear-quarter windows.
Perhaps most importantly, a more traditional fastback would have allowed Plymouth to continue offering the Barracuda’s trademark fold-down rear seat and cargo pass-through between the passenger compartment and the trunk. Or a full-fledged hatchback.
With the above-mentioned changes, an Americanized Charger could have offered entry-level models in the lower end of the compact market while also competing against imported sporty coupes such as the Capri as well as lower-end pony cars.
By holding down prices of top-end models and not offering big-block V8s, an Americanized Charger could have also avoided competing against Chrysler’s mid-sized sporty coupes.
An Australian Charger would not have possessed the lower, longer, wider look of a 1971-73 Mustang, but that actually might have been its saving grace.
Aaron Severson (2008) noted that car buyers “had liked the size of the 1965 Mustang, which was big enough to be passably practical, but not so big as to be unwieldy; it could still pass muster as an only car for a single person or young family. As is Detroit’s wont, the pony cars had gotten bigger and more expensive while simultaneously becoming less practical.”
The 1970 Barracuda is yet another example of how Chrysler was too small to copy its bigger U.S. competitors. I do not think it an accident that Chrysler Australia came up with a more cost-effective strategy for offering a pony car equivalent than its American counterpart. Australia was a small enough market that finding clever ways to achieve better economies of scale was necessary.
If Chrysler had eschewed the E-body in favor of an Americanized Charger, it might have had a bigger success than with the Duster — and for a much smaller investment. Instead, Chrysler got its very own Edsel-like debacle.
NOTES:
This story was originally posted June 1, 2020 and expanded on June 3, 2022 and Sept. 29, 2023. Dimensions, prices and other product specifications were from the Automobile Catalog (2020) and the Classic Car Database (2020). The comparison of specifications table includes base coupes with six-cylinder engines and 3-speed manual transmissions. Production figures are calculated from Gunnell (2002), Gunnell (2004) and auto editors of Consumer Guide (1993, 2006). List prices are from Gunnell (2002) and Flammang (1992).
A number of articles about the Australian Charger state that it was around 287-to-300 pounds lighter than a Valiant four-door sedan (Valiant.org, 2020; Johnh875, 2015). However, I calculated 170 pounds from weights listed in manufacturer marketing materials.
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.
- Automobile Catalog; 2020. “Search automobile-catalog.” Accessed May 29.
- Bouwkamp, Burton; 2020. “1970-1974 Dodge Challenger / Plymouth Barracuda memories.” Allpar.com. accessed May 7.
- Boyce, Terry V. 2014. “1970-74 Plymouth Barracuda: ‘Too Much’ — Then Not Enough.” Collectible Automobile. Published Feb.; pp. 46-59.
- Classic Car Database; 2019. “Search for specifications.” Accessed Dec. 16.
- Flammang, James M.; 1992. Standard Catalog of Imported Cars, 1946-1990. First Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Goodshall, Jeffrey I.; 2011. “1967-69 Plymouth Barracuda: The One that Got Away.” Collectible Automobile. Published Aug.; pp. 8-23.
- ——; 2014. “1967-76 Plymouth Valiant: Chrysler’s Hardy Perennial.” Collectible Automobile. Published Aug.; pp. 24-37.
- Gunnell, John; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised 4th Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- ——; 2004. Standard Catalog of Volkswagen, 1946-2004. KP Books, Iola, WI.
- Johnh875, 2015. “Automotive History — The Valiant in Australia, Part Two.” Curbside Classic. Posted Feb. 25.
- Langworth, Richard M. and Jan P. Norbye; 1985. The Complete History of Chrysler Corporation 1924-1985. Publications International, Skokie, IL.
- Severson, Aaron; 2008. “Mean Machine: The 1970-1974 Dodge Challenger.” Ate Up With Motor. Posted April 8.
- Struck, Roger; 2020. “1970-1974 Dodge Challenger / Plymouth Barracuda memories.” Allpar.com. Accessed May 7.
- Valiant.org; 2020. “Creation of the Valiant Charger.” Accessed May 10.
- Wikipedia; 2020a. “Chrysler Valiant Charger.” Page last edited March 12.
- ——; 2020b. “Ford Mustang.” Page last edited May 3.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES
- autohistorypreservationsociety.org: Plymouth Barracuda (1971); Plymouth Duster (1971)
- oldcarbrochures.org: AMC Javelin (1969); Chrysler Valiant (1971); Chrysler Valiant Charger (1971, 1973); Chrysler by Chrysler (1971); Dodge Challenger (1970); Ford Maverick (1970); Plymouth Barracuda (1968); Plymouth Duster (1970)
One fatal mistake for the ‘cuda/Challenger: they weren’t identical, unlike the Camaro/Firebird (mostly). That drove up costs to no benefit.
That said, IMO the ’70-1 ‘cuda is the best-looking pony car ever, bar none. Similar styling on the Valiant platform, with a tuned 340 (the Oz Chrysler straight six as base engine), would have been ideal.
My favourite years for the Barracuda are the 1st and 2nd generation.
Would have to agree Chrysler could have benefited from adopting a modular approach with both the A-Platform and B-Platform, the former negating the need for the E-Platform with the latter forming both the basis for an alternative C-Platform (along with a D-Platform successor).
It is also surprising Chrysler did not make use of the Chrysler 180 as a possible basis for a Vega and Pinto challenger? The alternate being the approximately Vega/Pinto-sized Rootes 5-door fastback Project C6 proposal for what became the Simca-based Chrysler Alpine, which was to be derived from a reskinned updated Avenger Estate platform planned to be powered by OHC and even DOHC versions of the Avenger engine displacing 1.6-2.0-litres.
It was also said the Avenger platform was capable of being converted to front-wheel-drive during the C6 project, an interesting aspect considering the C6 project was to be a D-Segment car and the Avenger platform would later be shortened to create the rear-wheel-drive B-Segment Chrysler Sunbeam.
Another error on Chrysler’s part would arguably be not producing the LA V6 much earlier.
Chrysler needed a V6 engine in retrospect that carried over the best features of both the Slant-6 and Hemi-6, whilst also allowing the company to easily downsize later on without turning out to be a hindered to such efforts as former assets like the Slant-6 and Hemi-6 would become.
It would not prevent Chrysler from spinning off a 4-cylinder or diesel versions like the real-life Slant-6 did. Fiat after all managed to develop the 130 V6, which was directly related to the 128 SOHC 4-cylinder engine yet with a 1.20 upscale in bore and stroke (plus a crossflow cylinder head).
The closest thing Chrysler had to a V6 besides an early LA V6 would have to be the 2.0-2.5-litre 60-degree V6 Rootes developed for the 180 project prior to Chrysler HQ rashly cancelling it at great cost. The Rootes V6 just happened to be related to the Avenger 4-cylinder with the Brazilian tall-block 1.8-litre+ engines potentially allowing for displacements to grow up to 2.7-3-litres, in much the same way as the related Fiat 128 SOHC 4-cylinder and Fiat 130 V6 engines.
I think the Australian Valiant was a missed opportunity, but I disagree about the 1967-1969 Barracuda: It was a much nicer car to drive than the Camaro, Firebird or Mustang of those years, except for the Firebird with the O.H.C.-6. The Duster and the Demon, in my opinion undercut the sales of the E-bodies. I think that stylistically, the 1970-1971 Challengers and Barracudas were good cars (if they were put together properly), but Chrysler’s management, for some reason, did not address the issue that would almost kill the company…quality.
Did the 115″ wb Aussie Valiant actually have more interior room or was it a case of same roof, same interior dimensions and longer ends?
From what I can tell the extra four inches added to the base Valiant’s 111-inch wheelbase translated into extra interior room. The entire Chrysler range would appear to share the same front fenders and hood, although the front bumpers were sometimes different. If that is correct, Chrysler designers were quite clever in giving each nameplate a somewhat distinctive look (e.g., the Valiant Ranger had outboard turn signals and a simple bumper whereas the Chrysler by Chrysler had a donut bumper).
Absolutely, quality was perhaps the company’s biggest product opportunity in these years. That said, Steve’s idea is very interesting and thought-provoking. Am not sure about that Aussie Charger’s styling, appears to be still living partly in the Sixties. The dealer promo for the ’70 Barracuda (which btw I think was a wonderfully styled car) repeats the phrase “Looks like the Seventies.” (MyMopar, Youtube)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_jLQm8YsUI
Perhaps Duster’s windshield, roof and front doors, possibly even its rear glass but as part of a liftback, could have formed the basis for an alternative Barracuda that was more practical than the low-slung Barracuda but also a bit more costly to tool than the Aussie Charger. Rear overhang would need shortened, front overhang lengthened and something more streamlined and mysterious happening up front, including hidden headlights. See image comparison (Mecum, AACA Forum).
https://content.invisioncic.com/r277599/monthly_2022_06/1301728713_1971plymouthduster108vsbarracudaalternate103.jpg.80d3f48472c50e8720f3c3724952178d.jpg
Regarding the Pony Car Production graph, Mustang sales include Mustang II. For consistency, were Chevy’s sales to include Vega (which was in some respects the precursor to the Mustang II) and Monza, total Chevy sales would have been much greater overall. Also, Camaro’s biggest sales years were 1977-79, the last year of which saw an almost doubling of 1975 sales. This suggests that there was still strength in the traditional Pony Car market were the design a hit.
The basic challenge with research is that many individual decisions need to be made even when writing a single article like this one. No two researchers will make the same choices.
Some of those decisions are grounded in methodology, such as restricting one’s focus to a certain range of model years so that the article doesn’t get too long and unfocused.
Another factor may be time constraints, e.g., in my case whether I have the extra number of hours needed to manually plug into a spreadsheet production data for additional nameplates. If I’m going to post multiple articles on a weekly basis, Indie Auto stories will inevitably be more “journalistic” rather than “academic” in their depth. Thus, when I make choices, I effectively do a cost-benefit analysis, e.g., is that additional information essential to the integrity of this article? Or is it merely nice to have?
The intent of this article was to focus on Chrysler’s E-body, which ended production in 1974. I consider what happened afterwards to be a different era for the pony car field — and thus better discussed separately in another article. So, yes, the Camaro and Firebird did well in the second half of the 1970s, but I didn’t think it relevant in this article (go here to see a graph that shows a much longer time frame for select pony car nameplates).
I would disagree about adding the Vega to the graph because it wasn’t marketed as a pony car — it was a subcompact economy car that happened to get some high-end sporty models over time.
I understand your realities, Steve. Am not suggesting you invest additional time nor am I into gotcha commentary. Just want readers to consider a slightly different way of looking at the broad sporty car market. Taken as a whole, GM gained ground against Ford in the Seventies by continuing to successfully sell the old type while also successfully selling the new type.
Were the earlier shown Duster’s front clip to have been carried over (still with opportunity to hide the headlights), to maintain proportional balance the rear overhang would need to be further shortened, still on earlier shown 103 wb vs. Duster’s 108. (Mecum, AACA Forum).
https://content.invisioncic.com/r277599/monthly_2022_06/954823331_1971plymouthduster108vsbarracudaalternate103aa.jpg.bf89d5f21af7fd352d9c09135bb2370f.jpg
Paul, my response reflected a desire to educate readers in general about how Indie Auto articles are developed. So I don’t take your comment as a gotcha . . . although it was off topic.
I would agree that the Ford/GM competition in the pony car field during the late-70s is an interesting topic in its own right. I would need to take another look at the production data to more fully form my thoughts, but so far I have argued that — over the long run — smaller pony cars have tended to do better sales-wise than larger ones. There are exceptions to that general pattern, and the late-70s is one example.
Keith Kaucher, a car designer who did some custom ideas had once imagined by photoshopping this 1969 Barracuda.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/DesignDriven/posts/10158994164922909/
That’s nicely done; much better proportions. Thank you for sharing that, Stéphane.
I’ve been saying all this forever now that Chrysler missed an opportunity for a Dodge badged Duster fighter by using an Aussie Charger shell. Most of it aside from trim and stampings were in the USA parts bin. They could of offered three trim levels base/mid/sporty . Maybe even the 215 Hemi 6. BTW the Aussie Hemi had 3 displacements 215/245/265 & 7 HP ratings 145 to 305hp)(nothing was interchangeable with the slant.)
I would just be happy with the Duster with a hemi 6. Here’s the problem though. Dodge and Plymouth were like two bratty twins. If one got a given car, the other wanted one also. Dodge got their Duster fighter in the Dodge Demon, a badge engineered Duster. Plymouth gets the Challenger clone, and the dealers are happy. If one got a riff on the Aussie Charger, the other one would want one. Plynouth sort of tried with the second gen Barracuda. They gave us the Plymouth Marlin, and a misshapen coupe that reminded me of some awkward attempts circa 1950 to make hardtops by grafting steel tops on convertibles.
What really hit me was the illustration of the two-door 115-inch wheelbase Australian “Chrysler by Chrysler” that had the same ungainly proportions in coupe form as the full-size Chrysler 1969-1972 “fuselage” two-doors !
I think I understand G.M.’s and Ford’s styling hierarchy, but was Elwood Engel in charge of all of Chrysler’s worldwide styling efforts ? By 1969, the forecasts for the U.S. economy were murky at best with the war in Vietnam unsettled and spreading, inflationary pressures and the U.S. government in the mood to put emissions standards in place (plus U.A.W. negotiations coming in 1970-1971). Chrysler was not in a position to throw money around. The Plymouth Duster and the Dodge Demon were good restyling attempts, but mild updates to both cars’ front clips would have provided a reasonable alternative to the Barracuda and Challenger E-bodies.
One other factor was that the economics of new cars, especially aspirational pony-cars, were becoming harder to insure and with inflation, more expensive to own and drive. I believe economics were becoming a bigger factor than the simple dynamics of “hot-car” styling !
By the way, I read somewhere in one of the trades when it was announced that the Dodge Aspen and Plymouth Volare model introductions would be delayed until the spring of 1976, that some of the Valiant / Dart tooling had to be significantly renewed in mid-1975 and in January, 1976, because the stamping dies were simply worn out, so I don’t know if delaying the Aspen / Volare would have been possible !