(EXPANDED FROM 9/16/2022)
We should start with a more impertinent question: What should — and shouldn’t — the creators of the 1968-70 Dodge Charger get credit for? Yes, this was an iconic design, but it was also flawed in ways that aren’t often discussed. The second-generation Charger was a routine example of Detroit groupthink.
What kicked off this line of questioning was Daniel Strohl’s (2019) feature story about Richard Sias. The former Chrysler designer played a major role in developing the 1968 Dodge Charger. Sais, who died in March, 2019 at the age of 80, reportedly left the auto industry out of frustration with his experience working on the dramatic redesign of Dodge’s mid-sized halo coupe.
The Charger’s double diamond-shape almost didn’t see the light of day, according to Strohl (2019). Dodge chief designer William Brownlie tried to squelch this design direction, which was based upon advanced concepts created by Sias.
Richard M. Langworth and Jan P. Norbye (1985) summed up the 1968 Charger as “easily the most exciting Dodge of the decade.” Indeed, this generation of Charger has become so iconic in Chrysler history that it is hard to imagine it not having reached production.
1968 Charger was a great but hardly perfect design
Let’s flesh out why the Charger did not reach god-like perfection. The biggest reason why is that this was the most derivative Chrysler of the late-60s.
Also see ‘1970 Plymouth Barracuda should have been like an Australian Valiant Charger’
Here we have a who’s who of borrowed ideas such as the flying buttress C-pillars from General Motors’ mid-sized coupes, Chevrolet’s dual round taillights and the Ford Mustang’s high-mounted bumpers. In addition, the side crease hints at the second-generation Corvair and the recessed ovoid grille has some similarities to the 1966 Buick Riviera.
The only inventive aspect of the Charger’s design was the double diamond-shaped fenders. They gave the popular coke-bottle look a more muscular and futuristic twist.
The Charger was rather large — in the wrong places
Another Charger weakness was that it was too big. The 1968 models were the largest of any mid-sized coupe. As a case in point, the Pontiac GTO was a good seven inches shorter.
To make matters worse, the Charger’s extra length was in all the wrong places — at least according to the then-popular long-hood, short-deck design philosophy. The Charger’s big and flat rear deck looked like an aircraft carrier. This problem was accentuated by the recessed rear window. Even the optional bumble bee stripe couldn’t hide the long overhang.
The Charger was also too wide. For 1968 more than an inch was added to the car’s waist. This resulted in a more sharply angled turn under, but the fender shoulders looked overly plump. Time to hit the gym, dude.
In fairness, even with the Charger’s extra size it still weighed less than a GTO. That was partly because Pontiac’s mid-sized halo car came with a bigger V8 as standard, but even a LeMans weighed 163 pounds more.
The basic shape would have been more appropriate on a compact. If the Charger had been put on Chrysler’s A-Body, it might have been much more successful — aesthetically and commercially — than Plymouth’s 1967-69 Barracuda.
Why didn’t William Brownlie get his way?
In light of the above-listed disadvantages, what mostly elevated the Charger’s styling to legendary status was the exceptional quality of its execution.
However, even if you don’t buy the above critique, Brownlie’s resistance to the double-diamond concept was at least somewhat understandable. According to fellow Dodge designer Diran Yazejian (2019), Brownlie was concerned that the proposal did not possess “any design evolution whatsoever from its predecessor” — including a fastback roofline.
Also see ‘Matt DeLorenzo’s Dodge book is a highly polished something’
Sias had allies among senior designers. Maybe they did a quiet end-run around Brownlie. Maybe it was serendipity. Either way, New York Times reporter Jerry Garrett (2004) noted that “only a timely intervention by Elwood Engel, Chrysler’s vice president for styling, saved it.”
Stohl’s (2019) telling of the story is worth a read; it has some similarities to the revolt against Harley Earl’s proposed 1959 models while the General Motors’ design chief was on vacation (Severson, 2008).
Sias didn’t get credit for the Charger’s success
Despite the palace intrigue, the double diamond-shaped Charger ultimately made it into production and was a rousing success. Output jumped from under 16,000 units in 1967 to roughly 96,000 in 1968. From that point onward the Charger outsold the GTO, although it traded placed a number of times with Ford’s mid-sized, high-end performance cars.
Strohl drew upon Yazejian’s description of subsequent events in describing how Brownlie apparently did not recognize Sias for his leadership in the Charger’s design.
Strohl also noted that, “To this day, many references discussing the 1968 Dodge Charger either leave Sias out of the story or only make reference in passing to his original double-diamond design.”
Collectible Automobile has offered a case in point. A story about the 1968-70 Charger emphasized Brownlie’s role as head of the Dodge studio. Author Karl Pippart III and the editors of the magazine (2018) did not bring up Brownlie’s resistance to the double diamond-shaped concept. Sias was only mentioned in a quote pulled from a press release: “Hundreds of sketches were made of details but the design first sketched by Dick Sias and coordinated into a creative design by Brownlie went relatively unchanged.”
Hemmings commentators engage the debate
Strohl’s article resulted in an unusually robust debate in the comment section. Burton Bouwkamp (2019), who described himself as Dodge’s chief engineer and manager of product planning from 1964-68, stated that Sias “may have created the original design concept but I think the credit should go to Bill Brownlie who selected the design, refined it on a three dimensional clay model and proposed it to Management.”
Raffi (2019) countered that the overall team deserved credit but that “the fundamental visual characteristics of the design are all Richard Sias. Brownlie gets credit for one thing . . . angrily pulling the gas filler cap from the center of the rear tail light panel clay model under final development and pressing it into the upper rear fender flank stating ‘THAT’S where it goes.’”
In a 2015 interview with the Daily Inter Lake newspaper, Sias said that he led the design team that developed the Charger’s full-scale model. However, he also gave “most of the credit to his design team” and was not “one to dwell on the minutiae of style and design elements,” according to reporter Sam Wilson (2015).
Those don’t sound like the words of a glory hog. Commentator Raffi (2019) wrote that Sias “always took the time to help me (and) encourage my work” but was “sometimes grizzly to those who dismissed him.”
So then who should get credit?
The process of bringing a car design from conception to production is complicated enough that a simple, either/or answer may not be possible. However, Brownlie would appear to have been given too much credit relative to Sias if it is true that Engel overruled him and the final design was “relatively unchanged” from the first sketch.
That said, commentator Greg B. (2019) quite rightly noted how upper-level managers “were always going to receive much of the credit or blame for design successes and failures.”
This philosophy aligns with that of Michael Lamm and Dave Holls in their book, A Century of Automotive Style. They write that “full credit has to go to the person in overall charge because, theoretically at least, it’s his judgement that counts. If the design succeeds, he’s a hero. If it fails, he’s out of a job. He’s the person responsible. And that’s the stark, total answer” (1996, p. 207).
If we’re going by this standard, then Engel plausibly should have been given more credit for the Charger than Brownlie since he intervened.
The attack of the bean counters
Bouwkamp’s (2019) discussion of his own role with the Charger illustrates the back and forth between departments involved in the project. Bouwkamp wrote that he and Brownlie decided the Charger would have a recessed rear window. This was a compromise between Brownlie’s desire for a fastback and Bouwkamp’s concern about the added cost of an exposed cargo area.
As previously discussed, the flying buttress C-pillars were aesthetically debatable. Just as importantly, the first-generation Charger’s versatile cargo area was a unique competitive advantage that might have proven increasingly valuable after the freshness of the redesign wore off.
The limited-production 500 model introduced in 1969 has an odd, cobbled-together look, but it vaguely hints at how a partial fastback could have filled out the deck — and avoided copying GM.
Bouwkamp’s opposition to the fastback is a potential example of the penny-wise, pound-foolish thinking that increasingly dominated Chrysler — and contributed to its financial collapse a decade later.
The Charger sold well despite relatively high prices
What’s ironic about internal debates over the Charger’s production costs is that the nameplate sold quite well despite being fairly high priced compared to other mid-sized sporty cars.
In 1969 the list price for a base Charger was almost $200 higher than a Pontiac GTO hardtop even though the Dodge’s standard engine was a six. Meanwhile, the Charger’s new SE model listed for $3,860 — almost $700 more than a GTO with the Judge package.
A more apples-to-apples comparison might be the Charger R/T and Torino GT Cobra, which was Ford’s top-end performance car. The R/T listed for $3,592, which was almost $400 more than the Cobra.
The Charger’s higher prices were in alignment with the rest of Chrysler’s mid-sized cars, whose high-end performance models tended to be a notch above the competition. The Charger R/T hardtop was priced $150 higher than the Coronet R/T and $176 more than a Plymouth GTX.
What if Brownlie had been more successful?
Let’s return to a central plot line of this story — Brownlie’s management of the Charger’s redesign. I can understand if he had felt stung by Engel overriding him on Sias’s proposal. However, the above-discussed comments paint the picture of a manager who might have benefitted from additional leadership training.
That said, Brownlie deserves credit for advocating that the fastback should have been kept — albeit with a more tapered and subdued look. He was also correct in seeking to better connect the 1968 Charger’s design language with that of the previous generation. Rejecting the dual round taillights would have been a good start. This would have also reduced the “copycat” quality of the Charger’s styling.
Meanwhile, Brownlie could have achieved true greatness if he had kept the Charger from getting too big. Not increasing the Charger’s width and chopping the rear overhang at least a half foot would have helped. Best of all, imagine if he succeeded in turning the Charger into a pony car.
Then again, never mind . . .
Okay, a compact Charger wasn’t going to happen given Chrysler’s religious devotion to bigger, glitzier and more powerful cars during the tenure of CEO Lynn Townsend. So let’s settle for the 1968-70 Charger integrating the best features of the first generation models and the double-diamond concept.
With enough give and take Sias might have even stuck around a little bit longer. Presumably Chrysler could have used his talent in the difficult years ahead.
NOTES:
This story was first posted June 1, 2019, expanded on Feb. 5, 2021 and updated on Sept. 16, 2022 and Dec. 29, 2023. Production figures, prices and dimensions came from the auto editors of Consumer Guide (2006), Gunnell (2002), the Automobile Catalog (2021) and the Classic Car Database (2021).
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Auto editors of Consumer Guide; 2006. Encyclopedia of American Cars. Publications International; Lincolnwood, Ill.
- Automobile Catalog; 2021. “Search Automobile Catalog.” Accessed Jan. 27.
- B, Greg; 2019. Commentator in “Richard Sias’s 1968 Dodge Charger design both defined and ended his career at Chrysler.” Hemmings. Posted May 12 at 9:57 a.m.
- Bouwkamp, Burton; 2019. Commentator in “Richard Sias’s 1968 Dodge Charger design both defined and ended his career at Chrysler.” Hemmings. Posted May 10 at 12:07 p.m.
- Classic Car Database; 2021. “Search for specifications.” Accessed Feb. 3.
- Garrett, Jerry; 2004. “Dodge Charger, a Name of Many Shapes.” The New York Times. Posted Dec. 27.
- Gunnell, John; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised 4th Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Lamm, Michael and Dave Holls; 1996. A Century of Automotive Style: 100 Years of American Car Design. Lamm-Morada Publishing Co.
- Langworth, Richard M. and Jan P. Norbye; 1985. The Complete History of Chrysler Corporation 1924-1985. Publications International, Skokie, IL.
- Pippart III, Karl and the Editors of Collectible Automobile; 2018. “Well-Toned Muscle: The 1968-70 Dodge Charger Story.” Collectible Automobile. Feb. issue: pp. 42-57.
- Raffi; 2019. Commentator in “Richard Sias’s 1968 Dodge Charger design both defined and ended his career at Chrysler.” Hemmings. Posted May 10 at 2:06 p.m.
- Severson, Aaron; 2008. “Requiem for Misterl: The 1959 Cadillac and the Winter of Harley Earl.” Ate Up With Motor. Posted July 16.
- Strohl, Daniel; 2019. “Richard Sias’s 1968 Dodge Charger design both defined and ended his career at Chrysler.” Hemmings. Posted May 8.
- W, Pat; 2019. Commentator in “Richard Sias’s 1968 Dodge Charger design both defined and ended his career at Chrysler.” Hemmings. Posted May 10 at 2:13 p.m.
- Wilson, Sam; 2015. “The Man Behind the 1968 Charger.” Daily Inter Lake. Posted Dec. 21 (link no longer live).
- Yazejian, Diran; 2019. “The ’68 Charger: Nothing Copied, Copied By None The Making of a True Icon.” Allpar.com. Accessed May 28.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- oldcaradvertising.com: Dodge Charger (1969)
- oldcarbrochures.org: Buick Riviera (1966); Chevrolet Corvair (1966); Dodge Charger (1966, 1967, 1968); Dodge Coronet (1968); Ford Torino GT (1968); Ford Mustang (1965, 1968); Pontiac GTO (1968)
Very interesting article. I learned some things about the Charger, and Chrysler Corporation of the time in general. Can’t say I agree with the comments about the fastback style being an improvement over the flying buttresses. I personally did not like the Charger 500 when it was introduced because of the shape of the rear window.
I agree with you about the Charger 500. It was a cobbled-together, low-cost design. The goal was better aerodynamics rather than good styling. I should have clarified — and did in this expanded version of the story — that the 500 hints at how a fuller fastback could have better filled out the rear deck.
One approach that might have worked: A C-pillar with a subtle arc and slightly inset rear window vaguely akin to the 1968 AMC Javelin. That would have required reshaping the rear-quarter windows.
All styling trends are shared, borrowed, or copied. The ‘68 Charger, no matter where the styling cues originated from, is a supremely handsome car. It looks lithe and trim compared to the “overinflated balloon” GM intermediates, which I disliked when they were new. Still do. This is when Bill Mitchell has lost his touch, and was starting to slip into bizarre styling.
Interesting to note then Dodge in Brazil did a variant of the local A-body Dart into a Charger and let’s not forget Australia who had a Valiant Charger with an Hemi-6. https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/cc-global-the-brazilian-dodge-dartcharger-genuine-mopar-v8-this-time-around/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Valiant_Charger
Good point about the Brazilian Charger. It’s too bad Chrysler didn’t do a more substantial redesign of the C-pillars to make the flying buttresses work a bit better.
You reminded me to add a link to our story about why the Australian Valiant Charger would have been a better alternative to the 1970 Plymouth Barracuda.
I don’t know what could have been different than what happened. The Dodge Charger from 1968-74 was a success. I myself have owned three . A 74, a 72 and a 69 ( which I still own).The Charger in every single year dwarfed the numbers of the Challenger which didn’t even have B or RB power for its final three years. I can think of few other cars that were as well balanced and attractive as the Charger between these years
I think that in the scheme of things, the 1968 Dodge Charger and the 1968 Plymouth Road Runner were easily the most exciting cars to come out of Detroit into the showroom floor. None of the G.M. intermediates made a positive impression with one exception, the 1968 G.T.O. If I had not been going to school and was out in the job market, I would have found a way to spend the extra money to buy the Road Runner or the Charger in 1968. The cars just looked right in the showrooms and on the road. G.M. did not get their intermediates “right” until they squared-up the Oldsmobile Cutlass sedans in 1970-1972. The G.M. intermediates were fixed for the 1969 Grand Prix and the 1970 Monte Carlo, but the Chargers and the Plymouths were right on the money. I preferred the Charger’s rear-end treatment in 1969 and 1970, but Chrysler at least got the overall styling right between 1968 and 1970, in my opinion. Too bad everything at Chrysler was heading in the wrong direction in terms of build quality and marketing confusion in the minds of most American consumers.
The argument about the 1969 Charger 500 and the 1970 Superbird were race car anomalies, as only rabid MoPar racers cared. The other observation I would make about the true fastback roofs, were if the fastback were true magic, then the 1967-1970 Barracudas should have sold like hotcakes, but did not. I have to agree that the Brazilian Charger and the Australian Valiant Charger looked better than the Barracudas in the U.S. But I wonder if American drivers would have given up their intermediates for them. The problem is beauty is in the eye of the beholder and what is not discussed is what compromises in terms of the mechanical package a thinner overall width would have made in the intermediate Dodge and Plymouth unit-bodies. Both the Dodge and the Plymouth intermediates could be fitted with big engines and wide tires !
James, the 1967-69 Plymouth Barracuda fastback consistently outsold the notchback (I do a data dive on fastbacks here). One could argue that this was primarily because it looked less awkward than the notchback, but the fastback also had the most versatile packaging of any pony car (e.g., it was roomier than the Mustang fastback).