Curbside Classic commentator nlpnt (2024) recently argued that the fuselage Chrysler’s best-looking body style was the wagon. Conversely, I would add that the two-door hardtop was the least aesthetically pleasing body style.
Of course, these are subjective judgments, so I wondered whether the switch to the fuselage body in 1969 changed the relative popularity of individual body styles. The short answer: Yes, but not by much.
Chrysler’s two-door models fell slightly in popularity
In 1968, two-door hardtops represented 27.2 percent of total Chrysler brand production whereas in 1969 they dropped one point to 26.2 percent.
Convertibles also fell — from 1.9 percent of total output to 1.6 percent. Although the fuselage body was not particularly well-suited to convertibles, Chrysler’s drop in sales might have at least partly reflected the declining popularity of this body style across the American auto industry.
Four-door sedans dropped from 34.5 percent to 32.9 percent of total production. They arguably had better proportions than the two-door hardtops because of a taller greenhouse. In other words, they didn’t look so weirdly turret-topped. However, some buyers may have viewed them as too plebeian for a premium-priced car because they had less door-frame brightwork than previously.
The only two body styles that saw increases were four-door hardtops and wagons. The hardtops went up from 28 to 30 percent while the wagons grew from 8.4 to 9.4 percent. These were also the only two body styles whose production actually increased in 1969. This makes sense because they were arguably the most aesthetically pleasing of the fuselage Chryslers.
Buick saw a jump in two-door hardtop popularity
It’s possible that Chrysler’s experience was reflective of a trend with premium-priced, big cars, so let’s compare it with that of the market leader Buick.
As with General Motors’ other four passenger-car brands, Buick’s big cars received a reskinning rather than a complete redesign like Chrysler did. In addition, the biggest styling change for Buick was that lower-priced, two-door hardtops shifted from a semi-fastback to a notchback roofline.
Also see ‘1965-68 GM big cars: The end of different strokes’
Buyers seemed to like that change because two-door hardtops jumped from 25.1 percent of total big-Buick output to 28.3 percent — which was now higher than Chrysler’s. Meanwhile, two-door convertibles fell from 4.5 percent to 3.4 percent.
Four-door sedans fell from 29.4 percent to 27.3 percent while four-door hardtops stayed even at 41 percent. All in all, this was a big year for two-door hardtops. Buick’s “brougham” look did a lot better than Chrysler’s wedge shape.
Yes, but what about total sales?
We have mostly talked about the relative popularity of body styles because Indie Auto has already discussed total production and market share here. To recap, whereas Chrysler’s output fell slightly in 1969, Buick, Oldsmobile and Mercury saw major gains. The fuselage Chryslers would do even worse in 1970-71.
I suspect that Chrysler might had done better if it had given its previous body a reskinning for 1969-70 rather than switching to the fuselage. That could have avoided reputation-tarnishing quality issues, and buyers of premium-priced cars seemed to gravitate to more conservative designs anyway.
Curbside Classic commentator VanillaDude (2024) has argued that the 1965-68 Chryslers were “out of style.” Styling is subjective, but the fact is that the brand’s full-sized cars achieved their peak production and market share during those years. In addition, a 1969 reskinning could have given Chrysler the softer contours then in vogue.
NOTES:
Production figures were calculated from Gunnell (2002) and the auto editors of Consumer Guide (1993, 2006). Data was mixed and matched to address discrepancies and potential errors.
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.
- Gunnell, John; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised Fourth Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- nlpnt; 2024. Commentator in “Vintage Review: 1969 Chrysler Newport – ‘Quite A Lot Of Car.’” Curbside Classic. Posted June 5, 7 p.m.
- VanillaDude; 2024. Commentator in “Vintage Review: 1969 Chrysler Newport – ‘Quite A Lot Of Car.’” Curbside Classic. Posted June 6, 9:12 a.m.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES
- oldcaradvertising.com: Chrysler (1969)
- oldcarbrochures.org: Buick (1969); Chrysler (1969)
Given how Chrysler Corporation quickly changed the two-door roofs for the 1963 Plymouth and Dodge Polara, then revised the two-door roofline again for both in 1964, I think that to increase sales of the two-door hardtops of the big Chrysler (and Dodge), that for 1970, a new roof could have been adopted. Maybe Chrysler was too involved with the downward overall sales declines to spend any more money than what they already had on their plate in 1970-1971-1972. Maybe Elwood Engle had just run out of ideas or Lynn Townsend quit listening to them. Too bad as the four-door cars are quite handsome.
Also, Chrysler worked and overspent on the E-body Cuda/Challenger as well as redesigned B-bodies Coronet/Satellite/Charger for 1971. The reskinned Fuselage mainly for the 2-door hardtops was originally planned for the 1971 model year but Chrysler delayed it to 1972. There was also a plan to redesign the A-body Dart/Valiant/Duster/Demon for 1972 but they cancelled the project.
That’s useful background — and illustrates how Chrysler’s failures compounded over the early-70s. Their most-costly mistake may have been the new-for-1970 pony cars, whose production projections were wildly optimistic (go here for further discussion).
We could wonder how the 2-door Newport/New Yorker/Imperial would have done if they got the 1972 reskinned roofline right from the beginning or having a formal hardtop design more or less similar to the Plymouth Fury III? https://oldcarbrochures.org/Canada/Chrysler-Canada/Plymouth/1970-Plymouth-Fury-Brochure/slides/1970_Plymouth_Fury_Cdn-08-09.html
I came from a long line of Chrysler lovers, but in the early 70’s my parents and grandparents made changes. My dad’s parents drove only Chrysler products since WW2 and in 1971 bought a Oldsmobile Delta 88 Coupe. My Moms Parents traded their 1965 Plymouth Fury III 2-door H/T 318 for a 1973 Fury III 2-door H/T 400 and always regretted it. They did buy a 1971 Plymouth Scamp 318 and loved it. My folks looked at Mopars and ended up buying a 1970 Mercury Montego MX Brougham Villager 351 Cleveland. It’s a shame how they couldn’t quite get the styling right in these years.
Chrysler could have carried the 1965-68 C-bodies beyond 1968, but the question is whether it would have needed more than a simple facelift.
While GM continued the 1965 B- and C-bodies through the 1970 model year, for 1967 it not only restyled them, it also changed the proportions by lopping a few inches from the trunk and adding them to the hood. The long-hood/short-deck look was definitely in vogue by the late 1960s. Would Chrysler have had to change the basic proportions of the C-body to avoid looking too stodgy?
With the Plymouth Fury, the corporation would have had to abandon the stacked headlights, as that styling device had run its course by 1969. Pontiac, which started that trend, had abandoned it for 1968, as did Ford. The AMC Ambassador and “regular” Cadillacs followed suit for 1969.
In some ways, the 1965-68 C-bodies would have been more in tune with styling trends by 1973 than the fuselage generation. A boxy profile, upright greenhouse and large windows were increasingly in vogue, driven largely by increased sales of the premium European marques.