In a recent story about the 1962 Plymouth and Dodge, Bill McGuire (2024) of Mac’s Motor City Garage stated that the downsized cars were based upon a stretched version of the compact Plymouth Valiant and Dodge Lancer (renamed Dart in 1963). He wrote that the wheelbase was “extended from 106.5 to 116 inches, creating a new platform that became known as the Chrysler B-body.”
McGuire didn’t include any citations so it is unclear as to where he got his information. And as is typical of his recent articles, this one is so short — under 600 words — that it offers only the barest of explanations.
Nevertheless, Mac’s Motor City Garage has the credibility of being a recent winner of an award from the Society of Automotive Historians. So it wasn’t surprising that readers assumed McGuire was presenting correct information.
As a case in point, Kevin McCabe (2024) commented that “your mention of the B-body platform being conceived as a stretched A-body platform is the first mention of this I’ve seen in print, but it does make perfect sense. Why reinvent the wheel when you just have to tweak it a bit!”
The stretched-compact theory has been questioned
It’s true that some historical accounts have stated that the 1962 Plymouth and Dodge were stretched compacts. However, this theory has been questioned in what strikes me as pretty convincing ways. We have discussed this before (go here), but let’s take an updated look at the literature.
By at least some accounts, Chrysler designers were told that the new platform — which was internally referred to as the B-body — should be no wider than 72 inches at the door posts because that was identical to what a Chrysler executive supposedly heard a downsized Chevrolet would be (Katz, 1995). The wheelbase ended up being 116 inches because the Chevy that Chrysler management anticipated competing against would be “around 115 inches” (Redgap, 2019a).
Also see ‘1962-64 Plymouth: The odd case of prescience interruptus’
In order to meet those goals, some writers have stated that designers were told to draw upon major elements of Chrysler’s compact platform, which was called the A-body (Pearson, 2023; Redgap, 2019b; Severson, 2009). In contrast, Paul Niedermeyer (2017) presented evidence that management called for the next-generation compacts to be based off the B-body.
Niedermeyer’s (2017) skepticism about component sharing between the A- and B-bodies is well deserved. An anonymous Chrysler designer told John Katz that management’s initial marching orders were for the B-body to share a cowl and doors with the A-body — but the plan was abandoned late in the design process because it was realized that “they couldn’t make a Valiant and a Lancer that were saleable and economical to manufacture” (1995, p. 62; original italics).
B-body was too wide to be a stretched compact
One reason that attempts to share components failed was that, as Niedermeyer pointed out, cowls didn’t lend themselves to being stretched in width. The 1962 B-body Plymouth was 5.2 inches wider than the A-body Valiant.
A useful comparison may be Rambler’s attempt to share components between its mid-sized Classic and compact American. The new-for-1964 American didn’t share a cowl with the Classic because the latter was four inches wider. However, the two platforms did share inner-door hardware. For 1964 they even shared the same outer-door sheetmetal (go here for further discussion).
Also see ‘David Burrell’s take on the downsized 1962 Dodge and Plymouth gets partway there’
The first-generation B-body does not appear to share doors with either the first- or second-generation A-body. This may have been because the B-body was slightly taller and had a more squared-off greenhouse, presumably to increase interior room.
However, Chrysler appears to have followed in AMC’s footsteps when the B-body was redesigned in 1966 and the A-body the following year. In the promotional materials below, notice how the door-window frames appear be identical in the 1967 Plymouth Belvedere and Valiant.
Will AI help to perpetuate questionable auto history?
I can imagine why McGuire might have adopted the stretched-compact theory. I typed into Google (2024) the question, “Was the 1962 Plymouth and Dodge a stretched compact?” The answer provided by artificial intelligence stated that, “Yes, the 1962 Plymouth and Dodge were built using a stretched version of the Valiant/Lancer compact shell to save time and reduce costs.”
In addition, a goodly number of the top-listed links espoused this theory. So why not go with what would appear to be the majority opinion? I suppose you could, but doing so would disregard Katz’s reporting and Niedermeyer’s (2017) point that the A-body’s cowl didn’t lend itself to being stretched in width.
Also see ‘Paul Niedermeyer updates his thinking on origins of 1962 Plymouth and Dodge’
Of course, Katz’s article didn’t show up in a Google search because it isn’t on the Internet — it was published in Collectible Automobile back in 1995. And while Niedermeyer’s article ranked high in a search, his discussion about this particular point was buried far down in a lengthy story lacking in subheads. So if you are writing on deadline you could plausibly miss this debate.
Or you could have come across it but decided to side with the stretched-compact theory — and not bring up questions about its accuracy in the article you are writing. After all, most readers won’t notice. And perhaps even care.
It all depends on what you are trying to do. If a goal in writing about automotive history is to advance its study, that means trying to resolve lingering debates. This topic is one of them.
I still suspect that the stretched-compact theory does not accurately describe the downsized 1962 Plymouth and Dodge — and would ask its advocates to explain why they believe that it does.
NOTES:
Specifications are from Automobile Catalog (2024), Consumer Reports (1963) and Flory (2004).
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Automobile Catalog; 2024. “Full detailed specifications listing and photo gallery.” Accessed Sept. 24.
- Consumer Reports; 1963. “Basic Body Dimensions.” April issue: pp. 164-165.
- ——; 1970. “Basic body dimensions.” Auto Buying Issue, pp. 221-223.
- Flory, J. “Kelly” Jr.; 2004. American Cars, 1960-1972. McFarland & Co., Inc.
- Google; 2024. “Was the 1962 Plymouth and Dodge a stretched compact?” Answer to query Sept. 24.
- Katz, John; 1995. “1962-64 Plymouth: Pivotal, Panic-Driven Mopars.” Collectible Automobile. Published April, pp. 57-69.
- McCabe, Kevin; 2024. Commentator in “The Year of the Plucked Chickens: 1962 Dodge and Plymouth.” Mac’s Motor City Garage. Posted Sept. 17.
- McGuire, Bill; 2024. “The Year of the Plucked Chickens: 1962 Dodge and Plymouth.” Mac’s Motor City Garage. Posted Sept. 17.
- Niedermeyer, Paul; 2017. “Automotive & Design History: 1962 Plymouth & Dodge – Brilliant Blunder, or Suddenly It’s 1977.” Curbside Classic. Posted December 4; accessed August 16, 2019.
- Pearson, Mal; 2023. “Lets Get Small: The Unfortunate Tale of the 1962 Plymouth.” The Makes That Didn’t Make It. Posted Oct. 30.
- Redgap, Curtis; 2019a. “1962 Plymouth Sport Fury car reviews.” Allpar.com. Posting date unknown; accessed August 16, 2019.
- ——–; 2019b. “Inside Chrysler: Corruption Topples the President.” Allpar.com. Posting date unknown; accessed August 18, 2019.
- Severson, Aaron; 2009. “The Dodge That (Almost) Ate Detroit: Chrysler’s Disastrous 1962 Downsizing.” Ate Up With Motor. Posted January 11.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- oldcarbrochures.org: Dodge and Lancer (1962); Dodge Dart (1963); Ford Fairlane (1966); Ford Falcon (1966); Plymouth (1962); Plymouth Belvedere (1967); Plymouth Valiant (1960, 1967)
Be the first to comment