Worst Cars of the 1960s: The 1962 Plymouth (Savoy/Belvedere/Fury) - A Car You Hate to Love
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 тра 2022
- Marc is back! Learn more about this 1962 Plymouth Fury, including how it got Chrysler's then-styling chief Virgil Exner fired and sent Chrysler into a continual seesaw of financial performance--and woes--from which it never recovered. This was the wrong car at the wrong time on many levels, and Chrysler paid dearly for it.
- Авто та транспорт
Special Guest Mark is terrific and you both are the best.
I am age 66 and being a retired mechanic, I will say that anyone who owned one of these back in 1962 had the most dependable car. I felt as a child when I saw one some people owned up the street saw it as a sissy wimps car, but that was because in the 60s we had some mean looking chrysler imperials and cadillacs and some big mean looking oldsmobiles, so based on that the manufacturers timing was off BAD. If I owned one today? I would keep it until my death because its mechanical dependability and reasonable to work on. I love your car to the guy in the video
My family had a Dodge Coronet 500, bought new in ‘69. I was quite the Chrysler fan for several years, after learning to drive on this car in 1970. It was a very rough car, rode poorly, squeaks and rattles abounded, AC went on the blink after about 3 years. Some problems with voltage regulator and alternator, but I believe those got fixed eventually. The 383 V-8 2 barrel was strong, as was the torqueflite transmission. I had always heard electrical components on 50s and early 60s Chrysler products were poor quality, but don’t know if that’s true in Mark’s experience.
@@johnlandacre767 Actually most all those cars rattled and had squeaks as far as your basic sedans of ford and even chevrolet in the time frame of 1969 model cars. As for electrical and those cars with voltage regilators that were mounted away from the alternator/generator THEY WERE ALL default of over charging and swelling batteries and just stopping altogether regardless of the make. It was GM cars auto line that had the best charging systems after the introduction of the delco remy alternator with the built in regulator around 1963. But the 69 dodge cornets developed rattles and squeaks same as your fords and chevrolets. Most people arent aware that luxury models such as olds and cadillac and lincoln use a 21 to even 24 gauge sheet metal as to where you cheaper cars use a 19 gauge. In my childhood we had cadillacs and oldsmobiles, but for the record my school buddies dad had this 1968 dodge monoca he bought new in 1968 and that was a great car because I rode in it a few times
@@EarlGuyton425 I drive a 1960 Plymouth 2 door hardtop almost daily since 1988. Almost 600 000km now. It never rattled, Not once . It is unibody btw. Like all Mopars except Imperial since September of 1959. And it is not my only unibody car. None rattles. Most dependable cars in automobile history. Only rust is a Problem. Once restored a 61 DeSoto Coupe, rockers, floors, etc gone and not even that rattled.
@@bigblockjalopy GREAT! Happy trails with it friend! I envy you but in a good way. Peace...🙏👍♐
@@bigblockjalopy The cars you mentioned are not unibodies. A unibody was common on mercedes cars and some american cars such as the mustang and the cougar in the 1960s. But your dodge darts and plynouth valiants and furys were all frame on chassis. Your 1960 plymouth 2 door you mentioned is a frame on chassis. If it were a unibody your engine mounts would secure to the shock towers, but yours has motor mounts that attach to the frame. It depends on whom reads your comment, can only know it is all made up. Your comment is all fiction. Someone from the Mil generation may not have caught this
My Dad had an early 60's Valiant, and I never realized that it was the Belvedere/Fury's little brother/progenitor. I think this car looks great. It was just ahead of its time.
ahead of its time?? in what sence?
Yes it was ahead of its time but unfortunately poorly executed. Today however they are interesting because of their quirkiness and rarity. I can't ever recall seeing one at a car show.
I had to inspect a Belvedere for it's brake tag once and loved it. Unique pushbutton shift. Never had seen one before😊
I'm with Marc -- this is quite a design, and there are a lot of interesting details on these cars. Thank you for asking Marc to share it with us.
That is a beautiful automobile! Love the body lines and unique grill. Had one o those back in the 70s and it still stood out then also.
Those were the days. We could buy those cars in excellent condition for for a few hundred dollars.
@@waterheaterservices who knew then eh. Sold a 56 Belaire I had in '80 for 1800 bucks, I thought I had stuck a fat pig. Same car today, 50K!! ;D
I always thought these were "interesting" looking cars. My first car was a used 1964 Dodge Polara that shared some design cues with this car. It was already a 10-year old car, but I liked it. The 318 and TorqueFlite were solid, too.
Yup, a "bullet proof" car, as a teenage driver of it (borrowed my uncle's) I can attest to that!! :D LOL
318s were great motors.
@@muffs55mercury61 The 64 Polara of my uncle's had a 383, with plenty of "beast-mode" for the roads back in the day, but my dad had a 318 in his 64 Dodge truck. Never seemed to give any trouble and it had plenty of torque; he was a carpenter and loaded it "up to the gills" a lot. And economical too, we sure did not want to waste too much of that 35 cent/gallon leaded gas back then, eh!! :D LOL
@@ronschlorff7089 The 60s had a lot of improvements such as better suspensions and higher rear axle ratios so the engine isn't screaming over 50 mph. In the first half of the 1950s there were still outdated things such as front lever shocks, torque tube drivelines and those low rear axle ratios. GM was bad for that.
I remember seeing these in the late 60s/ early 70s and they seemed hideous to my young eyes. Now, they look funky and cool.
You and Marc have great content on automotive history and are natural story tellers.
Love the channel!
"hideous" seems to be the "styling" trend of today! ;D
I actually liked these. Perhaps because it was so much less off putting than the valiant or they made a good looking police car, I am not sure. Regardless they did appear to be well made.
Mr. Shawnski; Ha, Valiant is among my all-time faves ever since it came out (I was 4; family friends had a stunning red wagon.) Eye of the beholder! 🤩🤢
I love the design of the Fury... I miss quirky cars. There are so few new ones now days
I agree William
The Pontiac Aztec of it's day.
Thanks! Marc is always a great guest, and I agree with him 100%. These quirky Mopars are starting to grow on me.
Right on!
@@RareClassicCars yeah, but the 61's someone lost their minds though! ;D
The first time I saw a '62 Plymouth was in It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad world, and it was my least favorite car in the film (a film that's a feast for eye's of classic car buffs). This video is a testament to why education on a topic enlightens perspective. Your presentation makes me truly appreciate Exner's intent, and I'm suddenly finding myself reconsidering a long-held bias. Thank you.
It’s under a Big W!
@@joedepoto lol! Love that film. Watching it is almost like having old friends over for a Saturday night card game.
@@cryan4041 I remember watching that movie with my Dad in the early 1990s as a double VHS! Since the “Love Bug” released in 1969 is the movie that got me into cars; I thought it was funny that Buddy Hackett was riding around in 1960-1961 Volkswagen Beetle convertible.🤔🙌🤣
@@joedepoto Buddy Hackett is great; the whole cast is. I also saw the film with my dad the first time, but I hate to admit it was at a drive-in a year or two after its initial release. I was only two and didn't stay awake for the whole thing, but the cars and the amazing stunt driving made a lasting impression. If you are so ever inclined to watch it again, there's a 4 disc DVD/BlueRay version that includes the original road show version, which I highly recommend. I never knew, for example, that the red '62 Dodge Polara convertible Dick Shawn drives actually belongs to his girl friend. She tells him he can't with it leave, and he hollers, "But what about my mother?" To which she replies, "But what about my husband?" It's a great line that trimmed for general theatrical release. There are a lot of great moments like that in the road show version, not to mention a fun intermission with police radio calls updating audiences on the actions of the characters.
Add me to the list of people who love the car.
Many of your older viewers will remember that this was the car that Ward Cleaver drove during the 1963 final season of Leave it to Beaver with the jazzy new music. In the beginning intro, you see the family getting into the car at home on the way, presumably to a picnic. Wally and the Beaver get into the back seat and the camera focuses on the Beaver. You also see the car in various scenes where Ward is pulling in the driveway when coming home from work. I was 12 in 1963 and thought, even then, how ugly this caw was at the time and figured Chrysler was trying to push sales by having the car in the show.
If you look closely you can see the rear glass is removed when they are backing out of the driveway.
I remember Ward Cleaver with his 1962 Plymouth.
A question to anyone out there, didn't that LITB car also have 3 taillights/side as opposed 2 as does this Fury being displayed? Maybe my memory has it wrong, but it would be nice to know one way or other.
@@brianm6530 The way you it in this video is what it is.Look at the later editions of leave it to Beaver.This same car.
Ward Cleaver drove a 1957 Ford Custom 300 for the first two seasons and then Plymouths and final four seasons.
My parents owned a used '63 Plymouth station wagon that they purchased in '66, or '67. It was rated very favorably against the competition by Consumer Reports and we liked it. A couple of years later, my uncle and aunt bought the sedan version of the Fury - don't recall if it was a later model, but they were happy with it, too. My dad and uncle were both mechanical engineers, so they weren't much fazed by marketing silliness.
Out of sheer desperation, I bought a nine year old 62 base model Dodge Dart sedan. It was rose beige, and I called it my pink, horse-face Dodge. It turned out to be one of the best and most reliable cars I ever owned.
Dodge Darts are good. The Duster was a nice car. Even when I was really little, I thought these cars were really ugly. I think the Valiant was ugly.
The 62 Dart was a B body. The A body equivalent to the 63 Dart was the Lancer. All those ubiquitous reliable six-cylinder and small V8 Darts over the next 15 years were A body cars. The Duster was a fastback version of the Valiant and Dart knocked one of those off. I have an E body Challenger, good-looking car they're even making a tribute to this day. There's a 96 year old man 3 doors down that has a early 70s 4-door Valiant in his garage that I'm sure he bought new on the lot. I just don't want to do anything about it or make an offer because, you're right, it's ugly. I'm not interested. Now there were some good looking Valiants. I had a 64 Valiant Signet convertible four speed six-cylinder. Good car and good-looking. I love looking at Old Beverly Hillbillies because they always had the old Chrysler iron. The first season Jane Hathaway was alternating between this Fury style and a Dodge 880. One of those episodes had that Valiant convertible like mine. Many others. Imperials, b bodies, a bodies, wagons, trucks. Good stuff, nostalgia. You always know what you're going to get.
@@nancyericson4263above comment was for Nancy Erickson about those ugly Valiants
Thank you for bringing your designer friend back. It is interesting to listen to hear what he has to say. I hope he comes again. It was interesting to hear why the car flopped in the market. I think this is the same car that Ward Cleaver had on Leave It To Beaver.
He did?
I don’t even remember that!
Yes. This was on the later "Leave it to Beaver" episodes. The show was on from 1957-1963, so they had a couple of years to feature this weirdo set of wheels.😁🤣😂. Just kidding, Mark, this is a great example of the excesses of Mr. Exner. It is in beautiful condition, and is certainly unique, which probably is good, because if there had been two unique models in the market like this, two companies would have gotten into financial trouble. At this point in history, I don't hate it nearly as much as I did when it came out. (I was 8 years old). If I found one in good condition, I'd probably even buy it! Is this one for sale??😁
Miss Jane's car, on the Beverly Hillbillies. They always featured Chrysler products. I think they did well with that product tie-in. Thanks for the memories!
The final season intro ended with the Cleaver family loaded up in it, backing out of the driveway. Rear glass missing to eliminate glare.
Yes, nice part of those sixties tv shows is the great cars from the era seen. I like the Outer Limits because they had a deal with Ford for their cars and that's what I collect, like my 64 red (in B&W on OL) Comet Caliente that appeared in a few episodes.
This car is the closest I think we've ever seen to an American concept car becoming a reality. I think it's pretty magnificent for that reason alone. And this car is in exceptionally great condition!
People liked the Fury
63 Buick Riviera started a the very similar 1960 concept car.
How about the Pontiac Aztek?
@@zzoinks Was that a concept car design? I thought it was an intentional joke like the VW Thing.
The 3rd gen Challenger is nearly an identical twin of its concept. It's so close that I doubt most people would even notice it in a parking lot.
A great car and a great recurring guest! I have nothing but love for these quirky Mopars of the early '60s. For me, this is vastly more satisfying to own than another Camaro or Mustang. The styling is off beat, but that's the Mid Century look we're all digging these days. Having owned several Chrysler products from the '70s, I'm willing to bet this is a fun, reliable car to own.
I like the way it looks. I've always thought the early/mid 60's era of cars was a great one from the styling perspective anyway, where the manufacturers had put the period of monstrous land yachts with the chrome slathered on by the ton behind them, and were willing to take some chances with styling. Sadly, sometimes those experiments failed to catch on. It was certainly a better styling period than the current one, where a Ford looks like a Chevy which looks like a Toyota which looks like ...
This is better than anything Jay Leno has done in his entire UA-cam career. The amount of design detail explanation, from an actual GM designer, is nourishment for those of us that live and breathe automotive design. In our youth, we'd spend hours sitting inside of cars and examining the exterior wondering what the designers might actually have been thinking. Now we actually know from the mouth of a professional. A professional that even knows what the dash of a Lumina APV looks like just from memory. How on earth you found Marc is a mystery, but please never lose him!
He simply clings to my extreme levels of fame ;). Marc has a ton of knowledge, but I must say that I was the one who made the noted Lumina APV comment! Hehe. Thx for watching.
I agree
I hated this car when it came out. 4 yrs later a buddy had one with a 440. I was in love...
Retrofitted 440. Unavailable from Mopar until 1966.
@@garyblanchard1084 I'm don't remember but I'm sure it probably was. It was fast. He had put traction bars on it to keep the wheel hop down.
The 413 and the 413 max wedge were available the 62 and 63’s they were the “Super Stock Cars” in the Jan & Dean songs.
A lot of right put together wrong. I always liked these orphans. If they had had curved side glass as Exner intended, the look would have been improved greatly as it would have emphasized the “fuselage” design. They were oddly ahead of their time.
This B platform went on to be a money maker for Chrysler as it became their intermediates in ‘65…the Satellite, Coronet, then Charger with the platform being modified again for the downsized full sized cars on the ‘79 R bodies…a reworked B body.
The R bodies were a total failure, sadly. Pretty but terrible .
@@tdvandy2 The take I've always heard on that story was that the R bodies were good cars, beloved by police forces and much better put together than the B-bodies, but that the 1980 bailout required their cancellation for political reasons. They might well have been a big hit when fuel prices collapsed in the mid 1980s. Its sad to see that one of the few things Chrysler got right during those years got tossed due to bad timing.
What's funny is the GTO came out a few years later and DeLorean proclaimed the GTO a muscle car.... Only problem was, Chrysler had downsized their line and their cars were the same length or a few inches longer with WAY MORE horses under the hood: 413 wedge, with dual carbs, putting out over 400 hp. It's sad this is the way Exner went out along with putting Chrysler in serious trouble in less than 5 years after.
@@chuckhaugan4970 I consider the ‘62 Dart and Plymouth the first real muscle cars…but the GTO was the first to be labeled as such.
@@jamesaandf Yeah, DeLorean was a marketing genius but, along with the 300 in the mid 1950's, Chrysler was first. It's a damn shame what Fiat is doing to a once proud company. I hope Chrysler returns to it's former glory in my life time, but I doubt it.
Love this video and car. It's a car that was about 10 years ahead of it's time. If it's original full size Plymouth Super Sport design had been produced and had the curved side glass, it would have been successful.
Collectable Automobile Magazine did a great feature on it years ago.
Saw many of them in the movie It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World.👍 Thanks again for a great 📷. Also these type early and mid sixties cars fueled my desire to be a auto stylist/designer when I was growing up.
I didn't like these when they came out but I really do now. A very unique design that sets it apart from others during that model year.
When I was a kid in Toledo in the early '60s, there was a group that ran around town in identical '62 Sport Fury convertibles in silver (almost looked like stainless steel, like DeLoreans) with tan interiors, black tops and...vocal...exhausts. They were replaced every year, the last ones I remember seeing were '66s, but I liked the '62s best. If I was hunting for one today, that's what I would be looking for. Much less strange-looking than the '61s.
How cool to hear the history of the styling on this car! I started out not caring for it at all, but after the explanation, appreciating the features in a new way! Thank you both for the new perspective!
Whenever I see these, I'm reminded of Sylvester in Mad, Mad World. Lotsa classics were wrecked in the making of that classic movie 🎥
OMG, I love listening to people who know what they're talking about! This channel is outstanding!
I love the old Plymouth Fury. I once had a 1968 Fury 3 and it was a great car.
Wow, that takes me back. I had a '62 Fury in the late '70s, a white coupe with a red interior. It had three taillights on each side instead of 2. In the winter the park lever would sometimes freeze in place and you had to wait for it to thaw before you could put it in gear.
I am really enjoying this channel! I also appreciate the owner of this Plymouth has kept it in such a wonderful condition. That side profile shot left me dumbstruck - the proportions, the details. It's incredibly beautiful. OK as a foreigner, American cars above compact size are a difficult fit pragmatically speaking in the operating environments of most countries. There is no denying the sheer artistry of the styling - they are admired (and copied) the world over.
Yes, ‘fortunately’. Marc is always a fantastic guest with detailed knowledge. Own 62s - though not Chrysler. Sometimes overlooked year
Thank you Adam. I love everything about this Fury. Love Mopars, mid century styling, the weird and the oddball. It's beautiful in my eyes! Keep up the great work on this channel.
Virgil Exner had created some "odd" cars for sure!!! I remember seeing several of these cars in the movie 'It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World!!! Thanks for sharing this informative video!!! 👍👍🙂
particularly the rather rare '62 Imperial Crown convertible, with its free-standing rocket taillights, bordering on the phallic, free-standing headlights and a square steering wheel--and that was a toned-down version of the '61!
@@jimshulman5975 I really like the 62 Imperials!! 🙂
Very nice to listen to Mark tell the story of the car. You two work well together! ... I would have loved some more demos on the interior, it seemed very distinct!
The driver's side of the front seat still retained that off center theme.
Hi, this is Marc with the '62. Thanks for your comment and yes, there's lots to talk about on the interior as well. We tried to keep it brief this time, as Adam and I are still learning about which format and segment length works best for the channel content. We may get back to that in another segment in the near future.
@@DSGNflorian Looking forward to it! Your enthusiasm and interest for these classic cars really is contagious
When I was a kid in the late 60’s I looked at these in awe that anyone would choose to hand over good cash to own one. I knew no one that owned one.
Amen to that !
as I recall in the 60's (yes yes I know, "if you remember the 60's you weren't there"), lots of kids were "handing over good cash" for lots of things, like little bags of something looking like oregano!! ;D LOL
as a young kid my dad bought one of these cars. I remember his comments, worst car he ever owned. Rained outside, wouldn't start, snowed outside, it wouldn't start. He had more trouble with this Chrysler product than any car he ever owned. Funny thing though. It was a comfortable car to sit in, and be a kid in the backseat. It looked good from design. But boy oh boy, Dad got rid of this thing mighty quickly.
Thanks for explaining why the dash was so shallow - I always wondered about that - they looked so spare to me at the time; I just thought they were being cheap, which in part they were. This car is certainly better looking than any specimen of this type of model that I ever remember seeing back then.
actually a favourite car with me. our family went on vacation in 1962 in a 1962 Plymouth. drove up into interior of British Columbia, car was tough loaded up with our family of seven, lots of power, strong car.
Love that this a 4door hardtop. No doubt it's an odd car but the dodge was weirder. I love them both and thx to Marc for articulating what I couldn't explain. Always thought they looked muscular and athletic and sporty and of course it's because of the long hood and short deck, but also the shallow dash and lack of beltline shoulder. Everything played together to a look of pared down performance...offset by the googie space age styling details that Marc quantified...so true and a period I loved even more than the jet-age. The performance look backed up by the great Mopar B and RB engines.
You guys are both great speakers and are great at conversation and 'splaining...hope to see more of Marc
Either make is and always unmistakable from 1-2 blocks away.
Actually, you explained it well
I don't see any problem there a 428 hemi would not fix
I absolutely love this car! Such a cool design! Mark definitely needs his own UA-cam channel!
Appreciate Marc's expertise! Please invite him back
Ditto!
Just recently came upon this page and find this retrospective fascinating. My Dad was a big car guy and we grew up in Fords in the 60's and 70's....
Adam and Mark discussing automotive arcana is a great listen, whatever they happen to home in on. The thing that caught my eye on this Fury was the chrome bump on the rear door, presumably there because the window wouldn't have descended fully into the door panel when rolled down. Really interesting, and one quirk among many. This design was very odd and absolutely jarring to the expectations of its time, yet strangely appealing. Polarizing, even 60 years later. Unforgettable, at the very least. Wonderful video!
It's an oddly attractive car. Like adopting the ugly mutt at the pound and eventually coming to think that he's the handsomest hound in town.
I like the short dash. It makes the dash and the inside of the windshield easy to clean.
I always looked at these sedans and thought they were a little funky. Now I understand- they were!
In the mid 60's my mom had a Plymouth Fury III wagon. For long trips she would fold the rear seat down and put in the mattress from the foldaway couch. Then fill the back with pillows and blankets and toys, and off we went to visit grandpa in Indianapolis, Indiana. It always took two days from NYC. I loved hearing the truckers blow their horns after my prompt from the rear window. We would climb back and forth from the back back to the front seat and have a blast! Can not even imagine how much we would have hated being buckled in like children have to do today.
Love your videos!
Love your droll delivery!
Besides being very knowledgeable, Marc speaks very clearly and precisely -- a refreshing and all too rare thing to hear in this day and age.
My dad bought a 1962 Dodge Dart 330 station wagon brand new. It had five options on it, power steering, push button automatic transmission, AM radio, deluxe wheel covers and rear facing third seat. Although the styling was kind of quirky, that thing was tough as nails. My dad invented the 10,000 mile oil change and 20,000 mile tune up interval (no, you weren’t supposed to go that long, but he did anyway). That slant 6 took it with nary a whimper. It’s a shame Chrysler blew it on the styling, they really had performance and reliability dialed.
I read an interview of Exner a while back where he blamed the styling failure on Chrysler’s rushed downsizing. He said the final products looked like “plucked chickens”, and the original full-sized renderings were much more attractive.
That "rushed downsizing" was explained by Marc as the country club easedropping story.
62 dart wagons were the best looking wagons ever made.
In some ways, I think this car looks incredibly modern.
except a lot more style!
Hi, this is Marc with the '62 Fury. I agree, it does. All the "Jetsons-Style" cars of the transitional years between the late 50s and early 60s have a distinct futuristic quality that wasn't present before or after. While the '62 Plymouth wasn't the most extravagant of that crop of cars, it was probably among the cleanest and purest interpretations of "Space Age" cues, which gives it that modern feeling today.
Mid 20th century, sure!
yes...exner was on the cutting edge
I think the beauty is that it was what we project the 'future' to be. Yes, "Jetsons". And Disney Tomorrow Land where it is just an aspirational, "coming soon".
My heart is breaking over the sales. Just a classic human story- we have greatness within our grasp..... and turn away.
I like the videos with both Marc and Adam. Adam’s experience as a number crunching financier and Marc’s take on design give a tremendous amount of context as to not just how these cars came about, but WHY they came about. Keep up the great work!
Thanks for the historical account. I love this car. It always surprises me to learn the background and the public’s reception of iconic products, whether they are well received or not. I was born in ‘62 and remember seeing these cars and the valiants of the early ‘60s. I studied Design in school and worked for many years as a graphic designer which probably explains why I love these “weird” cars.
I was 14 when his cars were introduced and seemed as though they were having a battle with AMC for the ugly car contest. I do agree today it’s a very unique car and very interesting. Adam, you’re doing a great job keep up the good work.
This was the seed that blossomed into the greatest muscle cars ever produced. Let’s maybe not forget that.
You put a big motor in a tin can and its gonna fly......
Facts
Would one of these cars with the biggest engine offered put it on the Pontiac GTO of 2 years later? Did the police used to chase GTOs in these little Plymouths?
@@davidpowell3347 Yup, cops had a fondness for Morpar, except for Broderick Crawfords 50's Buick that is!! ;D
@@ronschlorff7089 Mopars were favourites of cops and for good reason. the California Highway Patrol ran Furys in the late 60s as the criteria was they could do 140MPH for an hour without overheating...which they could.
Thanks for this! I am a Mopar guy to the core and this was a fascinating overview!
My dad had a '62 or '63 Belvedere around 1969 for his "work car" with the 318 2bbl and 3 speed torque flight - the shift buttons on the dash. It was the care I learned to drive in. It was zippy and handled well.
I really love the car, Adam! It's avant garde and had a lot of future features the public wasn't ready for yet, but previewed it nonetheless. It was stated Virgil Exner overheard part of a conversation regarding a smaller 1962 Chevrolet. If he only heard part of it (out of context), he may have thought they were talking about a smaller Impala, when in fact it was forthcoming Nova.
The 61 Chevrolet full size models were downsized compared to the 1959 and 1960 but not as much as the Plymouth and Dodge.
@@mrdanforth3744 Very definitely. I'm not sure by exactly how much in length and width, but they used it as a selling point in the '61 brochure. GM had backed themselves into a corner with the fin situation with Chevy and Buick (Olds and Pontiac not so much), but gracefully got out of it with the '61. It's interesting to me how Chevy cleverly continued the 'branching out from the center' look, but then attractively wrapped it around the sides, finishing out the look but without fins. A slight "ridge" was more like it. The front end (grill and head lights) were almost a direct carryover of the '59, but without the left/right side air takes above.
The '60 looked more like it could have followed the '58, more than the '59. In fact, if you take the downward/inward part of the fins curving them at the bottom, it would be like the '58, within the very different context of course. I can see why the expensive wraparound windshield had to go. It wouldn't have looked right '61 and later. The '59 and '61 styling commonalities aren't the time this happened. The rear ends on the '62 and '64 Chevrolets AND Fords were very similar, with the '63 in between being quite different. I like the '63's of both cars better, but that's just my own personal preference.
It wasn't Virgil Exner that overheard that conversation. It was someone else higher up at Chrysler Corp. In fact, the car they were talking about was the mid-sized Chevelle, not the Nova, which is even smaller. The smaller dimensions were forced on Exner, who sharply disagreed with going that direction. He felt the design wouldn't translate well on a smaller car. He was correct. Also, curved glass on side windows would have helped a lot. Bean counters demanded flat glass.
@@MarinCipollina Thank you Connor for clarifying this. I intentionally didn't state my comments as "absolute facts" for a reason, which was good! It was what/how I understood it to be, which was mistaken. I'm glad the truth clears Exner of this and other misguided blunders he never would have done. I'm sorry he was tarnished by it at all since this was not his fault, and he was truly a gifted auto designer responsible for some of Chrysler's most beautiful mid-century autos.
Another great episode with Marc! One of the best videos you've presented. Early '60's car styling explained. I'm learning all of these names for styling features that I've seen for many decades: e.g., "wind split." I like all old cars, even early '60's mopars. My parents owned a '61 Dodge Pioneer Wagon when I was a kid, so that had something to do with it, I'm sure. That car was much weirder looking than the '62 Plymouth, and the '61 Plymouth was the weirdest of all of them. The '62 Plymouth looked better than the '62 Dodge, too. In all honesty, though, very few American cars looked really good in the early '60's. There were a few American cars from the era that were really pretty, like the full sized '61 Pontiac bubble top, '63 Olds 88 and '63.5 Galaxie, but most had that awkward look of the era. I used to like '62 Impalas, but not so much anymore.
Needed more Info on drive train though!
Thanks for covering The 1962 Plymouth (Savoy/Belvedere/Fury) - I'm 71, but don't remember this model too much from back then but I remember it more now as I get a better glance. Interesting background info, too. I seem to re member a neighbor two streets over who had a Belvedere and they took a bunch of us kids to a local swim club. Nice memories there.
Thanks Adam for having guest Mark on and pointing out features of the ‘62 Fury that I and others viewers weren’t aware of. Very well done!
Great segment. I appreciate all of your knowledge about the car industry and design. I for one love that car as I do most from that era. Love the space age themes.
I have the book "Virgil Exner - Vizioneer" in my library and prior to reading it, I had judged him solely on the early 60's ugly cars. After reading the book and learning of his earlier work at Chrysler with the 1955 and subsequent handsome designs I changed my opinion of his talent. His designs brought a lot of customers to Mopar and heavily influenced GM and Ford's designs for years. The book talks about his full line of cars that was ready for the 1961 model year and how the top-level management forced him to downsize them because of the golf eavesdropping incident. Just as a '63 corvette wouldn't look good if it were 50% larger, his designs didn't scale down well and these oddities were the result. I think of the 61 and 62 Mopars as shrunken heads. I enjoyed Mark's comments on his 62 Fury, but I would think the UGLIEST Exner design would have been the '61 Fury. That should have been the car that caused uproar in the management. To me the '62 is not hard to look at until you get to the back end. The 1963 was a handsome car, and maybe you can see Elwood Engel's hand in its design. I'm sure it took a few years to purge the shrunken designs out, but the damage was done with the smaller size. Great video topic and discussion.
The Chrysler executive who was eavesdropping into the GM executive's conversation at that country club was probably set up to hear what heard.
No one who wants their job is going to talk corporate secrets.
I can just see the GM designers howling with laughter over martinis when they saw the cars and learned what happened to poor Exner.
Definitely we are fortunate to have Mark join the channel!
It’s funky and definitely has some cool details, love those creases in the rear quarter panels. Interesting that this one car changed the fortune of the Chrysler Corporation, I had no idea that was the case. Thanks Adam and Mark for the great content!
Further to the Bill Newberg intelligence: According to an April 1995 article in Collectible Automobile, he issued some very specific orders to the design and engineering people for the crash downsizing program they had to execute. This included things like a width no more than 72 inches between the door posts, a wheelbase no more than 116 inches, no curved side glass, limits on total glass area and bumper size, limits on bright moldings and metal-finishing of body seams, and even trying body-sharing with the Valiant/Lancer. The original full-size proposals for the '62 models were ordered to be junked, so there would be no turning back. You can only imagine how design and engineering reacted to that sort of micromanagement.
Instability in Chrysler's top management in the first part of 1960 led to Tex Colbert ceding the President's job to Newberg, who then got fired himself for corruption charges. That opened the door for Lynn Townsend, from Chrysler's accounting firm Touche Ross, to take the Presidency. It was Townsend who initiated another crash program to bring the cars back into the mainstream for '63. Townsend gave Exner assurances he would not be held responsible for the '62s, but when they were so poorly received by dealers and the public, someone had to wear it other than the departed Newberg, and Exner was fired in November, 1961, not long after they were introduced. The article discusses how Townsend then hired Elwood Engel away from Ford to replace Ex and tells a story about his first few days in the building after Exner had left. Looking at the proposed '63 redesigns, he reportedly said to Townsend "These are good-looking cars. What's the big deal?"
The '62 models were indeed a sales disaster, selling just 182,520 units, not much different than the bizarre 1961 from what I can determine. The revised '63 boosted that to 263,292, and the '64 improved on that, increasing to 297,293 units. Even at that, you could argue that the assertion by Marc that these marked the end of Plymouth being a competitor in the low-priced three segment was true. But the bigger problem Plymouth was facing was the 1960s competition from Pontiac, who were building a very appealing product in that era which Plymouth just could not match. Starting in '62 Pontiac went on a roll, selling over 500,000 copies, then by '64 they were almost up to 700,000 annual production, and in '66 they went past the 800,000 mark. They were a juggernaut, and Chrysler had no chance of competing. I would suggest it wasn't the '62 Plymouth that led to that make's later woes, but Pontiac.
Chevy was the top seller in 1962.
@@bobbyheffley4955 As they always were in that era, routinely selling a million units a year.
@@ab348 Ford was the sales leader in 1966 and 1971
@@bobbyheffley4955 Not sure what either of your responses have to do with this?
As time goes on Exners early 60s Chrysler products (which I found almost comical in my younger days)
Are now atractive and yes, unique.
Thanks 👍
As time goes on.... and we see so many bland compromises. This is when design, was really DESIGN. Exener had real power.
This is such a terrific video...unique details and incredible history of the era. I really appreciate this car and actually love the shape...the back lights are an acquired taste!! Thank you so much!
I bought a 1972 Fury Gran Sedan pillarless four-door sedan almost by accident - my son needed a cheap car fast. I grew to love its beautiful shape and high-torque 360. It was great on the highway. It's still sitting here under the carport. :(
When you describe the presentaion I have flashbacks to the simpsons episode when The Homer is introduced 🤣
Love your channel. Admire your incredible knowledge. But I must point out a few things about MOPAR at this juncture. I grew up in the 60s-70s, down the street from a Dodge dealer and in a town with a very strong Chrysler-Plymouth-Imperial dealer. This was an era of EXTREME brand loyalty, and the only time you left one brand was if you were “moving up.” My Dad’s family was solidly Pontiac. Any family gathering we had would look like a Pontiac commercial. My mom’s family was solidly Chevrolet, converting from Plymouth in the early 50s. My dad moved my mom into her first Pontiac in 1956 and she was a convert … but I remember my dad and my mom’s brother arguing over which was better, Chevrolet or Pontiac … and they were heated arguments. Then, in 1966, my dad got his first Oldsmobile. Go figure. From that point on, we were a split household. My mom had Pontiacs and my dad had Oldsmobiles. But as I reflect on my childhood neighborhood, I remember the Chevrolet houses, Ford houses, Plymouth houses, Dodge houses, etc. And people stuck with these brands through multiple purchases.
Where you saw some people flip was from MOPAR to GM. I can’t recall anyone leaving Ford. I do remember two families who left Chevrolet for Ford in the late 70s. I NEVER saw anyone move to MOPAR. Their reputation was always bad.
Let’s go back to the late 50s “Forward Look” … beautiful cars … could have been the game changer. But the 57s were riddled with poor build quality and rusted! The rust issues didn’t show until they were 4-5 years old … right about 1961-62. Wherever you saw a late 50s MOPAR, chances are you saw rust spots. You didn’t see that as frequently on other makes. On top of that, the 60 and 61 MOPARs were the ugliest cars Detroit ever turned out. Spaceage yes! Attractive no! We made fun of the 61 Plymouth, calling it a giant bug from outer space. Nobody wanted to be seen in those. They were … in one word … hideous.
So MOPAR had already sunk itself before 1962.
The 62 Dodge was, by far, the ugliest member of the family, and yet I knew several people who owned them (because they were still a darn sight better than the 60 and 61 models). I never noticed them being smaller than the other cars at the time, but I was a kid. They were weird looking for sure.
Here’s where they really went wrong. Despite all the design gimmicks, you spend way more time behind the wheel of your car than you do staring at its profile. The big failure of Plymouth and Dodge in this era was the dashboard!! Yes, the Dashboard!!! (I don’t remember the Chrysler dashboard from this era and my Aunt’s Imperial dashboard was completely different.) But when you got behind the wheel of a 62-64 Plymouth or Dodge, it felt like you were behind the wheel of a VW Beetle. No shelf. No style. Completely utilitarian. Metal and plastic (and the metal seemed harsh … and the paint chipped). It screamed cheap. You were right up against the windshield. In an era where we didn’t talk about safety much, this dash setup felt dangerous.
So even when they restyled in 63 (and those Dodges were beautiful), getting inside was no better. It felt like a WV Beetle. You never could escape the fact that your neighbor’s Ford or Chevy or Pontiac had a beautiful dashboard … and thereby felt more luxurious.
All that said, the 62 should have been the final straw in Exner’s career at Chrysler, but it did not kill full size Plymouths. A whole host of issues killed full sized Plymouths … starting with the poor build quality of the 57s and those hideous 60-61s.
But I remember riding my bike passed many “two-Fury” households well into the 70s.
The report that came out in 1974 calling Chrysler the most polluting/least efficient car manufacturer was one thing. I don’t remember the source, but I remember everyone talking about it. My aunt traded her Imperial for a Grand Marquis at that point. I remember everyone who had MOPARs had big oil stains on their driveways. I remember the endless badge engineering that seemed so obvious on Plymouth and Dodge. I remember lots of jokes about MOPARs. Lots of things killed Plymouth. The 62 gets way too much blame.
It was amazing how many parts were shared between Pontiac, Chevy, Oldsmobile, and even Buick. Some even had doors and fenders that could be interchanged if you just drilled new holes or patched some. Door handles, etc could be easily switched. Of course similar things could be done with Ford/Mercury and possibly Lincoln.
Look at the original design for the 62 furys. It was much better than this design. The original design would had kept Chrysler in the running and kept Fury neck and neck with Impala and Fairlane. Exner wasn’t good at immediately downsizing from his original design for he had an artistic mind and couldn’t deviate from a certain vision that he had in his mind. Again, it wasn’t his fault that this model was so unusual for this year. It was faulty intel that was given to Chrysler and Exner was the fall guy. Actually the 63 lineup was done by Exner with the oversight of Engle and Chrysler execs.
Exner was forced to ditch any remnant of the 62 design and come up with a sleeker cleaner design to which he had done. He reportedly had commented that he had given the execs what they wanted and given them a more conventional design
Ever since I first discovered the magic of Chrysler Corp. in my early teens, the ‘62 Plymouth has been one of my top favorites!
I feel greedy because I honestly like all four model years of these B body Plymouths. That off-center wind split of the prototype would’ve been awesome to see in production! I’ve always been intrigued by the original full-size scale of the styling these models were intended to have. Some styling studio photos exist but not nearly enough for me.
Being an oddball makes it collectable today. Something about that rear deck and round taillights reminds me of a Corvair.
Agreed
This was fascinating. I recall seeing this car in my youth and even though we were a Mopar family, I always thought it was curiously ugly, as in…why would any company release such a thing? Honestly there were a lot of less than handsome cars in 1959-63, Virgil Exner being responsible for the lion’s share perhaps, but I don’t want to start a fight with Edsel fans or anyone holding onto grandpa’s 1960 Chevy….
But this video was eye opening. The little styling motifs and call backs were interesting. And the profile is gorgeous. Plus the hints of styling cues that would appear in later cars. The partial fuselage sides, the peaked windows-things I never noticed. Really makes me reassess these cars. Great video!
Is it awkward? Yes. But in pieces, most of the design is quite handsome. For example, I find the rear reminiscent of Chevrolet Impalas 60-61 and the Corvair. think this is one of those cars that look better with the longer 4 door roofline than the Coupe body. As you point out, the styling was only part of the failure of this car...
That being said, it is a shame that this was Exner's final hurrah and not the early forward look cars. I think by 1960 he had already begun to really see a decline in overall design. Elwood Engle's followup designs might've followed in the footsteps of Lincoln and other Ford designs, it's hard to argue that Engle's sharp, squared off designs were extremely stylish.
Interestingly, the 62 Plymouths and Dodges all shared one roof stamping for all two and four door hardtops and sedans.
Awkward and unpopular in 1962 helping the Mopar market share shrink to under ten percent. Only the Chrysler saved the model year by selling well. And no DeSoto since the 1920s.
@@garyblanchard1084 Desoto actually came back mid year as the Dodge Custom 880.
I remember that the Cleaver's (Leave it to Beaver) had a 1962 Plymouth. In the opening credits you see them get in the car and back down the driveway while looking back.
My dad had a Belvedere that was just like this when I was about 8. Thanks for a blast from the past. I enjoy your content almost as much as JL.😁
Actually , compared to some other Virgil Exner designed cars of the early 60's , like the ' 60 Plymouth Fury , ' 61 Imperial , the ' 61 / ' 62 Dodge Lancer , or the ' 61 / ' 62 Valiant , I think that this car looks good , in it's own unique way . It's like he said , the main mistake they made with this car was that they built it into an intermediate size instead of a full size which is what people wanted at the time , it was that more so than the styling .
The 61/62 Valiant. In my opinion the ugliest car ever mass produced in the US. But I'm not a fan of any of Exner's designs.
I agree i think this car looks much better than many Exners ,but just got blamed and people run with that story. The 61 mopars were bad sellers also ,and that's important because it wasn't "this car" that was to blame for Chryslers falling sales at the time.
My thoughts exactly. How anyone can think this car is ugly when the 1961 Plymouth was something that existed is beyond me.
@@smiddysmidton8313 Hi, this is Marc with the '62 Fury. You are right, neither the '60 nor the '61s were popular, contributing in a major way to the brewing unrest among Chrysler-Plymouth franchised dealers, which came to a head with the introduction of the '62 models. The '61s, while failures, still sold around 200,000 units or roughly 15% better than the 1962 cars.. As I tried to explain in the video, this car really was the "last straw" after a series of ever more "uniquely" styled full-size Plymouths and the sales dropped precipitously year over year from 60-61-62, 1962 being the low point with just 170,000 Plymouth "standard size" cars. That was barely more than half of the 1960 total. Even more painful for Chrysler was that the majority of those '62 Plymouths were Savoy and Belvedere sedans, very few being the more expensive (and profitable) upscale Fury models like my 4-door hardtop, of which less than 5,000(!) were built. Most '62 Plymouths sold at a steep discount to fleet buyers like rental car companies or police departments. Retail sales were negligible. The dealers just couldn't give those things away. The squared-off, more conventional '63s sold better, but still not anywhere close to the 500,000 or more per year that was normal for Plymouth before the decline in the 60s.
It seems unusual to me that sales of these '62s were that low (170K, wow!) My perception was they were very common, at least here in the Detroit area where I grew up. Probably what biases it was the loyalty of the workers locally to the brand, which also was common at the time. Lots and lots of Chrysler workers on the east side!
Im still suprised how Virgil Exner got it so right in the 50s with the forward look cars, only to crash so hard with those early 60s designs.
LSD?
I just love Virgil Exner's early 60s designs. I am in the extreme minority.
His designs were downsized by Chrysler after Exner had a heart attack
@LP
No, that would be Cary Grant ;~}
It's refreshing to hear that it was regarded as ugly back then, like I thought it was back in the mid 1970s, or people think it is today.
Born in ‘54, my interest in cars began in 1960. Even then I viewed Chrysler product designs as weird and it was not until watching this and other channels that I learned Chrysler had had a great run for design popularity in the mid to late ‘50s. (Exner’s earlier work). Compared to the ‘62 full size Chevys and Fords, one can certainly understand the public rejection. But standing alone today, I think it is certainly iconic. I’ve also become quite an admirer of the first generation Valiant with its almost full sized interior yet small exterior size and faux Continental spare tire trunk lid.
These chats with Mark are great and good fun.
The 62 Mopars are definitely controversial but I think the 62 Plymouth is tame compared to the 62 Dodge...or even the 61 Plymouth now that thing was weird!
I love them all though!
It's amazing to me how spot on this GM stylist is on 50's and 60s. Okay so, please have him explain the Aztec from GM. What do think Adam?
I have always hated these cars, because they are so ugly. However, after watching this video I now have a deep appreciation of where this car fits in American car history. Mark, thank you so much for the fascinating explanation of the reason behind the strange styling of the early 1960's Chrysler cars.
Good presentation and historical info on the 62 Mopars. A face only a mother could love,. Interesting tidbit, in the Beachboys song "Shutdown", the Corvette gets a name, Stingray, but the Mopar doesnt get a name, it's just a "413". I am restoring a 62 Polara 500 now, and appreciate these outlier cars.
First car was a 1965 with the Golden Commando engine in it. Coming onto an interstate on ramp, kicking it down would lighten up the front end. Lost my license within 4 months.
More appealing now than it was then.
I respect Marc's feedback considerably since he is a very educated man. Personally, i have to admit that i think this car was Chrysler's ugliest car ever made. But...I can see why he is drawn to it since it's definately a very UNIQUE car of any time period.
I think the 1961 Plymouth ,all models, was the ugliest car ever made by any manufacture.
@Kenneth
Hiya Ken-
Haven't you ever seen a '60 Fury?😳
@@bdpopeye I would have to agree. The 1961 lineup, especially Plymouth and Dodge, was the year of ugly. The '62s were a HUGE improvement.
@@bdpopeye Those were bizarre looking.. As time went on, they looked more and more weird.. I think the last time I saw one on the road it was 1979 or so. It looked like a genetic experiment that had gone horribly wrong.
My aunt and uncle were very fashion conscious in everything during those days and ordered a brand new 62 Fury in white with a red interior. We were mesmerized by this car as children. When I cornered my aunt on what she thought of this new vehicle, she paused and said quietly, "It makes me nervous," then added, "If Jackie Kennedy were a car, this is what she'd look like."
hey man i am sure everyone's already complimented you to high heaven, but this is actually way more compelling than jay's show. you deserve any praise and success you get for this. as for the car itself, i think we're far enough away from the early 60s to get down off our high horses and appreciate this for the intriguing effort that it is. art should not please everybody. yeah it's a weird car but what an amazing piece of automotive history!
Being an odd ball myself I like similar cars 😁
Beautiful car. I would love to find one in salvageable condition, but not perfect. That way I could build it into the asymmetrical design that was intended. I think that would be awesome
There is a white 4-door hardtop behind an old abandoned building in Pascagoula, MS currently. Been working @ the Chevron refinery down here for nearly a year. Body looks good, never stopped to look underneath. Obviously has been there awhile.
not hard to search out, but I've found that the shipping cost sometimes outweighs the cost of the car!
I love how it looks like a 2dr hardtop, but has the practicality of a 4dr. If you look at it to fast you could almost miss that fact.
Great content of your videos and the history you always provide is truly amazing and just goes to show how much I really did not know and I’m 71. Keep up the fantastic work you do.
Same roof, windshield and back light on two and four door hardtops and sedans.
Always look closer
My father bought a 1962 Dodge Dart 330 in a deep brown color. I had to install seats belts in the front seats. The car had a slant 6 engine which according to my father's recording keeping of gas consumption, had averaged 22 mpg at times. Because the style was not accepted by the general public (GM and Ford determined what style should be at the time), not many of the cars was sold and thus Chrysler was forced to sell off the cars cheaply, most of which were purchased up by police departments. I would drive the car on the Belt Parkway in Brooklyn at the posted speed limit, 50 mph, and was was hardly passed by other drivers who assumed that it was an unmarked car. When NYC started buying the other brands, the car was passed frequently.
I tend to also like cars that are unorthodox in their styling, so I find a fair amount to appreciate about this car. I don't think that it is ugly, but it fails to be beautiful because the design appears somewhat incoherent to me. I believe that certain aspects of the design are quite beautiful but as an overall design it is not harmonious. I actually think the Valiants of the era are less appealing, but they do possess a kind of awkward charm
I really hated the phony spare on the trunk of the Valiants. Who thought that one up?
@@dave1956 'twas borrowed from the Imperial, I believe. I never cared for toilet seat/fake spare tires either. Amazing what popular culture does with bad ideas like the fake spare and the vinyl roof. (Also a terrible idea, but extremely popular for a time.)
@@johnlandacre767
I knew that as I am a 50’s-60’s car nut. I don’t think that it was ever a good look.
This was not a "worst" car at all. It looks really nice now. People forget that car styling is more like Pop music than an art form. If it isn't "cool" it won't sell. Later, it may seem much better. Like this car.
Great Video and Commentary! I still love all the Mopars, the oddness draws me to them as well as the awesome power they gave them!
This car never had to grow on me, I loved the front especially. After selling my 63 wagon for a stupid amount of money, I picked up a 62 Belvedere with 361 A/C, power windows and steering and of course the typewriter TorqueFlite for $400. It was my favorite. I even got good at doing the rear brakes, which required axle removal. Would love to find any 62 right now.
Never heard of a care requiring axle removal to replace the rear brakes; were they inboard?
@@pcno2832 drums integral with the hubs. Lots of guys put 65 & up axles on to avoid the hassle of pulling axles or hubs. Properly adjusted and repaired, they stopped the car fine.
I LOVE the styling of this car. Years ahead in both concept and design. Has a real modern mid century look now that the blander Fords and Gm cars don't .Took GM another 15 years in 1977 to understand the downsizing concept this had in 62.
Over all, I really like the way this car looks. I personally would go with a different tail light design. Overall a beautiful car. I have always preferred mid sized cars.
"mid-size" then is a "boat" today, but yes, I have a '67 Mercury Cyclone about same size. Has the "motel bed on wheels" in the back seat too; so, back in the day, it was big enough for "certain activities". :D
The guy who lived a few doors up from me was the Plymouth dealer. He always drove different cars and in '62 his wife drove one like yours except it was white. Had a big motor with duals and I always thought it was a cool looking car. Sounded powerful! I was 12 yrs old. Thanx for the memory.
I was a used car dealer for 40 years.
My favorite was a 63 Sport Fury Convertible. It was one of my first cars. Beautiful 30k miles. Sold it to raise cash to pay the hospital bill for the birth of my first child. $1500. In 1976.