This reply is a long time in coming, but there is a company that makes "Barracuda" kits for the Challenger. They consist of new gilled grills and new rear taillight panel, along with some badging.
@@michaelweizer7794 There is a customizer that converts Cameros into Firebirds with body kits. Very expensive though. Thinking over 100K for the most basic conversions.
I just rewatched this, She called the largest engine "..a real prowler..." I wonder if that led to the 1990s folks when creating the Plymouth Prowler?!? ;)
When new, I loved the fastback version; didn't care too much for the coupe. But now that I've owned a 67 Barracuda coupe for over 30 years, the coupe version has grown on me.
I absolutely LOVE the Barracuda Coupe! It was/is the MOPAR designers forgotten gem. It’s funny how people only think of the 70’s era Barracuda/‘Cudas. If you look at the coupe, it looks like a 2/3 scale Belvedere/Road Runner. In my opinion it is one of Plymouth’s greatest ever car designs.
@Ray Sagastiano I was attempting to reinforce that point. New cars are far safer than old metal deathtraps, perhaps my original comment didn't make that quite clear.
@@yaroslavgolub9475 I don't disagree, I love the hell out of my 79 Firebird and 78 Dodge, I was just trying to dispel any idea that metal equals safety. Old cars are pretty, but they're also deathtraps.
@@Antiganos what about drivers are they any safer today than they were back in the day or do drivers Today drive like they have their heads up their asses. Yes today's Cars are safer but drivers sure as Hell aren't not when you have a bunch of generation dildos who Think that texting is more important than driving. Think on it There's alot of so called drivers out there who don't Respect a car or truck for what it is.its a loaded weapon in the wrong hands. A nd this is a car junkie that's saying this!
@@michaelweizer7794 I never disagreed with that, people are just as bad as they've always been, except now cellphones exist. My point is that cars themselves are safer, largely because the idiots driving them need help surviving and the brilliant engineers that design vehicles like to make sure that happens.
I always loved the 67-69 Barracudas. I had a chance for a 69 notchback in 86 and couldn't work it out. I personally think the Mustang fastback is one of the best looking muscle cars but I would take the Barracuda hands down.
Just a note.... The base horsepower of the 1967 mustang (200 cubic inch) engine was 115 horsepower. The cheapest car sold in America in 2020, the Nissan Versa puts out 122 horsepower.
62,534 1967 Plymouth Barracudas were sold compared to 472,121 1967 Ford Mustangs and 220,906 1967 Chevrolet Camaros. I would imaging that these old Barracudas are quite rare these days.
Wow they really went after the Mustang back then. I hear it was a top seller so can imagine why. Comfort seemed to be a big thing back then. I can understand the back seat comfort but other than that and trunk space the Mustang looked better, was smaller, and I'm sure lighter. Smaller cars are easier to park. I actually feel the gauge cluster and inside doors look better on the Mustang. Yeah and where's the engine/power comparisons? Pretty funny. Cool to watch something from so long ago. The girl actually said, "cool!" I didn't know they used that word back then.
I liked the later 'Cudas but the '67 Mustang is one of the best looking cars to come out of Detroit in the '60s. I actually had one for a while. Had many adventures in that car though both are pretty terrible by today's standards.
Interesting fact: front and rear bumpers were interchangeable on the '67 Barracuda's. The 383 Commando is a rare bird - was only available with the Formula S package.
I got a 67 formula S. Only problem is doesn't have the original 383 in it. I was told the car was street racing and they blew the motor in the mid 70s so they got a 360 and through it in. Kind of wish it was in it but enjoy the car either way.
Formula S cuda with a 273 V8 did a 13.3 second quarter mile time in the car magazines of the time frame. Fast quality was high and lots of room for stuff in back of a Barracuda all under the cool back end design. A friend’s 67 Mustang GT didn’t flow any air in or out of those back seat air vent sliders. I thought they were a joke. I do like the mustang design. I bought a 70 mach 1 . My friend ditched his 67 mustang and did the same. It was a time of low wages so don’t slam the guys who worked to buy cars. Dirt cheap is a bad expression
I love how they tell you how all of these arbitrary (and mostly meaningless) "features" are superior on the 'Cuda. They don't tell you that the Mustang outsold its Plymouth rival by about 8-to-1.
Well the only Mustang I liked was the 67 and 68. I have a 69 Barracuda. Notchback. I think being a little small in stature, that car is perfect for me and I think one of the most beautiful cars ever made. It has the coke bottle shape, wide fender wells, and perfect to put your arm on the door and drive with one arm. No other car looks like it.
Mustangs were very cheaply built cars. A coworker has owned/repaired/rebuilt/customized/raced and restored many many Mustangs from the 65's to the 70's. He says they were very very cheap cars. I remember back in the eighties " 60 minutes " did an hour long show on the mustang. After that show their popularity sky rocketed !
Where were these promo films shown when they were produced? Certainly not on television and I don't recall seeing these types of films in movie theaters.
I have a Challenger SXT. I assume back then, like today, the Barracuda was designed more for comfort than performance. My base 3.6L does not have the same HP as the modern base Mustangs and Cameros, and is slightly heavier. I like the room and ride. Between the two cars in the video, I would lean toward the Barracuda if I were married and had a kid. Mustang with a big engine if I were single. I dont think these two cars are really directly comparable to each. Not apples and oranges. More Granny Smiths and Golden Delicious.
The argument ended when Steve McQueen drove that green Mustang in the movie Bullitt. He made it an instant icon. Can you imagine him tooling thru SF in a '67 slant six two-door 'Cuda HT? Not hardly. My aunt had one.
I had two of the 67 formula S in high school 273-4 barrel front disc brakes one was a gift the other I found for for $ 250.00 , back in 1978 . Great times in the we cars fast cars though poor handling.
I like both cars. Barracuda definitely has some unique styling. Although some of Plymouth's selling points against the Mustang are funny. The Barracuda should have been bucket seats standard just like the Mustang. Nine inches longer? Not a selling point when you're trying to find somewhere to parallel park. I guess, that wasn't a huge deal at the time though. I had issues with other selling points, but those stood out.
Joey Garcia Both cars were in the comoact size class, Those 9" on the Barracuda didn't even bring it to a 1967 mid sized American car length, So anyone having a hard time parallel parking one should not be driving! It did however make the car look less stubby. A win in my book.
Joey Garcia I had a 1967 Cadillac Fleetwood that had a wheelbase of 133" (Vs the 108" wheelbase of the Barracuda), It was an entirely different automotive world then. Old folks were fully able to parallel park a 127" wheelbase Buick Electra, So a "small" Valiant based Barracuda would represent "easy-peasy" to a mid-century driver, LOL! Parking spaces have shrunk since then.
Holy Moly! Yep that's a big car. When I was looking at purchasing a car to work on, we looked at the 1967 Ford Fairlane. I've always thought it had beautiful lines, but boy is it long by today's standards. My son and I settled on the '74 Duster. That's what he drives now with a mildly built 360.
From experience, I can tell you that the Barracuda's bench seat with fold down armrest will hold you in place better than the optional bucket seats. Also just plain more comfortable.
I hope Plymouth got their money back on this promo. Plymouth sold 62,534 Barracudas in 1967 from 67-69 they sold 139,993 total of this body style. Ford on the other hand sold 472,000 Mustangs in 1967 alone. That is nearly 3 times all the 67-69 barracuda sales
funny how they never talked about the mustangs engines...or how the mustang had a larger top engine with more power..i guess thats why they skipped over that part
get out...if that were true chrysler would have bragged about in this film..but they ignored engine to engine specs between the 2 from small block to big block....the only thing chrysler had better was the 6 banger at more hp .....the hot setup for the cuda in 67 was the 280 hp 383...you could get 335 hp ford 390 in a 67 mustang..45 hp more then the cuda ..and in 67 you could get the hipo 289 with 271 hp ..41 hp more from the small block ford over the tiny 273
and back in the mid 80's i had a triple black full size 1969 merc monterey 2 door hard top with a 390 2bbl , single exhaust and factory a/c..my buddy had a 68 satelite with a 383 2bbl no a/c ...my merc [ being heavier ] would walk all over that mopar..and eat its lunch ...then spit out the bones ..thats not my opinion..thats fact
correction....that should be 55 more hp more from the ford then the mopar with a 383....seeing they rated the motor at only 280 hp,,thats the 2bbl version and only had 390 tq...were a ford 390 2bbl had 401 tq
390merc66 sure the 383 had some power and torque but you’re absolutely right the ford 390 clearly had more power and torque and it should beat a 383 anytime. A friend of my fathers had a 69 fairlane cobra with a 428 cobra jet 4 speed in the 70s and a guy in town had a 69 super bee with a balanced and blue printed 440 and that ford would eat that dodge every time. Needless to say he was a little pissed lmfao
I never liked this berracuda body style, but I also would never have thought of the comparison between these two cars it's almost weird, but I get know after this demonstration.
Notice they dont mention Mustang's engine options lol, the 67 Cuda had the 383 as top option, and you could get the 427 , 425 hp side oiler and 428 cobra jet in late 67s , no wonder thet didn't compare engine options lol
In 1967 the Mustang is way better looking than the Cuda and I notice they didn't list the Mustangs engines at all. But Plymouth made up for it in 1970 where the Cuda outshined the Mustang big time.
1967 mustang with 390 4 barrel was 320HP. even back then they were selective about what they would compare. it was a great time tho, glad all three, four if you count AMC had such great cars. can you imagine how boring it would be if only one company had made a sports car? and why give more power options if there is no one to compete against? I have buddies that are pro Dodge and pro Chevy, I love arguing with them about the old iron. truth is they were all great.
I'de still pick the Stang over the Cuda any day.Don't care about the rear seating it's just me anyway,I'de just keep it folded down for extra cargo space.
The mustang is a cooler looking car, for 67 as mopar played catch up. Soon mother mopar would re design the cuda for 1970, with the best looking coupe and convertible , trouncing Ford and Chevy in not only styling, but in unbeatable performance too.
@@teresa67factoid95 By performance, I mean sales numbers. The 1970 Camaro became a fastback, and the Gen 3 Barracuda took the Gen 1 Camaro style. People bought the Camaro. Engines are a very different story though, Chrysler engines around that time were powerful enough, anything above 318 was a beast.
@@teresa67factoid95 I do like the Gen 3 Barracuda, it's a shame it didn't sell well. But its brother, the Gen 1 Challenger, doesn't look nice to me at all. Gen 3 Charger looks a lot nicer.
Lol 😂😂😂 my man dissing the Mustang grills bad!!! Lol 😂😂😂 but still, the Barracuda still looks similar to the Mustang as in the body lines especially in the end even the split grill!!! I believe this comparison and competition in order to get the Mustang consumers!!!
The fastback Barracuda was a good looking car, but couldn’t hold a candle to the ‘67 Mustang fastback. The coupe however, was downright ugly. I wouldn’t turn down a ‘Cuda, but I wouldn’t seek one out either. The Mustang on the other hand, I’d definitely look to get another if the price were right.
The worst thing you could do in any ad campaign whether it be vintage or current is mention your competitors because you’re calling attention to them and not yourself. It’s like you’re giving them free advertising
The reason why the Mustang was more popular was because of clever marketing. Nothing more. Every Mustang competitor, even the Kenoshan wonder that is the AMC Javelin, was a superior car.
No. By '67, everyone had a pony car, and everyone had clever marketing. The only close competitor to the Mustang that year was the Camaro and for good reason - it had equally good styling and performance.
I'll just disagree with you on that one. If I were looking to purchase a pony car, it would be either the aforementioned AMC Javelin or the Mercury Cougar. I would have a very difficult time deciding between the two, but I would probably end up with the AMC just because it suits me better. Outright performance has never been my forte after all.
Good choices, but the Cougar was the same car mechanically as the Mustang except for a slightly longer wheelbase, so one is not better than the other. Both are quite good, actually, evidenced by so many still being on the road. I like the Javelins, the main problem with them is numbers - the independent AMC just didn't have the manufacturing capacity to produce them in any great numbers, so they are hard to come by. And the competition always had stronger engine options which is always good for sales.
Fair points all around. I simply meant that the Cougar was better than the Mustang was because of its styling and some family lore associated with one. I do realize that the FoMoCo pony cars would be the same mechanically. I'm glad we were actually able to have a civil conversation on UA-cam. Best of luck!
yeah, so Everyone found out in long Run, Rustang the former Favorite. the heads were designed to fit under the hood, when that did not work they put NASCAR Heads on it. And that made em slower(302) then a 273, to fix that 4.88:1 gears. Plymouth made sense, Roomier an engine that fit and just right Horsepower for street king with 340. how many mustangs race AA/AHemi..0
where did you get the idea that the engine with heads did not fit?..the mustang in 67 was engineered to take the big F.E engine block and it did fit..if anything all ford did was change the bolt pattern on the exhaust manifolds,,,and the 289/302 powered cars had room to spare in the engine compartment..
smilsmff; The problem with MOPAR guys is that they couldn't pronounce Barracuda. They would say "Bawwahcuda". So Plymouth decided to introduce the 1970 "Cuda". The same goes for the Blow Guy, I mean the Bow Tie Boys. They couldn't pronounce Chevrolet (which is Polish for "ShitI'mgay") And just spouted off "Chevy".
@@merc-ni7hy The 289 and 302 were small in size. Sunbeam used 289's in the Tiger because it was a drop in fit in the small sport car. Chrysler bought Sunbeam in the sixties but had to pay for for warranty work on small block Ford's because the 273 would not fit the engine bay of the Tiger. Chrysler had egg on their face for that one. Also something that seems to be forgotten, the Mustang was based on the Falcon, the Barracuda was built of the Valiant platform. Those car's did not offer V8's until the mid sixties. In 1968, my older brother bought a '64 Falcon convertible with a 260 V8. That engine was tiny in size compared to my other brother's 283 in his '57 Belair. The 289 in my opinion is the best engine Ford put together.
I’m sorry but even today looking back the Mustang style still stirs the soul the barracuda stirs the bowels .......get to the ‘70 hemi cuda then we’ll talk
Would love to see the Barracuda come out redone like the Mustangs, Camaros, Darts, and Challengers are these days.
Bob Carpenter Throw in the Firebird and cougar as well and so long as were dreamin throw in a Javelin and AMX too!
This reply is a long time in coming, but there is a company that makes "Barracuda" kits for the Challenger. They consist of new gilled grills and new rear taillight panel, along with some badging.
@@michaelweizer7794 There is a customizer that converts Cameros into Firebirds with body kits. Very expensive though. Thinking over 100K for the most basic conversions.
The dart remake was shit
I’d love to see the roadrunner get redone
Owned both at one time - LOVED my Barracuda!
IM SOLD! headed for my nearest *Cuda'* dealership.
@Khalil Bishop I don’t know if anyone cares about this either but one can save fifteen percent or more on car insurance if one switches to GEICO.
I love Mopars but that '67 Fastback Mustang was a childhood fave. I had a toy of one when i was 10. Bullitt sealed the deal a year later.
When I was a kid I loved the Barracudas over all other cars. This reminds me why.
It’s the fun car of the year for people who want action in their automobile.
Had one! LOVED IT! wish I had another! ..... great car!
I'd take one of each anyday.
I think both are nice looking cars. Just wish I would have picked up a few dozen of them back in the day when they were dirt cheap.
Cuda sounds like the winner. The 383 was quite a motor. Good way to get a ticket in many places in states like Iowa.
I just rewatched this, She called the largest engine "..a real prowler..." I wonder if that led to the 1990s folks when creating the Plymouth Prowler?!? ;)
good comparison between the two , seems like the cuda was ahead on ergonomics but the fastback stangs were sharp looking
That was great, it's funny how they show the ladies the better glove box.
When new, I loved the fastback version; didn't care too much for the coupe. But now that I've owned a 67 Barracuda coupe for over 30 years, the coupe version has grown on me.
I absolutely LOVE the Barracuda Coupe! It was/is the MOPAR designers forgotten gem. It’s funny how people only think of the 70’s era Barracuda/‘Cudas. If you look at the coupe, it looks like a 2/3 scale Belvedere/Road Runner. In my opinion it is one of Plymouth’s greatest ever car designs.
it's amazing to see a car that has no plastic and real steel bumpers
It's also amazing to see people walk away from crashes, just a thought. New cars are exponentially safer.
@Ray Sagastiano I was attempting to reinforce that point. New cars are far safer than old metal deathtraps, perhaps my original comment didn't make that quite clear.
@@yaroslavgolub9475 I don't disagree, I love the hell out of my 79 Firebird and 78 Dodge, I was just trying to dispel any idea that metal equals safety. Old cars are pretty, but they're also deathtraps.
@@Antiganos what about drivers are they any safer today than they were back in the day or do drivers
Today drive like they have their heads up their asses. Yes today's
Cars are safer but drivers sure as
Hell aren't not when you have a bunch of generation dildos who
Think that texting is more important than driving. Think on it
There's alot of so called drivers out there who don't
Respect a car or truck for what it is.its a loaded weapon in the wrong hands. A nd this is a car junkie that's saying this!
@@michaelweizer7794 I never disagreed with that, people are just as bad as they've always been, except now cellphones exist. My point is that cars themselves are safer, largely because the idiots driving them need help surviving and the brilliant engineers that design vehicles like to make sure that happens.
I always loved the 67-69 Barracudas. I had a chance for a 69 notchback in 86 and couldn't work it out. I personally think the Mustang fastback is one of the best looking muscle cars but I would take the Barracuda hands down.
I'll take one of them!
The Barracuda is worth lots now!
*Luigi crashes his Honda*
'This one is perfect for girl-watching'
*daaamn, times have changed eh*
Yeah, no one watches girls anymore.
@Ray Sagastiano alright mate no need to tell everyone how much you love it up the bum holey
For interior room the 66~67 chargers were great, very versatile.
orange70383 completely different car. This is an A body Plymouth.
The Mopar has many nice features and options, but it can't beat the 'Stang's good looks. And the Mustang out-sold the Valiant by far--I mean 'Cuda!
Just a note.... The base horsepower of the 1967 mustang (200 cubic inch) engine was 115 horsepower. The cheapest car sold in America in 2020, the Nissan Versa puts out 122 horsepower.
So you gona compare 2 cars with a 55 year difference ur a genius
I think my favorite thing about this is that the narrator's name is FANG. That is awesome.
"Tell'em, Fang!"
Barracudas became gorgeous by 1970...
65is my favorite year. I wish that styling had made it to the 67 chassis.-
I'd have went for the Mustang. The Barracuda would have been way down on my list, it was down right fugly.
I was just thinking the price difference $22.00 wow how amazing. So miss my youth
GIRL WATCHING!!!!!! I’m
Sold!!!
When the cars were cars....!!
62,534 1967 Plymouth Barracudas were sold compared to 472,121 1967 Ford Mustangs and 220,906 1967 Chevrolet Camaros. I would imaging that these old Barracudas are quite rare these days.
Ive got a 67 Cuda... Love that slant 6!
Wow they really went after the Mustang back then. I hear it was a top seller so can imagine why. Comfort seemed to be a big thing back then. I can understand the back seat comfort but other than that and trunk space the Mustang looked better, was smaller, and I'm sure lighter. Smaller cars are easier to park. I actually feel the gauge cluster and inside doors look better on the Mustang. Yeah and where's the engine/power comparisons? Pretty funny. Cool to watch something from so long ago. The girl actually said, "cool!" I didn't know they used that word back then.
What about the Mercury Cougar
I liked the later 'Cudas but the '67 Mustang is one of the best looking cars to come out of Detroit in the '60s. I actually had one for a while. Had many adventures in that car though both are pretty terrible by today's standards.
Interesting fact: front and rear bumpers were interchangeable on the '67 Barracuda's. The 383 Commando is a rare bird - was only available with the Formula S package.
I’ve never seen a feature on its performance in any Car Mag back in the day. I’ve always wondered how it performed i.e. 1/4 mile, Braking, 0-60, etc.
I got a 67 formula S. Only problem is doesn't have the original 383 in it. I was told the car was street racing and they blew the motor in the mid 70s so they got a 360 and through it in. Kind of wish it was in it but enjoy the car either way.
Formula S cuda with a 273 V8 did a 13.3 second quarter mile time in the car magazines of the time frame. Fast quality was high and lots of room for stuff in back of a Barracuda all under the cool back end design. A friend’s 67 Mustang GT didn’t flow any air in or out of those back seat air vent sliders. I thought they were a joke. I do like the mustang design. I bought a 70 mach 1 . My friend ditched his 67 mustang and did the same.
It was a time of low wages so don’t slam the guys who worked to buy cars. Dirt cheap is a bad expression
I didn’t know that thank you
My ultimate dream car!!!~
My step-mom had a fastback Barracuda and we had it until '83. Rust was taking it over by then, but it was a cool car.
ambos carros, son unas bellezas, pero el mustang es otro nivel.!!!
Imagine watching this on a massive tv that has small screen back when 1970
A great car, and I hope to own one again.
In had a few both and love American cars. The smell of burnt rubber is accelerating!
I love how they tell you how all of these arbitrary (and mostly meaningless) "features" are superior on the 'Cuda. They don't tell you that the Mustang outsold its Plymouth rival by about 8-to-1.
@Kirk Wolfe - Indie Music The 70-71 E-Body 'Cudas were much better looking, and had more engine choices, including the Six-Pack and Hemi.
Because it hadn't happened yet! Duh!
More sales doesn't always mean better. McDonalds sells a lot of hamburgers but I can think of many better restaurants.
Hard top for the win
Well the only Mustang I liked was the 67 and 68. I have a 69 Barracuda. Notchback. I think being a little small in stature, that car is perfect for me and I think one of the most beautiful cars ever made. It has the coke bottle shape, wide fender wells, and perfect to put your arm on the door and drive with one arm. No other car looks like it.
It’s always great watching these promos for dead cars that got eaten alive by the ‘lesser vehicle’
Mustangs were very cheaply built cars. A coworker has owned/repaired/rebuilt/customized/raced and restored many many Mustangs from the 65's to the 70's. He says they were very very cheap cars.
I remember back in the eighties " 60 minutes " did an hour long show on the mustang. After that show their popularity sky rocketed !
Bring them all back!
Great video!
Where were these promo films shown when they were produced?
Certainly not on television and I don't recall seeing these types of films in movie theaters.
They were made for the salespeople at the dealership
Unless you sold plymouths in 1967 your never see it
I have a Challenger SXT. I assume back then, like today, the Barracuda was designed more for comfort than performance. My base 3.6L does not have the same HP as the modern base Mustangs and Cameros, and is slightly heavier. I like the room and ride. Between the two cars in the video, I would lean toward the Barracuda if I were married and had a kid. Mustang with a big engine if I were single. I dont think these two cars are really directly comparable to each. Not apples and oranges. More Granny Smiths and Golden Delicious.
Please
3:50...look at that door arch welding...famous old day`s quality...
At least you don't see anyone playing a banjo around the Mustang.
The Cuda was a great looking car in 67
The argument ended when Steve McQueen drove that green Mustang in the movie Bullitt. He made it an instant icon. Can you imagine him tooling thru SF in a '67 slant six two-door 'Cuda HT? Not hardly. My aunt had one.
I don't think the Barracuda is a slouch, but Mustang kicked its ass sales wise.
I love mine
I had two of the 67 formula S in high school 273-4 barrel front disc brakes one was a gift the other I found for for $ 250.00 , back in 1978 . Great times in the we cars fast cars though poor handling.
I like both cars. Barracuda definitely has some unique styling. Although some of Plymouth's selling points against the Mustang are funny. The Barracuda should have been bucket seats standard just like the Mustang. Nine inches longer? Not a selling point when you're trying to find somewhere to parallel park. I guess, that wasn't a huge deal at the time though. I had issues with other selling points, but those stood out.
Joey Garcia Both cars were in the comoact size class, Those 9" on the Barracuda didn't even bring it to a 1967 mid sized American car length, So anyone having a hard time parallel parking one should not be driving! It did however make the car look less stubby. A win in my book.
I guess so. I just still find it funny that my Duster is about as long as my 4 door Toyota Tacoma. These were long cars for being compacts.
Joey Garcia I had a 1967 Cadillac Fleetwood that had a wheelbase of 133" (Vs the 108" wheelbase of the Barracuda), It was an entirely different automotive world then. Old folks were fully able to parallel park a 127" wheelbase Buick Electra, So a "small" Valiant based Barracuda would represent "easy-peasy" to a mid-century driver, LOL! Parking spaces have shrunk since then.
Holy Moly! Yep that's a big car. When I was looking at purchasing a car to work on, we looked at the 1967 Ford Fairlane. I've always thought it had beautiful lines, but boy is it long by today's standards. My son and I settled on the '74 Duster. That's what he drives now with a mildly built 360.
From experience, I can tell you that the Barracuda's bench seat with fold down armrest will hold you in place better than the optional bucket seats. Also just plain more comfortable.
I WISHD ID HAD SOME DAY 1967 BARRACUDA
I'd have a '69....being born that year! 😉😍😎
my dads born 1962
I hope Plymouth got their money back on this promo. Plymouth sold 62,534 Barracudas in 1967 from 67-69 they sold 139,993 total of this body style. Ford on the other hand sold 472,000 Mustangs in 1967 alone. That is nearly 3 times all the 67-69 barracuda sales
Things seriously went down hill since 1972
There's a reason Mustang is far and away the leader now as it was then
That's because people are easily swayed by marketing hype. No more and no less.
love those A bodies
funny how they never talked about the mustangs engines...or how the mustang had a larger top engine with more power..i guess thats why they skipped over that part
390merc 66
In 66 and 67 the largest engine available in the Mustang was a 390 the 383 would eat it alive any day
get out...if that were true chrysler would have bragged about in this film..but they ignored engine to engine specs between the 2 from small block to big block....the only thing chrysler had better was the 6 banger at more hp .....the hot setup for the cuda in 67 was the 280 hp 383...you could get 335 hp ford 390 in a 67 mustang..45 hp more then the cuda ..and in 67 you could get the hipo 289 with 271 hp ..41 hp more from the small block ford over the tiny 273
and back in the mid 80's i had a triple black full size 1969 merc monterey 2 door hard top with a 390 2bbl , single exhaust and factory a/c..my buddy had a 68 satelite with a 383 2bbl no a/c ...my merc [ being heavier ] would walk all over that mopar..and eat its lunch ...then spit out the bones ..thats not my opinion..thats fact
correction....that should be 55 more hp more from the ford then the mopar with a 383....seeing they rated the motor at only 280 hp,,thats the 2bbl version and only had 390 tq...were a ford 390 2bbl had 401 tq
390merc66 sure the 383 had some power and torque but you’re absolutely right the ford 390 clearly had more power and torque and it should beat a 383 anytime. A friend of my fathers had a 69 fairlane cobra with a 428 cobra jet 4 speed in the 70s and a guy in town had a 69 super bee with a balanced and blue printed 440 and that ford would eat that dodge every time. Needless to say he was a little pissed lmfao
Cars used to be exciting and had style unlike today's indiscernible bubbles on wheels.
im mopar all the way but in this case I like the mustang better
silverbird58 the 390 was a slug and heavy
a slug that had more power and tq then the 383..
lol
Terminator X
Agreed
I never liked this berracuda body style, but I also would never have thought of the comparison between these two cars it's almost weird, but I get know after this demonstration.
The Barracude was a better car then the mustang but Plymouth I think held it back, so mush potential.
Matthew Johnson This is just your opinion and not one help by the buying public in ‘67.
The Plymouth cuda is no longer around.but the Dodge Challenger came back and it's a better car than the Ford mustang.
The Barracuda was basically using Pontiac styling from 67-69
Notice they dont mention Mustang's engine options lol, the 67 Cuda had the 383 as top option, and you could get the 427 , 425 hp side oiler and 428 cobra jet in late 67s , no wonder thet didn't compare engine options lol
In 1967 the Mustang is way better looking than the Cuda and I notice they didn't list the Mustangs engines at all. But Plymouth made up for it in 1970 where the Cuda outshined the Mustang big time.
I never knew Jimmy Fallon, 4:30, was a Plymouth car salesman in 1967...
The Plymouth Baccaruda..... baba rara cucu dada...
@ 00:30 - Is "Slappy" actually serenading Mary Lou with a banjo? .. … a BANJO???
1967 mustang with 390 4 barrel was 320HP.
even back then they were selective about what they would compare.
it was a great time tho, glad all three, four if you count AMC had such great cars. can you imagine how boring it would be if only one company had made a sports car? and why give more power options if there is no one to compete against?
I have buddies that are pro Dodge and pro Chevy, I love arguing with them about the old iron. truth is they were all great.
I'de still pick the Stang over the Cuda any day.Don't care about the rear seating it's just me anyway,I'de just keep it folded down for extra cargo space.
I loved the Cuda, but you don't see any old ones on the road.
Bring this back for 2021 to take on Ford Mustang!
Why? The street legal Dodge demon smokes any factory street legal Ford mustang.
Whoa
The mustang is a cooler looking car, for 67 as mopar played catch up.
Soon mother mopar would re design the cuda for 1970, with the best looking coupe and convertible , trouncing Ford and Chevy in not only styling, but in unbeatable performance too.
But the Gen 3 Barracuda and the Gen 1 Challenger performed even worse than the Camaro/Firebird/Chevelle and the Mustang/Torino.
@@mottom2657
Mopar never made a grocery getter 340 every 340 was a fire breathing monster!
@@teresa67factoid95 By performance, I mean sales numbers. The 1970 Camaro became a fastback, and the Gen 3 Barracuda took the Gen 1 Camaro style. People bought the Camaro. Engines are a very different story though, Chrysler engines around that time were powerful enough, anything above 318 was a beast.
@@teresa67factoid95 I do like the Gen 3 Barracuda, it's a shame it didn't sell well. But its brother, the Gen 1 Challenger, doesn't look nice to me at all. Gen 3 Charger looks a lot nicer.
Funny how times change... bit sad actually - wrong time and wrong country for my car fantasy life...
*WILD!!* .... daddy-o!!
Chariots of the gods. 🙏
The Cuda was way under-rated it clearly would eat old smokies 283 for lunch.
I'll take the 67 Barracuda over a mustang for sure the 67 Cuda is one sexy fish!!
Lol 😂😂😂 my man dissing the Mustang grills bad!!! Lol 😂😂😂 but still, the Barracuda still looks similar to the Mustang as in the body lines especially in the end even the split grill!!! I believe this comparison and competition in order to get the Mustang consumers!!!
Ya know...they make a damn good argument. lol
haha "rich vinyl" compared to "cold plastic" ahem, vinyl IS plastic hahaha
I love these old ads......
Yay!
The fastback Barracuda was a good looking car, but couldn’t hold a candle to the ‘67 Mustang fastback. The coupe however, was downright ugly. I wouldn’t turn down a ‘Cuda, but I wouldn’t seek one out either. The Mustang on the other hand, I’d definitely look to get another if the price were right.
I'd skip both and get an AMC Javelin nowadays. AMC was always under-rated both back then and today.
I wish they would edit out that damn Pinging sound,,
i wishd id had some day barracuda and mustang
There's some weird base in the video, use headphones.
So in 67 they were called a 'Cuda
Whatevs. But do admit that Cudas and Camaros wouldn't exist without the one and only OG Mustang. Just saying...
vlad just saying you do not know shit!
@@camgnilpe9300 truth hurts I know.
The worst thing you could do in any ad campaign whether it be vintage or current is mention your competitors because you’re calling attention to them and not yourself. It’s like you’re giving them free advertising
The V-6 in my ram truck that’s 218 in.³ has more power than a 383 did in 1967.
The '67-'68 Mustang fastback is iconic, the Barracuda those years is largely a footnote. Which one was more popular? There is a reason for that.
The reason why the Mustang was more popular was because of clever marketing. Nothing more. Every Mustang competitor, even the Kenoshan wonder that is the AMC Javelin, was a superior car.
No. By '67, everyone had a pony car, and everyone had clever marketing. The only close competitor to the Mustang that year was the Camaro and for good reason - it had equally good styling and performance.
I'll just disagree with you on that one. If I were looking to purchase a pony car, it would be either the aforementioned AMC Javelin or the Mercury Cougar. I would have a very difficult time deciding between the two, but I would probably end up with the AMC just because it suits me better. Outright performance has never been my forte after all.
Good choices, but the Cougar was the same car mechanically as the Mustang except for a slightly longer wheelbase, so one is not better than the other. Both are quite good, actually, evidenced by so many still being on the road. I like the Javelins, the main problem with them is numbers - the independent AMC just didn't have the manufacturing capacity to produce them in any great numbers, so they are hard to come by. And the competition always had stronger engine options which is always good for sales.
Fair points all around. I simply meant that the Cougar was better than the Mustang was because of its styling and some family lore associated with one. I do realize that the FoMoCo pony cars would be the same mechanically. I'm glad we were actually able to have a civil conversation on UA-cam. Best of luck!
They could have made the Barracuda out of solid Gold and sold it at half price and it still wouldn't have come close to beating Mustang sale numbers.
yeah, so Everyone found out in long Run, Rustang the former Favorite. the heads were designed to fit under the hood, when that did not work they put NASCAR Heads on it. And that made em slower(302) then a 273, to fix that 4.88:1 gears. Plymouth made sense, Roomier an engine that fit and just right Horsepower for street king with 340. how many mustangs race AA/AHemi..0
where did you get the idea that the engine with heads did not fit?..the mustang in 67 was engineered to take the big F.E engine block and it did fit..if anything all ford did was change the bolt pattern on the exhaust manifolds,,,and the 289/302 powered cars had room to spare in the engine compartment..
smilsmff; The problem with MOPAR guys is that they couldn't pronounce Barracuda. They would say "Bawwahcuda". So Plymouth decided to introduce the 1970 "Cuda". The same goes for the Blow Guy, I mean the Bow Tie Boys. They couldn't pronounce Chevrolet (which is Polish for "ShitI'mgay") And just spouted off "Chevy".
@@merc-ni7hy The 289 and 302 were small in size. Sunbeam used 289's in the Tiger because it was a drop in fit in the small sport car. Chrysler bought Sunbeam in the sixties but had to pay for for warranty work on small block Ford's because the 273 would not fit the engine bay of the Tiger. Chrysler had egg on their face for that one.
Also something that seems to be forgotten, the Mustang was based on the Falcon, the Barracuda was built of the Valiant platform. Those car's did not offer V8's until the mid sixties. In 1968, my older brother bought a '64 Falcon convertible with a 260 V8. That engine was tiny in size compared to my other brother's 283 in his '57 Belair. The 289 in my opinion is the best engine Ford put together.
@@cobracharmer6178 It was Baccaruda you fool.
@@jayschmahl9206 Didn't know that!
What would Steve McQueen do.
It cost less to go first class!
I’m sorry but even today looking back the Mustang style still stirs the soul the barracuda stirs the bowels .......get to the ‘70 hemi cuda then we’ll talk