(first posted 4/19/2017) One of the great wonders of modern chemistry are plastiwoods. Think of all the beautiful old trees that have been saved thanks to Di-Noc and all the other synthetic wood wanna’-bees. And all the vast quantities of varnish, and sandpaper, and most of all, the elbow grease that’s been spared. But the really amazing thing was how the chemists were able to reproduce the natural weathering of wood on the fake stuff. Look at this 32 year old Town & Country wagon; hasn’t its wood aged splendidly? It’s the plastiwood version of patina. Well, Chrysler did have a head start on knowing how to get it right; after all, it was the pioneer user of Di-Noc.
I need to repress a certain urge to grab my sander and gallon of polyurethane and get to work on this baby. But then undoubtedly those are the wrong materials and methods. I’m sure there’s protocol for restoring this stuff, but my old school instincts and experience would make me unsuitable for the job. Better to enjoy it as it is. Admittedly, the closer one gets, the less convincing some of the weathering is.
I just love the juxtaposition of the Turbo badge with that faded fake wood. Pseudo-performance meets pseudo-beech, or whatever it’s supposed to be. Ok; yes, these Chrysler 2.2 turbos can be quite lively, in the right state of tune and in the right vehicle. But nobody is ever going to accuse one of these early 142/146 hp units of being a genuine stormer, when hooked up to the three-speed TF transaxle. It was an expedient stop-gap solution given the lack of a V6.
Speaking of curious juxtapositions, how about hood vents on a Town and Country? Mixed messages. But then, that applied to this car in a number of ways. This very compact little four cylinder K-car wagon carried a lot of tradition on its vented hood.
The original 1941 Town and Country (1942 shown) was a true pioneer, as it wasn’t quite a wagon nor a sedan either, but it put the emphasis in upscale exclusivity in a package that graced a lot of country estates. The woodie was no longer just a utilitarian wagon, but fashionable plaything.
Its perceived success led Chrysler to introduce what was planned to be a full range of T&C variants for 1946, although only the sedan (full CC here) and the convertible actually made it into production. This 1946 still had mahogany veneer between the ash planks, but already in 1947, that was replaced by Di-Noc. As best as I can tell, the ’47 T&C was the first vehicle to use that product, as 3M’s website says it was “designed approximately 70 years ago, for application to the outside of automobile panels”.
So Chrysler, which gave us the most splendid genuine wood cars ever, having elevated them to prestige objects, also pioneered the use of Di-Noc. This 1949 wagon, the preview of what would become the T&C standard bearers some 20 years later, has Di-Noc between its ash planking. The question that I couldn’t find an answer to, given the late hour, is who pioneered the fake wood planking/framing? Some of you will know. Ford, most probably, as they kept the wood fires going for so many years with their seminal Country Squire.
Yes, it’s a K-car, but a rather fine one for the times. Well, much finer ones with pillow-tufted seats would soon make this look like what it really was: a Reliant with nicer upholstery and trim. But then it was merely a wagon, and even in the 80s, wagons didn’t yet generally deserve the highest, plushest trim levels.
The rear seat legroom looks a bit bigger than it is thanks to a somewhat short seat bottom. But then this was a marvel in space utilization compared wagons of yore.
Utilization of available space is of course more critical when there’s less to work with. Which was of course not a problem twenty years earlier, when there more than enough to go around. And then some. And if not inside, how about on that full-length roof rack? Perfect for hauling long timbers. Just no wood on the sides, though. Chrysler had ditched its woodie look after 1950, and only brought it back in 1968, due to the increasingly popular Ford Country Squire, which never dropped it and eventually launched the second Great Woodie era in the late 60s. Perhaps the suburban analogue to the back-to-the-land movement of the late 60s – early 70s?
Yup; this lil’ feller is in a whole different league. It’s got plenty of fake wood, but giving it the storied Town & Country name was a bit of a stretch hack job. How about City & Suburb?
I absolutely love the juxtaposition of turbo badges, hood vents and Di-Noc. The only K I’ve seen in person was a Town & Country convertible at a classic car show and I actually thought the interior was very, very nice to look at! The turbo/3-speed combination wasn’t great but I can otherwise really see the appeal of these Klassy Ks. Elegant styling, compact dimensions, fuel efficiency… On paper, these look great.
A very similar Lebaron convertible was good enough for John Voight. 😉
Supposedly Frank Sinatra had one of these wagons that he used when he wanted to go low-profile.
Yep, saw it for sale years ago, with documentation in Frank’s name, surely some collector out there has it.
I guess tooling around in an FS Imperial would not be “undercover” enough.
IIRC, the issue was that Frank’s Imp had a bad habit of crapping on him so he swapped for something more reliable.
Makes sense!
I wouldn’t choose an unusually wood-sided wagon with lots of glass to not get noticed. Maybe some dark-colored midsize sedan, but not an M-body lest someone think you’re an undercover cop.
Perhaps, but who in the mid 1980s would suspect an A list celebrity behind the wheel of a middle class compact domestic station wagon. Ol’ Blues Eyes would look like a suburban grandpa on a quick glance. Woodgrained wagons weren’t unusual at a Sears parking lot then.
To clarify, Jon Voight did not drive that, it was a Seinfeld reference.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/cc-cinema/cc-cinema-an-ode-to-george-costanzas-jon-voight-car-chrysler-lebaron-a-festivus-for-the-rest-of-us/
It was John Voight, the peridontist.
It may seem a little humorous today, but in the context of Chrysler in the ’80s, the turbo badges and vents actually made quite a bit of sense. Chrysler was trying to normalize the turbo as the new luxury / performance engine for buyers that were previously impressed with cubic inch callouts on their cars. Chrysler marketing got this one right as to a degree Chrysler did manage to convince Chrysler New Yorker and Dodge Daytona buyers that the turbo was the way of the future. That is, until cheap gas combined with CAFE and SUVs brought a return to the V-8 displacement wars, with the callouts in liters.
Also, “turbo” still had some cachet in the early to mid ’80s – it was something associated with top-rung Porsches, Audis, Saabs, 300ZXs, etc. and was understood by the general public to mean *fast*. The horsepower and 0-60 times looked good. Buyers quickly learned though that the turbo four-bangers of the day were buzzy and peaky, nothing like the big lazy V8s of yore, and once Chrysler could get NA V6s into their cars (first using Mitsubishi as a source before they tooled up their own design) they did. Turbos are back in vogue again, but are now touted for their fuel savings as much as – or maybe more than – for their added power.
The concept that “Turbo meant fast” extended beyond cars: Remember when PCs had “Turbo” buttons? ?
Chrysler was right, just ahead of the times. Now we have turbo threes, fours, and dual turbo V6s for the top rung cars. I’ve only driven one recent turbo car, a BMW coupe, the power flow was smooth, but it was evident that the power was dependent on dipping deep into the accelerator. I better get used to this as turbos are becoming the norm.
A turbo badge in the 80’s was like a fuel injection badge in the 50’s. Most had no idea what the hell it meant but THIS car has it.
My aunt and uncle had 1 of these bought new. Their’s was a light yellow color, if I remember correctly. It was their 1st less than full-sized car (my aunt’s various Mustangs excluded) and I never understood why a long-time Ford owner bought one of these. The story I got was that their previous wagon (a Buick, but which model I never knew) blew it’s engine on a trip between Florida and upstate New York and after trying out various wagons the T&C was thought to have the longest load length with the rear seat folded. That was most important as my uncle liked to sleep for long stretches of these coastal trips.
I wasn’t aware that the postwar T&Cs were available as 4 door sedans, I always thought that they were 2 door only: sedan or convertible, and of course, wagons.
I had the (wild?) idea in about 2002-2003 that I wanted to buy a new Focus wagon and add some Di-Noc or airbrush wood paneling to create a modern Country Squire on a small scale. Might still do it one day if I find the “right” Focus wagon….or even a nice late model Escort wagon.
I’d love to see that done with a 92-95 Taurus wagon! Maybe use the one-off SHO wagon that Ford built for C&D as a basis…man that thing was slick.
Couldn’t picture it at first, but thinking about it a Focus wagon sounds like a really good fit – the sides have exactly the kind of character and detail that makes the best of these work. I’m thinking in particular the different front/back fender bulge treatments on the ’46 up there, with the wood sharing the finishing contours of the wheel arch on the front door panel, contrasting with the full arch breaking the panel on the back… the first and second gen Focus both have similar detailing that you could certainly have fun with.
It couldn’t come out worse looking than the last modern interpretation of a Woodie that I saw anyway:
http://www.carscoops.com/2010/08/surf-up-for-chevrolet-spark-woody-wagon.html
More “Spork” than”Spark” ?
Try that on a Smart car! 🙂
I can’t look at a Flex without imagining Di-Noc on its sides.
So does 3M still make this stuff? I have to imagine demand has gone down.
With today’s technology fake wood can be far more convincing than the stuff that was ubiquitous in the ’70s. The technique used to make woodgrain laminate flooring – taking a high-resolution digital photo of real wood and printing it, and covering it with a laminated coating whose texture matches the grain – could be used in automotive applications too and look far more realistic. (Note to Sergio M.: the planned revived Grand Wagoneer would be the perfect vehicle to be first with this).
It’s a shame that the Di-Noc faded like that. I’m sure better chemistry could have prevented that, as I have always liked the look.
All that fake wood on a K-Wagon was a bit overdone, however – and looked to belong on a much larger vehicle. I wonder how much all that stuff added to the weight of the car?
Compared to our 1981 Reliant stripper, this was nice, but not classy like our 1984 E-Class.
As far as I am concerned, the best use of fake wood on a car in recent years was the PT-Cruiser woody wagon.
Funny – before I heard the term “Di-Noc”, I never knew what to call the stuff. “Wood paneling” is simply what I called it. Amazing what one can learn on the web!
“Di-Noc” is a trademark of 3M, so if another manufacturer’s woodgrained plastic is used, it’s not Di-Noc!
Also, Di-Noc isn’t only a woodgrain material. There is also, for example, imitation carbon fiber Di-Noc.
Compared to its contemporaries, the 2.2 turbo was a fairly potent engine. It had more power than the Taurus V6, the GM 2.8, and any of the 4-bangers.
Zero-to-sixty in under ten seconds, I seem to recall. The 1986 Taurus took over 12 seconds and felt slower. Our 1987 Sable wagon was even a bit slower than our 1986 Taurus wagon but its transmission shifted smoother, which accounts for some losses.
As Chrysler said in ads, regarding the 2.2 Turbo “you’ll never go back to a V8 again!”
Looks to me like some sandpaper may be involved here…too bad, I say embrace the “Di-Noc” I say…lol..
I still like these, in that cheesy 80’s kind of way. Seems to be in great condition other than the Di-Noc degradation…and that silly floormat.
Is that even a floormat? It looks like one of those paper protectors they put in when you get your car serviced.
If I were going to drive a K car, this would be the one. First, the wagon was the best looking of all of the early K car body styles. Then, Chrysler did a really nice job on trying the do a “classic woody” look. Finally the T&C interiors were very nicely done. However, I would still prefer one of the earlier M body LeBaron wagons which had all of these attributes plus the classic Mopar drivetrains.
Also, as I recall it, Chrysler was the most durable of the early (late 70s-early 80s) turbos after they came up with a way to cool the bearings with a water jacket. A very nice find!
I Liked it, and the look of that blue ’85 reminded me of a ’87 T&C that my Late Uncle converted to Right-hand Drive for a disabled client who was moving to New Zealand and loved “K” cars. (Strangely enough, Mitsubishi was able to get a couple of Reliants there though not many were sold.) I almost got one when I lived in Brooklyn, a White ’84 but I balked at it (Dumb me!) for NO ONE drives in NYC —Except Queens and Staten Island! One of these days I’ll find one for fun and work, those 2.2 litre fours were the equivalent of the four pots that Rootes used in their Sunbeam Alpines before 1965.
Interesting…the paint, which one would have expected to have faded, or the clearcoat delaminated…appears to be in comparatively fine condition.
Also, perhaps a Freudian juxtaposition: the 1942 Town and Country in the first of the “classic T&C” photos, is in virtually the same color scheme as the fearured T&C K-Car.
I wonder if the car was painted blue later? I thought it a little odd that the paint was so shiny compared to the wood, Plus in the 80’s would you really find a beige interior in a dark blue car?
Chrysler was an early adopter of clearcoat across the whole line. And IIRC dark blue with tan interior was common on Chrysler (and pre-Chrysler AMC) products with, and ONLY with, woodgrain exterior panels.
Confession: I really really kinda want one of these. Of course I’d prefer the Mark Cross leather interior in 2-tone saddle and light brown, and I’d just have to have the ubiquitous 80’s Mopar wire wheel covers to complete the package. And no, I’m not kidding. I can’t explain it, but it’s a real thing with me. I may have to schedule a few extra therapy sessions to workshop through this.
Always liked these cars. Dad had an ’84 model in the mid-’90s with the 2.6 Mitsu engine. That engine had a problem with a stretched timing chain that caused a lot of vibration at idle, but otherwise it ran good. Very comfy seats and interior, nicely laid out instrument panel and great cargo space. Just needed a bit more power and needed to get rid of that annoyingly stupid “door is a jar” electronic voice.
Damn nice K-car. I pay them respect in almost any shape and form. The owner of this one must be a neat freak. There is stuff in the interior but everything is neatly placed. There is even a flames carpet in front of the driver’s seat. Maybe the original carpet has worn through and it is covering a hole.
I am only left with this question: how would it look with artillery wheels? These alloy wheels go too well with the Turbo call-outs. You got to mix your messages well no matter if you shake them or stir them.
Proof that the di-noc woodies have been gone a long time, I haven’t seen a weathered daily driver like this in ages. It seems like the odds of seeing a mint collector woodie on a Sunday drive are now higher.
That weathering is surprisingly convincing as aged wood. I guess Chrysler did do the fake wood well. It seemed like the typical ’72 Country Squire’s wood would turn chalky white. Hmm, maybe Paul is right about the ’72 Fords.
This is one of the better K car interiors. Not at stripper level like some, but not so overwrought as some of the top luxury versions. But, I’ve always been a classic “mid-price” buyer, so no wonder this looks like what I’d have bought in the mid ’80s.
One gripe I do have with the interior is that Chrysler cheaped-out on the luxury door arm rests. All of them utilized a plastic extension unit so as to put the power window switches on a horizontal surface. It would have looked a lot classier if they would have sprung for a proper full length armrest for the higher end cars.
When I was a kid, my Dad got a ’67 Chevy Malibu Concours wagon, with a 327. It was our first car with air-conditioning, with probably the rarest Chevy option – an AM/FM radio, and of course it had fake-wood covering the sides and tailgate, but surrounded with chrome, not the fake-wood moldings.
Sometime in the ;80s, I was changing oil on a ’70s AMC Matador wagon with the faux-wood side-panels (also surrounded by chrome) and these had originally been coated with a layer of clear plastic. It wasn’t peeling or crumbling, but it had turned white with age and UV-rays. I.accidentally spilled some motor oil on a fender and after trying to wipe it off, the ‘wood’ looked like new!.
I still wonder how ‘restoring’ all that ‘wood’ with motor oil would’ve held up in the long run.
Happy Motoring, Mark
I’ve never seen fake wood look so real.
What a strange tint job, just the rear windows and a little passed the C pillar toward the B pillar.
Why not the whole window on the rear doors?
I do like these little beasts and the “wood” is the best weathering I’ve ever seen on that plastic stuff. Looks like the interior just needs a going over with a gentle shampooing and it would be standing tall.
? Maybe this installation is an homage to the vinyl covered quarter windows of upper Chryslers ?!? ?
The interior is in pretty great shape considering its age.
I wonder how does one preserve, let alone restore the Di-Noc siding?
Isn’t anyone going to mention the car in Trains Planes and Automobiles?
You just did! ?
My father bought a brand new 1986 T&C with the 2.2 Turbo. I always thought it was a cheesy looking car. My father wasn’t too fond of his “investment” when the turbo blew along with the head gasket when he and my mom were on the freeway. He got that fixed under warranty, then the transmission had issues, electrical problems, and issues with paint and trim. My dad traded the T&C five years later on a new Jeep Cherokee which was another saga of ownership headaches.
Perhaps the suburban analogue to the back-to-the-land movement of the late 60s – early 70s?
Or a sub-genre of the Brougham look – for wagons.