shot and posted at the Cohort by canadiancatgreen
(first posted 4/29/2017) Mix-and-matching Mopar A-Body front ends and main body sections is an old sport, and quite possibly someone in the US has done this very thing. But Chrysler of Canada got a head start, having been building “Plodges” for decades. Here’s one I haven’t seen before: it’s a Canadian Valiant, but for us south of the border, it’s a Dart sporting a Valiant front clip.
It’s a bit fuzzy, but that badge on the c pillar says “VALIANT”, lest there be any doubt.
As much as I like the ’63 Valiant front end, I like the genuine Dart front end even better. But it may just have been too flamboyant for those prim and proper Canadians.
Not de-flamboyance but evolution by natural selection. It started out with a Dart front face yet one trip through a Canadian winter puckered the Feldman eyes under a sheltery monobrow while the silver gaping piano-mouth turned down dourly not through self-effacement but to avoid frozen lungs. Likewise, the hood bulge shrank to nothing in the cold, as many things do. The rare summer-use-only survivor cars keep the original look.
This feels like the inverse of a Plodge, which is usually a Plymouth bodied car with a Dodge front clip being sold in Canada as a Dodge. So maybe this is a Domouth?
Dartmouth
Love that school!! nyuck, nyuck, nyuck! 🙂
The creases on the front fenders and doors don’t seem to match up…or is it just these pictures and the black paint?
As much as I like Plymouths, more than the equivalent Dodges….usually, you can keep either the Valiant or the Dart until about the 64 or 65 models. Of course, that doesn’t apply when you are talking about the wagons for either.
The matchup is perfect no matter what ’63-’66 A-body front clip is put on what body.
I always thought the Canadian ’63 Valiant was a Valiant with a US Dart rear end, but here I find they were really Darts (which weren’t sold in Canada) with a US Valiant front end! I may need counselling.
The Dart was a larger car, so Canadian Valiants turn out to be larger (longer wheelbase) than the US car of the same name. That must be a first, given the smaller wheelbase Pontiacs, etc. sold in Canada over the years.
A couple of (slightly contradictory) summaries here are among the clearest I’ve found.
http://www.earlyabodyforum.com/board/messages/394/393.html?1090290404
The Valiant was it’s own brand when introduced in 1960, and but became a Plymouth for 1961 – for the US. In Canada, Valiant remained it’s own brand. It was also sold through all Chrysler dealers, including Dodge dealers. Since Chrysler Canada only marketed one compact, it was decided to use the larger Dart body in 1963, with the clip from a Plymouth Valiant. So Canadian Valiant was essentially a US Dart with a Plymouth Valiant clip.
In 1964, the Valiant line remained the same in Canada, except the Barracuda was released. The Barracuda was virtually identical to the US models, unlike the rest of the Valiant line. The biggest difference was the Barracuda was the “Valiant” Barracuda in Canada, and Valiant replaced the “Plymouth” badging on the Canadian cars.
Things got bit messier in 1965. Now Canadian Valiants used both the smaller Plymouth Body (for the 100 series) and the Dart Body (for the 200 series). For 1966, Chrysler Canada went back to using Dart Bodies with Plymouth Valiant clips, not using the US Plymouth Valiant body for anything other than the Barracuda. In 1967, the US and Canadian cars became essentially the same.
Thanks for the refresher. I knew it wasn’t a “Plymouth”, yet my dumb fingers added that to the title anyway. Fixed now.
“In 1964…the Barracuda was released…the Barracuda was the “Valiant” Barracuda in Canada, and Valiant replaced the “Plymouth” badging on the Canadian cars.”
Bill, see the CC below, part of Nelson James’ COAL series, on a ’65 Canadian Barracuda that he once owned. This car apparently had Plymouth badging on the front and was identified as a Plymouth on the title. Any thoughts on this? Were Canadian Barracudas badged as Plymouths in 1965-66?
http://www.curbsideclassic.com/cars-of-a-lifetime/coal-1965-plymouth-valiant-barracuda-you-only-get-one-first-car-preferably-one-that-can-actually-be-driven/
Hey MCT,
I hadn’t seen that COAL by Nelson. Thanks for the link, I enjoyed his stories.
As far as I know all Canadian Barrucuda’s were branded as Valiants, and should’t have had Plymouth badging. Reading Nelson’s COAL, it’s hard to say for certain either the hood, emblem or maybe even the front clip hadn’t been replaced at some point. Unless if was a factory mix-up, which makes less sense since the no Canadian Valiants should have worn Plynmouth badges.
As far as the ownership (title) goes, I wouldn’t put much worth in that. I have seen a number or mistakes on Canadian ownerships over the years, especially if they were transferred from one province to another at some point.
Here is a French-Canadian Valiant brochure showing the Valiant label on the front of a Barracuda.
I’m six years late here, but 1965 was kind of a turbulent year on this front. There was a strike or something affecting production of Chrysler’s ’65 models, and they brought in some US-made cars that year. That was before the Auto Pact took effect, so this would have been very expensive for Chrysler unless they got some kind of special dispensation on taxes and duties, but even if not, I guess they figured it was better to pay the costs than to lose the customers. The ’65 Canadian Chrysler parts cattledog is full of U.S.-built/Canada-built dichotomies.
Still, according to the FPC, even the U.S.-built cars weren’t badged as Plymouths. Nelson James’ COAL car is clearly badged VALIANT on the back, which was to Canadian specs. Neither of the front-end photos is clear enough to see whether the nose badge says PLYMOUTH or VALIANT, but the two kinds of nose badge were directly interchangeable, and it’s right up front there in an easily-damaged position, so whichever is on there in the pics might well not be the original.
I never really liked the Turbine inspired front end or the power bulge on this generation Dart so the Plodge works for me.
I always loved the Turbine-inspired Dart front end and the power bulge. The Plymouth Valiant grille looks like a sheet of perforated metal from the hardware store. So there you go, no pleasing everyone.
The Plymouth DOES almost seem like something that was knocked off behind the Iron Curtain compared to the Dodge’s face. That said, it pulls it off well enough. The split nosed Valiants that were still to come are some of my favorite A body front clips though. I cant say Id kick any of them out of my driveway at the end of the day…even the ’73 up 5mph prow on the later Darts.
I like both of them, preferred the Valiant back in the day but like the turbine look of the Dart now 🙂
I thought all Valiants looked like this until recently.
My Grandfather had a 64, always liked these Vlodges
Love it! The rallyes and RWL tires look good on a black 2 door with red interior. Interesting how Canada and even moreso Australia got weird, alternate reality versions of our cars.
I gotta say though…Id be willing to commit any number of unforgiveable crimes for that dart on slot mags
Similar things happened in Australia, where Valients were always Chryslers and a bigger version at one stage was called Chrysler by Chrysler….
I’m not sure I understand the point of putting different fronts on cars in different markets. Brand alignment?
Possibly differing national regulations on signals, headlight position, etc? Or perhaps it is just for stylistic or cost reasons.
I suspect very high tariffs played a large role in Australias’ variations. The rest of the Valiant that “fits” the front clip on the Canadian car in the photo, (called the AP5 in Aus), had only the doors, front guards and screen in common with US models, not that my inexpert eyes can really tell. One would presume that this variation was due to tariff-mandated demands for local content. After ’67, the slicing and squeezing of the Dodge Dart and Plymouth Valiant bits was driven by both marketing and ingenious responses to manufacturing/cost needs, to stretch older floorpans, etc, and generally to try and compete with ’66-on Falcon, (which came out bigger than supposedly either Holden or Chrysler predicted). There was just no money to changes dies and so on when the scale was so tiny compared to the US. The results are cars that look again similar to the Plymouth, but are in fact quite different. Which makes them sound like a Frankenstein creation. In fact, they look rather good.
I always thought that there must have been some law that cars sold, or maybe made, in Canada had to be different from in the US. I grew up in Buffalo NY, a Peace Bridge away from Canada. Or it was a marketing thing. There were a lot of Frontenacs and Meteors around, and more in Canada. They were Fords and Falcons with different grilles and trim. GM made the Parisienne, a Pontiac with Chevy frame, drive train, and interior. Chrysler made mix and match versions of full sized cars, at least before 1960. More usually Dodge on the front and Plymouth in back, the opposite of the Valart in the post.
Up until the late 60s, when the Auto Pact came into being, there was a large tariff applied to cars imported into Canada from the US. So the US manufacturers set up plants here, but the size of our market is about the same as one large US state so we didn’t get the full range of products Americans did.
No law said our cars had to be different, but economies of scale dictated a lot more shared components and less variety. We weren’t quite as affluent, and credit was a lot harder to obtain in those days as well so price was a much larger factor as well.
I suspect Chrysler Canada decided to try and capture both the compact and intermediate market with the Dart bodied Valiant, since the mid size Plymouth Belvedere and equivalent Dodge was not generally sold here until ’66.
There are still a few small differences between our market and the US, but nothing like it was a generation or two ago.
In the ’70s, the LeBaron was only sold in Medallion trim in Canada, and the Diplomat only in non-Medallion trim.
in the 80s and 90s, cars badged as Dodges in the US were Chryslers in Canada. Eg Dynasty, Daytona, Intrepid .
I think it’s important to mention much of the reason why these Canadian variations existed was the sparse dealer network. Often times, a Dodge, Pontiac or Mercury dealer would be the only Chrysler, GM or Ford dealer in the area. This meant it had to have a full line of vehicles, including low priced cars and pickups despite the fact the American brand may not have offered these versions. Of course Canadians tended to be thrifty buyers for the reasons outlined above, and this meant the Canadian variations often tended to be lower priced vehicles.
If it was just marketing every company must have decided that Canadians preferred unique Canadian cars or they wouldn’t have spent a lot of money coming up with different grilles, chrome trim and sometimes tail lights for all the not-Fords (Meteors, or if not-Falcons, Frontenacs) sold in Canada all those years. This would have obviously cost more per unit than just selling a normal Ford, not less. Anyway they haven’t bothered for many decades.
It is chauvinistic and thoughtless to assume the U.S. car is obviously the correct one and any deviation from it is silly and pointless and wrong.
What’s missing from your equation here is that the cars were built in Canada, of parts made and tooled in Canada. So no, it wouldn’t necessarily have cost more to make a grille or name badge or trim piece that looked like this instead of like that.
Canadian product planners and marketing departments devised their specifications in accord with their perspectives and directives to optimise sales in the Canadian market. Sometimes that meant identicality to the U.S. product, and sometimes not.
Keep in mind the x-factors in product planning: it’s easier for a given plant to make a given part this way instead of that way, so a grille (or whatever) that looks different to the U.S. piece winds up being cheaper.
And the head of product planning in this country has personal preferences that differ to those of their counterpart in that country.
And the head of purchasing has different favours to call in than their counterpart has favors.
And the dealer structure and buying habits and competitive landscape here means a car with these features will sell better than a car with those features.
And so on and on.
From what I can recall from driving these cars when they were “only” 10 or 15 year old, middle row used car models: The Valiant (or Dart) was a much more substantial car than the same generation Falcon or Chevy II. Mopar’s “Leaning Tower OF Power” Slant Six engine, back up by Mopar’s “Reference Standard” (of the time period) push button controlled, 3 speed TorqueFlite automatic transmission gave quite peppy responses and made for a “Real World” lively driver. As the bodies became bigger and heavier in the later 1960’s; the peppiness was sometimes mitigated by the extra weight. But the same could be said of the competition!
The Falcon and Chevy II models, handicapped by their sluggish, slow-to-shift, power zapping 2 speed automatic trannys were (to use the parlance of the day) “Ice Wagons” and “Dogs” by comparison.
Styling is always a personal choice; but I found the basic body of the pre-1965 models superior to the dull-as-dishwasher competition. The Mopar interiors, esp in the top-of-the-line trim options, was quite the visual treat of sometime two tones and comfortable seats.
“That’s my opinion and I’m sticking to it”. Fire/flame away!
Flame away, eh? All right, if you insist: You’re wrong! WRONG! Never in recorded history has anything been more wrong! Bah! Kids these days!
Actually I agree with you, but I can’t pass up the chance at a free rant. Feeling better now. 🙂
What’s to fire at, bar the styling opinion, (which is clearly wrong because it’s not the same as mine)? I always thought the early Falcons were good lookers, & US sales might suggest many others did too. The ’63-ish Valiant was too similar to a ’63-ish Vauxhall Cresta, dead-ringers in fact, and neither of them a standout. As for Chevy II, well, there I agree; seeing that the name implies an update, imagine the blandness of a Chevy I. So bland, it was actually invisible. Otherwise, yes, in the Val, solidity, driveline, performance, interior jazz, all markedly superior. Long term toughnesss, too. Finally, handling; in Aus, with dirt road use then a common thing, Valiants were really greatly superior to the local GM Holdens, which had subframes and bushings for rough-road shock absorbtion, which in turn promoted a fairly dire mushiness. The harsher feel from the torsion bars in Vals on dirt roads led many to think, erroneously, that their cars (which out-handled the competition on blacktop) would fall apart on dirt, but Chrysler had been building unibodies for longer than others, and they proved very tough. One caveat; in right-hand drive, they did sometimes crack in the area where the steering box bolted on, which oddly enough, is not nearly as dangerous as it sounds (but did have to be fixed). Ford took years here to get the Falcon front end not to give trouble under harsh use, and the fairly basic strut-type design never handled or steered well without considerable modification.
The problem with the 63 Valiant front on the Dart body is that the Plymouth front fenders look too short in profile with the extended trunk of the Dart.
Base Valiant grilles look bare without the “V” in a chrome circle as used on the Signet.
I have always loved the grille on the 63 Dart and dislike what Dodge did with the 64. There was really no reason to change it. Much like how I prefer the 65 over the 66: it’s the details that make the 63 and 65.
First time I saw a Canadian Valiant convertible in LA, I wigged. WTF was that ?
Is it just me, or does the 63 Dart front, look like the Chrysler turbine car?
From 1963 until the last 1976 model I liked the Dart’s styling better than the Valiant’s.
There’s someone in Santa Rosa, California with a 1964-66 Barracuda with a ’64 Dart front end.
Side view
That is* Slant-6 oracle Doug Dutra’s Dacuda, a ’66 Barracuda with a ’64 Dart front end. Here’s a clearer pic:
*…or was. Most of his cars were lost to wildfires a few years back.
Chrysler valiant
Yup, a ’65 Signet, painted the same colour as mine.
Someone over here has one of those 2 door Canadian? bodies with the Australian VE front sheet metal a real Frankencar he had that and another 4 door hes converting to 2 door at a show, the one that runs and drives is set up gasser style ironically or not its his wifes car the part built one is his
This was just a precursor to what Chrysler did with the US Darts and Valiants in the 1970’s.
Mixed and matched Dodge and Valiant front clips on Dart and Duster bodies.
Valiant front clip on a Dart Swinger body to create the Scamp.
Dart front clip on a Duster body to create the Dart Demon/ Dart Sport.
Valiant front clip onto a Dart 4 door Sedan body from 1974-76 to eliminate the original Valiant 4 door Sedan body after ’73.