Every time the subject of the 1967-1969 Barracuda hardtop coupe comes up, invariably there will be comments about how excessively long its tail is. And how it was undoubtedly a copy of the 1965 Corvair’s very long tail. Is it really? Have we forgotten that all Chrysler Corp. sport coupes had short roofs and long tails? And was the Corvair’s tail really all that long?
Let’s take a ruler to these tails others and see just how long (or not) the Barracuda and Corvair’s tails really are.
I measured what the percentages of total lengths these Mopar coupes’ tails were, from the center of the rear axle line (lower number) and where the roof ends on the upper rear deck line (upper number).
The results are above. As is quite clear from looking at them as well as the numbers, the Barracuda had the shortest tail of all of them as expressed in percentages.
As to the Corvair:
The ’65 Corvair’s tail is shorter as a percentage of overall length (23%) as measured from the rear axle line than any of the Mopars, Barracuda included. In fact, it’s just not very long at all. Even measured from where the backlight meets the rear deck (22%) its tail is shorter than all of the Mopar coupes shown except the Barracuda and the Satellite/Road Runner.
I decided to measure their front ends too, and came up with these numbers, also measuring from the front axle center line and the base of the windshield. What it shows is that the Barracuda’s nose is significantly longer than its tail.
As to the Barracuda’s styling being influenced by the Corvair, well, Chrysler was clearly moving towards more curvaceous lines as seen on all the full-size ’65 GM cars as well the Corvair. Although the Brracuda’s roof line shows certain similarities to the Corvair’s, the predominant stylistic theme of the C pillar tapering towards the bottom (inverted trapezoid) had been used by Chrysler across the line, and it actually isn’t all that similar to the Corvair’s very thin C pillar.
I strongly suspect that Chrysler had already made some significant styling decisions on the ’67 Barracuda before the Corvair arrived, undoubtedly influenced by (widely disseminated) intelligence that GM was going to adopt curvaceous themes in ’65 across the lines. The Barracuda coupe can rightly be seen as an evolutionary development of prior Mopar coupes within this new direction.
Another comparison shows just how not-long the Covair’s tail was. The ’61 Impala, almost universally praised for its styling, had a much longer tail in percentage of body length. yet I’ve never heard anyone point out what an excessively long tail it has—well, maybe except me, about all full size cars back then.
I didn’t compare the Corvair’s tail to other conventional front engine coupes of the time, full-size and smaller, but I’m pretty convinced that the key number, the percentage of body length from the rear axle line to the rear (lower number) will be less. It’s just not a long tail.As to the roof line (upper number) that’s really a factor of styling; obviously the faster the roof line is, the smaller the percentage will be. But that does not determine the actual length of rear overhang.
I decided to compare the ’67 Camaro and Mustang to the Barracuda. Yes, its hood is shorter and tail longer than those two, as a consequence of it sharing the Valiant’s key body hardpoints. That was of course the big difference from the Mustang and Camaro, which had unique new bodies, with a rear-set passenger cabin. The Barracuda’s 19% on the rear deck looks longer due to its very sloping roof line, unlike the Mustang’s steep back light.
My point here is not to discredit anyone’s subjective opinions about the Barracuda’s tail length; in direct comparison to the Camaro and Mustang, it clearly is. But it is relatively short compared to various other Chrysler Corp. sporty coupes. And objectively speaking, the ’65 Corvair’s tail is not really long at all.
Looks can be deceiving.
Yep…..its sloping window adds to the illusion of a longer tail.
YES! You put into words what I said so ineloquently yesterday.
Look at the triple stack of photos of Mustang, Camaro, Barracuda. Notice how the trailing edge of the roof (above the rear window) falls within the rear wheelwell on the Camaro and Mustang, but forward of the rear wheelwell on the Barracuda. I think that’s what makes it more jarring to me.
That’s what makes the Corvair tail look long to me – it’s how the rear wheels are positioned several inches rearward of where they’d need to be to clear the rear seatback – more so than any other car shown here – and is exacerbated by the slope of the rear and rear side windows that start just after of the front side doors. (In the Barracuda, the top of the side windows start its downward slope even before reaching the rear side window, which is what makes the ‘Cuda deck lid look long for me). Both of these cars inevitably get compared to the Mustang and the pony cars that followed, whose long-hood/short trunk proportions further make the 2nd-gen Corvair and Barracuda shapes look out of step with late-’60s fashions.
This is all true. The key thing to the (in my eyes) slightly awkward looks of the Corvair comes from noting the point at which the rear window starts in comparison to the rear wheel’s centreline. On every other car shown, if you draw a rough line from the very top of the backlight to the wheelarch, it crosses more at less at the start (or front) of the wheelarch: on the Corvair, it’s forward by a comparative mile.
Add to that joe Denis’ point below about the Corvair doors seeming to be short and the problem is made manifest.
Wow, that is getting pretty anal about dimensions. I, personally, never paid attention to that on a Corvair or Barracuda. To be honest I really don’t pay attention to dimensions on cars to begin with. I look at a car and my brain processes what I see. The car either looks right or it doesn’t just like tasting food when cooking. Those two cars look right. As to a car that looks very wrong from the side that would be the two door Fuselage cars from Chrysler. Ugh, I’ll take a 4 door every day of the week.
Normally, I prefer two-door cars to four-doors, but you’re right, the Fuselage cars looked much better in four-door form. I’d say that about their predecessors too, say a ’67 Polara for example.
And I’ll take a four-door Corvair of this era any time over that coupe! It’s amongsrt the world’s best ever 4-doors, I’m sure.
You hit the nail on the head with this, Paul… “Looks can be deceiving.” – It’s all a matter of perspective.
Of course the proportions are different between the Barracuda and Corvair vs. the Camaro and Mustang. The short deck, long hood thing has been with us for a long time now. Even other types of cars (not just the ponies) sport this look in more modern times.
Let’s just compare Barracuda with Barracuda? A ’71 Cuda is proportioned more like the Mustang than its predecessor.
See the pic below of a ’73 LTD like my first car. Even a behemoth like that started to have those kinds of proportions… Long hood and (relatively) short deck…
I think the Corvair’s and Barracuda’s lesser distance between the rear side and rear windows plus the noticeably longer body side length between their door and rear wheel cutouts both combine to accentuate the length of their tails.
What matters to me is how it’s all put together, and the Corvair gets my vote for its timeless styling.
I think others (including StuartH, above) have nailed it with the sloping rear window adding to the illusion of extra rear length for both cars. With the Corvair, this is accentuated by what appears to be a relatively short door length and a lot of space between the trailing edge of the door and the rear wheel well.
+1
I think it is about what the eye sees and perceives in comparison with the prevailing style. Nobody was doing long hood/short deck in 1961, so the Impala looks right. A badly done short deck- like on the Cadillac Park Avenue looked wrong.
The Mustang changed everything. It and the Camaro looked right in 1967, but the Barracuda did not. And neither did the Corvair. That’s not to say that these unusually proportioned cars didn’t have their fans, but they were not offering “the look” that was hot at the time. I don’t think the visual conclusion people draw when they see a Barracuda or a Corvair (vs. a Mustang or Camaro) can be captured by just one or two simple mathematical ratios.
The front and back of the “Corvair” is actually quite balanced. Fav “Barracuda” is the first shape. This one comes in at #2.
Now if I could have a convert; “69” all the way.
Dear me, whatever next? This never happened last I bought a tailored outfit. “Sir, we just need to measure Sir’s proportion of ass to your head.”
Oddly enough, I never thought the Barra looked long in the behind, nor resembled the Corvair in any fashion. Contrary to the original road test views, I think it’s a fine looker, but then, it has that understated (perhaps more Euro) simplicity that is often taken for plainness in the US.
I do like the general style of the Barracuda notchback other than the tail end of its roof. Its wrap around, concave rear window is an oddity which IMO interferes with the overall flow of its lines. If only the designers would have thickened the C-pillar towards the rear cutting out the visible sides of the rear window and erasing that , it would have made a world of difference.
Stuart, have another look, the Barracuda is more of a ‘fastback’ – & ironically the sister car Fastback Barracuda variant is more of a ‘flatback’ style – although the rear window in both are convex (it bulged out – it was the Dodge Dart cousin car of the same period which had the concave rear window, a bit like the B-body `69 Plymouth GTX looked, compared to the Charger with its ‘notchback’ window.
The styling oddity of the Barracuda appears to stem from how the ‘C’ pillar starts to slope/thicken before the door shut line, & is at its maximum width at the roof-line, then gets thinner as it slopes down to stay in line-synch with the edge of the rear window, & this affects the angles of its pillarless opening shape, which seems awry/aesthetically awkward looking.
Compared with say, the Mercedes-Benz C124 hardtop of 20 years later, which did get it right – but required an expensive/complex dual-stage side window regulator system – maybe the Barracuda stylists were constrained
by this very issue, & cost/engineering said no…
Its funny because that C pillar style is my favourite part of the design, especially when seen from the front 3/4 view the way it tapers in side view and around to the rear is beautiful to me.
To me anyone can draw a straight pillar which doesn’t change shape depending on which angle you look at it from.
But then I love a coupe with a short looking roof, and this ticks all my boxes on that score.
When I said that “C pillar design” I meant the Barracuda, of course.
To be sure J-43, the Barracuda does look much better from other angles, (than in that side-on shot), & who knows, maybe the camera lens tends to
distort the view – which looking at a car in person – would really give?
In any case, at least it was a pillarless hardtop coupe, not a cheapo ‘post’ type like say, Chevy did to the Nova.
I do wonder why some cars (Subaru/Tesla) have frameless windows in the doors, but are not pillarless 4drs, or why cars like BMW coupes are not pillarless either – except for the convertibles?
The frameless door glass makes the roof look lighter/airier, and it’s sometimes part of an effort to create a “pillared hardtop” look, which was very big in Japan for many years: concealed B-pillar, frameless side glass, a lower or curvier roofline.
No, this is not a fastback, no more than the ’63 1/2 Ford 2dr. hardtops which opened people’s eyes to that term when put on a full-size domestic car.
So- not a fastback and why? Probably because the designers were likely instructed to ensure the rear seat passengers would need the roof to be high enough to ensure adequate headroom. So, they came up with a compromise design which they hoped would ensure rear seat headroom. Take notice how the angle of the rear window bends upward at the top. The rear window cutout emphasizes this.
They could have come up with a roof line that would have worked better had they extended what they had back a couple of inches and come up with a rear window not seen from side view.
It is not the Barracuda fastback, no – but the slope of the rear window def’ isn’t ‘notchback’ like the Mustang, it is much closer in angle to the other `60s fastbacks – such as the Ford Galaxy, (& ironically the `71-73 ‘flatback’
Mustang fastback is more like the Barracuda fastback).
The concave rear window of the Dodge Dart hardtop – avoids that ‘bulged’ side view look, although for aero-dynamics/wind noise, convex curves are better – see any current Toyota Camry rear window for example.
The wheels and the redline tires on the Barracuda repeatedly shown here, look exactly like those of the early Hot Wheels.
Typical 2020s sedan profile, showing almost total reversal from the double-beam U.S. car profile of the 1960s and early 1970s:
Much longer greenhouse on cars such as 2018 to present Honda Accord.
One styling cue (when looking at the side) of the Barracuda coupe that makes the trunk length appear longer is the taillamp segment that almost cantilevers over the back bumper. It seems to add some extra visual length. If the taillight section had been moved into a point to where the bumper wasn’t directly underneath, it would have helped the trunk area look not quite as long.
I always thought a version of the 1964/65 B-body 2-door hardtop rear glass would have helped the rear window design, too. It would have given the coupe version of a more unique design.
Sure, it is fun to ponder “What if they did this?”, I could understand some of the compromises needed for production (what was once 1 body style changed to 3 for the second generation) and Plymouth inevitably had to reign production costs in.
I actually have learned to like the 1967-1969 coupe body style. The more I’ve looked at them in person, the more I like what actually was produced. Patrick Bedard, C&D scribe, once described the hardtop coupe styling motif at Chrysler during this era as “Pimple Tops”….I disagree.
I’m not claiming this started the trend, but in the early 50s Pontiac grafted some extra rear length to the Chevy platform and they continued with that for years
I was supposed to by 1967 formula s coupe from a friend of my older brothers. 4 speed 383 I belive black and black interior. We’ll as it would happen daves car got rear-ended on rt 23 wayne nj. A total . I ended up buying 1968 chevelle coupe .4 speed bench seat real sleeper had 307 worked .solid lift cam edelbrock hirise holly 650 posi rear. For $1300.00 in Feb 1971 .I miss my first car.could of had real barracuda hot rod .oh well in my next life
Ridiculous comparison. Corvair is full unibody, rear engine design that wasn’t based on a shared platform and was engineered in the late 50’s.
My first car was a ’67 coup. It was also offered as a fastback. Nice car to drive and work on.
I believe the corvair’s proportions were easily fixed with a little bit of fiberglass. As this Fitch Sprint shows.
Absolutely so, and the fact that Fitch offered it surely means the coupe roof was a bit bothersome to others even at the time.
Plymouth was locked into the long tail because of the leaf spring A body chassis.
The Barracuda fastback and the Duster disguise the unfashionable overhang better. The Duster particularly does a good job of aping the Nova coupe’s sporty short tail while actually having the longer overhang of the utterly unsexy 1967 Valiant.
The alternative was used on the 1970 Barracuda and the Studebaker Avanti to create an actual short tail. The chassis stops at the rear spring shackle; the spring is hidden by a “bumper guard” and a lower body panel.
The Mopar leaf spring system (axle mounted forward of 1/2 way for anti-squat/no tramping), was also fitted to the 105″ wheelbase Aussie Charger, an A-body itself, the spring set was slightly shortened to match the reduced wheelbase.
Similar look to the Barracuda fastback in side view, but a notably ‘stubby/duck’s
arse’ built in rear spoiler & ‘flying buttress’ pillars extending past a ‘notchback’ type rear window. In fact it was so short, it didn’t have space for a ‘parcel tray’ under its back glass, & had a hatch-type ‘deck lid’ which was a inconvenient for access.
It was one of a pair of local ‘fuselage design-cue’ A-body coupes at the (`71)
time, the alternative appeared stretched out by comparison with a long tail, &
buyers much preferred the short option (same doors, both pillarless coupes).
The Corvair looks like it doesn’t know whether it’s coming or going.
Although it’s strange setup can make for some interesting hot rodding. My mechanics teacher, ( MANY years ago) had a Corvair with a 500 ci Caddy motor mounted in the back, behind the driver seat. I never did see it actually drive, but it sure looked cool. Engine, tranny, rear end. No room there for a driveshaft! Hahah. Still. An odd looking vehicle!
Likely Rob, an ex-front wheel drive Caddy with automatic ‘sidewinder’ drive, (& the steering functions of the drive axles deleted) – then it was technically ‘mid-mounted’,
perhaps – rather than fully set in the back behind the rear axle, (trunk mounted) like the OG Corvair flat six, so yeah, maybe – ‘it didn’t need no stinkin’ driveshaft’?