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.
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.
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…
Yes although the guys of IndieAuto also compared the 1970-71 Barracuda with the Australian Charger.
https://www.indieauto.org/2023/09/29/1970-plymouth-barracuda-should-have-been-like-an-australian-valiant-charger/
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.
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.