I only followed stock car racing somewhat peripherally back when it was a lot more interesting. But in the summer of 1965, I became very aware of the fact that a certain David Pearson was tearing up the classic short dirt tracks in a 1965 Dodge Coronet and virtually unbeatable. The combination of the make and model of his steed being the same as our family chariot, and the glowing praise heaped on him by the writers that followed the NASCAR season sucked me in. I was suddenly a David Pearson fan. And in my intermittent following of NASCAR in subsequent years, whenever I happened to catch him in action, I was rarely let down.
He even took that Coronet up to Pikes Peak, where he looks like he’s having fun, as usual. Pearson, who just passed away at 83, was always cool and collected, and typically bided his time to make his move. But when he did, it was almost invariably successful. That’s why he was named The Silver Fox. Pearson was second behind Richard Petty with 105 wins to Petty’s 200, but Pearson had a higher winning average. Here’s a video below of one of his most memorable wins over Petty, at the 1974 Firecracker 400, the result of an incredibly bold gamble when he was already solidly in the lead, to back off and give it to Petty. Temporarily.
At 1:10, Pearson clearly backs off to let Petty, who was drafting him, go flying by, and Petty soon has a five car-length lead on Pearson in the back stretch. But Pearson closes the gap, then drafts Petty briefly, just long enough to get a “slingshot”, and squeezes by Petty on the homestretch by a mere 25 feet. Totally outrageous.
He actually drove several different ’65 Coronets that season, including this one set up specifically for short tracks. But it was easy enough to change the front clip. The older cars were specifically set up for dirt tracks, and the new cars for the high speed tracks.
Pearson was so calm and composed during his epic drives that he sometimes had a cigarette lighter on his dash and was known to light up for a couple of puffs on the back stretch while driving one-handed.
“The Best Stock Car Driver Ever”? Here’s what Petty had to say:
“David Pearson could beat you on dirt, he could beat you on pavement, he could beat you on a road course, he could beat you on a short track or he could beat you on a superspeedway,” Petty told Sports Illustrated in 1998. “I never felt as bad losing to David as I did some of the others because I knew just how good he was.”
Pearson outdueled Petty 33 to 30, in the races where they finished 1-2.
David Pearson was known as the silver fox because his hair turned gray at an early age. You can just tell this in the last photo above; Pearson is climbing out of what appears to be an early seventies Ford or Mercury. For whatever reasons Pearson chose not to compete in every NASCAR sanctioned race (as many as 55-60 per year through the sixties); if he had done so I feel confident that he and not Richard Petty would be the all time wins leader. May he RIP.
“Pearson had a higher winning average.”
“Pearson outdueled Petty 33 to 30, in the races where they finished 1-2.”
Pearson also won three NASCAR championships despite the fact that he rarely raced a full season. Based on all these factors, you can make the argument David was a better driver than Petty.
However, they approached NASCAR from opposite ends of the spectrum- Pearson and his team mostly ran in the the big money races, while Richard worked every week to collect points toward the championship. If David had joined in on this weekly grind, it’s quite possible his numbers would have suffered, giving Petty the edge.
Of course we’ll never know, but it’s interesting to look back at a more colorful time when NASCAR drivers could write their name in the history books using two opposite approaches. Contrast that to today, where race commentators discuss how a mid-race fuel stop will impact the driver’s overall point standings.
Excluding races after their last race wins when they were old men, Richard actually has a higher win percentage than David. From 1985 to 1992, Richard was 0 for 231. Both Richard and David ran plenty of races in the 60s; David was in most of those 60s short track races that Richard won. David ran almost every race from 63 to 69; like Richard, David missed a lot of the 65 season because of the Chrysler walkout. David also missed some of the 67 season after he quit Cotton Owens.
If you throw out the short tracks on the basis that David didn’t run them in the 70s, Richard still has more wins than David (or anyone else).
David definitely was points racing in his championship era. He was hired by Holman Moody to win the championship for Ford. He won very few races on tracks of a mile or longer in the 60s (the tracks he became famous for winning in the 70s). Typically, over half of the Grand National circuit was dirt tracks and short paved ovals of a half mile or less. Most of the big names didn’t run the full series; most of the championship top ten were journeymen just trying to make laps and make a living. David probably had the talent to win more championships (although he would have needed a competitive car–the Wood Brothers didn’t want to run for the championship and the auto factories weren’t paying the freight in the 70s like the 60s), but he wasn’t interested if it didn’t pay.
I remember the name from the 60s-70s years when I was most interested in NASCAR, when the cars were much more “stock bodied,” and Pearson coming over to Ford/Mercury.
I see Henry Ford Museum has lengthy interview videos with Mario Andretti, including a DP remembrance:
Yes, NASCAR was really interesting to me back when I could identify with the different cars being raced as well as just the drivers.
I was in grade school at the peak of NASCAR in the 1960s and somehow I decided to become a Petty fan. I think I liked the bright blue Plymouths. But I remember that Pearson was always right in the mix. I had forgotten that he moved from Dodge to Ford/Mercury, but your clip reminds me of that ugly Montego he raced in the 70s.
He gave Mercury a ‘Performance Image’, along with the 60’s Cougar and Cyclone cars. And stuck with the brand even when the Cougar was a PL Coupe.
And, cool to see the clip above with nearly stock bodies racing.
Here is link to pic of David Pearson’s 1976 Cougar NASCAR stocker:
http://image.stockcarracing.com/f/thehistoryof/ctrs_1000_david_pearson/29712455/ctrs_1000_02%2Bdavid_pearson.jpg
Even has opera windows!
….
The 63 Dodge wouldn’t lend itself to easy conversion to the 65 Coronet shown in the posed picture. As part of the panicked response to the plucked chickens flopping, the 63 B-body Dodge received a wheelbase and rear body stretch to a nominal 119 inches (exc wagons). For 65, the Dodge B-body was remarketed as an intermediate class car and went back to the Plymouth B-body size, tho the Dodges were a nominal 117 inch wheelbase. The boxy roof shown in the posed 1965 picture with David and Cotton was introduced for 1963 and continued (exc two-door hardtops) through 1965. The 1965 picture shows the correct low cowl for that year instead of the 1963 speedboat windshield.
As a Chrysler factory team, Owens received new cars each year from Nichels Engineering, Chrysler’s stock car racing contractor.
You raise a great point. Looking at some pictures I would have to guess that this is a 65 Coronet 2 door sedan with the pillar and window frames cut out. The roof is right for that body, and the rear fender has to be a 65 too.
Another idea is that this was a 64 Dodge hardtop and someone welded front and rear sheetmetal from a 65 onto it. Oops, the 64 and 65 used the same hardtop, so that can’t be it.
Pictures of Dodges at Nascar all showed the hardtop being used in 65, or other cars that are clearly 2 door sedans. This one is an oddball. Final answer: 2 door sedan sans pillars (which would not be needed with all of the structural stiffening the car probably got).
You’re right about the ’63; I meant to say ’64, as there are several pictures of ’64s, with both the sedan-style roof (like this one) and the hardtop style roof. There were always several versions of these cars, because the ones set up for short dirt tracks were completely different cars than the ones used on the high speed tracks.
I remember reading an article way back then that pointed out that the (or one of several) ’65 Coronet Pearson used for dirt tracks that year was just an older car with a ’65 clip and other modifications for that purpose.
The wheelbase would likely not have been an issue on the dirt tracks.
The new cars were the ones used for the high speed tracks.
And here’s a ’64 hardtop.
My impression was that these cars recycled and chopped up repeatedly. Every picture you look at of them there appear to be various (sometime subtle) differences.
Here’s a “65” with that older roof, but as a hardtop.
Having said all of that and done a bit more research, it appears that there was a genuine ’65 Coronet 2 door sedan that was set up for short tracks that year, and sold to James Hylton at the end of the season. he raced it very successfully in’66, and for ’67 replaced the roof with a proper hardtop roof.
The point being: swapping out roofs was not uncommon.
Loved the 60’s NASCAR races! Cars you could identify at a distance rather than the nameless blobs running now. 4 doors made into 2 doors, painted on grills and lights, pickup trucks…what is the world coming to?
Sure would be great if NASCAR would return to using “real” stock cars. I could get excited watching a front drive Malibu taking on a field consisting of a Fusion, Camry, Sonata, Accord, and anything else similar. Or a race series featuring any combination of competitive vehicles. Strip them down and outfit them for safety, beef up the powertrains, platforms, and tires; but require a stock body shell and wheel drive.
Why not?
I agree with you about the real cars but the cars they run today a certainly much safer. It’s hard to identify with a brand when they are all cookie cutter cars. I lost interest in NASCAR in the late 80’s.
Hi Don, not to disparage your comment, but really, if one is so concerned about safety, then racing would be outlawed entirely. Yes, these new NASCAR units are safer at 200 MPH than a “stock” car, but then, a stock Malibu, Fusion, or Camry with FWD and a turbo 4 or injected 6 would never hit that speed, would it? Racing is not about raw top speed, except drag racing.
And if one is a purist, race Mustangs, Camaros, and Challengers, along with the upcoming Supra, with RWD and V8s that one can buy at a dealer near you. NASCAR was built on the idea of having cars that one could buy on the showroom and then race against 30 or so other folks in similar vehicles. Similar, not identical, with stickers to differentiate. Ford, GM, and Chrysler would build cars that could be used competitively, not have someone fabricate something that shares no parts with a model for sale. Sadly, most series are following the shared spec model and while the racing is safer and easier to govern, it has lost what made it interesting in the first place. We might as well watch go-carts if it all becomes standard. Plus, with majority oval racing in NASCAR, along with spotters, in car radio, and all the off-track assistance, there is not a lot of skill needed by a driver, other than the ability to communicate what the car is doing in relation to the changes dictated by the crew. Nerves of steel, yes. Ability to follow directions, yes. But really, one could replace current drivers with robots and we would not see much difference in the racing. So many things have killed NASCAR as an interesting series, but something as simple as going back to “stock” cars would make it so much more fun to watch.
“Plus, with majority oval racing in NASCAR, along with spotters, in car radio, and all the off-track assistance, there is not a lot of skill needed by a driver”
I disagree, most corners have the cars on a knife-edge of losing control. (the restrictor plate tracks might be an exception where they run full throttle throughout). Perhaps they do a poor job of conveying this in telecasts.
There are a lot of things Nascar could improve with, and some are similar to what V8 Supercars are facing – balancing using real or differentiated cars versus keeping competition even and avoiding a spending war; well as much as possible.
Fundamentally I think that more people still want to watch V8s race instead of smaller fwd cars. The Supercars series (they actually dropped V8 from their name in anticipation of other engines coming on board) has some pretty big decisions to face because 3 manufacturers have pulled out and team sponsorship revenues have to be under threat too.
Obviously the new cars are much safer, but I think part of the justification for the spec car was to equalize the racing. It’s easy to get nostalgic about NASCAR in the ‘60’s, but at some point with aero cheaters, then aero specials like the Superbird and fastback G Bodies, and also restrictor plates, the rules changed frequently to keep the brands evenly matched. Despite that, there were seasons of domination by one brand or another and I don’t think the manufacturers are willing to invest as much to be competitive now. The money comes from TV and big name sponsors these days, not Detroit. Finally (just my opinion) I don’t think the Turbo 4’s would hold up to 500-600 miles of superspeedway racing.
Thanks for posting this, Paul. I hadn’t heard that Pearson passed away. I too went through a brief NASCAR interest in the late ‘60’s … Pearson and Bobby Allison were two favorites, as well as seeing occasional successful forays by my road-racing heroes like Dan Gurney and Mario Andretti.
Good points, but if one is going to have a spec car, then it should either be just one make and model, or a specialized race car that has no real relationship to any manufacturer. F1 has “manufacturers”, but mostly they are special chassis with a one off drivetrain from one of the moneyed OEMs. Nobody claims the Mercedes F1 engine is similar to the one in your C class. There are spec classes running one model, everything from a Citroen C1 to Ferraris. Those use identical cars to make sure that the driver is the differentiation. When you have several marques in a class, it leads to innovations, some pushing rules, but those often make their way to cars one can actually purchase and drive on the street. Even homologation specials make it out of dealer doors. If NASCAR wants to run a spec car, then really, why would OEMs try to make something that may provide a technical advantage that might trickle down to a street car? So why would one care that the car is stickered as a Toyota or Ford or Chevy or Dodge if they really are not at all related?
As it has said to me, when you can find a RWD V8 Camry on a dealer lot, then I will watch NASCAR again. Until then, the SC in NASCAR is fraud.
I don’t want to argue with you or start a flame war but there hasn’t been very much actual “stock car” in NASCAR racers for a long time. The cars have been tube frame, purpose built race cars since at least the early seventies. Even before that, when they were still using actual modified street cars, there were plenty of “special” parts that were not available to customers off the street. You are correct when you say that NASCAR uses essentially spec racers with little to choose among the various brands. That is by design, NASCAR doesn’t really care which brand wins (as long as one brand doesn’t win too much); they want the races to be close and be decided by the drivers (and their crews). As is almost always the case it boils down to money; as long as enough corporations are willing to write the sponsorship checks the current system will remain in place. When/if teams have trouble finding money and/or revenues drop drastically, then there will be changes made.
No worries, no offense implied or taken.
You are correct, ever since the Hudsons got to use different rear ends in the mid-fifties, there has been non-stock gear on them. The tube frame cars of the 70s were really purpose built racers, but were forced to use a body in white from the factory and engines were ones you could theoretically order in your car at your local dealer. What we have today is now all fabricated in shops, not on the factory floor. There is nothing similar on the racing Mustang as on the street version, but they kind of look similar. That means there is no “stock” left in Stock Car racing. If that is the case, why call the series the National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing? IMSA and SCCA are sports cars. No issue with their name. And they run all sorts of cars, from factory stock to prototype fully race prepared specialty vehicles.
As to the money issue, it already has impacted the series, and will only be getting worse. There are often fields only filled with start and park teams, and fewer and fewer teams even try to compete. Sponsors are walking away in spades. The next time a contract for broadcast comes up in 2022, see who lines up to pay. Unless they get their act together, I can see it all going downhill rather quickly. It’s a shame, it was all such good fun back in the day.
Late to the game, but here’s the Craigslist/CC effect: https://charlotte.craigslist.org/cto/d/1973-mercury-montego-21-david/6735071118.html