CC reader David Macauley suggested that we compare a couple of recent Chrysler products with certain sixties Ramblers, because he’s seeing a decided pattern: the slopeback roof of these wagons, as well as a certain similarity in sedans too:
In his words: “On the sedans, I was thinking of the thickness, being the distance or height of the rear fender , how they both rise up noticeably, kinda like the fin area on the Rambler above the rear wheel opening.”
I’m seeing it, to some degree or another. Are you? There’s even a bit of two-tone red in that Charger. In any case, it makes for an interesting comparison on the evolution of the American rwd wagons and sedans over a half-century. Got wheels?
Can someone photo-graft some two-toned fins on the back of that Charger sedan? Now that would be cool (images of the Batmobile running through my head)!
Of course Dodge is the new Rambler, Chrysler bought them, didn’t they?
The American-badged Fiats would be great as a Rambler brand. The new Dart should just be called “Rambler” – it fits, in my opinion.
Both are butt-ugly. That’s the only similarity I see.
THIS is the spiritual successor to the Rambler:
Hah! Good one.
yep!
Renault kept the reverse C pillar “copyright”, when they sold AMC, and gave it to Nissan, allegedly.
And then Nissan proceeded to apply it in the most egregious fashion possible.
See: Nissan Armada
Infiniti QX56 (same truck + bling)
Nissan Versa hatchback (particularly hideous in my opinion)
Also, I like the looks of the Magnum. I wish they had kept it in the line. I’d be curious to see what it would have looked like with the latest update. I know it isn’t particularly useful as a wagon, but I prefer it to the ugliness of the 4 door “Charger.” Absolutely agree that they should have called it Polara (note my avatar).
I’ve seen pics of French cars that had the same type of roof, probably Renaults. I think it’s ugly.
I also agree that Chrysler should’ve kept the Magnum in the Dodge line-up. Of all the LX cars it’s the one I would be most likely to buy. They could’ve merged the Charger and Magnum into one model name with identical interior and front-end styling, offered as sedan or wagon. Thus, they could’ve continued to offer wagon yet amortize the costs of the many common parts between the sedan and wagon versions.
Holy cow, you nailed that one! Bravo!
Yes! I hadn’t had time this week to log in and comment, but you’ve channelled my exact thoughts re the rambler wagon and Armada. Glad I’m not the only person to think that. I’ve thought Nissan was channelling the Rambler wagons since the Armada was released, and love the styling of both.
Not really. The slopeback roof is for aero reasons, to give the car the classic suppository shape, so that it can slide easily into the air’s ar’se. The rear fender treatment is a Ghia mark, used in the Chrysler Ghia specials, and even the Karmann Ghia.
Well sorry, I’m not seeing any resemblance, but I will agree that the comparison of styling cues is interesting. Fins versus spoilers. Creased metal versus a carved bar of soap. A return to the Conestoga era in regards to wheel size in the later models. Splashes of chrome on every body attachment versus no chrome anywhere, except it’s perfectly OK to chrome the wheels. Inexplicably reversed C-pillars versus, er, unreversed C-pillars. Unprotected flanks that one apparently could bash things into all day long without harm versus rub strips that still seem to miss catching the errant doors of 4x4s.
Oh, and this is where I whine that there’s no such thing as a four-door Charger. That black thing would be a Polara, if there was justice in this world.
We could also wonder about other cars who was separated at birth: 1967-68 Chrysler C-body (Newport/300/NewYorker/Polara/Monaco/Fury/VIP) hardtop coupe and the 1970 AMC Rebel/1970-73 Ambassador/1971-73 Matador coupes.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/37573576@N06/5841022448/
If you’re only talking about the roofline with the large triangular C-pillar, then I see your point. Otherwise, most of those cars don’t look that much alike with those outside of their respective brands. (eg: Dodge Polara/Monaco look quite different from a Plymouth Fury/VIP.)
On a more general point, you’re comparing cars from the same era. All the car companies steal design cues from each other if consumers seemed to like them. This comparo is trying to look for similarities between cars made 40 years apart. I have to admit that I don’t see much similarity between the old Ramblers and the new Dodges myself.
Yes, mainly the roofline with the triangular C-pillar. Interesting to note then Plymouth also sold the former hardtop coupe with the “Fast-top” coupe for the Fury III and Sport Fury.
http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/new/171110/1967%20Plymouth%20Fury/dirindex.html
And I agree with you, I don’t see any common points between that Rambler and that Dodge.
I’ll never get over why Chrysler went with the hearse look on that wagon.
One reason wagons don’t sell in the US, people associate them with hearses.
I see a little more AMC Hornet “Sportabout” in the Magnum than Rambler.
Sharp eye David. Definitely a similarity in the slope roofs of the wagons, and in the neo-fins on the charger.
I’ve always heard that AMC built their wagon that way so they could use the sedan stampings as much as possible.
Is it just be or would the Charger look better with smaller wheels? Just an inch or two in diameter, smaller.
I always saw a lot of my dad’s old 74 Coronet Wagon in the Magnum Wagon.
The Rambler wagon’s styling is so cheerful, like a friendly puppy. That’s the opposite impression as the mobbed-up, couped-up Chrysler.
BTW, the correct spelling is “Hippie.” Hippy is what they become when they put too much sugar in the granola for too long.
Well, that’s how we mean it: big hips.