If yesterday’s Duster post showed a cheerful side of ’70s American autodom, this ’76 Fury coupe shows the less savory reality facing Plymouth. Unlike the dramatic 1958 model featured in Stephen King’s Christine, there was nothing overtly menacing about the 1975-1978 Fury coupe.
Luxury was in, but against cars like the Chevy Monte Carlo, Chevelle Laguna and Ford Elite, the Fury didn’t put enough glamor on display. The Chrysler Cordoba, which shared the Fury coupe’s basic body, managed to cater to the personal luxury audience effectively, but the Fury was the most basic mid-sized two-door out there, except for maybe the Matador coupe. The car’s primary selling point was price and warranty coverage, along with extra incentives. Even from the beginning of the B-body’s 1971 redesign, many four-doors wound up being sold for police and fleet duty, while the rather unadorned aesthetic did little to attract private buyers to the Satellite coupe as the muscle car era waned. Thus, with some extra lipstick did the new Fury coupe replace the Satellite for 1975, even though the car was much the same underneath.
That meant increasingly softened suspension, negating any real handling advantage the car was once known for–at least versus the improved cars from GM, along with a wide variety of de-smogged engines. The good news was that, even with the Road Runner gone, a 400 CID V8 with dual exhausts and four-barrel carb was available, with about 230 horsepower, but it’s unlikely many Fury buyers sprang for that option, especially after 1973-1974.
Chrysler was, by now, entering some of its worst years, before securing loans in 1980. The bigger cars were not selling and the A-bodies were about to be replaced by disastrously underdeveloped new cars. This ad is a good example of what Chrysler was (not) selling while their ship was sinking. Do you think models like the Fury deserved to fail?
People tend to pile on against any ’70s Mopar B-body, but this was actually a pretty clean design. The back windows may even still roll down. It’s unfortunate that Chyrsler couldn’t afford to give the sedan rear end the same update. The sedan may win the prize for ugliest booty of the ’70s.
I’m not sure why you have a photo of the ’76 Gran Fury coupe in here. The Gran was the C body and shares little but general styling themes with the B coupe. I always thought the Gran looked pretty sorry with the single headlights and that rear quarter vinyl window treatment. It felt like they were sabotaging the Gran, as if they didn’t have enough trouble. They should have left the Gran with the look of the B as it was introduced in ’74.
It was a mistake; fixed now. Perry wasn’t even born then, so we’ll cut him some slack in mistaking the Gran Fury for a Fury. Blame it on Chrysler, for using the name on two different size cars.
And quite similar styling. It was clean in some iterations, but too safe and generic in hindsight. The single headlights work a lot better on the B coupe.
This is more confusing than the 2 Lincoln Mk IIIs in 2 different decades!
My hunch is that most people didn’t recall much about the late ’50s Mark III’s, and Lee Iacocca made a pretty good bet on tying the ’69 Mark III with the Mark II and original Continental as they were all similar in concept. Lee took a mulligan and it worked.
Moving full-size names to mid-size platforms was a cheap way for Ford and Chrysler to try and match GM’s coming down-sized cars. As with most cheap solutions, it wasn’t very effective.
Slightly off topic but I just wanted to state what a breath of fresh air Perry has been. His contributions are unusual in displaying the intellectual interest in historical context that’s so lacking in most writers under 30 (dare I say, even under 40). All that is much more important than any specific mistakes!
+100
+1
+1000! I feel very lucky that Perry showed up when he did, especially as I’m really tied up with other work right now.
I agree! Perry has been doing a bang up job around here, with some good finds and interesting reads. That is NOT to take anything away from Paul.
I couldn’t agree more on both points. Perry is Sir Lancelot; Paul is King Arthur. Photographically speaking, both are hi-res guys in a mostly low-res world.
Embarrassing. I know the difference, FYI, but I am not familiar enough with the cars for the difference to jump out at me when I made the mistake.
Luckily for me (and probably the reason that happened), there’s so much about the two which is similar, in terms of looks, their engineering and performance in the marketplace. You wouldn’t make that mistake with a Malibu and Caprice.
Without the vinyl top issue, the side profiles of the two cars are pretty similar, I was surprised to the extent when I saw it.
Its interesting that in mid sized cars, Ford’s styling featured huge C pillars and very small rear quarter windows while the more basic Colonnade Malibus featured very thin pillars and large rear quarter windows. Plymouth tried to split the difference between the two competing looks and only succeeded in making the unadorned car look fairly dumpy. This is one of the few cars out there that looked better with more gingerbread rather than less. These cars in strippo versions with blackwalls and dog dishes looked really pathetic.
When designing a car, there is a tradeoff between interesting design and effective space utilization.
This car somehow has neither.
Mid ’70s Chrysler cars were truly awful; I remember the disconcerting sound they made when the driver cranked the starter. Seats were uncomfortable and the dash and radio buttons were flimsy/fragile.
I worked at Hertz in this time period. Fords and GMs were owned cars; AMCs and Chryslers were leased. I don’t know how Hertz would have ever sold these things as used cars; they were horrible. The post rental Ford and GM cars sold well and quickly – Granadas, Monarchs, LTDs, Torinos, Cutlasses, Grand Prixs and Impalas. The Chryslers were neither reliable nor durable; they were kept for six months or so then they became Chrysler’s problem.
I do not remember any Plymouth coupes like this Fury though Hertz did have plenty of both the Cordoba and whatever the Dodge was called (happy that I forgot the name – maybe Magnum?).
– constellation –
Disconcerting starter sound? That’s the famed Highland Park Hummingbird! I have fond memories of that distinctive reduction gear whine. I had two grandparents who drove Chrysler products in the 70s and 80s. I’m sure I associate that sound with my memories of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starter_(engine)
I respectfully disagree. My employer bought a ’77 Fury Salon with a 318 from Avis, and after 6 years sold it………..to me. For a car from that era, it was one of the most reliable cars I’ve ever owned. The Hondas I had from the same time period couldn’t hold a candle to it for reliability. And the front seat was darned comfortable for my relatively small frame. I seem to remember a Car and Driver road test of a ’75 or ’76 Mopar B body that expressed surprise at how comfortable that seat was.
It wasn’t glamorous, stylish or technologically daring, but that car worked. I miss it.
We got the same ‘orrible grinding noise from the Valiants here in Aus too.
Neighbor across the street had one. Could always tell when he was starting it.
And it was a hard starter too, despite having electronic igntion.
Always knew when he came home too. He’d always rev it & switch it off while it was still doing 2000 odd RPM.
I’ve been watching reruns of Adam 12 on Netflix recently and was delighted to notice that they dubbed the Mopar starter sound perfectly evey time they start a Belvedere or Satellite. Very cool.
Interestingly, I also worked for Hertz in the 70’s as a transporter (job I had a few years while I was in college). Back then, my home location mostly had Fords (I remember lots of LTDII, Grenadas, and Fairmonts) though a few GM, Chrysler, and AMC cars (and a few foreign cars, I got to drive a Datsun and a Toyota at least once). I think the Dodge you were thinking of was indeed a Magnum (if you are talking about the Cordoba era), they were only made a few years (’77-’79 I think) and I also got to drive one (for some reason I remember it being green) and I very much liked it, wish they made it for a few more model years. I don’t remember driving any other B body cars for our location, the most common Chrysler we seemed to have was the Dodge Diplomat…some 2 door and some 4 door models…which for some reason we had more of than Volares or Aspens…thinking back on it, I don’t think we had any Plymouths, but we did have some Chrysler Cordobas.
So I spent more time with different 70’s models than any other period (sometimes I still wish I had that job, you could plan your life away, like a lifeguard had lots of time to think…but it paid less than minimum wage (unless you drove like a demon, we got paid by the trip regardless of how much time it took))
My father rented a black 78 Diplomat sedan for my use one weekend when I was just out of high school due to my own car being in the body shop getting painted. That Diplo was one of the very few cars of its era that could hit 100 mph on the interstate with very little fuss. And I tried quite a few, including my mother’s 74 Luxury LeMans with the 2 bbl 350 that I never could get there despite several attempts. The Diplomat was very lively, and I enjoyed my weekend with it.
On an anecdotal level, it seemed as though a fair number of people I knew who had loyally driven Chrysler Corporation cars began defecting in the mid- and late 1970s. Most of them went to GM – generally Oldsmobile or Buick.
The “fuselage” styling on Chrysler’s full-size and intermediate cars didn’t go over very well at that time. The intermediate sedans, in particular, looked painfully plain. Parked next to a Cutlass Supreme or Gran Torino, it was simply no contest.
The 1971-72 models, in retrospect, are the best looking, not just because they lack the 5-mph bumpers, but also because they are the “purest” expression of the design. Unfortunately, the Coronet and Satellite were out of step with contemporary trends from the moment they debuted. Chrysler therefore spent the rest of the decade trying to make the sedans look more “formal,” and it just didn’t work.
This Fury was Chrysler’s attempt to ape GM’s popular Colonnade styling, just as the 1974 Plymouth Fury and Dodge Monaco were copies of the 1971-72 Buick LeSabre. The large, single headlights and slim, vertical taillights really do look like “GM Lite.”
These pretty much sank without a trace in the mid-1970s, as the action in the intermediate segment had shifted to the personal luxury coupes. Chrysler’s Cordoba was wildly popular, but Plymouth was seriously hurt by its lack of an entry in this segment (the Cordoba, ironically enough, was originally planned to be a Plymouth). Chevrolet had the Monte Carlo and Ford had the Gran Torino Elite and then the “downsized” Thunderbird, but Plymouth only had this car. Plymouth slid down the sales charts after claiming the number-three spot for 1974 on the strength of the Duster and Valiant. This car, unfortunately, was not enough to halt the slide.
I LOVE the reduction gear starter sound. Distinctive to Chrysler cars; the “Hammtramck Whiner.” I recall that Avis back in the day, usually had Mopars. My Dad spent lots of time in 1971-75 running on business trips to New York and Wyoming back to SFO. He was allowed to pick up a local Hertz or Avis rental car locally (in San Rafael), drive it to Wyoming on business or one way to the airport SFO. He usually asked for and got Mopars. My sister and I loved in particular the red ’71 Barracuda he got as a rental (and a yellow ’71 Matador coupe).
Initially the Cordoba twin was the Charger and then it became the Magnum in 1978/79.
When Mom was looking for a new car to replace her ’72 Toronado in 1979, we went to the local Chrysler showroom because she loved the styling of the Cordoba. They had a dark brown one with tan “Corinthian” leather right in the dead center of the showroom. We walked over to it – she said this is the one she wanted – until my father opened the passenger side door and when he did the entire window glass fell into the door itself. Needless to say, we quickly walked away and she bought a new Riviera instead.
This is a tough car to like; the front and rear styling just don’t play well together. Many may disagree, but the overall look of the sedan was more cohesive – not outstanding, just more cohesive than this.
23 mpg highway? I wonder if that is with the slant six and three-speed manual?
http://oldcarbrochures.org/NA/Plymouth/1976-Plymouth/1976-Plymouth-Fury-Brochure/1976-Plymouth-Fury-05
I’d probably disagree on the sedan. The best of the sedans were the original ’71s, and they merged what little difference there was to the Dodge body, probably in ’75. Add Federalized bumpers and Roscoe P. Coltrane’s cruiser was not a pretty car.
Yup the sedan was hodgepodged with 71 and 75 styling elements, the coupe was more or less “fresh”. Having said that though, cohesiveness doesn’t equate attractiveness and the sedan wins for me as well. The coupe is cohesive in the sense that it’s equally awful all the way around, the sedan being saddled with that oh so 1971 coke bottle body and the bumper mounted taillights make it much more attractive in my eyes too, because to me even the worst styling elements of 1971 trump the best styling elements of 1975 and this is no exception. I’ll also argue that the sedans look absolutely perfect in police livery, much like the last Crown Vics.
The ad specifically states a 6-cylinder automatic. That being said, those original EPA highway numbers were very optimistic because the original testing standard called for serious granny driving due to the limits of early-1970s dynos.
They were revised downward by a standard formula in the mid-80s and the test completely redone in 2008 leading to many cars – particularly small cars, manuals, some hybrids and diesels – routinely exceeding their EPA highway numbers without their owners even trying.
Yes, I noticed that later, much to my chagrin.
Thank you for stating the occurrence of standardization in the ’80s; I was not aware of that other than the decline of outlandish mileage estimates. In research for another article is where I discovered the chane in ’08
As I’ve noted before, I owned a ’77 Fury Salon. And yes, on that car, the front and rear styling absolutely clash. The original 1971 sedans – Dodge or Plymouth – look just as unified and futuristic now as they did when they came out when I was in high school. Those fuselage shaped B bodies rocked before barge bumpers and faux Mercedes mugs ruined them. I wish cars looked that appealing today..
I have always considered the “small Fury” coupe a very attractive car. With a proper trim level and in a decent color, it was right for the time. It was certainly no less attractive than an LTDII. I agree with Dave B that Chrysler’s sin was in failing to update the sedans and wagons as well.
These had the same problem that the LTDII coupe had sharing a showroom with the very similar Thunderbird. These always shared showroom space with the Cordoba, and was surely not priced low enough to offset the loss in prestige.
I will also echo Constellation – if you got a good one (an increasingly rare phenomenon by 1975) it could be OK, other than for the cheap sound of the doors and otherwise general feeling of flimsiness. But Chrysler’s quality was at an all time low in the second half of the 1970s. Chrysler had suffered from headwinds in the showroom for 20 years due to quality concerns, but those headwinds reached gale force by the late 70s. Other than some who took a chance on the Cordoba at first, the only buyers in Chrysler-Plymouth showrooms were the die-hards.
The “good old days” when nearly every feature desired [or what is now standard] was extra cost. As the ad states, the $3699 special had 3 on the tree, still, in 1976. And maybe not even an AM radio! And who actaully bought one stripped bare back then? Even fleets were getting away from 3/tree and no, these were not the ‘fun’ manuals enthusiasts love.
Automatic, radio, and A/C added near $2000 to the sticker those days, so most mid size cars were really $5-6K plus.
Regarding Chrysler quality, the Cordoba still sold well, did it have a somewhat better rep? Or, just sold on looks alone? If it weren’t for Ricardo’s favorite ride, Mopar would have went belly up in 1975, long before Lido came in.
Chrysler quality was variable. Product launches were usually pretty bad, starting with the ’74 full size. The fact that most all ’74 cars got hit hard by emissions requirements and drivability problems were rampant didn’t help. Most Mopars seemed to get cleaned up after launch, but not until they managed to P.O. another round of buyers. Chrysler’s best fallback was that they were not as bad as AMC.
The Cordoba was probably their best launch until the Omni/Rizon in ’78. I don’t recall the early versions poisoning the well.
The 1974 and 75 cars also suffered from being built under Lynn Townsend’s final years. In a book written on Chrysler in the early 80s (Going for Broke) the authors reported that every single month brought pressure to maximize volume. Plants were pressured to build all they could get out the door, anything with problems that had been parked to the side for some additional attention got thrown on a truck, and sales managers would rent hotel rooms and run boiler room-style sales marathons to cram all of those cars down dealers’ throats. Month after month after month. The following years with Gene Cafiero runing operations may have been a little better, but by then the problems were more from the dysfunctional systems that kept engineering and manufacturing people from working together to solve problems arising from much of the engineering staff being laid off during part of 1975.
I think that the 1976-78 big Chrysler line was the only thing being built that a buyer had a decent chance of avoiding a crap car. My car-mentor Howard bought a new 77 Newport Custom, and it was a very nicely assembled car that gave him excellent service.
I can’t get over the fact they laid off the engineering staff. That’s the manufacturing equivalent of eating the seed corn.
“eating the seed corn”? you must be a farm boy
But even the better-built ones had to deal with the “lean burn” engine and its generation of pollution controls. My dad’s ’77 New Yorker 4-door with 440 engine was a real slug. The black paint wasn’t so good either.
Chrysler’s quality did suck across the board in those days, but the degree to which it sucked varied widely by assembly plant. The Cordobas were all made in Windsor and by 1970s Mopar standards were actually pretty well made. As mentioned earlier, the big Chryslers built at Jefferson Avenue were also a bit better than average. Warren Truck was another of the better ones.
On the other end of the spectrum were the Aspen/Volare twins. In addition to not being ready for public consumption when they came out, the were also plagued with the fact that the majority of them were built at the godforsaken dungeon that was Hamtramck Dodge Main. It was Chrysler’s oldest and most obsolete factory and for much of the 1970s was under threat of closure. As a result the workers really didn’t seem to give a care what rolled down the line. Dodge Main’s closure was one of Lee Iacocca’s first actions as CEO.
The Dodge Main plant was indeed old – it predated Chrysler, having been built by the Dodge Brothers company. Its massive capacity was one of the major reasons that Walter Chrysler was interested in acquiring the Dodge Brothers operation.
Variable is exactly right. Following my uncle’s death, my aunt traded in their beloved 1965 Newport for a new 1974 Newport. It was a complete POS, really unbelievably bad, and was traded for a new Cordoba in 1976. The Cordoba turned out to be a very good car, and it was still with her when she died about ten years later. Based on the good report, my cousin bought a new Cordoba the following year. It was so bad that within a year she and her husband turned to Audi, buying a new Fox and later a 5000, swearing off Chrysler for many years. Hit or miss quality, even with the Cordoba.
The launches of the 1969 C-bodies and 1970 E-bodies were plagued by problems, too. Quality control was pretty bad on those cars, and the E-bodies were also burdened with cheap hardware.
The 1972-73 series of Chrysler-Plymouth ads featuring Arthur Godfrey came out of that. Most of them emphasized things like quality control or Chrysler’s tradition of engineering or that Plymouths were the most popular police cars……
“These cars are well built, I tell ya. Who ya gonna believe – your own eyes or Arthur Godfrey?”
The base price regarding the 6/Torqueflite would’ve added probably about $600.00 or so, but guarantee that the base model itself would’ve had black steelies, dog dish wheel covers, non-tinted glass and no power steering, brakes, no radio (blank out plate) . . . I’m guessing the ad car as shown probably was in the neighborhood of about $4600.00 – $5000.00 in 1976 dollars.
Not a great looker but it’s a whole lot better than the strange Matador coupe.
It’s a toss-up. If it were 1976, my guess is that the choice between the two would come down largely to personal preference, options, and best dealer price.
But either would still be better than that lump that was the Ford Gran Torino.
As a Ford fan I agree on the Grand Torino not being their best looker but by the mid 70s most American cars with the exception of the Corvette,Camaro and Firebird were ugly brutes.
I grew up when these were well extinct from the roads, so they always struck me as jarring when I saw first learned these effectively replaced the 71-74 Satellites. Talk about a 180*
Granted not everyone is a fan of the 71 Bs either(I personally like them) but I don’t see how anyone back then could have possibly seen the 75 as an improvement over those designs. They’re just so damn dorky.
Hey, it’s the first CC article (and possibly only) to give an offhand mention to both my parent’s respective first cars, the Cordoba and the Matador coupe.
I recently showed my father the recent Hooniverse article with a ’79 Cordoba as a “Future LeMons car” and he got really defensive, that we blindly label every late-70’s Mopar as a lemon regardless of actual quality, and he remembers his with great fondness. I suspect if it had been my mother and her Matador she would have been much less fond.
These look better with the stacked headlights. It always seemed Plymouth actually put forth as much effort to make the cars look cheap as say Lincoln to make theirs look expensive. I remember awful plaid seats that weren’t comfortable. And plain plastic. No radios and guadge space with out them. The ones my friends had were reliable but seemed dated. Haven’t seen one in ages. I guess Roscoe wrecked all of them.
Never saw one as nice as the white on in the add.
Things like this Fury coupe are destined to happen when its parent company is hemorrhaging cash. As Perry mentioned, this car was one of the more basic coupes out there. In a world where vinyl roofs, wire wheels, and excessive chrome was selling cars, most “small Furies” didn’t come so lavishly equipped. No wonder the Cordoba fared better.
Throughout the 70s and 80s, my family had several mid-sized American coupes-at one point or another, a 72 Montego, 73 Road Runner, 75 Fury, 77 Grand Prix, 82 Mirada, 82 Thunderbird, 83 Riviera and an 86 Cutlass graced our driveway. The Montego and Riviera were absolute junkboxes, the GP was by far the best and lasted the longest and the Mopars were solid dependable cars.
I guess I am Mopar-biased but I think as far as mid-sized 70s coupes go, the 75-78 Furys are good looking cars; a much cleaner and less-gaudy car than a Cordoba. The backseat of the Fury was nowhere near as cramped as a GM A-Bodys and I think Ford cornered the market on ugliness. As mentioned, if you got a good Mopar, it was a good one and before the Lean Burn era, you could never go wrong with a 318 and a TorqueFlite. My brother had a pretty silver 75 Fury 318 coupe in the mid-80s that went well over 100K with little or no problems.
I was still in the crib when the Fury was new but my guess is more retail buyers stayed away because of Chrysler’s impending doom rather than perceived lack of style.
“I was still in the crib when the Fury was new but my guess is more retail buyers stayed away because of Chrysler’s impending doom rather than perceived lack of style.”
Mid-size coupes were a huge market in these years, some caught on like wildfire, and some didn’t.
In ’75 Major winners were:
Monte Carlo
Grand Prix
Cutlass
Cordoba
Weak performers were
LeMans / Grand Am
Torino
Montego
Chevelle / Malibu
Cutlass got a way with being a car with a “standard” line nameplate. But, even that car got unique sheet metal by ’76 compared to its sedan and wagon.
I know calling Chevelle / Malibu weak seems odd, but Monte Carlo outsold all styles about 260,000 to 240,000.
The ’75 Fury coupe was a disappointment in that new metal sold only about 70,000 compared to 80,000 ’74 Satellite / Sebring coupes. But, the new metal wore a conventional line name, and was a duplicate of the Dodge version, where the Satellite had had some unique metal.
There are enough exceptions as to why some cars were hot, and some not, that it tends to render any clean explanation into babble.
But, I’ll go with this: Distinct metal, a distinct name not tied to sedans and wagons, and a generally Broughamy demeanor gave you a better chance at being hot. The ’75 Fury coupe strikes out going against all three of these. A very similar situation with the ’75 Pontiac LeMans / Grand Am coupes that only slightly outsold the Fury Coupe.
I got my driver’s license in 1975 and would spend a lot of time going between my home in the S.F. Bay Area and spending summers with Grandfolks, Aunties and Uncles in rural, Northeastern Missouri. I liked the looks of these “small Furies” . . . . however, these to me even then as a car enthusiast and young guy were more “price leaders” for Plymouth dealers who would push coupe customers into a more profitable Cordoba. Ditto the full size Plymouths from this era . . . . steering prospects into Chrysler Newports . . .
I don’t really believe the quality (although these were ‘tinny’) really started to nosedive until MY ’77 and my perceptions then and now were that these didn’t sell because they were lousy quality cars, rather it’s just that Monte Carlos, Cutlasses, Regals and the ’77-’79 T-Birds were better looking, better equipped cars that could be sold close to or slightly above decently equipped Furies and Coronets/Chargers/Magnums. Also, Chrysler’s competition came from within as Furies shared showroom space with Cordobas . . .
Really dismal machines. My mother-in-law had a Gran Fury sedan of the same vintage. Suspension was terrible; it creaked, croaked and wallowed down the road. Fit and finish were abysmal; interior and exterior trim pieces routinely disappeared by a mere slam of the door or a trip to the car wash. Transmission went out @ 40K which was partially offset by warranty but started burning oil @ 50K at which time she took her losses and traded it in for an Olds 98, which was her last car.
Perhaps they weren’t all bad as I saw a number of them in state and municipal police fleets which hand out grueling demands on their cars.
I don’t know if I would want to drive a car that has a steering wheel center shaped like a g-string.
I bought a 78 fury in 81. Made a hell of a sleeper with a 440 in it.
Am I the only one who finds the ’75 “Small Fury” tagline laughable?
If you were there and saw these cars, and drove them, you’d probably agree. The C Body Gran had a 122 inch wb and 223 inch overall length. The “small” Fury coupe was 115 and 214. It always took me some time to get used to driving the “big” cars of the era. The mid-size cars felt pretty natural. Probably why today’s big cars are not too far off ’70s mid-size dimensions.
Dead on about the dimensions…the 1992 to 2011 Panther Crown Vic/Grand Marquis/Marauder is 212″ plus or minus with a 115″ wheelbase…so just about identical to these “mid-size” Mopars. Reminds me of the GM footnote that, in 1977 when the downsized B-bodies debuted but the A-body downsize was still a year off, the “mid-size” A-body cars were both larger and heavier than the “full-size” B-bodies.
That having been said I do actually like these Fury/Coronet coupes. The styling isn’t all that cohesive, but I like the tail design and the profile. did the coupes ever get the stacked quad lamps of the sedans, now that I think of it, or did they carry on with dual rounds until they were discontinued? I can’t seem to remember seeing a quad coupe.
I thought the Panther wheelbase was 114 (same as the 49 Ford).
I didn’t know the number off the top of my head so I looked it up…the numbers I saw were 114.4 for the ’92-’97 models and 114.7 for the later cars, so I “rounded up”. If the ’49 was 114 flat then that would definitely explan rounding down instead (and that’s also more technically correct on the earlier ones)!
I think the coupe got the stacked headlamps as well for 1977 with Dodge coupes changing names again (Coronet for 1975, Charger for 1976 and Monaco for 1977-78). http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Dodge/1977_Dodge/1977_Dodge_Monaco_Brochure/1977%20Dodge%20Monaco-01.html
You’re right on the Monaco name change and the stacked lamps do work well on the coupe. Was the Charger ever actually on this platform though? I had thought it was a badge-engineered version of the Cordoba after ’74, then disappeared when the Magnum appeared for ’78.
Chris M.
Yes, the Charger nameplate was used for this platform for 1976
http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Dodge/1976_Dodge/1976_Dodge_Charger_Brochure/1976%20Dodge%20Charger-08.html
Wow; I’ve never seen nor heard of that style of Charger before now. I googled it and found that, evidently, for 1976 only the base Charger was the former Coronet that you have pictured, whereas the Charger SE and Daytona used the Cordoba-derived body. The “base” Charger then was renamed Monaco the next year, making that a one year only situation. Very odd.
That is some seriously screwed up marketing. The Charger name on the small Fury body AND the Cordoba body. I did not know that. Sheesh.
I agree with you, I guess the “Small Fury” reference gived to some customers, a remeniscence of the “plucked chicken” of 1962.
Seems humorous today, but it made sense in the fall of 1974 when these were introduced since by this time, most of us, saw Furies as BIG cars . . . . which they were.
I really like the look of these to be honest. Compared to it’s chintzy rivals I would call the styling tastefully restrained, even sporty. Then again I’m not much of a broughamaholic. Gotta love that space invaders style roadrunner decal on the rear. One of those with the 400ci looks like a fun car!
It really was pretty clean and straightforward. But, Brougham was what was selling cars in the mid ’70s. Chrysler seemed defensive about it’s traditional two-door hardtops, and covered them up with some odd treatments to make them more modern. In hindsight, these look pretty nice, and I see four power window switches in the interior shot. Chrysler was still ponying up for rear window gears in a segment where they were mostly dead.
I agree, the greenhouse on these is really clean for the time. It just needed a sharper front end. The one shown is a bit lumpy looking.
Would anyone really throw this out of the garage? (Sorry guys I have a soft spot for these cars)
The blacked-out headlight bezels and grille, along with the bright blue paint and white tape stripe, certainly help. But I sure don’t remember any of these being professionally campaigned in either NHRA or NASCAR. It was the last gasp of a market that had died half a dozen years before and worth noting that 1976 was also the last year for big-block V8 availability in a Ford or GM intermediate, too. It was truly the end of an era.
If I were saddled with one I’d certainly try making the best of it like that, I’m sure. But That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t be yearning for virtually any other Mopar from a few years earlier, let alone a Ford or GM.
These were aerodynamic nightmares in NASCAR racing. Richard Petty kept his 74 Charger for the full 3 years allowed because of its superior shape. He briefly tried a Magnum afterwards but it was not competive. Like almost everyone else around that time, King Richard then abandoned Mother Mopar.
I seem to remember the beaky Mercury getting passed over by race teams for the old model a few years earlier
+100! I’m w/ you, Lt Dan!! 🙂
The 73-74 Road Runners seem to have a bigger following*, and I see more of them at shows, than the 71-72. So, the ’75 was just meant to be extention of the previous cars, but tanked. The Volare based RR’s have their own identity, IMHO.
*Did they sell better these years?
I wouldn’t toss that out. That just goes to show that you can take a bodystyle that isn’t necessarily the greatest and make it a looker with the right paint, details, and tires/wheels. The ugly ass federalized bumpers are what really kill these, as well as the skinny, tucked under and frumpy looking stock wheels/tires. If this had a tucked under front valance and a rear roll pan that are both monochromed, it would work wonders for this car.
Not sure where you are, Lt Dan, but if you have a soft spot, a few $$ burning a hole, and some skills….I saw this just the other day. Looks very restorable, and could be the equal or better to the car you posted:
http://seattle.craigslist.org/see/cto/4444037625.html
I like the fury road runner and that white interior in the add. But all the ones I ever rode in had cheap plaid upholstery and were very plain. These in my opinion were OK looking and decent basic transportation. I do prefer the stacked headlights to the singles.
It could be interesting to wonder what if Chrysler had decided to let the “Fuselage” soldiered a bit longer and concentrated to the intermediates for 1974 or even going back further in time by letting the 1968-70 B-bodies soldiering a bit longer like the A-body Dart/Valiant?
The 68/70 B body cars were a high spot in Mopar design.The less said about the bloated 71s the better,a giant step back for a lot of Mopar fans
My uncle and aunt needed a new wagon in 1976 and were loyal to Plymouth/Mopar. They had a ’70 C body Fury wagon that was rusty, got it in fal of ’69, so it was 7 y/o [14 years in today’s car world]*. So, they kind of got tricked into getting a B body wagon since it was a ‘Fury’, and was smaller inside for a family of 7.
However, its 318 ran OK for a 70’s Mopar, only had steering issues**, until hit head on in 1981. My cousin learned to drive in it and took it to his HS Prom [1980] with his now current wife.
*exaggerating
**it maybe broke down a few times, but don’t recall, back was ‘normal’ for 4+ y/o cars to do so.
Its not the ‘worst’ looking mid 70s big coupe but pretty representative of what happens when you get away from a clean and simple form-follows-function 2 door coupe with minimal federal bureaucrat input. Take the Sport Furies from ’63 to ’68 as an example. Those are absolutely GORGEOUS cars in 2 door h/t or convertible trim. Style-wise, they equal or better the more popular Impalas, in my eye.
As I said up above replying to Lt Dan, its the huge bumpers and the ugly little wheels/hubcaps that kill this car. All correctable if you want to spend the time/money to hammer an under loved and under valued obscure car into shape. But in its day, this wouldn’t have robbed too many Colonnade buyers from GM unless they happen to be die hard Mopar loyalists. Im one of those, and if I were in the market for a new car in this age, I wouldn’t have given this car a 2nd look. But then, Id be torn between a RamCharger or a 340/360 Duster.
On another note, ‘Fury’ is a fantastic name for a big powerful car. If it were me at the helm of the good ship Mopar, Id put out a 2 door version of the 300C that preserves the current styling, ups the performance ante with factory tuned 5.7 Hemi standard, 6.4 optional and call it the 300 Fury. You best believe that brute would have a manual available too!
a 3 speed manual in a Fury? on-the-tree or floor shifter?
In those days, it would’ve been on the tree for the Fury/Charger-nee-Coronet . .
I know firsthand that the 74 Charger came standard with a three on the tree. No firsthand experience with the 1975 and up models.
1976 was also the last year for the three-on-the-tree Chevy Malibu. One of the big 3 auto magazines actually did a specific article on it, titled something like ‘The End of the Big Stick-Shift Chevy’. It was the end of an era.
Of course, I suppose you could still get a three-on-the-tree manual transmission in a pickup truck for a while longer. Wikipedia says it was the 1987 Chevy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manual_transmission#Column-mounted_shifter
Was there ever a 3 on the floor in a Fury? They had 4 in the floor, I do know that. Ive seen a 383 powered ragtop for sale up this way with a 4spd…didn’t last a day or 2 before it got snapped up. Up until recently there was an absolutely GORGEOUS all original 65 or 66 2 door h/t with the 383 and 4 in the floor on CL. Pale yellow color which isn’t my fave, but wow what a beauty. If I had $20K burning a hole, Id have pulled the trigger in a second….
I will say that finding a clean, well-kept and non-rusted example like the red one in the ad would be tempting to me were it priced affordably. I’m saying I could go for a bright red one.
I ordered my ’74 Roadrunner in May of ’74, and due to a screw up on the order sheet, it was built as a Satellite Sebring, in Avacado Green with a white vinyl top, 400 4BBL, and a horrible white and black or really dark green checkered interior. I refused the car, and they put the order in again, hoping that the car wouldn’t be built as a ’75, which I wouldn’t accept, as I think the ’75 Fury was beyond ugly. In November, my car finally showed up, a ’74, exactly as I ordered it. I only kept it 3 years, and I instantly regretted trading it in. If I get to Vegas again some day, I have an offer from it’s present owner to take it for a drive. It’s been restored to better than new condition with a stroked 440 in it. I sure wish I could get the time and money to fly out there, just for old time’s sake.