(first posted 11/8/2013) What are the odds of stumbling into an original 1968 Dodge Charger these days, never mind a red one? Take if from me: not good, as I’ve been on the lookout for one (in any color) ever since starting on this endless treasure hunt. Between the hundreds that were destroyed on the Dukes of Hazard and all those turned into pristine, fire-breathing hemi-clones, unmolested, rusty, red ’68 Chargers are about as rare as an original daily-driver ’69 Camaro six. Oh wait; I did find one of those. So let’s narrow those odds a whole lot further: a six cylinder version. There were exactly 906 made, and you’re looking at one of them. Maybe we should change our name to Curbside Musclecar Sixes.
Before we pop the hood on this one of maybe a handful of six cylinder survivors, let’s put the 1968 Charger in context. As if that was necessary. Is it not the most iconic muscle car of the era along with the 1969 Camaro, and maybe the GTO? Oops; I guess muscle car doesn’t quite apply, in the case of a six cylinder version, or even the base 318 V8. So what exactly was the Charger?
What originally appeared in 1966 was intended to compete in a new class of cars that turned out to be a dead end: the sporty-upscale-mid-sized-based fastback. The 1966-1967 Charger (bottom) and the Marlin (top) both chased that mirage; the Marlin just petered out, but the Charger was given a second chance in 1968.
The ’66 Charger carried a stiff 15% premium of the top-line Coronet 500 on which it was based. To justify that, it had a mostly unique high-quality interior with four bucket seats with a console between all of them, and a tasty instrument panel with backlit electroluminescent gauges. And the Charger was strictly V8 only.
But already in 1967, de-contenting started, which would erode that premium price (and feel). When the dramatically restyled 1968 Charger appeared, it was still V8 only, but its price premium was now down to 6%. The poor sales of the ’66 made it clear that folks were not very interested in that genre.
The 68’s bulging hips and tunnel-back roof were heavily cribbed from the madly successful 1966-1967 GM A-Bodies, none more than the GTO. Ironically, the 1968 GM mid-sizers abandoned that look, for a sleeker, more compact semi-fastback body. But it would appear that buyers weren’t really ready to leave that ’66-’67 GM look behind, because they snapped up the new Charger with a vengeance. Sales exploded; from a measly 16k in 1967 to a bang-up 93k in 1968. Thank you GM!
The Charger’s lower price undoubtedly helped, as that extra 6% over a Coronet 500 (above) really just bought some cosmetic changes to the exterior, like the recessed grille and hidden headlights, and the C-Pillar sails. Most everything else was the same.
The Charger’s one semi-original aspect was it gaping blank maw. The ’66-’67 already had a blank face with retractable headlights, but now it was deeply recessed. This semi-featureless face was quite influential too: one soon saw variations of the theme all over the world. And of course, it was a look that Chrysler would adopt extensively in their fuselage large cars that appeared in 1969. It became quite a trademark look, actually.
It’s a face that doesn’t really like close scrutiny, though. Of course that goes for Chrysler products in general during this era: quality was not their calling card, at least in terms of body assembly and such. Admittedly, this one has seen better days.
The rear end styling was also also unique to the Charger, and it merited its unique bumper too. Not surprisingly, the ’69 Charger trounced its Coronet 500 stablemate in sales. For $165, the Charger’s distinctive styling that clearly set it apart from the plebeian Coronet was money obviously well spent.
Those extra bucks also scored a unique instrument panel, although it obviously wasn’t nearly as expensive as the Chrysler-esque ’66-’67. And at least for 1968, the Charger still came with a console standard; it was a carry-over, minus the nice armrests. And the seat upholstery quality also showed some cost-cutting. It’s a sign of the times...By 1969, the console was optional, and a split-back bench seat standard.
The instrumentation is complete, though. But that steering wheel give me the willies, as it’s the same one that my father’s ’68 Dart had, minus the horn ring. In 1968, Chrysler went to some new plastic formulation, which made it feel greasy. And never looked quite clean, with a perpetual haze. Yuck. Enough suspense already; let’s get out and pop the hood.
There it is! And it’s even called “Charger 225”. Now that’s a bit ironic, as the 225 slant six had been called that already before it first found its way under a Charger’s hood. It hadn’t been available in the original Charger. In fact it wasn’t in 1968 either, at the beginning of the model year. But for some rather odd reason, in the spring of 1968 it was also listed as being available. And a grand total of 906 folks took advantage of it.
For those not familiar with this engine, the darling of the taxi-cab crowd, the 225 slant six had a one-barrel carburetor, and was rated at 145 (gross) hp, or about 120 of today’s net horsepower. One often forgotten fact: the slant six had mechanical valve lifters until 1980, giving it a distinctly metallic overtone at idle and low throttle, before induction and other sounds drowned that out. And it shared that distinction with the 426 hemi, the only other engine in Chrysler’s stable with mechanical lifters.
If my father had been seduced by the Charger’s seductive lines due to a mid-life crisis instead of his stripper Dart in 1968, this would have been the one he would have gotten. I almost made up a fictional story about how that would have happened, but given how rare these are, I decided to write it straight, instead of with a slant.
So why did Dodge decide that the Charger needed a Charger slant six under the hood? Beats me. What makes it a bit odder is that the Coronet 500 was strictly V8 only, according to my Encyclopedia. Now, according to some forums I visited, supposedly two of those 906 ’68 Charger sixes came with the three-speed manual with column shift. Which begs the question of what happened to the console in those cars?
It also begs the question of just exactly was the standard transmission on the ’68 Charger. Sadly, there’s no brochure available online. Given that the ’68 came standard with buckets and the console, presumably it was a floor shift three-speed. Or? Because these accounts of the those two three-speed manual slant six Chargers are adamant that they were column-shifted. Such important mysteries of life still to be unraveled, most likely by one of you out there.
Needless to say, there weren’t any ads for the Charger six, at least not what I could find. The base V8 was the 230 hp LA 318. Optional were 290 hp (two barrel) and 330 hp (four barrel) versions of the 383. I’ve read at least one claim that the under-rated 335 hp 383 that was specifically developed for the Plymouth Road Runner and Coronet Super Bee was available too, but the Encyclopedia doesn’t confirm that.
Of course the real performance version was the R/T, which came standard with the Magnum 440 (375 hp), and optionally with the mighty 426 Hemi (425 hp).
Here’s what the Hemi looked like installed in the Charger. It rather fills up the engine compartment a bit better than the little six, eh?
images courtesy motor trend
And just for good measure, lets pull off the air cleaner. Good for about 13.5 in the quarter mile, at 105 mph, bone stock on skinny little bias-ply tires. Not so good as a daily driver, as the hemi’s torque curve peaks rather late. The 1968 version of the hemi had an even more aggressive cam than the ’66-’67 street hemi, so there was a good reason the 440 was recommended for real folks. The result was that only 475 1968 Hemi Chargers were built, split roughly 50/50 between four speed sticks and the Torqueflite.
If you’ve been an astute reader, you might have picked up on a theoretical discrepancy regarding the headline of this post. Yes, about twice as many Charger sixes were made than hemis, but I don’t think I’m taking much risk in asserting that undoubtedly many more of the hemis survived than the handful of sixes still out there. And don’t even ask how many hemis found their way into Chargers after the fact. Probably into a few of the sixes, if I had to guess.
The 1968 Charger’s propensity for taking to the air started early. Its appearance in the 1968 movie Bullitt immortalized the chase scene with Steve McQueen’s ’67 Mustang.
The 440 R/T Charger was driven by veteran stunt driver Bill Hickman. One of the stunt drivers involved in the movie later was quoted as saying that the stock 440 Charger was so much faster than the specially prepared and heavily modified 390 Mustang, and that the Charger drivers had to keep backing off the throttle so as to not got ahead of the Mustang.
The Charger was a pretty good sized car; with its 117″ wheelbase, it was rather closer to a full-sized car than GM’s 112″ wb intermediate coupes. But the shipping weight of a Charger six is listed at 3100 lbs. And even the 440 R/T was listed at 3575 lbs. No wonder they take to the air so readily.
Technically General Lee, star of the Dukes of hazard, was a 1969 Charger, but making ’68s look like a ’69 was easy enough. In total, either 256 or 321 ’68 and ’69 Chargers gave up their lives for the sake of tv audiences, depending on which source you chose to believe. I do wonder whether they would have used a six cylinder version? Maybe that’s why this CC survived the great Charger Genocide of the seventies.
Well, a few others obviously survived too; no less than 100 showed up for this Dukefest held in 2006 in Nashville. The truth is, in the last season or two of that show (true confessions: I’ve never watched it), they resorted to using models for their ever-more unbelievable stunts, like the high-flier one picture up. Time to close that brilliant chapter.
The Charger’s explosive popularity in 1968 was very short-lived, like so many other fads of the moment. In 1969, sales were still good, but down almost 20%. In 1970, sales shrunk to under 40k. Comparisons with the new 1971 Charger are irrelevant, since it now encompassed all two-door versions of what had been the Coronet, which became a strictly four-door/wagon nameplate.
Plenty of 1971 six-cylinder stripper Chargers would now be sold to little old ladies looking for something to replace their ’65 Coronet six sedan. The high-flying Charger was firmly back to earth. Even with a full model-range, total sales of all Chargers in 1971 was well below the ’68’s stellar year.
The muscle-car phenomena had quickly run out of gas. The ’68 Charger found a sweet-spot right in the final peak years of of that phenomena, and its somewhat unusual approach to offering a wide range of engines may well have fueled that meteoric success. Given how hot the Charger was in 1969, it’s still a bit hard to fathom why a six cylinder version was added late in that model year. Were folks begging their Dodge dealers for a slant six Charger? Or did it just seem wrong not to offer the Charger 225 in its namesake?
Maybe you’re wondering why I would happen to find a rusty original Charger with Pennsylvania antique plates on Main Street in Springfield, Eugene’s sister city across the river. It turns out that the shop it was sitting in front specializes in Mopar B-Body restorations. This car was shipped out, and is going to get a full body and interior re-do. But the shop foreman assured me the engine and drive train was not getting swapped out, nor getting rebuilt because it was still rock solid. Of course not; that slant six is probably just barely broken in.
This really is a reflection of the changing times; ten or fifteen years ago, I can assure you the odds of this Charger surviving a restoration without a new crate hemi would have been almost zilch. Who says the world isn’t getting better?
The /6 Chargers could have been either: 1) related to some odd plan to pass emissions tests or 2) a normal function of the infamous Chrysler sales bank. More than likely #2. I once owned a 77 Plymouth Volare Road Runner that had a 318, bucket seats, no console, and a column shift automatic. Huh? Sales bank at its best!!
A friend of mine had a ’73 Road Runner with a 340, buckets, that really skinny “old man” steering wheel, and a column shifter. He bought it off the lot, of course. Who the hell would order a Road Runner like that? I had a ’74, same color, 360, and a console shifter. We went to the local junk yard one day and found a console shifter 318 car and bought all the pieces he needed to swap it over to a console shift, including the entire steering column. A couple of hours work was all it took to make his car into what it should have been in the first place. I drove a /6 Charger once. Wow, what a slug.
FWIW, the ’68 Road Runner was a ‘budget’ muscle car, with bench seats, and column shifters for Torqueflights.
They probably just realized that the price premium over the Coronet, Coronet 500 and R/T was hard for some people to justify so they made the six cylinder available as a credit delete (yes, you had to special order these with the six cylinder then wait for delivery, you couldn’t just buy one off the lot.) for customers with less money to spend. That would also explain the rarity since most people wouldn’t like to wait. They would either drive off with a 318 Charger that they could take home today, or buy a Dart if they wanted a 6-cylinder car right now. In fact, it makes sense that they would want a 6-cylinder option in the Charger for someone wanting to upgrade from a two door Dart to a bigger car without giving up too much fuel economy like a young couple starting a family that still wants to have a stylish car.
Console was actually optional on the ’68 Charger (it went from standard to extra-cost equipment in 1967) while bucket seats were standard. Along with the console, another option with the buckets was a cushion and folding center armrest to permit seating for 3. And TorqueFlites came with a column shift unless the optional console was ordered.
Awesome find, a true Holy Grail of CC’s. Since learning these exist I have been wanting to see one somewhere, somehow. This scratches that itch!
I’m going off memory here, so I could be deviating from actual events….in 1996, I remember seeing an ad in Hemmings for one of the two six-cylinder, three-speed ’68 Chargers. When the ad was running, I had a conversation with a man whom I learned had purchased a 440 powered ’69 Charger new. In mentioning the slant six, he was quite surprised about it, saying the six banger would be a good one to have. It might be safe to assume its existence wasn’t widely known even at the time.
I am quite glad the owner is keeping it the way it was built.
+1 rarer than hens teeth.More 6 cylinder muscle please.I hope this isn’t going to be a Hemi or 440 tribute.The 68 to 70 Charger’s were the best lookers in my opinion.I’ve missed the boat a long time ago when it came to owning a Charger,way out of my price range.
Scroll down page (below link) to view ’69 Charger /6, 3 spd manual column shift, single barrel carb, single exhaust, fold-down “buddy seat”. Pics taken in Spring (Houston), TX. Owner purchased car from Colorado seller last year. Enjoy!
http://www.market-lab.com/carphotos-large4.html
Donavon Smith
TX
Hi Jason, I have an original garaged 68 Charger with a slant six for sale. It has under 30,000 original miles and no rust except for some in the trunk. The paint is original too. I have attached a picture for you.
Nice find. I’m glad to see that /6 staying put.
I have seen a 69 with the /6 and a 3 speed. It was in Franklin Square Long Island in the mid 90’s. On the 69 I saw it had a column 3 speed stick and the bucket seats with the buddy seat in the middle.
That face looked great, when I was a kid my parents had a 1970 Plymouth Fury Sport Suburban wagon and my uncle had a 1968 Hemi Charger. I always thought those grills were the best looking grills.
Those 2 cars got me hooked on Mopars.
was the Charger in FS blue? If so I remember that car from when I lived there in the 80s.
All 68-69 Chargers came with bucket seats and if they came with a column shift (auto or 3 speed) then they came with the fold down armrest “buddy seat” between the seats.
That red 68 must be slower than molasses in January. Definitely a cool, rare car. If I never saw another General Lee clone or a bright colored Hemi clone Id be good with that.
I also have an unmolested, original semi-daily driver Charger, a 69 with a 318, and its not getting a 440 or a Hemi on my watch. 225K miles on the 318 (never been rebuilt) and still strong.
80 mile a day commuter. Camrys suck.
Got one just like it. 69 Dodge Charger, 318 2 barrel, 3 speed on the column shift, same blue color, original interior. Great machine.
Well now you’ve gone and done it, Paul: you’ve found the ultimate curbside classic. You can shut the site down now; there are no more mountains to climb here.
Hey! What about all the Carmine Edition Broughams and the obscure Euro-cars that are waiting to be documented?!
Still haven’t seen the Simca 1501 estate that my dad had in the 80s. Plus there’s 5 generations of Ford Cortina – an icon of growing up in the UK. Plus a decent Mk II Ford escort (I shot one a couple of weeks ago – good shape, but auto, and non-original exhaust and wheels, so not quite the thing). Also looking forward to the Princess after the landcrab last week. And there’s a few iconic Citroens that have yet to pass through.
So, plenty of good stuff yet to come!
As a Kiwi, I’m +1 on all 5 generations of Cortina (not to mention the extra two generations that the Argentinians and Turks got!), Mk II Esky, Princess, Citroens and 1501. Haven’t seen a 1501 in the metal in about 5-6 years – but the one I saw is on trademe at the moment, so it’s nice it survived. Bring on the old Brit/French CCs! 😉
No one’s ever found a U.S-market Simca Vedette yet- I suppose the only way to tell would be a MPH speedometer?
Works for me! Site shuts down at midnight tonight. “Good night and good luck!”
Thanks, Mr. Murrow!
I just purchased 225 /6, 1968 charger, 3 speed, column shifter.
Second photo
Well at least you had front disc brakes and a slightly enlarged exhaust system. The first 1968 Dodge Charger I saw when I took a job at another Dodge dealer was a Slant 6 Dodge Charger, I wondered who would ever buy one with a 6?
Oh wait! I forgot that I need to find a 1976 Buick LeSabre with the 231 V6 before I pull the plug. I’ve been looking for one since I started writing about cars in 2006. That’s the only reason I’m still at it…
You’re reminding me of Donald Sutherland in Steelyard Blues. When he swore off demo derbies and got a job as an ambulance driver, he’d taken out every 1950s American car…except the ’50 Stude.
Well darnit, there’s another obscure movie that I have to put on my video bucket list. Having driven a 1969 Cadillac ambulance for ten years, I feel obligated to watch any movie that gives one any screen time.
Any CCer will enjoy “Steelyard Blues” (link here). The ambulance scene is hilarious.
From IMDB: A group of misfits decide to leave for a place that they can all be free. Their mode of transportation is a PBY flying boat. The only problem is that the PBY needs a lot of work and they will need jobs to pay for the parts. When they find that they have only 10 days before the PBY is sold for scrap, they decide on “borrowing” the parts for their trip.
A TURNPIKE CRUISER?!?!? IN A DERBY?!?!? Oh, the humanity…
That and a Muntz Jet. 🙂
And an Allstate.
Now THAT would be something to feature (the ’76 Buick LeSabre with the 231V-6). I have seen two in my lifetime; one delivered new to the Buick-Pontiac dealer in my Grandma’s town in Missouri. September, 1975 – hood up – a radiator hose that looked like the downspout on a two-story house and a fan shroud bigger than two tumble-dry Maytag dryers put together. Number 2 was (hard to believe) used as a cop car on Oahu (City and County of Honolulu) ca. 1980-81 (not a blue-and-white). These had the little “V6” badges above the front fender marker light.
Meanwhile, I’m glad that the owner is keeping this a six. Too many of the (rare) sixes and more common 318’s gave way to RB/Hemi clones.
I have seen one six cylinder Charger in my lifetime – a new one back in ’71 at the Dodge Dealer in the same gold as the illustrated one above. Whitewalls and full wheelcovers; hood up at the dealer’s lot . . . .
I saw one just like that many, many years ago at the Cuyahoga County Fair demo derby. ’76 LeSabre 4 door sedan in a medium blue metallic with that familiar 231 burble. Was quite surprised to see that engine in it, it looked so lonely in that massive engine compartment 😀 ! I swear there must have two feet of space between the fan and the radiator, one could have used the fan shroud for a wind tunnel 😀 !
Well, my wish list remains extensive-
From the sixties-
Any unmolested survivor
From the seventies:
’74-on Matador Coupe, 304 Gremlin, Plymouth Cricket, Dodge Colt, 360 Dart Coupe, Mustang II King Cobra, Grand Am, ’73 GTO, ’74 GTO, Can Am, 1st year Buick Regal Turbo, Fox Body Mustang with a four cylinder turbo, Fairmont with a four cylinder turbo, Fox Body Mustang with a 2.8 V-6 (one year option). Mercury Capri
From the eighties:
Any X body that’s not a Chevy, Mustang GT with a four cylinder turbo (no, not the SVO, preferably a convertible), Chevy Turbo Monte Carlo, Mercury Capri RS, Subaru BRAT, Thunderbird Turbo, many others.
I’d heard that a Fairmont/Zephy Turbo 4 was advertised, but not actually built/offered to the public in ’80 or so. Is this true?
They were actually built and they’re out there, I’ve seen a bunch on the internet over the years. Standard Catalog of American Cars claims otherwise (as they do with the 1st generation US Escort Turbo) so maybe these were only pre-production cars, but they definitely made it into the marketplace eventually and a few still exist. Fairmonts, anyway… I’ve never seen a real Zephyr turbo online. But they did advertise it – and since the Fairmonts are real I’d assume the Mercury version was too, just not frequently purchased and since they all had the finnicky carbed turbo engine I doubt very many survived.
You might have to squint, but check the badge on the hood bulge:
It’s not surprising. The Fairmont/Zephyr were built off of the same platform as the Mustang and Thunderbird and there were 4 cylinder turbo versions of both of those cars. The turbo engine would drop right in to the Fairmont/Zephyr with no modifications.
Ever seen a ’79 AMC Spirit 304 stick? My brother had TWO of them many years back!
no he has not found the slant 6 with the three on tree
I just purchased 1968 /6, 3 speed, column shifter. 😀
Wow, that answers that question: still buckets.
The tears in the seams of the drivers seat happened the second year on this and every other Chrysler product of this era, interesting that it never got any worse. Great find
Pontiac used Morrokide, Chrysler used Insti-Split.
Insti-Split is properly followed by TM.
I love this car, which brings together two cars owned by my car-mentor Howard. First, he claimed to own the first Charger R/T in Fort Wayne, Indiana. His was a 440/Torqueflite car that met its untimely death in an intersection collision.
The second was the red 74 Charger coupe that he bought for his kids to drive when we were in high school. It was just like the 71 in the ad, only red. Absolute strippo with the slant 6, 3 on the tree, bench seat and fixed rear side glass. The only possible options it had were heater and backup lights, which were probably standard by 74. It looked so fast, but was not. And a bitch to park with manual steering coupled with that little 1974 steering wheel.
Fabulous find, Paul. To answer the question of “why?”, my guess would be that this is another example of Lynn Townsend’s never-ending quest for volume. If you can sell another 1,000 units with a six, then why not? They probably figured to sell more, and likely assumed that they would clean up with a cheaper Charger that looked (from the outside) just like the more expensive one. Until someone started it, that is.
My three fond /6 memories are.
1) Our family’s 60 Plymouth Suburban wagon with /6 and Torque flite automatic.
I believe that car was as close to an indestructible vehicle as i have ever seen.
It survived VERY hard driving by two teenage boy’s in the 70’s and would probably still be running if not for Minnesota road salt rusting it into oblivion.
I think it had so many miles on it ,the odometer quit working.
2) Two elderly ladies in our town had a 70ish Plum Purple Dodge Challenger with /6 .
I would see them and their Challenger every Saturday morning as they made their way to the grocery store. The sight of those two with their grey hair ,not much higher than the dashboard inside that Challenger still makes me smile
3) My older brothers 73- or so Dodge Dart with /6 that spewed most of its oil out because of a ill fitting o ring gasket on its oil filter . Did I mention my brother was never the most observant with cars other than the gas gauge? Anyway this Dodge ran an indeterminable amount of time until my brother decided to investigate the cause of the red oil light. . New gasket put on, and car was fine for another couple of years.
While car shopping early in my senior year of high school (October, 1976), I did look at a 1970 Dodge Challenger “Deputy” at the (Marin) Dodge dealer. Orange, full wheel covers, vinyl pleated (not yet split) buckets. Slant six, three speed on the floor (no console) and the rear quarter windows were fixed. Taxicab like dashboard with block-outs for the air conditioning vents and optional gauges.
The interesting thing about the Challenger ‘Deputy’ is you could get one with a 383-4v engine. It would likely be the cheapest, fastest Challenger you could get. One source says there were three automatic and three 4-speed 383-4v Challenger Deputies built.
If true, the 1970 383-4v Challenger Deputy would actually be more rare than the most coveted E-body Mopar, the 1971 Hemi-Cuda convertible.
Well, one of those 2 six-3-speed ’68s ended up in Saskatoon. The older brother of an elementary school friend had one, red with Magnums, just like this, except with a radio delete too! He bought it from an elderly woman. This was circa 1973-74, I used to walk home from school and look in it whenever it was parked in front of their family home. Even at the age of 13 I knew it was something unusual.
You’re 100% sure it wasn’t a ’69? Quite a few more ’69s and ’70s were sold as sixes.
With all production statstics from this era, it’s also never clear to me what these figures mean for the U.S. versus Canada (bearing in mind that Roger saw that car in Saskatoon). Production in the U.S. for sale in the U.S. market only? Total production in the U.S., including cars intended for export to Canada (or elsewhere)? Total production for sale in the U.S. market, including cars built in Canada? Total North American production, including both the U.S. and Canada?
Depending on which of the above it is, and which plants on which sides of the U.S.-Canada border Chrysler built these cars in, that figure of two could be a U.S.-only figure, and more could have been built or sold in Canada. Given the Canadian proclivity for lower-priced cars, it’s conceivable that some cars that were rarely seen/nonexistent in a particular downmarket form in the U.S. could have existed/been more common that way in Canada, although I have no idea whether this is one of them.
It could have been a ’69, it WAS 40 years ago!
I just purchased a /6, 1968, 3 speed, With column shifter. 😁
Hey Jerry how rare is the 6 column shift 1968 charger I have one
A wonderful example of why there should be a federal law against boomers hopping up vintage cars. Maybe the market won’t agree, but I feel this car is way more valuable that yet another R/T.
Great article and a beautiful, unrestored survivor (rust and all). I love seeing a slant-six in something other than an A-body. They’re exceedingly rare in any sporty Mopar 2-door coupe because, as noted, most of them were long ago yanked and filled with some reworked muscle V8.
Couple of corrections: the console was not standard with the automatic on the 2nd gen. Unless the extra money was ponied up, you got a column shift and may (or may not) have gotten a folding center armrest.
Likewise, although not stated, it seems the inference is that the gauge to the left of the speedo is one of the infamous ‘tic-toc-tacs’. It’s not. It’s just a grungy old clock. I can’t imagine a 2nd gen six-cylinder Charger having a tachometer, even one that seems to be fairly well optioned (for the time) as this one (although every 1st gen Charger ‘did’ come with a full, tachometer-equipped, gauge cluster).
And the reason the Coronet 500 came with a V8 is that it was an up-level trim, comparable to the Plymouth Satellite. There were lower level trim Coronets comparable to the Plymouth Belvedere (you can tell them apart because they have a much plainer grille with only ‘DODGE’ lettering) that, like the Belvedere, came standard with the slant-six.
In fact, that bottom-feeder Coronet grill would be used later on the NASCAR special ’68 Charger 500, except it would be moved up to be flush with the front of the car (and the lettering would be omitted).
’69 Charger 500, not 68. 🙂
I thought the aero cars were:
’68 Charger 500
’69 Charger Daytona
’70 Plymouth Superbird
As it turns out, the Charger 500 was an early ’69, while the Daytona came out later, also as a ’69. My mistake on the ’69 Charger 500 was mainly due to it using the base ’68 Coronet grille. I also didn’t think Chrysler released two aero cars in the same model year.
FWIW, the prototype NASCAR Charger 500 did have a ’68 body.
I don’t have a brochure to back me up, but the the best of the information I gleaned on the web, the console was still standard on the ’68s, but not on the ’69-’70. I’m willing to be proven wrong, but until I see the proof, I’ll stick with this.
What do you mean that’s “just a grungy clock” and not the “tic-toc-tac”.The tach rpm call outs are there, right? See the tach needle stuck at 3800 rpm? You’re suggesting that’s just part of the clock?
Yes, I’m quite aware of the lower trim Coronets. The point I was making is that the Charger was at least the same trim level as the Coronet 500, but was available with the six, unlike the Coronet 500.
That is just an in-dash clock. The needle that rotates clockwise around the centerpiece is just the second hand.
This is the face of a Tic-Toc:
doh! I get it now….thanks for making me feel really dumb 🙂
I thought it was a tach too, the numbers are right.
Me three… too bad, would’ve been cool. I always like to have a tach, even on cars that don’t “need” one (as per conventional wisdom).
If it makes you feel any better, I made exactly the same mistake a few years ago and got royally chewed out for it…
I guess it’s possible that the console was still standard on the ’68 Charger, but I saw (and drove) a ’68 Charger R/T for sale in the late seventies that had a column shift and buckets with the fold down center armrest/seat.
Of course, it could have been some sort of special order ‘delete’ option, too, but I’d be willing to bet that the console was on option on the base trim levels.
It’s also worth noting that the base Charger came with a 3-speed manual, which was undoubtedly a column shifted three-on-the-tree. If that’s the case, it wouldn’t have had a console since there was no console specifically designed for a column shift car.
Dodge ’68 Charger USA brochure: https://www.lov2xlr8.no/brochures/dodge/68charg/68charg.html
> Now, according to some forums I visited, supposedly two of those 906 ’68 Charger sixes came with the three-speed manual with column shift. Which begs the question of what happened to the console in those cars?
I couldn’t find a picture in a brief google images search, but I’m pretty sure there was a console top available with no cutout for a shifter to stick through. They would have fitted one of those tops.
I wouldn’t give Chrysler quite that much credit for the recessed “donut” front end. Pretty much everyone was messing around with subtle variations of that approach. I suppose you could argue that the 1966 Charger set the stage, but then in 1967 the Camaro and and Thunderbird further developed the approach. The 1968-69 Ford borrows some basic elements, as does the GTO from those years.
To my eyes the most unique aspect of the Charger’s styling is its early use of “wedge” side sculpting. An exceptionally masculine design — and quite different from the more rounded contours of the GM muscle cars. No wonder the 1968-69 Charger is iconic.
After (dis)appearing on the ’63 Sting Ray Corvette, the Riviera went to hidden headlights in ’65, and the Toronado came out with them in ’66. But the Charger was first with the full-width grille including hidden headlights in ’66. By 1970 that look spread to Plymouth, Ford and Chevy. So I would give Chrysler credit for this great-looking style.
See my posts on hidden headlights, part 1 and part 2.
Rare does not equal valuable. As a Mopar C-body fan I am well acquainted with that fact. The only thing that would make this car more valuable than a C-body is the desirable Charger body shell in good condition.
As it sits, this is ultimately a “poser” car. Someone wanted the Charger image, with Hemi orange paint even, but without a performance drivetrain. It’s like a preview of what happened in the 1970’s when insurance rates and gas prices killed the market for real muscle cars. Aside from the novelty of it, I can’t seem to get worked-up over this.
What does make me sad is all the New Yorkers and Imperials that donated their 440’s over the years to put in B-bodies that started their lives like this one. For that reason, I’m happy to hear they’re keeping the /6 in it.
+1, big time. No Charger is ugly, but I find this car more odd than cool. It would be nice to be restored to showroom new & put in a museum or something — I cannot see this thing being pleasant to drive or own though.
As a big car fan of all the Big Three, I get a little sad thinking about all the beautiful full-sized machines that were raped of their drivetrains and transplanted into POS Darts, Novas, Mustangs, Camaros, pickups, racecars, plebian midsizers, etc.
I agree with you Junqueboi. This is a cool find, but I think it would be a terrible thing to drive. Stock soft suspension, and an underpowered six would not exactly equal fun. It’s good the owner is keeping the original drivetrain in it, but I wouldn’t shed too many tears if a 318 or 383 found a home in there (as long as it was done period correct).
This is an amazing find!
You’d wonder what would compel someone to order a Charger like this.
I can still remember what a Slant Six with a muffler hole sounds like… It would be embarrassing in a Charger of this vintage. The Charger wasn’t at ‘iconic’ status yet, so the owner wasn’t fully grasping what an unlikely drivetrain they were choosing. Plus adding the Magnum 500 wheels, makes it even more unusual.
A very unique (and strange) CC!
I think the point of these slant-six Chargers (and any other big cars with small, six-cylinder engines) is just for the company and dealers to be able to advertise an extremely low starting price (in the vernacular, ‘loss-leader’) to draw people into the dealership. Then, after they drove one and found out how miserable it was, they’d quickly realize the extra money spent for a V8 was well worth it.
Also, government fleets really liked ’em (although I can’t imagine many Chargers being purchased for government use).
I like this ’68 Dodge smaller-engine mini-beastie. 🙂 → If Paul’s story had ended with the fact the original ‘Charger 225′ /6 was supposed to be swapped for a V8 during restoration that would have been very disappointing. Not a happy ending at all! My opinion is there’s enough puffed-up classic cars out there where smaller engines have been swapped out with larger ones because, ya know, it’s like what all the cool car collectors do. An’ more stuff like that. Ugh! Those kind of cars do not interest me in the least.
I’m biased because being the owner of a humble (read: cheap) ’64 Ford Standard Series Falcon with the 2-speed Ford-O-Matic and the 170 CID engine I’ve been asked many times over the years if I would sell the car and the new owner would want to dispatch the ‘170’ for a speedy 8-cylinder. NO SALE!
Someone pointed out above that rare does not always =equal= valuable and that’s true, but I vehemently disagree with his notion this car is “ultimately a ‘poser’ car”. How would he know what the original buyer was thinking all those years ago? Ultimately, it’s amazing the car made it to 2013 with its original engine intact!
Now bring on that ’76 LeSabre with the ‘231’/V6! 😀
now we need to find a 76 LeSabre with a 231 V6 , if we are looking for painfully underpowered CCs.. .
Bingo! I’ve been looking for one since I started writing about cars in 2006. So far, no luck.
Can’t find one probably because most were personally delivered to the crusher by the original owner! An odd-firing 6 in a 4500 lb car? What was GM smoking?
at least GM had the MPG paranoia of the time for an excuse…I can’t imagine why anyone would want a 145 hp Charger. My guess is that it was a classic “as low as” engine option.
Buick proudly proclaimed the 20 mpg highway rating of the v6 LeSabre. Was reaction to the oil crisis of ’74.
I remember seeing a row of 2-3 v6 LeSabres at neighborhood Buick dealer and my mom wanted one! Was eager for better gas mileage
http://www.carsurvey.org/reviews/buick/lesabre/1976/
I own probably the most under powered CC ever made. ’82 Olds Custom Cruiser diesel wagon. It’s still all original (at over 200K) except for 9C1 Caprice wheels.
I’m sure that ’76 LeSabre 231 would outrun it.
Thoroughly enjoyable write up! Never occurred to me, but the ’68 – ’70 mid-size Mopars absolutely borrowed their style from the ’66 – ’67 GM A bodies. At least they picked some good lookers to crib.
Most Mopar interiors were quite beautiful during ’65 -’67. That awful steering wheel found it’s way into just about every Mopar in ’68. Seeing one in a Newport is enough to make you cringe. I recall my ’67 Galaxie may have had something similar. It looked to me like some sort of nod toward safety, but dang, they were ugly.
Given it’s size, and the extent to which the mid-size specialty coupe (Grand Prix, Monte Carlo, etc.) became a staple of the ’70’s, a properly executed Charger as sportier Grand Prix might have done better in ’71 and up. But, the dynamics of specialty mid-size and their standard counterparts were hard for an auto executive to figure out. The LeMans was almost a throw away placeholder in the Pontiac line up against the Grand Prix. And the Oldsmobile Cutlass took the brass ring in ’76 using the formula Dodge used in ’71.
The ’71 Changers were designed during the height of muscle car era, so Mopar doubled down on racy styling. Ended up adding to their near collapse.
Imagine Cordoba type cars coming out a few years earlier?
Regarding LeMans, it was riding on GTO’s coattails in 60’s, but by mid 70’s was just a fancier Malibu. Pontiac tried pushing it as a police car as last resort. [Sheriff Justice]
The owner ‘could’ do some extra mods to the Six courtesy of Clifford’s and maybe wake it up a bit while still keeping a quiet exhaust on there, he might stuff in an extra 20-25 horsepower without it sounding like a V-1 buzz-bomb at highway speeds
Higher compression pistons, port & polish headwork, dual Weber intake manifold and a better cam along with a diet of 93 octane. Just stay away from the glasspacks…
OZ 225s were badged 160hp with a 2 barrel carb on the bread and butter model, there was a 4 barrel option on the Pacer and of course a decent exhaust helps but 69 was the last year for the sloper down under. this one is on the cohort
Sorry Bryce – No slant six four barrels on Australian VF pacers. VG (1970) four barrel (E34) were a Pacer option on the Australian Hemi 245 six.
Luke is right, Bryce. The hottest 225 offered in Australia was on the 1969 VF Pacer 225 Valiant, which was slightly warmed up (about 170 to 175 bhp), but still used a 2-barrel Carter BBD carburetor very similar to the one on the 160hp engine—which in turn was an option; the basic-equipment 225 in Australia was a 1-barrel carbureted unit rated at 145hp, same as in the States.
Chrysler South Africa did release a 225 rated at 190 horsepower. Still with a 2-barrel, though there was some factory 4-barrel experimentation with an unconventionally-designed intake manifold.
Another car whose existence I was totally unaware of! I breathed such a sigh of relief upon reading that the Slant/6 will remain in place. It’s a miracle that this Charger has survived as long as it has without being molested – especially because the color is so close to that of the Duke Boyz ride – and it would kill me to know it’s out there somewhere with a BS crate hemi and shiny-ass rimz or a Confederate flag on the roof. Dukes of Hazzard was my favorite show when I was a 5-year old, but the world has already got more Dukes tributes than it needs.
The next engine up being the 318 means there was a huge gap between its (gross) 230HP and the six’s 145 ponies. Given the relatively light weight, I imagine it could go pretty well even with the 318, but the six would have been just adequate – nothing exciting at all. It would’ve been cool if Dodge had done a “Hyper-Pak 2.0” version to warm up the Slant/6 a bit for Charger usage. That’s what I’d do if I had this car… nothing extreme, just enough to make it a little punchy.
For a car that used to be everywhere I can only remember seeing two in the past couple years. One of them was a first generation thatI submitted here. The other is disassembled in a car port where it’s been for the past couple years. Do I just lead a sheltered life (perhaps) or have they just rusted away.
When the 1968 Charger first came out it struck me as a size too big. For example, the duck tail rear end would work much better at pony car scale.
Would the 1967-69 Barracuda have sold better if it had been given the 1968 Charger’s look?
The steering wheel is exactly the same as the one in my father’s ’68 Barracuda. When my brother had it, he put a grip thingie over it.
As for the Charger, thank goodness it’s going to be restored, /6 & all. I’ll keep the Magnum 500 wheels
When I was in high school, every kid I knew had an “uncle” with either a Coronet or Charger with a 426 Hemi in it. Of course, we never go to see it. I also doubt if most of my buddies even knew what “hemi” meant, but that didn’t matter a lot.
I have never seen a slant six Charger, what a nice find. I would wonder why anyone would buy one when gas was 50 cents a gallon. I would have taken the 340.
I also think the early ones were much cooler, with the huge back window. It was actually long enough to sleep in. They had beautiful interiors, too.
LOL on the Hemis. In Alabama, Boss 302s were everywhere. Well, these were actually “302 Boss”es. One guy I knew had a primered out POS 70’s Ford pickup. Engine? 302 Boss of course. ’77 Maverick: 302 Boss. ’82 F100? 302 Boss. Econoline van: 302 Boss.
Then there’s those “350 4-bolt” engines — “factory”. Whatever!
I like it 225s go ok unless yer tryin to drag race, yeah Bullit did make a Mustang look faster than they really were but the jokes of Hazard showed how Chargers handle airborne and they go ok 4 wheels up, landing not so much, too much engine weight not enuff car.
FYI, they put a massive amount of weight in the trunk so the General Lee would fly straight and not nosedive. I’d like to see any car that could survive the stunts that they did on that show. Bo and Luke probably had enough air time to qualify for a pilots license.
+1 Having seen one of the real wrecks that got trailered to a show, I expected a whole lot worse. The front frame rails were kinked upward and the rear end was drooped(credit that to the ballast), but the passenger compartment was fairly in tact minus some ripples(credit that to the cage) and obviously the 100% stock suspensions were collapsed. Baja 1000 racers wouldn’t even fare much better than those Chargers did in the scenarios the stunt coordinators set up. Those cars were literally catapulted off ramps with the only real calculations being that it has to land “somewhere over there” and the camera has to “get most of it”. They tossed a hunk of metal into a field.
My girlfriend bought a new ’73 Charger with the /6 and TorqFlite. Medium green metallic with a darker green venereal roof. She even figured out how to disconnect the speedometer cable to effectively lengthen the warranty.
“…darker green venereal roof.” Never heard that before!
For me, the ’68 Charger is the best looking car Mother Mopar ever made. By far. Drop-dead gorgeous, but also so menacing in black that it could be Satan’s ride. I’ll take one exactly like the Bullitt Charger with a few extra hubcaps.
I’ve always thought the ’71 Charger was godawful, particularly considering how gorgeous the ’68-’70 version was, but that baby-poop yellow stripper model is freakin’ hideous. It makes me want to give a collective dope slap to the designers and product managers who thought this monstrosity was a good idea.
Very cool find, and glad it is being restored “as is.” Such a unique (even if incomprehensible) package is well worth preserving. My guess is that it was some sort of price leader cobbled together for Dodge dealers who were griping about volume and/or something that Plymouth was doing.
As for the styling, I think it is an awesome, aggressive blending of familiar styling cues derived from all sorts of Detroit designs, which is exactly why it works so well. Inside, the Charger instrument panels from the 1960s were all so nice, with ’66 and ’67 being a high mark. The same can’t be said for the ’66 and ’67 exterior. Seeing it, along with the Marlin, makes me realize how ungainly these over-sized fastbacks look. Given the aesthetic issues (is it just my eyes?), I am amazed that the jumbo, bulbous fastback shape keeps reappearing. And it never seems to work any better: witness the Aeroback GM A bodies of ’78 – ’80 or the shockingly ugly Honda Crosstours and BMW 5 Series GTs of today.
+1 On the Crosstours and the Bimmer 5 Series GT. I live just down the street from a BMW dealer and I think they have posted armed guards on the premises to make sure the factory doesn’t try to unload any of those dogs there.
Well, from what I can gather there are less than 40 1968 Charger w/6 still registered. And about the same number of Buick LeSabre w/231.
TJ – Where did you find such data? I know they have a system where you can look stuff like that up in the UK, but I’ve never seen anything similar for the USA.
Related to my job, I have limited access to subscription based website that has what is basically a vehicle census. Usually, I am more concerned with new makes & models, and not so much the actual numbers.
Hmmmmm that’s info people might pay for. Like the # of surviving 1967 Mustang Convertibles with 2 brl 289 V8s.
Owners of 1967-73 Fords are lucky in that they can get a Marti Report
http://www.martiauto.com/
This gives many details, including how many like it were built.
One problem with Ford’s record keeping is that they never broke out production figures by engine size, only body type.
The closest you can get is to extrapolate a figure based on a 35 percent 65 percent ratio of sixes to V8s, and go from there.
Can anyone get a subscription to it, or do you have to be an insurance company/debt collector/NSA/etc. ? I’d pay good money for the luxury of being able to know how many ’77 Pontiac Venturas with Iron Dukes are left on the road.
Here’s the UK version of this, which I still waste a pretty good amount of time on even though I’ve never been there: http://www.howmanyleft.co.uk/
EDIT: There are at least 94 1968 Dodge vehicles in the UK, although it doesn’t break out model names for American vehicles that old… probably doesn’t show up in the computer at their equivalent of a DMV (MOT office?)
Yes, that might be interesting to have access to, as part of writing up our CCs. This is one of xxx left in the country. Could you tell us the name, so I can see how much it would cost?
Polk is the company. (I don’t work for them). Not sure what the cost, etc. would be.
so you can tell me how many 68 chargers with a slant 6 and 3 speed column shift were made for the States
How about a 1981 Firebird Formula with the V6?
I don’t remember us having a ’74 GTO yet either.
I stripped a 1981 Formula at the scrapyard — still have pictures and the build sheet.
Here’s a question. Does anyone know the lightest weight car the slant 6 was installed in and then conversely, what was the heaviest car a slant 6 was installed in?
I’ve sometimes thought that a slant 6 M-body would be a nice project just because it wasn’t that heavy and there would be lots of room to work on the engine once you stripped off the smog crap and started to install the Hi-po parts.
Offhand my guess for lightest would be a ’63-66 Valiant 2 door sedan, and heaviest would be one of the early ’70s Polaras or a pickup.
A truck rather than car but with a GVW of 25,500 the heaviest would easily be the L-600.
Can honestly say I have never seen a slant 6 Charger before. I had a red ’70 Challenger from 84 – 86 that was a 225 six, Torqueflite, PS, AC, no PB. Wanted to put a 340 in it but a job relo got in the way and I sold it for $800. I had no idea then how rare it was. Would that have mattered then? Probably not, if I had kept it it probably would have gotten the small block transplant. Live and learn.
This site: http://www.caaarguide.com/id962.html says that your Challenger was one of 9,928 with a Slant/6, no breakout for auto vs. manual – not super rare, but definitely uncommon… and I’m sure not many have survived.
Paul did you find this at the same shop in Springfield that was featured in Graveyard Cars? They did complete restorations on Muscle Car Era Mopars and researched the history of their cars.
I don’t watch tv, but probably so.
Who’s got time for TV when there are CCs to write up?
This is the same car that we are restoring here at Graveyard Carz. It was featured in last nights episode being disassembled. We are performing a compete OE restoration on the car. This will include overhaul and detailing of complete drive train. Body stripped to bare metal and all rust panels replaced. Complete body and paint and all assembly line markings. Watch for it this season and next season on Graveyard Carz. Mark Worman
I don’t watch much TV, especially car shows. Fake drama and too many guys (and gals) look like criminals, and seemingly every other word is bleeped.
I do watch on rare occasions Wayne Carina. At least that’s interesting, and it’s about the cars, not about him.
From what I gather, earlier seasons of Graveyard Carz had some of that sort of personal drama, but the shows I have seen from the current season are blessedly free from that sort of thing.
Perhaps I’ll give it a try, soon, JP.
I do kind of wonder if 40 years from now someone will be doing a writeup about a 2.7L Magnum or Charger.
I test drove a 2.7 liter Chrysler 300 a couple years ago. Not as bad as you might think, but driving a 3.5 liter Charger immediately after put a different perspective on it.
I love these, either the ’68, or ’69 models best of the lot.
What threw me on the clue was the mangled brightwork around the grill’s top edge, and I could not get enough of the grill to see what car it would have come from.
Nice to see an unmolested one with the original slant six in it, they WERE bulletproof and long lived, and I should know, parents had a 64 Dodge wagon with that motor and 3spd torqueflite.
Like others have said, glad the owner isn’t going to do a Hemi honor car, but leaving it stock, and this is how I’d have kitted it with, although with the lesser V8, prolly the venerable 318, perhaps with the manual instead for an additional oomph, but not need it to be blisteringly fast though.
All I can say is cool! What a find.
As a minor quibble, I think the 225 Slant Six’s net output was probably more like 100 hp, which is what Chrysler quoted when they went to net ratings in 1972. I don’t have engine specs for the 1972 vs. pre-smog Slant Sixes, but the sixes were generally very mildly tuned anyway, so while they might have lost a few real horsepower, I assume it wasn’t much.
I think the ’68-70 Charger is vastly more attractive than its GM contemporaries. It is a big sucker, to be sure, which would make the 383 seem like the better engine choice for real-world use.
The 1972 225 was rated at 110 net hp. But some of that probably reflects a power reduction due to smog controls, which usually included less ignition advance, etc.
My 1965 Ford 240 six has both gross and net hp ratings on its ID plate: 150 gross; 129 net. The net in this case is 16% less than the gross. I’ve used that as a very rough rule of thumb for converting an engine from gross to net, when there were no changes in its tune, compression, etc, like there was for pretty much all engines in the 1968-1972 period.
FWIW, that 16% also works on some European engines; for instance a 34 hp 1200 cc motor x1.16 = 39.44 (40 hp gross).
I’m not going to claim it works across the board. In applying it to the slant six, it suggests that the un-smogged 225’s 145 gross hp were 125 hp net. To play it extra safe (and from anticipated comments like yours 🙂 ), I rounded that down to 120 hp in the post.
I feel pretty confident that an unsmogged 225 made at least 120 hp net. If we can find an ID tag for a 225-equipped truck, we’ll know for sure. In fact, I’m going to search for that right now.
Oops, you’re absolutely right about the 110 hp figure. I was reading the table wrong when I looked it up. Given that, 120 hp for the earlier version is probably pretty reasonable. Sorry about that.
I still think there’s really no reliable formula for converting gross to net short of actually having factory figures for both, as with your Ford six. When I wrote that article, I did the math on a bunch of engines for which I did have both figures and got results ranging from 5% to about 35% — the ratios were just all over the map.
The big issue is that U.S. manufacturers got into interpreting the gross rating methodology rather loosely — in both directions — so aside from estimating the actual power loss caused by accessories and mufflers, you also have to come up with some kind of “marketing department correction factor,” which can vary an awful lot from engine to engine. (Admittedly, sixes were probably a lot less exaggerated than the hot V-8s, but you see what I mean.)
British and European manufacturers who used the SAE gross system generally seem to have taken it more literally. I have a mental image of some serious-minded German engineer looking at the standard and frowning, then dutifully disconnecting the accessories and running the dyno test again, wondering what the Americans are on about. I’m not as sure about JIS gross figures (which were used into the mid-80s, from what I can tell), but my impression is that they fell somewhere in between.
(I don’t mean to bust your chops on this, it’s just something I end up pondering fairly often because people still frequently me questions and comments all on that article asking about conversion formulas and such.)
I am pretty confident that the 145hp slant six was closer to 110 hp net for 1968. Both the 1968 and 1971 engines were rated at 145 hp (gross). According to my old service manuals, both the 1968 and 1971 225’s were rated at 145 hp @ 4000 RPM and 215 ft-lbs @ 2400 RPM. They also both had 8.4:1 compression ratio. A 1971 engine would have to meet higher emission standards than a 1968 engine. However, very few engines for 1971 actually had “emission controls” yet, or if they did they were not power robbing (like evaporative emissions control). Typically, manufacturers would reduced emissions with different cam profiles, reduced compression ratios (like GM did across the board), or as you mentioned reduced ignition advance. That said, these changes also reduced the gross ratings too, as we saw in the 1971 GM gross ratings. The 225 had no changes in its gross ratings, suggesting that if there were any cam changes etc, they didn’t effect the power output of the engine. Many low-po engines like the slant six didn’t really need any changes due to already having low compression and mild cams and the power figures suggest that Chrysler did make few changes to the 225. Unless you can make a valid argument as to what on the 1971 would rob it of 10 additional hp beyond the generic “emission controls”, then I would argue that that there is no logical reason to say that it has a 120 hp rating. That said, I believe that the 1968 225 vs the 1971 225 should both have a real world net rating of 110 hp.
There is not rule or formula that you can use to calculate gross vs net hp. As already posted, many of the “gross” figures were loosly calculated. Net figures basically reflect the power loss of things such as exhaust, accessories, air intake systems etc. These all vary for every car and sometimes between models. Unless you know the specfic amount of hp all the accessories use, the back pressure of the stock exhaust, etc, how can we remotely accurately figure out net hp? Furthermore, even though some trucks had “net” figures, we cannot say if they were calculated as per SAE rules which rolled out across the board in 1972. Both GM and Chrysler published both gross and net figures for 1971 as they prepared for the change in 1972. These numbers are the only ones that I would argue are remotely close to accurate.
Your own article on the subject gives a 1955 Chevrolet 265 V8 as an example, with ratings of 162 hp gross, and 137 hp net. In this case, that’s an 18% reduction.
If we apply that same 18% reduction to the 225, we get 119 net hp.
FWIW, from my own research, it seems that the more powerful the engine (hp per CID), the greater the percentage difference is likely to be. Which makes sense, considering that a high performance engine is going to suffer disproportionately from not having an open exhaust, no air filter, fan, etc., than would a lo-po engine like a typical American six.
I am assuming you just estimated that 145 gross hp would be 120 net hp. In actual fact Chrysler literature for 1971 listed gross and net figures. The 225 CID slant six was rated at 145 hp (gross) and which gave it a 110 net hp rating.
See comment above.
I don’t see why all the fuss about keeping the six. While a bulitproof motor and a great motor for a truck or volare taxi cab it is not enough motor for a performance car of this size and does not enhance the car. Other than historical curiosity I would replace it. What would you all think about preserving a 231 Buick motor in an 80 delta 88 or what about a Fleetwood with a 4100? These cars couldn’t get out of their own way and guzzled gas. Should they stay original??? I guess you could argue at least the slant 6 was reliable. I hate an underpowered car and they can be so slow as to be dangerous.i rember driving a 81 olds delta v6 which was so slow it was scary and an 84 Fleetwood that couuldnt keep up with a city bus I was trying to catch up to. Would any of you begruge these sad cars a real engine??
I do consider it significant considering that it’s a performance car icon that managed to survive 40 years with a drivetrain that nobody in their right mind would want in a performance car. Having said that, I wouldn’t reprimand an owner for doing an engine transplant because, in reality, I’d probably do it too.
It’s like late model V6 or 4cyl Mustangs or Camaro/Firebirds. Would anybody passionately object to one of those getting a V8 swap? Would it be blasphemy because “that’s not how they were”? I’ve never been of that mindset and to 99.999% of the public who see classics at shows it’s all about how they look, not what’s under the hood and how they drive. And with the minor exception of clones/tribute restorations/or whatever it’s called , they look the same anyway. The owner’s the one who drives it and the owner should be able to enjoy it.
-1
I hate a bastardized POS incorrect car. Finding a V8 powered unit makes more sense than ruining a piece of history. There are those out there who appreciate all flavors of old cars, flaws and all.
There’s enough ‘altered’ classic cars out there already without the owner of that ’68 Charger adding to it. Good to know he or she kept the ‘Charger 225’ in its rightful place. And so what if it’s not speedy compared to all the other engines that were available for the car . . . ? Not all folks who like classic cars need a ‘performance’ car to be happy. I don’t.
I purchased a numbers matching 1968 Charger Slant 6 with a three on the tree last year. I figured you’d be happy to know I’m restoring it to factory specs. The engine and drivetrain are done, the body just got finished today. All I need is trim and interior really. Feel free to contact me if you’d like some more pictures of it.
Nice article.
Hi Rob, I’d very much like to see more pictures of your car! I am an avid model builder and I’m building a 68 Charger slant 6. Would like to see how your interior is laid out.
I have all the current pictures of the vehicle posted on For B-Bodies Only, and I keep that folder up to date. I haven’t started on the interior yet. All I have is the original blue back seat, which I’m going to reupholster. I need to buy two front seats though, and a buddy seat. From what I have found online, that was the configuration. As for the look of the seat, it’s really hard to say for sure. I’ve questioned whether my back seat is original, because it doesn’t look like any other charger seat I’ve seen. Then again, the slant 6 with a three-speed wasn’t like any other charger either. Thanks for the e-mail, and please do send a photo of the car when you’re done.
Interior dash.
Cluster
Exterior after final paint.
I too have one of those 1968 6 cyl Chargers auto on the column and buddy seat.
I had it now for 18 years and bought it from a guy here in Florida. Motor needed rebuilt and body and interior needed restored so at that time I decided to convert it to a big block car in which I did. I kept the motor, trans and rearend. I still have them and my wife will not let me sell them. I haven’t a clue what a 6 cyl charger would be worth.
I bought my triple green -68 Charger with the slant six, three on the tree in Dallas back in 2004. From what i’ve read you had to special-order the slant six at a dealership (Boedeker Werner in Oak Cliff in this case).
Funny you say that, I just picked up a green 68 6 cyl with 3 on the tree that is green yesterday…
There used to be a slant 6 1971 Barracuda convertible around my area that was an original owner no option car–3 speed manual, no radio. The lady was getting up there in years and had endured years of folks trying to buy the car–I havn’t seen it for a few years so I imagine it was sold and is now a Hemi Cuda clone
I knew Ive seen that car before! It was at Chryslers at Carlisle a couple of years ago. Glad to see its getting a full resto but a bit surprised it had to go all the way out to Oregon.
i have a 68 charger 3 on the tree complete with what i think is carpet delete option seats are pretty good. All of my friends call it a tractor cause it has no muffler. I was wondering if anyone knows what its worth?
I don’t realy want to sell it but if i get enough i might sell it to restore my mustang.
Jesse is your 68 slant 6 charger still for sale? I would be interested
yeah I would sell it was gonna drive it joe dirt stile this summer but make an offer
Nice to see a 1968 Dodge Charger with a slant 6 again. When I worked at Ridge Dodge in Woodridge, NJ they had a new one parked in the shop one day. I don’t remember what sort of person bought it, but, I was surprised to see that Charger with a 6. Have never seen another one until here, now.
I have a 1972 Dodge Charger with a Slant 6 in it. Exactly 962 Slant 6 Chargers were made that year and 133 of them were WH23 cars. I have 1 of the 133 and it is staying a 6 banger. My car is a stripped down version too-no options except power steering. GA4-“Light Gunmetal” with black interior and dog dish caps.
Back in 1979 my older brother’s friend bought a used 1972 Charger that was a real oddball. It had a slant six, a 3-in-the-tree manual, bench seat, manual steering, but it also had hidden headlights & a vinyl roof cover! If you have ever seen the 1972 Charger advertisement where there is a Hemi Orange hardtop with a black vinyl roof, wheel covers & whitewalls, then you are looking at what the car looked like except that it also had the hideaway lights like an SE. It had not been pieced together. Somewhere I believe I may still have a black & white photo of that particular car when he sold it through a trader-type publication around 1980. This was around Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
When the car was new in ’72, gas was still cheap and plentiful. Insurance had been really creeping upwards though, and telling your insurance broker that you just bought a Charger might cause him to break his pencil.
As for the Curbside Classic article, I had never known that the slant six was offered in any Charger of that generation, only the 1971 and later models. Live and learn. If I owned one I would make sure it ran as quietly as possible, as those slant sixes had a certain sound that was unmistakable. It would sound odd emanating from such a beautiful and iconic car that is generally known for being muscular. Similar story for an Iron Duke L4 in a 1980s Camaro or Firebird.
Sounds like the ’72 “Charger Topper” trim package.
In 1998 I traded my 1979 Ford F-150 for a 1968 gold charger. Perfect tan interior ,very little rust ,no dents , radio delete and std 3spd on the floor. Oh ya , a charger 225 slant 6 !
Found out the history of the car because I traded it with the son of the lady who got it as a gift from her husband. The husband had owned “Langley Chrysler” in British Columbia Canada. He special ordered it as a gift to his wife. I later dropped a 383 into it, enjoyed it then sold it couple years later to a kid that needed a school project. (Kids Dad was Mr.Nintento). No joke!
Years later I got a call out of nowhere from a new owner of the car wondering if I still had the original motor and tranny. Lol I did but just took them to the scrap yard the day before he called. Never heard back wether they were able to retrieve it.
I understand this was a one of one car. Any body heard of this car?
I have a 1968 Dodge Charger with a slant six engine and 3 on the 3. Is this worth any money. From Newfoundland, Canada.
Hey Joe, I’m not sure if it’s worth much, but if you really have an original slant 6 with a 3-speed, you’re probably the only other person I’ve seen who claims to actually have one. I restored mine and it gets a lot of looks … even some offers, but nothing serious. I think it would be hard to sell, but for the right person, it may be worth as much as a restored original 383. Do you have any pictures of yours?
Great car! You will get tired though. Mine was indistructable. I even tried to blow it up for fun. It’s under powered,quiet and got worse mpg than the 383 I replaced it with.
Since it’s not one of the preferred optioned cars, I would do it up the way you want. You will always get your money back plus.
I have a 1969 R/T charger 4spd now with 18,434 original miles. Nice but always babysitting it everywhere I take it. If I were to do it again it would be your car fixed up the way I wanted it and enjoy rippin around.
Please post some pics.
More pics of my 68 Charger 6 cylinder (now 440 w/727 and 8.75 rear suregrip) Painted Flat Satin Black. I love driving this car and get looks and thumbs up and trophy winner at some car shows. I kept all the original parts (Motor, trans, rearend, drum brakes and master cylinder, Steering Wheel and buddy seat) oh and the torsion bars are still in the car, I have bought new ones for a big block car to replace one day. I do also baby it and take care of it as if it was a BIG dollar car cause to me it is. I’ve had it for 20 years now and will never sell it. A 68 Charger is just the most beautiful muscle car ever built. The flat satin really shows off her lines. Please enjoy the pics.
Thanks
more pics
one more
another
From Daytona Turkey Run 2014
That Duke car jumping int the shot above is from the movie, and isn’t a model. the Mitsubishi should be a dead giveaway.
I believe that very car is the one being restored on the show “Graveyard Cars” this season.
I watch graveyard cars sometimes, I’ll have to keep a lookout for this one.
I wouldn’t have one of these in any configuration, but I would like to own the Camaro 250/Powerglide!
Just my style (and speed).
A ’68 Charger with the Leaning Tower of Power™??? Be still my heart!
3100 lbs! Hardly seems plausible, it looks to the eye more like ~3800 range. I think my Dart Sport was 3200 lbs but I could be wrong.
Probably shipping weight sans fluid, I’d bet 3300ish all filled up
In 1995 I was travelling round England and stopped in at my friend’s Americana shop called The American Store in Cambridgeshire. Telephones shaped like 1957 Chevrolets and that sort of thing. The shop window had the header panel from a taxi-yellow ’78 Chev Caprice with lit-up headlamps. There was a tea shop attached to The American Store and I was having a cuppa when my friend came over and said he had a customer who had some queries about American television, and might I be able to answer them. Okeh, sure.
So this guy comes round and he wants to know if any UK TV shows are on in the States. I told him “Oh yeah, we do get them—I like ‘Are You Being Served'”. He goes off: “Oh, it’s bloody awful! It’s total rubbish! They’re showing that in the States? What a bunch of wankers!”.
And then in the next breath, eagerly: “Is ‘The Dukes of Hazzard’ still on?”.
Eeyeah.
Should have followed up with ‘we watch Benny Hill and Monty Python, too. And sometimes that Abbey show’.
The brochure *doesn’t* say the console is standard, so I’ll guess it was optional. Also says 3-speed standard for Charger, but the auto for the R/T?
AMA specifications page (eBay): six available for Coronet but not Charger (am I reading that right?)?
When I bought my 68 Charger , it was from the original owner who used to own ”Langley Chrysler” in B.C. CND . It was a slant six,radio delete and 3spd on floor no console. The guy I sold it to called me up years later to tell me that he had it looked at . It was one of one! It is fully restored and has been in Mopar mags. I have yet to see it myself.
Very interesting. I would note that the form is dated May of 1967, so before the beginning of the model year. From what I have read, after a banner year in 1966, monthly sales targets were getting harder and harder to meet all through 1967, a year in which sales were off fairly sharply. The metric that seemed to be top priority at Lynn Townsend’s Chrysler Corporation was units shipped. It would not surprise me at all that as 1968 got underway a Charger with a six became one more (short-sighted) way to get a few more units out the door. Although Charger sold quite well in 1968 (as did the company as a whole), I believe that a bad 1967 sort of set the trajectory for the years that followed, which began years of cost cutting, the emphasis of low priced loss leader models and marked reductions in quality.
JP’s post makes sense. The slant 6 models were probably for ‘bait and switch’ ads. “New Charger for $XX99!” Then shoppers told “Oh you want a V8, well….”
^^^^I was at first skeptical of the Bait/Switch possibility, but then found this ad, which sure smells like a dealer dangling an enticing price. It doesn’t even say “318” or “V-8,” and “all standard equipment” does sound a bit intentionally vague. Who knows…….?
Interesting. Most info on the web says the 68 Charger’s base price was $3014, so this ad represents a $426 price drop from base sticker. Inflation was becoming a factor, so prices in general were slowly rising then. Also Chrysler’s zone sales people were known to run monthly “boiler room operations” to cram cars down dealers’ throats with kickbacks and prizes from luggage sets to cruises, thus having the roundabout effect of fattening the dealer’s margin on each unit sold. Dealers would thus wait till the end of the month to make their orders, when the company was dealing incentives to take cars. And those sixes might very well have been quietly introduced to have a loss leader to advertise just like this. Fascinating stuff.
My car-mentor Howard had a brother who sold to the Detroit auto manufacturers for the Sun Oil Company. Howard was showing him his new 77 Newport, but the brother said that he refused to ever buy a Chrysler product due to their business practices. He maintained that the Chrysler purchasing people had all the ethics of pirates, trying to chisel him out of every nickel and dime they could. True this was about 9 years after we are talking about, but after about 1965-66 the quality of the entire operation started to slowly unravel from top to bottom, so nothing that they might have done in this period of time in terms of product changes or pricing would surprise me much.
Here’s some straight-from-the-horse’s-mouth info (Sept. ’67) as the new models debuted. The 225 = available for Coronet, but not for Charger. Console optional, so you could get four-on-the-floor with or without it.
Crazy, Crazy Thought: would any hot-rodder of the day have gone to the trouble to order up a 225 Charger–with heavy-duty underpinnings in place if possible–just to get the VIN that meant “cheap insurance,” and then have spent the money to drop in a 426 or 440? (You’re all welcome to shoot the idea down.)
I have no doubt you are right that the V8 was standard when the 68s were introduced. But my experience with Mopars of that era tells me that quiet running changes were not unheard of, with a long history of “spring specials” of all kinds that came along fairly late in the model year. I don’t think adding a six would have received much (if any) fanfare, other than maybe a quiet dealer bulletin. It’s not like they had to do any engineering to make it fit, pretty much every other B body was set up for the six, so it would have just been a matter of using parts already on the shelf.
The insurance angle is interesting. As collectible as these cars have become and as famous as “Mr. Norms” dealership was for performance cars, I suspect that this would be fairly well known lore by now if that really happened with any regularity. The other problem is that if you crack up your Charger and the adjuster sees the 440 under the hood when you declared it as a six when you got the coverage, that might have led to a whole bunch of other issues. Like insurance fraud and no coverage.
George, my article states that the six was not available until sometime in the spring of 1968. As to why, Jim’s guess sounds about as good as any to me.
As to your guess about buyers ordering a six to get lower insurance and then dropping in a big block V8, that’s probably fairly unlikely, as the cost of doing so would have been mighty onerous. It would have required a new transmission, and other drive line components. That would be years of insurance. Not likely; certainly not as a reason for Dodge to offer it.
Paul and JPC, you two are again the voices of knowing reason. I just couldn’t resist an impulsive leap from “you’d have to be *crazy* to do that!” to “I wonder if anyone *was* crazy enough to do that?” (in the pre-clone era, of course).
It’s an interesting question. Back in the day, while it wasn’t done to circumvent insurance surcharges, there were high-performance car dealerships that did routinely offer engine swaps and you have to wonder about the VIN numbers which would surely no longer indicate what the car actually got sold with. A good example would be Mr. Norm’s Grand Spaulding Dodge of Chicago’s 1968 440 Dart GSS, which came from the factory as a 383 GTS.
I am not too sure about the Dealers changing out a 6 cyl for a V8 due to the fact that a V8 will not fit the K-member without some modifications and the front drum brakes are small, the transmission mount has to change, the engine wiring harness has to change plus the rearend is too small.
The references on the 3 speed saying 2 made are incorrect, as Galen’s book shows 2 *known* at the time of publishing. That certainly doesn’t mean it’s total production.
I owned a 69 Charger with a slant 6 back in the 70’s. Red of course, nice white interior and 3 on the column. In 1974 I was 16 years old, was not a car guy and knew nothing about engines sizes when I walked onto a used car lot and of course the lines and bright red caught my eye. The salesman told me at the time that nobody would believe what’s under the hood… mentioned something about slant six. I didn’t know if that was a good thing or bad thing. I don’t recall how much I paid for it. I sacked groceries at the Quantico commissary in the winters and worked as a lifeguard in summers so it couldn’t have been much. I paid cash and drove it home. All I did to it was put gas in it and change the oil occasionally. I did add gray shag carpet that went nice with the white interior. Of course an 8 track player and box speakers in the back window and back seat floorboards to play my Led Zeppelin and Aerosmith tapes. Chicks dug it. I remember strapping the muffler back in place with coat hanger wire once… maybe twice. After two years I gave it to my brother-in-law when I joined the army. What I tell people… is that I was dating this girl from Hazard County at the time and I sold it to her cousins. A couple of good ol’ boys. I usually don’t mention the slant six.
Cool article. My 69 Charger I have today was built in 1985 when I was a teenager with a donor body from a slant six three on the tree green 1969 no options car. I paid $100 Dollars for it. Back then, you couldn’t get any parts to repair a wrecked car. I bought a wrecked 1969 383 SE charger for $180 bucks and swapped everything but the motor over to donor. I originally built my own mounts for the 440 I put in the car but then learned the 383 cars K member would work and swapped the K member, brakes and power steering into my car. I still own and drive this car quite often. Its not original at all and is really beat up nowadays but I have lots of memories in this car and its priceless to me!
I love it! It reminds me of the 69 in Dirty Mary Crazy Larry.
We have a 68 6 cylinder, manual transmission green charger.
I found the other slant 6, 3 on the tree charger. https://eauclaire.craigslist.org/cto/d/chippewa-falls-1968-charger/6827712623.html
First car was a 71 charger w 225 and 3 speed auto . Total stripper,vinyl floor,bench seats,dog dish hubcaps,black with blue int. was indestructible.
Once tried to “speed shift “ from first to second missed horribly and hit reverse with accelerater floored. Both back wheels locked up and the engine died. Put it back in park fired up and drove off like nothing happened.
It was purchased from a local utilities co auction for less than 400$. The wimpy stock suspension had seen better days and the car was a low rider before that was popular. Even with mud tires on the back the car actually looked pretty bad ass and received lots of compliments. The black with blue int. was different never saw another like it. Would love to have it back traded for a 71 dodge polara 383 which I promptly wrapped around a tree. That one was also one of a kind and a very good looking ride. Nice to see all the info here on those cars.
I Just found and purchased a 1970 Special Order H Code /6 Charger Matching Numbers but Im gonna GEN III Hemi it and store the /6
Found this in a local yard recently. Had the engine still in it, but the roof had been cut off decades ago and its returning to the earth.
I was reading the comments about the “Tic Toc Tac”. I seem to recall Oldsmobile offered a rally pack gauge package in their ’67 A body cars. That also included what they called the “Tic Toc Tac” as well. As the name a patent of the supplier?
Talk about rare .
Chargers were to me, too BIG .
I know they’re a halo car everyone wants one but dang ~ drive one in traffic, you won’t be amused .
-Nate
2nd to last pic. To the right of the Charger badge. Is that a forward look emblem I see? (Also noticed the dodge triangular logo above the cluster.)
No, that isn’t a Flookerang (Forward-Look logo), it’s just an arrow-type Logo Chrysler put on Chargers at that time. The ‘Dodge triangular logo’ has a name, too; it’s called the Fratzog.
Frankly, I like this Charger the most.
Did you buy this car? Does anyone have a driver for sale 68-70? Obviously prefer the 68, but I’ll take any of the 3. I found a 69’ locally for $78,000, but it’s more of a show car. I do not car what motor is in it, hell it can be a roller. I just want the car.