(first posted 10/5/2012) The two smartest things Chrysler did in the late sixties and early seventies: One: Hang on to the A-Body compacts, seemingly forever. Two: Give that line of rolling refrigerators some new pizazz with the Duster. In lieu of these, Chrysler’s 1980 brush with death undoubtedly would have come much sooner.
The Valiant and Dart had their last (and final) re-do in 1967, resulting in the first line of cars known more for their appliance-like qualities than style. And Plymouth didn’t shy away from that association: here’s the (now) rare 1968 Valiant Whirlpool edition, available in white, avacado or harvest gold. No ice maker, though.
The ’67 – ’69 Barracuda came in three body styles, including this svelte coupe, which could rightfully be considered a sporty Valiant coupe, given that’s what it essentially was (the upright windshield being the give-away, as if one was needed). And no, the mod top wasn’t available on the Whirlpool. But for 1970, the Barracuda would morph into a whole different kettle of fish, leaving a bit of a hole in the A-Body line-up.
John Herlitz, who would later become Director of Chrysler Design, conveniently joined Chrysler after a short stint at GM, where he had seen the development of the ’68 GTO. That design continued on a theme started with the ’66 Olds Toronado, integrating its C-Pillar seamlessly between the lower body and the roof.
So how to do that with the Valiant body (or Dart, in the case of this picture), which had a very old-school “ledge” or character line that ran down the side, making the roof structure look like it was a slightly smaller box set on top of a bigger box.
Lots of clay; that’s how. Bulge out those hips, as if there were some giant drag slicks under them. As is clearly not the case with this one; but it did endear itself with the Big Wheel crowd. Well, that and lean back the windshield, and give it the most radically-curved side glass to date on a production car. Tricky, for the times, but Chrysler engineers were good at solving problems.
But a wider rear track sure would have helped. This one shows off the empty space under its hip-augmentation even more painfully.
Here we go; I knew I had a version with the right rear wheels somewhere in my files. And all of them are ’74s? Jeez, how many Dusters have I shot by now?
This was my first, a ’72, and one of the legendary 340s. A real speed freak, and my CC on it emphasized that aspect.
As well as the two layers of cord showing in the front tire. It was the best performance value for the buck at the time, by a good margin. Having done it justice (hopefully), we’ll stick to the Duster’s other qualities in this CC.
Like luxury. Presumably, that’s what the Gold Duster package was, at least for its time. It arrived mid-year in the 1970 model year, still a bit before the Great Broughamification of the compact class. That would come soon enough…
In early seventies parlance, a Gold Duster meant this, as shown: hardly loose-pillow velour and fake wood trim. Don’t ask what the basic Duster’s seats looked like; undoubtedly like the black taxi-cab seats in my Dad’s ’68 stripper Dart. Let’s just say they didn’t show it in the brochure.
The Plymouth marketing gurus got a bit carried away with the xxxDuster approach. A fold-down rear seat option was called the Space Duster Pak. Maybe they were using a bit too much dust themselves. But that was hardly the end of it.
In the Duster’s final year (1976), a Silver Duster also made the line-up. Love how that red accent band on its sides dips back up at the rear; classy.
But the Feather Duster has them all beat. In response to the energy crisis and the growing inroads of imports, the Plymouth engineers decided to show everyone what an economy-optimized American compact was capable of. Some 180 lbs were shed by using aluminum in certain body parts.
The 225 cubic inch (3.7 L) slant six got a smaller carb, a different advance curve in its distributor, a bigger exhaust for less back pressure, and a 2.8:1 rear axle. With the four-speed overdrive manual, it scored an EPA rating of 24/36. Pretty impressive, although those were the old un-adjusted EPA numbers. Maybe about 20/30 in today’s EPA numbers, or a tad less. Getting 25 mpg in a semi-decent-sized American car during the seventies was not exactly common.
The 198 inch slant six was standard for all Dusters through 1974, except the 340/360 versions. It used the raised block of the 225 inch version (which was optional), but had a shorter stroke. It was rated at 100hp, vs 110 for the 225. And the 318 was of course optional.
The Duster spun gold for Plymouth, with sales on a powerful upward trajectory, culminating in almost 300k units sold in 1974 (explains why I’ve encountered so many ’74s). But then Duster sales dropped like a gold ingot in ’75 and ’76, as folks were ready for something newer, or Japanese. The typical A-Body buyer undoubtedly found Toyota to be a logical next step in utility, simplicity and ruggedness, especially considering that Chrysler’s replacement for them was the ill-fated Volare/Aspen twins.
Solid gold, these cars were, until the hips played out. And it’ll probably be quite a while before these have all turned to dust again.
In many ways, the Duster was the real successor to the first-gen Mustang. Plain-Jane compact underpinnings with a sporty profile, a wide range of options, especially for the performance minded, affordably priced, yet not so amped up to warrant prohibitive insurance.
One of my neighbors traded in their ’67 Galaxie 500 sedan on a new Gold Duster. Aside from noticeable sagging when three of the rather large family members filled the rear seat, it looked good and held up well.
At same time, most Dusters were just daily drivers, many with slant 6. Like Novas with 6’s. Just nowadays, many are resto-modded with V8’s with splashy paint and trim to ‘clone’ the 340 versions. Leading to some thinking “all Dusters were muscle cars”. And no, they didn’t come with Hemis, 😉
Every time I see these US Valiants and Darts, I’m amazed at the degree of autonomy that Chrysler Australia was allowed during this period.
But we’re talking about Dusters here. I don’t have a ’74 of any stripe, let alone a Gold Duster, but here’s a ’71.
Beautiful work as usual Peter. I’m starting to like the colours and options on your models, as much as the subject cars. 🙂
Thanks Daniel! Here’s another.
As with the green one, I took (quite) some liberties with the interior colours.
Love it! The underhood detailing is superb. Very nice Renault as well. Colour choices are always excellent.
Australia had stringent local-content laws, and was halfway round the planet from Detroit, so there would’ve been scanty reason to duplicate the US designs just because they and their tooling already existed. As long as stuff had to be tooled and built there in Australia, it was best for business to suit the design to local needs and wants.
One upshot of this was that when Chrysler Australia sent some Valiants and Chargers to the US and asked the mothership for evaluation and input on how to improve their handling at some point in the 1970s, the mothership’s response was that they’d never encountered Chryslers that handled as well as the Australian cars, as sent.
Yes, local print media picked that one up. Supposedly they said the Valiant we sent them was the best handling intermediate they’d ever driven. I always wondered whether that was a bit of a veiled snark: the Valiant is/was a compact…..
I think you’re right with your comment that without these cars, Chrysler would have been in trouble financially much sooner. I could never understand why they didn’t have a car that looked like a Pinto or a Vega, to draw in subcompact customers. I know they didn’t have the cash to develop such a car, so they brought in the Horizon/omni instead, but those cars were more upright. At the time I think North Americans wanted their subcompacts to look the same proportions as the bigger cars, just in a smaller package.
All this is not to say the gambit would have worked, but I still see it is a miss by Mopar.
As was ditching the Duster and Dart Sport for the Volarepens. They should have kept the names, updated the styling, given it better suspension, and kept the Dusters and Darts going. Maybe even the Scamps and Dart sedans too, by better integrating the greenhouse with the body.
The Omni/Horizon weren’t “brought in”—not the way the Cricket and Colt were. The European Talbot/Simca Horizon and the American Plymouth-Dodge cars diverged pretty early and significantly in the development; good writeup by a relevant Chrysler engineer who was there is here.
Interesting to note then the Duster in South Africa was sold as the Valiant Charger.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ifhp97/49438222607
However the South African Charger didn’t got the Hemi 6 from the Australian version.
The South African Chrysler range was an interesting mix of American and Australian cars and parts. The US Dart rebadged as a Valiant; the US Duster rebadged as a Charger, and…well, here.
As to the Hemi-6 not leaving Australia/New Zealand: yeah, the Australian Valiants exported to South Africa (maybe also elsewhere) had the 225 Slant-6 or the LA V8. I don’t know why they did that; I’m guessing it was at the request of Chrysler South Africa, who might have considered the 225—particularly in its interesting South Africa-only configurations—adequate for the local needs and wants, and might not have wanted the expense and hassle of stocking a bunch of new parts and training a bunch of mechanics on a new engine.
From what I read on this text, it’s was due to local content requirements.
https://www.allpar.com/threads/the-desoto-rebel-and-valiant-rebel.229674/
And interesting to note then the Hillman Avenger aka Plymouth Cricket was sold in South Africa with a Peugeot engine due to local content. Could we said it was a foreshadowing of things to come? 😉
I do see the claim about the Peugeot engine in the Avenger, but I don’t see anything in the article you linked suggesting South African Valiants had the Slant-6 rather than the Hemi-6 on account of local-content requirements, one.
Two, Allpar is notoriously un-fact-checked.
Chrysler didn’t have to look too far for inspiration for their 1976 Plymouth Volare and Dodge Aspen station wagon tail light design. Essentially, the Duster’s design turned vertically. Including the chrome surround, with matte black inserts.
Side-by-each, they aren’t close to alike unless the criterion is super vague, like “more or less sorta rectangular with a chrome/black surround”.
Sorry. The chrome surrounds, with matte black inserts, are the same look and feel. One is concave, the other convex. The thin chrome pinstripes on the lenses are the same style. The three pane lenses match-up in size (generally). With the white lens in the same location. One could have easily have inspired the other. Basic design is near identical. 🙂
Eh. There are similarities in the general design, but no, I’m still not onside with basic design is near identical. For that, I turn to ’72-’80 Dodge and ’08-’13 Ford pickup truck taillights:
What’s the different between me using ‘basic design’, and you using ‘general design’?
Make the lens look more similar, and the designs have a distinct family resemblance. I’d say, one most likely inspired the other. Yes, in terms of maintaining a corporate look.
Family resemblance, yes, we’ve agreed from the start. But that’s as far as it goes for me. If you’re having fun photochopping ’em and going “See?!”, though…enjoy!
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You never mentioned ‘family resemblance’ initially. Rather, ‘they aren’t close’. Big difference! They were clearly trying to make them look similar, as other Chrysler products from that era used the same basic chrome surround with the matte black insert. That is a huge component of them looking so much alike. Same with the chrome pinstriping in the lens.
That’s three or four more interior-colour options at the economy end of the product range in the early 1970s than one gets these days even at the high end of the product range.
…and an aluminum intake manifold, the first factory-installed one since the first-year 1960 Slant-6 engines.
I can maybe put up with that weirdness, but that downzag of the lower body line ahead of the rear wheelwell has just never worked for me, and the accent band just makes it more conspicuously ugly. On this Silver Duster, the accent band in total reminds me of not-very-careful exhaust pipework.
I once read that the auto styling term for those hips was ‘double-diamond’, essentially the slight flairing of both the front and rear fenders, with one of the most superb examples being the classic 1968-70 Dodge Charger. In the case of the Duster, it was more like ‘single diamond’.
In any event, the Duster’s quarter panels seem analogous to how a woman’s hips can be exceptionally attactive when young but as they age, they become less so.
That seems to be what happened to the Duster’s styling: very attractive in the beginning, but by the mid-seventies, not so much anymore.
I think it’s one of those subtle details that shouldn’t be accented, using female analogies it’s more like a pretty women who wears way too much makeup that in effect makes her less attractive. I like the lines on the duster, but the more natural the better.
Other car I’ve found that same detail less flattering on is the 67 GTO, 66s had that same dip impressed into the sheetmetal but the 67s had these huge chrome accent cladding in that area to exaggerate it, I like some of the changes for 67 (the taillight panel) but that looks less and less good the longer I look at it. The Charger execution of the double diamond theme is apples and oranges, the way it extended all the way into the front of the door terminating in the grooves was a stroke of genius, it’s both exaggerated and subtle at the same time
It was/is quite amazing to me that the Duster and the Valiant shared the same basis chassis and unibody. None of the lines are the same from the cowl forward. That must have been quite a tooling budget! Still, one of the few Chrysler successes post-fuselage. One has to maybe think that the “boy-racer” clientele of many of these may have eventually turned off the clientele they were really after – the secretary after a “sporty car, but practical”. A similar mistake like that is what did in Pontiac, I contend – after their peak in the 2000’s, people associated Pontiac’s with boy-racer body-moldings and the folks who bought them.
All of the lines are the same from the cowl forward. From the beltline down, all of the lines are the same forward of the rear edge of the door. From the outermost crease down, the lines are the same clear to the rear of the car.
“… turned off the clientele…” Huh?
Actually, lots of low-performance Dusters sold, with slant 6 or 318. Commercials had actress Judy Strangis as “Mean Mary Jean” to appeal to young women, promoting the sun roof and folding rear seat. Appealed to many folks, not just ‘boy racers’.
Not all Dusters were the 340 “muscle cars” and not in same market segment as Mustang/Camaro. The E body Cuda was the Plymouth ‘pony car’.
Once on the used car market, then Duster/Dart were popular ‘budget builds’ in Hot Rod and Car Craft magazines.
It’s interesting how automotive likes and dislikes can change as we grow up (debatable) and get older (unfortunately concrete). As a kid growing up in the mid 1980’s forward, I never liked any of these A bodies very much. In my mind, they had this aura of poverty about them, often being owned by families who were down and out. As such, the cars were often dirty and battered, with many of their owners living far off the beaten path. And they had those weird sounding starters.
An early encounter was a 1968 Dart that always arrived to pick up one of my older schoolmates when I was in kindergarten. It was a dark blue 4 door that was heavily used, and was missing its right rear side marker light. Like, there wasn’t even a hole where one would go. Did they forget to put one in at the factory? Did the owner perform body repairs and not install one, even though there was a plug right there for it? How could they be so careless?? Yes, I was a weird little kid. One of the last hangers on was a Crop Duster, or rather a 1969 Dart hardtop in olive green, that steadfastly refused to die. This car was equipped with windows too dirty to see out of, looking like they had 30 years worth of cigarette smoke smeared into the glass. It also had sagging rear springs, a faded safety orange flag atop a long fiberglass pole that was attached to the rear bumper, and one of those bend-it-yourself tailpipes that poked upward instead of downward at the bumper. This emitted ever larger quantities of blue smoke as the car doddered around town well into the mid 2000’s. It usually could be found at the big casino near my place of work, from dusk til dawn, for the first couple weeks of every month. Not sure if the owner outlasted the Dart, or if it was the other way around.
So I never really noticed the hip augmentation on the later cars pictured here, but now I could picture myself in one. Quite easily. And that unmistakable starter sound would be icing on the cake.
My grandmother owned a pair of Plymouth Dusters in the ’70’s-early ’80’s, before I came along. She loved them though and still talks about them. The first one she had was blue and her father called her “blue streak” because of her notorious lead foot as he said “All you see when Susan goes by is a blue streak”
After the blue Duster came a brown Duster and he said “Well, I’m not calling you brown streak because that just doesn’t sound right.” Haha.
Never owned, but seems like I rode or drove in a couple. Inoffensive styling, cramped back seat, but with that 340 engine, hold on when the loud pedal gets pushed. Seemed like a forgettable, but not bad, car, with a transformative engine option.
I’m fonder of Fords than Chryslers, but those things wouldn’t embarrass a 302 Maverick, they would humiliate them.
Ford faced a real dilemma with the Maverick. Designated as the replacement for the Falcon (which it was based upon), it was initially a stop-gap solution to having a competitor to the growing VW Beetle market, and was actually priced as such in the beginning. Those early 1970 cars released in April, 1969, had an MSRP of $1995, a 170 ‘Thriftpower’ I6, and were real strippos without so much as a glove box lid (just a shelf). Real basic machines (the old ‘seats and a steering wheel’ type car) to do battle with a similarly priced Beetle.
That problem resolved itself somewhat when the Pinto arrived to take on the Vega and Beetle and the Maverick was moved up to its proper compact place against the Nova and Mopar A-body, but the damage had been done to the Maverick; although ‘brand-new’, it was the smallest of the Big 3 (+ AMC) compacts.
But the bigger dilemma was the Mustang. GM had a big enough slice of the market that they could have a compact musclecar Nova, along with the Camaro. Further, the 3rd generation Nova coupe wasn’t exactly a looker and, unlike over at Chrysler with the swoopy Duster, there didn’t seem to be too much cannibalization between the Nova and Camaro.
Ford certainly didn’t want the same kind of Mopar situation with a 351 Maverick eating into higher-profit Mustang sales. It would have been quite easy, too, considering how Bunkie Knudson’s 1971 Mustang at least had the appearance of being quite a large car.
In that regard, more than a few prospective Mustang buyers would have surely went for a cheaper, faster 351 Maverick, instead, exactly the same as Mopar musclecar buyers saved a bundle by going with a Duster 340 instead of a higher priced (but no faster) E-body.
The bottom line is that a compact Maverick musclecar just wasn’t in the cards.
I think there was an interesting parallel with the Duster and the Australian Charger.
Both were basically hardtops with fixed or at least pivoting rear passenger glass, both had identical front sheet metal as the sedans.
And I know the Charger was a last minute spinoff from the VH range by Chrysler Australia managing director David Brown, because he knew the long wheelbase US designed coupes were going to be a dud for our market.
I think I have read the Duster was created in similar circumstances, and both were hugely popular although the Charger’s popularity was kind of brief, it accounted for almost 50% of Valiant sales early in its life, and without it Chrysler Aust. future would have been uncertain far earlier than it ended up being.
Back when I were a punk high school kid I would’ve loved to have a Duster as my daily ride. Alas, living in the Midwest where salting the roads in winter was a daily occurrence whatever examples were left a decade past their heyday were quite rusty indeed.
However this fall I did stumble across a 1974 Duster parked at a rather, er, shady, car dealer two towns over.
Bright screaming yellow paint with a 1970/71 Duster 340 “blackout” hood and front fender treatment. I suspect that given this car is on aftermarket wheels the paint job and screaming yellow hood scoop are aftermarket as well. Inside the interior showed a bench seat and column shifted automatic transmission. $15K, which isn’t unreasonable for a nearly (gulp) fifty year old car.
Loved Valiants and Dart. Loved Dusters.
Loved those Leaning Tower of Power sixes and the 318 V8s.
But not the Chrysler full size cars.
Not the Chrysler intermediates.
Just the A bodies.
Yes, by 1974, the 7 year old A body was old looking. Chrysler needed a replacement badly. Sadly, somehow that need was understood to mean, “we need a bad replacement” in the form of the Volare/Aspen.
Us A-body fans didn’t want an entirely new car built like a British Leyland product – we just wanted a new modern design on the A-body. Keep the good parts and update the sheet metal – why was that so hard?
I suppose we ought to be very grateful that Chrysler DIDN’T “fix” the A-bodies before 1971 – or we would have ended up with those horrible Volare/Aspen lemons in 1971.
Frustrating how you can love a car company with products like the Valiant/Duster/Dart and watch if completely flop like it did. It was painful to watch for us.
I thought the cleaner lines, and more modest rear on the ’75 Nova, made Dusters look so dated. A tighter body all around.The Duster looked straight out of the 60s. Which, it was.
Now compare this ’75 Nova to the Aspen/Volare coupé. Since we’re talking lately about cribbing!
While I often show a soft bias towards Chrysler products, as my dad bought several, I do prefer the ’75-’79 Nova styling to the F-Bodies. Both in four door, and coupe versions.
Loved the F-body wagon design at the time, but found the coupes and sedans generally milquetoast in their styling. The Monteverdi Sierra showing how modern and clean the F-Body sedans should/could have looked. Significant improvement, on what Chrysler attempted IMO.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/monteverdi-sierra-the-plymouth-volare-gets-some-italian-tailoring/
The European styling influence, was a tasteful improvement.
My dad owned a ’78 Aspen wagon, and the modular instrument cluster and steering wheel design, reminded me, of the cluster and steering wheel on the 1970 Buick Electra 225.
See, for yourself.
I never, ever liked any of the F-bodies. I’ve always thought they’re just plain ugly, all of them on any bodystyle, at a fundamental level that not even a pretty thorough Euro-makeover (Monteverdi) fixes for me completely, though yes, the Monteverdi makes a bunch of improvements.
Leaving age and everything else aside, the ’67-’76 Dart design appeals to me; the ’76-’80 F-body does not. And then I look at the ’77 Caprice design and go Okeh, so there was no reason why a car of that era »had« to be ugly in these ways I perceive on the F-bodies, or I look the Colonnade wagons and the Fairmont wagons and go okeh, so it’s not that I don’t like »wagons« of that era, and…yeah. I do not see or appreciate the design merits of the F-body Mopars.
(Now lookit ’75 Nova front face vs. ’72 Dart!)
If the ’72 Dart inspired the nose on the ’75 Nova, I do think Chevrolet improved upon it. Making it more commercial and graphic, with wider appeal.
Biggest problem I had with the F-bodies, was Chrysler did not advance enough from the A-bodies, other than attempting to market them as ‘luxury’ compacts. Even though base Aspens and Volares, could remain very spartan. The F-body wagon did fill a large void in the small wagon market. At least for a couple years. I believe, they were the top selling wagon in the US in 1976. The wagons offered good cargo capacity, in a manageable size. With great visibility, and lots of options. But, they needed to be lighter, with better mileage. 3,800 lbs. was heavy for a compact wagon. With much better quality control, and build quality, of course.
The faux Mercedes grille, and formal nose of the Volare coupe with a traditional Duster-style coupe body, contrasted badly. And the sedans were just very bland looking. Looked like generic taxis, from the beginning. Even in Premier and Special Edition trim. Chrysler really needed to push the envelope further on the F-bodies. As I and others have said, in the end, Chrysler could have saved millions, by thoroughly updating the Dart and Valiant. Why the F-bodies were obsolete against the Fairmont and Citation, within 2-3 years. The poor recall record and bad reliability, just reinforced, how terribly executed they were. Though my dad’s ’78 Aspen wagon served him well until 1991, without serious rust, in Ontario’s salt. Unlike you, who thought they were bad until 1980, I do think the F-bodies were improved after 1977.
1975 model year was hurt by rising prices and many cars getting catalytic converters, and needing unleaded gas. So, middle class buyers kept their wallets closed, for a time. Many A bodies were just driven into the ground into the 80’s. ChyCo’s Super Bowl ads with ‘buy a car, get a check’, started rebates for decades.
1976 MY was like the gold rush, buyers ‘got used to’ gas prices and wanted new cars, especially PLC’s.