(first posted 10/2/2014) It’s no secret that I’m a huge fan of Chrysler’s C-body full-sizers, particularly the first generation, built from 1965 until 1968 (and more controversially, the second generation), but as a lover of four-door hardtops, the sight of this particular Polara, captured by Triborough, provided a double dose of excitement. Built as its popularity ebbed (something not really resolved by the 1969 restyle), this car is less common than its rivals GM and Ford, not to mention its two-door and convertible sisters which are more frequently preserved. So even a mangy example like this one brings a smile to my face, which is fitting for what amounts to the rascally dog of the era’s full-size cars.
Like many cars sold during the peak of the muscle car era, the emphasis for these big Dodges was sportiness, but as the basic body of 1965 was ultra-conservative and rather elegant, Dodge needed to shake things up, doing so with a 1967 restyle meant to bring a more youthful feel to the overall appearance. Buyers of the day were seemingly unconvinced, but in four-door hardtop form, forty-six years later, I can read the stylists’ intentions quite well. I’m reminded, in fact, of the Infiniti M45 (Nissan Cedric/Gloria) of the early 2000s. That appeal of that car, with its cramped interior and orthodox sedan styling, was lost on American buyers, but its high-powered swagger was obvious to me. This barrel-chested original, then, has even more of the same magic, combining mass and power with tidy styling which belies the magnitude of its true proportions (much to the chagrin of the buying public).
Less flattering views are understandable. Emphasizing size was important back then (and often still is), and the 1965-1968 cars looked smaller than they were; it takes standing up close to these cars in person to realize that they are lower and longer than their upright shape suggests. GM’s 1965 B and C bodies flaunted their mass with their tasteful array of swoops and curves, and next to them, it takes a different mindset to appreciate Highland Park’s finest.
The increase of nearly seven inches in length which accompanied the 1967 redesign (one inch of which went between the wheels) went some way toward solving this “problem,” but from some angles, it’s apparent that it was a sub-optimal solution meant to generate interest while an all new model could be hatched. The rear clip in particular looks somewhat exaggerated and the resulting lack of cohesion also spoils the clean, understated look which distinguished the 1965/1966 cars, like the one seen above.
It’s still an attractive shape, mind you, and in four-door form, manages to avoid the obvious disharmony manifested in the fastback’s very thick reverse-slant C-pillars. Better yet, 1968 models ditched the openly aggressive rear light clusters in favor of a full-width set-up that matched the rest of the car’s formal lines while still looking serious.
But what made Chrysler famous in those days was under the skin and here, the Polara lived up to its maker’s reputation. All manufacturers were offering powerplants whose outputs were steadily increasing, and Dodge newly offered the Polara with the 440 beginning in 1966. For 1968, output for the 440 in Magnum trim (new for ’67) was 375 horsepower with 480 lb-ft of torque at a reasonable 3200 rpm. These engines were especially famous in B-body cars and in a full-sizer weighing up to 4500 pounds, the effect was somewhat blunted.
The big Dodges were nevertheless a fast way to whisk three well-dressed couples to social functions and truly, that’s what I see as this car’s ultimate calling in hardtop form. As our featured car isn’t a pillared sedan, there’s some reason to hope the original buyer ponied up for the big engine, even if it isn’t likely. The 440 was much more popular in the B-bodies and highway patrol cars; despite the C-body’s genuine capability, people who were looking for sport in their big cars went elsewhere.
The 1960s were, of course, Pontiac’s golden years and their famous style was still evident in their 1968 line-up. Buyers chasing the high-octane dragon found themselves behind the wheel of Catalinas and Bonnevilles while for big cars, sporty or otherwise, Dodge was increasingly playing catch up. Sales for 1967 (about 40,000 units) were at their lowest after reaching a high of about 105,000 for 1966. With 65,000 moved in 1968, the efforts by The Dodge Boys to salvage their big car clearly had an effect, but not as big as Chrysler would’ve hoped. As much as that gives the Polara underdog appeal, the sales of similar cars from Oldsmobile, Pontiac and Mercury were often more profitable. Chrysler surely thought they had a solution in the dramatically curvy cars which were to succeed it, but almost as soon as they were introduced, the hottest big cars went with a decorated and formal look–even youthful, dynamic Pontiac. The “standard sized” Dodges and Plymouths, and soon Chryslers, just couldn’t catch a break.
It’d be unwise to discount the impact Plymouth’s similarly restyled Furies had on the Polara, while at the other end, Chrysler’s more basic Newport weren’t all that much more expensive. Dodge and Plymouth dealers did much brisker business selling Valiants and Darts, B-body based muscle cars and modest Coronets, Satellites and Belvederes; most Polaras and Monacos which were sold went out the door with 318s or maybe 383s–thank goodness they were good engines. Big Dodges, despite selling well in ’65 and ’66, were overlooked for fresher medium priced full-sizers and many those which were sold with bigger engines have donated them to smaller Mopars before being unceremoniously scrapped. Built before Chrysler’s dark years and serious efforts at curbing emissions, however, they are far from impossible to take care of and are among the cheapest cars of their era to acquire today–think of it as compensation for very low gas mileage.
The low price naturally reflects the fact that so many people overlook the big Mopars in favor of their more famous B-body and A-body siblings, in addition to the era’s more famous full-sizers. Such mirrors the situation Chrysler faced when the cars were new, making a big deal about the Polara’s price in period advertising and little else. But why box yourself in by the reputations of the past? These are more than engine donors and offer an easy, comfortable way to stand out from other oldtimers, if I may use the word in an American context. It’s to the credit of this car’s owners that it is alive and with us today, far from any place where it’d be put to sleep.
Related reading:
1968 Dodge Scat Pack Engines: What’s Wrong With This Picture?
Curbside Classic: 1969 Dodge Coronet 440 – Bread and Butter B-Body
Curbside Classic: 1968 Chrysler Newport – Da Garage Is In Debasement
I’m a big fan of these C-bodies. I happen to prefer this Dodge’s mid-cycle restyle. The rear-end styling give a certain grace to the car that the ’65s lacked. Definitely a good-looking car, emphasizing more important things than boring space efficiency 🙂
That is a fabulous rear end, classy with a bit of flash…which pretty much describes all the big Mopars of this era!
I love these too. The Dodges are my favorite, esp. with those aggressive wedge-shaped rear lights.
A ’67 Chrysler, Newport I think, appeared a couple weeks ago in the driveway of one of my near neighbors. Don’t know the guy well or I’d pop over and ask about it. Here’s hoping he leaves it on the street soon.
Well driveway shots are welcome too :).
I should just go knock on his door and ask.
Watch me never do it.
Yes, I know just what you mean.
Beautiful , just beautiful .
-Nate
Sorry, but I see an engine donor…
“Security! Got one over here!” 🙂
Uaaaaggghhhhhhh…….
Among C-body Dodges, my favorite would be the ’66 Polara/Monaco, but any of the 65-68 “slab-side” Dodges look pretty good to me.
I really love the taillights on the ’68. They look full-width, even though I know only the ends light up. I also find it interesting that the big Dodges got a full-length beltline chrome strip for ’68, while the Chryslers lost theirs in the ’67 restyle and didn’t get it back for ’68. I’d take a ’68 Polara over a comparably equipped ’68 Chrysler Newport. In 2-door guise, I think the fast-top looks better on the Polara than the Newport as well.
Unfortunately, if that’s being used as a daily driver in New York, it’s going to go downhill pretty fast. Let’s hope it only comes out in fair weather. Any idea what’s with the papers and number 48 written in the windshield?
Definitely a fan of the ’68 as well. Those full-width grilled taillights are fantastic, and the crisply creased styling is distinctive without being too wild. The 4-door hardtop is the icing on the cake here. I’d love to have one. A few years ago, on my way to work in the morning, one in a great (possibly original) shade of turquoise rumbled past, and even in that brief encounter left a lasting impression.
Everyone here knows that I am a fan of these. This 4 door hardtop version is so much more attractive than the sedan (and was always so much less often seen).
I prefer the 67-68 version of the Dodge to the 65-66, at least on the outside. Sadly, the Mopar C body never seemed to develop a reputation as a Plymouth, a Dodge or Chrysler. Instead, most anyone who liked one would be happy driving any of the three, as they were mechanically identical. For whatever reason, the ones I found when I was out looking were Plymouths and Chryslers. Never had one of the Dodge varieties, which is too bad.
This car brings back a lot of memories.
In the early 80’s, before we had our licenses, my friend and I would “take” his father’s 68 Polara out for nightime “joy” rides. By that time the car, which we called “the bomb” had seen better days, but it still drove fine.
Luckily we never got caught.
Thanks for the article.
Yep. I dig the f word as well, but these are really such a good looking series. Sometimes if I’m looking at the right 65-68, I’m halfway to thinking its better.
Nice find, love that rear strip. I think the fastback looks great from the rear, but there’s something 61 Conty about the cleanness of line on that hardtop c-pillar that makes it more appealing. Front end is also great.
If you didn’t know, Elwood Engel headed Chrysler styling after he left Ford (where he did the 61 Conty).
Here’s a nice summary:https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1968-chrysler-300-elwoods-designs-were-jake/
I like this a lot,I got to drive my cousin Ian’s 4 door quite a bit being a non drinker(unlike the car with a 383 2 barrel).Big,thirsty but comfortable and reliable.This was Ian’s first American car and first automatic.It was quite a jump from his Ford Anglia to a 68 Polara,he even drove it home in the dark,first time with LHD also.
I never worked up much enthusiasm for the later fuselage cars,they made a big car look even bigger and bloated.
These are getting rare now thanks to the “tribute” crowd making fake big block ‘Cudas and the like.Nice to see one before they disappear
I don’t think anyone except for me likes the Fuselage cars, so you’re definitely not alone.
That makes at least two of us. I’ll take an Imperial with the hidden headlights, please.
Count me in as a fan of the Fuselage bodies from new. They made for a great looking patrol car.
As a whole I like the 65-68 Slabsides better, but some of the Fuselage cars are great.
1st pick would be the ’69-70 Chryslers then the ’72-73 Furies. ’69 Dodge is good, but I don’t care for the increasingly odd front ends after that.
If I had to pick one, I’d go ’69-70 Chrysler 300 2door in black. “Evil on wheels”
When the trunk is as long as the cabin you know things were getting out of kilter!
I recently gave up my ’67 Dodge Monaco (but gained a ’67 Imperial–woohoo!). The Dodge was a fantastic car. Even after 130k miles and 47 years of not-very-attentive care by previous owners, it was a supremely driveable classic. All it took was an electronic ignition to make it a daily driver. It was a hard top sedan, copper with black vinyl roof. Classy but with a hint of sportiness. It had no trouble cruising at 75 for hours on end.
It had the 383 2bbl. Being a ’67, it had no emissions equipment at all. I almost never had “driveability” issues (and none at all after the electronic ignition) and fuel economy was actually decent.
I know a lot of folks prefer the toned-down ’68 rear end. I do see how it suits the car better, but I also like the bonkers-angry-spaceship tail lights on an otherwise-restrained design.
It’s interesting how the Mopars of this era were dinged for their dated look, yet today it’s utterly irrelevant. It doesn’t matter today if your ’67 didn’t look fresh when it launched, because now it stands out (or in a parking lot, sticks out) in a sea of Accords and Highlanders.
What was your MPG after the electronic ignition was fitted?Ian’s Polara still had points and it was 10ish round town and 14ish on a long run.He had a 383 2 barrel but the engine had a very high mileage though it never smoked or rattled
17 mpg, maybe 18, on the highway (those are US gallons, not imperial). A very pleasant surprise for me! I’m not sure how it did in town, though. In any case, a lot of effort went into getting the carb right when I first bought it.
The Imperial, with a 440 4bbl, only got around 12 mpg on a recent highway cruise… but that was at 75-80 mph with the a/c blasting.
Thanks,I had a 15 MPG rule where I wouldn’t buy a car that did less.I don’t think electronic ignition was around for 383s in the late 70s in the UK.Ian had AC on his Polara too
I can’t help but love a tramp/or a 65-68 Chrysler C body.
I bought a 68 New Yorker 4 door hardtop with a 440 4bbl in the early 80’s for $100.00. Ran well, interior perfect. Hand a few dents (po was a drunk who lost his license). Puke green in and out. Talk about a torque monster. That old boat would really go! Intended to put the drivetrain in my 70 C10, thought the better of it and ‘loaned’ it to my sister. A freeze plug blew and it was driven until the engine seized. I really enjoyed driving it, even though it had seen better days it was still a great driving and riding car.
The 67 Coronet RT ad is great. It brags about the fact the right rear leaf spring has one more leaf then the left (to prevent axle hop and cope with the torque). It just seems like telling people one side has more springs then the other is something they are better off not knowing.
What a nice looking car and the styling sure is nice. Wonder how long this Dodge has been in NYC? The writing on the windscreen and the fact it is partially parked in a no parking zone do have me concerned.
The Kia Sedona EX in this photo is quite a beater, but yet it keeps on going. What in tarnation did it collide with and is its fender really peeled back like a sardine can just waiting to take out a bicyclist!?
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Screenshot-2014-10-01-15.21.39.png
The writing is odd, unless it’s a recent junkyard windscreen replacement. And what of the three pieces of paper that seem to be on prominent display behind the windscreen? Very curious.
Also just re-noticed Perry’s comparison to the M45–I quite liked those cars, and I quite like this one. Maybe the comparison is a good one!
Well if it is a junkyard windshield it must have been mailed over or been in storage for years since I do not know of any junkyards near NYC and most junkyards in the Northeast rarely have anything older than the 1980s.
The revised 1968 4-door hardtop roofline gave these cars a less boxy look. I vividly recall my first spotting of a 1968 car in the summer of 1967. It was a gold Polara 4-door hardtop with black vinyl top sitting in the wash rack at R+R Dodge in Appleton, Wisconsin. I remember thinking that the new tail light design was very attractive and a major improvement over the ’67 model. Still looked old-fashioned compared to GM’s full-size hardtops though.
I don’t think there’s another vehicle that says the mid-sixties like the sculptured, concave styling of a full-size Dodge or Chrysler. Yeah, they sold a lot more Chevys, Fords, and Pontiacs, but, today, none of them are anywhere near as distinctive.
“Like many cars sold during the peak of the muscle car era, the emphasis for these big Dodges was sportiness…”
Umm, not really. I love the C bodies, but they were not ‘muscle cars’, which were mid size or smaller with bigger V8’s
“Many” cars sold back in the mid 60’s were average run of the mill sedans/coupes/wagons, with no pretentions for drag racing. Especially full size cars, which were still over 50% of the market. Nearly all were family cars with bench seats and ‘small blocks’.
Big Dodges in 65-68 were sold as ‘upper middle’ family cars, not same as class as Chargers, even though it’s a Dodge. Maybe the Plymouth Sport Fury was still sporty, aimed at Impala SS, but Monacos were pushed against Olds and Buick luxo-crusiers.
By “sportiness” in that instance, Perry was referring to the looks, not the performance. I thought his intent was clear; the whole paragraph is all about the styling of the car, not what resided under the hood.
I agree with his assessment. For example, look at how fastback rooflines were grafted onto cars of this era, even fullsizers such as this. Also the prevalence of hardtop rooflines (no B-pillar, frameless door glass).
Aside: Some lists of “muscle cars” have included the Chrysler 300 (especially 65 300L and 700 300 Hurst) and 70-71 Plymouth Sport Fury GT. Obviously they wouldn’t be expected to beat a Mopar B-body with a big block in stock form though.
Correct; the styling is meant to play off the dominant fad of the era, even if this wasn’t a musclecar. Big cars with sporty pretense were still popular in ’68, even if the Brougham’s star was rapidly rising. And after the ’65/’66 failed to sufficiently express aggression, we got the ’67/’68s. I like them both, for different reasons. I think the angry element in the rear styling makes a perfect match to the 440 Magnum.
Don’t get me wrong, I loved the Impala SS and its competitors, but they were fading away in favor of the smaller true ‘muscle cars’ of the mid/late 60’s.
1965 + Dodge Polara and Monaco, were successors to the Custom 880, which was never a drag strip legend, as Impala SS. So these were ‘mid lux’ Olds/Buick competitors.
I always saw these Dodges as closer to Pontiac in terms of market position. The Chrysler brand was responsible for taking on Oldsmobile and Buick.
Could it be that clear cut? JUST Pontiac is a rather specific audience to cater to, even though they were quite popular.
Closer to Pontiac, not clones. Polara close to Catalina and Monaco to Bonneville. Dodge had nothing to play ball with compared to Ninety-Eight and Electra. I’m sure some lower end Olds / Buick shoppers looked at Dodge and Pontiac.
Really a shame that the full size Dodge always struggled after the early 60’s debacle. The full size Pontiacs began suffering in a similar way. The ’67 ranks as my favorite full size Dodge, with the ’68 a close second. The ’69 rear was cool, and I’m a sucker for the oddball ’72-’73 Monaco front end.
I have to agree. After DeSoto rode off into the sunset, Dodge was clearly positioned just above Plymouth, as Pontiac’s position in the GM lineup just above Chevy. Over at Ford, Mercury had to try and span the gap between Ford and Lincoln. If you look at CHP purchases of the era, however, Dodge dominated, but both Mercury and Olds, not Pontiac, got one year only buys.
You are correct, hence why i wrote:
“These engines were especially famous in B-body cars and in a full-sizer weighing up to 4500 pounds, the effect was somewhat blunted…The big Dodges were nevertheless a fast way to whisk three well-dressed couples to social functions and truly, that’s what I see as this car’s ultimate calling in hardtop form.”
Serious elegance on display!
Our neighbor in Brooklyn has a 1968 Polara 2dr Coupe in dark green with a black vinyl top. I believe the inside is green (I haven’t seen the car in along time). He’s had this car since it’s new and it still looks brand new. We always teased him and said it’s still on it’s first tank of gas!
Everyone on the block called him “Joe Dodge” and I, as well as all my friends on the block, always thought that his last name was Dodge.
That’s all I’m going to say for now… as I’m sure my brother, also a big fan of this website, will comment more on the car, as well as tell an interesting story or two about Joe Dodge.
Joe, if your reading this, “Hello” from Tommy !!!!
The rear styling was more fitting a Chrysler, it has overtones of the ’65 surface development and details. The rear of the ’67-’68 Chrysler should have been given delta taillights and swapped to Dodge. The frontal styling is fine where it is.
Yes! A four door hardtop, nice to see when so many survivors are pillared sedans.
I’ve always liked the big Mopars from this era. Think of a better-built Bluesmobile with no smog equipment.
One of the great things about mid-sixties Mopars is a relatively low beltline and high mounted bench seats. They’re really about the best cars for resting an arm on a rolled-down window ledge.
It’s a far cry from the obscenely high beltlines on today’s sporty cars.
+1
Count me as a fan. The ’68 is great, but I really like the ’67 rear. I’ve mentally grafted the ’67 rear theme on many subsequent Dodges as a way of creating a Dodge image on otherwise badge engineered cars. Just add a Fratzog and away you go!
I had a ’68 Windsor, and agree with rudiger. I have never — before or since — had a car with such visibility.
The use of the Windsor model name was 1966, in Canada. After that they were called Newport as in the US.
I have a 65 Polara 2dr hardtop rusting away out here. Hopefully I get around to doing a post on it someday. Kind of an interesting story.
I own a very nice original 1965 Chrysler New Yorker. It has the original paint and interior with the original 413 wedge 350hp V8. I always loved the design of these cars. The sides are sort of similar to the Chrysler Turbine Car. Neat clear tail lights (on early in the model year New Yorkers only), and glass covered headlights. Nice quality in the interior with the largest die cast part ever included in a car – used on the instrument panel – Beautiful. Solid closing doors, hood, and trunk. I originally wanted the 6 window sedan (still would like to have one), but found this 4 door hardtop and bought it. Some similarity to the 1961 Lincoln Continental – chrome trimmed top of fenders front to back, and side end caps of bumpers, and squashed tube on the rear grille/tail lights.
Front view of my 1965 Chrysler New Yorker.
Rear view of my 1965 Chrysler New Yorker.
Dark red interior showing nicely styled instrument panel with clear red steering wheel.
Commentary above discusses how Dodge was in the market to compete with certain divisions of GM. I think Chrysler would have been better off to try to create their own markets instead of going after the General. Each of C/O/P/B were very successful, so unlikely to sway many loyal General buyers away. I know of very few people who ever traded a GM car in on a Dodge or Plymouth in those days.
I liked the 1965 and 1966s of this era, and the 1967 had a nice butt end. The styling of the 1968 seemed to be trying too hard in the styling department, when they should have just continued to push the engineering and tech side of their lineup. They could have fed off the Charger in particular, in that year..
Great shots.
As for Bill Prince’s photos – from what museum may those have been taken where this car was housed? His is a great looking car.
Chrysler big cars went with sharp angled slab sides four years after Lincoln made that look popular. When Chrysler offered the new 1965 Chrysler, GM offered an entire new look with Coke bottle fenders with swoops and curves. Pontiac added weight to the lower rear fenders and looked curvy and new. Chrysler was late to the style and had four years of it to offer.
Ford also went rectangular and square in 1965, however by 1967, they had completely removed all the right angles and added the Code bottle-ish fenders on what had been a new car in 1965. Chrysler was still offering seven year old style when the competition moved on years earlier.
So, by 1968, Chrysler full sizers looked out of style. We love them now, but in 1968 they weren’t loved. These cars didn’t carry the new look. The Fuselage 1968-1973 cars didn’t go far enough, however the 1974 Fuselage look was updated to look newer.
The 1969 Fuselage was an update of the older look and didn’t go far enough. GM and Ford kept updating their cars with more formal looks popularized by the 1969 Continental, but Chrysler couldn’t keep up with the new look.
So, we like this car now – but back then, it didn’t look new enough to buy when compared to the slick new GM cars.
The feature car just makes me want to yell…GUSTAFSON!!!
Another area Chrysler spent money on was the entirely separate roof on 4 door hardtops. The hardtop roof completely transforms the car. Where the 4 door sedan roof is bolt-upright and stodgy, the hardtop roof is sleek. It is a pity that they had such a low take-rate. People were not buying these cars for style, and Mopar’s 4 door hardtops were never as common as those of Ford and especially GM.
I have read that vertically stacked headlights had been planned for the 67 Polara and Monaco, ( again a late grab at Pontiac) But the bumper stampings were proving difficult, the scallop cut out for the lower light was weak point. So they reverted to Horizontals, but hood and fender stampings had been set. and you can see how Vertical headlights would have fit.
Beautiful car, Mr Prince ! The steel in that transparent wheel must have been plated ? Nice, inside and out . . .
No one’s commented on the side glass of these cars: it must be the least bent (largest radius) of all curved-glass American bodies ? (Didn’t the second-generation 60s Continental revert to flat glass, after the very curved first-generation cars ?)
The full-sized 1967-’68 Dodge did repair some of the stodgy look of the prior two years. Personally, though never taken with them, the one portion of the styling with finesse enough it should have been reserved for the Chryslers or Imperials was the rear quarter panels and fender end. Nicely tapered with a slight skeg resolving the lower sculpting.