(first posted 6/5/2018) Bigger was still better for most buyers in the Medium Standard segment circa 1969. In keeping with the ethos of the marketplace, Chrysler revealed a thoroughly redesigned line of larger-than-ever full-sized cars, including the perennially popular Newport Series. Without question, the new ’69 Newport was bigger than before—but was it better?
The ’69 model year marked the last time that the Big Three would simultaneously serve-up major restyling on virtually all of their full-sized cars in the same model year (the only exception for ’69 was the Lincoln Continental, which received a minor facelift). Jumbo was conquering Detroit at the time, so each of the revamps added pounds and inches compared with their 1968 predecessors.
But from a styling standpoint, Chrysler most aggressively pushed the boundaries of bloat. Chief Designer Elwood Engel promoted the new look as “Fuselage Design,” likening it to the rounded cross section of an airplane.
However, with its curving sides and enormous flat hood and rear deck, the Fuselage Chrysler arguably looked more like an aircraft carrier than a jet plane.
Compared with the crisply chiseled, concave-flanked 1968 Chrysler, the 1969 Fuselage Chrysler looked puffy and soft, like it was on the receiving end of a few too many Botox treatments.
| Key Dimensions (inches) | Wheelbase | Length | Width |
| Buick LeSabre | 123.2 | 218.2 | 79.5 |
| Chrysler Newport | 124.0 | 224.7 | 79.1 |
| Dodge Polara/Monaco | 122.0 | 220.8 | 79.2 |
| Mercury Marquis | 124.0 | 224.3 | 79.9 |
| Oldsmobile Delta 88 | 124.0 | 218.6 | 80.0 |
| Pontiac Executive/Bonneville | 125.0 | 224.0 | 79.8 |
Ironically, the 1969 Chrysler was dimensionally close to its Medium Standard competitors. They were all huge cars.
But styling made a world of difference. Chrysler flaunted its flab, while competitors like the Oldsmobile Delta 88 used a variety of styling flourishes to visually mask the bulk. Also, both Ford and GM full-sized cars were moving toward the “longer hood/shorter rear deck” styling that had been popularized by the Pony Cars. Chrysler, on the other hand, retained the old-fashioned “long hood/long deck” looks from the mid-1960s.
Styling, of course, is subjective. To get a better feel for the Newport’s other attributes, let’s take a look at what Road Test Magazine had to say in this May 1969 review.
Even Road Test had to weigh-in on the Fuselage design, though they tried to be complimentary. However, saying that the Fuselage Chryslers “had a lean look to them” is akin to calling Dom Deluise svelte. Road Test also acknowledged one of the huge downsides to the Fuselage styling: enormous door cross-sections with ample wasted space.
Road Test praised the Newport for coping with the unusually wet weather experienced in Southern California during the test period—it kept running during heavy rainfall (amazing!), though the power windows, radio and climate control stopped working until “the next morning when things dried out a bit.” Imagine how well that would go over in wet, humid markets like Houston, New Orleans and Miami….
Even though the mammoth new Fuselage body was married to the carry-over C-Body chassis, Chrysler had dialed back the handling precision that had formerly been a hallmark of Mopar products. The ’69 Newport now listed and wallowed just like its Motown Medium Standard competition.
There were no complaints about the robust 383 2V V8, a Chrysler staple that routinely delivered the sort of performance big car buyers expected at the time (though the test car’s engine slurped down ample oil). But workmanship and build quality were another story altogether. The Newport Custom 2-door Hardtop tested was atrocious: sloppy trim, unfinished seams, messy finishes. Road Test opined that surely Chrysler’s quality would improve on later cars (the test car was apparently an early build unit), but sadly that would not prove to be the case, as all Mopar products gained notoriety during this period for poor workmanship.
Whether it was the styling or the growing reputation for poor quality, Mopar’s Medium Standard offerings did not fare as well in the marketplace for 1969 as Chrysler would have hoped.
| 1969 Sales | % Change vs. ’68 | |
| Oldsmobile Delta 88 (Delta & Delmont for ’68) | 252,087 | 49% |
| Buick LeSabre | 197,866 | 15% |
| Mercury Monterey/Marquis | 167,831 | 33% |
| Chrysler Newport | 156,836 | -2% |
| Dodge Polara/Monaco | 127,242 | -13% |
| Pontiac Executive/Bonneville | 114,457 | -15% |
Sales for the restyled Newport (and related Dodge Polar/Monaco) actually decreased compared with 1968, while most of the other revamped Medium Standard rivals saw a huge sales surge. Pontiac was the only exception: perhaps the Poncho’s drop was due to its styling, with the ultra-prominent proboscis being an acquired taste, or perhaps the striking new Personal Luxury Grand Prix siphoned away sales from the more conventional Executive and Bonneville models. Still, Chrysler had to have been disappointed by the sales results for the new styling direction.
No matter how you slice it, the Fuselage Chryslers did the corporation no favors. And the sales gap with rivals would widen in coming years as Mopar’s full-sized fortunes continued to decline. The Fuselage Chrysler turned out to be more like the Spruce Goose (the infamous gargantuan plane/boat that did a big belly flop) rather than a soaring success.
The two-door Newport looks remarkably like a ’67-’69 Barracuda notchback that got caught in a taffy puller and stretched.
Quality was a problem in 1969, one of many botched product launches that would get worse through the 70s. Actually, these testers must have gotten one of the good ones if they were happy with the paint and noted no leaks squeaks or rattles.
Only years later did I start to appreciate the styling of these – I was 10 when these were new and I did not like them very well then. They were modern up through 1970-71 but then fell quickly out of style, something not helped when they kept it around for so long.
Also these did not impress on the inside. The interiors always seemed cheap to me, especially in comparison with earlier Chryslers which had some of the best interiors in their class. When used Chryslers were cheap and plentiful I always opted for the older ones over these. I will agree that the 383 2bbl/Torqueflite was a really easy powertrain to live with.
Looking back, it seems as though the overwhelming majority of C-bodies sold to actual retail customers were Chryslers, and about 65 percent of them were that nondescript metallic medium green. I remember a fair number of people who owned a fuselage Chrysler, but very people who bought the Dodge or Plymouth versions.
The Dodge and Plymouth versions were increasingly bought solely by police departments and taxi cab companies.
and cheapskates….er….Canadians.
I may have mentioned it before but on a per-capita basis, Ma Mopar always did better in Canada, even into the declining years of the 70s. Even on our own TV shows, Chrysler car product placement was dominant for decades.
I had a friend whose dad had a 1968 Chrysler New Yorker. The sister of my friend wrecked it, so his dad bought a 1969 Chrysler New Yorker. It rattled so bad that he traded it for a 1969 Lincoln Continental.
Ah, the fuselage Chryslers. I remember as a child thinking that they were pretty hideous when they first came out, but ours was a Pontiac family at the time. My grade school teacher bought a loaded Fury 2-door when they first came out. She loved the car, its size and its luxury but was quite concerned that it was so quiet that kids playing might run out in front of it because they didn’t hear it.
The parents of a friend in high school had a base ’71 or ’72 Plymouth wagon. I did a little work on it for them as it got older, and test drove it afterward. What a revelation! I suddenly understood why people liked big Mopars. Roomy, easy to work on, not very slow even with its pre-malaise 318, with precise steering and good handling for its day, age and size. If I had been in the market for a huge car, I would have shopped Mopar in spite of the styling. However, at that point in my life my aspirations were even more rebellious for a child in an auto industry family. I wanted a Beetle. ?
The Newport came from Prince Chrysler in LA. I thought that name sounded familiar. H.B Halicki stole a Challenger from there with a tow truck.
And that hog-ring job on the seat-Oy Vey! I worked in a trim shop for college money and I would have been canned if I did that. Also, these things were notorious for the trunks filling with water, at least in ’69.
Less like an aircraft carrier and more like a barge, with few redeeming qualities. 2eachtheirown.
Interesting that the trunk of the test car did not leak, as these C-bodies were notorious for trunk leaks.
When looking at the sales figures for the 1969 Oldsmobile Delta 88, remember that Oldsmobile discontinued the Delmont 88 for 1969. If buyers wanted a full-size Oldsmobile that was not a Ninety-Eight, their only choice for 1969 was the Delta 88.
Actually, I included the Delmont 88 numbers in the 1968 total when calculating the percentage increase for 1969. The huge lift enjoyed by the 88 Series for 1969 was compared with BOTH the Delmont and Delta ranges combined from 1968. So Oldsmobile 88 sales were really strong for 1969.
In that case, color me impressed with the 1969 Oldsmobile Delta 88. I hadn’t realized it was THAT popular.
Yes, the 88 results were impressive. One of the drivers may have been the addition of the new Delta 88 Royale 2-door hardtop, which accounted for 22,564 sales in the mix.
I remember 69 and 70 Olds 88s absolutely everywhere back when they were recent cars. I think Olds just nailed the styling for that time period, a perfect blend of sleek and formal. Olds had a sterling quality reputation then and the car’s styling really kicked it over the top.
Even my own father, a dedicated Ford guy, chose a 69 Delta 88 4 door hardtop as his company car shortly before he quit for self employment. My father always had a good feel for what was trending and where he chose a Country Squire in 66, it was the Oldsmobile in 69.
Olds played a “sleight of hand” when all 88s became Deltas for 1969. The base Delta 88 was basically the successor to the Delmont 88 with the 350 Rocket standard and 455s optional, the ’68 base Delta 88 became the ’69 Delta 88 Custom with a standard 455, and the top luxury/sport model renamed from Delta 88 Custom to Delta 88 Royale with a standard 455 Rocket and only the Holiday coupe offered (the ’68 Delta Custom was also a Holiday sedan). The ’69 Olds did get some improvements such as standard 15-inch wheels and a one-inch longer wheelbase plus the fact the Turbo-Hydramatic 3-speed was the only automatic now offered (the ’68 Delmont with a 350 could also be optioned with the 2-speed Jetaway, last offered in 1969 on the A-body F-85/Cutlass).
Good example of car renaming helping sales. Making all 88’s as Delta eliminated confusion of Delmont, Dynamic, Jetstar, etc. Took me a long time to figure those old names out.
And, now, I know why more 69-70 Delta 88’s were on the street, increased sales! Cutlass was on a roll, too.
The Marquis name helped big Mercury sales, too, along with Lincoln look.
I imagine that the big increase in Olds Delta 88 sales was the result of the discontinuation of the previous Delmont 88 series, and production being consolidated under a single nameplate.
See my comment above–I actually did include the totals for Delmont and Delta 88 from 1968 in the calculations. I have amended the chart in the post to make it more clear.
1969 was a recession year and one would have thought that all the manufacturers would have suffered. But the slight-of-hand Oldsmobile pulled with the consolidation of models explains how they saw an ‘increase’ in sales, while Chrysler did not.
Combined with the atrocious, but entirely predictable, Chrysler build quality, well, not really much of a surprise that the fuselages didn’t make much of a splash. A pity because I’m one of the ones that likes their look as the last, big, pre-5mph bumper full-size Chryslers (particularly the convertibles).
1969 was still a strong sales year, model-year wise. It was in December of that year that a one-year recession began and continued through much of 1970, affecting MY 1970 sales of new cars – all the big cars except the redesigned Lincoln Continental and the facelifted Cadillac suffered declines – and Chrysler’s fuselage styled big cars suffered worst of all the Big Three. “Small” was in for 1970 and Chrysler’s top sellers were compact Dodge Dart and the new Plymouth (Valiant) Duster, plus there was also the new-for-1970 Ford Maverick [continuing alongside the Falcon until December, 1969] and AMC Hornet [which replaced the Rambler American]. The big automotive news of 1970 wasn’t the stuff Detroit was selling that year, but the upcoming Chevrolet Vega and Ford Pinto set to be introduced in September, 1970 as 1971 models, plus GM’s announcement that all of its 1971 engines would be detuned to run on unleaded (or leaded regular) gasoline in prep for the catalytic converters set for 1975 models that required the use of unleaded. Suffering even more in 1970 over 1969 were the high-powered muscle cars, thanks to the insurance industry’s decision to add exorbitant surcharges for such vehicles or outright refusal to insure them at all.
It could be interesting to see how the mid-size cars go during the 1970 model year. The Corvair was gone but Chevrolet got a new star with the Monte Carlo and the Oldsmobile Cutlass sales gived us a taste of things to come for the remaining of the decade.
There’s was also a strike who hit GM at that time when the 1970 model year ended and the 1971 model year beginned.
As shown by the revised chart, the sales increase enjoyed by the Delta 88 in 1969 was real. The 1969 Delta 88 recorded a whopping sales increase over the combined totals of the 1968 Delmont 88 and Delta 88.
The big question is what happened to Ninety-Eight sales…did the Delta 88 steal sales from its big brother in 1969?
It’s not hard to see why the Oldsmobile succeeded. The styling was more in tune with buyer tastes, and Oldsmobile’s quality control and reliability were superior. The main advantage enjoyed by the Chrysler – better handling – wasn’t a priority for buyers in this segment.
The Ninety-Eight also sold well for 1969:116,408 were retailed, an increase of 27% over 1968. Olds was entering a very successful phase…
I actually liked the styling too bad this was the point where Chrysler decided to stop being able to say they had the best handling cars of the Big 3. That was one of their redeeming features for a number of years.
I love that the warranties in those days stated you had to catch trim imperfections immediately or basically “GO EFF YOURSELF.”
Such love for their customers.
Some things change slowly or not at all. We got similar treatment for seat trim defects on my wife’s 1990 Nissan Stanza Sedan, her first brand-new car. Pointed them out to the salesman who promised to write it up. He didn’t, and we failed to notice. When we brought it back, they informed us that there was nothing they could do, since the warranty didn’t cover trim defects once a car was delivered.
Agree!
All during the 1950’s and most of the 1960’s Mopars were known as a “Driver’s car”, favored by those who traveled a lot of miles every year for business and/or pleasure driving.
Sadly, Mopar gradually diluted their best feature after this model year.
Am I alone in thinking the warning light panel in the instrument cluster seems tacked on? I’ve always thought that it just looked odd, as if, oops, we forgot warning lights, lets just hang this plastic box from the top…
I owned one of these in college. a few things I remember:
the atrocious space utilization..gigantic car and mid sized interior. The doors were gigantic. You could fit a 4×8 sheet of plywood in the trunk, just sticks out about two feet, if you put the spare tire in the bottom. The power steering was so overboosted you could drive at all times with one finger. The steering wheel was crooked–the steering box was at the left edge of the engine, but the wheel was towards the center of the car (bench seat!), so they cocked the wheel. The article was exactly correct about fit and finish issues, even for the day,it was bad. Interior was back-on-black plastic. Mine had a ‘fader’ rear speaker with volume control. Handled like an overloaded kayak. Cruised at highway speeds with ease, very low RPM at 70 mph. Front hood was so flat and level you could hgave seated 12 around it as a picnic table. there was about 8 inches IN FRONT of the radiator and behind the plastic grill.
I wonder what if Chrysler did only a light reskin of the full-sizers for 1969 keeping the 1965-68 platform just like GM did with their full-size 1969 models who still used the 1965-68 chassis? I guess GM saw what Chrysler did with the Fuselage and refined it the design for the 1971 models.
Prince Chrysler-Plymouth license plate frames! I remember that dealership, it was on Manchester near LAX on the west side on Inglewood.
‘Gone In 60 Seconds’ also featured Moran Cadillac in Torrance. It’s still a Cadillac dealership, now part of Penske’s empire.
All-drum brakes on a car like this should be considered a DS. Having said that, I like the styling much more than the ugly Olds.
I found this bit interesting: “We feel, on the other hand, that modest oil consumption that can’t be attributed to leakage is desirable. It indicates favorable looseness of tolerances which lead to greater durability, because the parts get thoroughly lubricated, than an initial fit on the tight side of manufacturing allowances.” So how does that play out on today’s engines which have much closer tolerances?
Chalk one up for Ford, then. Starting in ’68 if you ordered power brakes, you got discs, period.
There’s no comparison to Today’s engines. The longevity of a modern engine means that most never need to be rebuilt during the ten to fifteen year “normal” life of the car. Back in the 60’s a valve job at 50-60k was pretty normal. A car with 100-120k was considered a hiccup away from the junkyard. A lot of improvements to design and build were due to the need to warranty emission control items for 50,000 miles. The car had to maintain it’s emission certification for that period. Also the need for better fuel economy required less internal friction. This was accomplished by use of better quality machining standards and lighter weight oil. Not to mention improved engine designs, The adoption of fuel injection was probably the biggest improvement. Old time carbs with flap type chokes used to pour huge quantities of raw fuel into the engine with a lot of it making it’s way into the crankcase where it would foul and dilute the oil.
Good old Days?
I had a 66 Newport with 325K that only died then because I abused it, and a 77 Newport that rusted away with 270K; neither had any motor or transmission work. Yes, the good old days
Also worth noting was that while all of the Big Three had restyled full-sized cars for 1969, only Ford and Chrysler had redesigned their cars from the wheels up. The GM cars got new sheetmetal and rooflines for most models but retained the basic 1965 chassis and inner-body structure were retained – even the sedan and station wagon rooflines were 1965 pieces though all B- and C-body cars did lose the vent windows. The major changes for GM’s 1969 big cars included the new locking ignition switch and steering column (mounted on same) but found on all ’69 GM cars except the soon-to-be-discontinued Chevrolet Corvair, plus new single-piston disc brakes and variable-ratio power steering. Also a plus for GM buyers was that the 3-speed Turbo-Hydramatic transmission was offered on virtually all 1969 full-sized cars; up through 1968, the full-sized Chevrolets, as well as low-end Oldsmobile Jetstar/Delmont 88s and Buick LeSabres were only offered the outmoded 2-speed automatic with standard engines – to get the better transmission required an optional (and often a premium-fuel) engine.
The 69 Dodges are bad ass looking.
While I still prefer a loop-bumper Chrysler, for the Dodge version of the fuselage, it’s hard to argue that 1969 wasn’t the best year.
I agree, I have a soft spot for the 1970-71 and the 1972 Monaco.
For Plymouth, I like the loop-bumper of the 1970-71 models, bonus point for the hidden headlights of the Sport Fury and Fury Gran Coupe.
I can’t believe what a big article for a plain car.
That’s exactly why we love this site. Well done, GN.
Funnily enough I remember my parents cross shopping a 69 Newport custom coupe like this and a 69 Marauder x100.
At the time I thought the Newport was the cooler car for the exact same reason my mom hated it. She felt she was sitting in a car that had had its roof chopped. The Marauder had better visibility so we got the Marauder.
In retrospect I was such a dweeb.?
The performance numbers that Road Test Magazine achieved don’t make a whole lot of sense. The car has a relatively sedate 0-60 of 11.2 secs, but then finishes the 1/4 mile at 16.1 secs @ 89.2 mph? For that to have happened, this thing must have really come alive after 60 MPH, which seems contradictory to a 2-bbl equipped engine. That time quarter mile time seems more on par with a 440. An 89 mph trap would be very fast for a full-size car of this era.
FWIW, I dug up a few other test results:
1969 Plymouth VIP – 383 -4bbl
0-60: 8.5 seconds, 1/4 mile 17.0 @ 86 mph
1969 Chrysler Imperial – 440 -4bbl
0-60 12.4 seconds, 1/4 mile 18.4 secs @ 77 mph
1969 Plymouth Fury III – 383-2bbl
0-60: 9.7 seconds, 1/4 mile: 16.7 seconds @ 81 mph
1969 Dodge Monaco – 440-4bbl
0-60: 7.6 secs, 1/4 mile 15.5 secs @ 93.3 mph
So somehow Road Test got a 1/4 mile time within half a second of the big 440-4 Dodge with 375 hp? Looking at the other numbers I dug up, it doesn’t jive. Seems like another Road Test error.
I read through this rather quickly, but that 1/4 mile time caught my eye too. That’s a very decent set of numbers, and seems a bit incongruous to the 0-60 time. Good catch!
Those numbers jumped out at me as well. I don’t claim to be an expert in tuning, but my ’65 with a 4 barrel 383 is almost 2 seconds slower.
The Mopar Torqueflite automatic transmission of this time period benefited more from “hand shifting” for the best acceleration times than did the FoMoCo Cruise-a-Matic or the GM Turbohydramatic automatic transmissions did.
Perhaps because the Torqueflite lacked the vacuum modulator that Ford and GM had, that kept the transmission in first and second gear longer under foot-to-the-floor acceleration runs?
I know, from personal experience, that the Torqueflite automatics of this period benefited greatly from small, minute linkage adjustments in order to get the best acceleration when left in “Drive” and flooring it.
Perhaps this might explain the difference in the acceleration times that VinceC quoted?
Our family had a ’65 Plymouth Fury station wagon, equipped with Mopar’s 383 4-BBL engine and Torqueflite. Thanks to hurricane Betsy destroying it, a ’66 Ford Country Sedan wagon, equipped with the “Thunderbird Special” 390 4-BBL engine and Cruise-a-Matic replaced it.
Even my Mother, who usually did not notice this sort of automotive trait, remarked that the Plymouth “felt peppier” than her otherwise beloved Ford wagon.
Mark, the other sources I used were Motor Trend, and Car Life, both of which have a better reputation than Road Test magazine for accuracy. I think these they simply misprinted their own numbers, and weren’t swift enough to pick up on it during editing. The point is the 0-60 time and the 1/4 mile don’t make sense. I can dig up more times to show how this ones don’t work. If you note all the other times I posted make sense, 0-60 and 1/4 mile times are congruous. Furthermore, the performance is expected of the engines is on par with the number I quoted. FWIW, the 1969 Fury 383-4bbl was tested along side a 390 Ford, and it was significantly faster than the Ford in that test.
Performance numbers indeed did vary from one car magazine to another in the 1960’s and 1070’s.
“Car & Driver” magazine consistently seemed to get quicker zero to sixty numbers than did “Motor Trend” and “Road & Track” did during this time period. Numbers that did not always agree with my own “seat of the pants” test drive experiences.
I wonder how/what “C & D” did to their test cars to generate such aggressive numbers? Perhaps “Better Not To Know”.
I recall “C&D” reporting a 0 to 60 run on the ’71 Opel Manta/1900 at being just under 10 seconds. (9.8, #IIRC?)
“R&T” reported around 11 seconds for the same parameter.
My “seat of the pants” feeling was that “R&T” were more real world accurate.
Mark, no doubt there was a larger variation in the performance of vehicles from this era due to the large variability in build quality. However, there still was some constancy overall when you looked at the big picture. I have read countless test stats over the years and have a pretty good memory for numbers. This is why as soon as I saw the numbers posted here they didn’t make a lot of sense. Of course some cars were specially prepped, some testing methodology was flawed, but in the end, read a bunch of tests of the same or similar car, and they are relatively consistent on average.
The issue for this Chrysler is the 0-60 in 11.5 secs followed up by a ¼ mile in 16.1 secs at 89 mph. Find me any other car that has stats similar to that and I’d be very surprised. Road Test is saying the car accelerated from 60 to almost 90 mph in 5 secs, yet it took 4.4 secs to go from 50-70. This Chrysler must defy the laws of physics. Typically something with a 0-60 run in the 11.5 sec range will have a quarter mile time in the high 17 second to low 18 sec range and maybe trap at 80 mph at most, which is what I would expect out of this car.
I will also caution that the “butt dyno” can be highly inaccurate. Power delivery can drastically affect how fast a car feels. As for Car and Driver, recent issues have admitted that during the 1960’s they often used the highly inaccurate stop watch to produce times, despite the fact that competing magazines used 5th wheels. I suspect many of the very quick C/D times may have been fudged, to help bolster their reputation. The 1 second variation in 0-60 time for the Opel seems far more inline in comparison to this Chrysler’s times.
Found a price list for 1969 Chyrslers:
https://www.uniquecarsandparts.com.au/brochures_1969_chrysler_car_and_equipment
Even though you were buying a Chrysler Newport Custom with a base price of $3635, not much was standard equipment. Even basis safety items were an option:
– head restraints at $26.50 (could be bought individually at $13.25 per seat)
– shoulder belts at $26.80
– disc brakes at $49.30 (only available if you bought the power brakes system for $46.85)
– automatic transmissions at $228.60
– AM radio at $92.30.
There were a few package deals listed, but most of the basis items were à la carte.
I failed to add A/C to the above at $405.85.
If you add all the above together with the A/C, the total 1969 list price is $4,490 which is $30,654 in 2018 dollars.
The base 2018 Chrysler 300 Touring has a MSRP starting price of
$28,995 and has all of the above plus more except for an V6 engine.
I guess you still can get “Quite a lot of Car from Chrysler”
Power steering was also optional in 1969 at around $100 for Newports, Customs and 300s. TorqueFlite was standard on 300s and New Yorkers, the latter also coming at no extra cost with power steering and power drum brakes.
This was completely normal for the 1960’s. If defrosters weren’t required by 1968 MY cars due to Federal regulations, a heater would have been optional as well.
Take rates for manual transmissions in this class of car plummeted once automatics were introduced in the 1940’s, but the three speed manual was still standard in 1969 on premium brands like Chrysler.
I loved the fuselage styling back then. I was driving a ’65 Impala at the time. Chrysler basically copied the ’65 GM B body styling and went a little wild with it.
I also hated the “concave” Mopars at the time. Just my taste in styling. The Olds looks bad to me, especially the fender flares and wheel openings, but the market spoke.
Build quality is another matter. Being a California car and the impending shutdown of the Fullerton plant, I wonder if the workers and management really didn’t care. GM did have a reputation for much better build quality in the 1960’s.
We had special option pkg. Olds 88s at a really “nice” price in ’69. Those probably helped BOO$T the 88 $ale$ figures. I remember liking them: easy $ells, IIRC, I sold 3 of them all at a decent gro$$! 🙂 IIRC, only available in 1 of the 3 “golds” we had in 1969. No WGB junk then!!! DFO
Maybe it was the time to refine the concept but the ’72 Dodge Coronet wore this look a bit better, and the Hillman Avenger/Plymouth Cricket was almost the best looking development of the fuselage theme (too bad they didn’t do the full loop bumper there).
But then, it’s easier to style a small car than a big one, or at least harder to screw one up. Every controversial style choice is first toned down by much harsher dictates of space utilization, and then just inherently less in-your-face due to scale.
I think that’s why the big C-body fuselage’s best body style is the station wagon, at that.
Compared with the crisply chiseled, concave-flanked 1968 Chrysler, the 1969 Fuselage Chrysler looked puffy and soft, like it was on the receiving end of a few too many Botox treatments.”
The crisply chiseled 1965-1968 Chrysler products were out of style. GM went to puffy and soft in 1965. GM had an entire line of full sized puffmobiles, Pontiac has heavy swoopy fenders with downturn tail lights, Buick had heavy swoopy looks by this time. If Chrysler kept their crisply chiseled look, it would have been years out of style. The loop bumper was on a 1969 Chevy, so by the time these showed up on Chrysler products until 1975, that was a worn out look. BTW – why would it be good for a Chrysler to look like a Chevy anyway?
The way I see these cars, and I learned to drive with these huge vehicles, styling-wise, is that it was an evolutionary design. While the 1969 Lincoln Continental pointed the direction full sized cars were to look for the next decade – Chysler doesn’t show up with that look for another five years. While these were not bad looking cars, they were quickly out of style.
Our New Yorker looked cheap. From the front it looked like a Chevy. From the back it looked like a generic car. There was only a large decorative beltline stretched across the sides. The dash was a long horizontal design without style. There was none of the brougham stylings popular during that time with GM and Ford, on our New Yorker. It did not look like a near luxury car at all.
Styling-wise, Chrysler was not leading. Their designs were derivative from GM with Dodge looking like some kind of a Buick. Plymouth never did catch up with the times. The Plymouth Fury from those years look years older than the competition. The Fuselage look didn’t work, and it seemed that there was no Plan B for Chrysler’s design team for many years.