(first posted 9/20/2016) In 1967, the Intermediate category was still a relatively new one: FoMoCo was credited with “creating” the segment in 1962 with the Ford Fairlane and Mercury Meteor. The category soon exploded, with GM jumping in for 1964, including kicking off the Muscle Car craze with the Pontiac GTO. While the 1967 model year did not see much in the way of major product changes, it was a large and popular segment nonetheless. Let’s take a look a Motor Trend’s highlights for the Intermediate players.
Minor detail and engineering changes marked Oldsmobile’s mid size offerings for 1967. The most unusual new option was the Turnpike Cruising Package geared for more efficient operation at highway speeds. The Cutlass popularity phenomenon had not yet fully gotten underway, but notably the Olds was the only car line in the Intermediate category that maintained it sales volume from 1966–mid sizers from all other makes were down for 1967.
The Chrysler B-Body had been introduced for 1962 as “full size” for Dodge and Plymouth, but in reality the platform was more “mid size” by 1960’s standards. Thus, the B-bodies officially became Intermediates for 1965, when the full size Dodge and Plymouth adopted the larger C-Body shell. A major restyle occurred for B-Bodies in 1966, creating the square-cut lines that carried over for 1967.
The biggest news for the 1967 Plymouth intermediate was the introduction of the GTX series, targeting the booming Muscle Car market. The GTX was rather pricey for a mid size Plymouth, however, starting at $3,178 ($22,898 adjusted)–the same as a full size Fury VIP hardtop. Of course, by the 1968 model year, Plymouth’s Muscle Car pricing problem would be rectified as fast as a desert roadrunner…
The quiet Comet was essentially a carryover for 1967. The new Cougar took the lion’s share of excitement in Mercury showrooms, while the Comet endured a 53% drop in sales.
Pontiac really was building excitement in the 1960s, and the mid size Tempest/LeMans/GTO certainly delivered. While the intermediates received minimal trim changes from 1966, there were still new engine upgrades, including the 400 CID V8 and the introduction of Ram Air, all of which further burnished Pontiac’s performance image.
The one Intermediate that was thoroughly revamped for 1967 was the AMC Rambler Rebel. The new mid size offering from American Motors was larger with more contemporary styling (looked rather Chrysler-like to me…) and offered new-for-1967 “Typhoon” V8 engines. Even the old-fashioned “Classic” moniker was dropped as the Rebel name was applied to all Intermediates, not just the top-dog high performance model as in 1966. Sadly for AMC, however, all the effort failed to provide the desired sales lift–unit volume dropped 24% for 1967.
Chevrolet served up minimal changes for the Chevelle line in 1967, but apparently not much else was needed–the mid size Chevy was the top selling Intermediate for the year.
The big news at Buick for 1967 was the arrival of the “Big Block” 400 CID V8, replacing the old “nail head”-based 401 V8. This was the standard motor for the GS400 Muscle Car. Other news for the “softer side” of Buick Intermediates included new grilles and standard fender skirts for the Skylark. Those changes were enough to tempt my paternal grandmother–a serial Buick buyer–she got a 1967 Skylark 4-door hardtop in Champagne Mist with a black vinyl top and Dove (off white) vinyl interior.
The biggest shock in the Intermediate segment occurred at Ford: the Fairlane, which had been the second-best seller in the category for 1966, suffered the biggest drop for 1967, with sales plunging 54%. The car was basically the same as the 1966 version and price hikes were minimal, but for whatever reason, Ford’s mid sizer lost its appeal with buyers and fell to 3rd place in the competitive set.
Like sister-division Plymouth, Dodge also tried adding a more “pure” Muscle Car variant to spice up sales. The Coronet R/T was launched in an attempt to grab some of the Pontiac GTO “magic” and bring it to Dodge. Other than this new model, however, changes to the mid size Coronet line were minimal.
Given the sales pressure from the booming Specialty segment (+43%), along with competition from revamped full size cars, Intermediates sales were down 25% overall (total U.S. car sales were down 14% year-over-year). Therefore, the segment lost some share-of-sales compared to 1966, declining from 28% to 24% of the market. Here are the sales results by model:
| Chevrolet Chevelle | 369,106 |
| Pontiac Tempest/LeMans/GTO | 301,069 |
| Ford Fairlane | 239,688 |
| Oldsmobile F-85/Cutlass | 229,522 |
| Buick Special/Skylark | 188,591 |
| Dodge Coronet | 184,200 |
| Plymouth Belvedere | 148,080 |
| AMC Rebel | 95,170 |
| Mercury Comet | 81,133 |
GM was clearly the leader in the segment with over 1 million Intermediates sold for 1967. This dominance would serve The General well, as the Intermediate segment would continue to grow as buyers shifted to more rationally proportioned cars. In spite of the Intermediate segment sales hiccup for 1967, mid size would ultimately prove to be right size for American buyers.
It’s always amused me that they “created” the “intermediate” or mid size segment in the ’60s. In 1955 similarly sized cars were just….. cars. Only after standard Ford, Chevy and Plymouth became Lincoln,Caddy and Imperial sized was this “new” segment “created”. The “downsized” 62 MoPars were just a return to regular standard car size in the lower price cars. But the buyers wouldn’t get it for another 15 years.
MoPar wasn’t prescient; they were trying to keep up with what they thought was Chevrolet’s new, smaller, direction for 1962. All based on ChryCo’s president overhearing part of a conversation at a cocktail party.
http://ateupwithmotor.com/model-histories/chrysler-downsizing-disaster-1962/
I didn’t mean to imply any insight on Chrysler’s part, God knows how screwed up management was there at the time. The cars (regardless of what one thinks of the styling.) themselves were a return to “normal”. To me (YMMV) the “intermediate” cars of the low price 3 were always the standard models. My head always took the 60s-70s A body Chevrolet and Pontiac were direct descendants of the 50s A bodies, for example, Putting the “B”s in a different place than “standard” – in a sense, the ’59-’76 Chevy “B”a were the new concept. I will concede that the higher end “intermediates” (Buick A bodiies…) was a new idea, But for Chevy, The “A” was “standard”. sized..
At launch the Chevelle was spoken of by corporate officials as the second coming of the ’55-57 Chevy, and the two-door wagon’s Nomad resemblance was no coincidence.
Motor Trend said the same thing about the 82 A Body Celebrity as well, ironically.
In 1982, that wasn’t all that unreasonable, as I don’t think anyone at the time though the RWD “B” was going to be around for long. Given the plans in place for the FWD C/H by then. I suspect the initial idea was “A” as the “standard” Chevrolet/Pontiac, What was called “H” could have been the FWD “B”. But gas prices coming down gave the RWDs a lease on life.
That and fleet sales.
lol I had a 1982 Celebrity as my first car (it was already 12 years old) and I remember running across old National Geographic magazines with ads for the car. The ads used a tagline “The small car with the big car ride!”
Lots of marketing hooey, but the As did ride well. There was an overlay in the MT article that showed outlines of the 55, 65 Chevelle and the 82 Celebrity.
At the introduction of the X cars the 2.8 V6 was MT compared it to the original Chevy small block V8 of 55.
Lots of sound and fury by the automotive scribes signifying nothing.
Until the 1997 Malibu: “The Car You Knew America Could Build”.
What was all that other stuff , then ?
I love the checkered interior in the Rambler – that would tempt me to buy one.
Personally in this crop its a toss up between a Cutlass 4-4-2 and a LeMans coupe with the inline 6 and a manual trans.
It is hard to see a loser in this lineup. Those sales figures are interesting, though. I had forgotten that the Buick (and every other GM line) outsold both the Dodge and the Plymouth. I had also forgotten how badly the Comet fared.
It is such a shame that AMC did not do better with the Rebel. I think that odd chrome bullet in the quarter panels of the 2 doors hurt them, because it distracted from some otherwise clean lines. Such a big sales drop on a brand new model must have been disheartening.
The Ford and Mercury were hampered by their slightly small-ish size necessitated by their being co-developed with the Falcon. But to be truthful, those 4 GM efforts were so strong that nobody was going to do really well against them.
AMC nearly went bankrupt in 1967. They came very close to not meeting payroll but managed to secure a bank loan, and soon afterwards started selling off subsidiaries such as Kelvinator to raise cash.
It was pretty much a perfect storm. The Big 3 had invaded AMC’s compact car territory. The change in management after Romney left had the company pursuing a suicidal course of attempting to go directly toe-to-toe with their much larger competitors who were structured to spit out millions of large cars at low unit cost. (An article in one of the mechanics magazines at the time actually used the term “suicidal.”) In doing this the company abandoned Romney’s early 1960s shared-platform strategy, so tooling costs went through the roof.
The Rebel was a nice car but did not offer enough difference from its Big 3 competitors to attract a lot of buyers. Those who took a close enough look would find that it was still saddled with antiquated engineering such as trunnion front suspension and vacuum windshield wipers. I do recall Tom McCahill giving the Rebel a glowing review.
Inspector: they also got a contract from the US Postal Service to provide cars, even including some in their advertising.
Ford “created” the segment but surprisingly came in behind both GM AND Chrysler as Dodge/Plymouth apparently outsold the lackluster Ford/Mercury intermediates.
Seems Ford made a hash out of both segments w/ the Falcon/Failane compromise. GM, esp Pontiac had all the mojo but I believe Dodge and Plymouth got stronger as the 60’s waned.
The AMC Rebel didn’t just have a new body and interior. It also featured an all-new rear suspension, and finally ditched the old-fashioned torque-tube drive for an open driveshaft. (The 1967 Ambassador shared these updates.)
Unfortunately, as Inspector Gadget notes, AMC retained the old-fashioned trunnion front suspension and standard vacuum-powered windshield wipers. The retention of the latter feature was particularly baffling, as it couldn’t have been that hard to simply offer the optional electric windshield wipers as standard equipment.
If I recall correctly, the old Classic had been selling over 150,000 units as recently as 1965. A decline to 81,000 units in only two years was catastrophic for a company the size of AMC, particularly in view of how much AMC had spent on tooling for the 1967 line.
Exactly. 80,000 units was Studebaker Lark territory.
Ramblers went out of style nearly overnight. My parents had a ’64 classic wagon, and went to Plymouth in ’69. Were ‘sick of them’.
AMC got saved [for awhile] by Hornet, Javelin, and Gremlin.
That’s why the Rambler name was phased out. The new Rebel wore it for 1967 only. (Ambassador and Marlin had dropped it for 1966.) For 1968 and 1969 only the compact American was badged as a Rambler. Aside from foreign markets the name was gone completely for 1970. In the U.S. it had picked up the connotation of being a nasty and cheap ride for people who could not afford anything else.
I’ve often wondered if the Rambler name might resurface at some point. At this late date there is probably nobody under that age of 60 that remembers the negative reputation.
I hope it does, Rambler is a cool name for a car.
Scrolling through them quickly, one pattern shows up that I hadn’t noticed when the real cars were roaming the Earth. The two Ford products LOOK like compacts. All the others LOOK like big cars, even the Rambler.
I can’t identify which proportion makes the difference; all have the same basic shape.
The proportion that makes the Ford/Mercury cars look more like compacts is probably their width. The front clip of a Falcon fits quite easily on the Fairlane, and makes the cars look narrow.
I was struck by the same thing, and started looking at the dimensions. The Ford is very close to the rest, but toward the small end of each range. It is significantly lighter than most of the others, though. Track is within an inch of the others, as is wheelbase and width (except for the Rebel, which is about 4 inches wider than the Fairlane). You are correct that the styling of these makes them look a little tall and narrow. Strangely, I always thought the same thing about the earlier Fairlane – it never looked quite as big as it actually was.
I agree: they do all have the same shape, don’t they?
It’s funny how the 57s were all kind of different, and 10 years on, it’s the same, three-box, sloping C-pillar design. The only ones that stand out would be the Plymouth/Dodge cars. At least if you caught a glimpse of one out of the corner of your eye, you’d pick those out of the rest.
But at least, compared to the 57s, there are a few technical differences — V6, OHC, disc brakes… very few, but more than the previous decade.
I agree that the Fairlane looks smaller and dowdier than the GM’s, which were kings of the middie class, then and into the 70’s.
Maybe not changing the looks led to lower sales? Buyers expected style changes for big/mid cars, and GM dished them out like Christmas candy.
All of the intermediates except for the Rambler/AMC classic were heavily restyled for 1966. The GM intermediates weren’t really changed any more than the Fords were for 1967. But the Malibu looks more stylish and “youthful” than the Fairlane. It also looks more substantial than the Fairlane.
GM also did a better job of differentiating the offerings of each division. There really wasn’t much reason to choose a Mercury Comet instead of a Ford Fairlane in 1967.
Plus, Buick, Pontiac and Oldsmobile made their intermediate offerings look like “junior editions” of their full-size cars instead of a Malibu with a different grille and taillights. A full-size Buick, Pontiac and Oldsmobile still had considerable appeal in the 1960s. A smaller, slightly sportier version of those cars was also quite appealing to buyers.
A Jr Edition of a full size Mercury would have looked like….. a Ford, unfortunately.
Mercury had only begun it’s upscale pretenses again with the 65s and their Lincoln connection.
The 65 Comet styling was more in line with the full sizers than the 66-67 was.
The 67 vertical tails and 66 lite grille from the full size Mercury were a feeble attempt to connect the Comet to the Big Ms.
GM seemed to go all out with it’s intermediates to keep customers going up the Sloan ladder.
Ford had dithered so many times with Mercury’s image and price segment, the Comet went from a hot seller with more size and better trim to just something for Mercury dealers to sell in the segment.
Though I will say, for 67, perhaps the Cougar stole some sales from the Comet line.
Ford managed to do once, what GM managed with every one of their intermediates: a clear reason to buy over a less expensive model from a competing make, whether inter corporate or from across town.
The ’66-’67 GM intermediates were very attractive cars across the board, and as you note, did a very good job of aping their full-size mates. They also had unique offerings, like the Buick Sportwagon/Olds Vista Cruiser which were the largest wagons offered by either brand, and the only 4 door hardtops in the category. Those were particularly well designed.
It’s always puzzled me why Chrysler didn’t offer a 4 door hardtop B-Body, especially since they already had one tooled, for the ’65s at least. And looking at the Buick/Olds sales numbers, not offering a Chrysler version (Coronado?) was a mistake. What those would have looked like, particularly after the ’68 restyle, would have been very interesting – contemporary Aussie Valiants may give us a clue.
Fords of the era, to me, all of them, just looked cheap somehow. The exterior sheet metal looked like it was thin and malformed. I’m not surprised they’re last in sales. The Rambler even looked better on the outside and, to me, was a better package overall with its cavernous interior space. AMC, though, no doubt scared buyers away given its brush with bankruptcy.
I knew the GTX was supposed to be an expensive car but I had no idea it cost as much as a full-sized, top-of-the-range VIP.
The thing that is so great about these mid 60s intermediate cars is that they gave the buyer a very wide choice of “features”, be it mechanical or styling. A slant 6 or OHC 6, V8 engines up to 400 cubic inches, automatic transmissions with 2 or 3 speeds, manual transmissions with 3 or 4 speeds, regular and “skyroof” wagons, and even a sort of pickup truck.
I’m not surprised that the Fairlane slipped in sales, the 67 looks like a 66 that has had a bit too much extra chrome added on to try and make it look more like the Galaxie…..tthough the Plymouth and Dodge were “holdovers”, too.
My choice? Very difficult. I like the Comet, the Belvedere, and the LeMans with or without the OHC 6. Not actually a fan of the Chevelle or Fairlane….at least not the 67 models.
Again, what a difference a (model) year will make as ALL the 68s were re-styled and better looking for it.
The base prices of a GTX and VIP were almost exactly the same. The GTX had a standard drivetrain that would cost about $500 in a VIP, which is about the difference in base price between a VIP and a non-GTX Satellite.
The VIP also came with an automatic (and maybe A/C) as standard equipment, too. In that regard, the similar price makes more sense. Until the $2896 Roadrunner debuted the very next year, musclecars were pricey.
Nobody had AC standard at this time except for the Fleetwood 75.
AMC did make it standard on Ambassadors the next year, however.
The base driveline in the VIP was a 2bbl 318 and 3-spd manual. AC, AT, PS, PB were options.
Wow, in this age of well-equipped base cars, it’s hard to believe that a ‘quasi-luxury’ car, even back in 1967 and from a lower-tier marque, wouldn’t come standard with an automatic (let alone A/C). Was it the same for the competing Ford LTD and Chevy Caprice?
I’ll bet that a manual transmission VIP (or LTD or Caprice) are exceptionally rare birds.
Yep, this was true for LTDs and Caprices through most of the 60s. Eventually, the manual transmissions in big cars were only available with a couple of the cheapest, least powerful engine options, then they were dropped entirely.
Part of the reason that the GTX base price was so high was that the base transmission was the Torqueflite; 4-speed stick was optional. I assume that Chrysler didn’t want to bother engineering the Super Commando 440 with a three-speed column shift manual that absolutely no one would want to buy.
AC was optional on most cars through the 80s. Only cars targeted at the Cadillac had standard AC til then.
Actually, auto was standard in the LTD from ’65-’67, then dropped for ’68, along with a general decontenting. It became standard again in ’72.
I have seen a picture of a 3-on-the-tree ’71 LTD convert, (with AC yet!)
on the internet.
When Chrysler started selling super engines in Plymouths and Dodges, they cheerfully sold them in smaller base trim cars for the same prices as the engines in big cars. The upcharge for a 426 in a taxicab-style Belvedere I was the same as in a big, fancy Sport Fury. Pontiac changed that by combining their most expensive midsize car with an engine upgrade and branding it and promoting it. The Road Runner put a GTO like brand on the base model/hot engine combo, then it became so popular that it superseded the GTX as a general performance brand name.
I’m partial to the styling of the 67 Fairlane and Comet over the 68s. The 68 Mopars are much better than the boxy 67s.
My Dad had to buy a replacement for our ’63 Rambler which he was in an accident with (we were in process of moving from Maryland to Vermont) and he bought a ’65 Olds F85 wagon 2 years before this (but I think the Olds at least was substantially the same as the ’65 for ’67). He was buying intermediate wagons at this point; we had qty-2 Rambler wagons before this (the first Rambler replaced his ’56 Plymouth).
We had the ’65 for about 4 years until my Dad moved up to full sized wagons with our ’69 LTD country squire…from then on the next 3 wagons he bought were full sized (2 Fords, 1 Chevrolet)…though the Chevrolet was a “B” body and slightly smaller than the full sized Fords at least externally. He didn’t return to “intermediate” sized until he bought his ’86 Dodge 600 (which I think was kind of intermediate sized, though all US cars were in process of shrinking in size, so it gets a bit hard to define what size is “intermediate”, continuing to today). I’d guess his ’06 Impala would be considered “full sized” nowdays, though it probably would have been an “intermediate” a decade or so before. (wow, car sizes seemed to be more straightforward in 1965-1976 than they do now).
This article should be required reading for everyone that posts to this site that GM “got away with badge engineering 4-5 divisions of cars for decades.”
Their highly differentiated offerings truly offered something for everyone. Want a cheap economy car? Chevelle 300 6. Want sex on wheels? LeMans V-8, GTO for extra testosterone. Want a choice of interesting engineering innovation? A great year to go Olds. Want a Buick Electra in a sensible size? Skylark, of course.
The proof of what GM was doing is in the sales – only Ford prevented GM from having the top four sales spots. GM was not going to sell a million cars in this segment offering the Chevy alone.
As JPC said, not a bad one in the bunch. Technically, the AMC is the most lacking, and was probably at the bottom of any Consumer Reports article.
I’m surprised the Coronet didn’t sell better than the Satellite. While the cars are similar, the Dodge tweaks make for a very handsome car. But, Dodge was down for the count in the ’60s. Their full-size car business never really recovered after the 1961 styling disaster followed by the 1962 downsizing disaster.
Ford, Ford, Ford. Too small, too frumpy, too dumpy. Mercury too. That’s a little harsh, you could order a nice car. But, compare that Comet to a Cutlass, and Mercury simply does not compete.
The Dodge Coronet did outsell its Plymouth counterpart, according to the chart – 184,200 units to 148,080. Also remember to add about 30,000 Charger sales to the Dodge total.
The Dart also outsold the Plymouth Valiant and Barracuda. What kept Plymouth ahead of Dodge was the Fury. It easily outsold the Dodge Polara and Monaco. If I recall correctly, the full-size Dodges generally brought up the rear of the non-luxury full-size class in sales during this era.
Thank you. My math skills stand corrected, but my automotive taste is vindicated!
It’s actually pretty amazing to look at 1962 – 1977 Dodge full-size sales – before severe downsizing changed the concept of a full-size car. The big Dodges just didn’t sell, and there sure were some nice ones during some of those years.
The ’65 Fury line seemed to satisfy pent up demand for big Plymouth’s return. Dodge big cars seemed to be afterthoughts and split between sport and mid-lux, competing with B-O-P, but not succeeding.
There was apparently very little daylight between a Plymouth Fury and a Chrysler Newport. Deep down, pretty much every B body Mopar buyer really wanted a Chrysler instead of a Plymouth or a Dodge. That the Newport was priced so closely to the big Dodge had to have been a killer.
It’s been discussed (here?) before that the low take rate for the VIP compared to the LTD and Caprice probably was related to that.
Dualing Chrysler and Plymouth at single dealerships would seem to be the culprit here. It’s tough to sell a Plymouth VIP (even a loaded one) sitting right next to an equivalently priced Newport, even if the Chrysler didn’t have as much equipment. Plymouth might have lasted longer if Chrysler had been matched with Dodge dealerships, instead, and Plymouth went it alone, like Ford and Chevrolet. Back in the day, Plymouth had enough of a line-up to be able to do it.
Of course, Ford didn’t do too much better by matching up Mercurys at Lincoln dealerships.
The way car design has largely become standardized to today, in areas of chassis construction, suspension and even aerodynamic shape I don’t think it would be a stretch to say the differences between the a ’16 Malibu, Fusion, Camry, Accord, Altima, Optima, ect. are equal or less than there were between GM’s own divisions in 1967.
Mercury’s effort with the Comet is much more in line with that criticism leveled at GM, which was really a 80s-2008 phenomenon for them. Having seen a few of these 66-67 Comets in the flesh(a few locals have them and bring them to cruise nights), by themselves without context I find them quite attractive, much more so than the Fairlane, but that’s often been the problem with Mercury. The division could often turn out cars that had better ‘styling’ than Fords, but as an upmarket division competing for mid-priced sales they just look like the half efforts they were.
I have to agree that a well optioned Comet Caliente is quite attractive. But, the base spec Comet 202 outsold it about 24,000 to 21,000.
The Cutlass Supreme series alone at Olds sold about 120,000 cars in 1967. The other mid-size Oldsmobiles were worth about another 100,000 sales. Olds sold vastly more cars at vastly higher average sales prices.
My feelings about the ’66–67 Comet, as well as the Fairlane of the same years, tend to be warmer now than they probably would have been at the time. Seeing them in isolation, they look pretty good and are reasonably appealing. They do look a lot like the ’65 Pontiac A-bodies (something I think the Fairlane nose pulls off a little better than the Mercury version does), but there are worse things to imitate! Comparing them directly to their contemporaries, they seem underwhelming, although I suppose no more so than the Malibu. (I’ve never been all that keen on Chevelles, and while the ’64–’67 are the best-looking of the lot, I still find them the least attractive of contemporary GM A-body cars.)
I grew up with a neighbor that had a 67 Comet Caliente with a 289, originally a CA car, after she moved to Texas it was an oddity around home because it still wore its OE smog equipment.
It hardly ever left the garage, and in 2009 it had 52,000 miles on it. Too bad the person she sold it to 15 years prior parked it in a field as it was then a 48,000 mile garage kept queen. When I found it again, and I could have bought it for a song, it was in the midst of being parted out, and the interior was in very rough shape.
Maybe it seems silly to critique 50-year-old magazines, but I couldn’t help but notice that some features that became standard across all GM car lines for 1967 and weren’t even available in earlier years (energy-absorbing steering columns, two-position turn signal levers, locking front seat backs on two-door cars, etc.) are mentioned here and there in the descriptions of the GM intermediates, as if they were offered on (for example) Buicks but not Chevys.
Also, the optional 8-track stereo tape player mentioned as available in Olds intermediates (and the other GMs too, although that’s left unsaid) supposedly uses “cartridges interchangeable with the Ford units already on the market” but this is a fairly ignorant description; although Ford may have offered the first in-car players in ’66, the 8-track cartridge was a Lear invention. The first players for home stereo systems carried the Lear Jet brand (I still have ours, circa 1965).
(Our family had a ’67 GTO hardtop with automatic on the column, although the photo caption implies that all GTO automatics had console shifters.)
“Maybe it seems silly to critique 50-year-old magazines, but I couldn’t help but notice that some features that became standard across all GM car lines for 1967 and weren’t even available in earlier years (energy-absorbing steering columns, two-position turn signal levers, locking front seat backs on two-door cars, etc.) are mentioned here and there in the descriptions of the GM intermediates, as if they were offered on (for example) Buicks but not Chevys.”
I’d agree its silly now, we’ve all had 50 years to obsess over the idea that many of the features you mention were actually related to Federal law that applied to the 1967 model year.
But, various advances and requirements did occasionally get introduced in fits and starts, and some manufacturers got waivers on cars that were about to go out of production, or sold in small numbers. It seemed like the ’67 Fords, and possibly Chryslers used a funky deep steering wheel with a big rubber center hub in lieu of a proper energy-absorbing column. This may have even been partial model year.
It seems like the requirement for head rests on front seats was instituted for cars built on or after 1-1-69. So, you may have had early production ’69s without headrests. And, in some cases the headrests may have been optionally available before they were mandatory. On luxury cars, they were probably standard for all 1969 cars.
It probably got a little confusing back in the day knowing what car got what, and when.
AMC had collapsible steering columns because they purchased them from General Motors. I think they might have had to obtain some kind of federal waiver in order to do so. Checker used GM columns as well. AMC offered headrests in some of their cars in the 1950s, but as I recall they were touted as a comfort accessory for use with the reclining seats rather than a safety device.
I’ve only ever seen the ’67 steering wheel hubs that looked like midcentury-modern floor vases turned sideways, on Ford products.
Only Chrysler omitted headrests on early 69’s, GM, Ford & AMC had then from the start.
I believe there’s a section in this issue that features safety advances of the 67s, I haven’t looked at it for awhile. MT did that regularly with their annual auto show issues.
As gorgeous as the GM mid-sizers go, I’d have to take the Rebel. I remember seeing lots of those, many in SST trim.
Still, the Chevelle would be awfully hard to pass up.
You say the Rebel seems to imitate Chrysler’s styling. Perhaps the 4 door models, but the 2 door screams “Chevelle” to me.
Comet was a compact in early 60’s and still had that image, nad was a disadvantage competing with B-O-P. So the Montego name made it “new” for ’68.
Falcon and Fairlane may have been cancelling out each other also, being so close in size. Finally got the sizes right in the 70’s with Maverick/Torino.
The ’67 Fairlane based Ranchero was a very pleasant light duty pick up truck, when properly equipped (V8 engine, automatic tranny, in dash factory air conditioning, power steering, power disc front brakes).
It bordered on near luxury (for the time period), was a pleasant driver and quite peppy (again, equipped as mentioned above).
My Father had a ’67 Ranchero for several years. My finicky Mother had no problem “borrowing” it for her errands, my teenage friends were unanimous in their approval of it (the “Cherry Bomb” dual exhaust system helped win everyone’s accolades.)
No doubt that GM was king back then, and the sales stats prove it. Personally, I’d take any of the Pontiac models in 2-door hardtop form.
The safety features on the GM cars weren’t technically mandatory at the time; if I remember correctly, the federal government specified certain features that had to be present on cars purchased by the GSA (General Services Administration). Therefore, it made sense to standardize the features on as many models as possible.
Jan. 1, 1968 is when the initial bevy of federal safety standards became mandatory for passenger cars.
That Lemans is distinctively gorgeous.
I love the way they describe the Olds “turnpike cruising” option, saying “…the engine need turn over only 3100rpm to cruise the car at 100mph.”
Also, touting the early Buick V6 as “smooth and economical” is only half correct.
“the Fairlane, which had been the best seller in the category for 1966”
I am not sure I am reading this correctly, but are you saying he Ford Fairlane was the best selling 1966 intermediate? If so this is incorrect, the Chevelle outsold the Fairlane in 1966. There were approximately 412,000 Chevelles , and 317,000 Fairlanes produced in 1966.
Looks like there is an error in my source, which is American Cars, 1960 to 1972 by J. Kelly Flory. Seems he had a typo on the number of Fairlane 500XL 2-door hardtops that threw off the totals. I double checked against The Encyclopedia of American Cars and 90 Years of Ford, and you are right, Chevy was first in 1966. I’ll amend my text. Thanks!
As I’ve said before, I think an Olds Cutlass Supreme Turnpike Cruiser (with the full set of transistor ignition, Climatic Combustion Control, radials, plus discs, gauge package, power steering, and air conditioning) was an appealingly rational choice this year.
There were others that are better looking — I think this was the most attractive year for the GTO — or more muscular, but the Turnpike Cruiser would rival most of the small V-8s for mileage while providing much better acceleration. As a daily driver, not a street racer or a future collectible (in which case the GTO or Hemi GTX wins out), it seems like the pick of the litter.
Such a car would be rare as hens’ teeth. Although a child, I remember these cars when new. The features you list were seldom purchased by typical buyers, other than the gauge package in a 442. You could even get a 4 speed manual in a Vista Cruiser, but who would do that?
I noticed in the article that 6 cylinder cars were 10% of F85 sales. I may have only seen 1 or 2 of that vintage with a 6 in my life. Folks who wanted a 6 cylinder mid sized car would get a Chevelle. The Olds Rocket V8 was a large reason why folks spent the extra money for an Olds.
And back then dealers typically sold the car itself for near cost, than added a significant mark up to the options to make their profit. So many folks saw the items you list as an unnecessary expense, and passed on them.
As for some of the features, radial tires were somewhat difficult and pricey to replace. And If you did have an ignition issue with the electronic set up you might be hard pressed to find a repair facility, even a dealer, to be properly trained to service it back then.
It’s funny you mentioned the Cutlass Turnpike Cruiser. I never heard of it until reading this website. And my dad was an Oldsmobile guy.
My uncle bought his 1st 2 Buick Electras without A/C seeing it as an expensive waste in the midwest US. When he bought his 3rd one the dealer insisted he order his with A/C as he traded every 3 or 4 years and the dealer didn’t want to be stuck with a difficult to sell used car.
We closed our Chrysler-Plymouth dealership at the end of the ’67 model year. (They wanted us to build a new dealership on the outskirts of town, and we said no. Not a bad decision – the guy they convinced to do it went bankrupt 5 years later…) My Great Aunt, the actual dealer, picked out a medium blue Belvedere II 4-door sedan. Got a lot of rides in that car growing up, and I always liked it.
Amazing to think Richard Petty was almost unbeatable in that brick of a car, but then again, good aerodynamics doesn’t always = curvy. Look at the Alfa Guilia sedans of the same era.
This was back in the day when GM had economy of scale with 4 brands in the top 5 sales positions. Today, a sliver of itself.
Once the middle class of the 60’s and 70’s was widdled down to the lowest common detonator by the end of the century (if in double, go shop in Walmart), the step-up brands faded into the background. A mix of arrogance (Aztek, Regatta, Allente) and god awful marketing (not your dad’s Oldsmobile) added to the chaos. Ford and Chrysler also took hits with Mercury and Plymouth.
Only redeeming value for Detroit are SUVs and Pickups. The EV race could be make or break.
Not a happy situation.
I’d be happy with any of the GM offerings in either a 2dr hardtop or convertible.
Add the biggest V8 I could get short of the muscle car versions, four speed, A/C, power discs and power steering, and what ever upgraded suspension package was available.
Buckets and a factory option wheel package too. None of the GM divisions had an ugly wheel upgrade that year .And swing by the Olds dealer parts department for a 442 rear sway bar.
Some Centuratos and and fiddle the wheel alignments and you’ve a car that would surprise a few European cars, and show a muscle car a clean set of tail lights in the twisty sections.
I appreciate your enthusiasm. Please see my comment above.
Two things.
First – there wouldn’t have been a need for intermediates if family cars didn’t grow to gargantuan sizes. Detroit ended up creating two sets of six passenger cars and in Chrysler’s and AMC’s cases, three sets of six passenger cars.
Secondly, all the cars are equally fine, but really don’t give me anything that the same brands offered in the same showrooms didn’t offer as well.