Fuselage Quality

Greg B.

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2012
Messages
1,299
Reaction score
144
Location
Dartmouth, NS, Canada
Over the last few years I have had an Ebay automated search running so that any new listings of C-bodies sends an alert to my inbox. I have noticed something over that time that has raised a question in my mind.

I tend to see a lot more '68 and earlier C-bodies in relatively good condition than fuselage cars. That seems odd because the fuselage cars are obviously newer, and you would think that there would be more of them around. But I observe just the opposite. Cars that have some use, as opposed to ones that have always been pampered and kept out of the elements, seem to be have more decent survivors from the mid-60s vintage than the fuselage cars. I am always surprised by the number of fuselages I see coming up for sale that have real problems, often trashed interiors, rust issues, etc., as compared to the earlier models, which typically seem to be in better condition.

I wonder if it is because the quality of design and materials on the fuselage cars took a decline, or if it is simply that the older models have already had some work done to them where the fusies have not? Or maybe it is simply a question of numbers - perhaps there were more of the earlier models sold originally, so their survivor rate is higher, relatively speaking.

I'd be interested in hearing from those who have more experience that me with the C-body cars what your views would be on this question.
 
IMO, sadly, I think it's because, until recently anyway, Fusilage C-bodies were considered to only be good as derby cars or were used as powertrain donors and then scrapped.
 
I have read that 65-68 were a high point for MoPar as far as quality control was concerned. Part of the complete change over between 64 ad 65 was a concerted effort to change the reputation of low quality control that chrysler had since the late 50's. The fuselage car were a total redesign that for one reason or another, was prone to rust (not that all cars made during the 60's weren't). Use of things like plastics, ect were increasing as well. I think that from about 68-75 all companies suffered from excessive government regulation, mandates and control. The cost to comply were adding up and putting a pinch on everyone. There was probably a lot of corner cutting in other areas to compensate.
I know without a doubt that my 66 VIP and 65 Newport were built better than my 69 Newport and 300, 71 Polara and 71 Fury
 
Bryan I think your theory may still need some work. I own a 70 Polara convertible and a 68 Monaco 500. While I agree there definitely seems to be more 68 and earlier Cbodies around, using your theory the Monaco which represents the top of the line Dodge in 68 should also correspond to the most refined and best in quality that Ma Mopar had to offer. But honestly and contrary to your experience I don't see any difference in build quality beteen the cars. They all had their issues related to body rust since back then since zinc coated sheet metal for body panels was still in the future. Mechanically there's not a lot to choose between the cars either. There needs to be another explanation. I'd be interested in knowing on what you base your opinion that 65 & 65 cars were built better than the later cars. Also you would think the first generation of pollution controls which started in the mid-70's would make people more likely to ditch their cars early yet I still see a lot more Cordoba's and Aspens on the road than Cbodies of any vintage. Maybe it's just that when it comes to collecting Cbodies people gravitate to the older cars making the assumption they will be worth more when restored?
 
Last edited:
I didn't mean to imply that the quality of the 69-73 cars was bad and certainly don't want to get involved in any kind of who's better debate.:eek:ops: Especially considering I love any and all of them. I just happen to own an older one right now, but I am definately not a slab over fusie over formal ect,,,,,person. I think in 1969 as far as the industry goes, MoPar was equal to, and possibly better than most of their contemporaries.. They certainly made the most attractive cars. You could have a point there as far as the perceived value of he older cars, unless a person is familiar with and knows something about C Body cars. They would know that unless they have something special, any run of the mill car is going to be worth just so much. Doesn't matter if it is a 66 Newport or a 71 Newport, they are probably worth about the same if in equal condition. Maybe, I was suffering with a bit of the old "things just aren't like they used to be" syndrom, but it seemed to me that my older slab cars felt a bit more solid and less prone to glitches, especially (in my case) electrical, than the fusies. My all time favorite car was a fusie though.. I would love to get my 71 Fury Gran Coupe back.....
 
I tend to see a lot more '68 and earlier C-bodies in relatively good condition than fuselage cars. ...Or maybe it is simply a question of numbers - perhaps there were more of the earlier models sold originally, so their survivor rate is higher, relatively speaking.

I'd be interested in hearing from those who have more experience that me with the C-body cars what your views would be on this question.
Its an interesting queston and I agree there seems to be more slabs on the road than Fusies. You may be on to something with the numbers but when I compare 67/68 production with 70/71 production in the standard catalog of Chrysler the only substantial decline from the earlier period seems to be for Chryslers while Plymouth and Dodge seem to hold their own. I tried to compare 2 year periods when the body styles stayed mostly the same. Locally I have seen several cbodies on the road that never show up at the cruise nights. Maybe the Fusie guys are just more shy LOL.
 
My experience has been just the opposite. I have owned C bodies off and on for 22 years, and the fusies seem to be much more common here in central PA than the slabs, although ANY C body is a rare sight lately. Personally, I have owned
65 Polara
66 Newport
67 300 coupe
67 Newport convertible
67 Sport Fury
68 Imperial
68 Fury 2
68 Fury 3
69 Fury 2
69 Fury 3
69 Polara
70 New Yorker
70 Fury 3
71 Imperial
71 Newport Royal
71 Newport Custom
71 Fury 3
71 Polara (current)
72 Fury 3
72 Sport Fury
72 Polara
72 Polara Custom
73 New Yorker
73 Monaco Brougham
73 Monaco
75 Newport Custom pilot car
75 Gran Fury Sport Suburban
76 New Yorker Brougham
77 Gran Fury Brougham coupe
77 New Yorker Brougham coupe
77 Royal Monaco wagon
 
Last edited:
I think the gas crunch kept production numbers down on 69-73s. I always thought that's why you see way more 60s c bodies rolling around. smash em up 70s movies derbys & bigfoot & the rise of the monster truck scene all contributed.
 
60s mopars got all the glory. if you drove a fusie in the 80s or 90s you were just a random ******* on the outside looking in. that's how the snobs were back then. if u had a four door it belonged in a derby, that was just the mentality back then. people aren't so choosy these days. you cant be.
 
I won't hesitate to say from my experience, the fuselage quality is lesser than '65-'68. Examples...curved window glass with plastic runners that break, cowl/fender/sill design that traps debris and causes rust, firewall design makes it very difficult to get at heater hoses and a/c evaporator, poor alignment of front bumper and fender extensions, window seals that don't. Drivetrain still good and yes there were improvements but build quality not as good as '66 and '67 Furys I owned.
 
They tended to rust very well. Lost one to cowl rust and almost lost another for the same reason. Also, something about the metal used for the sheet metal makes the rust travel and bloom faster than other makes and years I’ve had.

This is my opinion to which I can add that there also appears to be a lag regarding popularity... and hence value... that should bring the fuselage and later into their own soon. It seems to be about 40 to 45 years after production that they come into their own as the sons and daughters of the original owners start buying them. In the case of the fuselage years this may be delayed due to the horrible recession that hit just as they would come up in interest and value.

Likewise, about 10-15 years later, they all come on as their inheritors or bored owners start dumping them.

Thus we see the 60 slab sides coming in the market now and a the interest in the fuselage and even formals beginning to rise. If you want a fuselage in good condition you’d better hurry.

IMO.
 
Production of the fuselage models was less than the slab side models across Fury, Polara/Monaco and Chrysler.

C body production for the American market only, and the average per year for each group :

1965 - - - Fury : 301,151 - - - Polara/Monaco : 133,774 - - - Chrysler : 188,271
1966 - - - Fury : 289,533 - - - Polara/Monaco : 136,699 - - - Chrysler : 240,094
1967 - - - Fury : 304,139 - - - Polara/Monaco : 116,926 - - - Chrysler : 194,775
1968 - - - Fury : 398,057 - - - Polara/Monaco : 118,664 - - - Chrysler : 234,513
Average - Fury : 323,320 - - - Polara/Monaco : 126,516 - - - Chrysler : 214,413

1969 - - - Fury : 356,305 - - - Polara/Monaco : 130,287 - - - Chrysler : 233,090
1970 - - - Fury : 259,190 - - - Polara/Monaco : 92,913 - - - Chrysler : 159,871
1971 - - - Fury : 251,138 - - - Polara/Monaco : 97,815 - - - Chrysler : 153,282
1972 - - - Fury : 258,612 - - - Polara/Monaco : 132,140 - - - Chrysler : 180,489
1973 - - - Fury : 255,495 - - - Polara/Monaco : 132,553 - - - Chrysler : 201,815
Average - Fury : 276,148 - - - Polara/Monaco : 78,996 - - - Chrysler : 185,709

Seeing as the average for slab side was greater than the average for fuselage would explain why slab sides are more common. The real surprise is the weakness of the Polara/Monaco models against Fury and Chrysler.
 
Just a theory: As far as I know, the Fuselage C-Bodies were the first to employ "glued-in" windshields and rear windows versus conventional rubber gaskets/seals still used for said glass on Slabsides. Although I would tend to believe it was the other way 'round, perhaps the sealer used from 69 on didn't do that good a job on preventing moisture to creep in there compared to rubber gaskets and seals used previously.
 
Production of the fuselage models was less than the slab side models across Fury, Polara/Monaco and Chrysler.

C body production for the American market only, and the average per year for each group :

1965 - - - Fury : 301,151 - - - Polara/Monaco : 133,774 - - - Chrysler : 188,271
1966 - - - Fury : 289,533 - - - Polara/Monaco : 136,699 - - - Chrysler : 240,094
1967 - - - Fury : 304,139 - - - Polara/Monaco : 116,926 - - - Chrysler : 194,775
1968 - - - Fury : 398,057 - - - Polara/Monaco : 118,664 - - - Chrysler : 234,513
Average - Fury : 323,320 - - - Polara/Monaco : 126,516 - - - Chrysler : 214,413

1969 - - - Fury : 356,305 - - - Polara/Monaco : 130,287 - - - Chrysler : 233,090
1970 - - - Fury : 259,190 - - - Polara/Monaco : 92,913 - - - Chrysler : 159,871
1971 - - - Fury : 251,138 - - - Polara/Monaco : 97,815 - - - Chrysler : 153,282
1972 - - - Fury : 258,612 - - - Polara/Monaco : 132,140 - - - Chrysler : 180,489
1973 - - - Fury : 255,495 - - - Polara/Monaco : 132,553 - - - Chrysler : 201,815
Average - Fury : 276,148 - - - Polara/Monaco : 78,996 - - - Chrysler : 185,709

Seeing as the average for slab side was greater than the average for fuselage would explain why slab sides are more common. The real surprise is the weakness of the Polara/Monaco models against Fury and Chrysler.


Thank you Bill, when you write, I pay attention..
As I was reading through I too noticed the Cheaper Plymouth leading in sales while the more expensive Chrysler was selling in the number two spot the whole time.
Many less chose the Dodge version of which I personally find to be the sexier of the three.

I never did realize the numbers laid out this way ....:thankyou:
 
Just a theory: As far as I know, the Fuselage C-Bodies were the first to employ "glued-in" windshields and rear windows versus conventional rubber gaskets/seals still used for said glass on Slabsides. Although I would tend to believe it was the other way 'round, perhaps the sealer used from 69 on didn't do that good a job on preventing moisture to creep in there compared to rubber gaskets and seals used previously.
I tend to lean towards either the quality of the metal or the quality of the rust inhibitor used declined in the fuselage era. My .02..
 
I think despite the lower production it is also the material and technical solutions.

I think exspecially of the heater/AC system. It is operated by vacuum hoses behind the kick panel. On 98% of the fuselage cars it doesn't work correctly today. I guess they failed already earlier. Now if you think back of the late 70s or 80s people use them as dailys and the AC/heater/blower system doesn't work as it should and it is hard to repair. I feel things like that can sort cars already out of use when they are in a period of being financially worthless

Carsten
 
Back
Top