Anybody that's looking for a Formal that doesn't buy this is nuts!! 76 Fury

Status
Not open for further replies.
You should be able to squeeze it in between the two Chryslers and a Mazda, I'm sure. :)
 
You should be able to squeeze it in between the two Chryslers and a Mazda, I'm sure.
smile.png
No, like I have been bemoaning of late, I really am tapped out financially. Open to trades. Lol.

Posted via Topify on Android
 
I can't share the sentiment that it should be black. There's already plenty of nice black cars out there. I get it and like it just the way it is. Back in the day the only folks that drove big black cars were in the clergy, undertakers and the mob.
 
After owning Formals you wise up to the fact that less is more. This one is ideal. Ask any Formal owner....
Plus I'll repeat once more "IF you're looking for Formal...."
Maybe you can explain to me what exactly is a "Formal". There's nothing Formal about this car. If it were a four door and had a yellow light on the roof, it would be a taxi cab. I'm afraid i just don't get what your talking about. I got a chastised by you once before, and made to feel like an idiot, because I mistakenly thought my 67 LeBaron was a "Formal" apparently I was wrong. But who am I to say, after all, what car could look more formal than a 67 LeBaron four door.
 
Maybe you can explain to me what exactly is a "Formal". There's nothing Formal about this car. QUOTE]
I can understand what your saying. The term "Formal" historically refered to a four door streach sedan with no divider window. The same car with a divider window is a "Limousine".
I'm not sure how that fits in with the NYB's. I guess the term "Formal" just got adopted.

And i agree ..... This is a nice car, just not very Formal.
 
Its a Plymouth, not a Chrysler. The Dodge Royal Monaco had the same body & shape & was certainly more classy looking. Formal because its from that era of C bodys meaning it shared many of the same parts & design. Thats all. Its a Plymouth. It is a bit plain. If It was mine I would but some wheels on it. Just my personal taste. I am certain the bench seat is comfy just not sporty. Since its a 2 door I would have prefered buckets & a center console. Or at least a split bench with the wide folding arm rest.
 
Maybe you can explain to me what exactly is a "Formal". There's nothing Formal about this car. If it were a four door and had a yellow light on the roof, it would be a taxi cab. I'm afraid i just don't get what your talking about. I got a chastised by you once before, and made to feel like an idiot, because I mistakenly thought my 67 LeBaron was a "Formal" apparently I was wrong. But who am I to say, after all, what car could look more formal than a 67 LeBaron four door.

C-Bodies were made from 1965-1978. They consist of Plymouth, Dodge, and Chrysler full size cars. They are broken into these categories.

1965-1968 was known as "Slab" body style.

1969-1973 was known as "Fuselage" body style.

1974-1978 was known as "Formal" body style.
 
1974-1978 was known as "Formal" body style.

Actually when you get down to it the better term is the Brougham era which would describe many cars of that time. To Broughamify a car all one needed to do was stick that stupid half assed vinyl roof, put in some overly plush seats and add a tiny window in the C pillar. One can find Broughamified cars in all makes and believe it or not all sizes big and small. As to the poster with the 67 Imperial I would agree that the car is very formal which means it exudes luxury in an understated way. The cars of the Brougham era overstated everything ergo Broughaminess.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top