Definition of C-Body

[jimmyessbee]

What do we call the 62-64 bigger than b-bodies? Looking through the forum categories, it would seem that the forward look machines were done in '61. Obviously, they're not a slab-side. But, if you compare a 61 and 62 Chrysler, the only thing different is the fin.

So, how are they classified? If I've got a question on my '64 Newport, do I ask the forward look forum or the slab side?

The 62 - 64's have always been my favorite, but they don't get a lot of attention.

Interested to hear input.

 

[marko]

yeah its a tricky one, they're not strictly Forward Look cars, and C bodies are 65-78, but imperials from 57 to 66 are D bodies and also forward looks to 62,63 (?) then 67 to 75 imps are C's. but 63 imps got a different roofline so does that bump em out of forward look country....
ive never been able to figure out what they are........

 

[3175375]

D-?

 

[GOLDMYN]

BIG

 

[CBODY67]

All OEMs have some sort of internal designation for their vehicle platforms. We know that the Plymouth Valiant platform started the A-body platrform in 1960. Plus a similar Dodge model. Prior to that, there was the "full-size" car platform, with wheelbases up to 120"+.

We might say the original B-body started with the downsized-full-size Plymouths and Dodges of 1962. With the formal "intermediate" being the Plymouth Belvedere in 1965 and later. Then the C-body arrived in 1965 to fully-modernize the large unibody platform.

So, in the earlier 1950s when the 1957 Imperial was designed, how did it "get to 'D'", at that time? With the "sales code designation" of "Y".

Might the '63-'64 Chryslers be more like "extended-wheelbase" '63-'64 Plymouths and Dodge "full-size" cars? But that would make them "extended-wheelbase" B-body cars, would it not? Or would their longer wheelbases (compared to Plymouth and Dodge) make them "Transition Cars" of sorts, with more relation to the 1962 Chryslers than the 1962 "full-size" Plymouths and Dodges, mechanically?

Somewhere, I've seen a chart which had much of these things laid out graphically.

Just some ponderings and considerations,
CBODY67

 

[Jim 68cuda]

How ever everyone decides to classify cars such as the 63-64 Chrysler and 62 to 64 Dodge 880, it pretty much has to include all the full size uni-body Mopars from 60-64. They are all the same under the skin. The 62 Dodge 880 was created, after all, by attaching the front of the 61 Dodge to the body of the 62 Chrysler and the 62 Chrysler was created by attaching the front end of the 61 Chrysler to the body of the 61 Polara (and for 2 doors, the roof of the 61 Chrysler) with only the rear quarters as new sheet metal stampings. The 63 and 64 Dodge 880s were just facelifted versions of the 62 880 which itself was a mish mash of existing Chrysler and Dodge parts. You could still use the doors and windshield from a 64 880 on a 60 Polara or Fury, and the tailgate of a 60 Dodge wagon would probably work on a 64 Chrysler wagon, so they should be grouped together.

Imperials weren't C bodies till 67. Since the pre-67 Imperials were body on frame, they are not similar to C bodies. But, if the 60-64 big cars are going to be accepted among the C-body group, it would make sense to also include the 60-66 Imperials as well. There was some significant sheet metal changes on Imperial for 1960 which then evolved into the 61-63 Imperials, and the 64-66 Imperials have the classic Elwood Engle styling that inspired the designs of the first C-bodies.

 

[crv]

The 62 - 64's have always been my favorite, but they don't get a lot of attention

They are much nicer in the metal, sometimes photos don't do justice to the lines of these cars. I looked over a '64 non-letter 300 once, such a beautiful design.

 

[FURYGT]

My understanding is that '67 - '73 Imperials were Y body cars and the pre-1965 full-size unibody cars were D bodies.

 

[jimmyessbee]

They are much nicer in the metal, sometimes photos don't do justice to the lines of these cars. I looked over a '64 non-letter 300 once, such a beautiful design.

I remember driving my 62 Newport around as a teenager when a guy had a 63 New Yorker for sale. He wanted $1700 in 1989 dollars which was far too rich for me but I drove it and was instantly in love. In retrospect, now I'd love most to have that 62 back but that 63 always hung out in my mind as a little 'better'.

 

[patrick66]

All OEMs have some sort of internal designation for their vehicle platforms. We know that the Plymouth Valiant platform started the A-body platrform in 1960. Plus a similar Dodge model. Prior to that, there was the "full-size" car platform, with wheelbases up to 120"+.

We might say the original B-body started with the downsized-full-size Plymouths and Dodges of 1962. With the formal "intermediate" being the Plymouth Belvedere in 1965 and later. Then the C-body arrived in 1965 to fully-modernize the large unibody platform.

So, in the earlier 1950s when the 1957 Imperial was designed, how did it "get to 'D'", at that time? With the "sales code designation" of "Y".

CBODY67

Valiant was an independent nameplate (like Imperial) from 1960-1962. The Dodge Lancer was the counterpart then. In 1963, the Valiant became a Plymouth model, and the Lancer went away in favor of the Dart nameplate, which was the intermediate model as well as the 1961 Dodge Sweptline pickup name.

As I've mentioned in previous posts, the Imperial was never a "Y"-body car, not until the front-drivers in 1989-1992. It has been the "Y"-model line its entire existence, however. Imperial has been a "D", "C", and "J" body over the years. The fwd Imperial was the only Imperial that was both the "Y" body and "Y" car line.

 

[Snotty]

They are all the same under the skin.

Not in '62 and earlier. The New Yorker had a 126" wheelbase, as opposed to 123 for 300s and Newports, and even smaller for Dodge and Plymouth.

 

[FWD Look Fan]

If you really want to get confused, take a look at the 1961 Dart Seneca, Pioneer, and Phoenix. A one-year model group killed off, I'm told, by the success of the 1961 Impala. Forward look? Hmm, from the look of the fin design, they're backwards. So, Backward Look?

 

[CBODY67]

Not "backward fins", but multi-directional fins which direct the air on the side of the quarter panels to the sides with that u-shaped contour at their back end. By observation, some colors and color combinations showcase those unique fins better than others, as your car's color does.

 

[Jim 68cuda]

If you really want to get confused, take a look at the 1961 Dart Seneca, Pioneer, and Phoenix. A one-year model group killed off, I'm told, by the success of the 1961 Impala. Forward look? Hmm, from the look of the fin design, they're backwards. So, Backward Look?

Actually, there was a very good reason for the 1960 and 61 Dart lineup (Phoenix, Pioneer, & Seneca). Things just didn't go as planned for Chrysler. In the 50's there were Dodge Plymouth dealers, DeSoto Plymouth dealers and Chrysler Plymouth dealers. Chrysler decided to change things up and put Dodge by itself. But, the Dodge dealers complained that they wouldn't have a low priced car any more to compete with Ford and Chevy. So, the Dart lineup was created and built on the shorter Plymouth wheelbase. The problem was, Plymouth buyers switched to the more upmarket Dodge name at close to the same price, so it hurt Plymouth sales more than it hurt Ford and Chevy. Even worse, Dodge buyers saw the very similar looking (similar to the bigger Polara that is) and much cheaper Dart line, and sales dwindled on the bigger senior Dodge Polara and Matador models. Chrysler had essentially duplicated the Plymouth line to please Dodge dealers, and in so doing, killed the sales of both Plymouth and the big Dodges. But the Darts sold very well in 60/61.

 

[FWD Look Fan]

Thanks for this description of the corporate MOPAR market moves of the new decade. What a time to be in the market for a new car.
I so enjoy the reactions I get driving my Pioneer around. Everyone tells me that they've never seen another one.
Mine's a Frankenstein with a 1974 slant 6 up front and a 1968 Newport axle in back. Rolling on 15 inch tires, it has a cool presence. It's certainly not a showpiece, but it's my driver of choice where I don't have to worry about taking it out and about.
I'm looking forward to getting the interior in shape, and on the fence about leaving the body's patina as is.
Thanks again for the history. These early 60s "Sorta C-bodies" sure are interesting cars from an interesting time!

 

[FWD Look Fan]

Thoughts on "Sorta C-Bodies," and an off topic brain dump as I ponder our car collector hobby. Forgive me that I've posted it here, please.

Transition year cars, shoulder year models, mid-year model changes, hiring and firing of designers... Is there a better suite of collectable automobiles than the offerings from Chrysler Corp in the seismic changes happening as the world moved from the 50s into the 60s? Can we define a C-body? The Forward Look? Can we even pin down what Chrysler Corp was doing at the time? Was there an overarching plan for the future?
I posit that the MOPAR cars of the era are the most emblematic of the transitions and changes happening at the time. Some models were throwbacks to the 50s. Some attempted to cater to anticipated style changes expected in the 60s. As a result, there were still fins galore in 60, 61, and 62 (big Chryslers), some fins in some 62s, and none at all in 63s, except for some weird lumps in small Valiants and such arriving a few years in.
Time was moving fast. Our culture was starting the move from tie-and-jacket and fur-stole-chic to (horrors!) Nehru jackets, and beads, bell bottom jeans, Earth Shoes, and Volkswagen Beetles.
I feel we have an obligation to preserve our automobiles that provide insight to the huge changes happening at the time these cars were being designed and produced. These automobiles are becoming anachronistic symbols of our motor heritage--and it is a shame. I see them as symbols of our manufacturing prowess and prestige in the post-war world. A time of cocktail parties, smooth jazz, and open freeways. It's a shame that we find it hard to source parts and expertise to maintain and preserve this rolling history.
Of topic a bit, but I think in 50 years or so, the transitions happening now with hybrid cars, plug in hybrids, full EV autos, the last manual transmission autos, "driver assist" and self-driving autos present a unique collector car opportunity for folks for the future. Yes, bring your wallet, but wasn't that always the case?
I won't live to see it, but I expect there will be a collector community looking upon these cars as providing insights to the huge changes happening at time these cars were being designed and produced. And I hope my great-great grandchildren can motor alongside one of those EV collectors and give him a wave from my 1960 New Yorker.

 

[jimmyessbee]

Thoughts on "Sorta C-Bodies," and an off topic brain dump as I ponder our car collector hobby. Forgive me that I've posted it here, please.

Transition year cars, shoulder year models, mid-year model changes, hiring and firing of designers... Is there a better suite of collectable automobiles than the offerings from Chrysler Corp in the seismic changes happening as the world moved from the 50s into the 60s? Can we define a C-body? The Forward Look? Can we even pin down what Chrysler Corp was doing at the time? Was there an overarching plan for the future?
I posit that the MOPAR cars of the era are the most emblematic of the transitions and changes happening at the time. Some models were throwbacks to the 50s. Some attempted to cater to anticipated style changes expected in the 60s. As a result, there were still fins galore in 60, 61, and 62 (big Chryslers), some fins in some 62s, and none at all in 63s, except for some weird lumps in small Valiants and such arriving a few years in.
Time was moving fast. Our culture was starting the move from tie-and-jacket and fur-stole-chic to (horrors!) Nehru jackets, and beads, bell bottom jeans, Earth Shoes, and Volkswagen Beetles.
I feel we have an obligation to preserve our automobiles that provide insight to the huge changes happening at the time these cars were being designed and produced. These automobiles are becoming anachronistic symbols of our motor heritage--and it is a shame. I see them as symbols of our manufacturing prowess and prestige in the post-war world. A time of cocktail parties, smooth jazz, and open freeways. It's a shame that we find it hard to source parts and expertise to maintain and preserve this rolling history.
Of topic a bit, but I think in 50 years or so, the transitions happening now with hybrid cars, plug in hybrids, full EV autos, the last manual transmission autos, "driver assist" and self-driving autos present a unique collector car opportunity for folks for the future. Yes, bring your wallet, but wasn't that always the case?
I won't live to see it, but I expect there will be a collector community looking upon these cars as providing insights to the huge changes happening at time these cars were being designed and produced. And I hope my great-great grandchildren can motor alongside one of those EV collectors and give him a wave from my 1960 New Yorker.

There is something in history studies called 'presentism' which refers to the idea that we're looking at the past through the lens of the present. I fear the ponderings like this are doing just that. I wasn't yet alive in 1964 like my Newport was, but if I try to think what it was really like to be a new car buyer, I can't. Some of those on this list can. I can only imagine, though, that the feeling wasn't that much different than it is today (there's my presentism rearing its head). Marketing campaigns hyping up things that didn't really apply to most of us but we kind of wanted them to apply to us whether we were willing to admit it or not. Whether that meant fins or a hellcat. But it's only because we fell prey to the media and other things of the time. Because whether in 1950, 1960, or 2022, people are people. And so, that's why I like to just get in the car and drive. I don't care too much about categorizing and I certainly don't want to make it like new thus rendering me fearful of driving it, but I do like to try to see the world as it was in 1964 or perhaps 1974 and me in my ten year old Chrysler.

But that's just me. And antithetical, I recognize, to a big chunk of the list populace.

Interesting thought, though -- you think it's hard to get a water bottle for a 1969 Fury? What about buying a 2022 Tesla battery in 2082? Oh... that's right. We'll just print one.

 

[FWD Look Fan]

"Because whether in 1950, 1960, or 2022, people are people. And so, that's why I like to just get in the car and drive. I don't care too much about categorizing and I certainly don't want to make it like new thus rendering me fearful of driving it, but I do like to try to see the world as it was in 1964 or perhaps 1974 and me in my ten year old Chrysler. But that's just me. And antithetical, I recognize, to a big chunk of the list populace. Interesting thought, though -- you think it's hard to get a water bottle for a 1969 Fury? What about buying a 2022 Tesla battery in 2082? Oh... that's right. We'll just print one."

jimmyesbee,
So spot on, and so appreciated. I realize I hijacked this thread with my pondering about the 60s and the coming changes. You are right -- people are people -- and it isn't just you who likes to try to see the world in 1964, 1974, or whatever year our car may take us back to. I love my push button transmissions! I can imagining myself taking my Dart to the 1964 New York Worlds Fair. And you are also so right about the world that future car collectors may face in 2082. They may ask, "What's a Tesla? Never seen one before. And, is that a Polestar?"

 

[CBODY67]

ONE item which must be considered is that when the car designs were finalized and approved for production, it was 3-5 years before THOSE cars hit the showrooms. MUCH gambling on what would be good to do, usually, but there were large numbers of people in the OEMs which did market research/trend analysis on what the public wanted and then getting something of that nature to market quickly. Chrysler had some hits and misses, in the same times . . . Cordobas were the "big hit" as the Formals tended to be "otherwise", for example.

Everybody was watching what everybody else did, back then. I remember reading that the downsized 1962 Dodge and Plymouth "full-size" cars was the result of a cocktail party overheard conversation by a GM operative. GM downsized its family cars for 1961, but it was 1962 when Chrysler got it done. Ford just kept on being "Ford", giving the customers "alternatives".

What was it like growing up in the 1950s and 1960s and being a car enthusiast? It was very exciting. NEW models hit each September-October. "Show Date" was a really big deal, up into the later 1970s. New models, engineering advances/innovations, colorful interiors, and MORE POWER or better fuel economy made things exciting and interesting. AND, each carline had its own character and was aimed at various financial and social demographics, by observation. Plus there was "brand loyalty" in so many consumer products, even cars, back then.

In purchasing, there were so many choices, one brand could build millions of ONE model and not build two of them alike, it was claimed. A hallmark of the USA car companies . . . get it just like you want it. If it's not on the dealer's lot, then special order it!

It was an exciting time to be a buyer and car enthusiast back then! No matter your brand loyalty! Back when the "well-heeled" new car trade cycle was "a new car each model year", which later became every two years, as "regular people" were on a 3-4 year cycle. Which made that year-old trrade-in (with 7000miles on it) just as good as a new one for many consumers.

I was in 6th grade when the 1964 1/2 Mustangs hit town. I graduated high school in 1970, in the midst of the muscle car era. I got out of college in 1974, as the Cordobas arrived that fall.

Through all of that, IF you might be an information junkie, you read EVERY car magazine road test to keep up with things, too. Plus the "New Car Issues" each fall, with previews in August. I've got a large archive of those magazines.

Enjoy!
CBODY67