Lets Play A Game: Last Of The Convertibles

[saforwardlook]

I was not around at the time, so I can only guess. I venture that folks willing to put up with the lower fuel economy and the need for premium fuel of the four-barrel big blocks would have gone full-hog for the 440. But that is only my guess.

In the case of the Polara, it must not have helped that the 383-4, even though it was listed in the dealer data book and in the ordering information ("code guide"), was not even mentioned in the sale brochure (the snipped below was taken from the @ceebuddy 's great fuselage.de website):
View attachment 500424

If memory serves, @CBODY67 @saforwardlook and @Davea Lux have previously commented on this matter -- and they were around, working for Chrysler or a related company. Perhaps they could chime in?

Most vehicles sold back in those days were appliances to serve growing families where low price, value and good fuel economy were paramount for the bulk of customers. Performance upgrades on large vehicles were not high take items. That was more reserved for the B & E body crowds that were interested in the Rapid Transit System vehicles.

 

[CBODY67]

With the introduction of the 1969 Fuselage body platform for C-body cars, they could still be optioned with HO-oriented 4bbls, by observation. The 383HP (with the appropriate HP cam and such) was only for the B/E body cars, with the normal 383 4bbls having what was termed "Standard Cam". Which was the 256/260 cam from the 1966 model year (think 440/350 engine). Although the 440/375 was usually available (except for a few years when the 440/350 was the top engine in Plymouths).

The Fuselage Platform was more about smoothness and luxury than "street-fighter" performance, by observation. Being "longer and heavier" than the pre-69 C-body cars. They were still credible performers, though. As plucky as the 318 might have been, those cars could tend to be a bit too much, in some situations, for it, by observation. Which made the "next upgrade" engine the 383 2bbl. With the 383 2bbl providing more torque to cruise effortlessly at 70-90moh and still get reasonable fuel economy with the 2.76 rear axle gears (as in the torque peak mph being approx 85-90mph). So, for many drivers, no need for that "gas guzzling 4bbl option".

Just some thoughts and observations,
CBODY67

 

[1970FuryConv]

I didn't know fuel economy was such a priority in in 1970. The OPEC oil embargo in 1973 made it a huge priority. I remember long lines at the gas stations, rationing so people couldn't fill their tank. Also, I think you could only buy gas every other day, depending on the last digit of your license plate, people with odd # last digit 1 day, even # the next. It's interesting to find out that gas mileage was a high priority in 1970. I just thought the big 3 put out more small engine cars because they were cheaper to manufacture.

 

[bigmoparjeff]

I didn't know fuel economy was such a priority in in 1970. The OPEC oil embargo in 1973 made it a huge priority. I remember long lines at the gas stations, rationing so people couldn't fill their tank. Also, I think you could only buy gas every other day, depending on the last digit of your license plate, people with odd # last digit 1 day, even # the next. It's interesting to find out that gas mileage was a high priority in 1970. I just thought the big 3 put out more small engine cars because they were cheaper to manufacture.

There's always been frugal people.

Think of how many VW bugs they sold over the decades. That was the main incentive for the big three to tap into the economy car market.

Even going back into the 1940's, fuel economy was often a selling point in advertising for standard size automobiles.

Jeff

 

[1970FuryConv]

I had an older friend. He was a teenager in the mid 60s, when gas was $.30 per gallon. He and his 2 buddies would pitch in a $ each and use the 10 gallons to go places.

 

[CBODY67]

Not unusual for a friend of mine, back then, to buy "a buck's worth" ("buck" = $1.00) of gas and cruise around on a weekend night, even in the 1980s.

I remember Good Gulf regular being about $ .17/gallon during "price wars" in the 1963 era. After we got the '66 Newport Town Sedan, it was "sticker shock" to get the 25 gallon tank filled those first times, at about $10.00. Then in 1973 and the oil embargo, I watched as the fuel pump got very near to $20.00 to fill the tank! But the other day, I drove up to a fuel pump and the prior customer had spent over $75.00 to do a similar amount!

Back then, the main thing was the ability to use "regular" gas rather than the more expensive "Ethyl" gasoline (97-100 Research Octane). Almost every car brand had a "regular fuel" 2bbl standard engine, even up to 400cid or so. As some Cadillac owners swore that their high-compression engines ran just fine on regular gas (at 10.0 CR), apparently for the way they drove (very easy?). From what I knew back then, I figured them to be "cheapskates" as I observed that Lincoln owners always bought Ethyl. Not sure why, but our '66 Newport 383 2bbl always ran best (at factory timing settings) on Ethyl, so that's what we used in it. FWIW.

Enjoy!
CBODY67

 

[Snotty]

I think it's remarkable that N-code, 383 4bbl engine cars are so rare. With such a large motor, it seems the 2bbl would leave it under-powered and Chrysler would presumably have known that. Why do you think that most 383 cars came with 2bbl carbs? thanks.

Base model for Chrysler, but that 383 2bbl motor had no problem moving these cars. Remember, base motor for most Dodge and Plymouths was a 2bbl 318.

 

[ayilar]

Thanks to @rich7016, we know about one additional 1970 C-body 'vert with a 383-4 engine. It was an ER6 Scorch Red Newport with V1W white soft top. In addition to the N-code big block, CE27N0C197266 came nicely equipped with A/C, power disc brakes, power windows, AM radio, and E6XW white buckets/buddy seat interior.

The last owner acquired it from a used-car dealer in Schnecksburg, PA. The car did not have a build sheet at the time, and the fender tag was on the car when it was scrapped in NJ. Due to rust, unfortunately, the car is no more.

RIP. Here is a 2005 photo of the car prior to its demise.

PS: @62dodge owns a DY3 Newport: he posted its tag here. Other than that car, there is another N-code 1970 Newport 'vert mentioned here and here by @Snotty (Snotty, can you post more about that car? did you keep pics from the eBay auction? what year was it?), so CE27N0C197266 is a rare 1970 Newport N-code ragtop in our records.

 

[ayilar]

While we are talking about rare engine combos, here is the N-code Newport 'vert from the Kee Auction in 2014 that @Snotty mentioned. CE27N0C106155 was an August-build car. It sold as lot 144. For obvious reasons, it looks just like @62dodge's N-code when he first got it

Note: another website has more pics of CE27N0C106155 but incorrectly lists the car as a U-code (1970 CHRYSLER Newport convertible- Brothers, OR). Since the pics on that other site are copyrighted, I am not posting them here: they show A/C, power windows, power disc brakes, fender repeaters (but no cornering lights), and front bench seats. Then again, that info is in 62dodge's tag here.

 

[bigmoparjeff]

I've been organizing my old ebay screen shots over the holiday so that I can make a clean backup copy. They're on an old Windows XP machine that's probably on borrowed time these days, so it was time to get it done.

I don't have any info on most of the cars, but they should still be around as they are all in nice shape. They are all pretty distinct cars, so I wouldn't be surprised if people may have spotted them at shows.

The black '70 300 appears to be a U code car, and sold for strong money for 2007.

Jeff

 

[bigmoparjeff]

Some more:

Jeff

 

[bigmoparjeff]

More:

Jeff

 

[Big_John]

This color really pops on this car.

 

[ayilar]

Earlier today, I posted about DL27G0D230568 in another thread started by @polaratherapy and I promised to post the tag in response to a post by @cbarge .

This Canadian-market 1970 Polara 'vert (note the C VON) was originally ER6 red, but then was repainted in Virgin Mary blue a dozen or so years ago. Here is the tag in 2005:

and again in 2011:

Here is the car as it looked in 2010, soon after the identity change:

 

[ayilar]

@Kelly Coleman just posted the tag and photos of CM27T0C240757 -- the BL1 Sand Pebble Beige 300 'vert (V78 stripe delete) with M6T5 Tan and V1W top that he has nicely restored and put up for sale a few days ago in Iowa. This nicely equipped convertible's SBD was May 22, 1970.

Here is the car in June 2021.

 

[1970FuryConv]

@Kelly Coleman just posted the tag and photos of CM27T0C240757 -- the BL1 Sand Pebble Beige 300 'vert (V78 stripe delete) with M6T5 Tan and V1W top that he has nicely restored and put up for sale a few days ago in Iowa. This nicely equipped convertible's SBD was May 22, 1970.

Here is the car in June 2021.

View attachment 508998

View attachment 508999

5/22 is my wedding anniversary. I would have scored points with this car.

 

[ayilar]

Thanks to @70 Sport Suburban we now have information about PM27G0D165457 -- an EW1 Plymouth Fury iii 'vert that is currently for sale in Louisiana:

 

[69CoronetRT]

...

 

[1970FuryConv]

EW1 Paint Code Alpine White. Same as mine. Like the blue interior

 

[Snotty]

PM27GOD??? I don't know, looks more like a discarded demon to me.

Ha!!