Let's see 75-78 2 door coupes. Coronet, Fury Sports, 75 Road Runners, Monacos, you know, that body.

[WileE]

Yeah, I have to disagree on the styling forefront comment.

By 78/79, fomoco had downsized thunderbird)

Nope. Ford still had those huge, ugly bumpers they put on their cars since 73. I worked on these cars back then, Im very familiar with them. Show me pics of the ugly, stick-out bumpers of Maverick, Granadas, Torinos, and T-birds. Then of the Volare, Cordoba, Magnum, etc. Chrysler did a much better job of incorporating styling into the bumper standards than the others. I hated those flat fillers on the Ford garbage.

 

[YY1]

you're right t bird was still "big" in 79, but was getting squared off
1980 was the smaller, very square bird.

Still a year ahead of Mopar.

monte carlo had a considerably smaller appearance starting in 78 IIRC.

 

[WileE]

"Smaller" does not necessarily mean stylish. 80 saw the downsize of the T bird and the Cordoba, methinks the Cordoba still a better style. And that ugly downsized Monte was hideous.

 

[Pete Kaczmarski]

One of my rides....'79 Dodge Magnum GT with T-tops, E58 Police package etc. I owned one 1980-1983 and liked it so much I wanted another, 35 years later to find the right one.

 

[roadrunnerh]

I dig these cars, especially the '75 Road Runner - like Harold's.... lol

 

[Carmine]

you're right t bird was still "big" in 79, but was getting squared off
1980 was the smaller, very square bird.

Still a year ahead of Mopar.

monte carlo had a considerably smaller appearance starting in 78 IIRC.

The '80 bird was such a flop that there was a crash program to re-style it (on the same Fox platform) within 3 years. Not something to hang you hat upon.

Who wore it better, lol.

 

[YY1]

Are you suggesting the 67-69 camaro was a flop because it only ran for 3 years?

 

[Carmine]

Are you suggesting the 68-70 B body was a flop because it only ran for 3 years?

I would state, not suggest, that you're trying to compare two very different eras of automotive history.

In the era of the 68-70 B-body, styling updates came every year and totally new sheet metal every three years. By the early 80s, many cars ran an entire decade without significant changes. Given that it takes about two years to completely retool a vehicle, that tells me Ford knew its bird laid an egg almost as soon as it hatched. The next generation T-bird (which was anything but square) lasted from 83-88 and sold well with only soft tooling changes along the way.

 

[Carmine]

In the spirit of putting things back on-topic, I offer this;

 

[YY1]

those tail light made it to production.

there's a lot of 72 Charger in that concept as well

maybe eve a touch of toronado

 

[YY1]

My reference to the 1977-81 styling was in response to a post that implied Chrysler was in the lead with styling, which I'm pretty sure is universally accepted as NOT being true.

Mopar styling has traditionally been 1-2 years if not an entire generation behind.

Engineering OTOH has traditionally been at the forefront. Unit construction, torsion bars, electronic ignition, rear truck doors, etc.

The possible two leading styling exceptions would be the 1957 Fury, which caused gm to do a 1 year only 58 platform, and 1994 Ram, which caused ford to design a totally new truck and split the 150 and 250 and up lines.

 

[Carmine]

My reference to the 1977-81 styling was in response to a post that implied Chrysler was in the lead with styling, which I'm pretty sure is universally accepted as NOT being true.

Mopar styling has traditionally been 1-2 years if not an entire generation behind.

Engineering OTOH has traditionally been at the forefront. Unit construction, torsion bars, electronic ignition, rear truck doors, etc.

The possible two leading styling exceptions would be the 1957 Fury, which caused gm to do a 1 year only 58 platform, and 1994 Ram, which caused ford to design a totally new truck and split the 150 and 250 and up lines.

I'll give you the "popular wisdom" aspect because most people do think once thought of GM as a design leader. Most people apparently think McDonald's serves the best food as well. Or is it just scale and marketing?

The reality is they (D3) have all had periods of leadership and WTF moments. Most reviews of the 70s thought Chrysler did the best job of dealing with increased bumper standards. I recall a lot of GM/Ford designs being referred to as "park benches". I don't think you can call these well-integrated.

Vs. what you would have found on a Mopar of the era, which at least made an effort to follow the body contours (and showed some real chops in metal forming talent).

 

[YY1]

Impact bumpers may well fall under the "engineering" department rather than styling, although I'm sure they were told to work together.

Otherwise, I'm pretty sure the styling department would specify NO bumpers.

I'm personally not super hung up on bumpers, but hey- I drive a 73 Satellite.

In my opinion, the 73/74 Satellite is one of the most well balanced styling exercises of the 70's.

That rakish multi-angular grille and headlight area is downright mean looking- especially with a Roadrunner hood, without being potentially comical like a 71/72 lipstick bumper.


Notice I left out the 68 Charger in my styling leads.....

.....that's because it's pretty clear (and I LOVE me a 68-70 Charger) that despite all acclaims as a styling triumph, it's a rehash of the 66/67 gm intermediate- from the coke bottle fuselage to the buttress C pillar. It's just more squared off, has hidden headlights and more luxurious appointments.

You threw some big cars out there-

IMO the 71-73 Imperial is hands down the BEST looking big luxury car of the late 60's and all of the 70's.

 

[YY1]

On the Magnum-

I'm pretty sure that represents the pinnacle of the "big", long hood, short deck styling.

For 70's styling- the 74-77 monte carlo and even the 76/77 colonnade cutlass rate pretty high, but the Magnum adds pseudo hidden headlights and an all-around smoothness.

The balance of square and round is always interesting.

As you pointed out above, cars can be perceived as "too square", even though the super square 82-92 camaro just kept selling.

I do like that big t bird you posted despite the plastic porches over the bumpers.

 

[WileE]

My reference to the 1977-81 styling was in response to a post that implied Chrysler was in the lead with styling, which I'm pretty sure is universally accepted as NOT being true.

I stated styling is subjective with my opinion of Mopar styling ahead of others. If you like the flat, porch effect bumpers of Ford, ok fine. Chrysler integrated style to their bumpers into the sheetmetal, as opposed to bolting on a bumper that looked like a 4x4 lumber stuck on each end of the car. I worked on these monstrosities, the only good thing about GM and Ford bumpers, you could LITERALLY step on them to reach whatever you were working on, you generally could not on the Mopars. So, what I write is from first hand personal experiences.

 

[1778ppr]

My '76 Fury Sport

 

[hyde-park]

My '76 Fury Sport

View attachment 623085 View attachment 623086 View attachment 623087 View attachment 623088

Didn't you have the heads off this car awhile back?

 

[dmoore]

Thanks. I have parts. I was really hoping to see other members post pictures of their 75-78 coupes. Apparently these cars really are under appreciated. I can't be the only one here that likes them.

nope

 

[WileE]

My '76 Fury Sport

View attachment 623085 View attachment 623086 View attachment 623087 View attachment 623088

That is a beautiful color combo !

 

[roadrunnerh]

I like that '76 Fury Sport!