Projects When "Ugly" Becomes "Quaint"

In the 60's we wouldn't be caught dead in a Lancer or Valiant (granny car), but 50+ years later, hardly anyone knows what it is.

'61 Lancer w/A904 pushbutton trans

Buzzin' Half Dozen with Clifford cam, intake, shorty headers, 390 Holley





40-65 time is epic, eh?

 

They have that charisma now that didn't exist then. How things change the older we get

 

Maybe there's still hope for me!

 

I've got a 62 Valiant which I've had since 63 (Dad bought it new) When they were released here in Australia in 62 they were miles ahead of the 2 other local offerings being Falcon with its 144 and 170 cube sixes and Holden with its 138 cube (grey) motor. Chrysler built just over 10,000 here and they have a big following with some guys importing from the States the 2 door hardtops and station wagons which we never got- we only got the 225 cube engine in 4 door sedans.

 

I first saw this picture at the age of 3. I don't do six cylinders, I don't do 4 doors, and I sure as hell don't do "quaint".


I would have done this in a heartbeat at any point in my life. Maybe its a good thing they didn't sell Lancers in Canada...

 

Great looking car.....In ~1963 I tried to buy one of those ugly two door sedan plain Jane's with a big engine....could't get financing....
I always liked that look..yes even back then..

 

Put a Hemi in one and quaint becomes instantly cool!

 

True dat

Most of them went either to granny's garage or to the strip with a crude hood scoop and a 413.

 

Australia is a good source for '61-'62 Lancer parts, but the shipping is brutal

 

Nope, still ugly...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using The H.A.M.B. mobile app

 

That's a beauty.

 

ya think?
Her appearance at the streetrod show was akin to a fart in a formal, black tie receiving line.

 

My best friend in high school's mom had one. We put in neutral, floor it and push the "drive" button and just laugh.


Sent from my iPhone using The H.A.M.B. mobile app

 

Believe it or not little brother Valiant was the hottest performer of the new generation of compact cars introduced in 1960. Smokey Yunick said it responded to a few simple hop up tricks, more than any other engine he ever saw. No doubt he had tested the Hyperpack kit, a kit of parts from Valiant dealers that raised the horsepower of the 170 engine from 101 to 148HP, a 47% improvement from a few bolt on parts.

NASCAR held a short lived racing series for American compact cars and European cars of comparable size and power. Short lived because the Valiants blew everything else off the track.

Richard Petty in his Valiant. A friend who saw a film of this race assumed it must have a V8.

 

Yep, took the first three or four places.

That experiment ended quickly.

 

Oh man, George, that's funny a hell. I might have to steal this line.

 

Power or not those are a perfect example of "design by committee". One group does the grille, another the rear end, another the side below the belt line, another above the belt line...
Even when I was a kid in the sixties I knew those were one ugly car. However, I do appreciate the AMC fishbowls of the early/mid seventies, the Pacer!

 

A friend had a two door one years ago, gloss black, V8, fat five slot mags and big tires.
Always thought it was a bitchin car, but don't see many here in NZ, two door, or four.

 

You are right about the ugly part. Chrysler was going through a phase back then. They had to tie bones to the bumpers to get dogs to chase them. This blinded me to the real merits of the cars for a long time.

 

Did someone actually design those things or did the stamping press malfunction?

 

When I was a kid I had a 1960 Valiant. In 1964 the slant 6 died and I put a 283 Chevy engine in it. Hurst made mounts for it. I had to weld a sleeve into the oil pan for the steering rod to pass through. This was the original sleeper.
Joe

 

It's an interesting question. I've said before that fashion - and American design in that era was nothing if not fashion-driven - consists mainly in doing the most unfashionable thing possible with extreme audacity. The problem with that is that you might come up with a truly good idea, and just before the world at large finally sees what you've been on about someone else gets up on their dungheap and boldly proclaims that the time has instead come for emphatically bad ideas. And then you have to wait thirty years while the world goes to the dogs.

I'm not saying where the Lancer fits into all this, though. When I first saw one some time in the '70s it did have a what-were-they-thinking? look to my adolescent eye. And I also see the subsequent quaintness: perhaps it has to do with a sort of innocence in hindsight, where the presumption of wanting radically to redefine the automobile becomes forgivable once it has failed. Or maybe that's not it at all.

 

I was only 4-5 yrs old when these were introduced. A "car" family, I always looked at things and could spot a Model A Ford when I was 6. That said I used to think "Who would want that?" because it was just really 'out there' compared to most. Later as I learned more and got to know who did what I came to the conclusion that the Chrysler Corp had big balls. Surely no shame, and those were not the only car they produced that raised a single eyebrow. Those 61 Dart/Seneca/Polara models, then the 62 Dart with a face (grille) only a mother could love (if she was blind). In the Plymouth camp, did that phoney spare in the decklid help? I often wondered if one of the designer's kids got their hands on a drawing and scribbled some lines on it, said designer secretly saying "Hey,why not?", and we were served these cars that looked simply alien to the rest of the industry's offerings. So, was it balls? An accident? A simple case of bad taste? Is it quaint? Maybe, but today just like then it almost takes balls to own one let alone invest considerable time and talent into it. I must admit, of all of them I'd have to choose the 62 Dart for that face if nothing else. I know they were used for racing, the platform continued through 65-6 on some models, but to place those high beams in the grille like that? Oh my...(from a google search)

 

What a jewel! Looks better finished than it ever did when it was new. Hard to beat a Chinese six with a typewriter!

Oh... And I take credit for encouraging "Doc" to make this post about his Lancer.

 

Those early 60's compact Mopars were the only MT 3 n 1 kits that looked BETTER when a kid glued every single accessory on his build.

Chrysler went for the "forward look" to a dramatic change in the early 60's. If Chrysler had only not monkeyed with Exner's vision;

working on the designs for the 1962 cars. On July 25, 1957, Exner was elected the first Vice President of Styling at Chrysler. Unfortunately, a rumor that GM was reducing the size of their cars caused the President of Chrysler, Lester Lum ("Tex") Colbert, to order Exner to do the same to his 1962 design — a change Exner disagreed with, thinking it would make his cars "ugly." Exner with his associates had completed work on the second full-sized finless Plymouth since 1955, this one for 1962, described as a strikingly attractive automobile. While he was still recovering from the heart attack, the 1962 models Exner took credit for were downsized by associates. This downsizing drastically changed the cars' appearance. This reduced the cars' appeal and caused a significant drop in sales. It turned out that the Chevrolet rumor was false and consumers disliked the smaller Plymouth and Dodge cars introduced for 1962, the styling of which was bizarre compared to more sedate Ford and GM products. Needing a scapegoat, Chrysler fired Exner. He was allowed to retain a position as a consultant so he could retire with pension at age 55.

 

It's all THIS guy's fault!

 

On the other hand, to have a correct historical inventory of old cars you take the ugly with the good. I wouldn't use the word quaint, more like funky.

 

Quaint= attractively unusual or old-fashioned:
Eh, still ugly but an eye catcher because of it being so uncommon. I had a woman on my route try to give me one ten years ago but I just couldn't see it being worth my effort.
Yours looks really nice for what it is, but like an AMC Pacer, its always going to be the ugly duckling.

 

40-60 time in the video was spectacular!. That is a great, well-done car car. But honestly, if I own it, it's quaint. If you own it, it's ugly. But I would dang sure own one like that. @Highlander-that pic looks like a buck-toothed catfish. Those cars are like the blind date you are told "has a great personality." And they do.

 

Man, you want ugly? Just stick your head out the window and have a look at most new cars on the roads today- they look like they were designed by a 3 year old with a crayon.
Those late-model jobs are so ugly they would scare a dog off a meat truck!
But those 60's Chryslers.......next stop , Neptune!