commando1
Old Man with a Hat
I am probably the only guy here that actually likes that chrome nose trim.
I guess I don't deserve a Fusie, now.
I guess I don't deserve a Fusie, now.
For Sale 1969 dodge polara 2dr
- Thread starter 69monaco
- Start date
- Status
I am probably the only guy here that actually likes that chrome nose trim.
I guess I don't deserve a Fusie, now.
Yeah, Stan, I think you are correct. I really do not like that extra wide chrome trim on the front. They could have left that option off the list. It is garish on an otherwise stunning design. Maybe some thought it was a precurser to the loop bumper, but it didn't work in my eyes.
But I still think you deserve a fusie anyway. Having to put up with all you do in Fumbuck county, you deserve some more enjoyment!
polara71
Old Man with a Hat
According to Godshall it was there to give the effect of the loop bumper that was coming and if I remember correctly by his article, required .
I'd have to dig that out to be sure but I found his credibility to be average.
I'd have to dig that out to be sure but I found his credibility to be average.
I am not sure what is meant by "required"?
I have found Godshall to be more wrong than right, but maybe that is about average these days when considering all the self- proclaimed "experts" out there.
polara71
Old Man with a Hat
YOU may find this hard to believe but I was trying to sugarcoat it and be nice. I have zero respect for him . He did do the Fusey Dodge article in Collectible Automobile of which I found awful.
I really don't have a problem when someone directly tells me what they really think - in fact I prefer it. I actually hated that article. Just crap, as I was there at the time.
Carmine
Old Man with a Hat
I'm not a fan of the chrome either... but! Stone chip protection.
commando1
Old Man with a Hat
Thank you, Steve, but I actually did have a Fusie. A '70 Polara. Green/green of course. It looked just like this:But I still think you deserve a fusie anyway. Having to put up with all you do in Fumbuck county, you deserve some more enjoyment!
Well then, Stan, you have indeed sampled probably everything good that life has to offer! A life well lived!
I would really like to meet you some day. Since retiring from my last job of 31 years, and joining FCBO in 2011, I have seen you as the chief caretaker of this site and most responsible for its character, interest and success. Ever stirring the pot, and always surprising us. Keep up the good work! Sincerely.
Franco
Member
Carmine
Old Man with a Hat
As was the '70 Roadrunner intended to be a preview of '71.
cm23uoc
Old Man with a Hat
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2011
- Messages
- 8,368
- Reaction score
- 3,445
I really don't have a problem when someone directly tells me what they really think - in fact I prefer it. I actually hated that article. Just crap, as I was there at the time.
That would be the April 2008 article for the 69-73 Dodges according to the article index I saw. Do you have any specific recollections that you found crappy/not true or accurate ? Just curious as I was barely physically around back then.
Last edited:
polara71
Old Man with a Hat
cm23uoc
Old Man with a Hat
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2011
- Messages
- 8,368
- Reaction score
- 3,445
Dave get over it or cut Godshall some slack ;) . I read the article some a couple of times plus the reader's comments, but besides the dislike and disapproval of the fact that Pontiac was style leader during that period, I'd like to know about some Facts within the Styling development Story (the mechanical development is about always cut short in CA) that is simply not true.
I joined Chrysler Engineering in 1969 as a student in the Chrysler Institute of Engineering program (about 10 people were selected each year to participate based on undergraduate applicants each year). The program was designed to rotate participants on 4 month work assignments throughout the company over a two year period, it also had its own "university" where a series of lead engineers from various departments rotated to provide lectures on how Chrysler engineered its cars in the various departments, and the students were also enrolled in the University of Michigan to obtain Masters of Engineering Degrees - all at company expense. I was able to participate in 6 different parts of the company over the two year period, so I got a pretty good perspective on the whole corporation - my favorite assignment was at the proving grounds in Chelsea, MI where I got to see first hand how some of the engineering efforts played out in real world testing.
My first assignment was in the body doors and hardware section where I quickly learned just how cost conscious the corporation was in everthing they did - where saving 5 cents on a door handle would make or break a design. I also became aware of impending government regulations to improve safety of vehicles, standards that eventually led to the energy absorbing bumpers and such in the 1973 models. But safety was a big deal back then, and while Godshall credits loop bumpers to the styling influence of popular selling Pontiacs in the 1966-7 years etc such as on the Firebirds and Bonnevilles as the sole reason for their implementation on Chrysler products, he never mentions that loop bumpers were also driven by efforts to make the vehicles less dangerous to their occupants in crashes. They helped prevent hoods from penetrating the passenger compartments, for example, in front collisions, and the improvements were ongoing starting in the late 60s. For example, if you look at the underbracing of the seemingly identical hoods on the 1970 and 1971 Chryslers, on the 71 models, some ripples were added to the underbracing on the sides to help absorb energy and prevent the hoods from moving rearward in a collision, in addition to having the loop bumpers starting in 1969. It just seems to me that Godshall has enough information to make a storyline that works, and talked with a limited number of people due to the realities of trying to recreate the history of the Corporation and goes with a storyline that may or may not be the full story. But it reads well and sells magazines.
I guess what galls me in his articles most is that he characterizes the fuselage C bodies as "failures" based on sales at the time, but he also seems to neglect some of the economic realities and managment/production issues that were going on as well. When I was there in Highland Park, the mood of the Corporation was very upbeat and the sense was that the new products from B and E and C bodies especially were winners and the Rapid Transit System was a real winner as well for the image of the corporation. But when I read his articles, it seems his characterization of the conditions at the time was just the opposite. But he did give credit to the head of styling Elwood Engle (formerly from Ford and who was credited for the excellent 1961-3 Lincoln Continental designs) for making the final decision on what the fuselage C bodies would look like when it seemed that the designers were in disarray on how the rear of the roofs should look on them. The lead designer was more in favor of the 72-3 style "formal" roofs (like what ended up on some 2 door Dodges and Plymouths that didn't sell well (the 29 style) while Engle favored what was actually put into production in most models in 1969 (the 23 style)). Thankfully, Engle prevailed and made the decision apparently after just looking at various drawings one day when he popped unexpectedly into the design room. So some of the things Godshall writes are actually helpful, but I disliked his characterizations of the company based on miminal input it seemed to me, having been there at the time. It was a very different reality from what I observed every day there.
My first assignment was in the body doors and hardware section where I quickly learned just how cost conscious the corporation was in everthing they did - where saving 5 cents on a door handle would make or break a design. I also became aware of impending government regulations to improve safety of vehicles, standards that eventually led to the energy absorbing bumpers and such in the 1973 models. But safety was a big deal back then, and while Godshall credits loop bumpers to the styling influence of popular selling Pontiacs in the 1966-7 years etc such as on the Firebirds and Bonnevilles as the sole reason for their implementation on Chrysler products, he never mentions that loop bumpers were also driven by efforts to make the vehicles less dangerous to their occupants in crashes. They helped prevent hoods from penetrating the passenger compartments, for example, in front collisions, and the improvements were ongoing starting in the late 60s. For example, if you look at the underbracing of the seemingly identical hoods on the 1970 and 1971 Chryslers, on the 71 models, some ripples were added to the underbracing on the sides to help absorb energy and prevent the hoods from moving rearward in a collision, in addition to having the loop bumpers starting in 1969. It just seems to me that Godshall has enough information to make a storyline that works, and talked with a limited number of people due to the realities of trying to recreate the history of the Corporation and goes with a storyline that may or may not be the full story. But it reads well and sells magazines.
I guess what galls me in his articles most is that he characterizes the fuselage C bodies as "failures" based on sales at the time, but he also seems to neglect some of the economic realities and managment/production issues that were going on as well. When I was there in Highland Park, the mood of the Corporation was very upbeat and the sense was that the new products from B and E and C bodies especially were winners and the Rapid Transit System was a real winner as well for the image of the corporation. But when I read his articles, it seems his characterization of the conditions at the time was just the opposite. But he did give credit to the head of styling Elwood Engle (formerly from Ford and who was credited for the excellent 1961-3 Lincoln Continental designs) for making the final decision on what the fuselage C bodies would look like when it seemed that the designers were in disarray on how the rear of the roofs should look on them. The lead designer was more in favor of the 72-3 style "formal" roofs (like what ended up on some 2 door Dodges and Plymouths that didn't sell well (the 29 style) while Engle favored what was actually put into production in most models in 1969 (the 23 style)). Thankfully, Engle prevailed and made the decision apparently after just looking at various drawings one day when he popped unexpectedly into the design room. So some of the things Godshall writes are actually helpful, but I disliked his characterizations of the company based on miminal input it seemed to me, having been there at the time. It was a very different reality from what I observed every day there.
Last edited:
Fratzog
Old Man with a Hat
Where did you find this particular fact? Isn't describing Pontiac styling was hyperbolic and aggrandising equally valid? Aren't these facts better characterised as opinions?
- Status
Similar threads
