School me on C-body truisms

I have owned a 65 Newport since 1991. Originally a southern CA car, I had it 7 yrs in Atlanta (parked outside under oaks) but now back in CA. It still has minimal rust. I treated surface rust on inside of doors at top (factory barely painted) and also at the bottom corners where moisture collects and in the bottom qtr panels. Do so before you get rust-thrus. I like the body style w/ the vestigial tail fins, and it complements my 65 Dart. Unlikely to ever be worth much since a C-body and a 4 door. A guy in Lodi neaby has advertised a 66(?) C-body on craigslist for years ("desperate"), asking ~$3500 and was trying to sell as a package deal with an early-A "toad" car (~1962). It would be better to fly to CA/AZ/NV/NM to buy a rust-free car and drive back to Detroit than spend years welding in rust repairs. Make it a SoCal vacation trip.

It is easy to get performance parts for the engine and transmission since common w/ popular A/B/E bodies. 1965 started the common sliding-yoke drive-train, instead of ball & trunion front U-joint, though the transmission was still cable-shift so 1yr-only tranny. But, one could bolt-up a later lever-shift tranny and Lokar makes shift solutions. Later years added clumsy emissions controls. Parts are not available, but where I live you don't need to keep that. Indeed, you can bolt on throttle-body fuel injection (EFI Tech ~$1000 or used Holley Commander 950 <$600 ebay) w/ O2 sensor. For sure change to electronic ignition since cheap and easy (see www.megasquirt.com). Pertronix Ignitor II or III is simplest and works well or retrofit GM HEI 8-pin for cheap and strong. As mentioned, body parts are tough. A deer crunched my passenger door 10 yrs ago and I had to get a replacement from AZ. But, insurance totaled the car and I paid only $150 for the door and painted myself so came out way ahead though I didn't need another project.

Many parts are cheap, much less than years ago when you had to go to the dealer. But, you must be resourceful, wait, and search ebay and craigslist periodically. Ex., I lucked on a brake booster w/ MC for $70 on rockauto a few years ago, then sold the MC locally (switched to a 2-reservoir type). I buy common parts cheap on clearance. I got a master tranny rebuild kit for $50. Re the elusive $600 ball & trunion joint, I have one w/ driveshaft sitting in my garage. It is the larger one (~4"D) that I recall fits 1964- C-bodies. I didn't even have to pull it, since sitting inside a 64 Belvedere at PickNPull. Thought I might retrofit for my 65 Dart (uses smaller joint ~3.75"D) but I now have 2 full rebuild kits for that. Re info, the A-body site is better for engine, tranny, brake & electrical questions and most interchanges. Suspension is the same design, just all parts are larger.
 
Last edited:
I learned to drive in our 66 Newport Town Sedan. Normal 383 2bbl car with Basic Option group. I like it a lot as for the ease of underhood access, even #7 spark plug (once the rock shield is removed from the steering column lower section). The bodies are stout, but wind noise can be pesky (compared to other cars of that time). I played with black strip caulk to decrease it in the A-pillar area. Not a weatherstrip issue, usually. A/C works great, even with nearly 1lb low on R12. The middle '60s was when almost all automotive systems came to be optimized for best performance.

'66 was first year for "modern" rear wheel bearings. '67 was same car with different sheet metal, by observation. '68 got a little fancier.

As for the '66, the lower belt line makes visibility great and seems more spacious inside. The '67s and '68s should be similar, depending upon the body style.

The '69 Fuselage cars, I liked a lot when they came out. More road isolation in the rear suspension and body mounts (now rubber biscuits rather than harder rubber pucks). A spacious feel, usually. Problems with a/c condensate leakage in the rh front floor! Many gasket replacements didn't fix them, usually, due to the placement of the clips on the housing. Our old-line Chrysler service manager claimed it was that they deleted the "drip pan" in the a/c case, but if the seal had worked, no leaks anyway. Can result in musty look under the factory rubber floor mat, unbeknownst to the owner. On many of these cars, the a/c was not enhanced to handle the added interior volume, apparently. Depends upon body style.

When the '74 cars arrived, it seems they fixed most of the issues with the '69-'73 cars! Bigger a/c condensors, lower belt line, better steering response, and still big and confortable! Better instrument panels with 4-speaker stereo and better radios. First use of the hidden icon warning lights in the instrument cluster!

In the '66 era, after looking around, I think I like our Newport Town Sedan the best, better than any New Yorkers I found, but a 300 would be nice. I have a 67 Newport 2-dr ht 383 4bbl car with bucket seats and the center arm rest. I like it too. More than the '68s, though.

'67 Polaras and such are really nice cars. More chrome that looks nice Plymouths are nice, too, Depends upon your taste and what you can find. Still, Chryslers and Dodges for me.

I have a '70 Monaco Brougham 4-dr ht. Nice styling and roof line. Quiet. A/C works good, but leaks. Added the factory multiplex FM with good results. Chrysler had the BEST sounding radios of any car company! Better frequency response and the factory 5-speaker set-up spreads the sound nicely up front. With the 383 4bbl, it likes the road.

My parents bought a '72 Newport Royal in the fall of '72. It has the then-optional electronic ignition and the 400 2bbl. Nice and quiet and comfortable. Performance down slightly with the low compression 400, compared to the earlier 383, but still good. I like the styling better than the '73s!

When they got it, I let it accumulate a few thousand miles. Then I came in from college one weekend and tightened EVERY nut and bolt I could get a wrench or socket on. The squeaks and rattles diminished greatly! Then I went to work on the wind noise with the black strip caulk. I filled in the gap between the glass and the moldings on the bottom of the rear window (4 dr sedan), but left some small gaps for accumulated moisture to evaporate out of. I did the same on the front upper and side, to quell the wind noise. Still haven't seen any rust back there! The issue, as with all of the similar GM cars, is that water gets into the channel under the molding and stays there. It won't drain off the glass onto the quarter panel. Chryslers didn't have nearly the problem that GM cars did! Chrysler must have put more paint in that area than GM did, but then the Chrysler acrylic enamel was better than GM's acrylic lacquer for shine and durability.

The flood-lit instrument panel is neat. The light bulbs ground with the center retention screw over the steering column area. When that screw gets loose, the lights go out as all of the light shines ON the area rather than being back-lit.

On ALL cars, the rubber trunk mat and the solid rubber interior floor mats can sweat with hot/cold cycles, leading to damp carpets. On the trunk mat, it'll surprise you how much moisture can be under it! Cars with rear trunk carpet fare better.

I don't recall any real rust issues in north TX, but I also suspect that the cars ordered with the Basic Equipment Group (which came with factory undercoating) did better than ones which didn't have it. In so many cases, how the car was ordered depended upon ultimate customer satisfaction later on. Moreso than with GM or Ford cars!

EACH of these cars have their good points! I usually gravitated toward Chryslers, but there are some years of Dodge that I like a lot or better. Same with the various models and model years. There's LOTS to choose from!

Chrysler Nationals at Carlisle are good. Never been. I have been to Mopar Nationals many more times than to any other car event. You'll see about every variation in model, color, year, and such there OR in the parking lot across the road from the track. A great car show, too!!!

To me, the reasons I like these Chryslers is their design, styling is good, serviceability is good (generally, until the '69-'73 cars came out, in the underhood area), the chassis dynamics are great for turning corners and driving over bumps. Check out the "On the Test Track with the 1957 Chryslers" series on YouTube to see how that all works, when compared to GM cars back then. With good HD shocks, there is no float, but firm support and comfort. I've found that tire pressures of 30frt/28rr work best, as a starting point, just keep the pressure differential that way for best handling response and tire wear, from my experiences. The trunk of the '66 held three big beer kegs for a party. Could have put a 4ths in there, but it would have been too much weight. Still had a little suspension travel left in the rear, too!

As mentioned, look around and get the best one you can find in the model and such you like most. Good ones are still around an they are not as expensive as the more desirable B and E body cars. Which ever one you decide on, look for an online link to a downloadable factory service manual.

Enjoy!
CBODY67
 
@tallhair, thanks for the Welcome!

To me, in general, the '67 was the same as the '66, but with different sheetmetal, although, as mentioned, the instrument panels were completely different. There were some other differences, too, related to emissions hardware and engine "dress" (carbs and such). But the door weatherstrips on a '67 New Yorker I knew about looked identical to the ones on our '66 Newport Town Sedan. Never did check the part numbers, back then, just looked at them. So, perhaps my statement was a little incorrect in some respects.

Enjoy!
CBODY67
 
Already in the short time this thread has existed, members have contributed much useful information for neophytes and the unenlightened like me...
Here's a half-formed thought on a quiet, rainy Sunday...what if we culled facts, cautions, concerns, experiences from each owner here of given C-body models and years. We could create a C-body Buyer's Guide.
pow-image.jpg

Now, I do not bring much to this forum except my interest and friendship. I am a fine registered nurse who loves cars but has zero wrench experience. But, prior to becoming an RN, I was a newspaper reporter for decades. I know how to take assembled facts, opinions, anecdotes and present them in a way that pleases the automotive palate.
Most buyer's guides I have seen are long on pictures, car lust, and price/value estimations. Darned few seem to be able to tell a prospective buyer the useful caveats and tips you guys possess. I could take everything you guys send me, season it with just a few anecdotes, pics and trivia but ensure the guide is more meat and potatoes than salt. We could make a digital version of it available on this website for a pittance (say $5) that raises funds for website maintenance!
We could start by having any interested participants send me info on their make/model/year ride and their experiences. I could add research. And I would tap you guys to look over my drafts to check technical accuracy and separate opinion from fact. The appendices could include vendors by region, perhaps.
Any thoughts?

pow-image.jpg


pow-image.jpg
 
BTW, the only decent buyer's guide I've ever seen was for Studebaker. The author astutely put in an "Anguish Index" for each model, rated 1-10. Any car with an anguish index of 8 or more better be one you really love, because whether its scarcity of parts, major design/assembly woes or difficulty of repair/restoration, it's going to cause anguish. Unfortunately, that same writer was skimpy on details of why a given model was major or minor anguish...
 
drpreposterous said:
Already in the short time this thread has existed, members have contributed much useful information for neophytes and the unenlightened like me...
Here's a half-formed thought on a quiet, rainy Sunday...what if we culled facts, cautions, concerns, experiences from each owner here of given C-body models and years. We could create a C-body Buyer's Guide.
View attachment 127037
Now, I do not bring much to this forum except my interest and friendship. I am a fine registered nurse who loves cars but has zero wrench experience. But, prior to becoming an RN, I was a newspaper reporter for decades. I know how to take assembled facts, opinions, anecdotes and present them in a way that pleases the automotive palate.
Most buyer's guides I have seen are long on pictures, car lust, and price/value estimations. Darned few seem to be able to tell a prospective buyer the useful caveats and tips you guys possess. I could take everything you guys send me, season it with just a few anecdotes, pics and trivia but ensure the guide is more meat and potatoes than salt. We could make a digital version of it available on this website for a pittance (say $5) that raises funds for website maintenance!
We could start by having any interested participants send me info on their make/model/year ride and their experiences. I could add research. And I would tap you guys to look over my drafts to check technical accuracy and separate opinion from fact. The appendices could include vendors by region, perhaps.
Any thoughts?
Click to expand...
drpreposterous said:
BTW, the only decent buyer's guide I've ever seen was for Studebaker. The author astutely put in an "Anguish Index" for each model, rated 1-10. Any car with an anguish index of 8 or more better be one you really love, because whether its scarcity of parts, major design/assembly woes or difficulty of repair/restoration, it's going to cause anguish. Unfortunately, that same writer was skimpy on details of why a given model was major or minor anguish...
Click to expand...
I like your enthusiasm. The best thoughts I have is dig around the site, find commando1's c-body spread sheet and start taking a gazillion notes as the different eras all have their +/-'s .

As to the anguish factor... I think it would be unfair to rate in that way with out qualifying as to why. The true test of C Body love is to get out on the road and let her do what she was meant to... cruise the bigger roads with speed and comfort. Comparisons to other era full size cars will show C Bodies had ride and road manners better than most competition, but it would be silly to try to draw comparisons to newer or sportier cars too much... apples/oranges.

Studebakers have a better part supply than Formals...:BangHead:
 
My take on it. Obviously everyone is going to be a little biased on their choice.

All of these cars are stunning. Each model has its own appeal.

If you want a car built like an ox, go for a slab side.

If looks is your thing, and want to get noticed, go for a fusie.

If you want a car built for the road, with long trips in mind go for a formal.

Again, all of them are great cars! Can't go wrong either way. I've had one of each come through the homestead. Still have my formal, and fusie.

Another thing to add, is this late in the game, you cannot be afraid of some rust. I'm not talking rotted out stub frames. But some sheetmetal rot is to be expected. If you are afraid of rust, might want to think of another hobby. As mentioned the youngest of these cars is going on 40yrs old, with the oldest being 52, or even older when you go into the forward looks.
 
I would not make a final decision until you look at the 65-66 Dodges. Polara / Custom 880 (65 only)/ Monaco. These are beautiful cars and arguably the best dash of any 60s car (my opinion). Great cars with fabulous grills, especially 65. You may disagree but worth taking a look.
 
Rexer said:
I would not make a final decision until you look at the 65-66 Dodges. Polara / Custom 880 (65 only)/ Monaco. These are beautiful cars and arguably the best dash of any 60s car (my opinion). Great cars with fabulous grills, especially 65. You may disagree but worth taking a look.
Click to expand...
I'm sold! :thumbsup:
 
As we (now me) started with a '66 Newport Town Sedan as a used car in '67 (7100 miles when we got it), that's where my first real experiences of Chrysler-dom took place. That's the car I took my driving test in and later took to college in '72. Drove it to my earlier jobs. In late '73, my parents bought a '72 Newport Royal to replace it.

As mentioned, the "slabs" were built strong. The front sub-frame is bolted to the body shell (bolts horizontally and vertically, with a "washer" to help interrupt the noise path). The car we got was a "Basic Group" car (whitewalls, a/c, light group, factory undercoat and hood pad), so it was nice without lots of power accessories. The 383 2bbl ran good too. It was luxury, but not quite to the level of a New Yorker or Imperial.

Geared with the 2.76 std axle ratio, it's natural cruising speed was 75-90mph. One trip to far west TX one Friday after school, it recorded about 15mpg running in the higher speeds, but with the axle ratio, it was at the torque peak rpm, which meant "easy, relaxed and responsive". Past 90, it took more throttle and the ride became a little "busier". It was not quite as enjoyable.

Until you get one out on the road and spend some time with it, you'll NOT realize how good it does what it does! The response and feedback of the (seeming overboosted) steering, the way you don't need to slow down for curves as you would in a Ford or GM product, the flatness of the cornering. How the engine responds to small throttle inputs to pass slower vehicles or just increase speed a few mph. You'll never get to that level just driving around town or on freeways.

If you're used to Fords, the ride will have more road noise and perceived (key word!) impact harshness on bumps and such. The ride will generally be firm with little side-sway (a seemingly GM trait back then. All driver controls are responsive.

Chryslers were "famous" for more road noise. A general function of the stronger UniBody construction as it took real sound insulation to dampen noise, rather than soft body mounts to the frame (which UniBody didn't have!) of Ford and GM. With the newer DynaMat, LizzardSkin, and such, the noise issue can be better addressed than in prior times.

The underhood accessibility is vastly superior to anything that GM or Ford ever built!!! All spark plugs can be changed from above and the fender height is reasonable.

When my parents got the '72, I liked the styling and the improved quiet it had. The improved quiet came from a better isolated front subframe, more rubber in the rear leaf spring mounts, and improved sound dampening in the body. Steering seemed slightly easier. The power disc brakes tended to lack the firm feel of the prior 11x3" drum brakes, and the a/c needed more accurate aiming of the outlets to keep the rear seat area cool. Later, the a'c case would leak condensate on the front floor carpet (a gasket and case retention issue). For some reason, the lh front door shook on rough roads! Handling was a little softer (due to the added rubber in the rear leaf spring saddles), and the 400 seemed a little slower with a few more hundred pounds to move around (plus the lower compression ratio). Fuel economy was about 1.5mpg lower, as a result of those factors.

Initially, it had rattles and wind noise. I let things "settle" for a few thousand miles, intentionally. Then, one weekend home from college, I went all over the car with a socket set and wrenches, tightening every nut and bolt I could find. Quietness was the result. Then I went to work on the wind noise with some black 3M strip caulk, filling gaps between the windshield and back glass moldings, plus a few other places. More quiet. Never could get the lh front door "solid", although everything was tight. Even tried adjusting the striker bolt and hinges inward, to no avail.

When I first saw the '74s and the noted iimprovements (listed in the Dealer Order Guide), it seemed they fixed all of the main issues with the Fuselage design. Greater capacity a/c, lower belt line (regained the open-air feel of the "slabs", and further improved the road noise decreases. I never did spend that much time with them, but I liked the time I did spend.

Each has their own allure. "Rust" can depend upon where the car spent most of its life AND if it was "covered parked" or not. Vinyl roofs can hide many ills, too! What we might call "rust" in TX, our associates in the northern area might term "surface rust". Be that as it may.

Shop around and get your feet wet and then proceed as you might desire. Their size can now make them a little too big for many inner-city uses, especially parking (with a larger turning radius than similar GM cars), but that Chrysler power steering helps a lot.

Enjoy!
CBODY67
 
Admittedly, there were some Dodge C-bodies that were snazzier than similar Chryslers. Remember that Plymouth was the "entry brand" for Chrysler Corp, back then, but still some neat styling in the right color and trim level.

CBODY67
 
Rexer said:
I would not make a final decision until you look at the 65-66 Dodges. Polara / Custom 880 (65 only)/ Monaco. These are beautiful cars and arguably the best dash of any 60s car (my opinion). Great cars with fabulous grills, especially 65. You may disagree but worth taking a look.
Click to expand...

Far from disagree, I wholeheartedly agree! I was looking at pix of the '65-'66s next to '67-68, and they have nicer looking dashes and grilles. I just wish they had the '67's collapsible steering wheel! How hard would it be to remedy that?
 
The collapsible steering column on the '67 C-bodies were good to get, but they also had an issue with "steering wheel shake" on rough roads. Back then, I thought that strange. But when I got my '67 Newport in 1981, it had both of them (collapsible column and "shake"). Everything's tight as it should be. Must be a harmonic issue or something as the '68s didn't seem to have it. Or at least the local service manager didn't say anything about it, when the cars were new. NOt a big deal, but our '66 didn't do that.

CBODY67
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ayilar
Poppy, my first C-body
2 3 4
Replies
74
Views
11K
ayilar
ayilar
saforwardlook
Did Some Sleuthing on the Reproduction Mopar Washer Bottles for 70-73 C Bodies
2 3 4
Replies
79
Views
11K
ayilar
ayilar
GG-1
GG-1 introduction
2
Replies
39
Views
4K
pomonamissel
pomonamissel
E
warning about rebuilt RV2 a/c compressors
2
Replies
20
Views
22K
marty koirtyohann
marty koirtyohann
drpreposterous
  • Locked
WTT '91 Mercedes for C-body
Replies
0
Views
748
drpreposterous
drpreposterous
Back
Top