What was the reasoning/decision behind Chrysler's inverted C pillars?

[CBODY67]

"Roll over standards" certainly were decades away from 1964, BUT the 1965-1968 Chrysler C-bodies had very stout body structures! You can tell that just by closing the doors, for example. Look at how their front end areas are strongly tied-together compared to the large amount of open space on most higher-line GM cars of that era. All that is on a '68 Buick LeSabre behind that chrome bumper is just the grille supports and hood latch. Once the bumper bends, next stop condenser/radiator AND a "flimsy by comparison" core support.

By observation, Chrysler products had thicker sheet metal and it was all welded together, for a totally-stronger structure. In the later 1970s, we bought a new Chrysler fender for a '77 Charger SE for our GM body shop. The Chrysler Corp fender was shipped "bare", but was heavier than a similar '77 Monte Carlo fender AND the cardboard it came wrapped in! DEFINITELY a stronger body part!!!

The OTHER part of "passive safety" Chrysler products had was their better handling dynamics. Being more able to steer around danger. Stop a bit shorter, too, many times.

One night in the later 1970s, I was (like others) cruising the "main drag" one weekend night. I noticed some traffic heading the other way had stopped, with on-looker stops on my side of things. A really nice '67 Nova 2dr hardtop was "the victim", with a '66 Fury III behind it. The Fury III was bought new by a local dentist, but now apparently lived out in the country on a dirt road (from the way it looked). The Nova had bent rear quarter panels, which the owner was busy hammering away from the rear tires, so he could move the car. He had been working out and you could hear his displeasure as each BOOM echoed off of the buildings nearby, even above the normal traffic sounds.

Behind the Nova sat the Fury III. Clumps of dried mud having been knocked loose, but no coolant leaks, or bent sheet metal. The front door opened freely. I saw it driving around the next weekend, none the worse, it seemed. Still needing a strong wash job and detailing.

To me, the modern crash tests are good, but they are usually more "designed to get the car to fail" than not. Looking at the videos of them, the damage which results, AND then considering how much the body's internal guts might bounce around at the sudden "stop" at the barrier, can tend to make survivability more marginal than suspected, to me. BTAIM

Drive safe and defensively!
CBODY67

 

[300George]

Design concept for the 300 L

 

[CBODY67]

^^^^ The front end contours and roof C-pillar have a strong 1961 Thunderbird influence, to me. The rear styling is neat and very NOT Ford-like.

 

[mopar preferred]

I was driving a 2 year old '73 Dart Sport when I was rear ended at a stop by a '65 full size Pontiac. That caused me to hit a '72 full size Buick.
The Pontiac was totalled. The Buick needed new bumper, trunk lid, and to have the rear fenders spread back out.
My Dart needed a new tail light panel, (the point of the Pontiac nose hit it just below my trunk lid) and the chrome trim on the front header panel point was dented.
My damage amount: $177.00, half of which was paint for the new tail light panel.

Back on topic, I much prefer the disputed roof line over the fast top.

 

[edbods]

@Justin Plant that makes sense, don't want potential customers to mistake it for the competition!
@CBODY67 Oh yeah that sheet metal is t h i c k. The way these cars were built definitely wouldn't fly today with what we know now about crash physics though. New cars tend to sacrifice themselves to protect the squishy meat bags inside. Won't stop me from buying an old car though, I feel this constant quest for safety has only contributed to the continuing disinterest in driving and decline in fun cars in general, while also enabling poor driving habits to thrive because the driver just expects the car to save them from themselves. Ever notice how the crash rate still remains rather consistent despite all these electronic nannies like lane keep assist, blind spot monitors and traction control?
Anyway, I definitely know that solid thunk you're talking about - when I first got my car, I spent about 15 minutes just opening and closing the doors hearing that THUNK before realising the neighbours might get annoyed haha.
Wish I saved the pic of someone's 66 (or 65) fury that got hit in one of the fenders by an inattentive driver - the metal was a bit crumpled, but the other car (either a late 2000s corolla or some other econobox) was a writoff.

 

[Scoopy G]

It seems to me that there are basically only 3 ways to do it: parallel lines; wider at the top/narrower at the bottom; and narrower at the top/ wider at the bottom. What else is there? Yes, the fasttop is a slight variation on the theme of wider at the bottom, and it even has a nod to the Hofmeister kink.

 

[edbods]

Well...there IS another way. But it's not pretty:

I think Citroen or one of the other French manufacturers also did some similar, reverse rake C/D pillars.
I had a 94 Camry wagon in the same colour as above, I still miss it. The thing would probably outlive cockroaches. The V6 made it surprisingly peppy despite being 30 years old.

 

[Mid70's Chrysler Fanatic]

I wish I could find a copy of the article I read in the mid-Eighties about a guy and his monster truck. What stuck with me was something like, “except for Chryslers, which are unusually hard to smash and require two or three passes, [name of truck owner] doesn’t care what makes of cars he crushes.”

 

[edbods]

I wish I could find a copy of the article I read in the mid-Eighties about a guy and his monster truck. What stuck with me was something like, “except for Chryslers, which are unusually hard to smash and require two or three passes, [name of truck owner] doesn’t care what makes of cars he crushes.”

You probably already know this, but Imperials are banned from demolition derbies because they're built like tanks. Chrysler really was something else in the 60s.

 

[Scoopy G]

My post posted at 4:13. Coincidence?

Since this photo was taken (by a buddy of a friend of mine who has a nice 66 300), I have adjusted the stance to bring the front end up a bit, like about 3/4". The young guy who rebuilt the front end is a diehard C-body guy, and a great mechanic, but being a youngster, I guess he likes a more lowered stance. I do not.

 

[Mark Kevin Weaver]

For my eye the wide top to narrow bottom would help reduce the blind spot that a wide base would cause. My 76 NYB has wide C pillars and it has a HUGE blind spot.

 

[carguy300]

Some of angles of the rooftops are unusual, that is one of the reasons I chose my 68 300, I love the fastop look. I love the front and tail end of 66 300 but the profile shot doesnt grab me. Not a chrysler but I owned one of these in white about 30 years ago and I loved the profile and the angled back glass, thought that was quite unigue. I am partial to 67-68 sport furys also.

 

[300George]

I was driving a 2 year old '73 Dart Sport when I was rear ended at a stop by a '65 full size Pontiac. That caused me to hit a '72 full size Buick.
The Pontiac was totalled. The Buick needed new bumper, trunk lid, and to have the rear fenders spread back out.
My Dart needed a new tail light panel, (the point of the Pontiac nose hit it just below my trunk lid) and the chrome trim on the front header panel point was dented.
My damage amount: $177.00, half of which was paint for the new tail light panel.

Back on topic, I much prefer the disputed roof line over the fast top.

My 67 Fury I about totalled a 77
GM Nova clone. Got hit in the rear. Broke a taillight, dented the bumper on the Fury. Took out his whole front bumper, rad, core support, battery, grill, hood....

 

[CBODY67]

You probably already know this, but Imperials are banned from demolition derbies because they're built like tanks. Chrysler really was something else in the 60s.

I ran across a clip, maybe in the "Car Chases" YouTube channel, where a '65 Imperial was in Europe, being chased by the bad guys. As the Imperial went through traffic, it was HIT by a car, in its rh rr quarter panel. The other car was really bent, but the Imperial body was just dented a good bit. Then came a hit to the front end by another car. Imperial was jammed against other cars, so the nice-looking female occupant quickly ran into the gathering crowd to escape.

In the Imperial Club forum, about 15 yrs ago, a poster had been looking for a rh manual mirror for his '66 (or so) Imperial and had finally found a NOS one, in its original box. One afternoon, he got the mirror box off of his garage shelf. laid out the paper template on the car, got the recommended punch and hammer to dimple the metal before he drilled the hole. First hit on the punch, the punch bounced off. Tried again, same result. Looked and the paint was not scuffed and NO dimple. He put everything back into the box and put it back on the shelf. He was shocked at the strength of the sheet metal.

Enjoy!
CBODY67

 

[edbods]

the paint was not scuffed and NO dimple

Geez...how hard or thick must the paint be to not even dent from a goddamn punch?

 

[CBODY67]

You have to realize that he was really trying to "punch through" the paper template laid onto the paint. But still, no dimpled metal.

 

[edbods]

You have to realize that he was really trying to "punch through" the paper template laid onto the paint. But still, no dimpled metal.

But the paper itself is just like a regular piece of A4 paper right? or paper of that kind of composition?

 

[68PK21 440.6bbl]

But the paper itself is just like a regular piece of A4 paper right? or paper of that kind of composition?

Ummm must'ta been a really, really, really, dull punch, I put a added on RS mirror on my 1968 Fury II (of was it my Fastop?) junkyard mirror with no instructions, didn't even take measurement's off the junkyard car just copied the drivers side.
Bingo-Bango job done in a matter of minutes but my punches/chisels & drill bits are always sharp.

.

 

[68PK21 440.6bbl]

My 67 Fury I about totalled a 77
GM Nova clone. Got hit in the rear. Broke a taillight, dented the bumper on the Fury. Took out his whole front bumper, rad, core support, battery, grill, hood....

My rear end story: Me and a buddy were in my 1968 Fury II 4dr waiting in line of 3 cars going to turn left into one of the very first Liquor Store 'Supermarkets' of the time in the 1970's, this was when I first owned the car and it had only one small dent in the RR passenger dogleg which I've seen on quite a few 1968 Furys and can only guess it was from some improper parallel parking attempt, anyways a kid driving a 2nd gen(?) 1968 Chevy Nova drunk plowed at full traffic speed of around 40mph driver side headlight into my RR taillight bumper area sending me into a 60's GM station wagon and the wagon into a 1965 Mustang coupe rot-box. Mustang was completely totaled due to it's rusted state, GM wagon was folded up pretty good in the rear and undrivable, I don't remember much about it's front end damage but it was towed. My cars RR bumper corner was pushed in a couple of inches but no damage to taillight or corner piece, trunk was bowed on the RS and didn't seal anymore, front end bumper was tweaked down a little bit but I don't remember any fender or headlight trim damage and of course the RS quarter was creased at the very rear by the bumper but pretty much straight forward of the marker light. The Nova was totaled with the driver side headlight pushed all the way into the drivers door hinge area, it was a 2dr but wasn't anything muscle car just a econo-box Nova with I think a 6-cyl. I was the only car that drove away from the scene and on a side note I got a whopping check of $2.50 for my witness appearance in court for when the kid copped a plea to take the 1st offender drunk driving course.


.

 

[crv]

You probably already know this, but Imperials are banned from demolition derbies because they're built like tanks. Chrysler really was something else in the 60s.

Imperials are still being smashed in derbies.