Were early A bodies built better than the 67-76 models?

-
Kern Dog

Kern Dog

Build your car to handle.
FABO Gold Member
Joined
May 23, 2010
Messages
9,752
Reaction score
28,074
Location
Granite Bay CA
While I am not much of a fan of the early A body models, I am noticing that there are several things about them that the later cars did not have.
I don't have as much experience with the 63-66 as the later ones but it seems like the early cars had tighter body panel gaps. They had more decorative trim. Metal grilles that don't bust as easy. Fancier interiors.
I am finishing up a '65 Dart and the last of the things to do are brake lights and signals. In most of the later A body cars the wires are crisp, the terminals are rusty and the ground connections are bad. On this car, I adjusted the brake light switch and replaced one bulb....The blinkers work, the brake lights work and so do the headlights. WOOOOoooooo!!
There sure is a LOT more trim on these cars. Double stainless surrounding the rear window? Stainless atop the rear quarters?
On my list of upcoming restorations is a 65 Valiant convertible. This one gets the rocker panel trim, wheelwell opening moldings, tail panel trim and the chrome around the windshield. It only has torque boxes but the body seems pretty stiff for being a convertible.
I am surprised at the flimsy looking K members the early cars had but other things about these cars seem pretty solid.
 
I think they were, but my opinion is a little biased.
 
There are weaknesses in both. Electrical is no different between early and late, in terms of problems from corrosion. Clutch linkage is much better on late.
 
I think there are definitely improvements in the later years, engine compartment size, steering linkage, slip joints, V8's, ignition systems, better brakes. etc etc.

But I still like my early A better.
 
I have one of each. Not too much difference. The early cars did have more trim. May be Mopar decided to go back to the Dart and Valiant economy car thing. When the 340 came out most of the young buyers just wanted power and didn't care about fancy or creature comforts. Look at the RoadRunners and Super bees.
 
I think the early As are built better, I believe all manufacturer's cars were built cheaper as the years went on.
 
Mopar-Mitch said:
I think the early As are built better, I believe all manufacturer's cars were built cheaper as the years went on.
Click to expand...
I think that may be right.
I wonder if they build stuff then learn new ways to build it lighter or easier.
Our new Challenger (Actually a 2015 model) has some thin and flimsy feeling sheet metal. The grille looks nice but up close, it also feels flimsy.
Look at the first generation 66-67 Chargers VS the 68-70. I have a '70 model but looking at the 66-67 cars, they had a fancier interior, more expensive gauges, more stainless trim, a more complicated grille and headlight assembly, etc.
 
Exactly the opposite here in the rust belt. The 67-76 are still around, not so much the 60-66. The early ones that are around here are not from here...
 
I think as far as trim and fanciness goes, it was a sign of the times. All cars in the late 50s up to mid 60s had lots of trim and detail. Even cheaper models had more trim than 70s cars. Manufacturers got away from the frills and shine for a more streamlined look. Look at most cars now, no chrome! For example, compare a 70 Challenger to a 2019. No trim, no bright work, no window moldings. Maybe chrome and moldings will make a come back but probably not. As far as structural integrity goes, I’d say they are all similar.
 
I’ve had my 65 and 69 Dart over 15yrs both. I really do think the 63-66 a bodies were built little better. I see more 63-66 a body 4 door cars in Oregon than anything else early Mopar.
 
The early barracuda fold down rear seat area chrome trim, luggage rails, carpeting, fit and finish were very well executed while mine didn't even have the hinges on the rear seat (option for 69)or carpet in the cargo area(jute backed vinyl ) or the prized hood bezels with eng. callouts (I'm jealous) of the 67-68s. All things got cheaper IMHO
 
It's a shame early A's are almost non existent around my parts, but not because of rust, because no one could forsee the future and not save them. I remember the junkyards being full of them and most all were crushed, only a few performance models were saved like the barracuda's. Now they are rarely seen around here. Wish I'd saved a few.
 
Kern Dog said:
While I am not much of a fan of the early A body models, I am noticing that there are several things about them that the later cars did not have.
I don't have as much experience with the 63-66 as the later ones but it seems like the early cars had tighter body panel gaps. They had more decorative trim. Metal grilles that don't bust as easy. Fancier interiors.
I am finishing up a '65 Dart and the last of the things to do are brake lights and signals. In most of the later A body cars the wires are crisp, the terminals are rusty and the ground connections are bad. On this car, I adjusted the brake light switch and replaced one bulb....The blinkers work, the brake lights work and so do the headlights. WOOOOoooooo!!
There sure is a LOT more trim on these cars. Double stainless surrounding the rear window? Stainless atop the rear quarters?
On my list of upcoming restorations is a 65 Valiant convertible. This one gets the rocker panel trim, wheelwell opening moldings, tail panel trim and the chrome around the windshield. It only has torque boxes but the body seems pretty stiff for being a convertible.
I am surprised at the flimsy looking K members the early cars had but other things about these cars seem pretty solid.
Click to expand...


you would be surprised with the convertible if the torque boxes are good then chances are the inner rockers are good to and it's a sturdy setup. I had mine upside down on a rotisserie without a floorpan from the firewall to the rear tail panel and it never sagged.

049.jpg



051.jpg

and yeah the gaps were better than my 69 swinger with the 3exception of the right outer taillight on every darn 66 (and 65's) the right outer tail light doesn't line up really well with the trunk lid both 66's I have and all three of the 65's I had were that way. I fixed mine this time since it kept bugging me. this one is no tmine but you can see the shift, and if you raise the trunk lid to make it level the trunk is above the quarter panel that much.
tail light off.jpg




DSCF3649.JPG

this one is mine, /6 soon to be turbo'd with fuel injection with all the goodies I make for the early gen A's. But I have another one. originally triple black,v8 manual top. (yeah not gonna happen in florida) it'll be white top. white interior and brilliant blue metallic paint WITH A/C. that's next on the list.
 
Last edited:
Seems to me all US auto manufactures started a quality decline in the late 60s, this IMO had to do alot with eroding values and a general moral decay which accelerated
to the point of no return.
 
I have a 62 Valiant,a 72 Dart, and a 74 Dart Sport and they all have high and low points example 62 Val. last and one year only, 72 Dart one year only grille non flush side markers, 73 and later mucho cheap plastic interior panels.What you like,year, model, make, will tell you what is good or bad.
 
I have done, to a fairly good extent 62-65 A bodies, and several, 7-8,.. 64-67 B bodies as Early cars. Thus I have done many 70 up A bodies, untold 68-70 B Bodes and 15 or so 70 and a couple 71 E bodies over the decades. Yes the 68-9 roadrunners all had poor gaps, all rusted out in their leaky trunks.
One thing I noticed way back in the 90's when I did my first early B bodies, the nuts, screws all came off way easier. Yes they all (mopars or any brand) have their places where they rust. I think any car that came with a metal grill and has stainless chrome is in general a better built car. Thus the early A. I say the early B bodies were nicer made than the early A in general, but a higher priced car too.
I have always found thing I liked and disliked about every model car I did. Lets face facts, as time marched on, quality could take a tumble. Sometime a poor decision by upper mgt. a few time by engineers, sometime because designers were rushed or understaffed. Sometime there were problems between the worker and the union and the company.
Bad car example, look at the F body, the 76-80 Volare and Aspen! I have some, but I understand that they are.

Hey, hey are just cars!!!!
 
66Dvert said:
you would be surprised with the convertible if the torque boxes are good then chances are the inner rockers are good to and it's a sturdy setup. I had mine upside down on a rotisserie without a floorpan from the firewall to the rear tail panel and it never sagged.

View attachment 1715352035


View attachment 1715352036
and yeah the gaps were better than my 69 swinger with the 3exception of the right outer taillight on every darn 66 (and 65's) the right outer tail light doesn't line up really well with the trunk lid both 66's I have and all three of the 65's I had were that way. I fixed mine this time since it kept bugging me. this one is no tmine but you can see the shift, and if you raise the trunk lid to make it level the trunk is above the quarter panel that much.
View attachment 1715352048



View attachment 1715352037
this one is mine, /6 soon to be turbo'd with fuel injection with all the goodies I make for the early gen A's. But I have another one. originally triple black,v8 manual top. (yeah not gonna happen in florida) it'll be white top. white interior and brilliant blue metallic paint WITH A/C. that's next on the list.
Click to expand...
Interesting, my tail lights are off on the same side too on my 66. I double checked to make sure the lights were in the correct location. Nope, all were good. I guess we need to hog out some holes. LOL

015.JPG
 
toolmanmike said:
Interesting, my tail lights are off on the same side too on my 66. I double checked to make sure the lights were in the correct location. Nope, all were good. I guess we need to hog out some holes. LOL

View attachment 1715352309
Click to expand...
I now look for that at every car show I go to. Every one I have seen is off a bit, some by a lot! even the 65's are like that.
 
I think, the early A-Bodies were better built - if I compare my 66 Valiant to my 71 Duster, there are a lot of things (trim, interior), which are fixed with screws instead of plastic fasteners on the later models.
The Duster has a lot more plastic onboard compared to the older Valiant.
And all plastic parts become fragile when aging....
 
I guess they all have there problems I've spent days trying to get my trunk lid correct on my 64, still doesn't sit like it should.
 
This is an interesting question and I'm tuned in for anything you guys have to say.

I don't have much contact with early As but there were lots of things on my '73 car that appear to have been done in a big hurry. The most obvious was the "DART" logo on the tail panel that was tilted about 8* from level! It was not subtle...you could see it from 20 paces! I have no idea how they let that out of the factory like that. I removed and reattached the logo many years ago but you can clearly see the stain in the paint as a reminder of how the badge used to sit. :D

Personally, I have always found the panel gaps, orange peel, globby welds, sloppy factory filler application etc. kinda charming. The quality stuff seems to be only aesthetic because it has been a mechanical marvel and all of the hardware and sheet metal have survived with few precautions taken (other than not being driven in the winter road salt). I guess the quality of the design and materials was good enough to overcome the shoddy execution. The car won me over completely and entirely from day one...despite any fit and finish blemishes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top