Talk about a sophomore slump! Dodge’s fantastic, new for ’66 Charger saw sales plummet from 37,466 in its inaugural year to just 15,788 in 1967, why? Well, I don’t know for sure but let’s take a look at a ’67 with the L-Code 440 engine option, located in Brentwood, California and for sale here on craigslist for $21,000. Thanks to Ikey Heyman for the tip!
The Dodge Charger, introduced in 1966, was a fastback, sportier version of the “B” body Dodge Coronet. In some circles it was referred to as a “good looking AMC Marlin”; talk about passive/aggressive praise! In reality, the differences between the 1966 and 1967 models were minimal. The most significant change appears to be under the hood in terms of the engine line-up and this ’67 is a benefactor of that change as it is equipped with a 375 HP, 440 CI “L code” engine. According to the seller, there were only 700 copies made in ’67 with this engine so it is fairly rare (4.4%). That makes it all the more confounding that the seller didn’t include an image of this holy grail powerplant. No reference either as to whether or not if runs, and if so, how well. He does add that this is an automatic transmission-equipped car.
How’s the interior? One image showing a torn driver seat, no reference beyond that. I would imagine there is a whole lot more to examine beyond the driver’s seat. The seller claims that this Charger does not need, “thousands of dollars in rust repair” which is a subjective, backward way of trying to promote a supposedly positive quality of this Dodge.
The body does look solid in the three images of the exterior that are present but I really question this approach to sales promotion. If the car has really outstanding qualities, be positive and offer some visual proof. All of this said, I still haven’t figured out why a ’67 Charger sold in less than half the volume that its predecessor did, especially when we are talking essentially the same car. One theory is that the pony car revolution, which was now in full-swing evolution with the Chevrolet Camaro, Pontiac Firebird, Mercury Cougar and the revised Plymouth Barracuda, drew sales away from what some considered to be racy, though boxy looking, Dodge Coronet. And it took the fantastic styling statement of the completely revised ’68 Charger to restore some semblance of authority to Dodge’s all-important intermediate model. People fall all over the place at the thought of a ‘60’s Dodge Charger. While I love the ’68 to ’70 version, I find the ’66 & ’67 to be forgettable. Though this ’67 may have some rare, desirable bones to it, I doubt I’d look much further than the listing and then just move on. Why someone would short-change themselves with such a minimal listing in these cyber-specific times, I’ll never know – especially as it relates to the engine which is the major selling facet of this car. Perhaps the thought is that this Dodge will move on the “magic” of the Charger nameplate. I’m not buying it, L code 440 or not, how about you?
Sure, the ad is terrible, but if the idea of a 1st-generation 440 Charger appeals to someone (and it would have to be a strong appeal at $21,000), it’s not like there are a lot of choices out there.
I always liked these, but they don’t get much respect price wise vs other Mopars.
Mr. Flipper could have rolled it off the hauler and at least pretended that he didn’t pay a grieving family member $500 for it after telling them it “isn’t the Charger everyone wants.”
While your assumption of the supposed scanerio maybe correct. It is, in fact the Charger very few people want to own.
If this seller wants $21k for the car he needs to have get off his butt and include a better description and way more pics.
I don’t think it’s worth $20 grand.
An afternoon with Color Back finish restorer and a coat of Collinite Insulator Wax would have been a worthwhile investment.
Now THAT is quality humor.
Why would (what I consider; am I deluded? ) a respectable outfit such as Barn Finds post such a sketchy, slippery situation as this?
Respectfully Posted.
Learned something new, didn’t know the 440 was available in the first model Chargers, was only aware of the 318, 383 and the 426. Cool!
don’t forget about the 361!
The 440 became available for model year 1967.
In May of 1976, after having endured the family hand-me-down ’69 Ford Falcon with its three on the tree and six banger under the hood, I went out on my eighteenth birthday and put down $800 cash for a ’67 Charger, 426 under the hood and all the options. I drove that car for years, until the dashboard gauges went dark and I wasn’t smart enough to know how to replace them. I sure do miss her.
They’re somewhat unconventional, but I like them. Ironically I was at a Dodge dealer at one time and being I knew some of the mechanics asked about a white one that was in for service. I was told to not get too close to that one, it was more like a Miami Vice (my words, not theirs) type vehicle. Seems it was being used by local narc’s. I had nothing to worry about in that area as I didn’t get near that stuff, but it was still an impressive car.
Agree it’s priced high…but I like a 1967 the best of all. One factor in production is the R/T came out as well as the picture’s were already circulating on the new 1968 Charger body
They don’t bring high prices simply because most people find them unattractive compared to other cars of that era. That’s also why they didn’t sell well then and they don’t sell well now…..it takes a certain eye to appreciate these cars……and I will be the first to admit I Do Not have the eye for this body style at all to me they are plain ugly allthough I do appreciate them for what they are.
IMO an ugly duck. If you were looking for a chick magnet in ’67 you would have passed over this thing.
My favorite Charger body. Would go nice with my ’13 Charger.
Yes, the 2 Charger body styles most hated by Barn Finds patrons.
The ’66-’67 Charger body style is not only not among the favorite Charger body styles of Barn Finds patrons. Although I don’t remember where, I do recall reading something like “Dodge has finally taken the Charger out of the packing crate.” in a story about the ’68.
LarryS
I like it. I have always regretted not buying the one I was basically being begged to buy back in 86.
I think this body style has a lot of interesting features, but I just don’t think they work well together. I love the full-width tail light, the concave rear window, the full length console and folding seats, and the front end with the hidden headlights. The dash, while extremely cool technically, it just looks like a few coffee cans sticking out of the dash to me. I love all the other features, but add them all together, it just doesn’t work for me. What I do like about them is they are relatively few and far between, and at a car show they stand out in the crowded field of Vette’s, Camaro’s and Mustangs!
Things got interesting when ’67 rolled in. Coronet RT, Plymouth GTX, both 440 powered rectangles which didn’t sell all that well either. Big inch pony cars, harder edged looking A body GM muscle, etc, etc. Ford Fairlane GT sales dropped considerably compared to ’66 as well but that’s another story.
The ’68 Charger just had the right look, to this day even non car folks, millennium’s even, know about them.
total Chrysler guy here. I have owned several 67 rt and gtx. I never and still do not care for the looks of the charger. I liked the long console and the rear buckets with the hideaway headlights. I modified and installed them in my r/t I replaced the front bumper with a fiberglass one to off set the weight as I was a red light to redlight guy. I think this guys price is about 8 grand too high.
It amazes me that the rusted out 68,69,and 70 chargers with no motor or transmission go for more than this asking price and these are great looking cars!!! I guess they need there own movie!!!
Nothing to do with movie!
Even though beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, I believe research shows that most muscle car enthusiast don’t find this body style attractive.
Even though supply is low on these cars demand is also low therefore parts supply is also low…..look at the rest of what the American auto manufacturers where doing in 67 all had better looking cars in this segment!
There is a reason they didn’t sell well in 67.
The styling is love it or hate it but they are well built and comfortable to ride in. They don’t get the love that 68-70 get but they are good cars if a bit heavy. If you can’t appreciate them just move along please. I think this one is overpriced a little but the 440 is the engine to have. This one deserves some TLC.
bought a new one in 1967. Maroon w/blk interior. 440 Magnum 4 speed and red wall tires. It was the sharpest thing around. Loved them then & still do. The following year my buddy purchased a 1968 Plymouth GTX Blk/Blkw/440 Golden Commando & 4 Speed. We had the meanest cars in town. I think this one is overpriced for the condition however has lots of potential for the right person who is willing to spend some time and money!
Regarding style and shape I think the 66 and 67 Chargers were competitive right away in the 1966 stock car racing season. I know David Pearson racked up a lot of wins that year. The 68 Chargers notoriously ran slower than the 66-67s until Dodge rushed the Charger 500 into production to address the aerodynamic flaws of the regular production 68s.
I think this would go great with my 67 Barracuda fastback. I only wish that the 67’s had the full length console.
As an owner of a 67 L code 440 4speed with a dana 60 rear I can honestly say it is one of the nicest cars I own and I am proud to have it. Mine is one of 56 built with the options I have. It came through red with whit tail stripe and white interior.