The Ford Mustang gets the credit for creating the pony car market, but it wasn’t the first car to take the compact car and try to sell it to younger people. That distinction goes to the Plymouth Barracuda, which beat the Mustang to market by two weeks, yet was soundly trounced in sales, with the Mustang outselling it 8 to 1. Most of the design principles are shared by both cars: they took the compact platform (Valiant and Falcon) and reworked things to give them a sporty flair. In the Barracuda’s case, the Valiant body got a fastback slope and a huge rear end, but otherwise was very similar to the Valiant. The Mustang, however, was visually a complete departure from the Falcon in the looks department, and it’s options list was absolutely huge compared to what was offered on the Barracuda.
Put bluntly, Mopar tried to warm over the Valiant on the cheap and it simply wasn’t enough. But could they have had better success if they had gone about it differently? Given the circumstances that Chrysler Corporation was looking at in the early 1960s, the Valiant made the most sense at the time: It was small but could pack a V8, it was the lightest thing they sold for the street, and it could fit four people. By 1967 the Barracuda had a refresh on the A-platform, but the closest it came to selling to Mustang levels was in 1965. Even the valued E-body version didn’t come close.
So the question posed to you, our diverse group of readers: With hindsight being our friend, was there anything that Chrysler could have done to make the early Barracuda a real player in the game? If so, what would it be? Different styling? More options? A more traditional shape instead of the tunnel fastback shape it got?
Jack the back end up. (64.5 was my first car)-they didn’t look right
until the bottom of the back window was level with the ground. And moar powah!!
The only way they could have done it is in an alternate universe where the designer of the Mustang and the people behind all the ideas of the car worked for Chrysler instead of Ford. Early to mid 60’s Chrysler products were just, shall we say, too unique in their styling to ever have that mainstream success. Some of their ideas for cars were also different for the sake of being different, not because it was better, sometimes, it was worse.
As a Mopar guy, it pains me to say, Ford just had the perfect storm of a car at the perfect time. It was a clean, attractive design that made people want it. Then it was optionable to the point to where nearly anyone who wanted one could afford it, while also being optionable enough to make it a quick, sporty car to those who sought that. Needed an simple 6 cyl stripper model just to get to A to B, while still looking good? Mustang. Want an V8 stripper for going fast, while still looking good? Mustang. Want a fully loaded V8 cruiser, while still looking good? Mustang.
There is literally nothing Chrysler could have done to compete. There is stuff they could have done to close the gap, but nothing to actually pose a threat, except in a world where the Mustang never existed. And think, just how different the automotive world would be if the Mustang had not come out. Maybe not so much now, but back then would be entirely different. Several cars we love would not exist, and if they did, would not have been the way they were if not for the Mustang.
Im not a big Mustang fan and ive always loved the early ‘cudas. I think the rarity of them is what makes them cool, if there were millions of Barracudas driving around instead of Mustangs i probably wouldnt like them as much.
Ask this question, what if Ford just fluffed up the Falcon, would the public response have been the same?
Great thought, I believe if Ford didn’t have quite the radical departure from the Falcon when they designed the Mustang, I believe the Barracuda could have stood a bit more of a chance, However I also believe Plymouth would have also needed to change up the styling as well. I feel like the Barracuda is an awesome little car and looks great, but the odd factor still stands with its design being so different.
Having owned a 1964 Dart for many years the number one issue is crappy brakes and 5 x 4″ bolt pattern on the wheels. Don’t like the stock wheels …Bummer. Many “cool cars” just have nice wheels,bigger tires, and twice pipes – especially back in the day.
There was a pretty good 4-piston disc option for the early A-bodies; I wouldn’t say they dropped the ball anywhere mechanically.
I think its main problem was the quirky styling. I like it, but it’s not as mainstream as, say, the ’68 Barracuda notchback.