Will we ever see the sunken rear window again?

[Charger440RDN]

Since we have thread about hideaway headlights, it's only appropriate to ask if the sunken rear window will ever return on any new car? This was an excellent design feature and made the 2nd gen one of the best looking from the rear. Has any manufacturer even done this since the 60's???

[Ghoste]

I would have to think the aerodynamic costs are too high.  Modern CAFE standards don't permit much in the way of wind drag.

[PocketThunder]

No, Jellybean cars are all we get.   

[miller]

The 2006 to 2010 Charger had a sunken rear window....

[Mike DC]

 
Put a small enough engine in it and just about any aero design becomes CAFE feasible. 


Maybe that's what we need.  A 4-banger Charger that looks like the real thing and is factory equipped with the wiring harness & engine mounts needed for a V8 swap.

[bull]

If they need to keep aerodynamics and yet want to build a retro Charger they could simply base it on the C500.

[doctor4766]

Since we have thread about hideaway headlights, it's only appropriate to ask if the sunken rear window will ever return on any new car? This was an excellent design feature and made the 2nd gen one of the best looking from the rear. Has any manufacturer even done this since the 60's???

Sorry for using the F word but this is Ford Australia's effort in the early 70's.
In fact the rear glass is shaped similarly to the Dart ie almost concave



There have also been Ferrari's and Toyota MR2's that have had "sunken" rear screens over the years.

[chargd72]

Aftermarket companies are making them.

[daytonalo]

GOD I HOPE NOT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Aero426]

Nissan has done it on the Maxima, I believe.

[Charger440RDN]

Aftermarket companies are making them.

Call me crazy but I think I kind of like it  That sunken rear window instantly makes the new Charger look better

[bull]

Aftermarket companies are making them.

Call me crazy but I think I kind of like it   That sunken rear window instantly makes the new Charger look better

Amazing isn't it how much time, money and effort has been spent on trying to make the new "Charger" look like a Charger? Even Chrysler is finally trying to get in on it; albeit too little, too late.

[Charger440RDN]

Aftermarket companies are making them.

Call me crazy but I think I kind of like it   That sunken rear window instantly makes the new Charger look better

Amazing isn't it how much time, money and effort has been spent on trying to make the new "Charger" look like a Charger? Even Chrysler is finally trying to get in on it; albeit too little, too late.

Yeah they could have saved themselves a lot of trouble and controversy if they had designed the damn thing right to begin with. Especially putting the Charger name on it. The new design is better but it still sucks.....that front end...................

[daytonalo]

It still has too many doors !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! what a mess ..............................................

[aussiemuscle]

It still has too many doors !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! .............................................

but if you were buying a two door, wouldn't you get a challenger or a Corvette? i mean, if you are going to spend that much on a new car...?

[daytonalo]

That is a no-brainer

[hemi68charger]

Aftermarket companies are making them.

That looks like the Mexican Darts......... An after-thought............

[Chargerrtforme]

Since we have thread about hideaway headlights, it's only appropriate to ask if the sunken rear window will ever return on any new car? This was an excellent design feature and made the 2nd gen one of the best looking from the rear. Has any manufacturer even done this since the 60's???

Not to upset you Mopar guys but someone told me the 2nd gen sail panel design is a copy of the popular 66 67 GTO roofline. They do look very similar.  Nothing wrong with that, any truth to it?

[Ghoste]

Obviously the idea came from there but the Charger crew made it attractive.  The half hearted attempt on those bent looking GM cars was, well, not so much.

[Brock Samson]

  I read it was to give the Charger a more "fastback" roof line, the term is "Tunnel Back" and first came into play on Italian sports cars so that in profile they would have a "Fast Back", in the original design sketchs for the second Gen. it did not have the tunnel and sure looked a lot like a convertable '68 Sting Ray with the roof on... see the pics below...

[Ghoste]

A cheaper way of keeping the fastback profile of the 1st gens.

[Brock Samson]

admit it though, if the '68 Charger had a Coronet roof line it wouldn't look nearly as sweet. 

[Ghoste]

If the Charger had the Coronet roofline, then it may as well have been a Coronet.

[Charger440RDN]

Did the designer on the Charger come to Chrysler from GM? I thought I read that somewhere, that would explain the similar body lines to the 67 Pontiac GTO and 67 Chevelle. Before 68 all of mopar designs were extremely boxy looking

[Ghoste]

I think at that time everyone was likely trying to look over GM's shoulder.

[Brock Samson]

 No, he didn't, it was an efficient solution that GM had also used in '66/67. GM's designs were typically ahead of Chrysler's and Fords. The Charger lagged in the Fastback/Muscle car race by one yr. from the get go because Dodge balked at using a A-body for their sporty competitor - though, they had a chance to get in early with a Baracuda clone, of huge importance It wouldn't easily accomadate the Big Block powerplants there was also the Turbine program which seemed to be on line for installation in 500 Chargers for '67. The NOX standards that came down from the Dept. of Transportation derailed that entire program.

 more info here

http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,14937.0.html

http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,25267.0.html

[1969chargerrtse]

Obviously the idea came from there but the Charger crew made it attractive.  The half hearted attempt on those bent looking GM cars was, well, not so much.

Really?  I not only think the 67 GTO is  ( almost ) as beautiful as a 2nd gen Charger, but the roof line looks almost exact and the GTO came first.
And the good looking car came as a convertible.

[Ghoste]

I was being a litle facetious.  But in all honesty even though I am a bit of a closet Pontiac fan, the 66 and 67 GTO's aren't my favorites.  I was being a smartass with the half hearted comment.  My subjective opinion and I can't really put my finger on it, those two years just never clicked with me personally.  I like the Chevelle quite a bit for 66-67 and the Cutlass okay too but the Buick and Poncho for some reason not so much.

[1969chargerrtse]

I was being a litle facetious.  But in all honesty even though I am a bit of a closet Pontiac fan, the 66 and 67 GTO's aren't my favorites.  I was being a smartass with the half hearted comment.  My subjective opinion and I can't really put my finger on it, those two years just never clicked with me personally.  I like the Chevelle quite a bit for 66-67 and the Cutlass okay too but the Buick and Poncho for some reason not so much.

I hear ya.  I like almost all the 67 cars.  I think the 67 GTO is real classic but I would take a 69 over a 67. I love the 69/70 SS Chevelles. Olds are nice but I'd take a 70 over a 69 and buick just never did much for me, I'd pass on all of them including the GNX.

[Brock Lee]

Yeah, there is a definite influence from the 1966-7 GTO. I swear the side windows were influenced by the same era Bonnevilles. I was parked next to one and it looked like the drip rail was almost interchangeable.

[Brock Samson]

of somewhat related info... a great deal of effort was expended in providing the second Gen Charger with a group Six Prototype style roof line, where the roof was "Dropped onto the body like a group six type sports racer" is I believ the quote i read, credited to the design philosophy of the designers in 1965. The lip spoiler on the back, the pinched grill in plan view which was very radical at that time when all American cars had a box shape plan view (the view from overhead). The two round tailights in a blacked out trim section were even mimicking the mid engined racers of that time. The tunnel roof looked great, some prefer it over the truly areodynamic 500/Daytona rear window, it wasn't efficent at speed, but was a lot easier to clean for sure... my Chrysler 300's flushed out rear and front windows are a bitch to clean inside.  

  also from the 1965 timeline...  http://www.moparmagazine.com/2009/may_june/grassroots_engineering.html

also see "Fling Buttress"..

http://karakullake.blogspot.com/2009/03/my-favorite-flying-buttresses.html

[Charger440RDN]

Did Ferrari use design elements of the 68 Charger when they designed this Ferrari?  Note the round tail lights, sail panels and sunken rear window. Door vents like the Charger too, except backwards: 

[Brock Samson]

 

[bull]

Obviously the idea came from there but the Charger crew made it attractive.  The half hearted attempt on those bent looking GM cars was, well, not so much.

Really?  I not only think the 67 GTO is  ( almost ) as beautiful as a 2nd gen Charger, but the roof line looks almost exact and the GTO came first.
And the good looking car came as a convertible.

I prefer the 66-67 Chevelle myself. Still has the recessed window/sail panels but not the goofy Fairlane/Fury front end.