I never thought a 69 charger conv would be a good looking car.

[1969chargerrtse]

Found this on the web.  I like the car with a roof, and I'm a conv guy.  What are your thoughts?

http://www.spencer1984.com/my_models/convchgr.php

[Dave22443]

I've seen a couple of real one's that looked a lot like that.  Personally, I don't like it.  Its bad enough with the top chopped off, but its completely embarrassing with the convertable top in the raised position.  Completely ruins the chargers distinct lines.

Here's a real one to get a better idea what it might look like
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2HDu--rR_M

[tan top]

no way  just all wrong ...you cant  alter   perfection  .  to me  mess with the body on a second generation .  like chop the roof off ..... big mess ..... 

[triple_green]

It only looks OK with a daytona wing and nose.

[GreenMachine]

  It might look good with the top down, but with the top up it probably looks like hammered sh*t.

[694spdRT]

A retractable hardtop that kept the original roofline would be great.

[69bronzeT5]

I made a Charger convertible model but its was a 70. And I only made it because I screwed up the roof (warped) on it so I had to cop the top off

[Chris G.]

http://1970chargerregistry.com/pictures/Charger_Vert.html

[miller]

I don't understand why they couldn't make a top like the solstices, the buttresses would replicate the chargers missing lines.

[moparstuart]

http://1970chargerregistry.com/pictures/Charger_Vert.html

needs the wing to make it work other wise with out the roof/sail panels it just plain naked

[nakita7]

A Charger convertible just begs the question..."Why?"....

[Ghoste]

The idea isn't new, people have been hacking off the roof of otherwise good Chargers for years.  I didn't like the way it looked 25 years ago and I still don't like it but you know how vauluable opinions are.

[FastbackJon]

I think the purple '70 in the video looks great, just keep the top down and drive it in good weather.

[Ghoste]

And based on that, I will add that I've always like the concept roadster that Dodge built back in the day, the SuperCharger.

[Mike DC]

I think a '69 Charger convertible could look great, but you'd have to do it very differently than just a typical B-body convertible from the factory.


I'm not sure but I think the factory windshield/A-pillar area was different on the converts than that hardtops, like maybe it was taller.  That doesn't look as good.


As for the top . . .  I dunno. 

Either use a detachable metal hard top, or maybe come up with an awesome cloth top that retains the c-pillar look.  But the factory B-body cloth top setup hurts the look. 

[Dave22443]

How about T-Tops?  Anyone ever try that on a 2nd Gen Charger?

[Old Moparz]

I love the idea & almost did it until I realized it was beyond my capabilities with metal work. I have the '68 Charger & the '68 Coronet convertible & made the comparisons. There are just too many differences keeping it a simple job like swapping the noses. Aside from the outer sheet metal being different, the inner structure behind the rear seat, the rear side panels where the hydraulics are, & a few other places a very different. The windshield & frame, the angle of the windshield, the vent wing windows, & all the trim around these parts are different.

It can be done, but a Daytona conversion is actually a lot less work. That's why I'm doing that instead.   

[Magnumcharger]

This is a project I would absolutely LOVE to do.
And now, with the availability of Charger reproduction sheetmetal, all it would take is a 1968-70 Coronet convertible to do the trick. The rest would be relatively easy to fabricate.
I agree with some, there is a visual problem with the A pillars being "too upright" for a sleek design such as the Charger.
The windshield and A pillars on a convertible are a good 2" taller than a two-door B body, and are in fact, the same as the four-door B bodies. There is also a drastic difference in the door vent windows because of this.
(Matter of fact, tomorrow I'm going to measure each of these...just because!)
What I would do, is graft the top half of the cowl from a regular B body onto the convertible chassis before doing the rest of the required body work. Then, the convertible top would have to be modified to fit the new windshield frame, but I'm sure that wouldn't be too great a task....compared to the rest.
The last thing I would do is to build a fiberglass tonneau cover with double headrest fairings, similar to the 1962 Thunderbird Sport Roadster, and reminiscent of the Supercharger show car.

[TUFCAT]

I don't mind it at all 

[bull]

I'm sure the Chrysler engineers back then monkeyed around with the idea and came up with the same conclusion as most of us or they would have built it. I think some b-bodies look good as convertibles but not the Charger.

[TUFCAT]

I'm sure the Chrysler engineers back then monkeyed around with the idea and came up with the same conclusion as most of us or they would have built it. I think some b-bodies look good as convertibles but not the Charger.

Once again, I agree with Bull.  Even though I don't mind the looks of the "convertible charger", I still have to say that the Charger's roofline was the best rooflines that ever graced a 1968-70 Chrysler B-body (with the only exception of a Charger 500). So the idea of a topless Charger would have never made sense to build - and destroy perfection.  Plus, like Bull said, other convertible B-bodies were available to fill this niche.

[Magnumcharger]

I think it all comes down to execution. If done properly, I'm certain the proper look could be acheived.
(Just a quick rendering. I know the headrests aren't there...and the fairings should be more centered.)

[LeeBoy]

  Good job Magnum, I like this look best out of all that I've seen. 

[Dave22443]

I like this look best out of all that I've seen. 

Needs a '68 grill 

[LeeBoy]

here is my poor edit of the 68 grill.