1972 Dodge Charger vs Chevrolet Malibu Dealer Promo Film Mopar is a registered trademark of Chrysler Group LLC. Master Tech series training materials are the property of Chrysler Group LLC and are used with permission. MyMopar.com
I miss the mid 60's thru the early 70's. The big three produced so many nice looking cars. I would take either one of these but prefer the Malibu. The '72 Ford Torino was a good looking car also.
Cool video, thanks for posting it. I actually owed both of these cars in the early 80's. I had the 72 Charger SE, with power steering , and 400 2 bbr. My Malibu convertible had the 350. The Charger was a blast to drive and I could park it on a dime. The Malibu was nice but the frame rotted out. I miss the Charger more!
Martin Walling I had a 1971 . It had a 440 - 4 barrel. I bought the car in 1978 for $1250. It was a family car and it had 59,000 miles on it. I want a lot of races with that car.
Man Chrysler jumped everybody's gun, just by out engineering everyone, they're technicians designers and engineers, were fricking geniuses in those days.way ahead of everybody else, ahead of there own time.
True, the alternator was a Chrysler innovation (previously cars had a generator and were plagued with electrical problems), the Dodge Power Wagon was one of the first successful four-wheel drive vehicles (predating the jeep by years), the slant six was a great design, all of the accessories were mounted on one side of the engine for easy access, plus the power per cubic inch was very high for that engine - and it was so well engineered that it was used in Mopar cars and Dodge trucks for 30+ years with minimal changes. Just a few of the innovations.
The distributor was not so easy! Not as bad as some though. Spot on with the alternator, I'll give Mopar credit where it's due. Still, I'd take the Malibu.
I worked as a mechanic at a Ford dealer from 1983 through 2006. I can remember sitting through Ford's model training videos every year with the sales department. The videos were similar to these in comparing their vehicles to their competitors. Quite frankly, I found them boring and misleading in a lot of ways, but I can see where its useful to the sales staff that didnt have to repair them. Something I always found interesting, a salesman can easily compare their model against the competitor, until they get the competitor's car in on trade then have to resale it on the used car lot; they are quick to point out what a great car it is to a prospective buyer.
by 1970s chrysler was ahead of the market in engineering / style / luxury / and power. a base model in any chrysler line looked nicer than most upscale models from the general or FoMoCo . unibody with bolt on subframe is considered standard today. but chrysler had been building them from the late 40s. they do have their own drawbacks. #1 being rust. and chrysler of the 70s had other qc issues. from electeral to fit and finish. i have always liked the charger and would love to own one. and even though the 72 malibu this charger was compared with was the last year for that body style ( body change for 73 ) i would have to give the edge to the general for overall quality for the price. i think time has proven that the gm model was better built. given the two choices i personally would rather have the charger. just my 2 cents. love seeing the old videos. keep up the good work.
Just wanted to correct you on one thing - Chrysler didn't start going unibody until the late '50s. It was actually Nash/AMC that Pioneered unibody as far back as 1949. But you're spot on in regards to everything else. Chrysler used to be known as "the engineers company". First with power steering, first with electronic ignition, the best automatic transmission in the world, unibody, torsion bars.... The only thing that crippled them was their quality in the mid 70's. But in all fairness, quality was generally poor among the big three during that time. It says a lot when AMC used to have the BEST quality. One of their old advertisements even boasted the fact that: "The best car to come out of Detroit this year will come from Kenosha."
@@harrisionstan3773 Yes. Ford and Chevy's rear suspension trailing arms yawed (wallowed) around corners/turns and wheel hopped under hard acceleration. Chrysler's asymmetrically mounted differentials on leaf springs did not and actually help to load the differential ("hook up") under hard acceleration. The torsion bar front suspension's on unit body chassis was stiffer, stronger and provided for a superior handling/controlled automobile. Don't believe me? Notice the great number of chase scenes/movies from the 60's, 70's and 80's where unit body Chryslers were used in high speed, high stress (jump) applications. Due to their superior chassis strength (and drive trains), they required much less modification for high abuse applications (as compared to the Ford and GM counterparts). A testament to this fact is that Chrysler products (Dodge's and Plymouth's) were the preferred car of police departments during this period.
But that was the whole idea of making the Charger the basic intermediate two door instead of Coronet: There were models from stripper $3000 to Grand Prix type personal luxury at $6000+
I definitely agree, the Charger consisted of the 2 door coupe only. Similar to the Monte Carlo having a 2 door coupe model only. That's why I agree that the Charger competes more with the Monte Carlo too.
GM had intended for the Colonnade A-bodies to be on the market in 1972 but for various reasons that didn't happen and the new in 1968 generation continued for one more year. It's clear on this video that the Charger is a full generation more modern than the Malibu (even if it's just as clear that means the Charger is saddled with more inefficient dead weight - those overhangs! - of the sort that immediately dated it after the gas crunch). Still using Powerglide in 1972 was a stunning bit of cheapness on GM's part. OTOH I like the purposeful look the Heavy Chevy's trim-ring-free Rally wheels and blackwalls give it. Chevy should've used that combo with the black grille more widely, it really updates the car's look almost to a late-70s/early '80s style.
@@JWROWE3 The only '73-77 A body I thought was appealing was the Grand Prix. The rest, especially the four door versions, were just plain fucking ugly. I didn't care much for Charger but thought Coronet/Satelite sedans weren't bad and only the Torino Sportroof was appealing to me. Mid '70s intermediates were just bad IMO. But opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.
Gosh golly!! I wonder which of these 2 fine cars will be head and shoulders above the other?? I mean, the suspense is killing me!! I might just fast forward to the end for the answer.
I would like to see a comparison of the '73-'74 Chargers against the new GM mid-sizers. All they would have to do is show pictures. Man, those GM cars got ugly. Unfortunately, so did Mopars after '74, because Mopar always followed GM's styling lead. (Compare the Charger's loop bumper and quad headlights to the '68-69 Pontiacs, for example-nearly identical).
This was very interesting (ding) It’s interesting seeing these dealer promos (ding) I wasn’t old enough to buy cars other than Hot Wheels at this time (ding) 😊
The bodies on these Dodges were notorious for rusting out and there were so many rattling body panels and interior squeaks and rattles. They weren't very good cars Navi then. I had a 73 Laguna and my brother-in-law had a 73 Charger. His Charger literally had fenders flapping in 3 years.
I assume the Chevrolet had more HP, because the narrator went on and on about cubic inches and did not mention actual performance figures. I think that Dodge was more concerned with comfort and ride at that time. I bet those Charger doors were a pain in parking spaces. We used to call them "battleship doors", because of the size.
Power numbers weren't great for any of this class. Compression had been squeezed. They were probably embarrassed at the drop in performance, so no use pointing it out to customers.
Man do I also miss the cars of the 60's and early 70's before pollution control gutted the performance of muscle cars. Even the 72 Charger was a joke compared to its predecessors. Bring back vinyl tops!!! Pure luxury,, :)
Im a mopar person and I've been watching maybe 15 of these mopar vs whoever videos and in everyone contradicts what was said previously or in the future. One time complained only 2 Seats in back can't sit in middle while praising the 2 seats in 66 charger. Another one it's good that our is bigger and heavier gives car more weight to plant when cornering at higher speeds. The competitor charges 12 bucks for that option, but is standard equipment at no cost when you payout for the hemi model. It goes on and on and i get it, but for the 72 charger and 72 malibu I was guessing what could be said in chargers favor and with the build up that buyers want performance gives dodge the win for least output per cubic inch. Probably never did another one of these comparisons knowing how far out there thats needed to go and even elementary kids aren't buy it. Desperate man trying to save his job.
These are always fun to watch. The 68/69 Malibus were sportier but these Chargers were just too big. Had a '69 383 Magnum and also a '70 307. Guess which i wish i still had ;)
@@chief1972 thanx for the reply. The '69 Charger (you knew that already). I put a set of headers and turbo mufflers i bought used for $50 in the '70. Were for a '67 Chevelle but dropped right in since the frame rails were the same. Also 'blacked out' the grill like an SS. At least it looked and sounded good. still a grocery getter.
Less than $100 difference between 6 & 8 cylinders, WOW! The difference now between a SXT and RT is at least $5000. I know that includes different suspension components too, but seriously what is the difference in the manufacturing cost?
@@Shade_tree_garage01. Today everything needs to be rebuilt. And who rebuilds everything dead stock? Are you going to put 8:1 pistons in a 350 or 383? Or the old camshaft? Everything is upgraded. My Charger is a corner killer. I built it to do everything that the old muscle cars couldn't. Mission accomplished
I really enjoy these Mopar / competitor videos, but they missed the target this time. Dodge is definitely above the Chevy level - closer to Pontiac and Oldsmobile and those 2 brands would have been a much more fair comparison. Here the Charger is clearly the winner (I'd take one over the Malibu without hesitation) but the outcome would be closer against the Grand Prix or Cutlass line. If anything the Charger could have been "comparable" at a lower cost.
But that was the whole idea of this generation - that it competed with literally everything from a base Chevelle through the Pontiac Grand Prix SJ. It was the 'everything car' with fixed back window, rubber floor coupe up through the hidden headlights and canopy vinyl roof SE, so the top model could price out at double the base car.
I always wondered: what is the difference between a coupe and a hardtop? Is it the presence of a B pillar? i mean,a sedan could be a hardtop,softtop or convertible right? Is it just the type of roof?
Chevy had nothing real and the what happened to the 70 charger? I mean if you mention 68 and 69, 70 has to be put in there. Appearance.wise you would put the 71, 72, 73. And 74 together. Power wise?? 68-70 again put together. The 71-74 not so much. No HEMI IN 72, POWER.SHRINKS IN THE 72 AND 73 AND 74 SHRINKS MORE
How many frames do you see in a modern car? The reason why the unibody chassis is superior has everything to do with three dimensional torsional rigidity. The old pickup truck ladder frames are not suitable for a performance vehicle. I remember the Porsche 928 had about 5 times the torsional stiffness of the Corvette. No prizes given out to determine which car handled better
Which was weaker (frame construction), less stable and yawed (wallowed) around corners. The Charger's unit body was superior in every way, so much so that ALL American car manufactures adopted unit body construction in the majority of their product offerings there after (Chrysler first introduced this type of construction in 1934 with its Airflow models).
Unbelievable for the advertising to show and explain the vehicle... today's advertising is all about profiling people, class, race, gender... generally promoting the division of our society.
Always kinda conflicted when it comes to these early 70s cars. On one end anything from 70-71 was king in terms of performance due to the horsepower war being at an all time high and the new decade brought great body styles, on the other end anything built in 72' and later like these two slabs of steel were detuned to high hell and were made incredibly slow due to epa regulations and gas shortages caused by the 73' oil embargo and fuel shortages. Personally I wouldn't dare touch these model years because they dropped a lot of the options from the previous years and they got slower and then eventually got uglier such as with the 73 chevelle and the 75 charger cordoba shitbox. Great advertisement tho, wish we had stuff like this today instead of just showing the car driving up and down a mountain-side highway
Boy Dodge was really reaching in this video. Chevy has the spare on the right but WE have it on the left! Lol. What a bunch of crap. But they’re both amazing cars.
In the same place as the Monte Carlo, Gran Torino, Thunderbird, Cougar, and Cordoba. The past. When people stopped buying intermediate coupes, companies stopped building them.
I would have taken the Malibu any day before that charger model. It was too big and heavy, and here they compare base model malibu with se model charger. 1971-1968 charger however is way better.
Of course, they show an ugly version of the Malibu for comparison. If I was considering the Charger, I would compare to the Monte Carlo, Grand Prix, or Cutlass.
Such a Drastic Body style change from the 2nd gen car and keeping the name was even more drastic, move on to the current 4 door sedan and that is completely strange the best one is still the 68 through 70 and that's a sad thing the crazy TV show which I don't need to mention purposely wreck hundreds of them for the crazy rat race society and Mostly fake stunt's as well. This one done up in Super B or road runner + track packs with the 426ci is thee car but still can't hold a candle to the one it replaced ,If dodge would bring back the 68 car today there would be a stupid long waiting list & l don't understand why they haven't yet the 300c 4 door sedan based Challenger is way long in the tooth and rated last of the three so-called pony car's because it fat & heavy & not it's own chassis. Crazy how car manufacturers miss out on what the people really want.
OMG, I had a 1972 Dodge Charger Rallye with the hidden headlights, a V-8, that bulbous hood, et alia. I truly hated that car with a passion. I mean like it was the absolute worst car I ever owned. I had it for one year and traded it for a Gremlin-that's how much I hated it.
Totally no comparison in looks. That Malibu by "Generic Motors" is just a stodgy, cheap looking POS compared to the Charger. Look at the horrible simpleness and lack of design styling in the front grille treatment, lights, indicators and bumper and then look at the Charger. Chalk and cheese!
Every advantage the announcer says the Charger has over the Malibu just makes me like the Chevy even more. 72 Charger’s were super ugly, but the Malibu/Chevelle from 69-72 were beautiful cars.
