With a gap here and there, there’s been a Charger in the Dodge product line for 60 years and counting. Here’s where it all began back in 1966.
While some details were released a few weeks earlier, the Dodge Charger made its debut on January 1, 1966, three months after the rollout of the rest of the ’66 Dodge product line. In a commercial that aired during the broadcast of the Rose Bowl halftime show, Dodge spokeswoman Pamela Austin introduced the Charger as “the leader of the Dodge Rebellion”—the Dodge Rebellion being the Chrysler division’s marketing theme in 1966-67. (You can see the commercial here.)
Courtesy of Bring a Trailer
For Dodge, the Charger was intended to follow the same product strategy as the Barracuda from corporate sibling Plymouth: Both were fastbacks based on existing vehicles. While the Barracuda was based on the A-body Plymouth Valiant, the Charger was based on the larger Mopar B-body package, moving the Dodge product upmarket. The front-end sheet metal, hardtop doors, cowl, A-pillars, and windshield were obviously shared with the Dodge Coronet, newly restyled for ’66. However, principal stylist Carl “Cam” Cameron used some eye-catching features to give the Charger its own distinctive identity.
Along with the sweeping roofline that extended nearly to the rear bumper, Cameron devised a beautiful fine-toothed grille with hidden headlamps. Reportedly, Chrysler Styling boss Elwood Engel had the feature, including powered lamps, built into the studio clay model for a presentation to senior Chrysler executives, and he sold the gimmick on the spot. While the studio model was operated with a broomstick, the production Charger used two electric motors to open the headlamps doors, and unlike with many cars, here care was taken to make the front end look good with with the lamps in both the open and closed positions. At the rear, a full-width taillight assembly illuminated with six lamps further differentiated the Charger from the more basic Coronet.
Another standout Charger feature was the elegant interior with four individual bucket seats and an elaborate full-length console. As in the Barracuda, the rear seats folded down, in this case providing a flat, carpeted cargo area a full seven and a half feet long. While the TV campaign focused on style and performance (a full complement of Chrysler V8s was offered, including the 426 Street Hemi) the dealer materials told a luxury story and also referred to the Charger as a “sport wagon.” Dodge division general manager Byron Nichols reportedly said, “Give us a car halfway between the Barracuda and the T-Bird, and we’ll have a big chunk of the market all to ourselves.”
That’s not how things worked out for the first-generation Charger, though. Sales volume was 37,000 in ’66 and a mere 16,000 in ’67. Still, both Car and Driver and Car Life magazines enthusiastically gave their thumbs up to the Dodge fastback. (The C and D editors called it a “good looking Marlin.”) But with a complete redesign for 1968 with its own exclusive sheet metal and a distinctive coke-bottle theme, the Charger found its legs, selling nearly 100,000 cars. And as of this writing there’s still a Charger in the Dodge lineup, including an EV version.
Oh, my old man HATED those commercials, but he disliked any “rebellion”. “The Dodge Rebellion wants you!” He was a cross between Archie Bunker and Red Foreman. I can remember the 1st time we saw the all new Charger, was on the TV show Man from UNCLE, where Illya Kuryakin( David Mccallum) was seen driving a silver one, I believe. The Charger had the same issues that plagued all these early fastbacks. The Marlin, the Barracuda, the Charger, had this big rear glass and was incredibly hot. That and they should have been a liftback, as trunk openings weren’t big enough for most cargo. Apparently my old man was on to something, much as I hate to admit,,,Ms. Austin was replaced by a woman named Joan Anita Parker in 1967, and the theme was changed to “Dodge Fever”, as Dodge execs thought Ms. Austins appeal overshadowed the cars.
As both Plymouth and Dodge found (as did AMC with the Marlin) just adding a fastback to a sedan lower body did not make a marketplace hit. As soon as they restyled, giving the product what it should have had from the start, sales success. Actually, they should have learned this from Mustang. Ford could have just slapped a fastback on a Falcon, and would have had 40,000 sold in year one instead of 400,000.
These ’66-67 Charger always reminds me of unsponsered NASCAR driver Elvis Pressley making out with gorgeous govt agent Nancy Sinatra, blowing up his best Hemi engine at Charlotte Motor Speedway time trials afterwards, then stealing parts to fix it that night to beat Richard Petty the next day in the cult classic film “Speedway”
1966 was final year for the poly 318 V8 at Dodge, standard in Charger, replaced by our LA 318 in ’67. The 426 Hemi came mid-year ’66. A run of 500 turbine-powered Chargers were originally planned for ’66, but the project kibashed when funding was pulled, none were built…
Chrysler pursued the turbine engine since the ’40s as a moonshot to leapfrog Ford and GM giving MOPAR another signature technology the others could never match. The CR2A 5th‑generation Chrysler turbine for 1966 was a major upgrade over the A‑831 engine used in the 1963–64 Ghia Turbine Cars. The CR2A was designed to fix the biggest complaints from the public Ghia test program: slow throttle response, poor fuel economy, and the turbine cold‑start puzzle. Chrysler Engineering improved regenerator efficiency, redesigned the compressor and turbine stages, and refined the fuel control system to make the engine more responsive and more practical for everyday driving. It produced roughly 150 shaft hp with smoother operation and better drivability than earlier versions.
Dodge Division intended this engine specifically for the limited run of 500 turbine‑powered 1966 Chargers (projected list price higher than a fully loaded ’66 Cadillac), but the program was canceled due to unsolvable production costs, early emissions mandates, poor fuel economy, and Chrysler’s ever worsening finances…
A.I. estimates the Chrysler Corporation ultimately spent $150 million ($1.3 billion 2026 dollars) on the automotive turbine dream but it never reached production, never generated revenue, and consumed extensive engineering resources for over two decades. That sunk cost was one of the significant contributing factors to the 1979 bankruptcy and federal bailout.
And despite the myth, Chrysler’s car‑turbine work had no connection whatsoever to the AGT1500 turbine used in the M1 Abrams Army tank engine. That was a separate, Army‑funded project with entirely different design lineage.