Bean counters? Stylists?

There were some reviews back when that were critical of the 71's looks: grille, billboards, etc.
Has to been a more complicated grille to mold nicely for sure: so maybe bean-counters.
Same as for the 70/71 challenger grilles: a molded grille sure is cheaper then the 70 egg-crate one.
Early 70's chrysler was still coming up to speed utilizing molded plastics in their cars.

Huge drop in sales from 1970 to 1971. Plymouth figured the dual headlights hurt sales so they went back to single lights. Dropped from 55,499 to 18,690.

Up until that time grilles and tail lights changed every year in every body style. Starting in 1972 the changes were more subtle (if there were any changes). I suspect the bean counters jumped in in 1973 to limit changes as the handwriting was on the wall as far as Chrysler's future financial struggles...

That's my take on it...

The hotrod mag review I have didnt think much of it. Spoke highly of the 340 version of the car as well over the BB.

Styles changed yearly, it was expensive to make, sales dropped significantly, and the automotive press panned the whole '71 Cuda style change.

Cause everyone knows barracudas only have TWO EYES not four (headlights)

I always thought insurance might have been a factor too? The '71 is a lot more intricate than other years.

The article I saw thought the car was too gimmicky and busy. I figured it was just an isolated review, but I guess not.

I agree to this day. I've owed a 70 since 1974. Always thought the 71 was too busy. I’m not in love with shakers either. Too much work to get to the motor. I think the AAR Cuda is about the best looking car ever made.

Unlike these days, it was normal for cars to be updated every year or two.

And IMO, the '71 is one of the best looking cars mopar ever made, so I guess there's no accounting for taste.

It's all conjecture unless someone who was involved & responsible for the decision can comment, but:

The '71 seem grille - and tail lamps - seem the most expensive to make, and Chrysler was generally always trying to cut costs.
Yearly updates, and several treatments being designed, likely contributed to '70-'70-'72 facelifts.

Personally, I like the '72 grille & rearend treatments the best, and feel the '71 is indeed a bit heavy on decoration.
But I wouldn't be likely to kick one of any year out of the garage.
I like that folks have their own favorites, as I've said many times before; it would be boring if we all liked and drove the same thing.

Keep in mind..
The grilles in 69 mostly were made of metal by going to plastics in 70 they had multiple issues for endurance..
Mainly the grille mounting points under stress would develop cracks. Early plastics did not hold up well for exposure to the sun...

Just my $0.02...

The '70 only lasted one year as well, not to mention each and every year before that. Seemed like '72 - '74 was when Chrysler started to figure out that they could amortize tooling costs over 2 or more years to save development/manufacturing costs.

I would guess (after all, we can only guess unless somebody who was 'there' can tell us the real story) based on how development cycles went and lead times required for styling approval, engineering drawings to be finalized, and tooling to be created in time to refit the factories in the summer of '71, that the '72 grille was decided long before reaction to the '71s, for better or worse, was known.

I would expect that it wasn't reactionary to sales, but that's not to say that it couldn't have been fast-tracked based on reaction to magazines' negative press. It's hard to be sure, but I agree that it is odd that they went to quad headlights for only one model year. Maybe Dodge complained that it looked too much like Challenger? There was a Dodge/Plymouth in-house rivalry happening at the time.

All comes down to sales; as mentioned earlier, there was a HUGE drop in sales from 70 to 71 for Barracuda and 'Cuda.
E Bodies never sold particularly well, even with the decent first year sales. Changes in 71 were likely planned before the 70s went on sale, so this was a planned update and when sales #s fell so sharply, they backed off, made the cars more plain to attempt to appeal to a wider audience and simply kept building them til the stampings wore out.

See Pontiac Aztek for a similar track, albeit 30 years later (they deleted body side moldings and updated a few features, but basically then just built out the car until the stampings wore out). Another instance of sales didn't meet expectations.

Too bad the 68/69 charger and 70/71 cuda weren't built until the late 70's as is. The money spent on the 71 charger alone was likely much better saved, no matter how ugly the 2nd gen would have looked with 5mph bumpers

You have to keep in mind that in that era, designs were pretty much locked in 2-3 years before the cars debuted.
I'm betting on cost-cutting, with a side helping of model-year refresh.

I thought 71-74 Charger sold quite well.

The window vents, exposed wiper arms, flat interior door cards, even that slab dash pad was all dated by 1971

You just made history. I think that's the first time anyone has ever compared a '71 Cuda to a Pontiac Aztek.

I do my best! Similar expectations vs sales, though...:)

JS