The Chevy II could have been named the Chevette or the Cobalt. It reflected GM's typically Cavalier attitude about small economy cars. Even when the Chevy II was first introduced in 1962 it was crude and unrefined compared to the rest of the American compacts because, frankly, GM didn't actually want you to buy it. This was just a price leader designed to get you into the showroom so you'd go for ... something a little more comfortable.
By 1967 the Chevy II had become pretty old in the tooth, e.g., it was the last US passenger can to still use flat door glass.
Yeah, the Chevy II was lighter than the Chevelle, but it was still more than 200 pounds heavier than the 1965 Falcon, which was the lightest of the compacts (until it was moved to a shortened Fairlane platform in 1966).
By 1967 the Chevy II had become pretty old in the tooth, e.g., it was the last US passenger can to still use flat door glass.
Yeah, the Chevy II was lighter than the Chevelle, but it was still more than 200 pounds heavier than the 1965 Falcon, which was the lightest of the compacts (until it was moved to a shortened Fairlane platform in 1966).
@smackela: You said it well.
@Phil Racicot: Ahem. What was your address?
What about the AMC Marlin enthusiasts?
@black_peter: Yes, that the Concord hatchback is TRULY rare!
@Hot_Carl: They do have a cool Panhard Dyna, though. Love the dash board of that car.
But it's a YUGO. Where's your sense of whimsy?
@stuffelse: Yes, but you've got to factor in inflation.
It's ironic that Chrysler made a killing with the hot-selling Duster. After all, it was the most half-hearted effort of any of the then-Big Four to counteract rising import sales. The Duster was based upon the oldest platform of any US compact and Chrysler didn't even bother to clean up the Valiant's aging design. I think the 1973 Hornet hatchback looked leagues better.
That said, there really wasn't an outstanding US compact or subcompact during that period. The Vega and Pinto had their fatal problems, and pretty much all of the compacts were neglected by their makers in favor of bigger (re: more profitable) cars.
That said, there really wasn't an outstanding US compact or subcompact during that period. The Vega and Pinto had their fatal problems, and pretty much all of the compacts were neglected by their makers in favor of bigger (re: more profitable) cars.
@vetteman61001: Actually, I think Mr. Van Sarockin was engaging in poetic license. In a broad sense the Royale Brougham WAS a fancified Caprice. It just happened to have an castrated platform. Think of it as a ritualistic sacrifice to the CAFE god.
@An Army Of Juan: Oh, I don't know if I'd blame Nesbitt. Detroit tends to have a pronounced sense of group think, and I bet when GM hired him away from Chrysler the first thing he was assigned to do was come up with a competitor to the PT Cruiser.
I think that, all in all, the PT Cruiser came out a bit better than the HHR. I really dislike the 1970 Monte Carloesque flattened fenders. The PT Cruiser, in contrast, holds together nicely due to subtle curves and top-notch detailing (e.g., the bullet taillights).
I think that, all in all, the PT Cruiser came out a bit better than the HHR. I really dislike the 1970 Monte Carloesque flattened fenders. The PT Cruiser, in contrast, holds together nicely due to subtle curves and top-notch detailing (e.g., the bullet taillights).
When the rapture comes the only cars in heaven will be Nash Airflytes. Just saying.
Very cool. How well did all of this interesting technology work?
Ford has had some particularly iconic names: Mustang, Thunderbird, Continental.
The most over-the-top name on an American car? Gremlin. It took balls to try that one.
The best car name of all is the one that owners came up with rather than the marketeers: VW Beetle.
The most over-the-top name on an American car? Gremlin. It took balls to try that one.
The best car name of all is the one that owners came up with rather than the marketeers: VW Beetle.
Um, yeah, sure it is.
@jedchev: Agreed. The 2000GT strikes me as vastly overrated. It's just a geeky early Japanese sports car -- as in, nice try, let's see if you can do it better next time.
After the relatives wrecked our 1954 Chevy, my dad was in no mood to go buy a new car. So my mom trotted off to the nearby Ford dealer.
She came back with a Ford Fairlane 500. Not quite fully loaded, but within earshot: premium-guzzling T-Bird engine, garish two-tone paint, and cloth interior with silver speckles hand inserted by Indian maidens (so I heard).
One can wax nostalgic for such beasts now, but back then the Fairlane 500 wasn't a terribly good daily driver -- particularly for a young family of modest means. However, my mom dug the "new rich" look.
Oddly enough, we kept the car eight years. The Fairlane's days were numbered when it left us strained on a long trip.
Next time my dad bought the car: a used 1965 Valiant station wagon. That car was everything the Fairlane was not. Good choice.
She came back with a Ford Fairlane 500. Not quite fully loaded, but within earshot: premium-guzzling T-Bird engine, garish two-tone paint, and cloth interior with silver speckles hand inserted by Indian maidens (so I heard).
One can wax nostalgic for such beasts now, but back then the Fairlane 500 wasn't a terribly good daily driver -- particularly for a young family of modest means. However, my mom dug the "new rich" look.
Oddly enough, we kept the car eight years. The Fairlane's days were numbered when it left us strained on a long trip.
Next time my dad bought the car: a used 1965 Valiant station wagon. That car was everything the Fairlane was not. Good choice.
@tonyola: In a very real sense the Starlight was the first American "personal coupe" -- the grand daddy of the four-seat T-Bird, the Mustang and the Monte Carlo.
By the mid-1960s a personal coupe could generate consistently decent sales. But after an initial burst of popularity in 1953, the Starlight and its successors (the Hawk and its cousin, the Avanti) were lucky to sell in the low five figures. If the Starlight body ever paid for itself, that was only because Studebaker kept it in production so long and with strikingly few changes.
Studebaker was certainly ahead of its time. And, yes, the 1953's quality issues were damaging. But most importantly, Studebaker really didn't have the economies of scale to keep both the Starlight coupe and its family sedans competitive.
By the mid-1960s a personal coupe could generate consistently decent sales. But after an initial burst of popularity in 1953, the Starlight and its successors (the Hawk and its cousin, the Avanti) were lucky to sell in the low five figures. If the Starlight body ever paid for itself, that was only because Studebaker kept it in production so long and with strikingly few changes.
Studebaker was certainly ahead of its time. And, yes, the 1953's quality issues were damaging. But most importantly, Studebaker really didn't have the economies of scale to keep both the Starlight coupe and its family sedans competitive.
That's a 1959 Lark (logo on right side of grille and horizontal bars in side grilles).
Once the Big Three came out with their compacts, Studebaker sales tanked whereas Rambler sales held fairly steady through 1964. Why? The Ramblers had a number of unique qualities whereas the Lark was a mediocre design.
For example, the Lark inherited the 1953 Studebaker's "flexible" body-on-frame construction, which was a real squeaker and rattler. And by 1959 Studebaker was one of the last automakers to still have mechanical valve lifters on both its sixes and eights. The Lark's platform also wasn't designed to be a low-end compact, so it wasn't particularly light weight and fuel economy was only so so.
By 1960-61 the Lark's main advantage was that it offered a low-priced V8. Alas, at that point most people who wanted compacts were more interested in a six.
The irony here is that in the early 1950s Raymond Loewy had proposed a unit-body compact design. Studebaker management rejected that idea so Loewy's crew dreamed up the Starlight coupe. That was a remarkably beautiful design, but it contributed to Studebaker's demise because it never sold very well.
Once the Big Three came out with their compacts, Studebaker sales tanked whereas Rambler sales held fairly steady through 1964. Why? The Ramblers had a number of unique qualities whereas the Lark was a mediocre design.
For example, the Lark inherited the 1953 Studebaker's "flexible" body-on-frame construction, which was a real squeaker and rattler. And by 1959 Studebaker was one of the last automakers to still have mechanical valve lifters on both its sixes and eights. The Lark's platform also wasn't designed to be a low-end compact, so it wasn't particularly light weight and fuel economy was only so so.
By 1960-61 the Lark's main advantage was that it offered a low-priced V8. Alas, at that point most people who wanted compacts were more interested in a six.
The irony here is that in the early 1950s Raymond Loewy had proposed a unit-body compact design. Studebaker management rejected that idea so Loewy's crew dreamed up the Starlight coupe. That was a remarkably beautiful design, but it contributed to Studebaker's demise because it never sold very well.
Ah, no, it wasn't a good thing that Studebaker died. After all, it was the most "European" of the American automakers. These prototypes were pretty innovative for their time, both in terms of aerodynamics as well as engineering features. Sure, they were a bit crude -- that's the nature of prototypes.
Would they have sold? Considering the Avanti's poor sales, perhaps not. But it wasn't that many years later that Mercedes and BMW started doing pretty well in the US. So who knows?
Hey, Ben, how about a little less snark and a little more automotive history? In recent months TTAC has been doing a much better job in this department.
Would they have sold? Considering the Avanti's poor sales, perhaps not. But it wasn't that many years later that Mercedes and BMW started doing pretty well in the US. So who knows?
Hey, Ben, how about a little less snark and a little more automotive history? In recent months TTAC has been doing a much better job in this department.
