Cars That Gained Or Lost Respect With Time
hpmctorque
Member Posts: 4,600
I'd put the '57 Chevy in this category. It was popular when new, but I believe Ford outsold Chevy that year. Today there's considerably more interest in the '57 Chevy than the '57 Ford.
Conversely, Chevy outsold Ford during most of the 1930s, but for many years after WWII (and maybe even today) there was more demand for used Fords than Chevys of that decade.
Tucker, Edsel and DeLorean are examples of brands that gained a following, after they failed, that exceeded their popularity when they were new.
Conversely, Chevy outsold Ford during most of the 1930s, but for many years after WWII (and maybe even today) there was more demand for used Fords than Chevys of that decade.
Tucker, Edsel and DeLorean are examples of brands that gained a following, after they failed, that exceeded their popularity when they were new.
Tagged:
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])
Did Renault learn from its mistakes in the U.S. market? Just ask any former Renault Alliance, Encore (no more encores, please!) or Fuego.
The Fuego, for those who may remember it, was a sporty coupe, showroom mate of the Alliance/Encore. One could argue that the Fuego was the spiritual sucessor to the Caravelle, which was a convertible top variant of the Dauphine. Confused? Who cares? Well, rest assured that you're not alone.
Another problem was that the French insisted on retaining French management in the US. They just didn't "get it".
The successors to the Dauphine that were sold in the U.S., the R-8 and R-10, in particular, were better, and more suited to the U.S. subcompact market of the '60s. Unfortunately for Renault, the Japanese improved their products more aggressively.
Just didn't drive it in the rain or let it sit out in the wet. A fun economical sporty.
But the MGB was more reliable and a lot more torquey.
"Crude, but effective".
The MGB's stature has grown considerably over time, at least until the 1974/75 models, when something went terribly wrong.
I knew a guy who had one and it broke constantly and I do mean constantly. he replaced it with an old used VW that never caused any trouble.
The Dauphine did have a cool two tone horn though!
I always thought highly of the VW bug until I actually bought a used one as a fixer/flipper, and used it every day for a few weeks. I was appalled. Couldn't wait to get rid of it. Talk about a death trap. I will say though that it had very good fit and finish for such a cheap car. Maybe I just needed to wear a big hat and drive 25 mph.
I've owned several VW bugs and a couple of busses and I totally agree with you.
Looking back, I'm lucky I never got hit. They were well built and fairly rugged for what they were. Getting hit was a trip to the morgue. Thye flipped easily and a sudden side wind would throw you nto the next lane.
The miserable heaters were a joke and if you happened to have an exhaust leak that came into the car along with the heat.
But, they were cheap and simple to fix whan something did break.
My dad owned a couple of used 1100s during 3 month periods in Italy, and a friend had one in college in the U.S. All three gave good service and were reliable.
Fiat also imported the 600, which was really a micro car, and unsuitable for the U.S. Millions were sold from '55 on, and they were good for Europe and the undeveloped world, in their day. Everyone knows about the 500, but I think the 600, which featured a water cooled 4 cylinder rather than an air cooled 2 cylinder, had more going for it.
The Bug, Dauphine and !100 were fun to drive around town, but were really underpowered for U.S. highways. While they had their own drawbacks, the Rambler, Lark and Big 3 compacts were better suited for North America. And, let's not forget the Hudson Jet and Willys of the '50s. Their main problem was that for the same money, or very little more, you could get a full size Chevy, Ford or Plymouth. The Jet, especially, and the Willys 6 offered decent performance.
The Henry J and Crosley were not worthy competitors, Nice try, though.
What have I left out? There were several British small cars sold in the U.S. beginning in the late '40s through the '60s. The Morris Minor may have been the best of the lot, but I'm sure that Shifty and Isell are much more qualified to comment on these than I am.
I've wandered from my main point, which was that, in my opinion, Fiat had a worthy competitor to the Bug and Dauphine. Has the 1100 gained respect with time? Ah, I'm afraid not, at least not in North America. Darn, nobody agrees with me!
You can tell that Americans hated them because within 5 years they were growing in size faster than teenagers.
The only *real* import-fighter at heart was the Corvair. It was technically interesting, had 4 on the floor, bucket seats and probably the best drum brakes ever put on an American car.
My mother bought a new '60 Valiant, which was eventually handed down to me. I can vouch for the fact that its Slant Six and Torqueflyte were virtually indestructible. You're right that the fuel economy was no match for the smaller imports, but given the interior space of the car it was perfectly okay. Besides, what import was nearly as rugged.
Any thoughts on how the Fiat 1100 sedan compared with the Bug and Dauphine?
I also thought Mopar's compact cars were pretty space-efficient for the time. The Dart sedan, which was on a 111" wheelbase, had more front and rear legroom than a full-sized Chevy Impala and other GM B-bodies! Just going from my own experience, my '68 and '69 Dart hardtops had more legroom up front than my '67 Catalina convertible and '69 Bonneville 4-door hardtop. The steering wheel position was a bit better for me on the big GM cars,though....and I didn't notice it when I was younger, but nowadays if I drive the Catalina for too long, it sets off the tendonitis in my left elbow.
Good question, to which I don't know the answer. Gas was so cheap back then that a couple of mpg one way or the other hardly mattered. I'd guess that the mileage of the '60-'62 Valiant was slightly better than you got with your '69 Dart. Why? Beginning in '68 they took the first steps to meet federal smog requirements, which, as you know, negatively impacted performance. I think mileage suffered slightly too. In addition, it's not far fetched to think that drivers stepped on the accelerator a little harder to compensate for the performance loss.
I also recall that engines were more prone to sputter and die on cold stars, beginning in '68 (earlier in CA). When that happened, they had to be restarted. That used extra gas, although this probably wasn't reflected in the tests. Sometimes the engine had to be restarted more than once.
Finally, the early Valiants had a shorter wheelbase than your '69 Dart, and were a little shorter, so they were probably a little lighter, even though the Dart was considered a light car. Maybe you have stats to support or disprove the comparative weights.
Offsetting these negatives, I believe the 170s, at least the early ones, were geared lower than the 225s, which would have helped performance at the expense of gas mileage. I don't think this was enough to offset the negatives affecting the mileage comparisons, but I don't have numbers to support my perception.
Certainly the Slant Six has gained respect over time, at least when associated with the Dart and Valiant compacts. It was a torquey engine, internally over-built, with up to 145 HP, and I think it outperformed any other compact 6 cylinder engine. They even used them successfully in the 1/2 ton pickups and vans, whereas a 6 in a Ford Econoline van was a miserable thing to behold.
Only weaknesses I remember were cracking exhaust manifolds and numerous valve cover leaks. Over time, the timing chain would stretch, too.
So, they bought a 1960 Falcon instead. If they stretched the oil change intervals it wasn't such a big deal and if they lugged them in third gear going up a hill, nothing much happened. Elmer at the corner gas station had no trouble working on them and elmer was quick to bad mouth "foreign cars".
The Corvairs were better cars than history remembers them. Handling wasn't all that bad but tire pressures were critical. I had forgotten how well they stopped but that was a real plus. The engines weren't that bad but they sure could leak oil after not that many miles.
The Falcons were underpowered "blah" cars that did improve over the years.
The mighty slant six mated to a Torqueflight were just great little cars! They wore out front end parts but they seemed to last forever.
I heard the slant six got really bad with fuel economy once they started putting emission controls on it, but I always thought they were supposed to be fairly economical, at least perhaps up through 1972?
A few years later, after that slant six was gone and I was driving my V-8 '68 Dart, I remember pulling into a gas station, and there was a guy with a '74 or so Valiant sedan filling up, and we started chatting. His was a slant six, and I mentioned that I had one a few years back, and really missed its fuel economy, as I could never get better than 17 mpg with the V-8. He replied that he'd LOVE to be able to get 17 mpg! :sick:
How did the later Ford inline-6 compare? The one that I think came out in 1965, as a big-car engine, with a 240 CID displacement, and ultimately went to 250 CID and even 300 CID in trucks? I've heard that thing was basically to Ford what the slant six was to Mopar. I wonder if it was a beefier block too, since they were able to take its displacement to 300 CID?
One thing that I've always found odd, with respect to fuel economy...I've had five Mopar smallblocks now...the V-8 Dart (still dunno if it was a 273 or 318 by the time I got it...originally a 273 car but it got a rebuilt engine about a year before I bought it, so i dunno), a 1979 Newport with a 318-2bbl, 1989 Gran Fury copcar with a 318-4bbl, and two 1979 New Yorkers with the 360-2bbl. The Dart was by far the smallest and lightest of all those cars, yet it got the worst highway fuel economy. 17 if I was lucky, although I think on one tank I almost hit 17.7. The Gran Fury would hit 20 mpg without too much trouble. The Newport would consistently hit 22-23. I've managed to hit 20-22 with the New Yorkers, but not consistently...usually it's around 18. As for axles, the Dart had a 2.76:1, Gran Fury had a 2.94:1, and the R-bodies all had the loafy 2.45:1
I actually had a Valiant with a factory 4-speed. (1965 model??) It was the typically awful gearshift of those times. The transmission itself was fine, but getting it to work wasn't easy. It felt like it came out of an Army 6 X 6
Talk about a car that disappointed. You know, with ten years further development, GM could have made Corvair the "American Porsche".
Americans seem to like foreign cars with rear engines, but never their own automakers.
I honestly think Ralph Nader killed the Corvair with his Unsafe at any Speed book.
I always wondered why he didn't pick on Volkswagens instead? They had the same rear suspension as the Corvair and they sure as hell flipped a lot more often.
The slightest side impact would automatically flip a VW on it's side.
When a Corvair got hit by a sudden gust of wind, you could definatly feel it but it wouldn't put you in the next lane like a VW would.
A couple of years later, we chose the 63 Fiat Spider over the Karmin Ghia due to style.
As the family doubled, the Corvair was replaced by the '67 390 4V Ford Country Sedan. Now that was the ticket taker.
I always wondered why a guy of his means would be driving a Corvair?
For some reason, starting with the '65's, Chevy stopped using the name "Spyder" and began calling the car "Corsa". I like the sound of "Spyder" much better.
Corsas could be had with either the 140 hp engine with four carbs, or the Turbo engine with 180 hp.
Growing up I had a neighbor who was successful, comfortable, and had a large collection of brass era antique cars. But his favorite "runabout" vehicle was a VW squareback like the one below. Nobody thought him eccentric unless he was putt-putting along route 8 in one of his antique cars-with no parade except for traffic backed up behind him!
I don't think Nader killed the Corvair. GM killed the Corvair because they refused to fix it with a rear stabilizer for $15 bucks a car. Blaming a nerd like Nader while allowing GM off the hook seems patently unfair to me.
It didn't help that GM hired private investigators to tail Nader and spy on him (which of course, was revealed to the public, as well as the denial of the $15 part).
Basically GM made a car that required owners to actually pay attention to maintenance or die. This is not a good idea.
I always theorized that it was because Corvairs were marketed as sporty cars, and were more likely to be pushed to an extreme where you'd be more likely to get into trouble. But maybe it was just something as simple as GM being a big bad giant with deep pockets, and VW was more of an underdog, so Nader thought he'd win more notoriety by taking on the biggest of the bunch?
Didn't VW Bugs pretty much top out at 65-70 mph, unless you had the right conditions? Say, downhill with a tailwind? I'm sure a Corvair could go a lot faster than that, and get you up to speeds where you could get into a lot more trouble.
I had a 69 squareback that I drove for 4 years of college. Wonderful little car as long as you weren't picky about luxuries like heat in the winter. It was my first "economy car" and that little fuel injected horizontally opposed pancake engine under the rear floor returned an average of 33 mpg - almost unheard of at that time. It was actually a fun little car to drive with a manual trans, but I heard the autos were dogs to drive.
When I had the engine rebuilt, I had a "big bore" kit installed and after that it could do 75 MPH.
That was scary enough for me!
A sudden side wind was a handful to deal with!
The 6 volt electrical system was fun too. Unless you revved it up, the turn signals would be very slow and the horn wouldn't make much noise.
Of course, there were conversions from 6V to 12V too, including some ingenious backyard mods. I wonder how many engineers got their starts at age 16 or 17 converting their VW from 6V to 12V?
Nader did not kill the Corvair. GM thought that the 1965 Corvair would fend off the Mustang challenge. The Mustang ended up slaughtering the Corvair in the sales race, so GM gave the order to freeze all development on the car, while rushing the thoroughly conventional Camaro to market for 1967. This happened before Nader's book appeared.
If anything, Nader probably extended the life of the Corvair, as sales dropped dramatically after 1965, but GM kept the car in production until May 1969. GM didn't want it to look as though it was dropping the car in response to the negative publicity of Nader's book.
The Corvair actually sold well by most standards (through 1965 at least) except for a big one - it failed to beat its direct Ford competitor (the Falcon in 1960, the Mustang in 1965). That was the reversal of the normal order of things for GM. Plus, it didn't share many major components with other GM cars, which made it more expensive to produce.
It was far from perfect but, for some reason, of all the cars I have owned that is the one most fondly remembered.
Most VW people consider the 1967's to be the best year and I have to agree. They still had the smaller bumpers and the shorter seatbacks. It was also felt that the 67's were the last of the non mass produced ones.
A nice 1967 can bring BIG money today!
Ford was just brillant with the introduction of the Mustang. They simply took a Falcon and made a sporty version of it and it worked! I can still remember one of my parent's friends putting in a deposit and waiting 6 weeks for their Mustang to arrive. It was a 1965 with the 289 4 barrell. It was that silver/blue color with the chrome wheels and red stripe tires. It had air conditioning and a four speed.
I was stoked when they gave me a ride in it!
Now, how is a Corvair going to compete with that!
This sent GM scrambling and it took then 2 1/2 years before the Camaro hit the market.
This one ended this morning. IMO - that's also the best color for that car. Not a bad classic for $6K money.
It was hard to tell by the photos exactly what color it was. It almost looked like a Tomato Soup red and I don't remember that color as being original?
Other than missing the front bumper guards it looked pretty stock. It had the optional flip out rear side windows too.
6000.00 sounds high but I suppose that's the market now. It did generate a lot of bids.
Funny. Some of the '67's had a rear script that said VOLKSWAGEN and others had the "1500" emblem like this one did.
1966's had a one year only engine too, the 1300.
I certainly would not take a high speed drive in a pre-65 Corvair today, unless I were the driver.
No doubt what happened is that people got into their Spyders or Monzas, saw those bucket seats, all in that lovely bright red GM vinyl, and that 4-speed floor shift, and heard that rattley zoom-zoom of the rear engine, and thought "Hey, I'm in an Alfa Romeo"....and took off smartly, having religiously checked the rear tire pressure only a short 6 months ago.....and then, coming 'round a fast turn a little too hot, let up on the gas relexively, expecting that typical large American RWD sedan habit of politely settling into modest understeer, (as in "why won't this car turn?")only to discover a phenomenon unknown to most Americans....treacherous and deadly over steer (as in "why is the rear end of my car in front of the front end?") coupled with the rear tire collapsing under rear wheel skid. Then, like a pole-vaulter, over she went.
A rear axle stabilizer, costing about $15 bucks, would have kept the swing axle from moving that much, and thus would not allow the rear wheel to "tuck" under. So you would have still spun bass-ackwards, but not flipped.
Did they bolt across the rear swing arms?
I think you hit the nail on the head. When people drove VW's, they KNEW not to take curves or off ramps fast and they slowed accordingly.
In the Corvairs, they could have been lulled into thinking the car had capabilities that it most certainly did not!
By the time they found out, it was much too late!
I doubt of they would even receive one star!
As with emissions, the government had to bludgeon Detroit into doing anything.
They really pushed the recessed steering wheels, padded dashes, seatbelts and door locks that wouldn't pop open in a collision.
It was a flop for them. the majority of the buying public simply didn't care.
Also, back to Corvairs...I remember reading many times that the '64 Corvair, last of the first design, did get stabilizer bars in back...the cheap fix. The '65 suspension was completely redesigned however.