A Popular Science road test ranked the 1971 Plymouth Valiant four-door sedan above two of its newest rivals — the Ford Maverick and AMC Hornet (Norbye and Dunne, 1971).
That wasn’t a fluke — the Valiant and its corporate sibling, the Dodge Dart, was also rated highly by Consumer Reports. The reputation of the Chrysler twins may have played a key role in propping up sales of the old and utilitarian design.
With the luxury of hindsight we might say, “Well, of course.” Chrysler’s compacts were legendary for their superior quality. However, the Valiant four-door sedan also violated Detroit groupthink in that it didn’t have the more low-slung styling of the Maverick and the “fuselage” shape of the Hornet.
In addition, the dominant trend in early-70s compacts was to move downmarket in pricing, equipment and size. The Maverick epitomized that approach by not offering a glove box and a counterbalanced hood. The Hornet was better equipped but had the smallest exterior dimensions among the compact four-door sedans.
Also see ‘Compact cars became the neglected stepchildren of U.S. automakers’
Both Ford and AMC also had the lowest prices in their class. A new-for-1971 Maverick four-door sedan and base Hornet both went for $2,234. That was a notch lower than a Valiant ($2,392) or a Chevrolet Nova ($2,405).
Valiant excelled partly was because it was ‘old school’
For its February 1971 issue, Popular Science couldn’t get access to a Nova for testing because of a United Auto Workers strike against General Motors. However, the magazine’s three-way road test allowed a more sharply defined comparison of an “old-school” compact and two new ones.
Also see ‘1970 Plymouth Barracuda should have been like an Australian Valiant Charger’
Jan P. Norbye and Jim Dunne (1971) reported that the Valiant excelled in ways you might expect, such as better interior room, trunk space and visibility due to its taller, longer and more squared-off design. The Valiant also hadn’t been decontented, so it offered more complete instrumentation as well as increasingly rare front-door vent windows.
Norbye and Dunn gave Chrysler’s Torqueflite automatic transmission credit for the Valiant having faster acceleration and better gas mileage than the Maverick and Hornet even though the test car was equipped with the smallest engine — a 225 cubic-inch slant six.
Both Popular Science road testers chose the Valiant as the best car of the group. Norbye concluded that the Plymouth “goes faster while using less gas, and has more useful space within comparable overall size.” Dunne described the Valiant as “a well-proved, reliable, and practical workhorse of a family car. Looking at the prices, I’d say it’s the best value” (1971, p. 48).
Valiant four-door sedan sales fell behind the Dart’s
In 1971, production of the Valiant four-door sedan (almost 43,000 units) was well below the Maverick (roughly 73,000) and slightly under the Nova (almost 52,000) and Dart (almost 55,000) but twice as high as the Hornet (around 21,000). Add Valiant and Dart output and Chrysler did respectably compared to the compact lineups from General Motors and Ford.
Also see ‘Four-door subcompacts were not exotic in late-60s and early-70s’
I suspect that the Dart four-door sedan began to overshadow the Valiant in sales because it was a better all-around family car due to its greater rear-seat room and trunk space. That said, something was lost in 1973 when the Valiant sedan was shifted to the Dart’s larger body.
Part of the problem was that there was no longer a whole lot to distinguish the two entries. In addition, Chrysler would henceforth not have as direct of a competitor with smaller compacts such as the Maverick and Hornet. That’s too bad. The Valiant sedan was a nice-sized car that merely needed a fairly modest reskinning to stay current.
NOTES:
Specifications and production figures are from the auto editors of Consumer Guide (2006), Consumer Reports (1970) and Gunnell (2002).
RE:SOURCES
- Auto editors of Consumer Guide; 2006. Encyclopedia of American Cars. Publications International, Lincolnwood, IL.
- Consumer Reports; 1970. “Auto Buying Guide.” April issue (no link).
- Gunnell, John; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised Fourth Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Norbye, Jan. P. and Jim Dunne; 1971. “The ’71 Compacts: Good Basic Transportation.” Popular Science. February issue: pp. 40-48.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- oldcarbrochures.org: AMC Hornet (1971); Dodge Dart (1971); Ford Maverick (1971); Plymouth Valiant (1971)
My first memories are of my family’s ’70 Valiant sedan and Valiant sedan’s of my best friend’s parents, my Grandmother and her husband. So at least in my world, buyers must have been impressed.
But what I also remember is that Chrysler cheaped out on parts, with effects that made the cars annoying to live with. Ours would always stall making a left turn when not fully warmed up, for example. I learned swear words from my mother that way. My grandmother’s had a rear door that wouldn’t open. And there were the famous ballast resistor problems every A body had.
One needs to ask the late Dennis Weaver and his director, Steven Spielberg, because that red Plymouth Valiant took a beating in the film, “Duel” and still ran until it was rammed by that Peterbilt fuel tanker ! Ask the stunt driver who drove one !
Speaking of “Duel”, Steven Spielberg hated then parts of stock footage of Duel was re-used for an episode of the live-action Hulk tv series starring Lou Ferrigno and the late Bill Bixby.
The industry’s response to the original Mustang’s success was “Long-hood-short-deck ALL THE THINGS!” That killed space utilization, and the Valiant’s hard points having been locked in from the early ’60s (the ’67 model was the last full redesign but mostly a reskin) meant a more useful car in a given footprint.
The rumor I always heard about the switch to the Dart body was that the 108″ wb Valiant sedan body dies were worn out by late in the ’73 run. At least the Dart’s extra length was useful interior space, as stated above there was so much wasted hood length going around back then.
It looks to me that the Valiant sedan didn’t get the Dart rear-end sheetmetal until 1974. I had assumed that Chrysler’s biggest motivation for taking that step was to reduce the cost of adding 5-mph bumpers. The hardtop and the coupe already shared sheetmetal so it wasn’t a huge loss for the sedan to do so as well. Interestingly, Valiant sedan production more than doubled after the switch. That may have partly reflected the increased popularity of smaller cars due to the oil embargo, but as you say, the Dart body was roomier.
I have had my Plymouth Valiant for 34 or 35 years maybe. It’s my daily driver. I’m the second owner and I have 519,000 mi on my 225 slant 6 and it’s never been rebuilt. Sure I’ve had to change starters, alternators, carburetor yeah things like that water pumps and stuff but hey those things wear out but not that engine. It’s the greatest engine ever built. She’s not the fastest filly out of the gate or the bell at the ball but it’s still a great car. I understand that they sold for $1,800-$2,000 brand new showroom floor and I think my car is worth $18,000 to $20,000 right now. Today. So cars that goes up in value. Instead of those plastic pieces of junk that everybody else is driving around that goes down in value every day. it’s got to say something. Chrysler knew what they were doing when they built the 1971 Plymouth valiant sedan.