(EXPANDED FROM 5/16/2022)
The rise of the four-door subcompact has generated a debate here at Indie Auto (go here), so let’s bring a few more facts to the table.
I have not found any import sales breakouts by body style, but I think we can safely say that two-door subcompacts dominated the U.S. market in the late-60s and early-70s. Even so, four-door sedans and wagons were hardly exotic. You could buy one from a goodly portion of foreign brands.
To see what I mean, let’s first itemize the top entry-level imports in 1969 (with estimated U.S. sales in parenthesis). They included Volkswagen (566,356), Toyota (130,044), Opel (93,520), Datsun (60,872), Fiat (21,496), Ford Cortina (21,496), Renault (20,419), Austin (16,391) and Simca (7,776).
I think 1969 is a good benchmark. The market share of imported cars and trucks hit 10 percent, which was double what it was only four years earlier. In addition, by 1969 the Japanese automakers had begun to make their presence felt. And while forthcoming U.S. subcompacts were already in development, there was arguably still time for product planners to at least fine tune their strategies.
Six out of nine imports had four-door models
Out of the nine imports listed above, six of them offered four-door variants of their subcompact entries. For example, by the late-60s Toyota had become the second-best-selling import. Although the entry-level Corolla — only available in two-door models — helped to spur sales when it was introduced in 1969, the larger Corona arguably put Toyota on the map. The latter nameplate was offered as a two-door hardtop, but a four-door sedan was clearly the top seller.
Also see ‘Was Ford right to kill the front-wheel-drive 1963 Cardinal/Redwing?’
Another up-and-coming Japanese brand, Datsun, had offered four-door models since it first came to the U.S. in 1958. Indeed, when the 510 was introduced in 1968, it was only came in a four-door sedan and wagon body styles. A two-door sedan was added the following year.
Meanwhile, the Ford Cortina came to the U.S. in 1964 in a two-door sedan, wagon and four-door sedan. Renault had offered a succession of four-door sedans such as the Dauphine, the R8 and the R10. Fiat offered its 124 as a four-door sedan and wagon. And until its departure from the U.S. market in 1971, Simca sold a variety of body styles that included a four-door sedan and wagon.
Of the major imports listed above, only Volkswagen, Opel and Austin did not offer four-door subcompacts in the late-60s. VW would not introduce an entry-level four door until the Rabbit was unveiled in 1975 (the 411 and Dasher were a major step up in size and price). However, in 1971 Opel offered a four-door sedan version of its new 1900 series. And in 1973 Austin came out with the Marina, which had a four-door sedan variant.
Four-door models were widely available by 1971
None of the domestic automakers gave their new-for-1971 subcompacts four-door models. However, by that point these were widely available among imported brands.
In addition to the cars already mentioned, in 1971 Chrysler began to import two subcompacts under its domestic brand names. The Plymouth Cricket was only sold as a four-door sedan while the Dodge Colt offered a full range of body styles, including a four-door sedan and wagon.
As the 1970s progressed, both Toyota and Datsun added four-door variants to their entry-level nameplates. In 1971 the Corolla received a four-door sedan and in 1973 the Datsun B-210 also offered that body style.
General Motors and Chrysler were the first to offer domestically produced four-door subcompacts in 1978. Chrysler’s front-wheel drive Dodge Omni/Plymouth Horizon was initially only offered as a four-door model while Chevrolet added a four-door variant to the Chevette. Ford didn’t introduce its own subcompact four-door model until 1981 with the front-wheel drive Escort.
In short, by the early-70s all of the major imports offered four-door variants. Indeed, they had become integral to a full lineup of subcompact cars in the United States.
GM and Ford assumed that small meant sporty
GM and Ford were slow to acknowledge the rising prominence of four-door subcompacts. If you wanted a domestically produced four-door model from either of those automakers, you had to step up to a compact to get a sedan or a mid-sized car for a wagon. The underlying assumption seemed to be that subcompact buyers preferred sporty styling to versatile packaging.
That assumption may have made at least some sense when Detroit executives were analyzing import sales in 1968-69. Even so, the subcompact field was also very much in flux — particularly with the rise of the Japanese automakers.
Also see ‘1933-42 Willys offered a better template for an import beater’
As the graph below shows, Detroit’s subcompacts failed to push foreign automakers back into the sea. In 1970 imports soared to 14 percent of the market. By 1973 their total car and truck marketshare had fallen to 12 percent, arguably because both the Vega and Pinto sold in in the 400,000-unit range. But by 1977 foreign automakers were back up to 14 percent.
Vega and Pinto should have offered four-door models
I would suggest that the Chevrolet Vega and Ford Pinto might have done a better job of holding back Toyota and Datsun if a four-door sedan and wagon had been added to their lineups in 1972 or 1973. In saying that I am not suggesting these body styles could have made up for all of the other problems these two cars experienced. Nevertheless, it could have expanded the potential range of buyers.
One indication of the market for more practical subcompacts was that between 1973 and 1977 the Pinto two-door wagon made up almost 43 percent of that nameplate’s production.
Pinto sales collapsed in 1975-76, perhaps partly due to questions surrounding the relative safety of its gas tank. Intriguingly, a four-door sedan with the wagon’s longer deck and side-mounted gas filler might have avoided that controversy.
Stretch the wheelbase around four inches and the back seat could have been more livable. Might that have extended the Pinto’s popularity? And as the 1970s progressed, might a four-cylinder sedan have sold better than Ford’s compact Maverick, whose sales took a nosedive once the more luxurious Granada was introduced in 1975?
Like the Pinto, the Vega also saw its sales dramatically fall after 1974. However, Chevrolet maintained a much larger presence in the subcompact field than Ford did in the second half of the 1970s by adding the Monza in 1975 and the Chevette the following year.
From 1975-77 the Monza functioned as a competitor to the Pinto-based Mustang II, but it didn’t sell all that well in comparison. Then in 1978 the remains of the Vega lineup were folded into the Monza’s.
Chevette sales were well below even the shrunken levels of the Pinto until the nameplate received a four-door hatchback in 1978, when output more than doubled to almost 300,000 units. The four door consistently garnered around 56 percent of total Chevette production through 1980.
Indeed, the popularity of the Chevette four-door model may have been a key reason why Chevrolet’s subcompacts kept pace with Toyota’s rising sales in 1978-80.
Imagine: The dowdy four-door Chevette sold better than the entire Monza lineup. How could that be when this Chevette’s list price was higher than all of the Monza’s entry-level body styles?
This is an example of how the priorities of car enthusiasts (and designers) can vary from that of the mainstream public.
NOTES:
This story was originally posted on May 16, 2022 and expanded on Aug. 3, 2013. Sales figures and product specifications are from Flammang (1992), the auto editors of Consumer Guide (2006) and Gunnell (2002). Market share figures are from Wards Auto (2017). Note that these figures look somewhat different from those typically used at Indie Auto because they are for sales of cars and trucks of all types. Banner photo is a Wikipedia (2022) public domain image of an Australian 1969 Toyota Corona.
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Auto editors of Consumer Guide; 2006. Encyclopedia of American Cars. Publications International; Lincolnwood, Ill.
- Flammang, James M.; 1992. Standard Catalog of Imported Cars, 1946-1990. First Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Gunnell, John; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised 4th Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Wards Auto; 2017. “U.S. Total Vehicle Sales Market Share by Company.”
- Wikipedia; 2022. “Toyota Corona.” Page last modified April 23.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- autohistorypreservationsociety.org: Ford Pinto (1974)
- oldcarbrochures.org: Chevrolet Chevette (1978); Dodge Colt (1975); Ford Canadian Cortina (1970)
_sedan_(2015-07-14)_01.jpg){kind=link}
Do not disagree with the premise that the Vega and Pinto (or locally-built European-derived equivalents) should have featured 4-doors.
Whereas GM were selling the sub-Vega Chevette in North America, could Ford beneath the Pinto and in place of the Fiesta have instead sold the early RWD Ford Escorts if not a Cortina derived subcompact model like the Hyundai Pony (which although not directly related to the Cortina/Taunus still used common componentry – most notably the rear suspension and axle which were interchangeable with the Fords)?
As for Chrysler it was an oversight on their part not to bring over the 180 to slot above the Cricket and not to approve the planned Avenger 4-cylinder based V6 engine.
What I have wondered is why didn’t the Big 3 set up assembly plants in Mexico for their subcompact in the early ’70s. The maquiladora program started in the mid ’60s, so they should have been able to do that without much border friction. With lower labor costs, GM and Ford could have put better engineering and materials into the Vega and Pinto, and for Chrysler, who knows but maybe the Cricket could have been better assembled away from UK industrial strife.
Vega and Pinto interior layouts emulated larger American cars, so customers felt comfortable in them but compare the more upright and space efficient design of a contemporary Toyota for example and you can see how inferior the American subcompacts were. A 4-door Vega on the same wheelbase could have easily been achieved but would have required a more upright windshield and a much less Camaro-like driving position. Pinto clearly was never designed to be a 4-door and the wagon being so much bigger (and a better seller) couldn’t really be called a subcompact. I’m sure GM and Ford hedged their bets by not developing 4-door models which would have required additional stampings resulting in higher costs. Remember Vega did not even have a glove box in the first model year and Pinto did not come with a hatchback until after production started. Cheap is as cheap does.
Yup, the big trend in those days was to give domestic sedans lower rooflines like their coupe siblings. That partly may have been a cost-saving move. Back in the 1960s, hardtops often had shorter windshields to give them swoopier styling. A good example of how this 1970s cost-cutting could be problematic was the AMC Hornet, whose greenhouse was shaped more for coupes than four-door sedans.
The Pinto wagon was 173 inches long, which was six inches shorter (and around 200 pounds lighter) than a Maverick coupe. Of course, the Pinto also had a four-cylinder engine rather than a six. Thus, the Pinto may have been on the large size for an entry-level subcompact, but it was a meaningful step down from any U.S. compact.
Steve, am glad you are poking at this. GM and Ford in the mid-70s went all-in on badge-engineering in this space, so you might want to consider adding Sunbird, Starfire, Skyhawk and Astre to the production data.
A Pinto with 4 inches more wheelbase and the wagon’s longer rear overhang is a good idea and as you point out, its 4-cylinder engine and smaller dimensions would have positioned it below Maverick. Cannibalization would have been a risk.
s part of the planning process a volume call on a 4-door would have needed to be made and fed into the business case, as would tooling for a new tophat minus hood, front fenders and windshield. I don’t know where it would have landed prior to OPEC but by the mid-70s your data suggests that there was a market big enough to offer a fighting chance.
I wonder what Cornona’s global volume was. If its U.S. sales were less than say, 30% of the mix, then Toyota would have had pretty good global scale and the U.S. companies would have needed to make Vega and Pinto a global car to compete with that scale. But then we get into other factors that helped and hindered U.S. exports abroad. Was it an equal 2-way street into/out of this country? Previous comments from other topics suggest not.
Cannibalization was an interesting challenge for Detroit in the 1970s. One of the lessons of the 1960s was that an expanded lineup didn’t necessarily lead to equivalently increased sales. However, by the late-60s the general assumption seemed to be that you had to join the product-proliferation race in order to be viable. I wonder if Ford thought that it had no choice but to offer a domestic subcompact if GM did.
Ford treated the Pinto platform rather differently than the early-60s Falcon platform. Aside from the badge-engineered Mercury Bobcat, the Pinto’s main spinoff was the Mustang II. In contrast, the Falcon platform spawned a much broader range of vehicles, from the stretched-body Comet to the Econoline van. And, of course, the Mustang and mid-sized Fairlane pulled from the Falcon parts bin.
Why didn’t Ford try to squeeze more economies of scale from the Pinto platform? I suspect that the primary reason was Iacocca’s antipathy toward smaller cars. Even GM made more substantial investments in the subcompact field than Ford did throughout the 1970s.
I suspect that the Pinto platform wasn’t put to more use because it arrived just as Ford was entering a rather tumultuous era when it came to top management.
It was during the early 1970s that Henry Ford II became increasingly wary of Iacocca and the power base he had built up within top management. (Part of this feeling was fueled by Iacocca successfully forcing Bunkie Knudsen out of the company.) Henry Ford II was also reluctant to spend money on new product, and his first sign of health problems related to age (angina) made him even more concerned about who would control the company if he were to leave or even die.
Ford himself was suspicious of small cars. If there was real antipathy to small cars in Ford’s top management, it was most likely from Ford himself, not Iacocca. The latter did have a good feel for where the market was going (hence the trimmer Mustang II to replace the bloated 1971-73 generation), while Ford saw small cars as something that required a large investment of money (which he regarded as his family’s money) without much hope of a big return.
He was backed up by the very powerful Ed Lundy, who was the one of the original Whiz Kids. Lundy, as head of Ford’s vaunted Finance Department, controlled the company’s purse strings, and he, too, was wary of anything that required a large investment of the company’s money.
The 1973 oil embargo, and resulting CAFE legislation, essentially upended the market, and required all of the domestic car makers to make a massive investment in redesigning their entire passenger car fleet. Iacocca wanted to go toe-to-toe with GM and begin an ambitious downsizing effort, while Ford wanted a more cautious approach. We all know how that played out when Ford fired Iacocca in July 1978.
Also note that part of the original Fox program called for replacing the Pinto with a smaller version of the platform (which would have retained a rear-wheel-drive layout). This particular spin-off was cancelled when it was decided to bring a North American version of the upcoming European Escort Mark III to market in 1981. Most likely this was in response to the VW Rabbit and Honda Accord. The success of the Chrysler Omni and Horizon in 1978 only confirmed that this was the proper direction.
The Pinto’s sales decline in 1975-76 had to do with its age and a general slump in demand for small cars. The Pinto, along with the Mustang II, AMC Gremlin and Chevrolet Vega, set a sales record in 1974, as buyers flocked to more fuel efficient cars in the wake of the oil embargo (which hit in late 1973). Sales of everything – including small cars – were down for 1975, as a recession set in, and then big cars and intermediates rebounded in 1976. The debut of the VW Rabbit in 1975, and Chevrolet Chevette in 1976, also likely hurt Pinto sales, as the car was looking decidedly old-hat by 1976.
The Mother Jones story that got the ball rolling with the Pinto gas tank saga didn’t appear until 1977. The story had not received national attention until that point. Even then Pinto sales weren’t really affected. By 1977, the car’s main problems were its age and an increasing number of more up-to-date competitors.
Was not aware the Fox platform originally had scope for a Pinto-replacing subcompact, do any other details exist for the projected Pinto successor such as wheelbase, etc prior to its cancelation?
That account is contained in two books – Mustang: Fifty Years, by Donald Farr, and Ford Mustang, by the auto editors of Consumer Guide.
They don’t go into details about the proposed Pinto replacement. Each account says that the Fox program originally encompassed replacements for the Pinto, Maverick and Mustang II. Only the latter two debuted in North America – the 1978 Fairmont, which replaced the Maverick, and the 1979 Mustang, which was the successor to the Mustang II.
Looking at the Standard Catalog of Imported Cars, 1946 – 1990 (Flammang) we see that for 1968, Toyota sold a total of 659,189 cars, of which 71,463 were sold in the U.S., or 11%. Jumping ahead to 1976… 1,730,767… 346,920… 20%. No breakout by model is provided but Corona probably accounted for most of the 1968 production. By 1976, Corolla and Celica had joined the mix and likely saw healthy sales.
I wish I could get sales figures for Toyota and Datsun broken out by nameplate. Alas, I don’t have easy access to the likes of old Automotive News issues or other reference sources. One of the challenges of publishing Indie Auto is that I would like to produce a “professional” product but need to limit the time and money I invest in what has been a volunteer activity.
When looking at the 1969 sales figures, what jumps out is the dominance of VW in the import market. It was still outselling its closest rival (Toyota) by well over 2-1.
I remember that Fiat, Renault, Austin and Simca were viewed by car buyers as odd cars hampered by suspect reliability, spotty dealer coverage and lousy service when there was a dealer. They weren’t considered a serious threat – certainly not on the order of VW. The Big Three weren’t alone in regarding them in that way. And note that a large percentage of Fiat and Austin sales most likely consisted of two-seat sports cars, which were a distinct market segment.
If there was a failure here, it was the failure to note the rise of Toyota and Datsun. But Ford and GM were very much in reactive mode, and they were focused on VW, which was still the 800-pound gorilla in the room. VW had made it big by offering only two-door cars, and those cars weren’t noted for their roominess and comfort. Hence, the decision to make the Vega and Pinto two-door cars that emphasized sporty styling.
Looking at Steve’s first sales chart above, the biggest loser appears to have been Opel, which sold slightly more than everyone but the runaway leader – VW – from 1966 thru 1968. Then it stagnated while Toyota and Datsun ascended and Pinto and Vega made their big splash. Shouldn’t Opel have been GM’s import-fighter? It had a full line-up of body styles including a 4-door.
Over at Ford, the FWD Taunus and RWD Cortina were the company’s global small cars. Like Opel, they failed in this country. Seems this was the fundamental problem for both companies in the years in question.
I think the real problem for the U.S. manufacturers were too many cars with too much overlap and interdivisional competition. I find it interesting that Ed Cole fathered both the Corvair and the Vega 2300, but did not include a four-door sedan in the Vega’s model mix. I agree that the Opel 1900 series was a missed opportunity for G.M., but having owned a 1973 Toyota Corona coupe and a 1979 Mitsubishi Dodge Colt station wagon, both of these cars were deficient in the engine durability department, each requiring complete engine rebuilds at around 55,000-miles. Only the Volkswagen 1.7-litre four was up to the challenge of U.S. driving conditions, in my opinion.
One additional comment that I had not thought of earlier: In 1967, I had a girlfriend whose parent bought her and her sister a new for 1968 Toyota Corona four-door sedan with a 1.6-litre engine and an automatic transmission no less. It was solid, reliable, reasonably quiet in city driving and comfortable. Yes, it was not a limousine, but it was a “great little car”! (Sorry, Mazda !) Later, I worked at a radio station in Des Moines, whose manager (I used to think of radio and TV stations as living entities. Not anymore.) The manager once worked as a car salesman in Peoria in the mid-1960s, and the dealership was selected as a Toyota dealer for central Illinois. In the late summer of 1968, the dealership began to receive shipments of Toyota sedans and trucks. The dealer was amazed at how well-made the Toyotas were compared to the domestic cars and trucks he was selling. He told my future boss that these cars would eventually “take-over” if the Japanese could keep the quality up ! Just think what might have happened if one or all of The Big Three had seriously contemplated a four-door sub-compact in 1968 ?
Something I could never figure out at the time was why Ford went to all the trouble and expense of developing the Pinto when they could have just picked up the British Cortina Mk3 or the German Taunus TC (same car, different panels). This would have given them a nicely styled sedan, coupe and wagon on a 101.5″ wheelbase with enough room for a growing family. The Cortina sedan and coupe were five inches longer than a Pinto, two inches higher (so still fairly low) and two inches narrower. This would have made it usefully larger inside than the period Corona/510, without crowding the Maverick’s market slot.
I ran one for about 25 years, and it was our second family car. Trunk space was a bit on the small side, but period child seats fitted in the rear without a problem. The rear seat was a bit tight by the time the kids reached their teens. Ford Australia even developed it to take the 200/250 sixes, though mine had the 2000 OHC four which was almost always enough engine.
With the benefit of hindsight, I now see that developing the Pinto created/kept jobs in the US, but I’m not sure you got the better car.
Second that view they should have instead went with a locally built US Cortina Mk3, especially as recall reading it and the bigger European Granada they were looking to import into the US in place of the Maverick were said to share much in common.
Interestingly, according to Wikipedia (which I believe cited some book on the Mustang), the Fox platform was originally supposed to have short wheelbase version to replace the Pinto, Cortina, and Mustang and the long wheelbase version which was the Fairmont/Zephyr. I think there were issues coordinating how American and European Ford engineers did things. Also, the Rabbit and the success of the Honda Civic and Accord showed that small cars liked FWD, so replacing the Pinto with the 1981 Escort was the better plan. However, for 1971, I think manufacturing Cortina in the U.S. with some styling changes would have been better than the Pinto.
From a non-US perspective would not view the Cortina as an Escort sized car, its possible FWD replacement would have been the bigger Tempo that although related to the North American Escort cannot really be compared to the platform family that underpinned the Sierra and Scorpio. Which can sort of be described as Ford of Europe’s take on the Fox platform in some respects minus SN-95 update yet including the ugly Scorpio Mk2.
A US built version of the European Cortina/Taunus TC and Granada would have also allowed Ford to possess ideal starting points for produce suitable successors to both the European Capri via Ford Taunus Coupé SP (Germany & Argentina) as well as Mustang via Ford Granada Coupe (see Granada Perana V8).
One weird curiosity stands out in the case of the regular European Ford Capri, although updated Ford of Europe for some reason were inclined to keep it based on the Cortina Mk2 platform rather than switching over once the Cortina mk3 appeared.
I’d take Wikipedia with a grain of salt here, Troy. Given that the Cortina/Taunus platform had been used Europe-wide since 1970, with the cars being reskinned in 1976, a version of which was carried over until 1982, and the Fox bits wouldn’t have been ready by then. I can’t see any advantage to changing to a SWB Fox platform mid-model; imagine the cost of adapting an existing shell to a new platform! The tooling would have been well and truly paid for, and the TC platform already had a coil rear end; I can’t see any advantage really.
And Lotus Rebel, I suspect the Mk 2’s superior roadability had something to do with the Mk 3’s chassis not being used for the Capri. You almost never saw Mk 3’s being raced. That coil-sprung live axle was utterly intolerant of bumps mid-corner.
Peter Wilding Surely Ford would have been able to resolve the Mk3 Cortina’s inferior roadability over the Mk2 or decide it suffices for North America over the the Pinto, Mustang II and Maverick?
Lotus Rebel, you would think Ford could have sorted that rear end but it caught me out several times, a bump sending it offline and switching to snap oversteer. In theory a four link coil rear end should be better than leaf springs, but somehow they didn’t seem to be able to get it right.