Predicting the future of the U.S. auto industry has always been fraught with peril. Popular Science’s Detroit Editor Jim Dunne got a lot of things right in his reporting during 1970, but a number of things didn’t end up happening. Here is a sampling of the latter from Dunne’s “Detroit Report” column via Google Books.
Pony cars will get two-seat models
“One of Ford’s most successful cars was the old two-seat Thunderbird, and Detroit plans to revive the idea in the early 70’s. Challenger, Barracuda, Mustang, and Cougar are slated for much smaller bodies in 1973. Ford will use the Maverick shell; the old two-seat style will be one model offered. Two reasons for this change: Sporty cars have grown too much in the past six years to be really sporty. On fastback models, back seats in these cars are too small to be usable.”
— March 1970 (p. 14)
Delayed Chrysler mini-car will be based on Valiant
“Chrysler’s mini-compact 25-car will be delayed six months as part of an overall spending-cutback program. . . . The extra delay will add to Chrysler’s disadvantaged position in the mini-car field, since GM and Ford will have new models on the market a whole year earlier. . . . Chrysler is expected to use its 170-cu.-in. six-cylinder engine for the mini-car. The 25-car chassis will be a derivative of the Valiant, and one possible body style is a three-door design with a rear-facing back seat. That would add a ‘doorgate’ of some sort.”
— May 1970 (p. 12)
Detroit will make ‘modular’ cars like Javelin/AMX
“Car-body experts have been talking about a modular car for years, and it looks as if Detroit is already working toward that goal. . . . The closest thing we now have to modular design is at American Motors where Javelin and AMX, Hornet and Gremlin share complete body sections. The sporty cars are essentially the same from the B post forward. Ditto for Hornet and Gremlin. Look for the big auto makers to use the same approach in building two-seat sports cars from the Mustangs and Camaros.”
— June 1970 (p. 12)
Pontiac and Olds developing Vega-based small cars
“Yes, Pontiac and Olds are working on a new small car, but: Both GM divisions were given the green light to design proposed cars this spring. . . . The divisions are working on completely new concepts, not just modified versions of Chevrolet’s Vega. You can expect from these divisions small, two-seat sports cars, as well as basic four-passenger sedans. While neither will copy Vega’s body style, both Olds and Pontiac are expected to ask for the die-cast aluminum Vega engine to power their small cars.”
— August 1970 (p. 10)
Pinto and Vega will get four-door models
“Look for more mini-car models to be brought out by Ford and Chevrolet in coming years. Both companies overlooked sales growth of four-door models in mini-car market when designing Pinto and Vega, but competition will force them to rush theirs into lineup. It is significant that with exception of VW, all major mini-car competitors have four-door versions, and sell a high percentage.”
— September 1970 (p. 10)
Decline in standard cars will lead to dropped models
“Ford predicts that small cars will take 30 percent of the market in 1971, with most of the added sales stolen from the standard-size part of the market. Sales of standard cars have been falling for the past 10 years. Right now they are taking about 40 percent of the market, their lowest share in history. As sales of small cars grow, this share will continue to fall, since both the intermediates and sporty cars are expected to continue selling at present levels. What is the future of the standard car? Look for some model lines — especially in the medium-price range — to be dropped in coming years.”
— November 1970 (p. 50)
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Dunne, Jim; 1970. “Detroit Report.” Popular Science via Google Books. March, May, June, August, September, November issues.
- Gunnell, John; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised 4th Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- oldcarbrochures.org: Chevrolet Camaro (1971); Chevrolet Chevette (1978); Dodge Monaco (1970); Ford Mustang II (1974); Oldsmobile Starfire (1975)
About the 2 seat Mustang, I’m led to wonder if Jim Dunne’s spy camera caught the Mach 2, seen at the 1967 Detroit show, being driven around the proving grounds of Dearborn.
https://www.google.com/search?q=ford+mach+2&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwiau__qw4aBAxVIEVkFHetwABQQ2-cCegQIABAD&oq=ford+mach+2&gs_lcp=ChJtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1pbWcQAzIFCAAQgAQyBQgAEIAEMgUIABCABDIFCAAQgAQyBggAEAgQHjoFCAAQogQ6AggpOgUIIRCrAjoECCEQCjoICAAQgAQQsQM6BAgAEANQww1Y1FNg7WBoAHAAeACAAV6IAcIPkgECMzGYAQCgAQHAAQE&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-img&ei=ElbwZJrqLsii5NoP6-GBoAE&bih=553&biw=375&client=safari&hl=en-us#vhid=5ibLNXJ8MH5uEM&vssid=3981:p5-4aSjRQ4l1rM
Could be. The Mach 2 was an interesting design. And then there were the various GM concepts.
I find it striking that even in early 1970 there was awareness in Detroit that pony cars had become too big. Well before the 1971 Mustang hit the showrooms rumors were floating around that in only two years it would be downsized to the Maverick platform. That would have been a remarkably short production run.
Wouldn’t a Valiant-based subcompact have basically been similar to the Valiant Charger or even the European Chrysler 180 and Australian Chrysler Centura?
Either would have helped Chrysler make the case to further develop the Slant Six and give the green light to Slant Four and other spin-offs seen in the “Lost slant six performance potential” portion of the Allpar Slant Six article.
Interesting question. Depends how you define a subcompact I guess; how ‘sub’ were they aiming to go? Did Chrysler want a car so close in size to their existing compacts?
Our Charger was on a 105″ wb Valiant platform, but at 1885mm/74.2″ was much wider that you would want for a subcompact. And you really felt that un-needed width inside. It was okay for a ‘large-compact’sedan (bit too big for Australia, actually), uncomfortably wide for a shorter, supposedly sporty coupe. From the front seat, you never forgot it was a Valiant.
The 180/Centura wheelbase was only 0.3″ less, but the width was still comfortable at 1730mm/68.1″. That sounds more promising, proportion-wise.With the long nose for the six it was 4580mm/180″ long – how big was that US Valiant again? 4788mm/188″ long, 1770mm/69.7″ wide. Hmm – if it was my call, I’d say it was too close to bother with. (Yes, our Aussie fuselage VH-CM Valiant was more of a SWB intermediate.It was 4897mm/193″ long.)
I’d imagine Chrysler would have given some thought to have using these pre-existing products in the US, but would they have been too big? If they were thinking of something comparable with the Pinto and Vega, they would have needed something smaller than this. Using the 180/Centura base would have meant tooling up for an entirely different platform; I can’t see them doing that. I also don’t see them being able to shorten and narrow the Valiant platform enough for a viable subcompact that size.
Although it may seem the 180/Centura would appear to be too large to be a sufficient rival to the Vega and Pinto if not too close to comfort for the Valiant and Valore/Aspen, it is all relative when it comes to the US though the 180/Centura would have one feature with its 4-doors that neither the Vega or Pinto possessed.
There was also Chrysler Europe’s plans to develop a D-Car from the C180 to replace the Super Snipe, which unlike the Centura and building on earlier work with the experimental Chrysler V8 powered Humber Super Snipes would have been capable of possessing the rigidity needed to cope with a V8.
Taken together and Chrysler could have had a modular C/D-Car platform act as a downsized rear wheel drive alternative to the A/F-Platform should the Valiant be unable to shortened and narrowed to be a viable subcompact. Worth bringing up the point that when Rootes aka Chrysler UK set out on its C Car project in 1966, it was described by Roy Axe as a logical scaling up of the B Car (Avenger) concept.
Truth be told a literal Vega and Pinto rival as opposed to an expedient one based on the 180/Centura however, would have more or less been Chrysler UK’s C6 proposal that was essentially an enlarged Avenger estate platform (yet still smaller than the 180/Centura) roughly the size of the Chrysler Alpine and Solara to take on the Cavalier and Cortina (aka what the Vega and Pinto should have emulated).
So Chrysler could have in fact had two related modular platform families, with Chrysler UK claiming their Avenger estate based C6 proposal could be made front-wheel drive featuring an McPherson strut front and a dead beam rear axle suspension setup.
Interesting. What a shame Chrysler US never had the cashflow to allow Chrysler UK to follow through with some of these proposals. I’ll admit I was surprised they were able to come out with the Avenger. But if that was proposed as the smallest of a related group of B-C-D segment cars, it all makes a lot more sense.
The V8 Snipe-replacement is a very interesting what-if. Unlike Ford’s attempt at shoving the Falcon six into the Cortina, I never heard of frame cracking or bodyshell twist with the Centura, even with backyard 318 and 360 swaps, so that’s a good sign for a ‘New Snipe’. They went quite smartly with the 245 six, and we could have fitted the 265/4.3 which would still have been big for Europe but more economical than an eight. Would they have had preferential tariffs for an Australian engine rather than an American one? Maybe the triple-Weber E49-tune 302bhp six in a Snipe Sport?
I always felt it a shame the way the British motor industry fell in a heap in the late sixties/ early seventies. It’s good to know the old Rootes mob had viable plans for the future, even if they never came to pass.
Rootes aka Chrysler UK were dealing with the consequences of government intervention, when they rejected Rootes expands to expand at or near Ryton to force them into building a factory at Linwood (entailing the automotive minnow doing 648-676 mile round trips between factories) as well as devastating strike in the late-50s to early-60s, both of which had a negative impact on their expansion during the development of the Imp.
They also had to deal with Chrysler US’s own problems never mind the politicking and domestic-market only parochialism of Simca, who were better able to leverage themselves as the stronger of Chrysler’s struggling European divisions and prevented Chrysler UK from carrying over the Avenger engine (including 1.8-2.0 Brazilian block) into the Alpine and Horizon.
Not to mention Chrysler UK’s intention of producing a V6 from the Avenger engine for the 180, together with de Dion rear suspension system similar to the Rover 2000 and five-speed gearbox. Whereas Simca felt a V6 was not needed in France, until they were made to regret and had to accept the PRV V6 upon Peugeot’s takeover of Chrysler Europe.
The gist of the Experimental Centura V8 story is that the factory experimented with 318 powered prototypes, but the body lacked the rigidity to cope with the torque even though V8 conversions are a thing. Maybe there were other factors why the case for the Centura V8 could not be made?
In Chrysler Engines by Willem L. Weertman, it is said that Chrysler Australia chose the Hemi-6 out of producing local versions of the Slant-6 and/or producing a V6 from the LA V8.
Interesting to note then Pontiac in Canada got the Astre two years before the United States. http://oldcarbrochures.org/Canada/GM-Canada/Pontiac/1973%20Pontiac%20Astre%20Brochure/index.html