CEO Lynn Townsend hinted at why the Chrysler Corporation arguably neglected its aging line of compacts in the first half of the 1970s.
Townsend told Forbes in 1973, “The subcompacts are just too small. The American people won’t climb into them. They have to give up too much in creature comfort. I think even a compact’s a little small. I would think that probably the most popular car size you’ll see 15 years from now will be like our intermediates today” (Hyde, 2003; p. 212).
Chrysler instead invested heavily in an ambitious lineup of redesigned mid-sized cars in 1971 — which were given meaningful changes only two years later in 1973 and again in 1975.
Meanwhile, in 1974 Chrysler gave its big cars an all-new body after the previous generation had only a five-year production run with a major reskinning two years earlier.
Did neglect actually help Chrysler’s compacts?
Throughout this entire period the compact Plymouth Valiant and Dodge Dart soldiered on with a goodly portion of the same sheetmetal that they started off with way back in 1967.
The A-body Chrysler compacts sold well in the first half of the 1970s, but might they have done even better if given more substantial updates and a broader range of models such as a wagon? That was what Chrysler of Australia did.
Also see ‘1970 Plymouth Barracuda should have been like an Australian Valiant Charger’
Maybe . . . but maybe not. The irony of Chrysler keeping the third-generation A-body in production for so long was that it steered clear of the deficiencies of the automaker’s larger cars. Their new bodies had trendy “fuselage” styling but suffered from overly plasticky interiors and hollow-sounding doors.
In a very real sense, the Plymouth Valiant and Dodge Dart represented the good-old days when Chryslers had a more solid feel to them.
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Hyde, Charles K.; 2003. Riding The Roller Coaster: A history of the Chrysler Corporation. Wayne State University Press, Detroit, MI: p. 212.
ADVERTISEMENTS & BROCHURES:
- oldcaradvertising.com: Plymouth Road Runner (1973)
- oldcarbrochures.org:Â Dodge Dart (1973)
The problem Chrysler had in 1973 was the problem that was killing A.M.C. and I.-H.: Too few cars and trucks to spread costs of development as inflation was becoming a bigger and more undermining factor to stay competitive. The Dart / Valiant / Demon / Duster were still competitive cars compared to the Nova, Maverick and Hornet. Lynn Townsend was only doing what his board and bankers were telling him: Big cars mean bigger profits (Detroit GroupThink ?)! Besides, with the full-size cars set for introduction in the fall of 1973, refreshed intermediates for the fall of 1974 and the Aspen / Volare for the fall of 1975, I am certain that within the boardroom in Highland Park, confidence ruled on Labor Day, 1973. When the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries started raising prices to countries giving aid and support to Israel on October 6th, 1973, I wonder if Chrysler understood the full implications of what it would do to its future.
Chrysler also benefitted from the fact that the Nova and Maverick derived models went through that same time period without significant updating. Had GM introduced a significantly updated NOVA in ’72 or ’73, how would Valiant/Dart sales have been affected.
Several lines of thought here.
Granted that nobody had a crystal ball, Townsend couldn’t be blamed for not knowing the oil taps were about to be turned off. Who could have foreseen it? And having seen it, who could anticipate the long-term consequences for the industry?
But as a foreigner, I have to wonder how it was that intermediates weren’t more popular in the US anyway. I mean, the ‘full-size’ cars were so large, but often had little extra in the way of usable space. Case in point: Chrysler’s intermediates were descendants of cars designed to offer full-size space. Was it really that important in US culture back then for your car to look as big as your neighbour’s?
Naturally there was a move to more economical cars. It happened in other countries too. Dad was in sales, and felt he always had to have a car that made him look successful. In my country that meant what you guys called a compact, in mid-level trim. In the seventies he reassessed that. Dad wanted to sell the Falcon and buy a Cortina, but guess what? Prices of small cars had risen, and he couldn’t afford it. He parked the Falcon and drove my Cortina, until I married and left home, and he retired.
Meanwhile, down here in Australia we somehow got our own generation of fuselage-styled A-bodies in 1971, the VH series. Much the same length as before, but wider and bulkier-looking. They bombed, but to my mind they showed what could have been. I’ve always been surprised the US kept the same style of compacts through to ’76 when we had these new ones.
From what I read on that archived article from the NY Times originally published in 1970. Chrysler hit a bumpy road and some wondered even if it’ll meet the fate of Penn Central.
https://web.archive.org/web/20220907170946/https://www.nytimes.com/1970/07/05/archives/bankers-rescue-chrysler-amid-developing-gloom-banks-try-chrysler.html
I remember reading in some articles of Collectible Automobile, they once planned to get new redesigned compacts for 1972 but was forced to delay it.
If I recall correctly, by the early 1970s the intermediates claimed the largest percentage of industry sales. They had bumped the full-size cars out of the number-one spot, and would only increase their lead as the decade progressed.
Were there others within Chrysler who did not share Lynn Townsend’s understandably short-sighted view and could have at least helped steer the company to better weather future troubles?
The thing that makes Townsend’s statement seem particularly ludicrous is that the Dart had consistently outsold the big Dodge line throughout the late sixties. The midsize Coronet/Charger was the biggest chunk of Dodge’s volume, but the Polara/Monaco was really weak. The situation was the opposite at Plymouth, where the big cars outsold the Valiant by a big margin, but the Dart was doing what for Chrysler was pretty good business. In 1968–1969, the A-body cars were close to 20 percent of Chrysler’s total sales volume, which isn’t something it seems reasonable to dismiss.
Interesting, in a crazy sort of way.
No wonder Chrysler seemed to be floundering. What sold as a Plymouth didn’t as a Dodge!
I believe the Dart captured many of the customers who had previously bought the “standard” Rambler before AMC upsized it to compete with the GM A-bodies.
Compared to the Rambler, the Dart had a better chassis, standard electric wipers and some of the industry’s best drivetrains. This was all in a handy size that offered a roomy interior and commodious trunk.
For some reason, the full-size Dodge never caught on when the 1965 C-bodies debuted. It always lagged behind its Chrysler and Plymouth platform mates.
This was even though the Plymouth Fury shared a showroom with the Chrysler Newport/300/New Yorker. I believe the Dodge Polara/Monaco accounted for the lowest percentage of the parent division’s total sales of any Big Three full-size car.
Townsend’s remarks about subcompacts have an air of defensiveness about them, given that Chrysler Corporation was conspicuous by its absence from the domestic subcompact segment. Even AMC had managed to enter the field with the Gremlin. The Vega and Pinto were doing good business for GM and Ford, respectively, even before the first fuel crisis (which would hit in December 1973 during the 1974 model year). Chrysler’s absence reinforced its reputation as the industry laggard in key areas (which, ironically, was a repeat of the automaker’s reputation in the early 1950s).
Chrysler’s neglect of its A-bodies did those cars a favor…the fuselage styling of its B- and C-bodies didn’t wear well, and the facelifts to make the styling more “formal” didn’t help. The Plymouth Satellite Sebring, in particular, suffered from this.
Starting with the 1969 C-bodies, Chrysler rolled out several new models that simply did not sell as well as expected, which depressed sales and profits. Meanwhile, the Dart and Valiant/Duster kept rolling on…at one point, they claimed over 30 percent of the compact market, if I recall correctly. But I’m guessing that Townsend was casting an envious eye at the strong sales of the GM A-, B- and C-bodies, which dominated their respective segments and generated hefty profits for GM.
ChryCo did offer subcompact but they were captive Imports from Mitsubishi. Likely saved a whole bunch on development and came with a favorable cost because of the dollar-yen. As I remember it, the Colt was at least competitive.
ChryCo also tried their luck with the Plymouth Cricket from their UK subsdiary Rootes who was a rebadged Hillman Avenger but got plagued with some quality problems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillman_Avenger
Interesting to note then the Avenger sold as Dodge 1500 in Argentina was more lucky there. As for the Cricket, Chrysler Canada continued to use the name for a couple of additional years as a rebadged Colt in the Great White North like this 1973 model. https://www.flickr.com/photos/njsimca/22493579512
In a similar vein to the Ford Pinto and Chevrolet Vega, what Chrysler needed was either an early Simca Alpine & Solara or a conventional rear-wheel drive model sized above the Cricket/Avenger yet below the Chrysler 180.
Chrysler UK looked at such a model, which was to use Brazilian block Avenger engines sized up to 2-litres that lost out to Chrysler France’s proposal for what became the Alpine.
Could Chrysler US though have made a decent go of developing a four-cylinder from the Slant-Six that was somewhat competitive with the Cricket/Avenger engine including Brazilian block and projected high-cam versions?
Chrysler first tried to build a first a vertical four-banger, then a gg”Slant Four” in Europe after Lester Lum “Tex” Colbert obtained board approval for the 1960 Valiant in 1957-1958, but the engine wasn’t powerful enough for what Chrysler Engineering had planned for the new car. The work on the Slant Four changed into the engineering of the Slant Six.
Was aware of Chrysler previous small car projects before the Valiant, the pre-war Star Car would have probably been viable had it received a flat-four and for some reason brings to mind the post-war Jowett Javelin.
Were Chrysler in a position to field a sub-Valiant slant-four car of approximately similar dimensions to the Ford Taunus P6?
Was not previously aware of the potential influence the Mercedes-Benz 300 SL’s slant-mounted M198 engine might have had on Chrysler’s Slant-Six project and later experiments.
When I fantasize about cars I would have liked to have owned had I been car buying age in the early 1970’s with a similar income adjusted for inflation, a Dart/Valiant is at the top of the list. A more sensible car than the Maverick/Comet or GM’s RWD X cars or even most of the bloated mid-size cars sold at the time.
Why, oh why did Lynn Townsend end the models that expanded both the Valant and the Dart model ranges: The unique four-door station wagons and the addition of a deluxe “brougham”-like sedan above the Signet (finally added in 1974-1976 !)? The more I learn about some of the things that Townsend did after 1966, the more I think his effectiveness ended shortly thereafter.