photo by Curtis Perry
The big RWD car was once the iconic symbol of America, where everything was big, and the bigger the better. America’s post war optimism and global economic dominance combined with jet age styling trends to create ever longer, lower, wider and heavier cars. Until 1960, that was the only kind built by the Big Three. And they continued to be built until the last Ford Crown Victoria ran off the lines in 2012.
But they’re gone, forever.
So who or what killed them? Was it the two energy crises and resultant spike in gas prices? The government, via CAFE and other regulations? The Japanese invasion? The Germans? FWD cars? The Trilateral Commission?
All these (except one) were accessories to the murder, but the biggest killers were much closer to home, right under our roofs even. And that’s who we’re going to expose here, along with some of the other perpetrators.
But first, let’s take a graphic look at the extinction of the species. We’re talking about the large RWD (Rear Wheel Drive) car lines commonly referred to as “full size” or “standard size”. Here’s their annual share of the US passenger car market (1950-1996). Yes, the two energy crises (1974 & 1980) both knocked them down, about 10 share points each time. And the big switch to larger FWD cars by GM and Ford in 1985-1986 took a final big bite.
But by far the biggest hit to big cars came between 1956 and 1962, six years during which their market share plummeted from 95% of the market to 56%. And although there was a bit of an upturn for a year or two, the steep decline soon continued, down to a scant 35% just before the first energy crisis (1973-1974).
Those are the years (1956-1973) we’re going to primarily focus on, as this all happened during a time when gas prices were actually declining, from $2.80 to $2.18 per gallon in adjusted 2019 dollars. This period was instrumental in making big cars a minority player as well as giving them their less-than stellar image, which snowballed into an ever-bigger negative as the years went on.
The full chart stops in 1996, the last year for GM big RWD cars. After that, Ford’s Panther cars soldiered on yet for some years until 2012, but their sales number and market share slowly headed to zero. And an ever-increasing percentage of later year Panthers went to fleets. (I left out the current Chrysler 300 and Dodge Charger since they are a good bit shorter than all of these large cars except the ’55-’56 Chevy and Ford).
Which raises another point: Big RWD cars were always the mainstays of fleets, including police, taxis and company cars, although the latter became diffused with time. This undoubtedly helps to explain why big car sales did not fluctuate as much in annual sales numbers as the market overall, as shown on this chart. Just how big fleet sales were back then is a good question, but it clearly was not an insignificant factor. Lacking annual fleet sales stats, the market share numbers are inflated by them, and substantially overstate actual retail sales. Without fleet sales, big RWD car programs almost certainly would have died even earlier.
This chart shows that in terms of volume, big cars had two huge drops: from 6 million in 1956-1957 (it was even higher in 1955) to 4 million in 1958. And from 1958 through 1973, big car sales stayed fairly steadily in a rough range of 4-5 million units per year. But market share dropped during this period, because the market overall grew so strongly during that time, and that growth was in every category but big cars
Between 1973 and 1975, as a consequence of the first energy crisis (long before CAFE went into effect), volume crashed by over 50%, and never really recuperated. Volume increased some from ’77 – ’79, thanks to the new downsized big GM cars and a better economy, but never broke 3 million units. And of course the second energy crisis and related recession (1979-1981), when gas prices rose even more strongly, dropped 1980 MY big cars sales to a mere 1.2 million
But enough of the preliminaries; let’s unveil the chief culprits:
Women.
Yes, women; who almost universally didn’t like how big cars got after 1955-1956, and eagerly snapped up smaller cars like this Corvair. Doesn’t she look happy?
And their kids. Along with a major assist by the beatniks, or the Beat Generation of the 1950s, the precursors to just about everything that happened in the sixties.
Although the profound societal changes that would change the country (and the car market) forever came to full flower in the 60s and 70s, they can be traced back even further to the bohemian arts scene in Greenwich Village in the 1910s-1920s. The Beats just picked up where that scene left off during the Depression and war, and then became a highly visible influence in the 1950s. It soon engulfed the country in the 60s and 70s, and affected women disproportionately more then the rest of society, for all-too obvious reasons.
So let’s focus on the women initially, keeping in mind that what changed them—and in turn the car market—was also changing society at large.
Does anyone actually think that most women were genuinely happy behind the wheel of really big American car? Of course there were some, most likely in less densely populated parts of the country. But as our cities and suburbs grew and women started to drive more, increasingly out of necessity, they became increasingly unhappy with the increasing size of the standard American car.
Keep in mind that power steering was far from universal in the ’50s and first half of the ’60s. As cars got bigger and heavier, the steering got slower to compensate. And the ever-lower seating made it disproportionately more difficult for shorter women to see out. Watching a short or small woman struggle with a big car was something I witnessed quite a bit firsthand as a kid, and I felt genuinely sorry for them.
Let’s get this over with as delicately as possible: Big cars were 100% a guy thing. Our cars got bigger and bigger as our collective male egos got bigger and bigger during America’s Exceptional Period (1945 – 1973), thanks to having won World War Two and the resultant global dominance of our economy. Driving a big car or truck gives guys a sense of power, dominance, prestige and control It’s a very visible extension of our manhood—not necessarily in the genital sense, but certainly in a broader psychic context. And of course, there’s the presumed sex appeal. American women may not have wanted to drive them, but a big new car was presumably a key symbol of reproductive fitness a man could readily acquire.
So naturally, the more the better. Detroit’s ability to mass-produce ever-bigger and flashier cars for a reasonable price made American guys feel like a million bucks. By 1957 or so, the template for the big American car had been set. As in, longer, lower, wider, finnier and with lots of chrome. Bling, in other words.
Try to find a vintage shot of a woman loading the trunk of a big American car. It was brutal, as all the luggage had to be lifted over the back end of the car, and then pushed forward in what was typically a very shallow but long and convoluted space. And one had to mind the trunk lid that was all-to eager to inflict a gash on one’s forehead. This was a job for the man, not the little woman. And it only got worse after those huge protruding 5 mile bumpers arrived in 1974.
But women did the grocery shopping, and that’s why supermarkets had bag boys. They loaded up the trunk with all those heavy bags. But mom still had to wrestle them out at home.
But they don’t have bag boys to at Costco.
This is how it’s done nowadays.
It wasn’t just the excessively long, low trunks either.
It was also the long, huge front ends; about twice as long and big as actually necessary. There’s room for two, maybe three V8s in here.
Speaking of length: the new 1957 Plymouth wagon, at 211″ long, was a full fourteen inches longer than a 1956 Chevrolet wagon and almost as long as a 2019 Chevy Suburban. Plymouth had been the first low price brand to break the 200″ barrier in 1955, and only two years later, they broke the 210″ barrier.
It wasn’t just the length, but the excessive width. You really think this is what most women wanted in a car? And that they enjoyed driving this to the store parking lot? And to parallel park downtown in front of the beauty parlor and the department store? And pay to fill up the 26 gallon tank to feed the big V8? Gas wasn’t cheap at $2.80 a gallon (adjusted), wages and purchasing power were lower, most families had a single income, and these big cars got crummy mileage. You think women cared about big V8 performance while running to the school a mile away to pick up the kids on a rainy day?
When did women start becoming unhappy with American cars? Up until the 1920s, cars were rarely targeted at women. But the booming economy and the changing norms of the 20s made cars increasingly accessible to some women in affluent households, and suddenly car makers saw an opportunity to expand sales. But invariably, it was the smaller cars that were advertised at women. Her husband undoubtedly drove something much bigger than this tidy little Chevrolet.
Until the post war suburban boom, most folks lived in close-in traditional and dense neighborhoods like this, or even denser in inner cities. Women didn’t need to drive, and many never did. There was a grocery store a block or two away and it delivered, as did the the milk man and the bread man. The kids walked or rode their bikes to school.
But the huge boom of suburbs in the late 40s and 50s changed that dramatically. Women almost had to get a driver’s license, and many either drove their husbands to the commuter train station in the big car or were stranded at home. Or got themselves…a smaller second car.
I learned all this very quickly on our arrival in the US in 1960. My dad’s boss and his wife came to pick us up at the airport in Cedar Rapids in their two cars. Guess which one was his and which was hers. I was a bit surprised to see her driving such an old car, but she loved it as it was so compact but tall and roomy.
It’s not a coincidence that this 1949 Plymouth wagon has almost all the same dimensions including height, width and length as a RAV4, the most popular car with women today.
Within a few months after our arrival, her old Plymouth wagon was replaced by a new 1960 Falcon wagon.
And the DeSoto was replaced the next year by a 1961 Galaxie sedan, for him. If you look at vintage ads and brochures, inevitably the men are shown with the big cars vs. women with the smaller cars, for all too obvious reasons.
The family two houses down from us had these two cars. Guess which one I rode in many times on on the way home from school on rainy days, jammed in with about a dozen other kids? And which one I never rode in? I can think of numerous other similar examples in Iowa City.
Here’s one more: Mrs. Lloyd-Jones, who drove a Corvair Greenbrier, America’s first minivan, a mere 179″ long. Her husband drove a big late 50s Plymouth sedan. She wouldn’t touch it.
And in Towson too. My best friend was one of ten kids in his family. Guess which car his dad drove to work solo every day, and which one his mom drove. She didn’t care how many kids were piled in with her, but then kids weren’t really ferried around as much like nowadays. She loved her little Estro-Dart but wouldn’t drive that big Ford wagon. That was strictly “his car”, used to take the family to church on Sundays.
I could go on…
Of course there were exceptions, including my own family. The ’65 Coronet wagon was bought in Iowa, and initially was our only car. But then it was only a mid-sized car, and about as small as three seat wagons got back then. When we moved to Towson that fall, my father needed a car to drive to Hopkins, and bought himself a Kadett. But then he was never going to buy a big American car. And he was a European.
The ’65 Coronet wagon was replaced by a ’73 version. But in 1981, after the kids were all gone except for one, my mom traded it in for a 1981 Escort wagon with a buzzy and feeble 70hp 1.6 L four and the jerky automatic it was teamed with. Did she miss the power of that fine 318 V8 and the smooth Torqeflite in the Coronet? Not the slightest. She loved that Escort, because now parking in the crowded A&P lot or at Towson Plaza was a breeze. And she loved the Honda Civic that replaced it even more. Much more fun to drive, she always said.
American cars got progressively bigger throughout the 30s, 40s and 50s. The last new full sized car by the Big Three to still be a reasonable size was the 1955 Chevrolet. Its wheelbase was a tidy 115″, width a modest 73″, and over-all length was 195.6″; that’s just a couple inches longer than a new Camry.
The 1955 Chevy set an all-time sales record for any brand of big cars: 1.7 million. And the ’55-’57 Chevys quickly became the most sought after and highest priced used cars after it was replaced by the much bigger ’58s.
By 1959, the Chevy was now 211″ long and 80″ wide. And several inches lower. You think this guy cared about what his wife really wanted?
Some men knew what women really wanted, even in 1958. And that was the year Rambler sales exploded, up 65%. The common explanation for that is that 1958 was a recession year, and folks wanted cheaper cars. That argument is as weak as women being the weaker sex. The cheapest ’58 Rambler actually cost more than the cheapest big Chevrolet. Ramblers back in the 50s actually had an image of being somewhat upscale, and their buyers were too.
No, it wasn’t price; by 1958, there simply were no more reasonable sized cars from the Big Three; 1957 had been the last year for the Chevrolet. Not coincidentally, the Rambler’s length (191″) and width (71.3″) were just a hair less than the ’55 Chevy. In other words, the sweet spot.
Cars like the popular Plymouth Suburban (’49 top, ’57 bottom, Rambler in the middle) had become huge, growing over two feet in length. Yet its interior dimensions did not keep pace, especially in seating comfort, as passengers were now squeezed between the much lower roof but the still high floor due to its massive frame.
Rambler sales kept right on exploding through 1959 and 1960, which were strong years for the economy. And then they started dropping in 1961, which was a recession year. Why? Because of the huge onslaught of compacts from the Big Three in 1960 and 1961.
Domestic compacts weren’t exactly new to the market in 1958 or 1960. Back in 1953, Willys launched its excellent Aero compact sedan, almost the exact same size as the Rambler and Ford Falcon, and it was a flop. The same year, Kaiser’s compact Henry J arrived, and also flopped. And also the Hudson Jet, which flopped even worse, if that was possible. Why did they all fail? The all-too obvious reason is because there wasn’t yet enough differentiation between them and the standard-size cars from the Big Three. A few inches here and there didn’t justify the fact that these compacts generally still cost as much or more than a low-end Chevy. But by 1957-1958, it was well worth it, as cars had suddenly gotten too big.
And all three of these early compacts lacked flair and style. They were men’s ideas of what a smaller car should be.
There was one exception: the little 1950 Rambler, a compact convertible sedan and wagon, heavy on style and flair, of the kind that very much appealed to women. It started the whole compact revolution, and by 1960 Rambler was the fourth best selling brand.
Studebaker read the Rambler tea leaves, and in 1957 rushed out their drastically-shortened compact Lark for 1959. It was a genuine hit, and was the only thing that kept them from going under, for the time being.
There’s surprisingly little difference in usable interior space between these two. Which one do you think women would rather drive to the store?
Kids, wave goodby to Daddy as his plane is about to crash
Of course it wasn’t just Rambler, the Lark and the Big Three compacts in 1960 that caused this huge drop in big car sales. Imports had been growing steadily since the end of the war, but their combined market share was still in the low single digits. But suddenly in 1955, import sales began a rapid growth fueled by an explosion of interest in the VW Beetle, and after 1958 the Renault Dauphine came on strong too. By 1959, the imports’ market share topped 10%. This coincided directly with the period (1955-1958) when American cars started getting too big.
Statistics of the share of women drivers of imports back then would be interesting to examine if they could be found. Undoubtedly their small size, low initial cost and thrifty operating costs made them very attractive to women, who on average cared about these qualities more then men.
Of course, the same applies to the domestic compacts. The percentage of ads and brochure shots for the new Big Three compacts targeting women is exceptionally high.
The 1960 Falcon was a huge success, selling 436k units. But big Ford sales dropped that year by 474k units. Coincidence? For 1961, Falcon sales increased again, and big Ford sales decreased again. Coincidence, again?
1960 Valiant sales were 194k. 1960 big Plymouth sales were down by 207k. Also a coincidence?
Chevrolet knew what women wanted.
And they got it.
But what they wanted even more was a bit of sporty flair and bucket seats in their compacts. And they got that too starting in the spring of 1960 with the madly new successful Monza coupe. The Falcon, Valiant, and every other car line in America quickly followed suit. The Monza was a huge turning point in the market: no longer would smaller American cars lack style and flair. The Falcon’s sales soon withered.
The Monza’s success led directly to the Mustang, which targeted younger women shamelessly, with a six cylinder, no less. And it was of course madly successfully with younger women. And some older ones too.
These make a perfect study in contrast to Dodge’s colossal blunder in trying to target women ten years earlier with its ridiculous La Femme. By now you know the answer as to why it really bombed: it was a whopping 212″ long. It was expensive. It was pink. And it was…lame; a bunch of marketing guys’ idea about what women wanted. As if they had a clue.
Despite being largely tone deaf, Detroit got the very powerful message about its big cars having gotten too big. The sales numbers spoke very loudly. GM was the only one that could afford new bodies for 1961, and across the board, they were a bit trimmer but roomier on the inside and lost the crazy fins. “Parkable size” suddenly was a selling point.
Cadillac went even one step further, offering “short deck” versions of its sedans. Women had been complaining for years about how difficult Cadillacs had become to drive and park, and this was the half-assed solution, for a couple of years anyway.
It was a pathetic sop tossed their way, and women quickly gravitated to Mercedes and BMWs; with a vengeance, if they could afford them. And an increasing number could.
If Cadillac had actually built a Seville in 1965, they might well have staved off much of the inevitable erosion of the brand. And when the semi-compact Seville finally appeared in 1975, it had an exceptionally high percentage of women buyers. But by then, all-too many were happily driving a Mercedes, BMW or other import. The right size, and gobs of instantly recognizable flair.
Chrysler, which got much of the blame for creating the longer, lower, wider and finnier format in 1957, saw sales falter after the first year and reacted even more radically. They ditched their planned new family of large cars for 1962 and created all-new 1962 Plymouths and Dodges that were 8″ shorter and 7″ narrower and sitting on a 116″ wheelbase, bringing them back to the format of the 1955-1957 Chevys.
Although considered flops, they did sell almost as well as their 1961 predecessors. Their controversial styling did them no favors, and their sales improved each year as their styling was sanitized in 1963 and 1964. And although there were new large C-Bodies for 1965, sales volumes for both Plymouth and especially Dodge large cars would never again be truly competitive. These smaller cars were re-positioned as mid-sized cars for 1965, and contributed substantially to Chrysler’s improved market share starting that year. The Coronet handily outsold the new C-Body Dodges.
Between 1963 and 1967, big cars lost almost 11% of their market share, dropping from 58% to 47%. This wasn’t so much from a drop in their sales as from an explosion of smaller alternatives including imports, especially the VW. Ford sold no less than 680k ’65 Mustangs in an extended year. Compact sales were still steady, and mid-sized cars were in ascendancy. There were lots of attractive smaller options.
Pontiac unleashed a monster with its 1964 GTO, which put smaller cars in the spotlight for both performance as well as just for youthful image and sex appeal.
Quite the contrast in the choice of female models to appear with Pontiac’s finest from just one year before. 1963-1965 was a critical time of change, as the first baby boomers were just hitting the car buying demographic. A high school kid would have liked nothing more than to borrow Dad’s Grand Prix for the school dance. A year or two or three later, all he could think about was his own GTO or something comparable. The GP quickly became a has-been.
The baby boomers unleashed a tsunami of new buyers into the market, which increased the total market by some 50%, from about 8 million in 1964 to almost 12 million in 1973. And how many of them bought a new big car? I don’t think I’m going on a limb when I say effectively zero. In fact, during this huge expansion of the market big car sales dropped by some 20%, and lost almost half their market share. But I’m sure you’ll remember someone who did.
The times they were were a’ changing, and ever faster at that, as import sales zoomed upwards again in the second half of the 60s. For the most part Detroit was oblivious, as they would continue to be for much of the following decades until two of them went bankrupt and the other barely squeaked by. Grosse Pointe Myopia was the collective disorder, so well chronicled here.
Meanwhile women were increasingly coming out of the closet—or kitchen, more specifically. The percentage of women content to stay home and cook and iron and clean was dropping, fast. Many who did but weren’t happy doing it self-medicated with alcohol or Valium. I had no less than three grade school friends whose moms were severe alcoholics. It was very depressing to go to their houses after school.
Traditional norms and expectations were being turned upside down. The divorce rate soared. Feminism was on the march, along with other long repressed groups. America’s patriarchal society was beginning to crumble. And no, women who were expressing (or demanding) their increased agency weren’t buying big American cars, if for no other reason than for what they had come to symbolize.
The whole essence of the huge changes sweeping society was the rise of self-expression and non-conformity, a splintering into ever more smaller groups and self-identification. And the impact on the automobile market was enormous. The market fragmented into ever more segments, beyond just the compacts, pony cars, intermediates and imports.
Already in the mid 50s, pickups like the 1955 Chevy Cameo Carrier were breaking out of the workman’s truck image.
The 1964 Dodge Custom Sports Special took it to the next level, with bucket seats, floor shift, racing stripes and an available 426 wedge engine.
And not just genuine sports either. The Dude trim package was targeting a more narrowly defined slice of the market, and one that reflected the growing cultural schism in the country. This was not exactly the same Dude as made famous by another actor.
Which reminds me that our next door neighbors in Iowa City had a ’61 Chevy sedan for him and a ’63 Chevy II for her. Then they sold their house and built a new one at the edge of town on a couple of acres, and he sold his sedan and bought a new ’65 Chevy pickup for him. They were on the leading edge of a major new trend, moving to exurbs and semi-rural property, one that hasn’t stopped yet. Pickups became the best selling light-vehicle category quite some time back.
The VW bus became the ultimate anti big-American car symbol, with its feeble little engine, no hood or trunk, but room enough to live in. Or go anywhere. Or at least dream about it.
Just like the hippies’ long hair was adopted widely in the 70s, so was their van. Detroit embraced this trend with a fervor; if they couldn’t sell younger buyers a big car, they would happily crank out big vans instead. Keep the party going, as long as possible.
And that went for SUVs too. What started out as gnarly little off-roaders quickly became ever-more civilized trucks that even women soon embraced with a fervor, especially after the compact ones appeared.
But amidst all of this intense change and fragmentation, there was a reaction too, a powerful one.
In 1965, a whole new era began, one I’ve dubbed the Great Brougham Epoch. The 1965 Ford LTD is its standard bearer, but it had already started a year or two earlier.
As in December 1963, when Esquire magazine published this rendering of a Stutz Revival Car, by Virgil Exner. It was hugely influential, a whole series was created and they were turned into toy cars, several prototypes and the limited production Stutz Blackhawk. The neo-retro movement was on.
This wasn’t just an automotive trend; it was a major societal and political one, a conservative reaction to all of the rapid changes that were being unleashed in every element of life. Neo-classical decor, architecture, clothing and other aspects all flourished in the Great Brougham Epoch.
Click on this ad and read the text if you want to understand better just what was going on at the time:
“these are uneasy times, about pollution, safety, the economy…at Chevrolet, you want meaningful change…at Chevrolet, we understand, and our aim is to give that to you…Caprice, the biggest Chevrolet ever, the change is complete”
Yes, it’s the fall of 1970, kids are getting shot on campus demonstrating against the war, Black Power is on the rise, the first Earth Day was in May, Chicano students are striking in LA, Women are striking for equality, the first Gay Liberation Parade was in June and Chevrolet now has the solution to all of your deep societal, economic, environmental and safety anxieties: ride in blissful isolation of them in your bigger, heavier, softer-riding, quieter and less efficient 1971 Caprice. All your problems are solved!
I’m sorry if I’m coming off a bit heavy handed, but I lived through this era during my formative years and was actively involved in all of these causes, so perhaps I’m not able to be fully objective about it and its effect on the image of big American cars. In an effort to compensate and inject some objectivity, I’ve spent time compiling and adding individual model numbers from the Standard Almanac to create total numbers by car line (size/type), which are not available anywhere else, and creating a spreadsheet from which I made these charts. I’ve been at this task for over two years, and it’s not complete yet; this is just the first category I’ve finished. And the results surprised me.
So if my emotion-tainted words, or the words in the ads don’t do it for you, here’s the numbers, one more time: During a time of great economic expansion (1960-1973), ever-cheaper gas, and fast-growing real income, a time that is often seen retroactively as the golden age of the big American car, they lost one half of their market share. They were just not cool anymore, or even worse than that.
It doesn’t take a PhD in psychology or statistics to know that these final huge cars (the longest ever was to the 1973 Imperial, at 235.3″) were targeted solely at certain men and bought solely by them. This is the ultimate anti-woman car, despite the young woman in the ad. It’s Daddy’s girl…who would soon enough cajole him to buy her a new Rabbit or a Celica.
Folks may have isolated themselves from the troubles outside in their big new Caprice, but it was going to be a short-lived ride, once the gas tank went empty, for good. Because when OPEC turned off the oil taps in October of 1973 to all those countries that had backed Israel in the Yom Kippur War, the global price of oil shot from $3/barrel to $12 by the end of the boycott. Gas was hard to find at any price, and big, thirsty cars were suddenly a liability.
Gas prices actually didn’t jump all that much, from 36¢ ($2.19) in 1972 to 53¢ ($2.73) in 1974. But there’s something hard wired into humans that when they see a commodity that’s always been plentiful and cheap suddenly become scarce and rise in price that makes them react rather impulsively. And they did just that with their purchases of cars.
The Pinto shot to the top of the best-seller’s list of nameplates in 1974, with 544k sales. The Vega wasn’t far behind, with 456k sales. And how soon would folks have regrets? Maybe there was something in the middle that might have been more pragmatic?
Like a mid-sized car? That came next as soon as things stabilized, and the Olds Cutlass took the gold in 1976, and made some repeat appearances in coming years.
From 1973 to 1974, big cars lost almost one third of their market share. And it kept dropping, for two more years. Big cars were suddenly on the endangered species list, it seemed.
The downsized ’77s from GM changed that trajectory, if only briefly. And yes, that really is more like it. And no, these weren’t downsized because of CAFE; GM began its downsizing program well before the first energy crisis, as they knew their cars had gotten too big. And their sizes were locked in by 1975, before CAFE was ever taken up by Congress.
These much better (but still quite large) cars gave the category a bit of an upward bump in 1977, the last time the big cars would have a share size bigger than the teens or single digits. Ford and Chrysler followed suit with downsizing in 1979, which gave another little bump. The ’77 Chevy managed to sell 662k units, about one half of its 1969 ancestor.
And then it happened again in 1979, when Iran drastically reduced oil output in the wake of its revolution against the US-backed Shah. Although this time the global oil supply was only reduced some 4%, widespread panic resulted, and oil prices jumped more than during the first crisis. US gas prices went from $0.65 ($2.53 adjusted) in 1978 to $1.22 ($3.75) in 1980. By 1982, prices leveled off and soon began a long steady climb down, but the damage to big cars was permanent. Their market share plummeted almost in half in one year, from 19% in 1979 to 11% in 1980. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice…
The federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (“CAFE”) standards were created by Congress in 1975 in the wake of the first energy crisis and went into effect for the 1978 MY. It is often given as a major cause of the demise of the big American car. Undoubtedly it played a role, but by the time it might have started to have any meaningful impact, big cars were already down to about 10% of the market.
And they weren’t really having much trouble meeting the CAFE numbers. A 1980 full sized Chevrolet was rated at 18/26, which would have been a 22 combined mpg, well above the 20 CAFE for 1980. But that’s just for the full sized cars; the CAFE included all cars built by GM. By 1980, most of them were smaller and more efficient. Efficiency is what buyers wanted at the time, and not because it was being mandated.
One might rightfully point out that the V6 powered Chevrolet had mediocre performance. But then this was during the long-lived dark era of the double-nickle (55 mph) speed limit. And the reality was that no cars had good performance at the time. Almost all cars and trucks sold during the late 70s and into the mid 80s were modestly powered, with very few exceptions. Welcome to the Malaise Era, precipitated by higher gas prices, compounded by tightening emission standards and exacerbated by the temporary lack of high technology solutions.
Although gas had dropped a bit, it was still above $1.00 ($2.30) until 1987. And fuel efficiency, although better than in the 70s, still had a long way to go. There’s very little reason to assume that big cars would have sold substantially better if they had more power. A 305 powered Chevrolet was a lot faster than all of the four cylinder minivans and the early V6 compact SUVs being snapped up at the time in the mid 80s. And it was a moot point: literally no one under a certain age was buying big cars anyway, especially so on the coasts and major metropolitan areas. The big car had long ago become the old man’s car.
Young families had long moved on; decades ago, for that matter. The baby boomers shunned buying new big cars from the get-go, with rare exception. And starting in 1984, the minivan and compact SUV were red hot with that demographic, and between them, they absolutely killed what was left of the big station wagon. The original swb Chrysler minivans were all of 177″ long, the lwb versions 190″. And with a high seating position and a short hood but room for up to eight. No wonder this was the biggest hit of the 80s and 90s. Chrysler had ditched the last of its big RWD cars a few years earlier and never looked back. By 1987, they had already sold over a million of them.
The exception would be the Taurus wagon, which along with the sedan redefined the size, shape and capability of the new standard American car. At 188″ long (191″ wagon) it was right back to that magic number, within inches of a ’55 Chevy and ’58 Rambler, and so many others that hit the sweet spot. With its FWD, it was significantly more space efficient than its RWD counterparts, as well as more fuel efficient and much more fun to drive. And they sold very well: In 1988, as an example, Ford sold 126k Taurus/Sable wagons, and GM sold 140k A-Body wagons. These had become the standard family wagon, for those that still wanted one.
The Taurus and its domestic and import competitors were the final coffin nail in the big American RWD car. It had nothing more to offer than nostalgia as well as a rugged platform for taxis, police cars, limos and other commercial uses. And not surprisingly, useful alternatives have been found for all of them one they disappeared.
Given that this site is all about the love of old cars, and big American RWD cars probably get more love here than any other, my goal here is not to denigrate the big American car. Many of us grew up riding in them as kids—or wish we had—and thus were deeply affected by them. And many of you, including many younger readers, have owned them as transportation as well as hobby cars. They have a unique appeal that has only grown as they become more scarce. Their passing is a genuine loss.
But it’s also important that we not mythologize them in ways that are not historically accurate. Just like not all Chevelles were not SS396’s, not all American cars from the mid ’50s on were full sized ones. Their size made them a unique part of American culture, and perhaps now we can lament the fact that there weren’t more made. Blame it on your mother or grandmother. And yourselves.
Of course the big American car is still alive and well, in the form of the pickup, the ultimate guy-mobile. The pickup’s (and big SUV’s) popularity as personal transportation started growing in the mid ’60s, and it really accelerated in the ’70s. Expensive gas slowed that down in the ’80s, although mini-pickups were madly popular. But as gas prices leveled off and receded in the ’90s, big pickup and SUV sales exploded. And their share is still growing.
Since women all have (and buy) their own cars now, it’s also the ultimate reflection of how polarized and fragmented the market has become. To each their own.
Note: These charts were a bit of a challenge to create. As I mentioned earlier, I’ve slowly been building an Excel spread sheet by tediously adding up the production numbers of all the various models of any given size from my tattered Standard Encyclopedia of American Cars. Why the publishers didn’t do this is beyond me. Who cares how many 1964 Bel Air 2 door sedans were built? How about how many full size Chevrolets? It’s still got a ways to go, but eventually I want to make it available to anyone here at CC as well as use it to create similar analyses of the various categories/sizes.
Defining the total US light vehicle market, which includes passenger cars and light trucks and vans, was a particular challenge. From 1977 on, I had stats for that combined market. But the charts I used in this post are for just the passenger car market, all the way through. But I have added this chart above that shows Big RWD Cars’ share of both the passenger car and the total light vehicle markets. I extrapolated the light vehicle market by adding a multiplier to the passenger car market stats that were available. I gradually increased that multiplier from 1.10 in 1964 to 1.22 in 1976, based on some information available, but there’s some assumptions in that (the light truck market was 23.7% in 1977), but presumably it’s not enough to make a material difference. it’s safe to say that prior to the early 70s, the great majority of light trucks were used commercially and not primarily as a substitute for regular passenger car duties.
Related reading:
How Rambler Won the Compact and Price wars of the 1950s and Saved AMC PN
Thanks Paul for a well thought out article. I too grew up a fan of the really large car, the Cadillacs and Lincolns of the 1950s through 1970s. Luckily I’ve been able to own and drive a few examples. I think that as excessive size became a dominant design factor that “standard sized” American cars of this period became an aberration. They were overly large without gaining any advantages of space or utility. If the ’59 Plymouth or ’60 Chevy or Pontiac was big and it was the cheaper car, than the Cad, Buick, and Chrysler had to get even bigger. Size was the only real difference between a cheaper and more expensive car.
I also agree that as the American women’s role expanded as a more independent party, even within the traditional family structure, her choices were bound to effect the kind of cars that were produced. Most women of this period were not as interested as their men in cars that were making a status statement. Whether in size or excessive power. They are just more practical in their choices.
When it comes to trucks my personal choice is for something that gets the job done. I have a single cab, long bed pick up as my work vehicle. I have an older Explorer that I now prefer to drive as an everyday vehicle because it is easier to park and load due to it’s smaller size. Those big older cars are interesting as artifacts but not so much as actual vehicles.
Congratulations on a remarkable piece, Mr N.
I too had the perception that big cars were much more dominant than this reality shows them to be. Over time on this site, I have also learned that heaps of US consumers hated the gigantism for all the obvious practical reasons. I would add this thought: when it comes to manouvreability, it is excessive width which makes for true unmanageability. Indeed, from the perspective of another country, there are many places where the sheer width of these things make them undriveable. Which is a bit of a minus for a car.
As a purely anecdotal observation, women are far smarter than men in choosing a car that actually fits their needs. It may be sad in a nostalgic way for all that chrome and style and hugeness to have passed, but the female influence on the car world means sensible, useable sized cars predominate.
Is it correct that the huge utes from Ford and GM (and others) are the big car replacement? Jason Shafer had a fascinating article on big utes on this site a while back, and in part, it said that these monsters are close to a practical necessity for the way transport is set up in vast areas of the mid-west. For sure, there seem to be plenty in suburbia too – which really must be male ego-calmers – but the bulk have a practical purpose. I also recall that despite being best-sellers, they still only amount to about 10-15% of the total market.
One question. Why DID the cars grow so large in the mid-fifties? This piece posits an idea of why the average buy shrank and ultimately killed the monsters, but why did those ’50’s cars that crossed the boundary of sensible do that, and then continue to their apotheosis in that ’73 Imperial?
Cars got big in the ’50s because they could. We were building all sorts of new cities and suburbs and roads in the postwar years, and unlike in Europe, we didn’t have to worry about width. So we spread out as far as we could, and it’s only within the past 30 years or so that we really started to come back from that.
And yes, full-size pickups (and to a lesser extent, SUVs) are the de facto replacement for full-size cars.
+1
Highly interesting analysis, one of the most enjoyable reads of the period I lived through. Thanks for your all your work compiling the statics, the graphs are invaluable to understand the phenomenon. As a partisan for big American cars, even I admitted they had become excessive by the early 1970’s and increasingly out-of-touch with societal realities.
When the ’59 Cadillacs were described as the “pleasant insanity of innocent excess” in a ’80’s Motor Trend article it perfectly encapsulated what that latter 1950’s through 1970 approach to big American cars was. But 1970 was the stunning wake-up call to come back to the realities. It simply took a decreasing percentage of the population more time to abandon the childishly innocent ideal of the big American car as acceptable and desirable any longer.
Oh deary me, I commented, it went away, could someone please find it (and get rid of this one)? Cheers
Outstanding piece Paul and I look forward to your follow up, “Who Killed the Small American Car?”
I think we all know the answer to that one, but your definitive take will be welcome.
Naw, it wasn’t the Trilateral Commission–that’s for conspiracy theorists. It was the Illuminati. 🙂
Actually it was the Mercury Marquis de Sade.
Paul, I finally took the time to read this through and it’s a commendable amount of work and a fascinating perspective. This all was happening well before my time so it is truly interesting to see it analyzed and discussed in this detail. Fine work, and thanks for providing something so unique and rare.
PS: In our decade, the full size pickup is all the rage (or enrage, depending on view). Big, roomy, comfy, powerful, pure Americana, and with a strong counter reaction to what some view as excess. I won’t plant a flag on any side of that little conflict, but will note that every time I see one of those grand 1950s-60s American battleship sedans with quarter-mile overhangs and tail fins fit for an airliner, I must say that even the most chrome-bedecked pickup of today looks….shall we say, modest?
Nobody’s ever called a modern pickup “grand”.
Today’s pickups are the modern equivalent of the finned monsters of the 50’s.
Nothing modest about them. Overweight, overstyled, and catering to a fashion trend that most people actually don’t need but want. Doubt my point of view? 4×4? Off road package? Home Depot is off road for most. If it weren’t for leasing, most people couldn’t afford these cowboy clown cars that pass for pick ups today. Most owners (lessors) can hardly get into them gracefully, but they’re hoping that you won’t notice.
Wow Paul, this sits amongst your finest work, possibly up top. The stats bring great clarity and its sociological breadth makes a very persuasive contribution to the premise.
It seems the male skew is still evident in today’s cars. This piece discusses on the sizing of crash test dummies along male lines to the possible detriment of women.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/feb/23/truth-world-built-for-men-car-crashes
I recently noticed a campaign run here in Australia by Volvo that claims to have addressed this bias in their own product.
Very much appreciation for this piece.
Some of the best automobile journalism is found right here. Thank you for your article on the demise of the big American car. But after spending a few months in central Texas I find that the big American car is alive and well and are called pickup trucks and SUVs. Interstate 35 is bumper to bumper with them and every country makes them.
Thanks, Paul. I am really enjoying your analytical pieces about the industry. My family pretty much fit the profile you reported. Dad was the only driver and bought standard or mid-sized American sedans or wagons, until the 1969 Dodge Sportsman Van. After the kids grew up, he did return to passenger cars, not big sedans, a Monte Carlo, Cutlass Supreme and a Thunderbird. Finally, he went Toyota and never looked back. As a “boomer” (licensed in 1968) have never owned a standard American car as primary transportation.The 1957 Chevy was only a collectible and generally miserable to drive.
One thing that differed from the norm when I was growing up is that moms in the neighborhood that drove tended to have the big station wagon during the day while the dads commuted in small cars.
Magnum Opus indeed, wow! This is the kind of article you’ll never see at the “other” site.
I always found it amusing that the big American car was called “standard size,” at least from the late 1950s into the early 80s, when even the august publication Automotive News stopped using the term. Standard size implied that smaller cars were of substandard or suboptimal size, which as others have mentioned, was intentional!
I spent a couple of days reading and rereading through this enormous piece. There are many new viewpoints presented. I am still considering many of them, as if they are true, causes new questions to arise.
Such as – what is it that makes a vehicle masculine? Why would a 1959 GM car be more masculine than another car? Are we considering these cars to be the male equivalent to a rooster or peacock? Are overly designed vehicles more appealing to men? Is the finned beauties from sixty years ago as appealing as the faux bolts, hooks and gew gaws of a HUMMER? There’s a lot to unpack there.
This could have easily been a week’s worth of postings. It covers so much ground.
I am delighted to have your professorial presentation regarding these issues. I will be studying it for a long time.
What impact has family size had? I’ve been forced through many types of vehicles, due to fertility. I covet big car from the past because I need a big car that is affordable, and I find most trucks to be embarrassing cartoons of masculinity. My kids do that for me, so I don’t need a truck designed to look like a bulldozer.
These old ads – the ones praising male traits – are we really seeing a different way of injecting a “sporty” character into these cars? Is it possible that “sportiness” is an attribute assigned to masculinity? Are sports cars masculine?
The reason I ask this is because it seems that small cars didn’t really kick into popularity until “sportiness” became a selling point. The Henry J, Rambler, Jet and early small cars failed to be presented beyond “smaller”, so that their prices couldn’t be justified. So, “sportiness” became the selling point to smaller cars to present them as different from “luxurious”, which had been the selling standard for decades earlier.
So – I’m at a point where I believe that small cars grew in popularity as auto marketers shifted to presenting them as being sportier than larger cars. During the 1950s, small car ads didn’t present them this way, but within a decade, they were.
Size, maneuverability and cost are left brain reasoning behind VWs, Volvos and Falcons. Yet, small cars boomed in the market when they were sold as “sporty”.
Hmmm….
Fascinating article Paul – definitely one of your (many) labors of love! Your premise makes sense throughout.
I believe we are of similar age; my parents moved to the burbs in the early ‘60s, the 2nd car came along a year later, the station wagon soon after. I remember them “downgrading” from a full size Ford to a Torino in ‘70 (although us kids were clamoring for Dad to get a Mustang since we all were heading towards driving age), and then further still to a Dart in ‘75. By that time 2 of us were off to college.
Personally I always disliked the unwieldy-ness of the big cars; my first smaller car was a Hornet. Even today I still prefer smaller, although at 6’3”/190# there are comfort considerations… After the Outback I think I want something a little taller for ingress purposes, maybe a Forrester or CR-V. Of all my vehicles my Trooper was the most comfortable, sitting up like you’re on a park bench.
If I was buying new back in the mid ‘60s I would have probably been a Lemans or Fairlane kind of guy…
Let’s not forget the magazine writers of the day, in particular Brock Yates and Patrick Bedard of ‘Car and Driver.’ Every issue in the 70s and 80s was filled with bile, contempt, and derision for big American cars from these two gentlemen. Patrick Bedard once devoted an entire article to show his great disdain for the Gen 2 Monte Carlo. In 1974 there was an article entitled “Detroit’s Shattered Love Affair” which chronicled the break-up with the Big Car. Every Big Car write up in that publication was fraught with snide comments, cruel jokes, and constant threats that “big cars are going away for good.” Turns out they were right, it just took a lot longer than they expected (or wanted). Yes, the purchasing habits of women did drive the Big Car to its extinction, be we can’t discount the profound effect magazine editors, not just from Car and Driver, had in the accessory to the murder of these vehicles.
I included attached image of the “Love Affair” article.
But, in long run, they were dead wrong, since big trucks and SUV’s all over nowadays are replacements for the cars C&D bashed. They gleefully predicted in 79-80, ”we will all be in small Euro-like cars from now on”. As if!
The “big car” simply changed its styling and form.
The picture that accompanied the article from the same issue.
It was small cars that sucked big cars into extinction, right?
Each big car brings in a bucket of profits, so that the manufacturers can spend it refining a profitable small car. The belief that an Escort is an entry-point into Ford products meant that making $50 on an Escort was justifiable when that returning customer traded in their Escort for a Crown Victoria, which made Ford a lot of money. Small cars were loss-leaders for auto manufacturers. What little money was made putting a subcompact on the road, was made up when a Town Car hit the streets.
So, while big cars brought in the money, they didn’t need to be refined, improved or better that the previous year’s big car. By broughamification, you can get even more money out of a dated Torino by selling it as a Thunderbird, a Falcon by selling it as a Granada, or a Custom 500 by selling it as an LTD. Want more profits from a big car? Add more velour, deeper pile carpeting, a hood ornament, or an opera light, right?
Big cars didn’t improve. All the other smaller cars improved instead. Lee Iacocca struck a gold mine by putting cheap tacky plastic garbage on dated cars. He showed Ford how to make a silk purse Mustang II Ghia out of a sow’s ear Pinto. It was too hard to resist.
Big cars were milked for the dough they made. They got ignored until too late.
Lee Iacocca killed them.
He showed Detroit how to take obsolete cars and return them to profitability through marketing, badge engineering, opera windows, Rolls Royce grilles, Mercedes Benz wheel covers, Ghia badges, deep pile carpeting on lower door interiors, velour pillow top upholstery, while spending absolutely NOTHING on improving these cars.
1955 Ford becomes Falcon
Falcon becomes Mustang
Falcon becomes Maverick
Falcon becomes Granada
Falcon becomes Versailles
Falcon becomes Monarch
Pinto becomes Mustang II
Pinto becomes Bobcat
Pinto becomes Cruising Wagon
Detroit got fat and happy selling Iacocca-inspired auto rides. There was more time spent matching fake wood trim in a Pontiac dashboard, than trying to make the car handle better, brake quicker or give a driver great road handling.
I missed this when it was first written – wonderful article.
I remember my 5’3″ mother reversing our 1959 Plodge station wagon into a ditch when I was a child, so I agree with your premise. Our other car at the time was a 1958 Morris Minor convertible, which was much more manageable.
Post-divorce, my mother had a Dodge Colt wagon, a Honda Civic wagon, and finally a Toyota Celica. She definitely wasn’t in the market for a big car by choice.
Funny. I saw a ’58 Edsel Ranger in a parking lot about a week ago. Seemed kinda slender and dainty compared to what was around it. They seemed sizable when I was a kid. This from somone who rode around in a ’74 Impala as a kid…
Rummaging through some old magazines downstairs, I recently came across this short 3 pager entitled, “Who Killed the Station Wagon.” Summarizing it, the author blames minivans, SUVs, CAFE, and Pickup Trucks (and also Front wheel drive). Here are the images, they are from an out of print magazine called Canadian Classics, that was published out of PEI.
Page 2
Page 3
Just reread this again from it’s original publication. What a masterpiece of literature and history.
Personally I never liked driving the big cars as I came of age in the 70s. Compact/intermediate is much more my liking although I’m a tall person and comfort in smaller cars isn’t always easy. No wonder mom loved getting the ‘70 Torino to replace her ‘66 Ranch wagon….
Neatly parallels my folks car buying habits during the 70’s and 80’s. During the late 60’s and early 70’s they drove a huge 1968 Olds Delta 88 sedan in a very dark shade of green. That was replaced by a “smaller’ and mid size 1974 Chevy Chevelle sedan with a 350 2BBL V8 as opposed to the Delta’s 455 4BBL. The next car and worst we ever owned was a 1979 Fairmont sedan with the 200 six followed by a vastly superior 1982 Cutlass Supreme coupe and 1984 Cutlass Ciera sedan with the little 2.5 Iron Duke. Then dad downsized even further with a 1989 Ford Tempo and the an early 90’s Escort that after about 8 Winters saw it’s rear cave into the ground with rotted out rear shock towers.
After that it was back to larger cars with a 1999 Intrigue and Lumina followed by a 2001 Bonneville that mom actually drove. The Intrigue was replaced by a 2008 Impala and when dad passed away the Bonneville and Lumina were sold and the Impala gave way to a 2016 Cruze- mom’s current car that better fits in the garage and makes for a great little city commuter. The 08 Impala lives on in the hands of my best friend’s son and will be the last larger sized sedan in our family.
The article was indeed interesting especially considering the sheer volume of full sized sedans on the roads during the 70’s and 80’s. By the later half of the 80’s however it was very noticeable that the full sized sedan was being displaced by minivans, smaller wagons, the ever popular Taurus, pickups and the like. I wouldn’t mind having my 1990 Cadillac Brougham back but only with the superior 350 engine.
I don’t share Paul’s definition of the “big car.”
The big American “standard car” since WW II is arguably anything with a wheelbase of 111” or greater. The Plymouth brand defines this for us.
The 1946 Plymouth was a behemoth on a 118” wheelbase with SUV like height and proportions. 1962 was not the first great Plymouth downsizing. The first was the 1949 postwar design “Second Series,” which was offered in 111” and 117” wheelbases. Downsizing came again in 1953 with a single 114” inch wheelbase. Peak standard Plymouth was 1974 with a 124” wheelbase under the wagons.
If we define the standard Plymouth car as anything with a wheelbase 111” or greater, that includes any Plymouth built in the ‘70s except the Duster and Volare coupes and the Horizon! The final standard Plymouth car was the 1989 M body Fury with a 112” wheelbase – in showrooms with 119” wheelbase Voyager minivans! In 1974, Plymouth effectively offered the 1946, 1949, 1953, 1962 and 1974 cars in one showroom.
The 1975 CAFE laws directly targeted the standard car as defined by the EPA, but left Dodge RAM 3500 size loopholes for vans and trucks. After 1980, American manufacturers mostly froze development on standard cars as they were a dead-end. Creating a new successful standard car would literally lead to government fines, so “cars” moldered and became the province of older folks that mostly used them for the lighter errands of life after age 60.
The hard work of the standard Plymouth car was transferred to anything that could be labeled a van or truck, leading to regulatory absurdities such as the Chrysler PT Cruiser and the Dodge Ram pickup sharing showrooms as “trucks.”
The 2007 update to CAFE, with its “vehicle footprint” formula is now killing the “car,” period. The “car” category has become synonymous with “entry level vehicle,” leading to lower margins and the technology to keep cars compliant is too expensive to develop. The last round of fuel economy technology development in the “car” sector played a part in the decisions that led to the VW Dieselgate and Ford DPS6 transmission messes. With low margins, high development costs and mind-boggling legal expenses following rushed technology, it is 1980 again. Why bother with cars at all? Let them molder and die.
Which is unfortunate. Sure, my F-150 is a limousine like sedan, but our 2015 Dodge Dart, with its low center of gravity, small footprint and aerodynamic body is fun to run around in, and (perversely counter to the overall goals of CAFE) gets gas mileage a blocky compact Jeep can’t get with the same engine in it. It’s been great vehicle for my college kid, but Sergio Marchionne saw no logic in cars that don’t carry Alfa Romeo Giulia price points. And, public taste has been conditioned to see no logic in cars with high price points.
When Plymouth “cars” were workhorses….
Is it really that bad to like the big American cars from years past? I do and I don’t hate or marginalize women. Or are you (Paul or anyone) saying maybe I do and don’t know it? I think it would be great to have car styling aimed at me for a change instead of a “bigger picture” share. I think the 1970’s big cars are the best looking and I would love to drive to work in a Marquee or an LTD and see the expressions on peoples faces. Why not? They are beautiful and very different looking these days. Im at the point that I can even afford the gas for them. The problem is the rust. Thats the deal breaker.
P.s. Just because I’m a man doesn’t make me evil and petty sarcasm is not a way to prove it to the contrary.
Great article as always Paul.
> It doesn’t take a PhD in psychology or statistics to know that these final huge cars (the longest ever was to the 1973 Imperial, at 235.3″) were targeted solely at certain men and bought solely by them. This is the ultimate anti-woman car
I was looking through old car brochures online and the one for the 1966 Imperial was an eyeroll-inducer. It didn’t even seem to even cross the mind of the brochure writers that a woman would want to buy this car. First page shown below, and it goes on in this vein for several pages filled with verbiage like: “The man insists on a choice. He weighs the alternatives carefully. Then others abide by his decision.”
…and it gets worse. Clearly, a woman’s place is in the passenger seat (the page shown below is the only place in the brochure that the ladies are referenced at all). Women are portrayed in the brochure more as lifestyle accessories for the self-absorbed men these cars were aimed at than as actual people. A second Imperial brochure was produced that year, a more typical booklet showing and describing features of the car. I can’t find any publication dates to know for sure in which order they were printed, but I have to believe the original brochure rubbed some buyers the wrong way and a revamped pamphlet took its place.
You have to realize that in 1966, the wife referred to in the ad, would have had to have her husband’s permission to legally obtain a credit card. Context is everything with this ad.
That is pretty stunning but does it really make you roll your eyes? It is a brochure targeting a specific demographic is it not? Remember, if there was a large enough market to target a group that loved to torture cute puppies, the car companies would be all over it in the name of making a buck and having a good quarter. Its just exploitation of a potential market even if we disagree with the (assumed) beliefs of the target audience.
There is a 1978 Chrysler New Yorker for sale in my area(Queens) if i had a garage to park it…….i would gladly buy it $2700. It looks great not concours,but great looking daily driver. Button tuffed leather seats and all. I agree with Ted………these cars standout and look great,those who don’t like these cars are basically blue pilled manginas. These cars represent our history and the richness of our country in better times. Whats out there now is look alike cars(you have been assimilated)i can afford almost any new car out now………………………i choose to use my 98 Ford escort and 01 BMW 330xi. At some point(when i get out of NYC)I will be looking for a 1st gen Cadillac Seville and would love to find a 74 Bel Air or 2nd gen Monte.
This is easily the best of 2019, explained completely what happened to the big American RWD car. I refer others to it to increase their understanding of those times and events. Thank you.
I was born in 79 and all the cars i grew up with were FWD. My first 4 cars were front wheel drive.
So when it came time to replace my w body regal i wanted something different. I wanted RWD and it was 2010…the crown vic was gonna be gone soon so given they were cheap reliable and rwd i decided to gave the last big bof rwd american car a try and got a grand marquis. I also wanted to try a type of car that everyone once had but was almost extinct.
So conclusuon….it was a great car with awesone utility…yes the wife hated to drive it but it was a awesome family car and took us and the 2 kids everywhere…but fact is it provided the same comfort and utility as a honda crv…or an A body wagon if it was 1985 (my parents family hauler). Fact is..these cars were not bad but not practical designs which is why theyre gone now. As for my grand marquis it gave me 7 reliable years but lost its title as family hauler to a 2016 odyssey after 5 years and replaced with an accord after 7 years.
I somehow missed this the first time around. Have to say out of the comments the Eddiesaurus was priceless.
I curse everyone and everything that took away the big cars. I had a hard time getting used to panther plàtform cars after decades of 70s Ford and Lincoln barges. I certainly don’t want or like anything any smaller and like jp said you can’t buy what isn’t offered. I really thing that the second round of downsizing killed big cars. The 85 Cadillac and olds 98 and Electra made people feel that they were being robbed and trying to pass off a Fairmont sized car as full sized made people go buy trucks or SUVs instead of baby fulll sized cars that cost more and broke down more so in effect you got a bland penalty box that cost more to buy and own and the gas savings didn’t justify it. I would have gone to trucks too except I can work on my elderly Lincoln cars. And the other thing is with out size and all cars full of technology, a luxury brand is not justified
This ad isn’t anti-woman, it is pro-gentleman. 50 years ago men weren’t told that their sex was toxic to society. Instead, they celebrated masculinity and encouraged chivalry.
This fantastic write-up was the best posting of 2019.
In my family, we seemed to go the other way…my Dad started out with a standard sized (but stripper) car, he bought a new 1956 Plymouth Plaza with no options….before he married my Mother. After we were born (twins) they actually downsized in a way, they bought 2 Rambler Wagons (they were smaller than the Plymouth but the wagon gave them cargo capacity that the Plymouth lacked). By the mid-60’s my Dad was actually up-sizing (still a 1 car family) when we bought a ’65 F85 Wagon…and by the late 60’s he’d gone back to full sized wagon (’69 Country Squire) which they bought several similar iterations of.
However, like a lot of families, mine became a 2 car family probably in 1966 when my Dad bought a ’59 Beetle….then a new ’68 Renault R10. That was their pattern back then, always had a large wagon and a small (commuter) car. However, note that my 5’0″ Mother always drove the larger vehicle once they were a 2 car family, and my 5’11 230 lb Father drove the smaller car. My Mother really didn’t like driving large cars, but that’s what she had available, and for longer trips we did enjoy having a large car…1 large car isn’t really the same as having 2 smaller cars. And as others state, there are plenty of women who prefer to drive larger vehicles…so even though the trend was to smaller cars, and the trend was prior to gas prices getting higher, I don’t think it was strictly women, strictly gas prices, nor strictly less expensive (smaller) cars that caused this, though undoubtedly each had some effect.
One thing not mentioned was the number of single driver (no passenger) vehicles…though it is impossible to quantify this, I would expect that this number has gotten larger as time went on…which has a number of influences on car size…with single driver, of course you don’t need to have as large a vehicle (though of course you can). The number of cars goes way up, since each driver can and does have at least one car (sometimes more than one) available. Fewer people share rides, either carpooling, taking public transportation, or hitch hiking. To me, this is likely due to increased affluence more than anything. More money doesn’t necessarily mean larger (or more expensive) cars, it may just mean more of them, and that each driver in the family now has access to their own car…less sharing. To me, this seems to be the more likely trend, making large cars more “optional” (how often do large numbers of people occupy the same vehicle at the same time…I’d argue that it happens less than in the past).
I think that half the reason “full sized” cars lost so much market share after the mid 1950s is that the smallest of the ’55s, especially the Chevy and Ford, were just not that big, and would have been called “mid sized” any time between 1965 and 1976. Some people, no doubt, have always splurged to get something they don’t need but looks cool in their driveway; I drove early-1970s Cadillacs for a few years after getting my license and really enjoyed the sight of that long hood in the front and subtle fins in the back; it was like being in a parade. Of course, the opposite of that was when my parents test drove a 1975 Nova and decided to get a Malibu only because I could not fit in the back of the cramped Nova, with so much of its adequate wheelbase under the hood; I suspect that if they had been in a Ford or Dodge dealership, they’d have had no problem getting a 4 door Maverick or Dart, which seemed to have just enough room to fit a 5′ 10″ 13yo in the back. Later, when they got a Citation, I had no problem fitting in the back, so they were always looking for something that was just big enough. I’ll bet that a lot of people realized in the 1960s that a mid-sized or compact car was just big enough for their needs, the same way the “full sized” 1955 Chevy seemed to be. They were probably not the sort of people who fueled the “personal luxury” boom of the 1970s, with the remarkable Lincoln Mark V offering mid sized room an a package just 3″ shorter than a Cadillac Fleetwood; it was amazing that such cars sold so well between two fuel crises. It was a way of telling the world “I can afford a gas guzzler, but I don’t need the space”. It sounds incredibly gouache, but people who bought big SUVs in place of more practical minivans in the 1990s, just to use them as station wagons, were also blowing boatloads of money to impress the neighbors. Whatever becomes of the car market, human nature will always run the gamut from calculated practicality to brash showmanship.
The replacement vehicle for the full size sedan are 4 door full-size pickups. Then, larger SUV’s.
Started when F-Series hit #1 selling vehicle. Sure, we have gas crises, but then always back to biggies when gas goes down.
Predictions in 1979-80 by Buff book writers that “all US drivers will be in sub/compacts from now on”, didn’t come true. The critically acclaimed Honda Accord, once called ‘the perfect car’ has fallen from top sales charts. And certainly isn’t a ‘proper small car’ anymore.
Also, from post above:
“1975 CAFE laws directly targeted the standard car as defined by the EPA, but left Dodge RAM 3500 size loopholes for vans and trucks.”
Our family home, out in the suburbs, circa 1968.
I was born in 1957, firstborn.. My father had a 1952 Pontiac Chieftain that he traded on a 1957 Buick Century.. My sister was born in 1961. In 1964, he got a Cadillac Coupe de Ville, my mother inherited the Buick.. We were four person plus a dog family.. We took some cross country vacations to national parks, Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, etc.. That was kind of mandatory that era.. I don’t think that sort of thing even exists anymore. In 1969, Papa got another Cadillac Coupe de Ville, Mom got the 1964.. Papa preferred Cadillacs. He said they were safer, and better built. The assembly lines moved slower, and a Cadillac with 100,000 miles was just nicely broken in. He felt it paid to buy quality. He got another Cadillac Coupe in 1977, with the downsizing, he felt the early ’70s versions were bloated. Mom got the 1969, and I inherited the 1964 Coupe.
Very interesting article and commentary here! What I wonder (as a kid who grew up on shows like “Kojak”), how the RAV-4s and CRVs that have effectively replaced the full-size American cars I rode in would handle at speed compared to those softly-sprung mid-seventies behemoths, famous, at least on TV, for throwing off wheel covers with aplomb? And how would one measure/compare such things? Skidpad numbers? Other? I, too, had noticed a few years back that the crossovers were indeed about the same size as, well, I’d noticed about a 1950 or so Ford 2 door wagon at a Ford dealership, restored, sitting next to an Escape, and I made the connection.
Certainly performance and handling are now much better, thanks to more powerful engines, more sophisticated suspensions and much better tires. They’re vastly safer, both active and passive. But obviously the bulk of bread-and-butter car buyers then and now weren’t/aren’t really concerned about all-out maximum performance and handling.
That’s for sure about the bread-and-butter car buyers. I’m guessing most modern crossovers aren’t nearly as bad to roll over in evasive maneuvers at freeway speeds as older Jeep CJs or Ford Explorers, but I wonder if anyone has done serious testing on such things. Ah well, it’d be fun to see some mashup of crossovers versus some big broughams in some ’70s style TV cop show/exploitation film chase, wheel covers flying off and all.