After their much-ballyhooed push into the “small car” market for 1960, the U.S. Big Three rather quickly returned to their old ways as their “economy” offerings, never actually that petite to begin with, morphed into larger and pricier cars. However, the market segment itself never really changed, as a good percentage of buyers still wanted a smaller, nimbler and less expensive car. VW happily filled this void and became the dominant player among the economy imports, though many other small car brands, mostly European, jumped into the fray as well. Japanese makers also sought a piece of the action, though their early efforts pretty much missed the mark. However, that would change in 1965, when Toyota introduced the 1966 Corona. It was the car that sparked Toyota’s meteoric rise in the U.S. market, and right out of the gate it was well received by the automotive press.
While East Coast-based Car and Driver paid scant attention to the new arrival from Japan, the California-based buff books— Motor Trend and Road Test —took an immediate liking to the car.
Motor Trend was known for giving high praise to products from high paying advertisers, but in 1965 Toyota’s marketing budget was minuscule. So the praise seemed pretty genuine, though perhaps Motor Trend was angling for a piece of the pie down the road–after all, based on the Corona, it seemed like the newest Toyota would be a sure fire hit.
Road Test served up a very comprehensive look at the new Toyota sedan in their November 1965 issue.
One of the best aspects of the new Corona was its relatively powerful engine, which handily beat all of its imported challengers in performance. While the engine was totally conventional, it was effective in offering less of a trade-off between power and economy than was normally expected in that car class at the time.
The turn signal actuator on the horn ring was certainly an odd feature of the early Coronas. Imagine the number of beeps you’d hear at an intersection where a new Corona driver was figuring out how to signal his intentions…
Calling the Corona a sports sedan was certainly a stretch, though its small size and decent handling certainly would have made it feel nimble and easily controllable, especially compared to swing axle Beetles and larger domestic offerings.
Declaring it easy to use, easy to love and a great value to boot, Road Test was quite enthusiastic about the Corona. Today it is ironic to think that the Road Test editors would need to urge people to put Toyota on their shopping list, but at that time the fledgling brand was far from being an obvious choice. The accolades and word of mouth generated by the Corona would quickly start to change that…
In spite of the early praise, Toyota was not content to rest on their laurels with the Corona. Stung by their earlier failure in the U.S. market with the Tiara, Toyota was ready with rapid enhancements to the Corona to increase the car’s appeal to American buyers. For 1967, a new 2-door hardtop body style was introduced, offering sleeker styling than the 4-door sedan without sacrificing too much practicality.
Toyota saw fit to bring its 2-speed Toyoglide (much like Chevrolet’s Powerglide) to the market as well. While the transmission itself was nothing revolutionary, its application in the economy import market segment was. And best of all, according to Road Test, the automatic powertrain worked as intended, providing ease of use without completely decimating performance.
While some Americans were interested in automatics in their economy cars, the majority of the economy imports were sold with manual transmissions. So Toyota upped the ante by augmenting the 3-speed manual with a new 4-speed manual. Motor Trend tested the 4-speed Corona hardtop and found that the transmission did mate very nicely with the Corona’s powerful (for the class) 90 hp OHV 4-cylinder.
While fuel economy wasn’t quite up to Motor Trend’s expectations, it was still adequate for the class. Plus the details and solidity of the Corona really made a positive impression. Things like a fold-down rear seat to extend the cargo area and dome lights that could be switched on and off were novel for the time, and examples of little “surprise and delight” features that really improved the day-to-day enjoyment of the car.
Road Test once again took a look at both the Corona Sedan and Hardtop for 1968. Their initial favorable impression of the car had only grown stronger.
The real testament to the Corona’s reputation came after the car had been on the market for several years. Customers who had been attracted to the “Americanized” approach to a small economy car—nice looks, zippy performance, reasonable comfort, available automatic—were then pleased to discover that Toyota’s quality was more than skin deep. With the Corona, Toyota had served up a car that matched VW’s excellent build quality in a package that was much more suited to American driving conditions. The Corona delivered as promised right out of the gate, and the favorable word-of-mouth cemented Toyota’s reputation for everyday livability, as well as long-term durability and reliability. It also ensured strong resale value, which had been one of the keys to VW’s success in the U.S.
Based on all the positive owner feedback and real world proof of the Toyota’s lasting quality, Road Test awarded the Corona its “Imported Car of the Year” award in 1969. Unlike Motor Trend’s “Car of the Year,” which was awarded annually to a newly introduced design no matter what (even if the “all-new” cars in a given year weren’t impressive, the award was still given out anyway), Road Test took a more holistic view and only served up the award when they felt a vehicle truly warranted the commendation, and the Editors based their decision both on the product excellence as well as owner feedback. Utilizing those criteria, it is easy see why the Corona was their pick.
In 4 short years, the Corona had effectively built Toyota’s reputation for excellence and sales success. In its first full year on the U.S. market, the Corona was responsible for more than tripling Toyota’s sales. While the 20,908 Toyotas sold for 1966 paled in comparison to the 427,694 VWs sold that year, the results were not that far off from the 32,033 Opels that GM retailed or the 29,232 Datsuns that hit the U.S. market. Toyota also delivered a stronger performance than both Fiat (15,933) and Renault (12,106).
From there, the brand’s popularity just kept climbing, and by 1969, thanks in large part to the Corona, Toyota’s sales surged into 6 figures, with 130,044 units sold in the U.S. Those results allowed Toyota to push past Opel (93,520 units sold) to claim 2nd place in U.S. import sales (Datsun sold 91,208 units, and VW was still the undisputed King with 566,356). More tellingly, and foreshadowing things to come, in the all-important California market for the first half of 1969, Toyota was the 5th best selling nameplate, import or domestic! Those were spectacular results, particularly for a brand that had been quite obscure just a few years earlier. The Corona was the car that started it all, and based on the car’s myriad attributes and overall suitability for American tastes, the success was well deserved.
I had a neighbour when I was a boy who had a first generation Toyota Corona sedan. At the time I couldn’t image anyone driving such a car; I thought it was hideous looking, better looking than the Crown of the same vintage, but ugly nonetheless.
Couple of things to note. The articles all seem to gloss over or skip how much the drivetrain designs were cribbed from GM, Think there readers might have liked to know that info. Second getting the copy of the super thrifty to 90hp with 1.9 liters required a 6000 rpm redline and perhaps according to one of the test premium fuel. I bet GM did not realize that if they did not do a HO Superthrifty, Toyota would take the engine and do it for them.
One can see why Toyota got ahead of the game with their 5 sp. The earlier transmissions have the engine spinning above 4000 rpm at 70. Not sure that is really a cruise all day engine speed. At least in the USA.
Historical context regarding engineering is not usually a top priority of contemporary car reviews. That’s why we who care read CC.
And, Toyota didn’t have a merely reverse-engineered drivetrain, it was downsized, revised and refined. The big news was that they had a 4 popper that was peppy, quite fuel efficient, and apparently wouldn’t rattle your teeth out. It wasn’t exactly a Chevy 6 under that hood.
Yes, everyone said that the Toyota four would rev to 6K. Try that with a pre-1963 Chevy six.
I think that by 1966, people had become used to some very high quality goods from Japan, especially cameras and electronics. I think that Toyota would have preferred starting out slowly with people giving them credit for their mechanicals rather than trying to punch up sales numbers by puffing about copycatting of GM’s engines and transmissions. Because by 1966, the Stove Bolt Six and Powerglide were hardly sales points.
What was a ‘super thrifty’? It is unknown to the internet, as is how the R series Toyota engine was a development of a GM engine. The 3R made 90 hp at 4,600 RPM, so the high redline is more a reflection of how sound the Toyota R engine was than it being in a high state of tune.
As I said in another comment to you, Toyota’s R-Series four dates back to the mid 50s, long before there ever was a Chevy II four. And none of Toyota’s post-war engines were direct copies; they license-built GM engines before the war, and naturally, that gave them a basis for their newer engines in the 50s. By the mid 60s, Toyota was designing engines that had no resemblance to GM engines. As in OHC aluminum head engines that actually worked, unlike GM’s Vega engine.
A friend’s parents had one of these back in 1971 when I was in the USAF in California. I think it was a 1970 model. He was from Sacramento, only 40 miles from base, so he’d go home on weekends, and for a time I’d go visit him and get some home-cooked food!
We piled into the car with his family and drove to Lake Tahoe for the day. I was impressed with some features of the car, others, not so much.
What did impress me, though, was how nice the car ran, plus the fuel economy.
Still, I wasn’t anywhere near moving away from the Impala I owned at the time.
Paul’s bit of history regarding Toyota’s conquering of California was reinforced with me by a recent drive on I-5, essentially from Point Loma to Griffith Park. Combine Toyota, Lexus and Scion brands, and Toyota seems to own the road. Other imports generally make up the rest. Among the few U.S. brands spotted, only the Ford Fusion, and quite surprisingly to me, the Chrysler 300 and Dodge Charger can be spotted with some regularity.
And, I may have to report that my past comments on this website on the death of the sedan may have been greatly exaggerated. Southern CA, at least the hard core commuter traffic, seems almost entirely driven by sedans.
Almost all of the vehicles on my freeway commute route (not in CA) are cars. A multi-vehicle family isn’t necessarily going to have two people movers, as long as there’s at least one. If someone works any distance from home, a commuter scooter sedan is a considerably more sensible choice. Generally cheaper and easier on gas. Besides, there are still a lot of childless singles and whatnot, and many of them will drive a car.
But, this is why the full size car is on its deathbed. Not much value over either a midsize sedan or a CUV.
My own family’s intro to these cars came early. My grandfather (who, as I’ve mentioned here was a staunch Chrysler man) bought both a first and a second generation Corona when they were relatively new and unheard of on the East Coast. The first I only vaguely recall because I was very young, but it must have been a late 60’s model. I know it was a sedan with automatic, as neither of my grandparents would drive a manual transmission. The second generation car became very familiar to me as I loved riding in it as a little kid. It was an early ’70’s model sedan with automatic in light beige with black interior.
My grandfather was a WW2 Navy vet, so when questioned or ribbed for his choice he simply said, “They’re good cars” and dismissed further comment. When the Omni/Horizon came out in ’78 he stopped buying Toyotas, replacing the second Corona with a well equipped Horizon.
What was always clear was that in his household these little cars had a purpose. They were the worker bees. The first Corona was owned at the same time as a comparatively enormous and very different-in-every-way ’69 Newport, and the second shared its garage space with a ’75 Cordoba. There was always a “Good Car” for weekend trips or for my grandmother to run in-town errands with, but the Toyotas had their mission, and they carried it out just fine.
As a comparison to American compacts of the time I offer this: That second Corona (I think it must have been a ’72) became very familiar to me because my mother borrowed it quite frequently for several day stints. The ’73 Vega that Mom was driving at the time had a tendancy to heat up and then indiscriminately shut down the next time the engine slowed to an idle. My grandfather, being laid up after the first of several heart attacks at the time, insisted that Mom take the Toyota, as “That piece of garbage you’re driving is going to get you killed”. Even as a young kid it was almost as if you could smell the quality difference between that car and the contemporary Vega.
Only a magazine would bitch about having TOO MANY grease zerks. Just like a health inspector has to find something wrong with the restaurant he or she is inspecting.
My grandfathers Swedish wife (OK OK she was prob close to 70) had an early sedan and as a young teen, i found it totally uninteresting but competent for what she needed.
Grandpa was driving a ’70 LeSabre hardtop sedan. He always joked if her car broke down, he could have it lifted into his trunk.
Guess which car had more problems and cost much more to run? And which car i ended up taking to college?
When I 1st saw this car I thought the slant back front end was weird looking. But that look sure caught on with just about all auto designers during the 70s. VW bug had it first, but this seemed like the first front engine car from the 60s with that feature.
As a child, circa 1966, I remember seeing one of those while on a walk with my grandfather. “A car that is made in Japan?”, I said, while thinking of all of the cheap, broken Japanese toys of my youth. “Who would want a car that in Made in Japan?”
Ha ha, the joke was on me! Oh, and the Big Three, too.
In California, longer commutes, and more miles driven is why quality cars mattered. In the industrial middle of the US, drivers could push their car to a gas station and walk/bus home. Not so if 20+ miles from home in Los Angeles region.
Seems like these Coronas were long-lived little cars as well. I used to see them every now and then, from when I was a child all the way into when I was in college (2000-ish). Haven’t seen one on the road in quite a while though.
When I was a youngster- way before the internet and easy access to foreign car parts in the Midwest- I got a ’69 Corona and promptly swapped the engine and transmission into my ’64 Spitfire. Oh, how often I’ve kicked myself for doing that ever since. That Corona was in decent shape and it was built like a tank. Wish I had it now.
The first car I owned was the successor to this model a 1971 Toyota Corona. It was two years old when I got it and I thought it was just fantastic. I looked at new Vegas, Pintos, and even the Plymouth Cricket before settling on the Corona. It had nimble handling and got 109 HP out of it’s 8RC engine.
I found it to be so much better engineered than the domestics and the two year old Toyota felt much better on the road than the new domestics. (Yes, I know the Cricket was imported). The Plymouth dealer told me that there could be a problem getting such things as sheet metal parts on a timely basis. No such problems with the Toyota dealer, who started as a sideline at a big Oldsmobile dealership, selling 98s, 88s, Custom Cruisers and other such barges. Funny that Olds is history and the Toyota dealer is a huge, successful enterprise. Who’d a thunk it in 1970?
I really beat my Corona up and had it over 100MPH many times. I learned to treat my cars with respect, but hadn’t learned that lesson then. I drove it on railroad right-of-ways and raced it on a motorcycle dirt track. It was a tough little thing with good brakes, comfortable seats and got me 30MPG on the highway even with the automatic trans. I really enjoyed that car and had many teenage adventures in it. Would love to have another Corona, but would choose a 4 speed and A/C, please.
A friend of mine had one of these back in the day. It was nice enough, but I much preferred my Datsun 510.
Was great to stumble across this website and particularly this article. My first car was a faded red 4-door 1969 Toyota Corona Mk II that my dad originally bought from a neighbor for $100. It was meant to be a more comfortable alternative to driving his Toyota Landcruiser back and forth to work on the highway.
Later he got himself something else to drive and the Corona sat in our side yard neglected until I was old enough to drive about a year later. We spent a few weekends completely rebuilding the engine, patching up the floorboards, and doing some minor bodywork. It was my car of choice for nearly 5 years before I migrated to motorcycles. I practically loved that car. Got great gas mileage compared to it’s modern counterparts in the mid-80’s and made me a bit of a star during high-school over the football studs in their Camaros and Firebirds and Datsuns because I could carry up to 4 squealing happy teenage girls to the teen dance clubs and rock concerts on the weekends in Atlanta.
I’d love to find another to restore and turn into a daily driver with an electric conversion kit.