The 1971 model year was momentous in many ways, not the least of which was Ford and Chevrolet’s vow to once again “kick the imports back across the ocean.” But their vision of “imports” was very narrow: the Pinto and Vega were very expensive bets from Detroit that they could successfully defeat one key competitor—Volkswagen. Meanwhile, the company that would turn out to be the real long-term threat to America’s car makers—Toyota—fielded not one, not two, but three new cars to capture the hearts of economy car buyers.
It’s almost comically tragic to see how myopic Detroit was when it came to the economy cars. Rather than imagining how they could better satisfy customers in that value conscious segment, they merely focused on crafting a more modern VW (even if they couldn’t dream of matching VW’s quality of manufacture). Talk about a low bar: “beating” the engineering of a car platform developed over 30 years before. Toyota of course had already done that starting in the mid-1960s, and they matched VW’s quality at the same time. The giant from Japan would be more than ready for this fight.
Toyota was well aware that the U.S. makers would be launching a major offensive to gain sales with small car buyers. To counter the onslaught, Toyota was ready with a completely revamped version of its bread-and-butter Corona. It was the start of a trend that would ultimately further disrupt other automakers; Toyota would comprehensively refresh its cars on regular and rather short timelines. Major redesigns would typically occur every 4 to 5 years, just at a time when Detroit cycles were starting to get longer. In a shot at VW as well as Detroit, the advertising copy noted that the new Corona led the wave of livable economy cars and that Toyota intended to keep it ahead of the pack.
Car and Driver notes in jest that Detroit was horrified to see Toyota building little Impalas. In reality, that’s exactly what Toyota was doing, and frankly far better than Chevrolet did with the Vega. I’d further argue that Toyota never let up on that quest: the Camry actually is today’s Impala—a competent, well-priced car in the heart of the new car market with broad based popular appeal.
The Corona’s new engine (the same as the one introduced in 1969 for the Mark II) offered overhead cams and extracted more performance from less displacement, thereby maintaining good fuel economy. C&D’s editors noted that the engine was both strong and quiet, and able to outperform even the optional engines in the Vega and Pinto.
Handling was another story, as the Corona was critiqued for too much understeer. However, ride comfort was good, and that was likely what average drivers could appreciate in daily use. Like most car enthusiast magazines, Car and Driver typically overestimated how many American drivers actually cared about handling. They were very correct to note, however, that with Toyota producing cars like the Corona, Detroit was “going to have a long hard fight on its hands.”
In the article, C&D felt the price of the Corona was almost too high for an “economy” car. In 2015 dollars, though, the Corona’s $2,713 as tested price would be just $15,899 adjusted—which would be an outstanding price for a small car today. Even in 1971 it really wasn’t bad relative to the competition. If you specified a Pinto to match the Corona’s equipment—OHC engine, automatic, tinted glass, full wheel covers, whitewalls, AM radio and AC—you’d have spent $2,674, so basically a wash. And the Corona had 4-doors with a roomier trunk and was much better built.
Road Test Magazine had been an early advocate for the Corona, showering ample praise on the original car right when it hit U.S. shores. The improvements for 1971 just made a great little car even better as far as RT’s editors were concerned.
Interestingly, Road Test praised the Corona’s handling while noting that the ride might be a bit firm for buyers used to bigger American cars, which was the opposite of Car and Driver’s assessment. Arguably, though, RT’s verdict was probably more in keeping with the driving sensibilities of the average U.S. motorist at the time. Otherwise, the verdicts between the two magazines were very similar: great engine, great quality, thoughtful design features: the newest Corona was hard to beat.
Consumer Guide also took a look at the new Corona and included it in the subcompact group tested, along with the AMC Gremlin, Chevrolet Vega, Ford Pinto and VW Super Beetle.
While the photo features a sedan, the car actually tested by Consumer Guide was the 2-door Hardtop, which the editors felt was a more appropriate comparison with the 2-door-only competitors. Just as the 4-door had been winning accolades, the 2-door Corona received the highest marks in the category as well, with Consumer Guide placing the Corona well ahead of the Gremlin and Super Beetle in particular. Consumer Guide noted they were impressed with the Corona Hardtop overall, especially its roominess, ample features and ride quality—again the details that likely mattered most to average drivers.
Toyota was also careful to feature the Corona 2-door Hardtop in its advertising, again to directly rebuke the 2-door economy entries. While Toyota did not offer a true hatchback body style at that point, they did start emphasizing the fold down rear seat and resulting expansive cargo area. Also note the features listed—like a lockable glove compartment at no extra cost. Hello, Vega?
However, the completely redone Corona was only the beginning of Toyota’s assault on the economy car segment. The Corolla, introduced to the U.S. just 3 years prior, was also thoroughly revamped for 1971. As before, the Corolla offered a less expensive smaller car to compete at lower price points in the economy segment. Road Test put together another Toyota Special issue for 1971 that included details on the newest version of Toyota’s least expensive car.
The 1971 Corolla offered all new styling inside and out, enhanced interior room, better handling, stronger brakes and improved engine output compared to its predecessor, and these features allowed it to compare very favorably with competitors as well. Plus, Toyota added a 4-door sedan to the Corolla line-up, seeing the potential for more body style choices, while VW and its American challengers saw fit to stick with just 2 doors.
For frugal shoppers, the best thing about the new Corolla was its price. Even with more standard power and more standard features, the Corolla’s base price of $1,848 ($10,830 adjusted) slotted in just below Vega ($2,090), Pinto ($1,919) and was but $3 more than the regular VW Beetle ($1,845).
So Toyota’s double whammy of the 1971 Corolla and Corona allowed the company to thoroughly cover both the “low” and the “premium” end of the small economy car segment. But the Gentlemen of Japan still weren’t done.
There was one more market segment where Toyota really caught Detroit with their proverbial pants down: small sporty/economy coupes. This segment had exploded in the 1960s, as buyers sought a bit of sporty style mixed with reasonable economy. While some people wanted more performance, a tremendous number of these cars were sold with basic (i.e. smallest available) powertrains. Stylish, affordable small cars were a proven goldmine, but Detroit was lured by the siren song of fatter profits and responded with fatter cars.
Ford had been the undisputed leader in the sporty 2-door segment in the mid-1960s with the original Mustang. But bloat crept in with subsequent redesigns, and for 1971 the once frisky filly had become a plodding Clydesdale. The Maverick was too much of an economy car to appeal to the “high style” crowd. Barracudas had become whales, the Camaro and Firebird were also bigger than ever.
European entries stayed true to the segment ideals of style and diminutive size, but dealer distribution was suboptimal and many of the cars, like the Fiat 124 Sports Coupe, were rather pricey and had dubious reputations for quality and reliability.
So once again, here was a lucrative segment with plenty of potential buyers that was underserved by existing entrants. What could be better for Toyota? So while GM and Ford were busy simply challenging the Beetle, Toyota zeroed in on this underserved market with yet another tempting offer for the small economy coupe shopper. The new Celica became the third prong in Toyota’s spear, aimed directly at the wallets of U.S. small car shoppers.
Motor Trend took an early look at the Celica and clearly saw its potential to woo young Americans.
The Celica nailed the original Mustang formula, using proven economy car components for the chassis and engine, combined with more expressive, sporty styling inside and out. The Celica was far from being a sports car, but it sure was a stylish and fun economy car, and a great way to get more first time car buyers into the Toyota fold. And it was a potent additional weapon against the Detroit economy car push, since even the Vega GT looked to most people like any old Vega, while the Celica looked nothing like the Corona with which it shared many components.
When the sales figures for 1971 were tallied up, GM and Ford hadn’t actually made much progress in fighting the import onslaught. First off, Detroit’s primary target remained relatively unscathed. “Beetlemania” managed to continue: while VW’s sales actually did drop 8% over 1970, they were still a very healthy 532,904. The newly introduced Super Beetle probably helped a bit, as it added some much needed luggage space and a revised front suspension for better handling.
In spite of GM’s enormous investment in the Vega, sales fell far short of the 500,000 unit target: some 269,900 Vegas found homes for 1971. These Vega units didn’t drive incremental brand growth either, as overall Chevrolet sales were down 16% versus 1970. No doubt some of this decline was due to a massive UAW strike that took the wind our of the General’s sales, especially for its reworked B- and C-body cars. But a careful look at the sales numbers of adjacent car lines (compact, sporty and midsize) shows that Vega sales weren’t necessarily all “plus” business. Nova sales dropped 38% (-120,244 units), Camaro sales dropped 9% (-10,108 units) and Chevelle sales dropped 26% (-113,100). So a big chunk of those Vega sales seemed to have just transferred from across the Chevy showrooms.
Though Ford came a bit closer to reaching their 500,000-unit goal for 1971 (352,402 Pintos were sold), the internal cannibalization was similar to Chevy’s. Overall Ford sales were up 4%, over 1970 (the GM UAW strike may have helped there) but the Maverick plunged 40% (-179,184 units), the newly designed Mustang dropped 24% (-47,417 units) and Torino (including one year wonder mid size Falcon) was down 20% (-170,051 units). The new economy upstarts, with their expensive development budgets, seemed to be taking a lot of sales from the more established and profitable nameplates as buyers showed a preference for economy offerings. It was enough to make a Detroit bean counter’s heart run cold…
Of course, the real damage Detroit’s import fighters would inflict was to their brand reputations. Initial impressions of the Vega and Pinto showed obvious cost cutting and sloppy build quality. Longer-term use didn’t do the cars any favors either. Within a year of its introduction, the Vega would become the subject of massive recalls, and the car suffered from horrific problems with the engine and rust protection. The Pinto fared better over time from a durability standpoint (Ford engines weren’t gulping oil at 30,000 miles and Pinto front fenders weren’t perforated with rust), but by the late 1970s Ford’s reputation would also be badly tarnished with the recalls and controversy surrounding the Pinto’s “exploding” gas tanks.
Contrast that with Toyota’s experience with its newly designed small cars for 1971. Thanks to cars like the Corona, Corolla and Celica, Toyota’s sales surged 48% to 309,363 units for 1971. Better still, these cars were seen as very up-to-date and thoughtfully engineered, offering outstanding value for the money. They were sized and priced right for first time buyers or people seeking a second car for the family fleet, and didn’t feel like penalty boxes even though they were inexpensive. Buyers were pleased with their Toyotas, and favorable word of mouth spread quickly. These new 1971-generation cars allowed Toyota to establish a very strong foothold in the U.S. and earned the company a stellar reputation for offering some of the best economy cars money could buy. Not a bad showing for a brand that had been virtually nonexistent in the U.S. less than 10 years before.
In 1973, Dad bought a new Corona wagon partly at my behest to replace a 1969 Fairlane wagon. White with a four speed stick and A/C, the Toyota ended up being something of a lemon. Not only were there seemingly unfixable valvetrain problems, the car rusted fiercely particularly around the tailgate area. The Corona was replaced in 1975 by an AMC Pacer, of all things, and Dad never bought another Japanese car for as long as he lived. I knew one other person with a ’73 Corona wagon and he had to add a little oil to the gasoline to keep the valve troubles at bay. Though Toyotas generally deserve their reputation of running forever, it seems that a few baddies slipped through the cracks.
My high school auto shop teacher had a 72 Corona, at about 50K it burned a valve. He claimed it was because the intake manifold had loosened, allowing it to run lean. His was the only troublesome one that I had ever heard of, perhaps it was a problem common to those early vehicles. At least Toyota made an effort to fix their problems, how long did GM produce Vegas?
To be fair GM eventually resolved Vega engine issues, but by then who cared? The PR damage was done, yet how many later new models were also undermined by faulty new engines along with poor build quality? To a greater extent than Japan (whose anime constantly repeats “Do your best!”), American industry often lacks the humility to recognize & correct counterproductive practices. I think it reflects an American cultural trait not restricted to industry. We hear an awful lot about pride instead.
The Corona/Celica engine had a propensity to burn valves. Blew the valve train twice in one year, after the second experience (paid for, no warranty claims), I was given a special Toyota tag to attach to the dashboard. It read, “Leaded gasoline only”. I suspect that the engine did not like the new (in the early/mid ’70s) unleaded gas.
I loved my 71 Corona that I bought used with 33k miles on it. It was powerful, nimble and reliable. It was so far ahead of Pinto, Vega, Maverick and such. I’ve also driven Super Beetles for more than 200k miles and enjoyed the fun and VW hobby. The Corona was a vastly more refined, modern ride. It’s a pity that the domestic manufacturers were so slow to repond.
When I was debating in late 1973 what to buy after graduating technical school the next year my choices were narrowed down to a Vega GT, Pinto, Corona Hardtop or Super Beetle. They all drove fine around town and on the highway, but the dated Beetle and its noisy butt mounted engine just didn’t appeal to me. The Pinto didn’t have any real sport option and styling was so-so. The Corona was nice and I liked the idea of a fold-down seat but the styling was really dull. So in the end I factory ordered a well optioned Vega GT. Brand new there was a lot of like about this Camaro wannabe. Of course it had a few issues as time went on but never anything that really wanted me to push it off a cliff.
I love Brock Yates theory that the Vega and Pinto were developed to turn Americans off to small cars. The Corvair was the better engineered VW Bug
Dave Barry reached a concurrent conclusion. He called it “the Really Bad Car Plan”.
The Corvair’s extra size and luxuries made it more of a better-engineered and more thoroughly upgraded VW Type 3.
Girlfriend/fiance had the next generation Corolla-1976-two door, with the 1200 cc engine and five speed. Now I learn why it was so much fun to drive for such a basic little car: that sewing machine of a little motor had pushrods, but they were designed to allow it to rev. Which it loved to do; once I had gotten it tuned up and did a little “relieving” work on the flow of the catalytic converter, it loved to give you all the horsepower it had, sounding like nothing so much as a British roadster of the period. Gearing was well-spaced, allowing 35 mpg on the highway, and it had enough torque to keep up with traffic in town and to hold its speed in the mountains. If I read my statistics correctly, the motor was over a hundred pounds lighter than the 1800 cc version, so the steering felt very light and direct. It did lean over and lift an inside rear wheel on turns, signaling you very directly to stop being so silly as to think it was a sports car. But within its limits, that was a very fun little car, much better than one would expect from its simple and conservative components.
Another DougD childhood car. My Grandfather bought a new 71 Corona 4 door, the only brand new car he ever bought in his life.
It was butter yellow and had the optional clock, because I liked to sit in it and listen to the gentle tick tick tick. I also vividly remember the three little horn buttons and trying to stick five fingers into five of the hubcap vent holes. All these years later, looking at the photos I feel the urge to stick my fingers in the hubcaps.
It served him well for 10 years and was replaced by the AMC Concord I eventually wound up with. Funny to see these in photos since I don’t think I’ve seen one since.
Great write up! 2 small corrections. The 8R-C first showed up in the Mark II in ’69, not ’70. Also I noticed on C/D’s spec page, they list the engine as having a aluminum head. This is incorrect, 8R/18R engines have iron heads with replaceable split shell cam bearings. I wonder if someone mistook the aluminum valve cover as the “head”
Thanks, I’ve made the update on my text, but C&D will get away with their error 🙂
someearly 8R-C engines had iron heads, but not all. Maybe theirs had the aluminum head. The iron heads were phased out after awhile.
In 1970, before the Vega and Pinto were introduced, ad campaigns “trumpeted” their superior “American car for American buyers” qualities. While the Toyotas were “all new” for 1971, I would think the advertising dollars spent by Chevy on the Vega were more than Toyota spent for all it’s products.
Interesting that some folks thought the Corona was a small Impala. After owning both a Vega and a Pinto from new….the Vega struck me as being a “mini Impala”, but then, I had a non GT Panel Express. The Pinto seemed like a more practical “sub Maverick”, like today’s Prius C is to a “regular” Prius
I kind of like these 2nd generation Corollas (the Corona just seems too much a “grown-ups car), but the Civic with it’s hatchback seems like a better…..idea(?).
At 166.9″ for the Toyota Corona, 161.4″ for the Corolla and 164.0″ for the Celica, ALL 3 were either barely larger or smaller than the 2005 Toyota Echo at 164.6″. Yet the Echo 4 Door Sedan’s successor the 2007 Yaris 4 Door Sedan measured in at 169.3″ so even the bottom of the line 2007 Yaris 4 Door Sedan were much larger than the ancient Toyotas mentioned here.
Good point, Pedro. Which is why it is such a shock when you find a surviving small car from this era and realize how truly small (and lightly built) they were. And we used to go flying down the Interstate (well, until the 55 mph speed limit was instituted) in them.
In 1981, my older sister bought a ’72 Celica, which my Dad called a Tie-yota. I loved it. It was sporty like a Camaro or Mustang, but was good on gas, certainly better than anything from Detroit with a V8. It really did look like a scaled-down early Mustang.
My Mom liked it so much, she bought a ’73 Celica the following year. Then I bought a ’74 in 1982, and it got me through the rest of high school, college and my first year on my own. It was fun to drive; I loved the slick-shifting 4-speed — still one of the best shifting cars I’ve ever driven — and the fantastic dash with a full set of gauges. My college dorm parking lot was filled with Cutlasses and Monte Carlos, so my little Celica stood out.
It’s a testament to progress in automotive design and engineering that today’s cars are so much more reliable and can go on running well for so much longer. I bought the Celica with about 65,000 miles on it, and by the time I got rid of it six years later, it had about 130,000 miles. And it was dying.
As the car approached 100,000 miles in the summer of 1986, the car seemed to have a nervous breakdown, with one thing after another going wrong. This was a big problem since my summer job had me driving all over town every day. It was mostly a lot of little things — although I had to replace both the A/C compressor and the alternator as well as rebuild the carburetor — but it really wasn’t running well toward the end. The car probably needed a valve job, but I was tired of pouring what little money I had into a 15-year-old car, so I dumped it.
Another major advance from the 70s is efficiency. Gas mileage for the Celica with the 97-hp 18RC averaged in the low-to-mid 20s, with high 20s on the highway. That’s about the same as I can get with the 300-hp 3.6 V6 in my 2010 CTS and what I got with the 275-hp Northstar V8 in my former 2001 Seville.
That’s me in the Celica circa 1983.
Great pictures! The Celica made a big impression in my family too, when my older brother got one right before he went off to college. His was a ’76 Liftback with the 5-speed, and it was also a great shifter. The whole car was very nimble and fun-to-drive. When my brother was home on school breaks, I remember my Pop (long time domestic driver, but his automotive highlight was having an early Mustang) always wanting to just “borrow” the Celica to run errands–any excuse to have a bit of fun in the sporty small car, and a nice contrast to the full size GMs we had.
Your points about the advances in fuel economy and longevity really ring true. The Celica was considered so fuel efficient when it was new, whereas today it is matched or beaten by far more powerful cars. As for my brother’s Celica, he kept it until 1986 and about 140,000 miles, at which point it was definitely starting to show its age. The green paint had faded from always being parked outside, and like your Celica, his had lots and lots of minor issues toward the end. I think most manufacturers back then, Toyota included, figured a car was “done” after about 10 years or 100,000 miles.
And only 10 years later, cars built in the mid ’80’s like my 30 year old Jetta are still going on original engine and trans at over 300K miles. And more like 25mpg town 35mpg hwy.
Reliability and durability on many car’s (though certainly not all) advanced to about what you can expect today in the time period of the mid ’70’s to the mid ’80’s. And fuel mileage is even better today, not to mention about double the HP from the same size engine, even without turbocharging.
And the Celica at my college dorm in the fall of 1984. At least I didn’t have to drive that Pinto.
Or the Cutlass. I have some really unfond memories of those.
Wow. Being barely old enough to read when these articles and reviews came out, I remember the cars but not the press they received. These pieces put a new perspective on history for those of us not of consumer age at the time.
I had come to imagine that the “Japanese Invasion” was more of a silent, insidious “creeping in” of better product and better pricing. Historical accounts seem to present this phenomenon as more of a shock to the collective American automotive system that it would appear to have actually been.
The tone of these pieces, wherein the buff mags and consumer guides are pretty much screaming “WAKE UP” into Detroit’s ears is really interesting to read today.
That cover painting is by the great Syd Mead.
While American car companies were busy de-contenting their vehicles to compete on price – AMC’s Gremlin for example didn’t even have a back seat or opening rear hatch window on base models – the Japanese seemed to understand that adding features and value was the real way to go. We see the end results of that now 40+ years later.
I liked the first Celica, even though I wasn’t old enough to drive at the time. A much better car than the Vega or Pinto – both cars were sloppy, poorly built jokes compared to the Toyota offerings of the time. I quite agree with your comment on GM and Ford aiming for the VW Bug with their import fighters when they should have paid attention to the Japanese manufacturers, especially Toyota. It cost them, and they’re still paying for it today.
I bought a well used 71 Corona at a car dealer, AMI built it had the iron 1600 motor 4 speed floorshift as god intended and aircon which he did not, it was 15 years old and rust free having lived around the Murray town of Cobram since new, two days later I drove it to Narrabri NSW some 500kms it never missed a beat and got 41mpg imperial at a cruising 60mph it did run fairly hot so I got the radiator cleaned out and cured that issue, the only other thing that required repairs was the carb a month or so later in Bathurst NSW the car began running rough, turned out the long screws holding the carby together had backed out I locktited them in tuned it up and never touched it again, yes I took that car for a blast around Mount Panorama race track no it wasnt fast, though I did see the magic ton on the speedo down conrod while it was a competent car I wouldnt praise the handling even after I fitted widened steelies all round which helped it still wasnt great, but better than a VW certainly quieter faster more economical more comfortable there really is no comparism to the 1930s VW design.
great for tailgating
Interesting to see these reviews–it seems by the time I was old enough to notice in the mid 80’s, there were no 2nd-gen Coronas left on the roads, nor 2nd-gen Corollas. Quite a few 1st-gen Celicas though.