Aaron65’s recent post on decaying Simcas produced a reverse CC effect in me, reminding me of a photograph I’d taken a couple of weeks back. I was driving along High Street in Thornbury and this sign loomed ahead, resplendent in its original glory. It must have been hidden behind a wall for a long time, my guess is that this was painted in the mid 1960s.
There’s not much out there about the history of these cars in Australia. They were CKD-built by Northern Star Engineering and Continental & General Distributors from 1956, and then by Chrysler in Adelaide after 1959. The five-door wagon shown above was unique to our market.
I’ve had this clipping for a while, but I can’t remember the date of the magazine’s issue.
The web of inter brought me this second-hand quote regarding the Oxenford conversion; “If the (Peugeot) 203 head was modified by Laurie Oxenford he possibly used the methods carried out on the popular Simca heads. His Stage One would be a basic cleaning of the ports mainly easing any sharp corners. Mods to the inlet valves and seats, three angle cuts.”
I don’t recall ever seeing a Simca on our roads. I have the vague recollection of seeing some 1000s in 1970s, but I might be confusing them with the Renault 8 & 10. Anyway, CC being CC means that there is a trove of articles on this brand, some of which are linked below.
Further Reading:
CC – Simca Aronde by Paul Niedermeyer
CC – Simca 1000 by Paul as well
Automotive History of the Simca Chambord in Brazil by Rubens
Was Valiant actually a stand-alone brand in Australia (as opposed to Chrysler Valiant which is what I thought they were called there)? In the US, only in its first year, 1960, was the marque called Valiant; henceforth it became the Plymouth Valiant (apparently because they didn’t want the perception that Plymouth was becoming less popular). But in Canada the Valiant marque remained through 1966.
The Australian Valiant was much like the Ford Falcon in that it started as a near-clone of the North American version only to completely diverge from it in the future, as well as significantly outlast it
Not only was it a stand-alone brand in Australia, but at one point they were extending it to cars that weren’t Mopar A-bodies at all – like Mitsubishi Colt Galants!
You mean Wikipedia is wrong?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Valiant
I heard another story then Chrysler planned the Valiant originally distinct as the rest of the line-up, not a Dodge/Plymouth little brother, but didn’t suspected then Ford and GM would give birth to “senior compacts” with the Comet (originally a stand-alone) and B-O-P Special/F-85/Tempest. When they arrived with the senior compacts, they had to rush in the bin parts to create the Lancer.
I saw at http://www.forwardlook.net/forums/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=29648&start=51 some scans extertped from Motor Trend June 1960 issue showing renderings done by the writer of the article showing a different Dodge Lancer and a proposed “DeSoto Valiant”.
I had heard that Comet was planned as an Edsel, and thought to be just “Comet” after Edsel was axed, then given over to Mercury. FoMoCo being in a MoPar like state of flux in the 1956-1965 era!
That’s right, and the original Comet tail lights are the same as the ’60 Edsel’s. And per Stephane, Valiant was promoted as an independent brand – “Nobody’s kid brother”. But the Dodge dealers demanded their own model – just as they received the original, full-but-Plymouth-sized Dart in 1960, when they lost their Plymouth franchises. The Dodge dealers were very powerful players in the Mopar world.
I always thought that the 1960 Valiant was a bit of an odd duck. It looks big and kind of bulky compared to a Corvair or Falcon, and then there’s that “toilet seat” on the trunklid. But those proposed Dodge and Desoto “sister” cars are almost over the top.
The first Lancer was a good alternative to the Valiant, but by then the GM compacts had hit the market.
The first year Valiant in the U.S. was a standalone make, there was nothing on the car to identify it as a Plymouth (or Dodge, or Chrysler).
No it was always a Chrysler, but the Valiant name was publicised more, to the point of being equivalent in the public eye with Holden (and Falcon, which everyone knew was a Ford). Early cars were badged Valiant with a little ‘by Chrysler’ badge appended. That ’70s move of slapping Valiant badges on Galants (and Lancers too IIRC) was just totally weird.
“Interesting”, that of the 4 brands, Valiant is listed first and Chrysler is listed last. In the U.S. that sign would have listed Chrysler first, Dodge second…or maybe Valiant, with Simca last…most likely in smaller letters/different “type face”, looking like an afterthought.
While I’ve been a “car nut” for nearly 60 years, I don’t recall ever seeing a sign for Simca outside any Chrysler-Plymouth dealerships. The earliest I remember seeing any non-U.S. Chrysler product for sale at a dealership is about 1969-1970.
One of my local Chrysler/Plymouth dealers still listed Imperial as a separate brand on their business cards well into the ’90s
I don’t ever remember seeing an Imperial sign though, much less a Simca sign.
Oddly, I think I remember that our local Mercedes-Benz dealer in the 60s sold Simcas.
The only Chrysler sold here in the early sixties was the hoary old home-grown Chrysler Royal. As it was a variant of the old ’53-’54 Plymouth with ’56 fenders, they may well have wanted to downplay that it was still available.
The Dodge Phoenix was always reasonably popular with those who wanted a big American-style car with current styling. I’ve no idea of sales figures, but there always seemed to be as many of them as there were Chevs. The Valiant was a popular car but noticeably larger than the Holden and much more powerful with the 225 standard. So initially the Valiant was seen as almost a class above (as befitting a Chrysler vehicle) though by ’68 they were advertising ‘the $3 or $4 difference’ between Valiant and the other two – doubtless in a quest for more sales. Being seen as a more prestigious brand is all very well until it comes back to bite you.
Simcas? They were all over the place – there were two on my block alone back around ’62 – though we only ever got the Aronde.
“Aaron65’s recent post on decaying Simcas produced a reverse CC effect in me, reminding me of a photograph I’d taken a couple of weeks back. I was driving along High Street in Thornbury and this sign loomed ahead, resplendent in its original glory. It must have been hidden behind a wall for a long time, my guess is that this was painted in the mid 1960s.”
And your picture in turns reminds me of signage uncovered on a building in Worcester, Mass. that had once housed a Chrysler-Plymouth dealership, when a facade was torn down while the building was being reconditioned about five years ago. The signage was eventually painted over, but I wasn’t the only one who noticed it while it was exposed; someone else took a picture of it:
http://www.moparmax.com/columns/magnante/vi_8-4.html
As indicated on that page, this must have been put up around 1959-60, as Valiant was only a standalone brand in the U.S. for the 1960 model year.
This was an old dealership located near the city’s downtown. As alluded to at the link, this dealer added a Datsun/Nissan franchise at some point (probably in the ’70s), and also later began selling Jeeps (after Chrysler bought AMC, probably in the early ’90s). About 10-15 years ago they sold their Nissan franchise to someone who moved it to the suburbs, and moved the Chrysler-Jeep franchise elsewhere in the city, which then closed completely a couple of years later.
I wish I had carried a camera back when I used to see some of those old hand painted dealer signs on brick buildings. There was an old building at 34th and Illinois in Indianapolis that had been a Plymouth dealer (Gates Motors, according to an old city directory). A great big sign from the Forward Look era covered much of the back wall. Gone now.
I was reminded of the “one year wonder” of the “non Plymouth” Valiant when Dodge and Plymouth were both given the Neon. It was my suspicion that “Neon” was intended the be considered a stand alone make, then they decided against the hassle, and in the end didn’t even bother with separate Dodge and Plymouth names. Why even bother having different badges with the same name? MoPar marketing is harder to crack than the “Illuminati”…LOL.
Early ones literally had different badges, a Dodge ram’s head or a Plymouth Pentastar (and later Mayflower) at the leading edge of the hood as the one-and-only brand differentiation. It was a reasonably good way to supply duplicate dealer channels without wasting money on two different grilles, taillight designs, seat patterns and such.
Yep, It was those literal badges I was refering to, I couldn’t get the point, If they had the same name and were the same car, They could have just said: Ok, Folks, Here’s “Neon”, You can get it at your local Dodge,Chrysler-Plymouth or Jeep dealer’s! Same car, same M.S.R.P., Good luck, and thank you for considering our new MoPar Neon!
I think by that point they’d given up on trying to establish a separate image for Plymouth – it had been decades since Plymouths were anything but Dodges with a different grille insert and taillight lenses – and they realized they would save marketing cost by not having to advertise two different cars that were exactly alike.
Our local Ford dealer where I grew up jumped ship and took up the Simca agency, its now a Toyota store after Simca folded, so Simcas aplenty were around back in the days those rear engined 1000s and 1100s were very popular and of course there is a dozen or so living about a hundred yards from my current adress, I see them being exercised fairly often.
Jumped ship from Simca to Toyota? That was a good move! Probably better than was apparent at the time….
Interesting (to me at least) is that Rootes and its brands do not appear on the wall. Was this because the wall pre-dates the Rootes takeover, were they kept entirely separate, perhaps because of commercial agreements, or did Chrysler quickly replace them with Simca in Australia?
The Chrysler brand strategy in the 60’s to ’80’s period in Australia, if one could call it that, always seemed confused. For years a “Chrysler” was a big American car, as was a Dodge – both initially fully imported and then locally assembled. At one stage there was a “Chrysler by Chrysler” in the late ’50’s that was a local effort. Simcas in as much as I remember were sold by Chrysler dealers though there had been some independent ones, probably left over from before Chrysler acquiring a stake in Simca. I remember Dad checking out Simcas as a potential first car for Mum, but she ended up in a Beetle. Rootes products used to have their own dealer network too, but again that changed with Chrysler’s take over of that company and once again, some dealers stayed as just Rootes dealers after the takeover even as some (though not all) Chrysler dealers started to offer Hillmans and Humbers.
Then there was Mitsubishi – which ironically ended up taking over Chrysler in Australia. I first saw these appear at Chrysler dealers, but badged as Mitsubishis.
The last Simca or Hillman derived car sold in Australia that I can recall was a thing called the 180. It was a Cortina/Torana sized car, which I think was designed by the former Simca outfit in France, but was also sold as a Hillman in the UK. In Australia it was available with a local six engine. I have not seen one of these for a decade or more. Ditto Hillmans, which were once quite common, are only ever seen now at car show days. Strangely, Until very recently I used to see two Humber Super Snipes (what a name!) running around.
One minor correction, the Chrysler by Chrysler was late 1960s not 50s.
The 180 was badged as the Centura out here, and with their French origin the CKD kits sat on the wharf in Adelaide for many months due to the nuclear testing in the Pacific Islands, the wharfies would not touch them.
Mitsubishi Galants were badged as Chryslers, but the earlier Colt 800/1000/1100 were Mitsubishis, up to 1971.
Prior to Chrysler taking over Rootes, the two were obviously separate with separate dealer chains. From what I have heard the Rootes dealers would have mostly converted to selling Chryslers also at least initially, but some changed makes, eg I know of one that was selling Mazdas in the early 1970s.
We had a Mitsubishi 380 that was purchased from Ripponlea Mitsubishi,a now-defunct Mitsubishi dealership in Melbourne’s southeastern suburbs that began its existence as a Rootes dealership,then a Chrysler dealership when Chrysler bought out the former.
Automotive archaeology, huh? Interesting. How quickly times change. Another thing that I find interesting is the way they snuck that white Valiant into the background of the Simca ad. The visual equivalent of “Sure, we’ll sell you a Simca, but for just a few dollars more a month, we can put you in a nice, roomy, luxurious new Valiant.”
Interesting that the Simca shown in the Oxenford Conversions ad is quite an early Aronde to judge from the front end. I don’t recall seeing many of these ones around, though the later fifties and sixties ones were quite common. Oxenford Conversions used to advertise a lot in car magazines in the early sixties.
I found this later ad on the net. Pete, am I confused about seeing the 1000 in Australia? Our parents would take us to Europe in the 1970s and I’m wondering if my memories have blurred.
I’d have to check back in my old magazine archive, Don, but I’m pretty sure we never got the rear-engine Simcas. I know I’ve never seen one.
I think just the Aronde and Vedette
Whoops – forgot the Vedette!
Interesting that the sign-painter used the Official Dodge Font, which had faded from actual Chrysler use around 1952.
Nice find Don!
They stopped assembling Simcas in Adelaide in 1964 apparently, so presumably this sign would pre-date that.
Cheers John.
My Dad owned a 64 Aronde in grey with a red interior. He said it was very comfortable, but the little engine was very tempramental and tended to overheat and warp heads, which was very costly.
Still, it is ultra cute and most likely the only French car with American styling.
Pretty sure they’re all gone from Australian roads now.
What a cool sign…a hand-painted facsimile of that would look SO slick in my garage…I am starting the process of cleaning up/painting, etc. and starting to renovate it.
The Oxenford head doesn’t need to be removed for 50,000 miles?!? Apparently that was brag-worthy in that era, can you imagine telling a new car owner now that the head needs to be redone every 50k miles, they’d lose their minds.
According to the advert, the upgrade meant that you would do a head job 3 – 4 times less, so if the Oxenford made it to 50k, then you would expect to be doing a standard head up every 14k or so. Ah, those were the days …
KJ in Oz
OTOH, That act is probably less labor than replacing spark plugs on a modern car! 🙂
The fact that Valiant is listed first on the sign shows what a saviour it was for Chrysler.
johnh875 would be correct that this was painted in the early 60s.
The Valiant was released here in January 1962. Prior to that Chrysler had nothing to match the all dominating Holden and were in a bit of trouble.
I lived close to this area in the early eighties, drove and walked up and down High St. many times never knowing this was there.
What a treat to see it exposed.