Mike Hayes has found a car I’ve long wanted to find as it’s never really gotten a proper write-up here at CC. I’m afraid I’m a bit too busy to do that right now, but let’s give the 1960 Valiant a bit of summertime love and attention.
It really is a bit unfortunate that Virgil Exner couldn’t find a somewhat more cohesive and palatable way to integrate some very advanced design/styling elements of the Valiant. That most of all applies to this view, which makes it look a bit frog-like. Or something other than automotive. But it also does show the very advanced “fuselage design” that he created for this car, whereby the doors curve in to meet the windows without the usual step or shoulder of the times, which tended to make cars of the period look like a smaller box was set on a longer and wider box below it. Fords had the most extreme case of that.
The Valiant’s sides were way ahead of their times; only curved glass, which was too expensive, could have made them look even more like they were a decade ahead of the competition. But its rear end is what attracts the attention, or should I say distracts the attention. Oh well; with Exner you have to take the bad with the good.
The front was a whole lot better, combining a semi-classical grille with very advanced low-set headlights along with the “side fins” or whatever you want to call them, running along the front fender and into the front door.
Of course it was what was hiding under its complicated body that was the most attractive about the Valiant; its superior suspension including a torsion bar SLA front and leaf springs in the back. The Valiant was also Chrysler’s first true full unibody, as the big cars in 1960 still had a complete front sub-frame that carried the suspension and drive train loads. The Valiant’s fully integrated body and suspension would be the template for the 1962 down-sized Plymouth and Dodges, which became the long-running B and R body, and various offshoots. In this regard, the Valiant can rightfully be seen as the progenitor of all future Chrysler RWD passenger cars, for decades to come.
And then of course there was the slant six, an engine that was inherently superior to the Falcon six in terms of its displacement (170 vs 144 CID) and power (101 hp vs. 85). That 101 hp rating was commonly held to be a bit conservative, and the slant six’s 12 port cylinder head was very amenable to the typical power-boosting methods, as in the factory-available Hyper Pak, which included a four barrel carb, a 148 hp rating, and made the Valiant the dominant car in NASCAR’s new compact stock car racing class.
The side view really shows off Exner’s advanced thinking, not only in terms of the fuselage styling (his term), but also the long-hood, short-deck proportions that were almost radically ahead of anyone else in terms of passenger car design, which at the time was all about boxiness and symmetry.
The set-back windshield enhanced that effect, and created a rather unusual dashboard design that was also very different, with a binnacle in front of the driver but the rest of the dash almost ran straight down from the windshield. It created a very different effect, especially for the front seat passenger.
The Valiant was bigger, heavier and more powerful than the Falcon and Corvair, which had positive impacts on its ride, performance and handling, but did mar its fuel economy.
What really makes the Valiant remarkable is that it was completely developed in just 18 14 months, from the time Chrysler management finally gave the green light to the day it started running off the lines. This was something of a Tesla move, and with similar consequences: the 1960 Valiants had numerous deficiencies in its build quality, which quickly turned into a public embarrassment and no doubt impacted its sales to some extent.
The 1960 Valiant, with 194k sales, ran a solid #3 behind the Falcon (436k) and Corvair (250k). And Valiant sales drooped in ’61 and ’62. Even adding in sales of its Dodge Lancer semi-clone, the two together sold significantly fewer units than the Corvair did in ’61 and ’62, never mind the Falcon. Things started to get better in that regard in 1963, after both the Chrysler compacts were thoroughly restyled, by Exner, no less.
I have some vintage reviews of all three of the 1960 compacts which I will post soon. They give an even better impression of how these compacts were experienced at the time of their birth.
Here’s a great Chrysler video that documents the development of the Valiant.
I would like to read a long-form treatise on why the Chrysler Corporation’s production quality was so variable. Does anyone know of such a thing?
Maybe Paul knows, but I seem to recall there being a closed loop of corruption between their officer of acquisition and their biggest parts suppliers.
Rushing cars into production before they were fully fleshed out. And penny-pinching.
Up to 1957, Chrysler had a rep of building cars that were of better than average quality. They had loyal customers for that reason.
Chrysler had been losing market share ever since WW2, mainly because their styling was much too conservative. keep i mind that Chrysler had been #2 ahead of Ford for quite some years, but Ford was passing them by now.
Chrysler management decided they had to really step up their game, which resulted in the heavily restyled ’55 cars. They were successful, and still well built, probably because they still used most of the 1949-1954 underpinnings.
But the really big step forward were the radically-styled ’57s, intended to finally leap[frog GM in terms of styling leadership. They were originally intended to come out in ’58, but were pushed up a year. That resulted in poor quality, as body parts didn’t fit well together and other related issues.
The Valiant repeated the same mistake. Chrysler dithered on making a decision for a compact too long. Once Ford and GM had publicly announced their new compacts for ’60, Chrysler rushed the Valiant in order to have it the same year too. The result was like with the big cars in ’57.
In later years, quality was inconsistent primarily due to massive reductions in staff during the 1958-1960 years, as Chrysler’s market share dropped. They could no longer afford the extensive engineering and body development staff they used to have, so they were competing against Ford and GM with fewer resources. That invariably hurts quality.
Their power trains were generally great; it was in assembly quality and related issues that they struggled to maintain a consistent quality level.
So delaying the 1957 cars by a year as well as the Valiant, along with the latter featuring downsized version of the existing full-size models exterior styling (in place of the styling from the Chrysler Falcon concept) would have placed Chrysler in a better position domestically (and help save their European and Australian branches)?
Would the enough have been enough for Chrysler to avoid massive reductions in staff during 1958-1960 or would other changes have been required?
58 was the first big US recession since WWII. Rambler was the big winner. A new line of big cars wouldn’t have sold well for Chrysler. (It would have killed Studebaker/Packard if S/P had been able to finance a new line of standard cars for 58. They’d have flopped.)
Also, Chrysler would have lost ground in 57 if it had stayed with its 1955 generation of cars. Ford introduced a new car in 57 and passed the carryover Chevy from 1955.
I would add to Paul’s observations that Chrysler’s management all through the 50s was an aging remnant of the team Walter Chrysler had assembled in the 20s and 30s. Walter Chrysler had described K.T. Keller as the best production man he had ever met, and as long as Keller was keeping an eye on production and the old guard was keeping an eye on engineering, things worked pretty well. But there never seemed to be any fresh blood brought in or mentored. Tex Colbert and Bill Newberg had been around for ages but they didn’t really do much of note before taking top jobs.
Keller retired as chairman in 1956 but had been easing up from the day-to-day for awhile. It seems that nobody was around with enough muscle to enforce production quality. My own opinion is that Walter Chrysler had been one of those rare execs who was good at everything and who filled slots below him with strong players in individual roles. Those role players were not up to running the show on their own, but it took a long time for that to show up after Chrysler became inactive due to illness.
Once Lynn Townsend came along (who was a CPA with no manufacturing experience at all), it seemed to get better at first but then fell apart as volume became the holy grail.
I think for Chrysler to sell 80% as many new compacts as Chevrolet is actually a pretty good showing. The Falcon winning by such a huge margin reflects badly on everyone involved, but Ford did have far more dealers than Chrysler. The Valiant was marketed as a Valiant, for reasons I have forgotten. Calling it a Plymouth probably would have helped its acceptance. The styling was Avant Garde, but the engineering made it one of the best cars in the world. England’s Autocar said, “(the Valiant) has a very refined engine, an outstandingly good automatic transmission and road holding and handling that are comparable with the best that European cars have to offer.” The U.S. market said, “the Falcon is cheaper!!!”
The Valiant was sold at both Plymouth and Dodge dealers, so lack of dealers was not an issue. It was a brand of its own in 1960.
Let’s not forget then Valiant was sold as a separate brand in Canada a bit longer to the mid-1960s as well as Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.
Then the Valiant got the last laugh later against the Falcon with the company of the Dart and later the Duster, captured a good part of the compact market.
A bit more on the table, at http://www.forwardlook.net/forums/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=29648&start=51 Someone posted some scans coming from a old issue of Motor Trend where the staff imagined how the Dodge and DeSoto versions of the Valiant would have looked for 1961.
I think Paul has posted many times that the Falcon ate Ford’s lunch, meaning it cannibalized the sales of Ford’s more profitable full size models – which the Corvair did not do to Chevy.
As for Chrysler, the weird 1960 Plymouth languished as the Dodge Dart soared. The Valiant was folded into Plymouth because w/o it, Plymouth sales were dire
Autocar certainly like the Val, but they didn’t say quite that. They called the build quality “shoddy”.
Their oh-so-English comments on the styling of their test wagon are drily snobby: “Aesthetically, the result is a somewhat incongruous blend of saloon and estate car styling which is not partiuclarly attractive to European eyes, though it doubtless calls for no adverse comment in its country of origin where this mixture of styles is common enough.” Miaow!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/triggerscarstuff/7979897310/in/album-72157631520028514/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/triggerscarstuff/12369209355/in/album-72157640642145295/
This is the sedan article I got the quote from. Incidentally, I misquoted them. It should read that the Valiant matched the road holding and handling of the best European family cars.
Nearly!
“…roadholding and handling that are comparable with the best that European family cars have to offer.”
And if by that phrase “family cars” they mean ordinary old plonkers of the period and not Mercedes finnies or Lancia Flaminias or Jag Mk2’s, they’d be right, as the Val was more than comparable. Ofcourse, if they DO mean the uppity brands, their claim is a bit OTT, except for the world-best automatic.
Mercedes still had low-pivot swing axles and kingpins. Jaguars were dogmeat for Ford Galaxies on road courses, and I don’t think anyone would claim the Galaxy had a chassis equal to any 1960 Chrysler product. The Flaminia’s balance is interesting, but real front suspension was considered revolutionary by Lancia when it was conceived. Was the sedan raced? The Valiant didn’t just beat the Falcons and Corvairs through the infield road circuit at Daytona. They ran away from every European sedan entered, including eight Volvos, which were actually much admired for their performance among import car fans sixty years ago.
Now look here, don’t get tedious. The Val was a properly good car, and the box-steered, leaf-sprung, weak-braked thing was much more competitive against a whole bunch of same-equipped family Euros than Euro-snobs might have folk believe, (except it had a bigger and much better engine than most).
But Autocar wasn’t referring to racing. There’s not a doubt a professional driver could lap a souped-up beam-axle Model A at near the same pace as, say, a similarly-powered road Aston, so racing doesn’t prove too much here.
For what it’s worth, I’ve driven both Finnie Mercedes and ’60-ish Val. The latter was a better thing at low town speeds, smooth and peppy, where the merc was a bit slow and lumpy. But at anything above that, the German felt pretty much modern, and the American quite crude, hard to direct, springy, and wholly undergeared.
A basically stock 1966 Plymouth Fury III wagon with a 383/4barrel/Torqueflite 325 gross horsepower drivetrain, Koni shocks, and police car tires was faster around Lime Rock than an Aston Martin DB6 in period, so saying a Valiant Hyper-Pak prepared for Daytona would beat one isn’t really a stretch.
The only Mercedes-Benz fintail I ever drove was a 190 Flinstone model with four-on-the-tree, and nothing about it made me think that it was a modern car trapped in the body of a ’54 Studebaker Land Cruiser. The instruments were as gimmicky, cheap-looking and unreadable at a glance as anything from Detroit. Ergonomics were waiting to be discovered. The brakes weren’t noticeably better than other old cars. It wasn’t fast enough to get into some kind of stride that would have set it apart from any Valiants I had driven at the time. Mercedes-Benz really was concerned with ride quality back then, to the point that they sacrificed road-holding and handling for noise and impact isolation. It wasn’t until the W115 and then the W116 that they actually made sedans that were better at hustling on winding roads than typical family cars. The W108 280SEL 4.5 was soundly thrashed chassis-performance-wise by an Oldsmobile Cutlass sedan in a comparison test, surpassing the Oldsmobile only in ride isolation and road noise suppression. The following years they ran the 450SEL against the Colonade Cutlass Salon, and the Mercedes-Benz had taken over the handling crown at the cost of noise and ride.
It wasn’t just lower price that propelled the Falcon ahead of the Valiant in sales. The first-generation Valiants were not well-made vehicles.
Popular Mechanics surveyed owners of all three new compacts in its “Owners Report” series during 1960.
Among Falcon owners, 7 percent complained of rattles, and 4.3 percent complained of poor workmanship.
Among Valiant owners, a whopping 20 percent complained of poor workmanship, 19.6 percent complained of water leaks and 9.4 percent complained of rattles.
No doubt plenty of people had heard stories of serious water leaks, rust and poor workmanship among people who had bought 1957 and 1958 Mopars – particularly the Plymouth. They were already suspicious of Chrysler quality as a result, and news of Valiants with water leaks and rattles did nothing to allay their concerns.
I remember being fascinated by one of these as a child. A family friend drove one and would occasionally drive over to visit my mother at our house. I remember walking around and around that baby blue Valiant sedan, taking in every odd, voluptuous curve. In GM-centric world of my preschool life, that Valiant was a piece of exotica.
I still find it a fascinating design. Exner had some fascinating ideas for the “next phase” after the tailfin. But it would turn out to be Ford’s idea for a basic shape followed by GM’s idea for how to refine it that would pave the road for 1960s styling. Exner does get credit for the long hood/short deck proportions that the Mustang would run away with just a few years later.
As a kid in the 70s, first learning about cars from the 60s, the Valiant/Lancer was quickly (and easily) top 5 for my picks of most strangely-styled domestic cars of the era. They did not age well into the 70s. Especially, in their typically dilapidated (by then) state. One of the rare orphan cars that appeared to attempt to bridge the gap between the over-styled cars of the late 50s, and early 60s design conservatism. And failed at both, to my eyes at the time. The trunk lid ‘toilet seat’ and the tail fins looked ridiculously out of place combining with a body and greenhouse that looked significantly more modern, and very European. For years, I thought they were so homely, and dated looking. I hope Daniel Stern can forgive me. 🙂 Later, their technical excellence, Slant Six, clear European influence in design, and their near perfect proportions, have since dramatically increased their appeal.
Looking at the side view I was wondering if anyone could do a PhotoShop treatment. The front side fins could be removed and the fenders smoothed out. In back the fins could be removed and the deck lid made to curve down smoothly. I think that the body would then really resemble a European model like a Panhard. There were obviously some very forward thinking elements to the design mixed in with some American “eccentricities.”
What you’re describing isn’t too far off from what Chrysler did when the Valiant was redesigned for ‘63. That, and some cleanup of the fussy details in the greenhouse.
What always amazes me is how the ‘63s look smaller than their predecessors In photos, although it was actually a few inches longer, and just over an inch narrower.
The real irony of the cleaned-up 1963 Valiant is it’s almost entirely from Exner, who had been the scapegoat for the 1962 downsizing debacle and replaced by Elwood Engel. Engel gets the credit for the 2nd generation Valiant when all he did was clean-up the rear a bit by, in yet another irony, bringing back stubby little, Exner-like finlets. The finlets weren’t on Exner’s original 1963 Valiant design.
In effect, after the terrific-looking (but poorly built) 1957 Forward Look cars, Exner simply couldn’t catch a break at Chrysler (although the 1960 Chryslers weren’t bad).
Done by someone on the HAMB forum a while ago. If only.
Love ’em
>>What really makes the Valiant remarkable is that it was completely developed in just 18 months, from the time Chrysler management finally gave the green light to the day it started running off the lines. <<
read the Valiant, was the first? computer designed car, which accelerated its dev
also first alternator for Chrysler and most of US
the Falcon was a slug, but sold because it was so mundane
Ford hit the jackpot because it understood the market (just this once!) Chrysler and GM were trying to play toward the exotic nature of foreign cars. Ford realized that people who wanted smaller cars ON THE BASIS OF SIZE were looking for practicality and economy, as Rambler had already proved.
The folks who wanted exotic were already satisfied by imports, both small and large. They were NOT going to buy American under any conditions. They wanted foreign BECAUSE it was foreign.
The folks who wanted exotic were already satisfied by imports, both small and large. They were NOT going to buy American under any conditions. They wanted foreign BECAUSE it was foreign.
There’s just one very major flaw in that: import sales dropped by 60% from 1959 to 1961.
As a matter of obvious fact, a large number of import buyers did buy American cars after 1959. Especially the Corvair, but others too. They had been buying imports because there weren’t many other choices for small cars. And they were quite eager to buy American cars, as way too many of those imports they bought were not up to American driving standards, and were dropping like flies (VW excepted).
Ford did not hit the jackpot with the Falcon, because it just cannibalized its sales from the big Fords, which dropped like a stone in 1960. Even with the Falcon, Ford’s overall market share plummeted three percentage points in 1960. That’s hardly a jackpot.
I’d argue that if Ford hadn’t had the Falcon they would’ve been worse off. By the late ’50s the full-size Ford was too big for the most traditional Ford buyers and the ’60 was to be even bigger. The Falcon gave those buyers someplace to go within a Ford showroom.
That along with the lessons learned from Edsel’s failure and the 4-seater Thunderbird’s success alongside the Country Squire’s acceptance among the country-club set pointed Ford’s way forward into the ’60s; stop aping GM’s structure, push the big Ford within Ford Division upmarket and let the smaller cars catch the economically-conservative utilitarian buyer.
Great discussion! I’d argue there are many factors.
Personally, I think the Valiant looked awful, which is unfortunate, given the engineering prowess under the sheet metal (Except ox cart leaf spring solid axle). Also, it is an incredible accomplishment to go from green light to production in 14 or 18 months.
Size wise, the Valiant was a precursor to the midsize cars, that would arrive around 1963. Again, brilliant.
The Falcon was the most sensible, albeit anemic, to public taste. The numbers appear to support a Paul’s assertion it cannibalized Ford sales. I generally agree—but, stylewise, perhaps the big Fords were not as appealing as GM cars. That might have hurt Ford sales.
1959-60 was a recesssion. All sales were down. But I believe import share was cut in half, from near 10% in 1959 to less than 5% in 1961–which would be the low mark, and which would steadily increase thereafter. So the Corvair with a little help from Falcon (Falcon replaced many other Fords and domestics) beat back the imports—and the beat themselves, with shoddy quality, VW Beetle being not just the exception, but also the new standard for trouble free motoring.
Two questions: the unibody Valiant did NOT have a front subframe. Weren’t European cars of the era like that? I think today every car has a subframe (except full frame SUVs and trucks of course)
Aluminum blocks were rare. The only mass market car of that era that comes to mind is the Alfa. Oh, as I type… VW, Porsche, and….Corvair! Never mind
Let us not forget an aluminum 225 cid slant six. Radical for its time as well.
Rambler had an aluminum block version of its six too. Actually, not really radical at all. Aluminum blocks had been around since the earliest days of the automobile, and were quite common at one time.
The aluminum 225 wasn’t available until some months into the 1961 model year, and the 225—iron or aluminum—wasn’t available in the Valiant until at least the middle of 1961 production.
Around 1969 I was becoming a bit car conscious. And, while rare, these early Valiants came on my radar, and not in a good way. I tend to associate them with the color in the picture I’ve attached, which to me didn’t help matters.
Our neighbors in the neighborhood we were about to leave had a ’67-’69 Valiant or Dart, a high trim 4 door with a tasteful medium blue paint and a black vinyl top that I thought handsome, if recalling it a bit stiff – a conservative (over?) reaction to the overstep of the first gen Mopar compacts. At the time, I had no idea the cars were related.
I love this ’60 Valiant now, and would put one in my driveway for the novelty, but is not hard to understand consumer reaction to this car.
lefty tighty on the drivers side of the car
I remember as a child my dad and uncle Andy got a flat in uncle Andy”s dodge lancer
he could not loosen the lug nuts on the drivers side until a passing motorist told him the secret righty loosey .
I sheared off one on my 1968 Valiant, then looking at the broken-off piece, saw the “L” on it. My next Chrysler had only right-hand threaded lugs.
The Valiant was a good, but homely looking car. The styling never grew on me. While you are reporting on the ‘new’ 1960 compacts, you can’t leave the Rambler American out. It was a strong competitor, even if it was an aging design. And an optional 125 hp OHV six was an economy ‘king’ while still being more powerful than what the others had to offer.
Nor should we forget the first compact, the 1959 Lark. Studebaker did a memorable job of creating that one on the cheap by simply lopping off the front and rear of the Champion but retaining the center passenger section. This was one of the few (if not only) times when Studebaker’s narrow, antiquated assembly line worked to their benefit. If they’d made the investment to update to a modern assembly line to accomodate a wider body car (like the Big 3), the Lark wouldn’t have been possible.
The 1956 Rambler was on the same 108 inch wheelbase as the 59 Lark, as I recall. The 54 Rambler sedan was on a 108 inch wb too (or close to it, I would need to confirm.)
I agree, there are so many interesting elements on this car that the sum of them together comes off as a messy whole. Take just the front end and apply it to a more conventional body and it’s much more palatable (which is basically a 61 Studebaker Lark). The toilet seat on the trunklid doesn’t help matters, I really like Exner as a forward thinking car designer but that signature touch should have been left to concept cars, I prefer the Dodge Lancer to the Valiant because of that
The Falcon 6 was such a rudimentary design compared to the slant 6 with its siamesed exhaust port and cast into the head 1BBL log intake manifold. Unlike Ford and Chevy Chrysler seemed to actually strive for the 6 being more than just an entry level economy engine at its conception, sort of a predecessor to the Pontiac OHC 6 in that regard.
This appears to be a V-200; here’s a black 1960 V-100 (even more rare):
https://www.hemmings.com/stories/article/valid-valiant-1960-plymouth-valiant-v-100
These cars were the result of a frightening someone´s nightmare…..
Here’s another ’60 Valiant. I really like the videos on this website:
https://wheels.rep-am.com/2020/06/my-ride-1960-valiant-suburban-old-school-but-still-fresh/
Those early Valiants are just plain weird. I’d have gone for a Corvair. Or a Lark, maybe? Because it wasn’t just a choice between Valiant, Falcon and Corvair – there were also Studebaker and AMC to contend with.
Yup, two great options in the compact field:
The 1960 Rambler American, a slightly updated design from 1951, or you could have waited for the 1961 version (below), the butt-ugliest car design of the whole period.
And the Lark was such a sweet design too, a 1953 sedan that had its front and rear chopped off with a cleaver. Very organic!
I respect that’s all that they had to work with, but it was stubby and tall.
To paraphrase: “Near bankruptcy is the mother of invention…”
My view as a 10 year old in 1960: Valiant had the biggest, best showroom brochure of the three. Falcon in the showroom tempted due to the aura of the nearby T-Birds and for $1.00 a nice light blue AMT 1:25th scale promo model Falcon two door sedan could be obtained by mailing in the coupon from the Ford Buyer’s Guide. Corvair wasn’t interesting but did have a nice variety of colors.
My view as a 70 year old in 2020: Valiant – no impression other than rusty and rare. Falcon, which I’ve owned but was gone long ago, reliable, durable American car but wimpy engine. Corvair, which I have owned for the last 14 years, fun to drive with great handling and engine noise but much too fragile and fussy.
Knowing what I know now, I guess I’d take the Falcon by just a bit over the Corvair. I’d ignore the Valiant.
The wagon dispensed with the toilet seat for the better.
By Lebubu93 – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=29724455
If Chrysler could adopt this styling to their Pacifica mini van, jack it up 2 inches and put some slut boot wheels on it and just make it look tough, the wannabe sexy mom’s might just not shun it.
My grandparents had a two door version of this, in a sort of dull purple colour. It gave them good service until they traded it in for a 72 Toyota Corona. The only build quality issue I remember was that the driver’s door window rattled a bit, which they fixed by inserting a wedged-shaped rubber stopper. My siblings and I were always fascinated by the push button transmission (with ivory coloured buttons). I also liked what looked like little suction cups on the brake pads. We thought the styling was at least unique. Looking back at reviews of the time, these totally outclassed the competition in performance.
Reading this reminded me of several interesting firsts for my Paternal side of my family. For one, a new ‘62 of these was the car that transitioned my Grandparents into a two car household, complementing Grandpas ‘61 Chrysler Newport… Clearly they liked the style. They also got around to building a garage when they got the Valiant. The big one I remember, however, is this. We were from MN, and the Valiant had AC, the first form they ever had, long before they added AC to their home. That in and of itself is fascinating to me. They liked it enough to go on with a ‘67 and ‘74 as replacements.
When I was ten I contracted Rocky MTN spotted tick fever in Tennessee. I went in the hospital. When I came out I was told my dad had bought the neighbors old valiant, I was appalled it seemed so ugly and old fashioned next to our 69 mustang! Little did I know, that car was far away a better car. gone soon after.
The righty loosey lug nuts go all the way back to (at least) 1925. My Dodge Brothers touring car uses them although at that time they had nothing to do with Chrysler.
I agree the Lark was was a ‘valiant’ effort (sorry) by Studebaker to stay relevant and I think the styling is much easier on the eyes than the subject vehicle.
I really dig the ’60-’62 Valiant-Lancer-Rebel cars, even from the froggy angles.
No no no! The early Valiant is a wonderful looking car. Is it beautiful global style setter like the Corvair? Heck no. Compared to the dumpy Falcon and American it has real space age optimism. I’ll take mine with the hyper pack and an aftermarket exhaust header please. Oh and make it a 60 or 61. No watered down 62 for me.
Why an aftermarket header instead of the dual headers that were part of the Hyper-Pak kit?
I’d forgotten the hyperpack had a header. I had a 70 Dart I converted to 2bl carb with a header I got from some company advertising in Popular Hot Rodding or Hot Rod. Had a nice purr with a cherry bomb muffler. But it was srill a dumpy slow 70 Dart. The things you spend your money on when you’re 16….
As a curious historical footnote, these were sold in Oz at a higher price than the competition (numbers dictated it so), and was thus seen as the “quality” choice to a GM Holden or Ford Falcon, though In a conservative, English-based society, the styling was seen as too flamboyant for many.
I’ve always liked them, especially as they’re so much better to drive than the competition, and much faster to boot. But I can’t say I love the looks, as they are ones only it’s mother Virgil could.
I would take a Valiant over a Falcon or Corvair from this period any day. The styling might not have been to everyone’s taste, but that’s not always a bad thing. The combination of different styling and a better drivetrain would seal the deal for me. Make mine a Hyper-Pak.
Exner did not understand the primary mindset of the potential buyers of an economical compact: perceived high utility and economy for a low price. Styling was a secondary or tertiary consideration, it did not require advanced, sophisticated styling to sell. The 1960-’62 Valiant and Lancer are one of the worth cases of miss-assigned sophisticated styling applied where it was wasted. Ex should have noticed the volume of Ramblers sold, if lousy styling repelled economy car buyers, AMC would have died in 1958!
Most likely, from Exner’s point of view, the Valiant project provided another opportunity to institute a new styling direction for the corporation. This was the first Chrysler Corporation car of its kind, and was initially to be sold as a standalone brand. He thus didn’t have to incorporate any previous brand trademarks or styling features into the design.
From what I’ve read, by the time the Valiant project was given the green light by top management, Exner was ready to move beyond tail fins. He wasn’t about to waste that opportunity by bringing out something along the lines of the plain-jane Ramblers. In those days, the styling the customer saw on the showroom floor was driven by the chief stylist’s preferences as much as anything else – particularly at GM and Chrysler.
The Valiant incorporated new styling themes – long hood, short deck proportions; “fuselage” greenhouse and body sides; bold front grille; plenty of side sculpturing; and sloped deck. He would apply all of these themes, along with curved side glass and more elaborately shaped bumpers, to his original vision for the 1962 “S Series” of full-size cars. The Valiant was supposed to set a whole new styling direction for the corporation.
As the owner of a ’61 Valiant, I will attest to its quality and comfort, its driveability.Its looks, I was very content.The one thing I added were special outrigger bumpers at the rear because of the roll of the sheet metal under the tail lights being easy to ding.I loved the pushbutton transmission -NOW BACK IN FASHION and the park lever to put the tranny in neutral.I regret giving up that car too soon.
Love that ‘trunk-lid toilet-seat’!
Happy Motoring, Mark
For anyone interested in acquiring a 1960-’62 Valiant or Lancer, they do turn up. Here are three that we’ve posted on the AACA Forum, Cars For Sale topic:
A ’60 Valiant
https://forums.aaca.org/topic/347714-1960-valiant-v200-5950-versailles-mo-not-mine/
A ’61 Dodge Lancer
https://forums.aaca.org/topic/346675-1961-dodge-lancer-5000-rochester-ny-not-mine/
A ’62 Plymouth Valiant:
https://forums.aaca.org/topic/346015-1962-plymouth-valiant-3500-oh-not-mine/
The good news is they’re a relatively inexpensive way to have a unique collector car.
These early Valiants are definitely weird, but good weird. To my eye, they’re one of those rare cars that look better as a 4 door than as a 2 door.
Paul, if only I’d known you were waiting for a Valiant write up. I’ve been sitting on pics of one for a few months!
Chrysler spent millions on a car and no one told any of the powers that were around, “DAMN – that’s one FUGLY car!”?
Think of that. Edsel – Fugly!
This one – Fugly!
The Plymouth and Dodge line up that year – FUGLY, and got even FUGLIER!
Not a single person with any pull told the designers that the clay models of these cars looked like crap? What, the what? Let’s spend millions on a car that looked like a flying potato?
EVERYONE at those corporations are to blame for these rolling fuglies!
There is no excuses – don’t just blame Exner. Everyone with any imput that let these cars get out the door. Everyone was just looking at the next guy and following him over the styling cliff like lemmings?
What Chrysler did here, and what Ford did in 1957 should have made everyone at those corporations or doing business with those corporations back away and run in the opposite direction to never return.
I think the title remark “Better Than the Competition Except In Build Quality and Styling Coherence” is a bit off the mark in terms of build quality. Having owned two Valiants, a ’61 and a ’63, I think I can say from experience that the build quality was every bit as good as anything out there in those days. Both Valiants I owned remained rattle free and solid over the course of a total of 160,000 miles, and both exterior and interior trim wore well and stayed in place. The only serious flaw in either car was a tendency to lose wheel alignment. Styling “coherence” is a matter of taste.