(first posted 12/6/2011) Better a day off than an off day It’s always good to be able to take one’s father’s advice (as long as it’s good advice and you’re over forty). So we took it yesterday, frolicking in the sun at remote and deserted Tahkenitch Beach while Eugene was enshrouded in a gloomy valley fog. But there’s no getting away from Curbside Classics; as we returned to the trail head, what greets us but a gen1 BRAT. A nice ending indeed; I’ve been on the prowl for one of these since I started this endless treasure hunt almost three years ago. Fun’s over; time to go home and write it up.
Subaru has always been known for its go-it-alone ways, especially in the styling department. But the BRAT was pretty much in a league of its own. Based on the Leone (called just Subaru in the US) that first appeared in 1971, the BRAT (which ostensibly stands for Bi-drive Recreational All-terrain Transporter) made its presence first known for the MY 1978. And, yes, its arrival was duly noted; how could it not?
Actually, it’s creation wasn’t nearly as wacky as it might seem now. In fact, it was a rather clever move, and one that would pioneer a whole category: the ElCamino/Ranchero mini-me, but with a twist. By 1980, VW released its Rabbit-based pickup, and in 1982, Chrysler got into the crowded pool with the Dodge Rampage. Arriving in the depths of the second energy crises, these little utes seemed like a rather brilliant idea. Until gas prices started falling like a stone. By 1982, the VW’s tooling was shipped to Yugoslavia, and a year later or so, the Rampage just went off in a huff.
Each one had its unique qualities: the VW naturally was the most German: it had the longest bed, and diesel engines available.
The Rampage had a decidedly sporty quality, borrowing the front end sheet metal from the Omni 024/Charger.
But the BRAT had something the others didn’t, which undoubtedly was the key to its longevity: four wheel drive. The fact that it had the shortest bed of the three obviously didn’t hurt either, as the BRAT wasn’t really ever sold on its truckiness.
Here’s what the BRAT was really after: a cut of the Jeep CJ’s ever growing popularity in the late seventies. At least, that’s my take on it. The CJ was hot, and Jeep had it pretty much all to itself, except for the bigger SUVs. The Suzuki Samurai/SJ413 was still several years in the offing, not arriving in the US market until 1986.
The Jeep had grown ever bigger and heavier, and its thirst was prodigious. Jeep had/has fooled around with a more compact version seemingly forever. It eventually just gave that part of the market to the Samuarai and Rocky. But in the mid seventies, the gap below it was wide open.
Now I’m not saying the BRAT was a direct competitor, because it certainly wasn’t in key respects. But for many young people at the time, the Jeep was a lifestyle or image choice more than a serious off-roader (which is even more the case today). The BRAT fit the bill, more or less. And its gas bill was a lot easier on the wallet.
Obviously, the ute market was also in play with the BRAT, but with its tiny bed; well, I suppose there were some early organic farmers in Vermont who might have been all over the BRAT. But the key target demo was young guys; brats, in other words.
Oops; almost forgot: Ronald Reagan was an early BRAT adopter, buying one in 1978 for his beloved ranch above Santa Barbara. But a red one?? A couple of years ago, the Young America’s Foundation recovered it from some later owners (of course it was still going) and restored it to its pristine original condition (above). It now resides in the barn at his ranch.
Actually, it didn’t seem to get a lot of use by him, as he also had several Jeeps, and there are plenty of pictures of him driving those, but none with his BRAT. Maybe it would have seemed unpatriotic? Naw; Reagan was a confirmed free-trader…that is, until the 1981 “Voluntary” Export Restrictions, which placed a 1.68 million car per year cap on Japanese exports to the US. We’ll talk about the unintended effects of that another time. But maybe the BRAT went into hiding in 1981.
I’d like to get away from politics, but the BRAT is so deeply enmeshed in them. Like its rear-facing back seats. What was that all about? The chicken tax, pure and simple. Back in 1963, Lyndon Johnson enacted a 25% tax on potato starch, dextrin, brandy and light trucks in retaliation to a tariff placed on US chicken by France and Germany. You’d think that might have been resolved decades ago, but it still goes on, and on, and on.
The chicken tax tanked sales of the VW Transporter Pickup. The traditional Japanese compact pickups got around it by having their beds built and added in the US. The Subaru, with its integral bed, had no such option. By adding two seats, the BRAT was now a passenger car, thus avoiding the tax. A tax scofflaw! No wonder…
Enough! Let’s talk about engines, transmissions, and four wheel drive systems, anything but politics. The Subaru boxer started life as a 1000cc unit, back in 1966. It’s come a long way since. For the BRAT, its stage of development was at the 1600cc level, with a whopping 67 hp, and still with the very VW-esque OHV configuration. An 1800 cc unit soon joined the party.
Here’s one I shot in a similar vintage wagon. A compact little thing, with enough room left over for the spare tire. How handy indeed. Not like there was lots of space going begging anywhere else, especially in the wagon, since the rear differential meant less room for the gas tank. A tough little motor, according to its rep. And a raspy sounding one too. Weird: a boxer four is such a perfectly balanced engine, but it’s hard to tame its exhaust pulses. Maybe someone can explain.
These Subies were built well before the modern AWD era, so the rear axle was engaged as needed. Some models even had a two-speed transfer case. And for you real young-uns, prior to 1996, Subarus in the US were available with either FWD or 4WD/AWD. But the BRAT only came in 4WD. The BRAT was also never sold in its home market, but seems to have been developed mostly with the US in mind. Although a version called the Bramby was sold in Australia, as well as one called Subaru 284 (?) for the UK.
The first generation BRAT, also called a narrow-body, was built for three years, through 1980. Explains why they’re none too common anymore. The second generation sat on the wider-body Subaru platform, but I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the bed’s sheet metal pieces were re-used. There’s plenty of these around; this one looks ready for business.
But a combination of factors led to the BRAT’s demise, most of all the ascendancy of the Japanese 4WD pickups. By 1987, the BRAT was finished in the US, but supposedly they were built until 1993. For Australia, I assume. Who else?
Of course, every idea has to be recycled at least once, no matter how successful or not it was the first time. Enter the Subaru Baja, one of the great flops of the recent era. Seemed like a good idea at the time, eh?
Let’s just say that I see a whole of of Subaru wagons, with racks carrying sports gear of every sort. And I haven’t seen a Baja in ages…I better shoot one the next time I do. That way when its thirty years old, and I want to do its CC, I’ll have it in the files instead of worrying for three years if I’ll ever find one.
I guess safety standards was pretty lax back then. Can you imagine the regulators approving the Brat’s rear-facing seats today?
I don’t have a link; but I believe that was part of why the plug was finally pulled.
Not THE factor, but perhaps the final one
No one with any sense would ever ride in those bed seats more than once. Even if the feeling of being exposed to the elements didn’t bother you, the fact was that even a short ride back there would leave you dust covered and filthy. My brother in law had a Brat not long after he and my sister were married; I suspect that most of the Brats had the same surgery that Chuck’s did. Shortly after he bought his he used the hot wrench and permanently removed the external seats. At least then he could get his motorcycle in the bed.
…Ya learn something every day. The Japanese trucks got around the tax by having American-made beds installed?
I know that tax was why Nissan opened a plant in Tennessee. But I hadn’t heard of other, previous ways such as that.
When the BRAT was out, I sneered at it…lusting for, and finally getting, a more traditional Japanese pickup. But…like the body-on-frame microtrucks, the BRAT has moved on.
I miss it…and them…
Yup. Growing up in the Portland Or area used to see truckloads of beds being transported long before any of these makers had plants here. The beds might have been made in Japan and imported as “parts” also
Nope the beds at least the Toyota ones we’d see moving up I-5 were built in CA and shipped up here for instal. There were some trucks imported as complete vehicles and their beds were different. When my friend backed his then new late 80’s Toyota 4wd and went to get a taillight they asked him US or Japanese built bed.
More recent, ie current, methods of getting around the chicken tax is Ford importing the Transit Connect with rear seats and seat belts and then removing and scraping them in the US. Mercedes used to remove the engine and trans from a completed Sprinter and re-install them in the US to be able to import it as a CKD, complete knock down kit, not sure if they are still doing it that way.
Another interesting result of the beds being created separately is that their quality was not always the same. I had friends with Nissan and Toyota trucks from the 1980’s and the beds were falling off the trucks from rust when the cabs had none at all.
Indeed! This was one of the first things I learned about my ’87 Toyota truck (purchased ’01). To this day, the paint on the cab is very good and has kept its red color well. The bed is, by comparison, awful. Its red color is noticeably faded, it’s rusted, and it has been victim to several rattle-can touchups.
Toyota still does this. They have a plant in Tijuana that makes most of the pickup truck, but leaves out enough components that it evades the 25% tax for complete trucks. Then they ship them across the border to another Toyota plant in San Diego where they finish building them.
Voila, an “American made” truck for purposes of the Chicken Tax.
These were never on my radar when they were more common, but now I kinda wish that they had been. There is something strangely compelling about this little trucklet.
We should also not forget that the late 70s-early 80s was a big time for compact 4×4 pickups with splashy graphics and rollbars (with lights on them). Marty McFly travelled time in the DeLorean, but it was that hot little black Toyota pickup that he REALLY wanted. Subaru was a little off of the standard, and while an interesting niche vehicle, I can see where the BRAT did not have the same faddish appeal.
I keep thinking about them recently, there is a real cherry one with T top that I go by all the time. Hmmm.
“…in 1983, Chrysler got into the crowded pool with the Dodge Rampage. Arriving in the depths of the second energy crises, these little utes seemed like a rather brilliant idea. Until gas prices started falling like a stone. By 1982, the VW’s tooling was shipped to Yugoslavia, and a year later or so, the Rampage just went off in a huff.”
I thought that the Rampage was built from 1981-84. I just checked allpar.com, however, and they say it was 1982-84. There was also a Plymouth version called the Scamp, which was sold for only one model year, 1983.
A slip of the finger…will fix. Tx.
Built in 1981 for the ’82 MY, would be the case.
Say the word, and I can get you all the pictures you want of a Baja. My mom has one. It’s definitely a niche vehicle, but it’s perfect if it fits your niche. Normal 4-door sedan most of the time, but then when you want to haul home half a yard of compost…
…Yes, when you want to haul a half a yard of compost home, you borrow your husband’s Forester – ask me how I know. My wife drives a Baja – absolutely loves it – even has both the tonneau cover and the ARE canopy/cap/shell/whatchamacallit. But a wagon is infinitely more practical for carrying people (Bajas only have 4 seatbelts) or stuff (the roof rack is smaller than a Legacy sedan’s, and the “switchback” pass-through is minuscule as the glass doesn’t fold down).
That said, I still really, really like it, as does my wife.
The R&D costs might have made it too expensive, but I always thought the Baja would have been a success if Subaru had went with a mid-gate that folded down, expanding the bed into the passenger compartment when needed, like the very popular Chevy Avalanche.
In fact, since it’s been discontinued (and there are loads of them still on the road), maybe a CC on the Avalanche is warranted.
I tend to think of Subaru as the Outback Company, seemingly as that’s all they ever advertise, and I see on the road. I know about the WRX, but really, who besides a few racing geeks really pays attention to WRC here in the land of the free and the home of NASCAR?
When the BRAT was contemporary, Subaru did have more of a regular car line going on, and I have to admit that it was a clever way to both increase sales & awareness and get around the “chicken tax” restrictions. However, it wasn’t really updated, and the fan base apparently found better implements to use than the one Fuji Heavy Industries was offering.
A contemporary small/compact 4WD pickup truck will have far more utility than any permutation of the BRAT; a similar thing happened to the Baja. Conceptually, it looks like it should work, but ask Ford how that Sport Trac thing worked out. More folks can find more utility (and probably residual value) in a regular SUV than a four door car with a big, open trunk.
Which is why I’m guessing Subaru is the Outback company. Here in the US, they’ve gone to a damn-the-torpedoes-it’s-AWD-or-nothing strategy. Great for selling things like the Outback, but not so great if you want to move some small FWD sedans that are competitive. OTOH, their small FWD sedans were never that competitive anyway.
At least for a while, the BRAT supplied a template for increased sales, and it DID brighten up the roads. My wife wanted one, simply because she liked the name. That, and the fact that her father gave her a 455 cid Olds Toronado to drive during the height of the late 70’s oil shortage. I guess it was his way of keeping her close to the house.
It’s not unlike American Motors’ strategy in its last years. Neither it nor its predecessor component companies were known for trucks; but the purchase of Jeep, intended as a dumping of an unwanted business by Kaiser, turned out to be pure serendipity. Not being able to afford new models; and having guessed wrong often enough to deplete the budget (Pacer and Matador), there wasn’t any room for more strikes. Capitalizing on a growing market, the Eagle was done on the cheap and it was, if not a home-run, a triple-play that let the company steal more time and let fate run its course.
Subaru, having deeper pockets, wasn’t driven by desperation; but with a small American market-share, and with a solid hit with the 4WD wagon…also decided to stick with what worked.
@JPT: An excellent analogy, but with a couple of exceptions…
Subaru has Fuji Heavy Industries as it’s keiretsu, which could supply it with lots of money. AMC had no ‘sugar daddy’. Of course, with Subaru now working closely with Toyota, it may only be a matter of time before it is absorbed by the Toyota empire…
However, the rest of it is a mirror of the AMC strategy, nowhere to go but up(market). AMC succeeded for awhile, but eventually, CAFE and other external forces caused it to crumble, i.e., sold off to Chrysler.
Maybe history will repeat itself vis-a-vis Toyota…
The notion that history will repeat itself and Subaru will become Toyota’s Jeep division, while not a foregone conclusion, certainly seems plausible.
Of course, I’m not sure how interested Fuji would be in in selling off Subaru. And if Subaru was absorbed into Toyota, I would imagine it would pretty much spell the end of the Subaru boxer engine, much like how all the old AMC engines in Jeeps were eventually phased out and replaced with Chrysler drivetrains.
But if you look at Subaru’s model line-up, their products would fit in well with Toyota without a great deal of cannibalization between the two.
It’s hard to say. Toyota has owned a big chunk of Daihatsu since the ’60s, but has never simply absorbed it, which I imagine they could if they were so inclined.
There might be anti-trust concerns involved. While I think it was largely MITI influence that prompted Toyota to buy into Daihatsu in the first place (there were a lot of rumblings about consolidation in the early to mid-60s, little of which actually happened), I believe postwar Japanese corporate law has some fairly stringent anti-monopoly rules, a relic of the occupation; the Allies were concerned that big conglomerates might end up bankrolling some kind of neofascist movement. If I were Toyota, I would be real cautious about looking too grabby unless it was very clear that it would be politically supported.
I really can’t see Fuji selling off Subaru anytime soon. The commercial side of FHI’s aerospace business is doing very well supplying Boeing, Airbus and others with various subassemblies. The military side of the house has been hurting as many of the US and European military aircraft programs for which FHI is a supplier have undergone budget cuts.
I think it’s safe to say that Subaru’s success in the US (SOA’s 2014 calendar year sales broke 500K for the first time) makes up for a lot of what they’ve lost in their military business.
I sold Toyotas in the late 80’s and the 2-door 4Runner was considered a truck while the 4-door was considered a car. Maybe it was the fixed roof? They obviously made a lot more money on the 4-doors. As for the rest of the trucks they offered salesman “spins” because there was never any dealer profit/commission on them after paying the 25% tariff
I think it comes down to the fact that the difference between a car and a truck is really not that clear cut. IIRC, for a fixed-roof vehicle, the legal distinction has something to do with whether it’s possible to create an uninterrupted load floor between the back of the driver’s seat and the tailgate. (If you’re asking whether that could make a station wagon or even a smaller hatchback with removable or flat-folding rear seats — à la Honda Fit — technically a truck, that is a valid question. I believe Chrysler was able to classify the PT Cruiser wagon as a truck on that basis.)
great little ute those Subarus the OZZY version is called a BRUMBY same as the wild horses they didnt compete with Jeep out here Jeep is something vets wheel out for ANZAC parades Landrover put them out of the market in the 50s on capability alone.
I see that the blue rig you shot has a plug for a block heater, an indication to me that it hails from east of the Cascades.
Quite often in WA it can be sunny at the beach when it’s cloudy farther inland. I don’t think it’s quite so predictable as in Oregon though.
“Enough! Let’s talk about engines, transmissions, and four wheel drive systems, anything but politics.”
Point taken, but since finding CC, I’ve actually become more curious about past regulations and their impact. For example, I didn’t know about the pre-80s headlamp regulations until this year. I had always assumed it was just an industry standard.
I think a series on the most industry-changing regulations would be really, really interesting. And from a historical perspective, it wouldn’t be particularly divisive.
Until then, I’ll just be gleaning my factoids from good write-ups like these. 🙂
Where’s the upvote button here, that’s something I’d like to see too!
+1.
Government regulation has a huge impact on car design and buying patterns and it’s often nigh impossible to talk intelligently about cars without understanding the regulatory constraints of both the home market and export markets. The rules are also often misunderstood; people sometimes assume the regulations say things they actually don’t or conflate different regs (for instance, people often talk about rollover standards when they’re actually talking about what the feds call “roof crush”).
Finding information on past regulations is actually surprisingly difficult. The regulatory agencies have various summaries of the current rules, but other than some very general milestones, details on past (outmoded) rules aren’t so easy to come by. For U.S. regs, the most accurate approach is to dig through past issues of the Federal Register, although to do that, you have to have a general idea what you’re looking for. For other countries, well… that is trickier.
Weird: a boxer four is such a perfectly balanced engine, but it’s hard to tame its exhaust pulses. Maybe someone can explain.
Unequal length headers, newer Subaru’s have equal length headers and don’t make the same noise. I pray the BRZ and Scion variant have unequal length headers just for the angry boat motor sound.
I always thought the Baja would have done better with a smaller 2 seat cab and larger bed with enough room for the sheet of plywood.
As it is you ended up with 4 seats and and the worlds smallest pickup bed.
My grandfather had 3 of the Subaru Brumby utes (which did not have the seats in the bed!) over about 10 years on his farm. Previously he’d had a couple of Suzuki utes, before that (pre mid-late 70’s) I’m not sure. The Brumby was perfect for his needs in day to day running around the farm, he had a 7 tonne truck for larger jobs plus tractors and motorbikes. The dual range 4wd was handy for mud in winter, and crawling at a very slow speed feeding stock. The load capacity (approx 400kg/850-900lb) was taxed at times, I remember going up one large hill in second gear due to the (over)load of stock yard gates, shearing plant etc. The main downside was the 4sp gearbox, they revved too high on the highway and mileage suffered.
When he bought a new ute he would take off the chrome trim around the bed and bolt on an angle steel rail with tie down hooks for functionality and to protect the bed, and had also built a pipe rack and stock (sheep) crate to suit. He bought one of the last batch in 1993 even though he wasn’t ready, to get a new one while he still could, ironically the trade in was in very good condition but within 6 months or so the new one had dents in every panel… His brother got one too and still has it, in like-new condition.
Thought of something else – one of these utes was probably the first car I drove, at age 6 or so. This is where the low range came in handy – you couldn’t go too fast so fairly safe
There are still at least two Brumbies I see fairly regularly in my area. And one local farmer made his own by cutting the roof off an early 4WD wagon and bolting steel plates across the rear door openings to give it some structural rigidity. I’ll have to see if it’s still there and get a pic.
If you are ever in the Salem area swing by the river front park. The gentleman that owns the stern-wheeler docked there drives a Baja and it can usually be found in the north parking lot by the Center Street bridge.
Now that Fiat runs Chrysler, how about that Brazilian Strada as a new Rampage?
http://www.okedab.com/2011-fiat-strada-sporting-brazil
I recently bought an 1978 Brat with 57,000 miles. I bought this from my uncle for 600.00 who purchased it from my brother for 500.00, who purchased it from craigs list for400.00. I love it ,built like a tank ,I am giving it to my son tomorrow for his 16 th birthday.Perfect car for a teenager,he cant haul around more than one person at a time, it doesnt go over 70 mph, and it gets great gas mileage.I love this car I wish I could find another one for my youngest son who turns 16 may 2013. And i would drive this car every day. Its great for Kansas farm pond fishing, and the dog loves it in the back.
thats my car you posted!! before i put big wide tires and wheels on it
Nice job keeping it up, most of these rusted away years ago in the east. Interesting paint scheme too! Hope you’re still enjoying it.
My brother-in-law had a BRAT and loved it. He still had a fondness for it. Unfortunately he lives in Pennsylvania, which grows big brown rust flakes as a cash crop, and incompetent, crooked vehicle inspectors to stimulate the local economy. One day as he was pulling away from a toll gate on the Pennsylvania Turnpike, the rear suspension tore out from the underbody, under the torque. End BRAT.
He still drools when he sees an intact one in California, where a few still can be seen running as daily drivers. But their owners don’t want to part with them.
The BRAT characterizes Subaru in its quirky, lovable phase, before it went nauseatingly Eco-Green Yuppie.
I wouldn’t have thought he would be driving in 4wd unless it was snowing? They didn’t have a centre differential and are otherwise front wheel drive.
Awesome article! I’ve always liked 1st and 2nd generation Subaru Awd. While the Brat was a cool mini truck, I’ve always liked the AWD station wagon of the time. I’d buy one for myself if I could find one in pristine condition, and the price was below $10k.
These are not mine. I’m just sharing in case you want/need….
1979,1980,1981 Rare Subaru Brats (South Payson) http://phoenix.craigslist.org/evl/cto/4843834893.html 4 images
“Have some barn find Subaru Brats
First 1 is a complete 1981 Subaru Brat in very good condition. Currently I don’t have pictures of but will have them by end of week.
This one even has ac and the jump seats in the back. I have original style roll bar and front push bars.
It was painted white a while back the original color was blue with blue interior.
The glass is all good the doors and windows open and shut like they should.
Car runs but could use a good tune up or carb.
I bought this one kinda last and used some of the other parts to get her where she is now.
If Subaru could avoid the tax by installing a rear seat in the Brat, why couldn’t VW sell crew cabs that way , as an open ended passenger van ?
As I remember:
B…..Bi
R…..Radial
A…..All
T…..Terrain.
A good friend bought a new 1978 Brat….I sat in those rear seats usually after a few beers.:-)
I thought it was Bi-drive Recreational All-terrain Transporter.
I used to like Subarus before they became more expensive than a Mercedes. The BRAT sounds like a fun vehicle, though I never drove one. I did have a 1988 Suzuki Samurai, bought used and not in the best of condition. I still managed to put over 100,000 miles on it, for a total of right at 200,000, before I finally wore it out, and the engine lost compression. That thing was a blast, no matter what consumer reports may have said. I also had a 1975 Jeep CJ5. I really liked it, but it was so unreliable I finally gave up. It left me stranded out in the AZ desert too many times. The Samurai NEVER broke down. But quality issues aside, the CJ was a far better design than the Wrangler. It was rounder, and had a narrower track. You could put off road tires on it without them sticking 10″ out past the fenders. The traditional Jeep is becoming uglier and less off road capable all the time.
The Subaru Baja has 2 major problems. To expensive, and to many doors. Oh, and it’s ugly, not cute like the BRAT.
Nice find Paul – you don’t see many of this vintage anymore. I was unaware that Subaru offered a two speed transfer case during this period – my 79 Subaru Wagon had merely a up/down lever for engaging 4WD. I remember that you had to disengage 4WD before going into reverse or the drivetrain would bind up……..
I also noticed the gearing was somewhat high – with the 4 spd manual the engine turned about 3K at 60 mph – long freeway drives were not it’s forte.
But it easily got me through two upstate NY winters – would just scamper through the snow.
Dual-range 4WD was only on vehicles with the EA81 (1800cc) engine; the earlier EA71 (1600cc) models only had a single range. Some later EA82-engined models (notably the RX Coupe) added a selectably-locking centre diff, giving the options of FWD, AWD, and 4WD with high- and low-ranges. That last one is something of a holy grail gearbox: EA71 and EA81 vehicles only had 4-speed manuals; the RX gearbox added a fifth gear, centre diff, and had a slightly lower (1.55:1 vs. 1.45:1, IIRC) low range than its predecessors, so is the hot one for swaps into older vehicles.
One minor point: there were no separate transfer cases on these vehicles. There is an additional section on the rear of the gearbox that basically functions as one, but it is a part of the transmission and not separate. Subaru has continued this design practice on the boxer-engined cars to the present day.
Those were also very popular in Israel where they were imported until production ended in 93; they were sold as work trucks and did not have any disignation other than… Subaru tender (“tender”, coming from the English word, is used in israel for pick up). They were available as 4X2 also. There were no rear seats from the factory but by fitting a canopy and foldable, longtudinal benches you could legally carry 8 people at the back (yes). And, of course, they passed the camel test, which is why Bedouins love them… They now begin to be sought after as collector/fun vehicles.
With the aforementioned canopy…
These are utterly, utterly brilliant little trucklets. In a way, it’s a shame that the marketplace didn’t quite get where their strengths were when new (and that rustproofing wasn’t better); as a go-to ‘I need something cheap, reliable, simple, and useful’ set of wheels, they’ve served me very well on three occasions.
Viewed as competition against the Toyota and Datsun / Nissan compact pickups of the time, they fall short. As a compact take on a ute in the El Camino / Ranchero vein, however, they make a lot more sense, and in some ways offer more than the American equivalents.
What I’ve always appreciated about the Brat is that it’s basically a small truck that drives like a car: you can legitimately use it as a both a weekday commuter and weekend workhorse. The handling is surprisingly good, they’re comfortable even on longer trips, and the 900lb. payload is close enough to a half-ton as doesn’t matter. Yes, the bed area is smaller, but you just learn to work with it, and having a half-dozen tie-downs integrated into the sides of the bed makes it much easier to work within the constraints.
Standard 4WD is a huge plus, as is the (manually) height-adjustable suspension: two bolts on each front spring perch give around an inch and a quarter of lift or lowering, and one bolt on the split rear torsion bar does the same at the back. Assuming that everything under there hasn’t seized from road crud, it’s an easy adjustment to make and helps with taking it in the dirt. The low range isn’t super-deep (around 1.45:1 reduction, IIRC), but in a vehicle that weighs barely a ton with engines that are biased towards torque delivery it works well.
Speaking of the engines, these were also one of the last Subarus made before they discovered timing belts and their propensity for snapping. Gear-driven timing means that just won’t happen; keep changing the oil and coolant, do tune-ups as necessary, and an EA81 will run pretty much forever absent any neglect or abuse.
Downsides: as mentioned previously, they need a fifth gear. It is possible to swap in a 5-speed from a later EA82-engined model, but it’s not just a straight drop in; you’ll be making transmission mounts, bashing the tunnel out, and doing a million other small things that I’m forgetting. You also won’t be going anywhere quickly if it’s loaded down in the back: emissions requirements meant that US models had just 73bhp to work with. There was a turbo version that put out around 100bhp, but those are rare to find in working condition these days and, as one of Subaru’s earliest attempts at turbocharging, were always something of a challenge to keep running.
One bit of trivia: for reasons I can’t remember, the Finnish market received a long-bed version that wasn’t available anywhere else. I believe that there were also tax reasons for this, but they were also sold there right up to the end of production in 1994.
I never got to ride in one much less drive one. They all seemed to have rusted out and disintegrated long long time ago where I live…havn’t seen one in decades.
I’ve never driven a Subaru Brat, nor have I ridden in one as a passenger. But I’ve always liked its 4wd and its Boxer engine.
I recently sold a very low mileage 1980 BRAT with 16,000 original miles.
A fun cart, but Subaru has come a long way…these gen 1s were a very crude car… A glorified 4 wheeler; very slow, not able to keep up with traffic. It was a mountain goat on narrow steep windy roads, but I felt unsaf e in it on freeways, which is mainly why I sold it.
It is now owned by a Subaru of America Exec!
The snippet about the Baja being a flop is funny to read in 2023. Subaru was just way ahead of the market. If they revived it today it would probably be a viable alternative to the Maverick and Santa Cruz.
Can a factory vehicle, look anymore like a roller skate?
The BRAT is the only Subaru that I would ever consider owning.