Today’s vintage article details the many ways to order your Plymouth Duster, back in Sept. ’72. A whole array of options were available, and it takes Car And Driver quite a few pages to run the gamut. It’s a whole buffet to explore.
By ’72, the Valiant and its offspring loomed large in Chrysler’s sales sheets, comprising 34% of the company’s total sales. Being Car And Driver, they weren’t going to bother with the Duster’s entry model; the lowly 6cyl., which gets only a passing mention. Instead it focuses in 2 ends of the Duster’s sporty V-8s; first the base sport coupe, with a 2-barrel 318, coming at $2,407 (for the sake of comparison, import competitors are mentioned: the 2-liter Capri at $2,528, and the Opel 1900 Sport Coupe at $2528). However, the base Duster came in bare condition to meet such a price; not even a radio or A/C came along.
Car And Driver stacked the ‘stark’ 318 against a 340, optioned out to nearly $4,200. Besides having the 340’s performance enhancements in place, the model came with other goodies too: Torqueflite transmission, A/C, radio, decor options, and more. The fun, as Car And Driver noted, was to mix and match all these options, until finding the preferred package; all depending on wallet and driving habits.
Just to choose the 340 mill over the 318 meant an additional $321 over the base price. Quite a sum in ’72, but there was more than engine costs on that choice. A heavy duty suspension, stiffer torsion bars and rear springs, plus firmer shock absorbers, came with the 340 package. On top of those enhancements, Car And Driver’s 340 added quite a few goodies: power disc brakes, bucket seats, A/C, decor package, and power assist that offered a sporty 3.3 turns lock-to-lock against the 318’s standard 5.7 turns. These, just to mention a number of choices available.
Issues of the day can’t be avoided, mainly insurance rates. To pick 340 ownership over the 318 meant heavy insurance penalties, 30% for Bodily Injury and Property Damage; and that just for starters (the list goes on). However, the beauty of the system was to avoid such penalties by getting the sporty goods of the 340 into the 318, and turn your Duster into an affordable performance package suited to your needs. Such was the game back then, if one had the automotive incline and knowledge to play along.
Further reading:
Curbside Classic: 1972 Plymouth Duster 340 – The Tweaker
Curbside Classic: 1974 Plymouth Gold Duster – There’s Gold In Them Thar Hips
I would love to go back to those days when you could build a car (almost) exactly as you chose to, with an option sheet that didn’t have only three or four “levels”. They force you into options you didn’t want (leather seats, for example) in order to get the sunroof or the traction control.
Want the bigger engine with the handling package? For that that you need the power convenience group too, and by upgrading you lose the 6 speed manual. That’s what you would want of course, you savvy customer. Everyone knows that.
I wish you could buy a car, today, like that. Order what you want, and not have to take , and pay for, what you don’t want. Hell, I can remember when you could even delete some standard equipment. Like a heater, spare tire, radio, etc.
Whenever I go online to “build” a new car, I try to locate the option package for heated seats because my wife likes them. Almost always, they’re part of a $2500 or more package with a bunch of options I don’t want or need. Argh!
And THEY KNOW that women want heated seats, and for
that reason, you’re likely to accept that high-profit package.
As one who spent a lot of time around these, I am surprised that the editors don’t mention the 225 cid version of the slant six. In my experience, that was the choice of probably 70% of Duster buyers in the early 70s. I don’t believe I ever came across a 198 cid version.
While I am sure that my experience was far different from the guys at Car & Driver, the 225 slant six offered a really good balance between economy and performance. The ones I drove certainly were not underpowered (though they weren’t overpowered either). A friend had a 73 Duster with a 318 and a 3 on the floor – and that was a FAST car. I can only imagine what the addition of the 340 would have done.
Options on Valiants and Dusters were a huge deal. My 71 Scamp had interior decor and light packages that made it almost luxurious for its era and segment. I remember that Dusters seemed to be about 50-50 between low-trim cars and higher/sportier versions. And I remember those early Gold Dusters. A guy buying used around 1980 or so had gobs of choices because Dusters were everywhere.
” the 225 slant six offered a really good balance between economy and performance… ”
My fading memories of the bought new 225 \6 with 3 speed floor shift 1971 Duster was that it had good power, even at low RPM. I did not check the gas mileage, but do recall that immediately shifting from clutch up neutral running into reverse would occasionally crunch gears. The solution for the crunch was to first move the shifter into any forward gear (clutch still down), then shift into reverse. Doing that, there was never a gear crunch.
The 3 speed floor shift required the steering column to have a heavy steering lock collar that had to be rotated down to remove the key. Putting the key into the lock and turning it one click freed the collar to spring back to its original unlocked position.
The standard non-disk brakes were one reason Consumer Reports “Un-Recommended” the Duster without the optional front disk brakes. But then there were issues with the rear drum brakes working in concert with the front disks as noted by Daniel Stern in a comment to my 1971 Duster COAL chapter.
“do recall that immediately shifting from clutch up neutral running into reverse would occasionally crunch gears. The solution for the crunch was to first move the shifter into any forward gear (clutch still down), then shift into reverse. Doing that, there was never a gear crunch.”
Very common issue on cars of that Era. Running in neutral would spin the secondary shaft, and reverse gear would use a sliding gear without a syncho.. Because of this, sliding into a forward gear would stop the spinning and allow easy reverse engagement.
Thank you Dave Skinner.
I marvel at the notion that a 50+ year old issue with a car I owned back then can be explained by a knowledgeable CC reader using a technology that wasn’t even a glint in anyone’s future tech world eye back then.
While we can agree or disagree on this – or that – the technology we crank up every time we go to a web site still blows this Cobol/Mark-IV on an IBM-360 brain just about every day.
All floor-shift manual transmissions had the lock collar-my 73 has one, so does my friend’s 76 Feather Duster.
Based on the various ’60s-early ’70s vintage reviews, a 225 /6 would have been good a 13-15 second 0-60 time, and unlike popular belief, it was no faster or powerful than its direct competition, say like the Chevy 230 six. Meanwhile, the 318 Duster here did the 0-60 in 8.3; that’s a very significant difference, although I wouldn’t exactly call that FAST. Reasonably brisk, perhaps.
Some vintage road tests:
R&T tested a 73 Cutlass Salon with a 4 bbl 350 and got a 0-60 in 11.1 seconds.
Road Test, 71 Javelin 4 bbl 360, 0-60 in 9.5
A 318 Duster was no race car, but in my book anything under 8.5 seconds to 60 in 1972 was pretty quick.
As I said, “reasonably brisk”. “FAST” would be some 7 seconds or less. At least in my book.
That 318 Duster would be no slouch. I had a 72 Coronet with 318 and torqueflite in high school and I thought it was pretty powerful at the time. I never timed it, but it definitely had get up and go. The lighter Valient would be even better, of course.
Why speculate? It was tested by C/D in this review and its stats are right there in the…stats.
My parents ’73 318 Coronet was far from a rocket. Very far. But maybe your perceptions and/or expectations were different from mine. I did like to drive genuinely “FAST”.
My mother bought a 72 Duster new, but I imagine that she bought it off the lot. It had the 225 with automatic, but otherwise it was pretty stripped. It was the only automatic she ever bought. It did have an AM radio and a rear window defroster that did not do anything. It was just a blower mounted in the shelf under the window and was completely ineffective, but loud. Overall it was a good car for her and I don’t remember any issues.
This test of the 318 car only confirms what I remember of my Grandmother’s Lucerne blue Scamp hardtop with the same engine and a Torqueflite; that car was fast. Not “for a compact” fast, but “compared to most cars” fast. A leadfoot, her antics were well known in the family, and my mother strongly disliked it when I would be driven around in that particular car by her.
One simple reason is weight: the 72 was the last “light” A-body. Their base 318 car was under 3100lbs.(Even my 73 is ~3350.)
A few years later, an ‘article’ like this might include a small 8 point text header in all caps, that says ‘PAID ADVERTISEMENT’. Helping Chrysler sell more well-optioned Dusters and Darts, was likely a bigger aim, than seeing some buyers get a better user experience.
These A-Bodies may have been Chryco’s best selling cars, but the vast majority would have been strippers. Or optioned for economy, and being cheap to run. Having C&D’s help to sell better optioned versions, was a win-win. For C&D and Chrysler. C&D would get more ads if it worked, to sell more well-optioned economy cars. It must have frustrated Chrysler, they couldn’t get higher profit margins out of their bread and butter cars. Helps explain the Valiant Brougham of 1974.
As JP noted above, no mention of the 225 Slant Six, probably the most versatile engine, suiting most owners needs. Of course, the 198 was under-powered, and would not compare favourably to the V8s.
People don’t always see the motives behind articles like this. Maximizing profits was the prime goal of C&D and Chrysler.
Interested car enthusiasts already knew about the performance enhancements this article promoted. They were trying to sell performance options, to a broader demographic. As performance was waning, selling faux luxury became the new way to mark up compact, and subcompact cars. Ford became a domestic authority at this. See the Mustang II and Granada.
The only demographic reading C/D was their subscribers. It’s not like they were a general interest magazine, or Consumer Reports.
As I’ve said a million times, the 1961 Corvair Monza showed that consumers would rather have a well-trimmed compact with a good image than a big stripper. And the VW (and other imports) proved that in the ’50s. VW buyers in the 50s and 60s had income and education levels higher than average. They didn’t buy them because they couldn’t afford a Biscayne six.
General interest ‘newsstand’ sales would have been substantial back then. Sold in thousands of grocery and convenience stores in North America. Reaching very average people. It wasn’t exclusive to enthusiasts, by any stretch.
The business model Chrysler was using at the time, was a long option list. Why both the magazine and manufacturer would benefit from these articles, helping to upsell their cars with options.
I agree, I subscribed to Motor Trend back in the 70’s and around 1976 they compared a pretty standard Camaro with a Trans Am Firebird ( which bested the Camaro in every way) and when it came to summarizing the article with which they preferred, they copped out and said the two cars were too close to call I let that subscription run out and went with Car & Driver, until I noticed that the more a car company advertised, the better their reviews were. I don’t subscribe to any car magazines anymore.
You can also just as well make the argument that they were genuinely helping consumers make good choices in terms of options by informing them of their relative merits.
The line between information and selling is fine; or not, depending on one’s perspective. If I had been in the market for a Duster then, I would have found this article very helpful.
Actually, Dusters with the various option packages were very common then, more so than genuine strippers. The Duster was an extremely popular car with first time buyers (boomers) and they were much more image conscious and avoided the poverty look of strippers, if at all possible.
The popularity of compact and mid-sized coupes in the 70s was precisely because buyers could get one in a higher trim package and with comfort/convenience options for the same price as a low trim/stripper big car, which in the ’50s would have been the only choice, except for an import. Which precisely explains the popularity of imports in the 50s and better trim compacts in the 60s (Monza, Mustang).
As I said in my earlier followup post to my comment, that went to the ‘trash’ folder, many car enthusiasts would already know a V8 and suspension enhancements are going to improve the quality of the driving/performance experience. This article would draw in a broader demographic, helping sales. I guess a win-win-win for Chrysler, C&D and buyers.
(My earlier followup comment went to the trash folder. If someone can retrieve it. Thank you!)
“ Helping Chrysler sell more well-optioned Dusters and Darts, was likely a bigger aim, than seeing some buyers get a better user experience.”
But it probably did help some buyers get a better user experience, no? I don’t see the problem here. Chrysler sells cars, C&D sells magazines about cars, consumers get a car they’re better informed on than a salesman is ever going to provide. It’s not like this article is misinforming the public, it’s showcasing a package in between the frugal slant 6 and the exciting 340 in an otherwise fundamentally good car, which the A bodies were.
Everything is motivated by profit, but if the product is good (be it a magazine or car) that’s what counts.
A Duster getting 12 MPG. I’m sure people taking C&D’s ‘advice’, were grateful and loving it, a year or two later. Sure. OPEC Crisis. Give me a freakin’ break!
The reputation of magazines and newspapers, used to be based upon readers trusting their independence and journalism. It has been so abused, that trust in journalism is at all-time low, according to polls.
Increasing large numbers of people, think media is corporate-controlled.
Not representing the average person.
Rather, accepting corporate influence and money.
If they were motivated to help get more ad buys from Chrysler, than actually helping buyers make their best purchase, then shame on them.
I am saying the motives appear questionable, for sure.
Chrysler and C&D would always want the cash.
A 12 MPG Duster is obscene. in 1972, and today.
Defaults on car loans in the US, are at an all-time high right now. Do you think perhaps people being are up sold by media and dealers, on cars they don’t need, or can’t afford?
C/D’s crystal ball about what OPEC would do in 1973 was no better than anyone else’s.
I’ve got (unbiased) news for you: magazines and newspapers have been tainted by lack of objectivity forever. In fact, the whole concept of a relative objective journalism dates to mostly the postwar era. Go back and look at old newspapers and magazines from the prewar era and tell me about how objective they were.
I’ve got some Fortune magazines from the 1930s: beautiful illustrations and well written, but hardly objective.
Newspapers once upon a time were almost invariably mouthpieces for their owners’ politics. Or such. Think Hearst. And even the vaunted NYT (to which I subscribe to and read) is very far from objective. Sometimes I can’t believe what I read there… talk about biased and poorly researched and unobjective. And that’s as good as it gets!
There’s no reason to believe or assume that C/D made cash off this piece. It’s not an avertorial, but feel free to believe so. I’m not going to debate you on them.
A 12 mpg Duster is no more obscene than a 14 mpg big pickup today. And if folks want to go in hock to buy more car than they can “afford”, you expect the media to tell them otherwise? Good luck with that.
“Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”
– Michael Crichton (1942-2008)
Crichton wrote a column for the NYTimes while at Harvard. His father, a genuinely good man, was the Editor of Advertising Age and then President of the American Association of Advertising Agencies. U.S. News & World Report annual survey of decision makers in politics, business and the professions, ranked his father John Crichton first in the advertising category once or twice.
@davis: well said. I experience the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect all-too often.
Promoting (typically young or not high income) people to buy a 12 mpg Duster (often on credit) to achieve a better 0-60 time, is just questionable advice, at any time.
I do think you are reinforcing my point that few magazines or newspapers could be seen as being high in journalistic integrity. Or looking out for readers. Why I do largely feel this was a favour for Chrysler. You are backing up my suspicion. I’m not making any conclusions. Just offering another angle to consider.
If you don’t think that large media is not corporate-controlled, then I have a bridge to sell you. But you do have your site to protect. So, I won’t debate further.
This is total BS. C&D was and is an enthusiast rag, and of course they and Chrysler were and are there to make a profit, but they were in the business of providing advice to people already savvy in the subject of automobiles. It’s not Consumer reports, and many of not most enthusiasts couldn’t have cared less about gas mileage at that time.
You’re reinforcing my point. Fair game for C&D to work with Chrysler, to get people buying more 12 MPG Dusters. When the 225 or 318 would have served most people just fine.
I have no idea, if it was the case. But a case can be made, this article was written to boost slow 340 sales on behalf of Chrysler.
The 318 in this article was observed between 14-16 mpg which is pretty typical for the time, and in the real world I wouldn’t expect the slant 6 to get that much better under the lead feet of the magazine testers. You could do a lot worse in the height of the energy crisis than a 318 Duster.
A 340 is still more economical than the big cube muscle cars Chrysler most certainly would have liked to see selling better, why isn’t Car and Driver pitching the Cuda if they’re so corrupted?
I’m not criticizing the 318. Just suggesting C&D was perhaps helping Chrysler sell 340s. When most people would do fine with the 318 or 225.
Read the last paragraph of the article again. It reads like one of the smarmy video sales promotion videos from the 1970s or 80s, seen at YT.
The last paragraph that says their formula can be applied to every other competitors car and not just Chrysler?
You should probably reread the paragraph where they said the 340s mpg was dismal, power was neutered and all the profitable options made it slower. What a glowing endorsement!
You are using the word ‘corrupted’. Why are you trying to put it in my mouth? Possibility of somewhat lack of ethics here.
The big blocks were dead or dying. You know that. Buyer beware, as C&D was perhaps doing Chrysler (and all the Big Four) a favour promoting bigger engines than most people needed. Working with their advertisers. Not necessarily best interest of their readers. But the article sure is written to be reader-friendly.
That’s all I’m saying here.
“ You are using the word ‘corrupted’. Why are you trying to put it in my mouth?”
WHAT!?! You can’t be serious?
“ If they were motivated to help get more ad buys from Chrysler, than actually helping buyers make their best purchase, then shame on them.”
“I am saying the motives appear questionable, for sure.”
cor·rupt
/kəˈrəpt/
adjective
1.having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain.
The dictionary put those words in your mouth, not me. I just used it to be succinct.
Chrysler would have much rather have had sales on higher margin E, B and C bodies. They needed no assistance selling A-body Dusters, they had been a bonafide hit with plenty sporting 318s with varying states of options well before this article was written.
Of course anyone can think it is corrupt, that’s their call to make. But I didn’t use that word. Did I imply it? Pretty close.
This article can easily be seen as a simple buyer-aid, or a devious advertorial that hurts the buyer. With a more expensive car, they don’t need.
Either benign, or very sneaky.
I felt it was important to point out the potentially devious angle.
Sorry, if I hurt your muscle car fan feelings. But this article does give off an odour.
Daniel, your politics are all-too well known here. If you’re going to read corporate corruption and subterfuge into every vintage review post here, that’s going to be a problem. Please keep your comments germane to the actual topics, and not about politics.
As you said, I have “a site to protect”, since my corporate overlords would not be happy discussing the corporate influence on the media. 🙂
FWIW, it was precisely corporate influence in the 50s that brought in “more objective” journalistic standards to the media, since the individually/family-owned media before the war was notoriously biased and corrupt.
That’s not to say that there isn’t a problem with the media; it’s just that there’s always been a problem with the media. It’s in the nature of the beast.
So I take it you’re a frugal low option/no frills kind of guy? That’s fine, I’m like that too with a most things other than cars in my life, but many people aren’t, and aren’t necessarily muscle car lovin speed demons who want a Duster 340 either. Nobody NEEDS a brand new car, that in itself is as much of a luxury as ordering the 318 or Rallye wheels as options for it, there’s no arbitrary standard for what a basic car should be, it’s constantly evolving, and the loaded 340 they tested along side their mid selectively optioned 318 car is a stripper by today’s standards.
Most people want something reasonably peppy with some creature comforts, something most cars are equipped like today, and this article does a good job going through what was available and what might be appealing to their readers, and, try as I might to read deeper into this article, I see no absolute recommendations, leaving it up to the reader/potential buyer to ponder. If they do decide to buy a car then they won’t be at the mercy of a pushy salesman trying to pressure them into taking a car over or under equipped as-is on the spot, instead they know what specific options to look for on a car in the lot or check off on an option sheet, and even be informed enough to negotiate on price if a car on the lot has most of what they want but not quite, or something they don’t want.
Your posts seem to imply that good journalism needs to be inherently hostile towards business to have integrity, and that it can’t ever possibly be mutually beneficial for the buyers, magazine and business alike. I agree with you that there’s a lot of spotty journalism out there, but I think as bad as misinformation is I think the reader bears their own responsibility to disseminate information and draw their own conclusions, and not fall down the rabbit hole. No single publication ever has the exact right answer to what makes the ideal car, or how to solve a foreign or domestic political issue. It’s personal responsibility that ultimately makes the purchase or casts the vote. Caveat emptor.
Understood Paul. Last I read, something like 95% of media in the US, is controlled by six media companies. Voices outside of the same consistent narratives, are being lost. Local, independent media is basically dead across the US and Canada.
I stand by the POV, that it is valuable to point out a potentially darker motive with articles like this, to sell product, rather than advocate for the reader. I was just too strong with the assertion. I won’t inject politics in the future. I worked for a number of years at a managerial level, for a business publication. We’d write regular news articles that were essentially puff pieces, promoting a business. If they advertised with us. It absolutely killed the hearts and minds of well-intended reporters, whom I worked with. It happens all the time.
Thanks for a great site, and all your tremendous work, it is much appreciated.
@ Matt
I wanted to introduce the angle that C&D was perhaps helping Chrysler save/sell this engine. Even, as the public was buying them less, due to insurance and gas consumption. Having worked for a business newspaper and other media, I know this happens. And is not in the reader’s interest. I made it more political than I should have. Sorry for the trouble.
@ Matt
I will make one quick last point. I am admittedly vigilant in generally looking out for the interests of individuals and small businesses, over large corporations. Small business and individuals often don’t have the resources, access to professional advice, or capital to protect themselves, from much more powerful players. Where Nader often gets derided at car blogs, I saw him as much more an asset to average Americans, than a problem. I generally do look out more for protecting a company’s workers foremost, than shareholders or executives.
Editors, sorry, for the trouble. My reply to Matt, appears to have gone to the ‘Trash’ folder.
I agree with you,cause l have a225 Slant six engine.
I had a 1972 Plymouth Duster for several years. It was a 318/Torqueflite with the Gold Duster package, and air conditioning. Once the factory tires wore out, it got Goodyears, one of the many “Eagle” variants. The 318 was quick and a set of ADDCO antiroll bars front and rear made it a fast cornering, agile machine. In dark metallic brown with a tan, alligator-grain vinyl roof, it looked like a secretary’s Duster. But its looks deceived. It was one of my cars that I remember most fondly.
A decade later, the performance of the 318 Valiant was just about unobtainable for any price.
The 1983 VW Rabbit GTI was a wee bit slower in the straight line, but would run many circles around any Duster, and was vastly more fun to drive. Never mind the braking, steering, and other dynamic qualities. And of course about twice as fuel efficient, if not more so. And…
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a33238278/tested-1983-volkswagen-rabbit-gti/
It was anything but a wee bit slower in a straight line. It wouldn’t have looked like a race if the GTi lined up next to a Duster. Cars were getting quicker in 1983 though. I was referring to 1982.
1982 Citation X-11 HO V6: 0-60 in 8.5 seconds. Handling, braking and steering vastly better than any Duster.
If you could keep the rear axle from falling off, LOL! GM’s first compact FWD cars (the Eldorado/Toranado really doesn’t count, IMHO), the X-Body Citation et al, may have handled slightly better than their RWD Nova-Class predecessors, but as was typical of the time, the build quality was abysmal. The recall for rear axles that had a nasty habit of separating from the car was just one of many “teething pains” that these cars experienced that would only expand the imports lead over Detroit at the time
By ’82 the Citation was in its’ third model year and any of those “teething pains” would’ve been left behind. Apart from reputational damage, of course. See the FWD A-bodies which were for all intents and purposes enlarged Citations but weren’t built until ’82 when the bugs had been worked out of the platform.
The 1982 X11 HO was slower than the 1981 that allegedly laid down an 8.5 second 0-60 time. Emissions standards tightened for 1982, and the X11 H.O. slowed to a 0-60 time of 9.2 according to wikipedia, which was my point. 1982 was a low ebb for performance of US market cars.
My 85 GTI road tested at around 10 seconds 0-60. It would certainly out-handle any Duster, but an 8.5 second 318 Duster would
outrun it on the straight.
The ’83 GTI is actually catching up at the end of the quarter mile if you compare those numbers, only off by 0.6 seconds. The ’85 has 10 more hp (11%) than the ’83 but also more weight.
Course the Duster by then was super cheap second hand, and a 4bbl intake, headers, cam, salvaged 3.91 sure grip, wouldn’t take much cash or a new fangled metric toolset for a high school student to really dust off the yuppies in their brand new GTIs
How was it catching up? The Duster’s trap speed was 85.5 miles per hour while the VW’s was 76 miles per hour. The Duster would only grow smaller in the Rabbit’s windshield as the Plymouth climbed to its six mile per hour higher top speed.
I misread the numbers, mea culpa. I’d still pick the GTI over the decade old Duster though as a daily 🙂 (and did)
You might be very (unpleasantly) surprised how a properly-optioned A-body handled. (Most, of course, were not.) Rick Ehrenberg has surprised MANY people with A-bodies. (Mine isn’t there yet, working on it…)
This article makes it very clear why import cars were rapidly rising in sales, because unlike a Duster, they didn’t require all those endless options to look decent and feel comfortable inside, and handle and brake decently. Yes, a Celica or Opel 1900 (Manta) or Capri 2.0 didn’t accelerate as fast as a V8 Duster, but they were a complete package. They showed the way forward, and Detroit eventually had to learn that folks were not interested in spending 25-40% more of the base price of a car to make it something other than a poverty-spec stripper.
People love to complain about how they can no longer spend three times more on options creating a car that is used car lot poison rather than appreciating that packaged trim levels save money when you buy and protect values when you sell.
Plus those lengthy à la carte option lists increased build complexity at the factory and contributed to poor quality control, leading many consumers to consider the import brands instead.
Then, once buyers got accustomed to finding desirable features standard such as electric rear window defrosters, reclining front seats, AM radio, and even whitewall tires, there was no turning back.
I read somewhere that the number of permutations of options and colors on a typical Detroit offering at the time exceeded the number of stars in the universe! The imports, particularly the Japanese brands, showed a different path of more standard equipment, fewer options, with most options bundled as part of packages, to simplify production and reduce production costs. Detroit followed suit, because they had no choice in order to compete. The Feds helped also, by requiring formerly optional equipment, such as a RH outside rearview mirror and rear-window defrosters to be standard equipment as part of NHTSA Safety requirements.
This makes sense, because when the “take rate” on a given option exceeds 50% of cars built, it costs more to build two (2) versions of the car than one version, one without the feature on offer and one with that particular feature included. The bookkeeping alone needed to keep track of the separate parts required costs serious money, not to mention the costs to dealers to stock separate sets of repair parts for each different variant.
What’s interesting is that the Japanese companies played something very much like the a la carte game in their own home market, with half a dozen or more trim levels per model. That just wasn’t feasible in export if a special order from a customer on the US East Coast would’ve led to a delivery time that might not fit within the model year if it were placed after January.
True. Export policies often differ from domestic policies for any manufacturer, for precisely the reasons you describe, combined with the extra time required to certify the car to meet the regulations issued by each export market’s Government. That is often cited as an additional reason for the perceived quality advantage enjoyed by Japanese manufacturers. Their domestic models would go on sale for a year or more behind the export versions, so any quality issues that appeared at launch in Japan could be corrected before the same car went on sale in export markets.
Yes and no. You are correct in that a significantly larger variety of trim levels were commonplace, but in the early 1970’s standalone factory options on Japanese domestic market vehicles were rare; you essentially picked a trim level, the color, powertrain (if applicable), and possibly A/C or radio in a particular model and that was that. The first vehicle that really bucked this notion was the Toyota Celica, where individualization was actively promoted as a desirable selling point, and from there factory “options” slowly started to appear as the decade wore on.
Putting a four barrel intake/carb and dual exhaust on the 318 would have probably dropped a second or more off the quarter mile time and at the same time an end run around the insurance dilemma.
I did something very similar with my ’72 307 Nova back then.
Boring and stroking the 318 out to 340 or 360 cubic inches and adding freer breathing heads would also help, albeit at significantly higher cost. That was the path many of us took when these cars became $500 beaters, because by then, most of the engines had become oil burners anyway, and were due for a trip to the machine shop, so while the engine was out of the car, you would often have a little extra machine work done for short money, including hardened valve seats, to cope with the then “new” unleaded gasoline, which was rapidly replacing the leaded fuel. Leaded gas would be completely gone by 1992, so unless you wanted to carry cans of lead additive around in your trunk, you had date with either the machinist or the Edelbrock catalog for a set of aftermarket heads for your ride.
I was referring to when it was new. All cars by 1971 were designed to run on unleaded fuel as far as valves and seats were concerned and by ’72 all were low compression, both the 318 and 340.
I doubt many wanted to tear completely into their engine if it was a new car. I went no further than the intake, cam, heads, and dual exhaust (with the original cast iron manifolds) on my stock 307 short block. I even kept the 3 on the tree and 3.08 peg leg rear. With those improvements, I outran many big block cars. One of the cheapest bang for the buck of all the cars/engines I’ve built over the years.
I was thinking more about when they became rusted out beaters, say about 1982 for these when they were new. High school and college parking lots were full of these when they were ten years old, with one tire in the junkyard and one on a banana peel, metaphorically speaking! When these cars were new, early sixties iron tended to fill the high school parking lots. Ten year-old beaters were all most students in my parent’s tax bracket could afford, LOL! The general rule of thumb was anything that ran was worth $100, but at that price point, the body had more holes in it than a wheel of Swiss cheese, and the mechanical bits were in a similarly decrepit condition.
And if the carb was a properly tuned ThermoQuad, it would probably use LESS fuel.
It’s not clear from anything I can find online whether the 2-door Valiant Scamp hardtop was priced higher or lower than a Duster, but I like the looks of the Valiant better. Of course there was no 340 available for the Valiant, but I think I would have preferred the 318 anyway.
I think the Scamp was priced higher, it was physically more car being on the 111″ Dart wheelbase and with wind-down rear windows. The Duster was the price leader with the Valiant 4-door sedan in between. And that’s for base 6-cylinder models.
Which leads to the old rumor that the Valiant sedan was moved to the Dart body shell for 1974 because the body dies for the 108″ wb 4-door sedan were worn out.
It also cut down substantially on variations and meant that one less rear structure needed a 5-mph rear bumper engineered into it 2 years before the all-new replacement was ready, so there’s that possibility too. Since all the extra length went into rear seat legroom which 4-door buyers would’ve expected to put to use, that’s added value for the customer as well.
That makes sense, Duster was in essence a “restyle” succeeding the 67-69 Valiant two door sedan bodystyle.
For all intents and purposes, the Duster was the second coming of the A-body Barracuda (the performance versions even carried over that car’s rallye dash for the first two years), and it sold like Chrysler had hoped the original would have way back in ’64.
In hindsight, Chrysler would have been better off simply forgetting about the ponycar market for 1970. All that E-body development money would have been better spent elsewhere, maybe even offering up a sportier nose for the Duster to make it more distintive from the Valiant (a big reason the original Barracuda wasn’t anywhere near a Mustang-level seller) and make the Duster even more of an ersatz Barracuda.
But Dodge dealers were still highly miffed about not getting a Mustang-clone, and they held a lot of power. So the E-body ponycar it had to be.
The irony is that the Duster was not supposed to happen. The original plan was for Plymouth to give the Valiant sedans a facelift for 1970.
Engineers and stylists instead came up with the Duster, and left the Valiant sedans unchanged. Management reluctantly approved the Duster, which was a major hit. With the Duster, Plymouth twice achieved what it had been trying to do since 1961 – regain the number-three spot in sales. Strong sales of the Duster enabled Plymouth to do just that in 1971 and 1974.
Sometimes I rather miss the old days when you could order a vehicle about any way you wanted it as the option list was so extensive. It was rather enjoyable to look through the option list although the costs of ordering, warehousing and inventorioring all those parts must have been staggering. I once read that GM’s ROI (return on investment) was 50% in 1960, by 1970 it had fallen to 10%. There was obviously a lot of factors at play here but I have to think the huge option list had a part to play with it. When Honda started selling the Accord they could not afford a lengthy option list so the sold it as a complete car with very few options. The domestic manufacturers eventually had to follow suit to remain competitive.
When the GM J-cars debuted in early 1981, one of the original selling points was that every version of the cars was well-equipped. GM took a page from Honda’s book.
There was one very big problem. Honda Accords were well-equipped, but Honda took advantage of its lower cost structure and superior productivity to keep the sticker price within reason.
GM simply added the cost of all the standard equipment to the J-car’s price, which meant that the J-car was not remotely competitive when it came to price. An initially uncompetitive drivetrain did the rest.
Yes, the original Cavalier was advertised as the “complete car.” However, it was priced higher than the larger Citation, which didn’t follow the Accord recipe with respect to standard equipment.
So GM had to backtrack later in the extended 1982 model year by bringing out the stripped Cavalier Cadet model.
The one advantage that the domestic makes still enjoy to this day is the ability to “special order” a car from the factory, instead of having to accept what is on a dealer’s lot. If your local import car store doesn’t have exactly what you want in stock, they may or may not be able to make a trade with another area dealer to get exactly what you want, but a factory “special order”? Forget it! But for a domestic brand, that’s not a problem, unless you’re close to new model changeover time, and hit the “Big Three” during their late summer shutdown, when they are re-tooling for the new model year. Then you might have to wait and get the newer model, but otherwise, it’s not a big deal.
It’s generally not a problem to special order anything from a European brand except perhaps VW. Often you can even elect to pick it up at the factory, drive it around for vacation, then drop it off and they’ll ship it to your dealer.
True enough, but then those brands are all either luxury (BMW, Mercedes) or near luxury (Volvo) makes. VW, being the value brand in the European firmament, is more restrictive, but I think that even VW has a European delivery program now.
I was thinking more of the Asian brands (Japan and Korea), which are pretty much take it or leave it. Honda takes this to an extreme, with no options at all other than trim level and color. All “options” are actually dealer-installed accessories available through the dealer’s parts department.
Yes! When I bought my 2011 Mustang new, ordering it from the dealer with my exact choices was part of the fun. Not that there were a lot of a la carte options, but still when the car came about 4 weeks later, I had the satisfaction of knowing it was “built for me” and was exactly what I chose.
The stopping distances were well behind the competition. Easily the difference between a collision or not on the expressway.
I rarely read CD in the early Seventies. As a 15 year old car snob in 1972, I only read Road & Track as well as occasionally spending too much money on a European magazine, like Auto Motor und Sport the French Auto Journal, or the British Motorsport. But in hindsight I think this is as objective an article as one would get back then I think CD’s real biases for many years were pro-GM. With every new model, GM’s F41 (or WS6 or etc etc) suspension gave their cars handle better ride/handling, not to mention road feel, than Mercedes (or BMW or later Acura or Audi). Also, comparing the option packages could be useful info. I seem to recall an R&T test of the 2nd gen Camaro (1970-81) where they concluded that a properly optioned non-Z28 was a better road car than the full performance package.
Setting a side the journalistic aspects, the fun thing for me in this test was to read about the wide, high performance E70-14 tires on 5.5” rims. As someone who’s owned a car with 12”x4” rims with 155-12 tires, I remember those days. For younger folks, the performance tire option for the Duster is equivalent to a 205/70-14. Though 205 isn’t super narrow by modern standards, I’m not sure any current car is fitted with such a proportionally small tire.
Options can be a weird thing to figure out. When I bought my F150 you couldn’t get a Heavy Duty Payload Package if you wanted a power passenger seat. Also the Max Tow package didn’t include the Heavy Duty Tow Package. To actually get the maximum tow capacity F150 you needed to order Max Tow, Heavy Duty Payload and 20″ wheels. My way of thinking is this, a truck option listed as Max Tow Capacity should be the Max Tow, period. The trucks set up correctly are usually referred to as unicorns. The later F150’s did include the HDPP but also severely limited your options, its as if Ford didn’t want to sell them even though they spent the money to develop and market the best towing capacity in class?
I would get the hemi in it
The elephant motor period
Then you’d have had to do it yourself, as the largest offering from the factory was the 340 six-pack! I don’t even think a Hemi would fit, unless you did major surgery, like cutting the shock towers! A 360 would be O.K., since it shares the same block with the 340, and either a 383 or 440 might fit, just barely, but it’s not an easy swap. A modern 392 “Hellcrate” might fit, but again, that’s not a job for a beginner. I’ll say it anyway, although I shouldn’t have to, that the 392 wasn’t even a “paper” design in 1972, so that’s clearly a non-stock setup, since the 392 didn’t appear until 2003.
Darts and Dusters got 360’s after 1974 or so. Are same LA small block Mopar family.
Which proves my point, the 360 was a “bolt-in” swap, the big block motors (383, 440) were a more difficult swap, but still doable with some extra effort. The 426 “Hemi” was “right out”, as our British cousins would say. The need to move up from the 340 to the 360 near the end of the model run was a testament to the power-robbing effects of the emissions control technology of the era. As the power of engines declined with ever more stringent emissions standards taken effect, the most obvious cure was to move to bigger engines, but when price of gasoline tripled during the first Oil Embargo, that solution began to have problems as well.
I’m really surprised that nobody mentioned the TALL 2.76 axle-ratio that was fitted to the 318 Duster.
What a performance-killer! This comparison would have looked a lot different if the 318 was fitted with the
same 3.23 ratio of the 340 car.
Remember, this was 1972, the Arab Oil Embargo didn’t hit until the autumn of 1973. Saddling a manual-trans
car with a 2.76 ratio was the kind of desperate gas-mileage ploy usually adopted during the 1974 model-year
in a desperate effort to advertise “good” gas mileage; at least on the highway. A 3.23 ratio might well acheive
better gas-mileage in city driving, at least with a manual trans; not to mention a boost in performance.
Along with other “quick and dirty” fixes implemented in a hurry, since the embargo caught all of “Big Three” flat-footed. I remember a 1979 Mercury Capri (the Mustang’s upscale sister on a Fox-body chassis) that my Dad bought as his company car for his business in 1980. This puppy has the “Essex” 2.8L V6, mated to a four-speed manual transmission, with the fourth gear as an overdrive gear, because Ford’s five-speed transmission wouldn’t be available until 1982. The problem was that there was huge gap between second and third gears, so cruising around town was an exercise in frustration, as the motor was screaming near redline at 35 mph in second gear, but lugging the engine in third gear just off of idle. The fourth gear overdrive was strictly a highway cruising gear, not meant for in-town use. I don’t remember what rear end ratio it had, but it wasn’t a pleasant driving experience.
It always sat “nose high”, until we swapped a 302 V8 into it. The story of that swap is itself a long and complicated one, which I will save for another day.
Remember the short tires on an A-body, and that it’s light.
My 73 (originally 318/3-speed, now 360/4-speed) had 3.21 gears stock, now has 2.76 gears. It’s WONDERFUL.
1972 duster was not deffent then 1971 what Plymouth all the did wea change the front end all deffn is I had a 1970 Plymouth duster it had a 318 in it I had 1973 it had 225 v6 slant in it 73 they change them they was better looking then 72s