Some time ago we featured the first half of Car And Driver’s New Cars of ’71 issue. As mentioned in that installment, much was changing in the automotive world as the decade was starting, and there was much talk about how the Big Three were ready to face those challenges. Imports were rising, and Detroit’s compacts were the ‘in’ thing, with vehicles like the Vega and Pinto gathering much coverage.
However, other than for some examples in the compact segment, the tradition of “bigger is better” and “more is more” was well and alive in Detroit. As such, Car and Driver felt that their newfound fondness for economy cars was far from a serious commitment. A point of view hard to dispute with their coverage of the new for ’71 Javelin, Toronado and Road Runner. Each larger and heavier than the models they replaced (The new Toronado being the main offender in those regards from this group).
AMX Javelin
Car and Driver was well aware that AMC was too cash-strapped to do any extensive retooling with their cars. As such, they knew that styling had become the company’s way to show that it was an “intrepid builder of clever, out-of-the-ordinary cars.” That said, reviewers were not fond of the new Javelin and found its styling overwrought, feeling that the company was “trying too hard to be hip.”
Besides the frowned-upon styling, there were other unwelcomed news in the world of AMC’s sporty cars. The 2-seat AMX had ceased to be and the name was now just a Javelin trim. As such, the new 4-seat AMX consisted of aerodynamic add-ons with a flush grille and a special fiberglass hood. More upgrades appeared in the car’s interior, with a serious-looking engine-turned metal piece covering the instrument panel.
Under driving, reviewers felt the new AMX “falls far short, in performance, of its Z/28 Camaro and Firebird Trans Am competitors. The new 401 cubic inch engine, essentially a stroked 390, produces a modest amount of energy of its size at low speeds but dies of over-exertion above 5000 rpm. Nor is the car’s handling inspired…”
Regardless, the magazine knew the Javelin had its unconditional fans, and admitted it was a car of “…undeniable appeal. Those whose lives are committed to defending underdogs will embrace it like no other.”
Oldsmobile Toronado
With Car And Driver being an enthusiast magazine, it’s no surprise that the Toronado’s Broughamier second generation didn’t get much love. If any. With one look, one could tell that the sporty aspirations behind the original ’66 model belonged to the past. “We get the idea that Oldsmobile doesn’t know quite what went wrong but the new Toronado is the final step in… getting back into the luxury trade where it figures it belongs.”
Larger in every dimension, the new car shared more parts with the rest of Oldsmobile’s cars. “For 1971, (the Toronado) will be built on a full frame, rather than with a front stub as before, and the chassis is virtually identical to that of the 88. The leaf spring rear suspension is gone, replaced by the same 4-link arrangement used in other big cars.”
Under driving, the car “has a clear aptitude for imitating the behavior as well as the appearance of a Lincoln Continental. It floats over humps and bumps with well near zero discomfort, always speaks with a soft voice and only when spoken to. It is the very model of a modern transit capsule.”
Besides their disappointment with the Toronado’s new mission, the magazine also wondered if the model was just redundant in a market overcrowded with similar offerings. On this, they were partly wrong. The new Toronado outsold its previous generation by a decent margin, although not in enough numbers to worry the likes of Continentals and ElDorados.
Plymouth Road Runner
The Plymouth Road Runner was the last new car to be covered in the issue. Unlike the others, there isn’t much commentary on the car’s driving or accommodations, and seems like there wasn’t any time spent road-testing it. Instead, there’s quite a bit of talk about the car’s styling. Which in reality was the main reason for their being.
“What we’re telling you is that the Road Runner and the other intermediate Plymouths are all new. Well, they aren’t all that new but the part you see is. Underneath they’re pretty much the same… with strategic improvements…”
Those improvements included standard engines with lower compression able to work with 91-octane fuel. Also, more sound deadening in the car’s unibody to provide quieter cabins. Plus many corporate assurances of a newfound devotion to quality control.
Those updates aside, most of the text explores Plymouth’s reasoning behind their plan for unique bodies in their intermediates;
” … (the) logic is two separate lines of Plymouth intermediates — Satellites (4-doors) and Sebrings (2-door hardtops)… each has a unique skin, right down to the bumpers so each looks entirely different… Plymouth readily admits that two suits of sheetmetal cost more than one and since they will be selling new hardtops for about the same increment over the sedans as they did before, there will be a squeeze on the per-car profit.”
It was clear that after a cautious decade, Chrysler’s products were investing heavily in styling as their selling card. At least in the case of the 2-doors, Car and Driver felt Plymouth’s stylist had hit the mark, and ‘outdid themselves.’ However, they had doubts whether the investment would pan out in the long run.
In that regard, not counting wagons, sales of Plymouth’s intermediates fell by about 14K units for 1971.
Related CC reading:
Car Show Classic: 1972 AMC Javelin Pierre Cardin – No, Really…
Curbside Classic: 1972 Oldsmobile Toronado – Reading The Tea Leaves Near Stage Left
Curbside Classic: 1971 Plymouth Satellite – Who Says There Aren’t Second Chances?
About the Toronado: “it had the fabled front-wheel-drive, a system universally recognized as Good.”
I keep trying to convince (especially young) people that FWD was once considered a positive attribute, even in powerful cars like the Toro. By the late ’90s, there was a backlash against FWD that continues to this day; notice how many 2wd EVs like, say, the VW ID.4 are RWD even if they compete in segments where FWD was long the norm?
…notice how many 2wd EVs like, say, the VW ID.4 are RWD…
In the ‘60s the most-often cited benefit of FWD (and rear engine placement in the Corvair and others) was the additional space afforded by not having a driveshaft “hump” in the passenger compartment floor. The traction advantages of having weight over the driven wheels were mentioned, but usually as a secondary benefit – if any benefits were even mentioned at all (as was often the case with the Eldorado).
With today’s EVs it makes sense to place the relatively small and flat powertrain near the driven wheels, so no driveshaft. So why the rear wheels? My guess is that it avoids the complication of having to integrate the steering gear into the driven wheels.
Almost all EVs are designed to be built in 2WD (single motor) and 4WD (dual motor) configurations. The heavy battery pack in the center of the car means that weight distribution has changed significantly from IC cars. The best-selling Tesla Model Y has a F/R weight distribution of 46/54%, which is of course why the single motor version has it at the back, as do most other EVs, for good reasons.
One of the more interesting new vehicles is the Blazer EV which will be the first one (AFAIK) that will be available in FWD, AWD, or RWD versions.
The Polestar 2 used to be FWD but it was changed to RWD this year even though the body and platform haven’t changed. Some IC cars have made this swap over the years, but it’s much easier in an electric.
I would say that as a new driver during the 80’s in a time of RWD cars and living through many snowy northeast winters, FWD was a revelation. Even with a posi rear, traveling the roads was dicey and my Dad’s new Pontiac 6000 S/E was a game changer for me, even with out antilock brakes. Only with the advent of modern electronic traction/stability control was I comfortable to go back to RWD in my 2009 G8GT and my 2013 Charger. You’re also quite right, cheaper, easier to package motors in the rear and most folks don’t even know what wheels are propelling them.
Vastly better tires also help. Modern winter tires are especially good, but if you don’t want to bother with tire swaps then you can also get “all-weather” tires that can be used year-round but are rated as winter/snow tires with the three peak mountain/snowflake symbol, meaning it meets tire industry performance standards for winter tires.
The ’71 Javelin was the hook that brought me here. Much of that original article read (to me) like damning with an attempted save at the end to say something sympathetic. Howling at how it makes the first Javelin “look like a high-priced piece of Grecian sculpture”… both versions have their appeal for me. I have flip-flopped for years as to which I prefer.
“69” was/ is my “fav year”.
From early childhood in the 1970’s, through adulthood in the 1980’s, two on-going elements consistently turned me off Chrysler mid-sized sedans. It wasn’t primarily their styling, and beside their reputation for inconsistent build quality. Number one discounting reason, from the 1960s until the late ’80s, they were heavily associated with base model taxis, and police cars. In my city, mid-70s Plymouth Furys were the most numerous cab. The Dodge Diplomat, took their place in the 1980s. Dramatically cheapened their image, IMO. And number two, from my casual observations on the street, they were consistently driven by people in their 40s or older. For these reasons, they simply didn’t appeal to me as a kid, or image conscious young adult.
Not until the JA cars arrived, as the Chrysler Cirrus and Dodge Stratus in mid 1990s, did I seriously consider purchase of Chrysler intermediates. Even if they made entirely sound and practical choices in some model years. Like the Spirit and Acclaim. Found their image and styling, too generic, and bland. I worked as a graphic designer in advertising by then, and Chrysler intermediates going back years, came across as cars, cost conscious, older people drove. Not an image/career booster at all, in my field. All this from the perspective of someone under the age of 40.
The two separate, 1971 Mopar B-bodies with completely unique sheetmetal wasn’t that bad of an idea for the time. Imagine a 2-door coupe with the Satellite sedan’s front end, or the reverse of the sedan having the coupe’s narrowed, ‘loop’ front bumper. Neither would have worked and likely would have bombed, badly.
Chrysler was trying to cover the PLC base on the cheap. Trouble was, stuff like the Satellite Sebring Plus or Charger SE weren’t that unique when there were down-market versions of the same cars. When you got a Monte Carlo or Grand Prix, even the lowest-tier models were special.
A base Satellite coupe or Charger diminished the luster of the higher-trimmed, brougham-oriented models. Then, too, there were the performance models which went in a completely different direction. In effect, by trying to cover all markets with a single B-body coupe, Chrysler didn’t quite do well in any.
AMC seemed to, likewise, be trying a similar approach with the newly refurbished 1971 Javelin. AMC didn’t have the funds to come out with a unique intermediate coupe (at least not yet), so the Javelin was called upon to cover the same markets as the Mopar coupes. Didn’t much work and when AMC finally tried the same thing with the 1975 Matador coupe, well, that plan worked even worse than the 1971 Mopar coupes.
Chrysler, to their credit, got with the program in 1975 and the homerun Cordoba. Unfortunately, its sister vehicle, the Cordoba-based, now formal roof Charger sold only a fraction of the Chrysler PLC.
It would have been interesting to see some photoshopped pictures of the Satellite coupe with the sedan front end and vice-versa.
You don’t need to imagine what a 2 door Satellite with the sedan nose would look like, Plymouth did pretty much exactly that with the 73-74 Coupes. It was not a good look.
The massive front overhangs on cars of this era did not age well; at least the ridiculous rear overhangs allowed for increased trunk space.
Oh well, at least it gave them space for the springs and hydraulic pistons that had to be hidden behind the impending five mph bumpers.
If there was one thing Chrysler was uniquely good at, it was the ability to tell the buying public that quality problems are a thing of the past! Year after year after year. It reminds me of the Ralph Waldo Emerson quotation: “The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons.”
I remember seeing the new 71 Toronado, and was amazed at how little effort they went to in disguising the 70 Eldorado it was so obviously made from.
I would be willing to wager a good percentage of the Satellite/Road Runner’s sales decline was due to the new Duster.
My parents could a got a “72 Satellite” with all sorts a “stuff” on it. Was a used ride available in early “74”.
Miles were in line with it’s years..
They got a “73 Fury iii” ((demo car)) with about “15k” on it..
Was really so plain, in comparison.
The Satellite was green/gold, arm rest, high back seats, spiffy trim..
The “Fury III” was dressed as a “Fury I”..lol
Anyway, we had it till summer “1980”
The Duster is often cited as the reason for the poor sales of the E- and B-body coupes (which was important to Chrysler because of their higher profit margins), but I’m not so sure. I’m just not feeling that sales of latter two would have sold that much better great, even without the Duster.
IOW, Duster sales came from somewhere else, like auto shoppers looking at the Ford Maverick and Chevy Nova coupes. The Duster might even have siphoned off more than a few new Pinto and Vega sales. Chrysler did advertise the Duster against them and, TBH, the Duster ‘was’ a better buy than either of the two subcompacts.
“New for ’71” carries an implication that these cars started their design phase in 1967 or so, I’d think. In 1967, everyone thought cheap gasoline would be available forever, and California was only beginning to raise a stink (pun intended) over the toxic emissions of the automobile. A few buyers were beginning to explore the idea of truly small cars, but Detroit considered them to be a fringe element. Glory be to large cars with huge engines that gulped gasoline and spewed noxious gasses.
Didn’t Jay Leno do a rwd 66 based on corvette mechanicals?