Read about two small cars for the Eighties, published in R&T’s 1981 March issue.
First up is a road test of the very capable Starlet:
Compare it with this first review of the new Mini Metro, which was not a bad car, although it was standing on shaky BLC ground:
Starlet/Metro is a great contrast: Starlet was low-tech built the Toyota Way; Metro was hi-tech design with Victorian Human Relations.
“Starlet” was also the name of Digital Equipment’s VAX operating system API. Just so you know.
Being FWD didn’t make the Metro high tech. It was a small evolutionary step of a car introduced in 1959. It had an engine developed in the ’50s and an early ’70s suspension design that had its essential Front-Rear interconnection removed on cost grounds. The lack of an available 5-speed transmission was also fairly retrograde for a small displacement car in 1980. While the Starlet was no science experiment either, its engine performance was practically on par with the Metro’s in spite of meeting strict US emissions standards while the Metro was as dirty as a ’67 GTO. A Metro 1275 cleaned up for US operation would have barely been able to move, which was why the A-series was dropped in the US in favor of the unloved Triumph 1500 engine.
IIRC, when this was written there was a 4-speed, stripper version of the FWD Corolla-Tercel that undercut the Starlet in price, which was fairly well equipped as standard.
I was thinking of space utilization as well, but yes, I was prepared to make an exception for its ancient engine, except that the Starlet’s pushrod K-series dates from the ’60s. But good point about emissions compliance; I’m impressed at how close the US-spec Starlet’s power ratings were vs. the Brit-spec Metro.
Toyota’s Comfort is their current low-tech alternative model, but is aimed at taxi fleets instead. I’m guessing they’re still RWD to minimize garage maintenance costs.
It helped Toyota and the rest of the Japanese companies that Japan’s emissions standards were as strict or more than the US.
Ok, so I need some help understanding 1981. I was only alive for about five weeks of it, so I don’t really get it.
What in that review for the Toyota would compel anyone to go buy one? Numerous references to mechanical resonances, their promise that “You can drive all day without feeling buzzed to death,” and all manner of automotive noise? Vinyl seats? A flat spot in all gears that was, charitably, acceptable in an emissions-era car?
And for over $5,700?
What made this car a good choice for that kind of money? What would make someone spend their money on this instead of, say, a bus pass or a new pair of shoes? Or was 1981 just that shit of a year?
Back then, the ¥ was still strong against the Malaise-era US$, making any Japan-built car? relatively expensive. That was before Japan’s 1991 asset-bubble crash which it still has yet to recover from despite Abenomics (gov’t stimulus spending). This is called the Lost Decade.
Otherwise the Starlet was a good long-term value in terms of ownership costs if you were a buyer who cared about that sort of thing.
Did you actually read it, without a bias? The review clearly states the pros and cons. I’m actually a bit surprised about how positive they were, since the Starlet was a bit of a throwback with its RWD and modest little engine.
The new FWD Tercel addressed many/most of the issues of the Starlet, and it’s a bit curious they sold both at the same time. But I think Toyota wanted to offer a really bare-bones basic commuter pod for those looking for maximum value, economy, and most of all, durability. These Starlets were the most bulllet-proof vehicle of the times.
In Europe, the Starlet was #1 in the German ADAC reliability statistics, for several years, upsetting the W123 Mercedes diesel. That cause quite a furor.
They’ve had more than 30 years to get used to Japanese cars being the best engineered and built on the German market now. Maybe that’s why they focus on disposable luxury instead of excellence now.
In late 1980 I bought a new Ford Fiesta. Like the Starlet it had a 4 cylinder engine and (only) a 4 speed transmission. But, for nearly $800 less than the Starlet I got FWD and cloth covered seats. What I didn’t get was Toyota’s legendary reliability and (supposedly?) higher resale value.
But aside from that $800, I got a car that I really enjoyed driving….except on really long trips as the seats weren’t all that comfortable for my 6 foot plus frame.
Not everyone in 1980 U.S.A. thought Toyota’s were THE cars to own.
I also bought a new Ford Fiesta in 1980. $800 less? What kind of deal did you get? The as tested price of the Starlet included $550 A/C and $255 stereo, neither available from the factory on the Fiesta, only as dealer installed options. Mine was also a “stripper” and I recall paying about $5000.
It was somewhat enjoyable to drive, but felt flimsy compared to the VW’s previously owned. Reliability/durability was less than perfect. It was replaced in 1984 by a Toyota pickup.
1981 was a shit year. The economy sucked. Inflation was at (for you, these days) unimaginable levels- note that the 1977 Corolla was $2800 and the 1981 Starlet was $4800 for what was essentially an equivalent car. That’s inflation (okay, and some devaluation of the dollar against the Yen). Interest rates for car loans were at 18 – 20 percent even if you had decent credit. Gas prices were high; in 1979, they’d doubled in 12 months, thanks to Iran. Note that in the bad economy nobody was getting any raises to keep up with inflation either. Further American cars were, well…., terrible. Those were the days when Consumers Reports published a decoder so buyers could avoid American cars built on a Monday or a Friday. Seriously. Used cars had become tremendously expensive for two reasons: the poor quality of new American cars (GM Diesel, anyone?) and interest rates and inflation-increased prices which made most new cars unaffordable, so people preferred used cars built in the 60’s. Additionally, Toyota had developed its reputation for reliability by 1981. In the early to mid 70’s people still laughed at tiny, tinny junky Japanese cars. By 1981, nobody was laughing. In fact by mid 1981, political pressure forced the Japanese to limit imports to the U.S.
So, yeah, the Starlet wasn’t a great car, and it wasn’t a car anybody desired, but it was reliable and solid, and it was the best bet for the buck, if you didn’t have many bucks to bet.
Wait, wait, what? CR had a day of the week decoder? For real?
Seriously, this is a useful answer, so thank you for this.
I knew inflation was high during that era, but I guess I didn’t really get what that meant. I mean, Ford advertised the well-equipped Thunderbird at $5,500 in 1977. I know my broke-as-church-mice parents somehow scared up enough to buy a brand-new Cavalier Type-10 (about the most stripped-out car they could have bought, honestly) in 1985, a car for which my mom says they paid roughly the same money as the reviewed Toyota was stated to cost.
So I took the number I know to be true-the 1977 well-equipped Thunderbird’s $5,500, and ran it through the BLS inflation calculator. By 1981 it took $8,250 to have the same buying power. Supposing my mom’s memory is good, that 1985 money ($5,700) was $4,815. Does that sound about right for something comparable to a stripper Cavalier?
If it is, then I guess this Toyota still fell somewhere above the “basic transportation” bottom end of the scale. That sort of price difference could put someone into a lower-spec larger car or a higher-spec American small car. That still seems to put it in the realm where someone has a fair range of choices and at least a bit of discretionary income.
Does that seem right, or did I miss something?
I believe the 1985 Cavalier would have cost far more than $5,700. At least it was meant to. In 1983, the base price for a Cavalier was $6,333 without destination. That was for a stripped car: no carpet, no wheel covers, one outside mirror, 4 speed manual, no rear window defogger, trunk without upholstery etc… The Starlet had far more equipment at its base price. I’m pretty sure there was actually a Corolla-Tercel stripped in a manner that base domestics were, and it was priced lower than the Starlet.
The 1985 Cavalier started at $6,477. As you said, that was for a total stripper. For one equipped more like the Starlet, you’d be looking at about $7,000 – $7,500.
The 1985 Thunderbird started at $10,249. Base V6 coupe.
Keep in mind that the base 1977 Thunderbird was very modestly equipped too, as during that time was the all-time low-point for T-Bird content. It was really just a mid-sized coupe; nothing special.
A more”proper” Thunderbird, the ’77 Town Landau Coupe, started at $7,990.
xequar, you are not crazy.
Toyotas were overpriced. They still are. On top of that, the people at the dealerships were and are jerks and act like they are doing you a favor by allowing you to buy one of their cars.
Something else people are not considering is that the actual sale price of a Toyota was pretty much the sticker price. The actual sale price of a Ford was much much lower than the sticker price unless you were a complete idiot.
For people with very little money, shopping for used cars was their only option. In this case, a Toyota made even less sense because a well used 4 year old Ford could be had for peanuts and spare parts were practically laying around waiting for you to pick them up and carry them home, while a well used 4 year old Toyota was still going for more more than 50% of its original sticker price and forget about spare parts!
I remember the Toyota Starlet. I remember thinking how good a car it’d be for city driving. I remember being disappointed when it was discontinued after only two years on the U.S. market.
Remember them certainly and there are still plenty about today the hat on backwards crowd love them and will pour a small fortune into one to make it handle well insert a rotary engine to make one go well and a lurid paint scheme to make it stand out no cure for the NVH issues because that adds weight and slows them down, Stalets are still a competitive club rally car with the right mods.
According to toyotareference.com it lasted through 1984, getting its’ midcycle facelift for ’83 (along with cloth seat inserts and a, presumably cheaper, four-speed model).
http://www.toyotareference.com/starlet
I didn’t know a car such as the Metro would get covered by a US magazine.
The Starlet was a brilliant little car, and much more fun to drive then one would believe. It is a sad thing they all were shipped to Africa, because it is the one car I would love to own again.
Never had the privilege of piloting a Starlet, but do have seat time in a rental Mini Metro. One of the car mags, I forget which, referred to it as “a dreary little light reconnaissance vehicle”, but I think that was excessively harsh. Admittedly it entirely lacked the charm of a Mini, but it went and drove OK, and the small size was appreciated on B-roads. About the only thing it did to offend me was run out of fuel on the motorway with a quarter tank still indicated on the gauge.
There was even a MG-badged version, if I recall.
I once drove an MG Metro Cup car in the Netherlands. It had a sporty exhaust note and I fit the car well at the age of 14. The MG Metro made an impression on me and I think it played a role in my ownership of a Ford Festiva when I moved back the US. The MG Metro Cup was a racing car though, so I don’t know how the regular MG Metro drove. They also had an MG Maestro and an MG Montego. There was eventually an MG Montego Turbo, marketed as the fastest MG ever built. It looked more like the fasted Mercury Topaz.
The Starlet may not have been as good an econobox as the Tercel but the small size and RWD made them excellent rally cars and later drift cars for those priced out of the AE86, or wanting to do a motorcycle powered car.
@xequar by the standards of 1981 it was good, cars were lighter, flimsier, and had higher NVH than modern stuff. Look up the Citroen AX some time.
I have driven a Metro and I actually liked it compared to what else was around in 1986. Even in the most basic spec it handled like a go kart and was quicker than a basic Ford Fiesta. Granted the example I drove had a super stiff gearshift action bu that was probably down to newness and would have loosened up.
Perhaps I need to get some butt time in something small from that era, then. My partner and I have a ’77 Thunderbird Town Landau and a ’78 Continental Town Coupe, both of which I find to be fantastic cars. Of course, they were the top of the heap in that era, so they should be good. That I get. I just can’t imagine what the bottom of the market would be like. My experiences with 1980s small cars, even the ’86 LeBaron GTS that became my first car in 1997, are so far removed and so lacking context that I can’t draw a lot from them these days.
What’s fascinating to me is that Road & Track devoted considerable space to the review of a non-exotic car that was not going to be sold here, and was being built by a company that most Americans had very little – if any – idea even existed. Hard to see that happening today.
I could be wrong, but I would think most readers of Road&Track….certainly more than the readers of Car&Driver were aware of the Metro’s “roots”. And I would think the “connection” to the original Mini is what got this car it’s largish write-up.
Both Car&Driver and Road&Track would (and I think still do) occasionally write, admittedly small (er) articles on cars from European manufacturers that no longer sold cars in the U.S.
Here in Puerto Rico you would think that the Starlet was a Mazda model. Basically all the ones that are left here have somekind of turboed rotary engine stuffed inside, with a half chassis and doing 30 feet burnouts. If you can find one that still have a piston engine, you can be almost 100% sure that it have a 3TC 1.8 from a Corolla of the same era inside modified with all kind of racing parts and also doing 30 feet long burnouts.
say what you like about BL but they always got right those proper fold flat rear seats.
I rented a Starlet in early 1983, to go to a job interview in another city. It has the distinction for me of being the only rental car I had that came with a manual transmission (not sure automatic was even available)…and I had previously worked for Hertz as a transporter, never once having driven any of their cars as a standard transmission (this was 1977 and 1978). It was really basic transportation, I think it cost me less than $100 to rent it for the week. Not sure if it had air conditioning (this being Texas, I would guess it would have if offered even back then)…I ended up getting one of the jobs I interviewed for. I think it had an (AM) radio, but I remember it as having vinyl flooring and seats, didn’t remember carpeted floor, but it has been a long time now since I drove it.
One of the guys I worked with had recently bought a Tercel, and other than the apperance of the rear of the car being what I thought of as being very ugly, I think I was more of a fan of the Tercel than the Starlet, probably because it was FWD, which was still pretty rare, even on small cars, but becoming more common. I’d had an accident with my ’74 Datsun 710 which was RWD and I was more of a fan of FWD because of it; living up north at the time colored my opinion…Toyota had just started converting their line to FWD (I think only the Tercel was FWD at that time, rest were RWD in terms of cars).
Considering the means BL had, the Metro was brilliant.
Trouble is, it should have been superseded in 1985, not 1997…a few years after its launch, the Fiat Uno, Peugeot 205 and Renault Supercinq left it for dead.
This Starlet was popular as a begginer´s rally car in some European countries. Small, cheap, tough mechanicals and, obviously, RWD.
I remember reading this Metro test. The commentary about how modern the car seems, then the familiar sounds when starting the old A series engine.
Can’t remember if it was R&T or Motor Trend that also ran a comparison test of 3 or 4 small cars that were not available in the US. I remember one of the other models tested was a Dacia, which was based on the Renault R-12, and featured a coolant overflow tank made of glass, which the writer commented would be great for making borscht.
Of all the entrants in that comparison test, the Metro came off best, by a long margin.