The landscape was changing as the 1970s started, and the Muscle Car Boom had passed its climax. With that, a new generation of more fuel-efficient and nimbler vehicles would gain the interest of those with a desire for sporty driving. As the decade advanced, a mix of inflation and an energy crisis would make the segment even more relevant, with just about every car maker offering a variation of the theme.
Sensing those changing winds early on, R&T tested three such sporty entries for their Oct. 1971 issue. They were the Capri with its new 2L mill, the Opel Rallye 1900, and the recently launched Toyota Celica ST.
As R&T noted, there was a buzz in Detroit about the new segment. After all, Detroit’s muscle cars had grown in weight and size through the ’60s, and an opening was created for vehicles inspired by the original pony car formula. While Detroit caught up, imports would fill the void.
The 1969 Capri was expressly Ford of Europe’s take on the ’65 Mustang; adapting its long-hood, short-deck concept for European consumption -smaller, lighter, using smaller engines and with more emphasis on chassis refinements. Succeeding in Europe, the Capri soon appeared stateside at Lincoln-Mercury dealers.
Not to be left behind, GM’s German subsidiary, Opel, responded with its own coupe, the Manta. Appearing in late 1970, the car squared off with the Capri in size, weight, power, and price. It arrived in the States as the Rallye 1900, and as the 1900 Coupe in plainer trim.
Last, Toyota -amid its global rise- made its presence known in the burgeoning segment with its Celica. The new model had the pony car long-hood short-deck look in abundance and even resorted to gimmicky plastic add-ons, á la ’65 Mustang.
For all effects, the three competitors matched their specs pretty closely. They all sat four people with cramped knee-room in the back, had manual 4-speeds, 4-cyl. engines close to 2L displacement, discs up front with drums at the rear, and were only a few inches apart in wheelbase, length, width, and height. While other hardware was available for each, they came as closely equipped as possible for testing.
As such, the Capri arrived with its newly available 2L engine providing 100-bhp. Options included a custom interior and vinyl roof. Meanwhile, the Opel Rallye came equipped with a 90-bhp 1.9L engine, and interior trim comparable to the Capri, though considered slightly spartan.
Last, the Celica carried a 1858cc engine, with its 108-bhp being the highest of the trio. Of the group, the Celica was the narrowest, lowest, and heaviest of the group; and had a significant front-end weight bias. On the other hand, it also carried the most extensive standard equipment and the best instrument layout.
So, how did each do under driving?
Opel Rallye 1900
The Rallye ranked first in handling, steering, gearbox, and trunk space. Meanwhile, it came last in exterior finish and styling.
Overall, R&T considered that the Rallye “was sheer fun to drive.” With a “smooth engine, nice gearbox and smooth controls… On a skidpad, it can’t outdo the Capri, but on the road it can… There is a remarkable competence about the Rallye’s road behavior.”
Less glowing were the Rallye’s ergonomics and comfort, which were considered just so-so; with a more upright driving position and hard-to-read gauges. Part of the blame fell on an interior inherited from non-sporting sedans. “All the instrumentation is there, but not all of it is easy to find at a glance.”
Toyota Celica ST
When paired against the Europeans, the Celica faired poorly in handling and steering. “Where the Rallye shines, the Celica drags – but it drags its nose, not its tail.” The Celica’s steering was considered “heavy and lumpy” with pronounced understeer; a byproduct of the car’s 59% percent of its weight riding on the front wheels. It did, however, have the best braking of the group.
The Celica had much to offer though, as it had the best ride, instrumentation and driving position. Its cabin was also the quietest of the group. Like most of Toyota products at the time, it offered a lot of value for the money. Other than its handling it rated “a very close second in the group.”
Ford Capri 2000
The Capri almost seemed to find the middle ground between the Rallye and the Celica. The car was the quickest of the lot, and its handling was very responsive, even if not as nice as the Rallye’s. Steering was precise and quick, though the car suffered from straight-line stability issues at high speeds. Finally, its engine was the noisiest of the group.
Reviewers truly enjoyed the car’s driving position, as it “lets the driver know for sure he’s in a sporty car.” However, the Capri gained low marks in trunk space, had the lowest rating in brakes, and unsatisfactory instrumentation. Enough shortcomings to rate the car as third of the group overall, “but a close third.”
In the end, R&T considered the trio a pretty compelling group; “…they’re all reasonably priced, all have an appeal to the young enthusiast and all lend themselves to individual modifications for that personal touch… We can’t emphasize too strongly that we like all three…”
“In the absence of low-priced, up-to-date sports cars, and with the difficulty young people have getting insurance for same, they might be even be considered the best sporting cars for the young and limited of budget.”
Related CC reading:
Curbside Classic: 1974 Toyota Celica – Betting On The Wrong Pony
Curbside Classic: 1971 – 1978 Capri – Ponycar Reborn
Cohort Pic(k) Of The Day: Opel Manta 1900 (A) – There’s A Good Reason Why I Have A Soft Spot For It
Curbside Classic: 1975 Opel Manta 3100 (That’s Not A Typo) – The German Camaro
Vintage R&T Review: 1971 Toyota Celica – The Arrival Of Toyota’s Pony Car
Vintage R&T Review: 1971 Capri 2000 – The European Pony Car Gets More Zip With a 2.0 Engine
Yes, I know new cars are “better”.
Still, if I could, I’d buy a new Manta, Celica, or Capri, over any new car on the market today.
(with the understanding that new means built recently, with parts and service support. There are a few “like new” low-mileage “classic” cars, but there is no such thing as a “new” 30, 40, 50, or 60-year old car. Time takes its toll..)
Very cool road test!
Those were my three top (used) car selections in high school in the early 80s, though I never got one.
TomLU86: I couldn’t agree more. I have two (80’s Caddy’s that I won’t mention due to the hostility against them on here) and a 2023 Chevy Bolt. I love the new cars for the absolute lack of worry about anything. Just get in, hit the button (turn the key), and go. Little or no fuss ever.
But that’s where it ends for me. Today’s cars (or should I say SUV boxes and trucks) have no passion. No excitement. No class or style. I love my Bolt, but it’s just a way to take the kids to school and get to work. Run errands, etc. I never gat a smile or thumbs up when driving it. But I sure do when driving either of the old cars. But if I could get today’s safety, reliability and efficiency with the interiors/exteriors and comfort of my 80’s Caddy’s, I’d be one happy driver.
Opel offered a fix for the styling if you didn’t like the Manta, the 1900 sedan (Ascona at home). I always liked its’ looks with the styling cues of a ’71 Impala applied to the proportions (and conning-tower visibility) of a BMW 2002.
It seems a lot of people were not so fond of the Manta’s styling.
I always thought that was one of its strengths! I thought Mantas, especially the pre-5mph bumper ones, looked the best. But I thought they all looked good–the Celica was my favorite Japanese car, because it was by far the best-looking Japanese car! (I had never seen a Datsun Z-car until we moved to the US in 1977
I think the Capri II and Celica Liftback did best with big bumpers–but those came out in 1976, when the Opel was no longer offered in the US.
It’s amusing to consider, but with today’s engine oils, fluids in general, and fuel, these cars would hold up better than they did in the 1970s.
And even though their engine designs were not really optimized for emissions, it would not be a big deal for any of the auto manufacturers to incorporate
1. Electronic ignition (a 1970s innovation)
2. Port fuel injection
3. Both managed with a basic engine/powertrain control module and appropriate sensors (o2, MAF, etc), at a 1990s level
That would clean up emissions a lot, improve the engine drivability and in no way take away from these cars.
A five-speed would quiet them on the highway–Toyota offered one later.
In the mid-1970s, my father replaced a 68 Beetle with a used 72 Ford Escort which was now the family car (the Capri was based on, just like Mustang was derived from Falcon).
The Escort was a fine car. The only thing it did not have which I have grown used to is A/C.
Of course, by today’s standards, even in Europe, these are small cars. I saw an Escort in Greece a few years ago, and it just looked smaller than a newer VW Golf or even a VW Polo.
The Capri was Cortina based not Escort
And on the Mk2 Cortina at that.
And the Capri over here did get fuel injection late in 1981 (the 2.8i).
My bad, thanks for correcting me.
Since most of these engines were long-lived (in a production lifespan sense), one could always swap in a later iteration with more electronic controls and lower emissions, which wouldn’t be a great departure from the original package.
The Celica was actually offered with a five-speed gearbox from launch, although the U.S. cars didn’t get it until the arrival of the federalized GT. (It was standard on JDM cars with twin-cam engines, which we never got.)
Surprising that the Manta was considered last in the styling department, as it’s almost a styling icon today!
Comparatively the Capri has not aged all that good IMHO.
Notice how close all three are to each other in braking, acceleration, handling, etc.
This is back in the day when driving a vehicle like above was fun!!. First thing you bought were a pair of driving gloves and took control of the vehicle and were responsible for its overall performance. No carping about anti-lock or anti-skid, or nanny features.
Today, the fun is gone!!
Well said! That’s why I wish I could buy a “new” one of any of these three…though I’d prefer the Manta.
My father had a Capri, while my buddy drove a Celica – I had an Opel Manta Rallye, and while I admit I may be biased, I thought the Opel was the best of the lot. The only area I think it trailed was the interior, is lacked some of the features the other two had. My Opel took a beating, and kept on going. As I get older (I’m 63) and think back of all the cars I owned, the Opel is one I have the fondest memories of.
All three are wonderful sporty cars, though I would choose the Celica. I had a 71 Toyota Corona with the 8-RC engine and it was peppy and very economical to run.
Glad others here like the Manta: I think it’s by far the classiest looking, especially small-bumpered as here. The Celica is probably a nice (if unoriginal) shape, but the embarrassment of gargoyles and embellishments with which it was festooned distracted me entirely and it thus looked (and looks) like some tacky bauble you’d find dangling off Santa’s sleigh to me.
I’m always a bit puzzled by US praise for the Opel CIH unit. We got it in a few GM products down here, and it was always picked on for being harsh and rattly and a bit weak in the chest. Indeed, in my one exposure to it, it was all those things. As for ’60’s and ’70’s Opel ‘boxes also sent here, the slick change praised here (and elsewhere on CC before) is a mystery: here, they were quite universally disrespected as wobbly and breakable. Toyota boxes, by direct contrast, were always the tough and slick-shifting choice to replace someone’s 6 or V8’s three speed.
Curious; the Opel CIH engine was pretty universally praised for being relatively smooth in Europe too, but yes, it was not praised for its absolute power output, which tended to be on the more modest side. The fact that it made peak power at lower rpm (5200) than the others may have enhanced that sensation, meaning it didn’t need to be revved so high.
I’ve driven a couple of 1.9s, and the engine did not sparkle or excite; it was just a relatively unobtrusive instrument that didn’t get in the way of the handling. I’ve never heard the Opel box being actually faulted, but then you guys are known for being so much harder and harsher on cars. Maybe they didn’t like being shifted by left hands?
IIRC, the Opel Manta of that era were also sold by Buick dealerships here in the U.S. which eventually replaced the Opel GT and to be Buick’s small car offering. In 1975 the Manta was discontinued here and replaced by the Chevette platform based Isuzu Gemini (known in its own Japanese Domestic Market) which was essentially known as the Opel Kadett in West Germany and named this car Buick Opel Isuzu. The Manta was also redesigned in 1975 but no longer imported here by GM because the Chevy Vega/Monza based Buick Skyhawk eventually replaced the Manta. Even though the Manta was Buick’s upscale version of the unrelated platform but similar size to the Chevy Vega, only Buick had this exclusive subcompact to their lineup not shared by other GM Divisions here in America.
I inherited a 72 Capri 2000 Automatic from my mom when she moved to a larger car, and although the handling was decent, its ride was harsh and it was quite slow. The interior was nice, but didn’t hold up over time. I replaced it with a 74 Manta Luxus 4 speed and it was so much nicer to drive and a much more comfortable ride. It was 1979 when I got the Manta and I still have it today in 2023.
As we’ve discussed before, they were right about the early Celica’s understeer, but off-base about its source, which had more to do with poor front suspension geometry than with weight distribution, although the nose-heaviness and narrow front track certainly didn’t help. All were alleviated on the later long-wheelbase cars, which had much better handling, though not really better steering.
The JDM Celica didn’t necessarily have the gimcracks, some of which were optional or confined to pricier grades, although I think if you wanted the hot 2T-G engine (not offered here), you were stuck with most of them. Toyota couldn’t replicate the have-it-your-way ordering system of the JDM cars in the U.S. market, so we initially got only the second-from-the-top ST grade with the SW trim pack that was optional in Japan; the home-market ET and LT grades weren’t quite so glitzy (or as well-equipped).
We had two (2) Opels, a 1900 with dealer-installed A/C and a 1974 Opel Manta Rallye. Mine was the 1900, green, with a black interior. I needed a new car for college commuting and baby brother inherited Mom’s 1972 Maverick. I liked the 1900 because it was my first stick shift and Dad liked it because it had A/C, so it was a car we could both agree on. It was the first car that I swapped the radio in, replacing the stock Opel AM radio with a $90 AM/FM cassette player from Sanyo, and I added two (2) pairs of Jensen 4″ coaxial speakers, one (1) pair in the rear package shelf and the second pair in the front doors. The cassette player later went belly up when it ate my prize copy of Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band, LOL!
Baby brother later replaced Mom’s Maverick with the 1974 Opel Manta Rallye, yellow with a flat black hood and brown vinyl interior, which we dyed black. The only issue with his version, which was the last year for a carbureted engine before Bosch fuel injection appeared in the 1975 model year, was the stock Solex carburetor refused to run correctly despite a rebuild, so it went into the dumpster when it was replaced by a two-barrel Weber with manual choke (a popular refit at the time)! The Opel would be gone from these shores by 1976, largely due to the unfavorable exchange rate between the dollar and the German mark [this pre-dates the Euro by about twenty (20) years].
The Capri would be gone after 1978, when the Capri morphed into a re-badged Mustang sold at Lincoln-Mercury dealers in 1979. The Celica lasted the longest, disappearing sometime in the 1990’s.
The Celica survived in the U.S. until the end of the line 2007, and was more or less replaced by the now-defunct Avensis-based Scion tC.
The comments on the Manta styling, then and now, are interesting. At the time, I loved the Acona’s clean detailing and great proportions, while the Manta just looked “off”. Trying to hard and mixing a bunch of different lines, like GM sometimes did despite generally good styling in this era. I loved the Capri, though I liked the second gen even more when it came along, and found the Celica to be an OK shape but with fussy detailing. Now, I’d take the Manta in a heartbeat. Though I still prefer the Ascona …
I remember taking a short drive in a Manta in the late Seventies and thought both the engine and shifting were quite nice. But that’s when I had my Vega so my standards may have been low. My ‘73 Vega had the Saginaw gearbox which replaced the earlier Vegas’ Opel units and it actually was pretty good.
I always thought – and still do – the Manta resembles the Fiat Dino Coupé (see below). Nothing wrong with that.
Funny – I’ve often thought that a lot of the cars of that dihedral-era all look the same, yet perversely are quite identifiable.
One could almost lob in the 124, 504, 117 and even the Audi 100 & BMW E3!
The Opel was perhaps a tad upright and obviously Ascona-based. Hence spacious (relatively) and practical. The Ford was more of an MGB/Pony-car clone, so was much spurtier and a colossal waste of space by Euro standards.
The Yoda was typically Japanese; almost a size too tiny for us lanky westerners and they still hadn’t grasped the importance of good suspension to we roundeye hooligans and furthermore were still recirculating their balls whereas we had our rank opinions for precision.
I have to agree that the Manta was perhaps the best – Opel was doing some seriously decent work at the time. Perhaps the Vauxhall slant-four might have been a tad smoother, but that was never gonna be an option.
Though of course, I’d have chosen a 124 and ignored the wonky worm & roller steering, the corrosion and the spaghetti for wiring. I’d be cheating though, as the 118 BHP 1800 with five speeds came a tad later.
“The Opel was perhaps a tad upright and obviously Ascona-based. Hence spacious (relatively) and practical.”
Yes, in its genes it was a small family car. Even though one in a sporty tailored suit, so to say. It even was advertised as a such – as this commercial shows (I think you will understand, even if you don’t understand the German words):
I drove a ’74 Celica through high school and college in the 80s, and it was a fun car, despite the handling limitations, of which I was aware. Agree with R&T on the instrumentation — it was outstanding. That shifter on the Opel must have been incredible, because the 4-speed on my Celica had the smoothest, slickest shifter I have ever experienced, even better than the one on my ’91 Miata.
I love seeing these vintage road tests of my first car. It stirs up a lot of nostalgic feelings. For many years I thought it would be fun to have another first-generation Celica, but they’re virtually impossible to find now. The Miata more than makes up for that itch. Better handling, way more reliable and the top goes down.
Going in I suspected the Manta would lead in performance and the Celica trail in handling with the Capri in the middle. It’s interesting to compare evolution, the Capri and Manta made into 1987-88 with only on platform change and stayed RWD while the Celica was on its 4th generation and had just switched to FWD.
The only coupe from that era I’ve driven extensively was a VW Scirocco which was a different take on the car based coupe since it used the front wheel drive Golf/Rabbit platform. The wild card of this period would have to be a Mazda RX-3 because it was stylish and very quick until the apex seals failed. In 1974 I might very well have bought a Mazda or taken a gamble on the VW, although the smart money held off on the US Scirocco until 1977 when it got fuel injection
“gimmicky plastic add-ons, á la ’65 Mustang”? Nothing even remotely like that on a ’65 Mustang.
The Opel was a quite nice car. My mom owned one, few issues but an early ruster and the engine gave a somewhat lame feeling. A friend owned a Capri: Swampy steering as on most Ford of that era and bad cornering ecperiences caused by that antique rear axle spring leaf design. In comparison to a BMW 2000 a poor choice, even the neighbor’s Datsun 120 felt more handy.
Joe
A recent picture of my 74 Manta during the restoration process…
Very nice car, very nice colour. I think, they called it “Monza blue metallic”. Even the alloy rims fit well, though not original equipment (right ?).