These four European sedans represented a size and price class that was growing in the US, and would continue to grow for a long time to come. They represented a clear alternative to American sedans, with their more compact dimensions, smaller engines, FWD (in two cases), and more sophisticated suspension, braking and handling (mostly).
The Volvo was of course by far the best selling of the four, and would continue to grow in popularity, the 144’s successor–the 240 series–becoming iconic. Audi too would become a force in the market, even if it was temporarily blunted by the UA debacle. And of course, Saab is dead and Peugeot left the American market quite some time ago.
Unlike nowadays when the differences in cars are often so limited, these four represented distinctive approaches, and this makes for an interesting comparison.
The similarities were their general size, four cylinder engines of about two liters, room for four adults, and advanced features like disc brakes and radial tires. Four speed manual transmissions were standard on all but the Audi came from the manufacturer with a three speed automatic. Somewhat surprisingly, that didn’t blunt its performance as much as might be expected.
The Audi was considered the most stylish of the bunch, clearly following the stylistic footprints of its intended domestic competitors: Mercedes and BMW. The 100 had inboard disc brakes, which quickly developed a bad rep, along with driveability issues with the carb. Average pad life was 6,000 miles; the latest models had larger discs to presumably help that somewhat. And the latest carb was also improved.
The Audi was highly efficient in its space utilization; the best in its class, and what would become a hallmark of the brand for some time to come.
The 504 was the latest in a series of Peugeot’s RWD sedans and wagons. R&T pointed out what would become the downfall of Peugeot in the US: a small dealer network, of mostly small dealers. Peugeot just never invested in a substantial and upgraded dealer network; most of the dealers I remember in LA in the ’70s were still holdovers from the 1950s.
The 504 was the only one in the group to have IRS, which of course was one of the hallmarks of its generally superior suspension system.
The Saab was of course FWD, with its Triumph-built engine in an unusual configuration over the transmission. It had the smallets engine (1.85 L) but with fuel injection and an overhead cam (the only one in the group to do so), it had a healthy 97 hp.
The Volvo was of course familiar stuff by now, having arrived in 1967. But the 144E had electronic fuel injection. R&T made reference to serious quality lapses in 1968 and 1969, but presumably those were now a thing of the past.
I’m not going to comment on their respective Comfort, Control, Accommodation and Vision, and move on to Performance, Ride and Handling.
The Audi and Saab were the runners; the Peugeot and Volvo the laggards, in their performance. The Peugeot is not a surprise, but the Volvo’s was somewhat, especially since it had the highest hp rating (112) by a healthy margin. R&T called the Peugeot and Volvo”sickly”. The reason was the required drop in compression to meet then new standard to be able to run on unleaded regular. That combined with tightening emission standards really blunted those two.
The Saab and Audi were still reasonably lively, and the Audi would have been more so if it had a manual. The Saab was fastest (least slow) in the 0-60, at 12.7 seconds. The Audi second at 13.7, even with its automatic. The Volvo managed 14. and the 504 plodded through in 15.9 seconds. Pretty sad, given that cars in this category where once considered ‘sporty’ back in the ’50s and ’60s.
But the 504 did have the best transmission, now with a floor shifter.
No surprise: the 504 won the Ride category. But it also was deemed the best handling, in the subjective portion. The Pug handled everything that was thrown at it with aplomb; that was its superpower; not actual power. The Audi acquitted itself well too, not surprisingly. The Saab’s steering got unpleasantly tight in power-on curves. The Volvo was deemed “clumsy” with “gobs of body roll”.
The Audi was deemed the overall winner, with a small margin over the Saab. The Peugeot came in third and the Volvo straggled into fourth place. In addition to dynamic issues, the Volvo got major demerits for its instrumentation-controls, driving position and ventilation. It seemed “terribly old-fashioned” despite being only some six or seven years old. But then other than its new body, it wasn’t all that different from the 122 under the skin. The 240 series was to be a badly needed update on the concept, but of course it too got to be “terribly old-fashioned”, for better or for worse.
We owned a total of four of the Audi 100, two in Germany and two in the US. My recollection (I was quite young) is that the ones in Germany seemed to be “better” than the US ones, likely all emissions related. Ours were all automatics as my mom didn’t like driving stick, kind of rare in Germany at the time, but the cars were nicely loaded since they had that pricy feature already. The inboard brakes on the earlier models (this was changed a few years down the line) didn’t seem to present any significant problem for my Dad, presumably with familiarity it becomes “normal”, but to the average shade-tree’r it likely was a hurdle…
That said, my Dad always wanted a Volvo but never had one. Saab wasn’t on the radar and he never took to Peugeots either, despite them being very popular where we were in Germany.
Eventually he gave up on the Audis over here after taking a hard look at a used ’79 5000 diesel with a non-functioning reverse in that beige color they offered. Bullet dodged I think, in favor of a Mazda, then a Toyota, and finally a Ford Fox-LTD, Chevy Celebrity wagon and Dodge camper van.
How the hell did Volvos press fleet release a car to R&T with “inoperative headlamps”?. in comparison unreliable Peugeot had the nerve to release a car with .. ill fitting carpets . Now we know it was not a small “ma n pop” dealer net work hung over from the 50s import craze and lack of parts it was them darn carpets….
My guess is they stopped working at some point during the test period.
Interesting; the Volvo seemed by far the least dynamic and engaging car as well as unremarkable in it’s utility save for cargo room and visibility, yet it outlasted the rest of the competition here (or was the 240 by it’s discontinuation in 1993 a significantly different animal than the 144 here?)
The *major* differences between the 140 and the 240 were all forward of the A-pillar. Conventional steering and suspension was swapped for Mac struts and R&P steering, mostly in order to allow for V-type engines to be installed, but it was a vast improvement.
More than a few parts from a 1993 240 will fit on a ’67 140.
I read this when its was first published as I was a subscriber. When we went to buy our 1st (and only to date) new car a couple of years later, I re-read it and bought a ’73 SAAB 99 after I’d read elsewhere that they had re-engined it with a home-grown much improved version replacing the Triumph one. Loved that car, drove it all over the US. It’s main weakness was the Lockheed hydraulic clutch cylinder, replaced 3 times in 4 years. We still have our ’87 900 with 250,000 miles, so fun to drive.
IMO this is what killed SAAB. They would not take suppliers to task when their component continually failed nor did they warranty any of this stuff beyond their standard. My ’83 Turbo would fail the interior temperature control valve yearly. I talked to several SAAB owners from previous years and they all had similar type stories including yours. We all loved the vehicles but this kind of non-support was not conducive to repeat purchase.
Uncle traded his dull but reliable Opel for ’72 Audi 100 LS. Good thing the test didn’t rate reliability. In addition to constant mechanical maladies like new brake pads twice a year, that car developed rust holes by the 3rd year. Even the glass facings over the tach and speedo broke loose from their mounts. That created a most annoying rattle with every bump. My uncle said things that never broke on any other car broke on the Audi. Considering he owned the car in Germany, an American service experience might have been even worse. The quality was such a disappointment he never bought another Audi.
Pretty interesting since no conventional car stood a chance against Audi 100 C3 for rust proofing. They still look new after these 40 years.
As a Saab owner, this was fun to read. (My summer car is a 2000 Viggen convertible) It also struck me that the article was much more focused than the reviews I would read in one of the car magazines this month.
This test is a perfect example of a great new car making a horrible used car. Had they given the cars to the testers at the end, the guy with the Volvo would have felt like the loser. Until he looked around after ten years and the other three were long gone.
In fairness, the Pug could probably have made the long haul too, but from what I have learned here, it would not have been without a bit more than average of TLC by a caring owner. At least until he got done-in by parts availability issues.
Hey now! A slightly newer example of each, but ultimately the same basic car, was found within around the last two years; the Volvo is the only one not actually written up…Time waits for no car. although we have no idea how long each was marinating in a barn before being delivered to their fate.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/junkyard/junkyard-classic-1977-audi-100ls-my-dad-was-the-lord-of-the-four-rings/
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/junkyard/junkyard-classic-1980-peugeot-504-diesel-wagon-paris-16th-arrondissement-just-got-a-little-poorer/
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/junkyard/junkyard-classic-1977-saab-99gl-combi-coupe-in-its-element/
In hindsight, as you indicated, the Volvo is probably the one I’d most rather have had for the duration, although it’d perhaps be last in desirability at the time of being new. Actually, the entire order would likely be inverted then vs now.
I see these cars as amazing machines, but then I hear that they cost twice the price of a similar size US vehicle, learn that they are about as reliable as a similar US vehicle, read that the parts availability was a problem, dealers were sparse – and it seems that that it is true that the first pioneers often died on the way to Oregon.
I’d have bought TWO Valiants for that dough, and parked one until the other needed servicing.
I’d take a Valiant over any of these too, but keep in mind that nothing was standard on a Valiant. The majority of transaction prices for Valiants probably fell between $2,500 and $3,500. And no matter how much you spent on a Valiant, brakes equal to those on most of these cars were not available. Still, for the price of one of these imports, you could have optioned up a Valiant to be faster than almost any import.
Many people who’ve owned an Audi 100LS have had expensive and inconvenient issues with the inboard front brakes. The US ones also didn’t have a good reputation for reliability. The Saab 99 improved significantly…after this test. Here is a beautifully comprehensive comparison test of European imports from Road & Track, and I don’t think that their readers were well-served by their conclusions at all.
Road & Track has never really been one to cater to the mass market, the whole point was to embrace something different that excels in different ways. If a new Valiant were to be a serious consideration for someone (and I am not knocking the Valiant here at all, mind you), it is close to inconceivable that they would even remotely consider cross shopping one of these tested vehicles as new if they even knew they existed. Conversely someone reading this test to try to suss out which one of these four they might take home after they went out and actually tried them all out themselves would not remotely be considering a Valiant. People weren’t (and still aren’t as far as I can tell) looking to R&T to substitute for Consumer Reports or Economical Motoring Magazine if such a thing ever existed. Different cars and different reporting for different readers and drivers. It’s like someone reading a test between an F150, Silverado, and Ram1500 on PickupTrucks.com and then deciding that an AWD Hybrid Toyota Sienna is the right choice. It may well be, but it’s not the target market of the test article.
It’s easy to knock the Europeans (for maintenance and perhaps reliability), as well as the Japanese half a decade later (mainly for rust), and even easier if one has never had a serious drive or time spent with one of them but only from the North American perspective of buy it, abuse it, ignore maintenance, and just drive it like a rented mule. Nobody ever bought one of these European cars new thinking they were the lowest cost choice, either initially or ongoing. Their cars are generally both completely different than most anything that Detroit could even dream of conjuring up, not for lack of trying. While tiny Saab is not around anymore (perhaps in part due to being owned by GM?), Audi/VW is larger than any of the Americans, Volvo is thriving (or certainly not remotely wilting) under its Chinese owners, and Peugeot ended up buying the maker of that Valiant…all of which is lost on those who have zero worldview or that there is a whole big world beyond our shores. All of these makers had/have worldwide markets with significant numbers of sales around the globe and are currently increasing those markets. Most of the US makes stayed within North America with a few generally small specialty export markets for the North American model cars being the exception that proved the rule, their European offshoots and models are a different animal but not really thriving these days if even still existing.
There’s nothing wrong with American cars per se (three of my four are US engineered, built, and branded), but the mindset behind our domestic creations has historically been night and day compared to both the European as well as the Japanese mindset. Much has to do with the view of driving being a right vs a privilege and thus the approach to the vehicles themselves. Europeans (western ones anyway) actually maintain their cars instead of waiting for something to break, there are wear parts built into suspensions, brakes etc as opposed to hoping they last a lifetime and then, when not, trying to find the cheapest and quickest way to band-aid fix it as is usually done in the US; the Japanese for the most part either don’t drive very high mileages or in general swap their cars out quite fast so rust wasn’t ever much of an issue. The hogwash that Europeans don’t drive far is just that, Europeans drive plenty far and usually drive their cars FAR harder than most Americans. And parts of Japan have just as much poor weather, snow and ice, as do parts of the US.
In summation it’s easy to say just pick a Valiant, eh, that’s a false equivalancy, such as the choice to grab a burger at the McD drive-thru as it’s far cheaper and quicker than going to Ruth’s Chris or Morton’s on the assumption that it’s all from the same source. RC or M will cost you more (just like the Saab, Volvo, Audi, or Peugeot), still isn’t remotely the top of the line of what’s out there, you’ll be waiting longer for it, but when it all comes together in the right place (road) with the right company, it beats the Happy Meal Valiant every day of the week. Different market, different buyer.
Oyez!
Maybe it is because I grew up in a college town, but my neighborhood had an over-representation of all of these cars in the ’70s. They were often seen in the same driveways as Valiants and other American cars from the utilitarian end of the offering spectrum.
I drove nothing but European cars for decades, so I didn’t say I’d pick a Valiant over any of these because I have eaten at a McDonalds more than five times since my early twenties. I said I’d pick a Valiant because they were better cars than any of these as transportation. You should read a British review of the early Valiants. They thought the Valiant was a fair deal at twice what we paid and couldn’t believe that there was a country where almost anyone could drive such a fine car.
As we’re off in dreamy-dream land about what we’d’ve bought at the time, here’s my resolution of this tastes-great/less-filling squabble: I’d go fly across the ocean and buy either a Swiss-built Valiant or a Spanish-built Dart (“3700GT”) and ship it back to North America. The Swiss lived up to their cultural stereotype (well, one of them, anyhow; I’m not sure if those cars handled more neutrally) and built those Valiants much better and more solidly than the home-market ones. More welds, more careful fitment, etc. They got better seat belts and other higher-spec equipment, too. The Spanish Darts were quite a bit more sporty and luxurious than the American-market ones. At the time it was just as illegal as now to bring in a car not manufacturer-certified as compliant with American regulations, but practically it was very much easier back then.
Well, you didn’t actually write that you’d pick a Valiant because it was better transportation, just that you’d choose it. R&T’s readers were most likely well aware of what they were getting into, having often been weaned on MG, Triumph, and that sort of thing that R&T was championing a decade or two earlier…
But in any case that was exactly my point. A Valiant may in fact BE better transportation in that it could usually gets you where you are going. Just like a McD hamburger takes care of the hunger but isn’t particularly satisfying in doing so compared to other choices of things to stuff down your throat. Maybe you could add all of the options to make it a better (faster?) car just like you could add cheese, tomato and chopped lettuce to the burger but as you probably realize flat out straight-line speed isn’t remotely everything.
But let’s not kid ourselves with the rose-tinted glasses. A Valiant (no, ANY car) from the early 1970s) was not a completely trouble-free device either. In 1971 was the Valiant in fact already renowned as the Wunderkind of America’s Big3? Or did that take another decade or two? The only real advantage a Valiant had was that any employee at the corner gas station could work on it if need be and probably had the parts needed to fix it laying around. As I recall, people would drive around with spare parts in the glovebox (ballast resistor?). To wit, the original poster actually said he would use his money to buy a second as a parts car. Of course likely tongue in cheek but…And as Daniel pointed out, the Valiant in Europe was a different animal than ours. But yet, they didn’t exactly clog the roads over there. I don’t know if there is anyone here at CC more in tune with Valiants and their pros and cons than Daniel, frankly I thought he may have come swinging to the defense of the mighty Valiant, but no, not really. I also took pains to point out that I don’t dislike the Valiant, just that the markets didn’t really overlap. Just like today, nobody is realistically shopping for or comparing a 328i, an A4, C300, Alfa Giulia, and then deciding on a Malibu. (Actually I guess they are deciding on a Tesla Model 3 so at least the Americans are in fact getting the sale… 🙂
That was my point, nothing directed personally at you whatsoever. If this comparison test was published verbatim in American Homemaker or Popular Mechanics to people who normally actually shopped Valiants, Comets, and Impalas or whatever, that’d be a different story.
As an aside it would though have been extremely interesting for R&T to have included a fifth car such as a Valiant and see their exact impressions as to all respects of it at the same time in the same place with the same reporters.
*/sarcasm/*
You mean that if I was still living in Germany, I would maintain my cars, using fewer Band-Aid fixes, and be aware that driving isn’t a right? Gee, perhaps I should have stayed after graduation and kept living in the enlightened mindset we so desperately lack here in the US!
It is a modern miracle that two of these these car brands succeeded here despite our ignorant auto care standards! YAY!
While I didn’t need a car while living there all that time, I concur that if I did, I would have driven it FAR harder than I would have here in the States and afterwards enrobed my vehicles in ermine after gently caressing every part of it because I would have had the right mindset.
*/ sarcasm
No, you missed the point entirely. No sarcasm. What’s perhaps surprising is that the Valiant was only successful in North America, considering it’s often extolled as a sort of vehicular perpetual motion device. It isn’t that much different in size than a larger Mercedes so it’s not too large for the roads elsewhere…
I don’t mean to get in the way of a good quarrel, but the Valiant/Dart was successful nigh on everywhere it was sold, which was pretty much all over the world. The Australians loved Valiants. So did the Argentinians, Brazilians, Chileans, Israelis, Swiss, Spanish, Swedish…
I have no argument, nor do I doubt you (DS) out of hand, but what is “successful” in terms of numbers as compared to otherwise popular models of the subject countries? i.e. was the Valiant a popular choice as opposed to a VW Beetle in Germany or would you be as likely to see a Valiant as a Volvo 144 in Sweden in 1972? Was the Valiant generally a top-ten sales charter in mainland Europe?
I really don’t know beyond not being aware of seeing many (any?) cars with a DartValiant badge in Germany, France, Italy, UK, throughout the 70s and 80s. Or perhaps I just didn’t notice them but cars were something I generally noticed and something American was usually point-at-it worthy…
“Successful” means different things in different markets, of course (and I left out South Africa, where they were also quite popular).
I don’t think it’s purely a matter of sales figures or top-ten list presence or otherwise like that, and I also wouldn’t argue that McDonalds, by dint of its popularity, is superior to Sardi’s. McDonalds sells more burgers than Sardi’s and its every local equivalent combined sell steaks.
I’m going to chime in on this one, on the “success” of the Valiant in other countries. DS, the ones you listed were all countries where the Valiant was assembled locally, in countries that had very high import barriers and a very limited number of local producers, which makes a very big difference. These are not free-market situations by a long shot, so any car that was built there generally sold “well”, if not in absolute terms. And even then, it has to be highly qualified. In Spain, the Valiant was the biggest and most expensive domestically-produced car, but its absolute numbers were very small in relation to SEATs and stuff.
Did the Valiant sell well in the countries without punitive trade barriers? Like Germany, UK, France, Italy, etc.? Well, no. Of course not. It was way too expensive in relation to what it offered, which by the early 70s was simply not competitive. American cars were significantly more expensive even in these countries, for a number of reasons. That means that a Valiant would have cost as much or more than these four cars, with dead slow manual steering, dull handling, no proper supportive bucket seats, front discs only at best, etc… Worst of all, its fuel economy would have been considered exorbitant in comparison.
I can tell you that Valiants and other US compacts sold terribly in Europe for these reasons. The American cars that did sell–albeit modestly–were either big sedans or the Mustang. Big American “Yank Tanks” always appealed to a certain segment of Europeans, and the Mustang was of course something utterly unique.
Sure, some were sold, but in minute numbers. Switzerland was a somewhat unique case, as their love of American cars had not yet been tempered because they had no domestic cars of their own. That applies somewhat to The Netherlands, for the same reasons.
But in the countries that had their own domestic car industry, American cars lost the luster they once had. By the mid-late 50s, that was quickly fading. It was precisely the rise of domestic sedans like these four that caused that. Middle-upper class Europeans now had access to cars that better reflected their specific needs, performance, economy and other qualities. American cars were relegated to “special interest” cars.
No quarrel with any of this, Paul; I was focusing on the success of the Valiant as a kind of car, regardless of where built.
Daniel, I meant to leave this earlier as a follow-up to my previous comment, but things intervened.
I was a bit overly negative about the Valiant and its ability to be competitive in Europe. There’s no question that when it arrived in 1960, it was highly competitive there. American compacts like the Valiant were intriguing to the Europeans as they were of course a more practical size for conditions there, and had power and other features that were still not generally available in European cars.
This situation changed steadily as the 1960s went on. That was the decade that the Europeans started building more middle sized sedans, and which were increasingly more accessible to the middle class as their incomes grew strongly.
By the end of the decade, cars like the Valiant, which really didn’t change that much fundamentally, were clearly outclassed precisely by cars like these four and others in this class. By the early 70s, with the Valiant still essentially static, that situation was becoming a bit lopsided.
There’s no question that in the countries that made cars in this class (Germany, France, Italy, UK, Sweden) that there was also a chauvinistic element, in strongly favoring their domestic cars, which is why countries like Switzerland and The Netherlands still were buying American cars at a higher rate.
But the Valiant’s technology was essentially static, and the Europeans were evolving quickly, and that really did make the Valiant uncompetitive in most of those markets.
The European press still generally gave good marks to cars like the Valiant in the early 60s, but that of course changed too. There was a major perceptional shift in most European countries during the sixties: at the beginning, many/most American cars were still regarded quite well, even if aspects of them were not so suitable, but by the late 60s this had really changed. The perception had changed, and American cars were increasingly seen as being to conservative and out of touch with the times, and the new European middle class cars like these were widely praised. This was of course a combination of objective and subjective elements.
Europeans may drive “far,” but they still drive far less than their American counterparts.
Americans drive an average of 13,474 miles per year (the latest figures I could find).
In comparison, the Italians drive 8,256 miles per year.
The French drive 7,424 miles per year.
The Germans drive 7,209 miles per year.
The British drive 6,987 miles per year.
The Japanese drive 4,831 miles per year.
Those are all far below the U.S. figure – in some cases, well over 50 percent below the U.S. figure. That difference will definitely affect how fast things wear out, and how often things will break. I doubt it was much different 40 years ago. Failing to account for that difference is entirely on the manufacturer. Step one of any successful business is knowing the wants and needs of potential customers.
As for Europeans driving their cars “harder” than their U.S. counterparts – maybe as compared to suburban U.S. communities, with their nicely paved thoroughfares and benign driving conditions, but not in rural parts of the country. Here in rural Pennsylvania (particularly in the western and northern parts of the state), vehicles are operated in tough winter conditions on rough roads (that often aren’t completely plowed in winter), and are not always garaged.
Regarding the cold parts of Japan – I remember reading in David Halberstam’s book, The Reckoning, that vehicle owners living in the northern Japanese islands put blankets over the hood on cold nights. That alone suggests a much higher level of care than the typical American provides for his or her vehicle. As Halberstam put it, “Americans expected their vehicles to work without pampering,” which is an understatement.
That is still true today. I have relatives in western Pennsylvania…they would think I’ve gone off the deep end if I suggested that they put a blanket over the hood of their vehicle on even the coldest winter nights.
I’ve recently purchased some old Consumer Reports from the 1960s and 1970s. They list the number and type defects they found on various test cars – including some fairly expensive European cars. Let’s just say that it wasn’t just the Americans who needed to learn from the Japanese when it came to build quality and reliability. (For that matter, even the Japanese were still learning – their 1975 Honda Civic CVCC hatchback had a rain leak that allowed a substantial amount of water into the passenger compartment footwell.)
Not only did/do Europeans and Japanese drive significantly less, they also had/have their cars serviced religiously. At considerable expense.
The key difference was that for most Americans, cars were an essential daily necessity, and they treated it as such, demanding more and giving no more attention than necessary.
For most Europeans and Japanese (especially them) cars were more of a luxury object, and they were willing to spend the required funds on them, and if it spent more time at the dealer or garage, they weren’t depended on it for their daily transport.
European cars (with a few exceptions) had serious reliability shortcomings until the Japanese showed up. The European industry was profoundly worried about another Japanese Invasion as had happened in the US. During the decade of the 80s, there was a very concerted effort to improve reliability. Although they never caught up to the levels of the Japanese, it got “good enough” and was a key factor in forestalling that possible invasion. Not unlike what happened in the US, if a bit too late.
I’d suggest that this time was the malaise period for these European cars, though of course Audi was just beginning its ascent. Just a few years earlier, R&T had lauded the two liter B20 update of the 140, but despite fuel injection and 4 wheel disks, this was adapted platform that would at least receive an OHC engine and rack & pinion steering with its 240 update. The Peugeot was already a few years old, but like the Volvo was saddled with and old pushrod engine, and not even fuel injected. The Saab? Like the Audi, FWD, adding OHC and FI and four wheel discs, but still not really realizing the potential of the platform. In just a few years, all these makes would be early adopters of much more capable technology like turbo’s, O2 sensors and feedback mixture control etc and set a benchmark for where this class of “near luxury” car was headed.
I’d go with the Saab, followed by the Audi, Pug, and Volvo in that order. I remember being critical of R&T for seemingly being biased towards “foreign cars” as we usually called them then, although this group of cars makes a good case for why that was. Despite the seemingly full line of cars the American companies made by the early ’70s, they lacked any smaller cars that weren’t all-out economy models (how about the Japanese? Did something like the Toyota Mark II get cross-shopped with European cars like these?) The Japanese were certainly in this market by the late ’70s with the likes of the Toyota Cressida and Datsun 810 (which became the Maxima). Detroit didn’t really get there until the ’80s at earliest, and even then it would be awhile before they were really competitive in the upscale small sedan market.
R&T noted reliability and quality-control problems with all four of these though, so I’m not sure any of these would make for an enjoyable ownership experience. It seems most were sold from small dealers, or large dealers that handled an import or two as a sideline. Finding parts quickly or knowledgeable mechanics probably wasn’t easy.
Peugeot was planning to return to North America a few years ago, but those plans got axed after the Stellantis merger, their CEO believing the money would be better spent trying to revive the Chrysler brand. From a purely financial perspective, can’t say I disagree, but I was looking forward to having new Peugeots here again.
In late 1976 I was a young single guy a couple of years out of school. I was driving a 69 Alfa 1750 Berlina which I loved, but it was quickly dissolving in rust. It could not take Canadian winters. I was planning to buy my first new car and I had narrowed down my choice to a Saab 99 (good winter car) or a BMW 2002 (great sport sedan). I really did like the Saab, but ended up with a BMW. It was the last year for the 2002 and the last BMW sold in NA with a carb. It never ran well until I replaced the carb a couple of years later. With the original carb you could get it set up perfectly and within 2 weeks it would start stalling when idling. It was good practice for heel and toeing as you had to keep your foot on the gas whenever you were sitting at a light.
As much as I love RWD Volvos, I acknowledge that this period was a nadir of quality for them.
And people want to bag on Peugeot & Audi dealers of the era, but Volvo’s dealer network wasn’t very vast at this point, either.
Agree on all points. I do take issue with Uhuhuhuhuh…huhuhuhuh…pushrods LOLROFL huhuhuhuhuh.
Those cars went a bit better here as there were no emmision laws or unleaded fuel, and there were more engine power options from Peugeot that I guess didnt go to the US but all those cars were expensive to buy compared to a sedan from Australia which was bigger thirstier worse handling and nowhere near as comfortable to ride in,not much more powerfull unless you optioned a V8 so thats what sold better.
Unfortunately, the 504 was the price of an optioned Premier, and to bumble about town with automatic and perhaps air and small V8 was more appealing than a rather stark Froggie with a manual and not quite enough go. Folk didn’t get to try the vastly-superior long-distance comfort and handling, in fact, most Aussies just didn’t get the whole better-car thing period.
Someone in Melb once put a 3.5 Rover V8 in a 504. I’d love that!
My mother had a 74 Audi 100LS. She had had a new 74 Pinto wagon for a year or less in order to get the 74 Audi. It was her first foreign car and the families second after my father’s company Porsche. It was an automatic and I do remember it having a nice interior compared to the more plasticy American cars. It rode well with four adults in it. Handled fine given what I was used to in the early 70s. Great visibility. Decent acceleration. Well far better than the Pinto.
It was eventually traded in for a new 82 BMW 320i. The only mechanical thing I recall were the brakes. When I went to take a look at replacing them and pulled a tire off I went who the hell puts the rotors inboard. Thus ended my brake job.
Boy, the unleaded compression ratios did a number on the old Pug. They’re not remotely wrong in saying a buyer might want to test an automatic, as it “might” be unacceptable. I’ve driven auto, leaded 504’s – and THEY are unacceptable!
To give an idea of the leaded difference, a manual ’72 model here tested at 12.8 secs for 0-60. They even a bit under-powered at that, or a bit over-bodied, as that motor was never too thrilling to work hard. With lots less go in this test, it just knocks out the car that is the best dynamically from consideration. A great pity, though it seems most US responses consider it odd-looking, a handicap hard to surmount anyway.
Yet again, Americans (and Australians) lapped up Volvos by the dozen, and they looked like a bad mood and constipation on wheels (not to mention the drunk handling and consistently big thirst), so who knows.
It’s a pretty bad indictment of the US industry that not one maker offered 4-wheel discs in ’72. Nor, I’d hazard a guess, IRS (except Corvette). Nor even rear-brake proportioning valves? Btw, the Pug had one, and it must have been malfunctioning: they had and have terrific bakes, (but no in-line fuel filter – perhaps the classic Euro-reliability-fail-in-the-US exemplified!)
I’m not surprised the Audi was the winner, and curiously it had the longest warranty too, ironic since my memories of it from others was that it had hand grenade reliability, which seems to persist to a degree to this day. And ironically the Volvo, which has, or at least had, a bulletproof reputation had only a 6 month warranty. I would have liked to have seen the BMW Bavaria in here, I think it would have lapped the field, but it was probably way to expensive compared to the others.
With the possible exception of the Audi, they were all good cars for the era. In somewhat different ways, but good cars compared to things like Vegas and Mavericks. I’d have been glad to drive any of them when they were current. Of course they were challenged by the era, bad carbs most notably and low power, but they had a lot of company in that respect.
The publishing company I worked for in London in the early 1970s ran this Audi. It looked nice (a sort of metallic blue), but it was unreliable and by the time they sold it rust was visible. The whole thing seemed very flimsy. A friend bought a Volvo wagon at about the same time, and was still running it in 1990, about 17 years later, when I sold him my 1986 Rover 216 Vitesse (actually quite a good car, if too low-geared and hence noisy). Those Volvos were barges, but they did last. A neighbour had a Peugeot 504 wagon, which was reliable and practical, but looked very tatty very quickly. Although they were very popular in harsh African and Middle Eastern conditions. No salt on the roads there of course. For what it’s worth.
I presently own a Saab identical to the one in this test – a 1972 99E4M. I’ve owned Saabs for almost 42 years and I agree with many of the comments in the R&T article. It’s still fun to drive and keeps up fine with traffic though screams along the highway at 55-60 even with a 4 speed manual. It gets 25 mpg, although I drive it conservatively. The 1,85 Triumph engine was ultimately installed in the TR7 and feels much like the B engine that was redesigned somewhat and improved by Saab for the 1973 model year, though I’d hazard a guess that the earlier engine is easier to get parts for today.
My parents owned both a ‘67 144 4 speed and ‘69 164 automatic from new and both were dogs and mechanically troublesome. My mom used to say the Volvo could last 11 years (referring to the period advertising) but all the parts were replaced by that time. My dad looked at the 99 but thought the dealer network was too spotty and the 100LS wad too cheap and plasticky inside, though they did ultimately trade the 164 on a new Audi 5000 in 1978 which ended up being troublesome after the first two years of ownership.
I bought a ‘76 99 in 1980 as my first car; I couldn’t find any 2002s in my budget that weren’t rust buckets. I’ve owned many new and antique cars since then and for many of the reasons set forth in the R&T article, the Saab 99 is still among my favorite cars. You certainly don’t see yourself coming and going. They were pretty much used up by the mid-80s.
Given the driving conditions as well as the Heat & Humidity that IS New Orleans; please add my name to the small list of those here who would had been better satisfied with an early 1970’s Dart or Valiant in which I had “worked the options list” to my tastes (V8 engine, Torqueflite automatic, factory air conditioning, power steering, power front disc brakes, exterior chrome and interior upgrade packages).
I owned (briefly) almost every car in this R&T test. Although they certainly had some good points; none were what I would have chosen for “the long haul” here in #NOLA.
The closest American equivalent in ’72 was probably a Maverick LDO. Anyone know what those retailed for?
Here is the window sticker from mine. $3,495.43 with options. It was a 2-door though…