Call me crazy, call me nerdy. But one of my favorite cars of all time, just to stare at for hours, is the original Valiant. Within a short three years, it would become the definition of the automotive appliance. But for those three years of its life, Valiant was the wildest peacock of the Big 3 compacts.
Out of the three domestic compacts introduced in the fall of 1959, visually the Valiant had no precedent. The Corvair could reference both roof styles with contemporary large GM hardtops. The Falcon had large afterburner tail lights in common with its larger brethren, except, oddly, in 1960.
Not so much the Valiant. There’s elements of the 1958 Imperial D’elegance concept roller.
But I also see elements of the original Studebaker Champion in the Valiant. Fascinating to me considering Virgil Exner had a hand in designing the original 1939 Champion under Raymond Loewy. Like the Champion, the Valiant was a clean sheet design. Thematically the Champion seemed a spiritual ancestor to the Valiant more so than the dowdy, over engineered Cranbrooks, Cambridges and Concords that were the Plymouth practical bread and butter in the early 1950s.
But the Valiant continued to display Chrysler’s long established reputation for engineering prowess. It was also one of the first cars designed using computers. The taut “Torsion-Aire” suspension, the easy to use pushbutton TorqueFlite, and the seemingly indestructible Slant 6 were attached to its unit body. Special care was paid to sound deadening and vibration control to make the Valiant seem less removed from a larger, more traditional mid century American Sedan.
It rode the second shortest wheelbase in it’s class (106.5 inches) but at 184.5 inches long it was almost 10 inches longer than a Lark. The interior afforded more leg room than either Falcon or Corvair. Also, reflecting its higher entry price the interior wasn’t as spartan as a standard Falcon or Corvair 500.
According to Allpar the Valiant almost ended up a lot like the Corvair. The Slant 6 started as a Slant 4 mounted out back, but didn’t produce enough torque for American tastes and was soon upsized to a 6. The stories from the GM proving grounds scared Chrysler engineers to approach their interpretation of the “rationalization” of the American sedan from a more traditional stance. The slant six was named such because of its 30 degree angle slant towards the passenger side of the car.
Due to its longer intake runners and other engineering tricks, it was a superior performer to a majority of the 6 cylinders offered by competitors. At 101 standard horsepower, the 170 cube version ran 0-60 times in the 15-17 second range (depending on which source), which put it a 3-4 seconds ahead of the Corvair, and up to 9-10 seconds ahead of a dawdling Falcon wheezing through it’s 144 Six and a FordOMatic. The Hyper Pak equipped versions shamed the Corvair and Falcon in a special compacts only 1960 Daytona 500 event. The Valiants took the first Seven positions in the race. On the second day, the first place Valiant averaged 122mph.
So, if the original Valiant was so superior at everything, why was it the (seemingly) most unloved of the first Big 3 compacts? Although it sold 194, 000+ units in it’s first year, that trailed the Corvair’s 250,000 or the 435,000+ Falcons that spewed like ants out of Ford factories throughout the nation. In 1961 and 1962 the sales stayed pretty much steady, never really breaking out of the 150K range. The main reason I can attribute is the curious styling.
The original Valiant looks like nothing that came out of American design studios at the time. There’s a lot of classic design elements trying to break through. The front fender brow hints at trying to have a separate fender look, as does the radius curve around the rear wheel that flows into the slanted fins. The most awkward element of the Valiant to me is the way the roofline was handled on the two door cars. As shown on this 1962 2 door there was still a six window look. It was also retained on the V200/Signet Hardtops.
It gives the upper body structure of the 2 door Valiants a rather pregnant look compared to the smooth taper of the Corvair, or the faux pretense of a Falcon Futura 2 door with it’s square C pillars cribbed from the Thunderbird. I think the reason was a cost saving measure, so all Valiant non-wagons could use the same roof stampings (and perhaps windows). But I’m not sure. [Ed: I am sure]
Another curious throwback of the Valiant design is how far the passenger cabin sits above the fender line. In contrast to even with the beltline design of almost every other American car of the period, the Valiant harkens back to a school of design that says that says film noir more than Fellini. It’s very retro modern in that way. And perhaps details like these hampered its appeal.
But, the Valiant has a fan in me. And my favorite element of the original Valiant has to be its fantastic face. It’s the most complete face out of all of the American Compacts on offer in original form. The Corvair’s face didn’t look quite right until the 1961 nose surgery that gave it more cargo capacity. The Falcon looked decidedly unfinished and cheap in it’s 1960-61 face.
I know it’s pretty much is a downsized form of a Chrysler 300 Letter series front end. It’s not a “pretty” face. It’s a rather masculine look. But the detail involved with making such an expressive visage gives the Valiant a premium look that contemporaries could not match. Well, until the 1961 B-O-P Luxury compacts did LeSabre, Eighty Eight and Catalina in miniature.
My father’s second car was the Valiant’s slightly more upscale sister ship, the Lancer (in GT Hardtop form) after he had a a disastrous relationship with a Corvair 500 sedan. Although I seriously think the disaster part of the Corvair relationship is that he had to knock the battery terminals off with a stick to turn it off. He highly regarded the Lancer as a great car, and had he not fallen into the Cutlass Cult then sweeping baby boomers in the late 1960s, he might have stayed Mopar loyal.
Or was it the fact that the Valiant grew too plain to catch the eyes of those that wanted more visual bang for their buck. It’s remarkable how quickly the Valiant turned into the functional equivalent of a Camry in looks. The 1963 model, although available in Convertible form, turned up a more crisply tailored version of Falcon design themes.
The brave warrior face was replaced with the face of an accountant in 1963. He was no longer standing on his own 4 tires as an independent from his parents make. In puberty, dear Lance gained 5 inches in wheelbase and the show car design (with elements from the Turbine Coupe) and got a big boy name: Dart. Prince Valiant became the lowliest of Plymouths, now in the shadow of his flashier, more well endowed brother Dart.
When they graduated High School 4 years later Prince Valiant became the CPA.
While brother Dart became Joe Namath:
And that was perhaps the final nail in the coffin for Plymouth as a whole. All of the best accomplishments got better accolades as Dodges. Whether it was the massive damage the 1960 Darts did to Fury sales, or Lancer becoming the sportier Dart, or the fact that there’s a Dodge line to revive the Challenger for today instead of a Plymouth line to reincarnate the Barracuda for. The image of Plymouth didn’t handle the outreach to sporty compacts or broughams very well.
But once the Valiant was brave enough to be unique and march to a different drum. Like most cars of the 1960s, there’ll never be another car like it.
Thanks for that one, great choice! Long ago I owned a ’62 4-door Dodge Lancer in Pistachio Ice Cream Green with the 170 /6, pushbutton automatic, and under-dash A/C. Loved that car, wish I still had it today…
Nice article on an often overlooked car.
The Valiant’s styling didn’t help sales, but there were other factors that hampered its ability to compete in the marketplace.
The first was its build quality, which was the worst of the compacts on the market. Chrysler had major problems with body fit and inconsistent build quality in this era. A driver taking his or her Valiant out in the rain could expect to find puddles – or even pools – of water in the trunk or back seat floor.
The second was how Chrysler marketed the Valiant in 1960. It was marketed simply as the Valiant – not the Plymouth Valiant. People didn’t know how to react to it, or where it stood in the corporate lineup. At least the Falcon was the Ford Falcon, and the Corvair was the Chevrolet Corvair. Buyers knew where to find those cars, and where they stood in their respective divisional lineups.
Chrysler also took away the Plymouth franchise from its Dodge dealers that year. Until 1960, Plymouth had been dualed with other Chrysler Corporation makes, an arrangement that dated back to the Great Depression. In the booming postwar market, this was seen as a handicap, as dealers wanted to sell buyers maybe one Plymouth, and then encourage them to “trade up” to the more profitable Dodge, DeSoto or Chrysler next time.
In 1960, Chrysler gave Dodge dealers the Plymouth-like Dart as compensation. Two Chrysler Corporation cars were competing directly with each other. Dart ads even encouraged prospects to compare the Dart to “Car C,” “Car F” and “Car P”! It didn’t help that the 1960 Plymouth was considered unattractive then – an assessment that holds true today.
Even worse, long-time customers who went to what had been the friendly Plymouth-Dodge dealer discovered that it no longer sold Plymouths. The dealer wasn’t about to direct them to another dealer to buy a Plymouth or a Valiant, especially with the low-cost Dart right there on the showroom floor!
Looking back, it’s amazing that Chrysler sold as many first-generation Valiants as it did.
That would explain, considering about 500K of the 60-62 Valiants alone were produced, that they’re so thin on the ground now. Compared to the 1963-66 Valiant (Or Corvairs and Falcons for that matter), there’s remarkably few left. I always chalked it up to how weird they looked and that fed into them being unloved. I guess a fair bit of rust damage took their toll on these first series cars.
Right on, Laurenece! I lived in (and love) Alameda – I can tell some of these pix are Alameda/Oakland and there are MONDO clean, daily old cruisers (Mopars especially) out and about the streets of Alameda/Oakland/Berkeley/San Leandro/Hayward/etc. etc. etc.
Good article. Mopar’s worst enemy was Mopar itself. ChryCo mgt (L.L. Colbert, K.T. Keller, Newberg, etc.) were usually ex-Dodge men, and when Dodge whined, Dodge got what they wanted – usually at the expense (and demise) of Plymouth and DeSoto.
BTW – the relatives in Missouri – ’30′s through the ’70′s in my family – were loyal Moparians. As a small boy, my late Uncle Bill had a blue ’62 Dodge Signet, followed by a 318 Dodge Coronet SE followed by the infamous turd-brown over brown paisely topped ’71 Plymouth Gran Fury followed by his last Mopar (after which he went and stayed Ford) a shit-box, rattling, troublesome ’78 Plymouth Gran Fury wagon. I car, I remember back when he had it new, even at the height of America’s Malaise Era (I was 19)- this car was an ill-fitting assembled, rattling SHIT BOX.
I love Mopars!
The Red Valiant is in Palo Alto, and the daily driver of some guy I went to High School with that tries to outdork his last daily driver with something even more dorky. Before the ’61 Valiant he had a 1963 Ambassador. The Seafoam 62 Valiant, from what I can guess, is someones that had it since their days in the Navy, cause it had a few Alameda Naval Station decals on the bumper and in the windows. I actually caught it in El Cerrito, after tooling through North Berkeley into Albany on Key Route Boulevard.
I didn’t want to go too deeply into the downfall of Plymouth (or DeSoto) for that matter. Paul has done that great multi part series on Chrysler’s many “to the brink” moments, but I also wanted the story to be open to all of the Chrysler Products involved. For instance, if someone ever finds a 1960 Dart Seneca or something. Or a 1961 DeSoto.
But I do think around 1960 is when the rot for Plymouth really started to set in. Plymouth’s weren’t able to successfully build on the “Suddenly It’s 1960″ image. For whatever reason Plymouth wasn’t able to bring the affordable sport/luxury cachet that Chevrolet (and to a lesser extent) Ford brought to it’s full sized line. I would say it had to do with the fact that Plymouth buyers didn’t make the Fury the best selling brand in the Plymouth line like Chevy buyers made Impalas the best sellers in the line. Maybe it was the demographic that traditional Plymouth buyers were less into frills and luxury, and those new Plymouth buyers that liked the 1957 Models where scared away by the quality control issues.
Which makes me wonder about the position of Dodge a lot. I always equated 1950s-60s Dodges as equals of Pontiacs. But, Pontiacs didn’t always dip as far into Chevrolet territory as Dodge did Plymouth. And that’s where I really don’t get Dodge’s relative success in the 1960s compared to Plymouth during the decade. You didn’t necessarily get a better car like the difference between an Impala and a Catalina, for instance. And at least from 1960-64 Dodge styling is equally goofy as Plymouth (I actually for one prefer the 1960 Plymouth to Dodge).
My error – I meant my Uncle’s ’62 LANCER’ (oops)!.
The light blue ’62 Valiant (’62?) Cal Black Plate “BRR 365″ is an appropriate license plate since the slant 6 and Torqueflite 6 would go “b-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r” away from a dead stop!
And . .. nothing says Mopar like the sound of a Hammtramck Whiner starter in the distance!
Chew – dew -dew – dew -dew -dew VRROOOM . . . . (idle) b-r-r-r-r-r-r-r (if a slant six). Bay Area cars – not just Alameda/Contra Costa county but the whole S.F. Bay Area has MONDO clean cruisers-a-plenty in daily service.
GO (World Champion S.F.) GIANTS!
Geeber – I believe the Valiant (and to a lesser extent 1st gen Dodge Signet) should’ve used Studebaker’s early-60s slogan – “different – by design!”
I noticed there were no photos of the perforated cardboard – or was it Masonite? – headliner. That too speaks for the quality of those first Valiants/Lancers. My aunt had one with the under-dash A/C – Air-Temp did a fair job with that one, as it worked pretty well. But the rest of the car – those interior shots bring it all back to me! My aunt’s car was white with blue interior. A real oddball. The oddest of all were the hardtops that still had a fixed C pillar window! But I will never complain about that! Visibility, visibility, visibility.
I love the little oddball’s styling. To me these always looked (on the outside) like what the stylists of the 40s and 50s were telling us the “CAR OF THE FUTURE!” would look like. One of the reasons I love old cars is they sure were distinctive. Today every manufacturer has a midsize and a compact that if you saw just the outlines of the car you’d be hard pressed to guess the parent company (for most of them.) Just my 2 cents.
I too am a fan of the early Valiant. Virgil Exner seemed to develop a fascination with voluptiously styled Italian cars, and his later efforts at Chrysler carry these influences. But this car is probably the clearest example of that design language (also exemplified by the 62 Fury & Dart and the 63 Chrysler).
As with most Mopars of those years, if you could get past the build-quality issues and the looks, you got a heckuva car. You got Way more engine, and (gasp) a 3 speed Torqueflite automatic (a better automatic than you could get in the most expensive Impala over at Chevrolet). But the looks were probably off-putting to most people. I thought the wagons were the best looking, actually. Of the sedans, I preferred the 60-61 with the cats eye taillights to the 62 with the bland round taillights. I will agree that the 2 door sedan just looks kind of dumb.
When I was a kid, some family friends had one of these. The husband was an engineer, so he was probably in Chrysler’s core demographic then. His wife drove a baby blue 4 door with the pushbutton automatic. As a little kid, I was fascinated by the pushbuttons, and also by the pedals that looked like it was covered by little suction cups (like octopus tentacles). The butt with the little winking cat’s eye taillights looked like no other car, then or since. The famous Exner fake spare tire on the deck lid (shown on your red car) was the finishing touch.
I saw one of these a year or two ago, and was struck by how small it was outside and how roomy it was inside. When I was in college with my 59 Fury, another kid on my dorm floor had a light gray 62 Lancer. We both loved the pushbutton transmissions and had by far the most unique cars on our floor.
edit: I remember one other feature of these cars – the ever present fuel stain flowing down the paint under the fuel filler cap. You can see it in the white 2 door picture. These things must have burped gas out of that fill pipe like mad, because evey one I ever saw looked this way when they were older.
The Valiant was available with the fake tire outline on the deck lid for 1960-61. It was not available in 1962, if I recall correctly.
I always thought that the perfect domestic compact for 1960 would have been a Falcon body and (deluxe) interior with a Valiant chassis and drivetrain, built by Ford. Which, except for the built-by-Ford part, is what Chrysler gave us in 1963.
Anyone here notice the very, very STRONG similarity to the original Studebaker Lark?
And that similarity just grew, when the Lark got quad headlights. I have to wonder, who was copying who? Were BOTH designs farmed out, to maybe different doors of the same concern? Or was there some design espionage? And if so, who copied WHO…since both came out about the same time?
I doubt that there was deliberate copying by either Chrysler or Studebaker.
Exner had always been in love with bold grilles, as shown by the 1957 Chrysler 300C. He originally wanted to apply that front-end treatment to ALL 1957 Chryslers, but management vetoed that idea as too radical. Exner did apply the 300 grille theme to the Valiant.
Studebaker, meanwhile, had the distribution rights to Mercedes-Benz vehicles in the United States. The Hawks of the 1950s also had a bold front grille. The 1959 Lark can either been seen as an attempt to create a family resemblance between the Hawk and the Lark, or an attempt to add a Mercedes touch to a mundane family compact.
According to Virgil Exner, Jr., who worked on the original Lark, the inspiration for the grille was Lancia, not Mercedes. But yes, it was intended to create a resemblance to the Hawk.
Funny that you mention that: check back in a few hours for the next CC today.
Not exactly coincidental, but not in the way you might think.
Virgil Exner, Jr. worked under Duncan McRae at Studebaker when the ’59 Lark was designed, and did a few pieces of the Lark (I think the taillights, mainly). He told Special Interest Autos in 1977 that the McRae had really liked Chrysler’s Ghia-built show cars of the mid-fifties — which of course Virgil Exner Sr. had designed — and those themes influenced the Lark (although the grille was inspired by Lancia).
Studebaker designers were likely aware when the Lark went on sale that the Valiant was in the works — it was approved for production in July 1958, at which point the Lark was about to begin preproduction — but I doubt one directly influenced the other. I think it’s more that both had common stylistic and thematic antecedents in Virgil Exner Sr.’s earlier work, applied to cars of very similar dimensions and proportions. Cousins, in short.
@Just Passin: OK, it wasn’t just me. My great-Uncle had a 1962 Lark VIII, which could have been easily mistaken for an early Valiant at a quick glance.
The other thing is the Lark is a pretty boxy car, and the early Valiants were as far from boxy as a car could get back then. But I have to admit, as a 7 year old, their facial resemblance confused me.
I agree that the wagons were better looking than the sedans. This is one of my all-time favorite cars for looks. To me, it’s the automotive epitome of art deco. They came out when I was six, and I was immediately enchanted. I’m still enchanted. That was the car that got me photographing cars. The head of the MIT Day Camp, where my brother and I went when I was 7, had a wagon, and I was absolutely thrilled to get a ride home in that thing one day.
The quality seemed really good. Several years later, I was in a carpool where one of the dads had one. That thing–a ’60, I think–could whiz up Belmont Hill on Concord AVe. in third gear. Our ’57 Chevy 210 wagon, and later, our ’63 Chevy II wheezed up that hill in second. That Valiant didn’t rattle, either.
Hi David ! Thanks for commenting on the 1962 Plymouth Valiant station wagons ! I REALLY like those cars !! I know you have great taste in automtive car designs as I own TWO ’62 Valiant wagons…………………..how sick is that !! You can view my wagon on the website : Valiantville…….. where you see other ‘ 60 – ’62 Valiants as well !! Enjoy, I can be contacted at : been2abbeyroad@hotmail.com – THANK YOU !! Ray
I wish that the 1962 Signet had the 60-61 taillights. Just like I wish the Mercury Comet kept it’s slanted 1960 Edsel tail lamps for the first convertibles in 1963. To me the Signet (even with it’s “pregnant” roofline) is the best looking (the cleanest trim, the most 300 of front ends).
Its is possessive, it’s is a contraction of it is.
Sorry, not usually an English nazi but this was just too bugsome in this article.
The editor has been a bit lax (summer distractions); but it’s fixed now.
I do enjoy these as well as most oddball cars. The styling is just wild. I suspect this was the inspiration for The Homer car on the Simpsons. While I like the Valiant the grill is a big over sized to me. The 1962 Dodge Lancer GT pulled off the same body style a little bit more gracefully.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/daveseven/4819738164/
Lancer did pull it off better than Valiant. As much as I enjoy oddball cars I just can’t find a lot of love for the early Valiant. It’s just so out there. And I love the other odd ducks from Mopar.
I have always assumed the car Homer Drives is a rather beat-up Pink Cadillac Sedan, perhaps a former Mary KAy Cadillac. I have always hoped for an episode about how Homer’s car came into their possession. Does anyone have any theories on this?
Marge’s car I assume to be about a 1974 Chevelle Wagon, Though it also sort of ressembles a 1964ish Plymouth wagon, but I could be way off. Has anyone else here ever given any thought to this?
I also figured Homer’s car was a tired Caddy, and was so transfixed by its tail fins, I never noticed Marge’s car!
I wonder which vehicle might’ve been the inspiration for the Canyonero.
Is it just me or does this era Valiant look like the design inspiration for the Nissan Juke?
Chrysler put 14 inch wheels on this and created an Aussie car it competed with the HoldenFB and the Falcon Zephyr Vauxhall Cresta out here and did well We only got the 4 door model and only the 225 engine, These cars did well down under unlike the Falcon which fell to pieces the Valiant was well designed and tough and it was up there with Vauxhalls on comfort and performance only downside was tyre and fuel consumption by local standards they were thirstybut very popular these finally put the Crabrook/Royal out to pasture although the two were produced for a couple of years and established Chrysler as a local car maker Todd motors assembled NZ versions alongside Humber Super Snipes and Minxes a very well reguarded car in NZ better thought of than in OZ where the term ethnic express/wog mecedes was coined due to the bulk of buyers hailing from southern Europe, Real rare cars now and worth big bucks all Vals are thin on the ground now victims of rust and $10 gas,shame.
Great article, sir! A++++
When I was a kid the folks across the street had a green one of these. I liked it a bunch except for the fake spare tire thing on the trunk.
The Slant Six rocked.
My parents rented one of these after a car accident we were involved in. During a left hand turn at a Detroit traffic light, the right rear door popped open, deposited me on the roadway, and my parents never even knew it happened.
I have to admit the thought of your parents driving off oblivious as the door reclosed gave me a rather good laugh.
It seems to me I have heard of this happening in this model of car before.
I’ve heard that more often about Studebaker Hawk Coupes: Accidental tumbles out of the car on hard left turns.
doors popping open was not such a rare occurrence back then. It happened at least once on our ’57 Chevy, but luckily I did not fall out.
I always preferred this to the Falcon or Corvair. I liked the original “Cat’s eye” taillights , which are a little similar to those found on the original 61 Comet.
The taillight/fin/trunk of the revised 62′ Valiant remind me of a miniature version of the 1957 Cadillac ElDorado. rear end. Does anyone else see the similarities?
Crazy! Nerdy! (You did ask us after all.)
Nice write up on one of my favorites. I don’t have much to say – Bryce beat me to it. So I’ll simply add another picture of one that an Australian “hoon” got his hands on (I refer to identifying marks of a hoon owned car: the raised rear, tramp rods/bars, center roof radio aerial, & moon roof).
The car looked like ass.
I’ve always loved the look of the 60-61 Valiant. I owned a 60 V-200 Wagon back in 98-99. Maybe I’m weird but it seems that the 63 on up Valiants are considered to be way more popular than the 60-62. They are just boxes with no personality. When I had mine I went to a junkyard that dealt in vintage cars. I inquired about 60-62 Valiant parts. Nope, we crushed them all years ago was the answer. I was forced to sell mine and the new owner informed that he was going to convert my baby to a two door. I figured who ever got it would screw it up by doing something heinous to it. I don’t know if he ever did it but I did wonder how it would have looked.
I have a 62 valiant, 2 dr hd top, bucket seats. Need alittle work slant 6 , push button His name is Joe we live in Oregon