Curbside Classics takes you back to 1971 for a virtual comparison test of six small cars, based (and partly borrowed) from a C/D test. Car #3 is here.
I don’t have any shots of the Simca 1204. (Update: I still don’t, two years later, but njsimca allowed me acces to his Simca collection on his Flickr page; there’s lots more there) I haven’t seen one in over twenty-five years; have you? So I’m taking my lifeline (to Google images). The Simca 1100/1204 was such a remarkable and historically significant car, perhaps the most influential small car since WWII. Its DNA is in every transverse-engine FWD hatchback in the world. The VW Golf was a perfect crib of the Simca wearing a handsome Italian suit. Plus, j’aime les voitures françaises. And the Simca almost won the C/D test. It should have won. So forgive me, but we’re going to have show and tell without the show.
C/D gave the little tall hatchback quite the glowing (and accurate) write-up: “The Simca differs from all the other cars in two important ways: it was designed to be comfortable and efficient transportation rather than simply a car, and it is French. Except for the styling (subjective) and high-speed cruising ability, it is superior to the (winner) in almost every way.” So why didn’t it win? C/D sucking up to their biggest advertiser who cancelled their ads after the trashing of one of their cars?
Given how boring, cheap, predictable and ugly most small French cars have become in recent times, it’s hard to fully appreciate how innovative, influential and fun they once were. I’m going to avoid a full-on Francophile paean to their automotive glories, because it would become a book. And the well-known heroes like the Citroën Traction-Avant, DS and 2CV are common knowledge. But the French way of building cars extended to the lesser makes as well, even Chrysler’s subsidiary Simca.
It started from the bottom up with the suspension. OK, we all know the horrors of the complicated and leaking Citroën hydropneumatic bladders. But the plebian Simca had a long-travel torsion-bar suspension that worked superbly and didn’t leak. Yes, like all French cars back then, the Simca looked like it was going to fall over in the curves. But that didn’t really slow it down much, especially since it was the only car in this comparison riding on sticky radials. Combined with the superb deeply-sprung seats, the Simca, like most French cars of the era, created a feeling of well-being that was head and shoulders above the typical hard-riding penalty-box small cars of the time. This still applies today: what I would give for some of that suppleness in my harsh xBox.
But the real historical significance of the Simca 1100/1204 was its configuration. It was THE forerunner of all modern small FWD hatchbacks: transverse side-by-side engine and transmission, a relatively boxy and roomy but compact body, and a cavernous hatch to transform the rear into a virtual wagon. All the characteristics of every Golf-class and other small cars (built around the globe by the hundreds of millions) started right here.
Yes, other cars previously had parts of this recipe for success. The Autobianchi Primula of 1964 gets a supporting role award, but its engine-transmission layout followed the dead-end BMC formula, and its rear seat didn’t fold down (or did it?). Anyway, none combined all the elements like the Simca. And none were as directly copied like it. And despite the 1204 being a flop in the US, the Simca 1100 was a big success in Europe. Launched in 1967, sales grew strongly, and it became the best selling French car, with 300k units built in 1973.
Simca was already on its last legs in the US when it tossed the 1204 our way as its swan song. A dearth of dealers, suspect reputation, and indifference to innovation made the French proto-Golf a rare bird from day one. But in 1977, I met a fellow automotive Franco-phile in L.A. who had one and let me take it for a spin. The feeling of slipping into something very different was palpable. Comfortable, tall, narrow, weird instrument panel. Ergonomics were not as high on the list of priorities of French cars as comfort and all-round practicality.
A slightly enlarged version of the rear-engined Simca 1000 OHV four powered the 1100/1204. It was a willing if somewhat buzzy mill. And it developed a reputation for certain weaknesses in its upper regions. Nevertheless, despite being the smallest mill in this test, it was the third fastest with a 14.6 in the 0-60. But it just didn’t quite cut the mustard on American freeways. And that French reputation of questionable longevity hung over it like the smell of a freshly-cut Camembert cheese.
The 1204 was just a bit ahead of its time in the US. It needed a modern 1.5 and a 5-speed for serious freeway work. My cousin in Austria had an 1100, and we took some great trips together in it. It was right at home in the narrow streets and twisty Alpine roads of Tirol. My love for French cars would soon flower into a fleet of rugged and reliable Peugeot 404s, but I credit the Simca for that first French kiss.
C/D fell in love too: “we were not prepared for the high level of quality throughout. Its basic structure was so extremely solid that the car was totally without rattles or squeaks…it is a highly sophisticated machine that offers maximum comfort and utility in its class…it is a mystery that Chrysler Corporation keeps it a secret.” Good point. Chrysler should have sold them at Plymouth dealers to get the jump on the copycat Golf/Rabbit.
Instead, they imported the miserable Cricket from England. After that disaster, and the Golf/Rabbit’s success, Chrysler copied the Golf’s looks for the Horizon/Omni, which otherwise was heavily based on the 1100/1204. And the ubiquitous K-cars in turn were the fruit of Chrysler’s experience with the Americanized Horizon.
So who needs photos of the Simca? Every time you see a Reliant, LeBaron, Dodge 600, Caravan, Maserati TC or a host of other K-car derivatives, you’re looking at the Simca’s direct genetic offspring. But that’s another CC story (or two). And I already have the photos.
Postscript: njsimca also sent in this picture of the 1978 Simca Matra Rancho, based on the Simca 1100/1204. It’s a very under appreciated pioneer of the CUV category, and deserves another parting look.
Car #3 is here.
Plus the 1100 was the basis for the first soft-roader the
blast! the hyperlink tag broke, so Matra Rancho http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matra_Rancho
I bought a new 1204 station wagon at a Chrysler dealer in Arlington VA for delivery in Paris. It was 1970, and the price was $1540 with a top rack. It had the most comfortable seats of any car I’ve ever owned, and was a thoroughly modern design. I even towed a little camping trailer on the Autobahn. The reason you don’t see them now is rust; my floor boards fell out after 4 years and 60,000 miles. But very fond memories anyway
My great grandfather had one of these for many years until he traded it in for a Datsun B210 Honeybee
How ironic that he replaced such a high-tech marvel with such a dull-as-dishwater appliance!
njsimca: I just added some of the shots from your flickr page. Thanks!
You said it, Paul, all modern cars owe their success to the trailblazing Simca 1100 and 1204. Other automakers took years to catch up! And, years later, the Simca 1307 and Horizon each won car of the year in Europe (the Horizon in the USA, too!) just before Chrysler sold everything they owned outside of the United States, so you know they must have needed that dollar!
And, YES, another first: considering the true goal of a soccer mom’s suv, to sit up a little higher and to have a little more car around her, then the Rancho is, indeed the worlds first. And, it’s looks just scream, “LET’S HAVE FUN!!”
Here’s the Matra Simca Rancho and the Talbot Matra Rancho compared:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/njsimca/5492783248/
Best Regards,
Matt Cotton
Lake Parsippany, NJ
I just had to add that Rancho pic, at the end of the piece. Thanks again.
Anytime, Paul! I love my French cars, and don’t get nearly enough time to yak about them!!
From the very un-FWD-like short front overhang, it appears the Simca 1204 has the differential and half shafts ahead of the engine block, unlike all transverse-engine FWD cars today.
It always puzzles me why no one does it this way anymore. It provides better weight distribution, and the short overhang looks better. Of course the conventional layout gives more interior room relative to the wheelbase length. But there are many 2-door FWD coupes not noted for space efficiency anyway, while the superior weight distribution and short overhang should certainly enhance “sportiness.”
I agree, Kitaikki!
The French started out this way, with the Citroen Traction Avant, the DS, 2CV and Ami, and the Renault 4 and 5 and this R16. The longitudinal placement of the engine behind the transmission not only gives great weight distribution, but a nice open front floor, no hump from the front wheels!! Plus, you can reach both sides of the engine and fit the spare under the hood, too!!
Obviously, some dingbat in Japan decided that switching it all every whichaway and installing MacPherson struts in every car from now on would save eleven cents per car, so that’s what we all do now!! And, yes, I understand that the transverse engine saves some space, but is that all that important once the car is above mini-sized?
I DO miss when cars were interesting… sigh.
Renault R16 proportions: http://www.flickr.com/photos/njsimca/3475596961/in/set-72157612174960210/
njsimca
I meant to say that the “front mid engine” layout can be done with transverse engines too (like this Simca, which also appears to have the engine block tilted forward 45 degrees). There is no reason the different/half shaft assembly can’t be placed in front of the transverse engine block/transmission instead of behind them. Doing it this way also allows the steering rack to be placed ahead of the front axle, improving steering precision (all modern rear drive designs have the steering linkage ahead of the front axle)
I am not sure who started the modern conventional transverse FWD layout. I think early Hondas were this way (N360/N600, Civic), as well as the first VW Golf. I believe all of the non-Simca French designs you mentioned had longitudinal inline engines.
Agree that today we have less variety and fewer “adventurous” designs. Just try to find a car with a front bench seat and totally flat floor … Or a manual transmission with column shift … Or spare tire in the engine compartment
When a FWD car with its engine aft of the center line of the front wheels accelerates, engine weight transfers off the front wheels and onto the rear ones. This is not the key to climbing snowy hills. Between traction issues and packaging, none of the companies that once built mid engined FWD cars are still at it.
Many drivetrain layouts are not optimized for snowy hill climbs. If that were the goal, then cars should all have engines in the back. As for packaging, there are many 2 door “sporty” coupes that are not optimized for space. Front mid engine designs have advantages in handling and styling, both good for “sporty” cars.
One more good thing about front mid engine: New pedestrian safety regulations. With the engine block further back, there is more pedestrian “crumple space” in front, allowing designers to better streamline the front end of the car (better aerodynamics and styling, as well as driver visibility)
Excuse me for assuming you were honestly asking a question.
hey NJsimca– used to work in Whippany & Parssipany !!
With a quick glance, that Rancho looks just like one of those dolled up (poseur) Land Rover Discoveries.
Hey, Fast, if you ever get back, show me the Alfa!
Isn’t it great how Land Rover’s made the latest Discover look like a 30-year-old French beauty! And, the real beauty of the Rancho was that you COULD fit a motorcycle in the back, and still get 25mpg, too!
I hated the one ride I’ve had in the LR DIsco, I felt SO unsafe, I just KNEW we were going to tip right over, and that was on pavement! And the ride was awful and I felt cramped!
I’d rather have been in an old 109 or something, at least I felt confident that it wouldn’t flip over!
I have no direct experience with the Simcas, but I remember seeing plenty of them in Germany. One thing your post reminded me of, is the dearth of comfortable small cars, something that seems to have disappeared in the rush to adopt the Universal Japanese smal Car (UJC). I’m hoping with the anticipated return of Fiat to North America that they will sell a car inexpensively enough and be reliable enough to get people to demand something other than a Corolla. Hyundai (and Kia) still have a shot at this, I think there are enough people who like small cars, but need something different than the three box formula. After your post about the 404, I was pondering how different the small car market could have been if Peugeot and Renault had been more successful here in the US. I remember cars like the Renault Fuego, which brought an entirely different design and engineering theme to the small Scirocco inspired FWD coupe idiom. Sadly, it was a POS. GM’s attempt to bring the Astra hatch here was also prematurely aborted. I would love to see some of those South American small car utes brought over here, like the old Dodge Rampage or VW Pickup. Maybe Fiat/Chrysler will take a chance and bring the Fiat version here, So many designs we don’t get here, but ignored due to a lack of imagination…
It seems we have a whole generation of people who have not seen these ideas in sheetmetal, and so they are more interested in smartphones and less in mobility and real liberty: the ability to go when and where you want.
Only ever seen one of these in North America which was in a Calgary scrapyard maybe eight years ago. It was in reasonable, savable shape but no takers where found for it.
A friend of mine had a 1204 4 door wagon when we were in High School back in the seventies. His dad bought 2 of ‘em, the other was a Sedan (both ’71′s I think) that was his daily driver. Great car, we pounded the hell out of it both on and off road and it took whatever we did to it without complaint. I knew that these Simca’s were rare but never really appreciated it, I passed on buying it from him in ’79, oops!
BTW his old man was a real out of the box car guy, he traded the Sedan for a new ’76 Accord when they hit the showrooms. A real forward thinker back in the day.
My dad bought a 1204 in the winter of 1971, a dark blue wagon (somewhat less iconoclastic in profile than the sedan). I was a high school senior and the car was essentially for my use. I had lobbied for a Super Beetle for no good reason that I can recall except it was reliable and still the default small car in those days. Dad knew the guy that owned the Chrysler Dodge dealership, though, and I spent several hours there kicking tires while he negotiated the deal. He was trading in our ’48 Willys panel wagon that I’d driven since I’d gotten my license at 14 (this was in Idaho, where they started you out young). The Willys had originally been an ambulance, and still had the red cross on the side when we acquired it–it had two seats in the front and a plywood floor in the back where we had some memorable parties. We had a snow plow mounted on the front to clear the parking lot of the motel my dad owned. But I digress.
So, I spent what seemed like hours kicking the tires of the Dodge Polaras and Challengers in the showroom while the deal was done. As I had been reading Road & Track since I was 12, I had nothing but disdain for Detroit Iron and was enthusiastic about the Simca, as I had read the comparison test in Car and Driver. The Simca didn’t disappoint . . . it was gem, with great handling, comfort (those wonderful seats), and fuel economy, although not quite to the standard of my friend’s Fiat 850 Spider. With FWD, it was great in the snow, and it took me skiing nearly every weekend during the winter (but more about that in a moment). The summer of ’71 I spent in Europe where my sister was living at the time, and I still have a photo of my friends standing in front of the Simca dealer on the Champs-Élysées–I had become a big fan.
Back home in the fall I started college and so of course spent every Tuesday and Wednesday on the slopes. Driving back from skiing one stormy day in March, I slid off the road on a patch of black ice, and two cars soon followed suit, hammering the Simca’s back end to the point that my ski tips were sticking out of the rear sheet metal. The verdict at the body shop? Parts had to ordered from France. Total time in the shop? Nearly three months. Once back on the road, however, she was as good as new, and a friend and I drove her up through Alberta and British Columbia and back through my future home of Seattle and then Oregon and Idaho, averaging close to 40 mpg over a thousand plus miles and without a moment’s trouble. That summer, though, I headed back to Italy and Switzerland for two years, and by the time I’d returned in the summer of ’74, Dad had traded the Simca in on a Dodge pickup much to my chagrin. A Mercury Capri took its place, and then a Saab 99, and then a Lancia Beta (!). I think I unconsciously spent the next forty years trying to find a car with the Simca’s qualities with limited success. Maybe my Mazda3 hatch comes closed to its virtues of comfort, fun, and utility, but of course it is more sophisticated by a magnitude. In any event, any of the Simca’s detractors obviously never spent much time in one. I don’t think Paul overstates its qualities or influence one bit.
Interesting piece on the 1100/1204.
Simca lacked the image and publicity to impose its cars on the US market. Chrysler already had enough brands in the US, selling small French cars to Americans wasn’t their top priority. When Peugeot took over the brand they didn’t care much for it and had their own issues to deal with in the US so Simca got put on the backburner again, turned into Talbot and eventually axed.
The Rancho was based on the VF2, the fourgonette version of the VF2 – fairly rare cars today but a huge success for Matra back in the day.
I have a perpetual hardon for French cars. I wanted an 1100/1204 in the worst way, but before I could afford one, Chrysler stopped importing them. So I bought a new Fiat 128. I still love that car. After another driver slid on snow and totaled the 128 I bought a new 1978 VW Rabbit which I drove for 16 years. Even with the 1456 cc (or as I called it, the Mountain Motor), it was much faster than the 128, but wasn’t as satisfying to drive. All of the controls on the Fiat felt related (steering, clutch, brakes). The VW was typically Germanic-clunky. It wasn’t nearly as well built as the Fiat either. I still lust for the 1100/1204.
I owned a 1204 wagon and loved it. Only used it running around on Long Island but everyone who rode in it marveled at how comfortable and roomy it was. It was a little slow and a 5 speed would have helped, but I still fondly recall this car some forty years later. Coincidentally, like Mr Martin, I purchased a 128 SL coupe afterwards and it too was a favorite but another car that needed a 5 speed to help its little motor on the highways of America.