The Chevrolet Impala sport coupe — the world’s most popular car in 1969 / Mecum Auctions
Judging by the popularity of the Vintage Photo features, a lot of people are interested not only in specific cars, but the glimpses of earlier eras they represent. I thought it might be interesting to compile a kind of automotive yearbook of facts and figures about a particular year: how many cars and trucks were built, how many were sold in the U.S., the market shares of different makes, the year’s most popular cars, the popularity of imports, and more, drawn from contemporary trade publications and other publicly available data. Here, then, is a breakdown of the U.S. automotive scene of 1969.
Before I begin, an important proviso: Much of this data is for the 1969 calendar year, not the 1969 model year. (If you’re more interested in model year production figures, I invite you to check out Paul’s U.S. car sales and market share data.)
U.S. Motoring in 1969
In 1969, the United States had a population of about 202.3 million and about 3,710,000 miles of road, most of it paved. There were almost 86.9 million passenger cars registered in the U.S. by the end of the year, collectively racking up about 858.9 billion miles of travel. The automobile was the leading form of transportation in America: More than 80 percent of Americans drove to work, alone or by carpool, and 82 percent of all overnight or long-distance trips were by car.
Three years earlier, the federal highway system had completed Interstate 15, connecting Los Angeles and Las Vegas with a single high-speed freeway — the banner proclaims, “Now, 4½ hours from Los Angeles To Las Vegas, ‘Entertainment Capital of the World!'” / Nevada DOT
Although automobile ownership in many other countries had grown rapidly since the 1950s, the U.S. still had nearly half of all the world’s passenger cars — 49.2 percent of them as of the beginning of the year.
Data as of Dec. 31, 1968 / Automobile Manufacturers Association
Of the roughly 62.3 million households in the U.S. in 1969, 79.6 percent had at least one automobile, and 29 percent had two or more cars. The average car on American roads at this time was only about 5½ years old. Trucks were a little older, with an average age of 7.44 years.
Car Purchases in 1969
According to the Department of Commerce, there were 9.58 million retail new car sales in 1969, down slightly from 1968. About 13 percent of all U.S. families (roughly one in eight) bought a new car this year.
Total U.S. New Passenger Car Retail Sales, 1966–1969
U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Business Economics
| Year | Total U.S. Retail Sales (Rounded to Nearest 1,000) |
|---|---|
| 1966 | 9,028,000 |
| 1967 | 8,337,000 |
| 1968 | 9,656,000 |
| 1969 | 9,582,000 |
The average new car price in 1969 was around $3,300 (a “relative worth” of about $31,500 in 2025 dollars), and the average family expenditure on a new car (including taxes and fees) was $3,690 (a relative worth of about $35,260 in 2025).
This 1969 Ford Fairlane 500 hardtop originally listed for around $3,300 with power steering, automatic, radio, and other minor options / Fast Lane Classic Cars
According to U.S. Census data, the median family income in 1969 was $9,400 (about $93,500 in 2025 terms), so a new car represented about 40 percent of a median family’s total annual income. A typical American household spent about 9 percent of weekly personal income on automobile-related costs, roughly half what the typical household spent on food and tobacco.
A 1969 Plymouth Valiant Signet four-door sedan started at $2,611, but adding automatic, power steering, radio, and dress-up items like whitewall tires and a vinyl roof took the price over $3,000 / Cooper Classics
Only 34 percent of 1969 buyers paid for new cars entirely in cash (including trade-in allowance).
Anchor Motors Lincoln-Mercury in Yuba City, California, 1969 / Bill Cook
Eighteen percent of U.S. families bought a used car in 1969, at an average expenditure of $1,170 (a relative worth of $11,180 in 2025). More than half (55 percent) paid cash for their used cars. However, the average car dealer in this era sold almost as many new cars as it did used ones.
New Car and Truck Production in the U.S. and Canada in 1969
U.S. factories churned out around 8.22 million passenger cars in the 1969 calendar year, down about 7 percent from 1968. (1969 model year production, which began in the 1968 calendar year, was 8.44 million.) Automotive plants in Canada turned out an addition 1,035,551 passenger cars, more than two-thirds of them for export. Most (691,146) of those cars went to the U.S., under the 1965 U.S.-Canada Auto Pact.
GM Oshawa assembly plant in Oshawa, Ontario, Canada / GM Authority
In 1969, trucks accounted for a much smaller proportion of the U.S. motor vehicle market than they do today. U.S. plants turned out 1,981,519 trucks and buses in 1969, while Canadian factories built another 317,348, almost half of them for export to the U.S. Sport-utility vehicles like the Jeep Wagoneer (described generically as station wagons built on truck chassis) were still a tiny niche market this year: Only 42,013 were built in the U.S. for domestic consumption in 1969.
1969 Jeep Wagoneer / Crown Classics
Unsurprisingly, General Motors dominated domestic automobile production in 1969, building 52 percent of all passenger cars assembled in the U.S. and Canada.
Combined U.S.–Canadian Automobile Production by Manufacturer Group, CY1969
Automobile Manufacturers Association and Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association (Canada)
U.S–Canadian Passenger Car Production by Manufacturer Group, CY1969
| Manufacturer | CY1969 Production | CY1969 Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| General Motors | 4,812,003 | 51.97% |
| Ford Motor Company | 2,554,214 | 27.58% |
| Chrysler Corporation | 1,593,641 | 17.21% |
| American Motors Corporation | 278,717 | 3.01% |
| Other | 21,171 | 0.23% |
| Total | 9,259,746 | 100.00% |
U.S. Passenger Car Model Year Production by Make, MY1969
These are the totals compiled by the Automobile Manufacturers Association (AMA) in 1970–1971 for the 1969 model year, which began in the late summer of 1968 and concluded in the late summer of 1969.
| Make | MY1969 Production | MY1969 Domestic Market Share |
|---|---|---|
| Chevrolet | 2,106,498 | 24.96% |
| Ford | 1,732,126 | 20.52% |
| Pontiac | 870,528 | 10.31% |
| Plymouth | 645,139 | 7.64% |
| Buick | 665,422 | 7.88% |
| Oldsmobile | 636,679 | 7.54% |
| Dodge | 577,575 | 6.84% |
| Mercury | 358,006 | 4.24% |
| AMC | 275,350 | 3.26% |
| Chrysler | 260,771 | 3.09% |
| Cadillac | 223,237 | 2.64% |
| Lincoln | 61,378 | 0.73% |
| Imperial | 22,077 | 0.26% |
| Checker | 5,979 | 0.07% |
| Total | 8,440,765 | 100.00% |
Different sources list contradictory totals for some of these makes, which also affects the calculation of the market share. Other than the usual typographical errors, I think most of the discrepancies relate to the numbers of cars manufactured in Canada for initial sale in the U.S. — in this period, the AMA (which was a U.S. trade association) seemed uncertain how to clearly present that information.
Cadillac is one of the few 1969 makes for which model year production is reasonably consistent from source to source; production of the hardtop Sedan de Ville totaled 72,958 for the 1969 model year / Mecum Auctions
Truck and Bus Production, U.S. and Canada, CY1969
Chevrolet was the leading truck producer in 1969, albeit only by a narrow margin over Ford. While GMC Truck was only fifth in total production, it was enough to put GM in the lead for both truck and passenger car production this year.
1969 GMC 3600C / Classic Cars of Sarasota
| Make | CY1969 U.S. Production |
|---|---|
| Chevrolet | 684,748 |
| Ford | 658,534 |
| Dodge | 165,133 |
| International | 160,255 |
| GMC | 150,180 |
| Jeep | 93,160 |
| All Other Domestic Makes | 69,509 |
| Total U.S. Production, All Makes | 1,981,519 |
(Canadian truck and bus production for CY1969 totaled 317,348, but was not broken out by make, so it’s not included in the above totals.)
Domestic and Import Sales in 1969
When it came to new car registrations, GM market share was “only” about 46.8 percent in 1969, about the same as the year before, followed by Ford at 27.6 percent, Chrysler at 17.2 percent, and AMC at just barely over 3 percent.
Total U.S. New Passenger Car Registrations by Manufacturer Group, 1969
State DMV registration data gathered by R.L. Polk & Co.; 1969 data was missing some Oklahoma registrations, so the final totals were somewhat higher
Total New Car Registrations by Manufacturer Group, 1966–1969
| Manufacturer Group | 1966 | 1967 | 1968 | 1969 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GM | 4,335,846 | 4,139,037 | 4,394,645 | 4,419,920 |
| Ford | 2,348,893 | 1,851,440 | 2,228,272 | 2,291,356 |
| Chrysler | 1,386,511 | 1,341,392 | 1,527,863 | 1,427,955 |
| AMC | 265,712 | 237,785 | 259,346 | 239,937 |
| Misc. Domestic Makes | 13,403 | 8,547 | 7,969 | 5,739 |
| Foreign Imports | 658,123 | 779,220 | 985,767 | 1,061,617 |
| All Passenger Cars | 9,008,488 | 8,357,421 | 9,403,862 | 9,446,524 |
GM revamped its dealer signage in the fall of 1969 — these dealer desk signs were miniature versions
New Foreign Import Car Sales, 1969
In 1969, imported foreign cars (not counting Canadian cars built for U.S. sale) now claimed more than 11.6 percent of the U.S. market, up from about 10.7 percent in 1968.
The Beetle accounted for the bulk of 1969 Volkswagen sales in the U.S., but the Type 3 was available here as well / Bring a Trailer
The U.S. imported a total of 1,846,717 new passenger cars and 171,168 trucks and buses in 1969. Canadian imports accounted for the largest portion of those totals, followed by West Germany. However, Japanese automakers were gaining ground very rapidly: Imports of Japanese cars totaled 260,005 in 1969, but would grow to 381,338 in 1970.
The Toyota Corona was finding an audience in the U.S. by 1969 / Bring a Trailer
Volkswagen remained the biggest individual player among the 1969 imports, with Toyota in the No. 2 spot.
Import Sales by Make, 1969
State DMV registration data gathered by R.L. Polk & Co.; 1969 data was missing some Oklahoma registrations, so the final totals were a bit higher
More than 36,000 new Volvo cars were registered in the U.S. in 1969, including this 142S / Bring a Trailer
Here’s the data in tabular form:
| Make | 1969 U.S. New Car Registrations | Share of 1969 U.S. Import Sales | CY1969 U.S. Market Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Volkswagen | 537,933 | 50.67% | 5.69% |
| Toyota | 117,384 | 11.06% | 1.24% |
| Opel | 91,161 | 8.59% | 0.97% |
| Datsun | 58,569 | 5.52% | 0.62% |
| Fiat | 41,519 | 3.91% | 0.44% |
| Volvo | 36,448 | 3.43% | 0.39% |
| Mercedes-Benz | 24,693 | 2.33% | 0.26% |
| MG | 21,806 | 2.05% | 0.23% |
| Ford (English) | 20,750 | 1.95% | 0.22% |
| Renault | 17,735 | 1.67% | 0.19% |
| All Other Foreign Makes | 93,619 | 8.82% | 0.99% |
| All Foreign Imports | 1,061,617 | 100.00% | 11.24% |
(Automotive Industries, which commissioned R.L. Polk & Co. to compile this data, unfortunately only published the top 10 makes each year, and offered no breakout of import sales by model.)
Domestic vs. Import Sales and Market Share, 1969
Here’s how the import sales compared directly with domestic passenger car sales in 1969, based on R.L. Polk & Co. data on new passenger car registrations:
| Make | 1969 New Car Registrations | CY1969 Market Share |
|---|---|---|
| Chevrolet | 2,060,202 | 21.81% |
| Ford | 1,880,384 | 19.91% |
| Pontiac | 795,605 | 8.42% |
| Buick | 677,319 | 7.17% |
| Plymouth | 658,987 | 6.98% |
| Oldsmobile | 642,889 | 6.81% |
| Dodge | 538,381 | 5.70% |
| Volkswagen | 537,933 | 5.69% |
| Mercury | 352,137 | 3.73% |
| Cadillac | 243,905 | 2.58% |
| AMC | 239,937 | 2.54% |
| Chrysler | 211,727 | 2.24% |
| Toyota | 117,384 | 1.24% |
| Opel | 91,161 | 0.97% |
| Lincoln | 58,835 | 0.62% |
| Datsun | 58,569 | 0.62% |
| Fiat | 41,519 | 0.44% |
| Volvo | 36,448 | 0.39% |
| Mercedes-Benz | 24,693 | 0.26% |
| MG | 21,806 | 0.23% |
| Ford (English) | 20,750 | 0.22% |
| Imperial | 18,860 | 0.20% |
| Renault | 17,735 | 0.19% |
| All other foreign makes | 93,619 | 0.99% |
| Other domestic makes | 5,739 | 0.06% |
| Total Passenger Car Registrations | 9,446,524 | 100.00% |
As you can see, Volkswagen had become a legitimate threat by this time, surpassing AMC, Cadillac, and Mercury in U.S. sales and market share, and coming within a stone’s throw of Dodge.
The VW Beetle was one of the top sellers in America in 1969 / Bring a Trailer
New Truck Registrations in 1969
U.S. new truck registrations in 1969 totaled 1,888,812. About 58.2 percent of those were light trucks (with a GVWR of 6,000 lb or less). Although Chevrolet built the most trucks in 1969, Ford edged out Chevrolet to claim the No. 1 spot in new truck registrations this year. Together, they took over 70 percent of the U.S. truck market.
Out standing in its field: a 1969 Ford F-100 with 360 engine and four-speed gearbox / Bring a Trailer
Imported trucks had only a very small slice of the U.S. truck market at this time: Only 40,236 non-Canadian imported trucks were registered here in 1969, a U.S. market share of just 2.1 percent.
Although Toyota and Datsun pickups were starting to catch on in the U.S. by 1969, this Datsun 521 short-bed was originally sold in Canada by Carl Riva & Sons Datsun of MacTier, Ontario / Bring a Trailer
New Truck Registrations by Make, 1969
State DMV registration data gathered by R.L. Polk & Co.; 1969 data was missing some Oklahoma registrations
| Make | 1969 New Truck Registrations | CY1969 Market Share |
|---|---|---|
| Ford | 679,237 | 35.96% |
| Chevrolet | 670,890 | 35.52% |
| GMC | 139,449 | 7.38% |
| International | 137,888 | 7.30% |
| Dodge | 130,446 | 6.91% |
| Jeep | 36,017 | 1.91% |
| All Other Domestic Makes | 54,649 | 2.89% |
| Imported Trucks | 40,236 | 2.13% |
| Total | 1,888,812 | 100.00% |
New Car Trends in 1969: More Hardtops, More Luxury
By far the most popular body style for U.S. cars at this time was the two-door hardtop, which had become essentially the standard form of most American cars. In 1969, two-door hardtops outsold sedans and station wagons combined!
This Aztec Aqua 1969 Ford LTD was modestly equipped by contemporary American standards, but that still meant a two-door hardtop with a 302 V-8, automatic, power steering, radio, whitewalls, and the increasingly ubiquitous vinyl top / Connors Motorcar Company
Here’s the breakdown based on U.S. factory sales in 1969:
- 44.59 percent two-door hardtops
- 22.02 percent four-door sedans
- 13.56 percent four-door hardtops
- 9.99 percent station wagons
- 7.33 percent two-door sedans
- 2.46 percent convertibles
- 0.05 percent chassis
(Canadian factories built more sedans and fewer hardtops this year. However, 1969 Canadian production data by body style doesn’t distinguish between cars built for domestic Canadian consumption and ones built for the U.S.)
A rare Canadian-market Beaumont Custom hardtop, a Canada-only hybrid of the Chevrolet Chevelle and Pontiac Le Mans — this one is powered by a Chevrolet 230 six / Mecum Auctions
The same affluence that made two-door hardtops the most popular body style for new U.S. cars also made luxury features more popular than ever. According to Automotive Industries manufacturer surveys, of 1969 model U.S. cars:
- 88.87 percent had V-8 engines
- 90.32 percent had automatic transmission
- 91.06 percent had factory-installed radios
- 84.38 percent had power steering
- 54.49 percent had power brakes
- 54.00 percent had factory air conditioning
- 18.45 percent had disc brakes (albeit usually only in front)
- 17.37 percent had power windows
- 10.45 percent had power seats
- 2.93 percent had factory tape decks
This 1969 Buick Electra 225 two-door hardtop has automatic climate control and power windows as well as the usual power assists — a previous owner also retrofitted a CB radio! / AJ’s Auction and Appraisal
Automotive Industries didn’t survey non-U.S. manufacturers, so the figures above only include domestic cars. In the 1969 calendar year, V-8 cars actually accounted for only 77.3 percent of new car sales, with the rest split more or less evenly between four- and six-cylinder models. Most of the fours were imports, most (though not all) of the sixes were domestic.
AMC advertised the 1969 Rambler American as “One American car against the world,” touting its size, carrying capacity, and import-rivaling price / Old Car Manual Project Brochure Collection
The cheapest new domestic car sold in the U.S. in 1969 was the six-cylinder Rambler American two-door sedan (above), which started at $1,998. The most expensive U.S. model this year was the Cadillac Seventy-Five nine-passenger limousine (below), starting at $10,961.
This 1969 Cadillac Series 75 limousine was originally owned by Hilda Blumberg Weinert, a friend of former U.S. president Lyndon Johnson / Barrett-Jackson
Although its market share was declining, the most popular passenger car in the U.S. was still the full-size Chevrolet. Almost 1.1 million of these cars were built in calendar 1969, and almost a million were sold in the U.S. that year.
A different 1969 Impala hardtop — they were everywhere in 1969 / Bring a Trailer
The Chevrolet Impala was by far the most popular individual model in the U.S., accounting for close to 700,000 new car registrations in 1969. No other single domestic model even came close. Here are the most popular new cars of 1969:
Top 10 U.S. New Car Models in 1969
| Ranking | Model | CY1969 U.S. Market Share |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Chevrolet Impala | 7.3% |
| 2 | Chevrolet Chevelle/Malibu | 4.1% |
| 3 | Volkswagen Beetle | 4.0% |
| 4 | Ford Galaxie 500 | 3.4% |
| 5 | Ford Fairlane/Torino | 3.2% |
| 6 | Ford station wagons | 3.1% |
| 7 | Ford LTD | 3.0% |
| 8 | Pontiac Tempest/LeMans/GTO | 2.8% |
| 9 | Ford Mustang | 2.8% |
| 10 | Chevrolet Nova | 2.7% |
The intermediate Chevrolet Chevelle/Malibu was the second most popular car in the U.S. in 1969 / Bring a Trailer
(Keep in mind that this list is based on new car registrations for the 1969 calendar year, which included some 1969 cars and some 1970 models.)
1969 Pontiac LeMans, naturally a two-door hardtop / Mecum Auctions
Here’s how the U.S. market was divided up by market segment in 1969. The numbers I used, which are based on new car registrations, are approximate (I had to make some debatable assumptions and do a lot of rounding), but this is broadly accurate:
Emissions, Fuel Economy, and Safety in 1969
Most new passenger cars and gasoline-powered light trucks sold in the U.S. were now subject to federal emissions standards, which prohibited crankcase emissions and limited exhaust emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrocarbons (HC). For 1969 models, the tailpipe standards were 275 ppm HC and 1.5 percent CO by volume for most domestic cars, with somewhat higher allowances for most smaller-displacement imports. For the 1970 model year, the standards became 2.2 grams per vehicle mile of HC and 23 grams per mile of CO for all cars. Oxides of nitrogen weren’t yet regulated, but beginning with the 1970 model year, California limited HC emissions from fuel system evaporative losses. (The federal evaporative emissions standard would take effect for 1971.)
By 1969, most U.S. automakers had adopted variations of Chrysler’s “Cleaner Air Package” (CAP) to reduce exhaust CO and HC emissions; this photo from a 1966 Chrysler technical paper highlights the key features of the package
Fuel economy was still a low priority for many American buyers in 1969. The Federal Highway Administration estimated the overall average fuel economy of all passenger cars on the road this year at 13.63 mpg. A 1973 EPA report estimated the sales-weighted fuel economy of 1969-model cars as a dismal 12.21 mpg. According to the Department of Energy, the average U.S. price of a gallon of regular gasoline in 1969 was 35 cents ($3.06 in April 2025 dollars). Premium gasoline, which many new cars required in 1969, typically cost at least 10 to 15 percent more.
Esso Service Station, McGraw, New York, 1969 / Charlie Greenman Sr.
Finally, there were an estimated 56,400 traffic deaths in the U.S. in 1969, a rate of about 5 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. Traffic deaths had increased every year since the end of WW2, and the 1969 tally was up almost 15 percent from the already-high 1965 figure.
This 1969 Oldsmobile Toronado has various federally required safety features — note the padded ridge around the dashboard / Orlando Classic Cars
The U.S. had recently introduced federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, some of which had already taken effect for 1968 and 1969. The initial standards required (among other things) seat belts, energy-absorbing padded dashboards with recessed controls, padded sun visors, and (starting January 1969) front seat head restraints.
In addition to this car’s blue “Excella” cloth and vinyl trim, Toronado’s Strato Bench seat now had standard head restraints, required by federal safety regulations as of Jan. 1, 1969 / Orlando Classic Cars
These efforts to reduce the nation’s traffic death toll faced bitter opposition from the auto industry and, over the next few years, relentless mockery from buff book shills, who lambasted safety standards as unrealistic regulatory overreach. However, improved auto safety eventually paid off: In 2024, the U.S. had about 30 percent fewer traffic deaths than in 1969, although there are far more cars and trucks on the road, and average mileages have risen considerably. The traffic death rate in 2024 was only 1.2 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles, less than one-quarter of what it was back in the late 1960s.
Related Reading
Air Conditioning On Low-Priced Full-Size U.S. Cars In The 1960s (by me)
Automotive History: How Common Were Stripped-Down Full-Size Chevrolets In The 1960s? (by me)
Automotive History: Which U.S. Cars Of The 1960s Most Often Had Manual Transmission? (by me)
1969 Car Life Supercar Performance Figures — How Fast Were These Vintage Muscle Cars? (by me)
Curbside Classic: 1969 Chevrolet Impala – All Hail The King! (by Jason Shafer)
What a great and in depth look into the 1969 cars!
I was 6 and can remember that we had one family car -a 1967 Buick LeSabre 400 convertible. My older sister had her own car, a 57 Chevy BelAir.
My dad was an engineer at North American Aviation and I believe they were owned by GM. I believe that was his reasoning behind owning so many GM vehicles.
In fact, in 1969, he was rear ended at a railroad crossing and the Buick was totaled. He ended up with a 1970 Cadillac that I’ve written about here!
For the first years of my life up until I started here little over a year ago (I’m 62), Brougham glamour and glitz really my make up. But as I read, a car can be simple transportation. Who knew?!!! That’s why I went with a Nissan Rogue. It’s cheaper than other makes, so far very reliable, and great gas mileage. I’d own another hybrid someday. But for now, I’m content.
Great read!
If they’d sold a few more, it could have been 88.88% V8s!
You can see why they started developing the Vega and Pinto in the late 60s.
I wonder if it’s possible to find corporate revenues and earnings for just their auto operations, since GM had multiple subsidiaries like Frigidaire and Delco, plus big trucks. I’d really be curious which car lines were more profitable.
Corporate annual reports are public information, but older ones aren’t necessarily available online, so it would be necessary to buy a copy, either from some online vendor or paying for the Library of Congress to furnish one. I confess I haven’t ever been curious enough to pay $25(ish) a pop for them.
I was a GM stockholder from 1968 to 2009 and Ford since the day after the ’87 crash, but of course, I saved nothing, not even the nice car photos.
I wish that I had the annual reports handier; the least expensive way now would probably be to wrangle something through the public library, but that’s obviously not as convenient as having a repository of them to refer to at leisure.
I remember 1969 well, and recall several 69 models that arrived into my circle of family and friends. My father picked out a 69 LTD 4 door hardtop, while my grandma bought a 69 Catalina 4 door sedan. An uncle bought a 69 Galaxie 500 2 door hardtop. Some neighbors chose a 69 Impala 4 door sedan. Two of my mother’s single lady friends bought new cars, a 69 Cutlass 2 door coupe and a 69 Valiant 100 2 door sedan.
My mother’s car, a 64 Olds Cutlass, was apparently right at the national average for its age, being about 5 years old.
I suspect that 1969 model year figures are higher than calendar year figures because the economy began sliding into a mild recession that really took hold in 1970. Thanks for this dive into a bygone era!
Yes, domestic auto production was down almost half a million units for 1970, and that was reflected in 1970 calendar year sales. Retail new car sales in 1970 fell from 8.464 million to 7.120 million.
Dodge and Plymouth apparently beat out Rambler/AMC for lowest price compact in 1970. According to AMC advertising the Hornet started at $1,994. I remember seeing the window sticker on my grandfather’s ’70 Dart and it was $1,990 something. That car was equipped with the 225-6 and three options, auto trans, power steering and remote mirror. It stood out in my memory because I was surprised there was still an american car made that cheap at that time. That would explain why he switched from Rambler that year. He was quite well off but a skinflint when buying cars.
Not in suggested list price. The cheapest 1970 Valiant, the six-cylinder Duster, had an MSRP of $2,172, and adding power steering, automatic, and a left-hand mirror on a Valiant or Dart in 1970 was an extra $271.05.
Of course, dealers could and did often sell cars below MSRP, particularly towards the end of the model year where they were clearing them out, but there’s no real way to track that.
A few statistics jump out at me. I was under the impression that Chevrolet and Ford car sales were neck and neck in this era, though Chevy actually had a comfortable lead. But at least it’s reasonably close. FoMoCo though was getting crushed by GM in the midrange – Pontiac, Olds, and Buick each sold appreciatively better than Mercury; add the three together and Mercury was getting clobbered. Even Dodge sold much better than Mercury. It’s no wonder that Ford (and Chrysler) in the ’50s thought the way to be as successful as GM in the mid-priced segment was to have five different brands of their own.
At the upper end, Cadillac likewise had much higher sales than Lincoln. Maybe too high – Caddys were becoming a bit too commonplace and affordable to retain the prestige and cachet they once had, something that would be increasingly problematic in the ’70s as they chased volume.
Ford did a bit better against Chevy in the truck market, but when you add in GMC the General is still comfortably ahead in sales. And Dodge was just a bit player, something that Dodge (now Ram) gradually overcame over the last three decades.
And only about 40,000 people bought SUVs! It’s not like there weren’t plenty to choose from, including two new ones for 1969 – the Chevy Blazer and redesigned International Travelall. Plus the Scout, Bronco, Suburban, Jeep CJ, and Wagoneer (including the Super Wagoneer, the first luxury SUV). Plus imports from Toyota, Nissan, and Land Rover, though those aren’t included in this figure.
The Canadian-market car identified here as a Pontiac Beaumont wasn’t actually a Pontiac; Beaumont was it’s own marque, even though it had a Pontiac-ish grille, a Pontiac-ish logo, and was sold at Pontiac dealerships.
I realized this morning that the station wagon SUV figure for 1969 was later revised, so it was actually 42,013 for 1969, but the point remains. (One of the tricky things about these numbers is that because they’re compiled from manufacturer reports, they were subject to revision, so later years tend to be more accurate.)
It’s important to note that that’s a classification by body style, not by make. There’s not a lot in the way of explanatory notes with some of this stuff, but while a Jeep Wagoneer would certainly qualify as a “station wagon on truck chassis,” a Jeep CJ probably wouldn’t, and Scout might or might not, depending. So, if it were possible to tabulate every make one might think of as an SUV, the total would undoubtedly be higher, but models like that were still a very peripheral part of the market, and while there were models that resemble the typical SUV of today, they were pretty rare.
In terms of Ford and Chevrolet, Ford was way behind Chevrolet in 1969, either calendar year or model year. The gap narrowed in 1970: Chevrolet took a bath because of a recessionary economy, whereas Ford wasn’t hit nearly as bad thanks to the Maverick, which proved to be exceedingly well-timed.
Didn’t Chevrolet (and the whole GM) was also hit by a strike in 1970?
Yes, the UAW struck GM beginning September 1970, running through November, the beginning of the 1971 model year.
Part of the reason for low SUV sales is that they were not only truck-based, they were pure trucks, and were therefore used for truck purposes. A 1969 Chevrolet Suburban was more likely to be used as a small school bus than a family conveyance.
Especially when families had real station wagons at their disposal. Full-size wagons had about 100 cubic feet of cargo space with the seats folded down, so trips to Pergament or Rickel (no Home Depot yet) were a snap. Being the youngest of six kids, I knew nothing but station wagons in my formative years as they could seat all eight of us as comfortably as a restless bunch of kids could be.
We had a white-on-red 1964 Chevy Impala wagon with a 283 and a Powerglide, and my father’s company car was a baby-blue 1969 Ford Country Squire with a 390 in it. Being a GM man, he never liked it.
When he switched jobs and turned the Ford in, he went out and got a triple-green (paint, interior and vinyl roof) 1970 Buick Estate Wagon loaded with AC and power accessories we never had before. He could have picked up a ’71 but went with a loaded demo versus a less well-equipped new one for the same money.
I was five years old when we got that Buick and I would later drive it. My sister-in-law (married to a brother only two years older than me) called in the “Green Monster,” unaware of the left-field fence at Fenway Park that bears the name.
Today, if you have to seat eight people, you’re going minivan or Suburban.
My big takeaway from this? Over 90% of new cars sold in 1969 had automatic transmissions. (If I read that right, that figure is only for US- and Canada-built cars, but the overall minuscule percentage of imports probably didn’t change that figure by much.)
We tend to think of the demise of the stick shift as a more modern phenomenon, but apparently it’s been happening for 54 years or more.
The optional equipment figures are only for U.S. makes. They’re from Automotive Industries, a trade publication, which surveyed the domestic automakers each yer. If imports were counted, it wouldn’t change the overall percentage too much — imports were far more likely to have manual transmission at this point, but the four leaders (Volkswagen, Toyota, Opel, and Datsun) did offer automatic. I don’t have any make-specific data, unfortunately, and how the VW Automatic Stick Shift should be classified is an interesting question.
Are those figures of 88% for V8 engines and 90% for automatic transmissions for the entire market or just for two door hardtop variants? 9 out of 10 seems on the face of it too high a percentage of either for the entire US domestic production. The next paragraph down claims V8s were 77.3% of production without a mention of transmissions which still seems high but more plausible, I suppose that might well change a few years hence.
As I read it, the 88% figure is for domestic brands and the 77.3% is for the total market, including imports.
The 88% does seem quite high, but 1969-1970 was something of a high water mark for large and mid size cars (domestics). And sixes were becoming a rarity, only seen mainly on compacts, whose market share at the time was quite low. And V8s were even quite common on compacts. lots of 307 powered Novas and such. In inflation-adjusted terms, gas prices had been dropping all during the ’60s and incomes were rising.
All this would change rapidly, already starting in 1970 when the Maverick had very large sales (almost totally sixes) and other compact sales went up too. And of course in 1971, the Vega and Pinto appeared.
1969 is almost certainly the high water mark for V8 market share, and given what was selling well at the time, the 88% does not surprise me.
Yes that’s how i read it now as well. Odd, I wonder if there was an edit that clarified it or if my Dark Roast hadn’t kicked in yet… Thanks.
The 88.87 percent figure is of all 1969-model U.S. production cars, the 77.3 figure is for all new cars registered in the U.S. in 1969, import or domestic.
Surprisingly, the market share for domestic sixes actually bottomed out in MY1973, at 8.6 percent. (That’s only U.S. makes, not imports.) The OPEC embargo turned things around very quickly for 1974, however.
I suspect Dearborn wasn’t doing much breaking up of full-size models by series, that chart putting the Galaxie in fourth behind not only the Impala and midsize Chevys but the VW bug looks a lot worse for Ford than treating all the big cars as one line which was still comfortably in second.
R.L. Polk, which compiled the registration data, broke out the full-size models by series and lumped the intermediates together. Aggregating the big cars would put the full-size Ford in second, but all the full-size models together were only about equal to the Impala alone; Chevrolet did better than Ford in the lower end (Biscayne and Bel Air beat out the Custom and Custom 300), but not on the higher end (the LTD outsold the Caprice by more than 2 to 1).
What about wagons? Did “Ford station wagons” at #6 with 3.1% include Falcon/Fairlane models or just the full-size ones?
I think it included Falcon and Fairlane/Torino. The registration data separates wagons for each make as a single line item.
We contributed to the 1969 2.7% Nova sales by purchasing a base Lt. Gold Coupe with a 250/6, pwrglide, radio, FULL hubcaps and whitewall “rim protectors”. Those were eventually replaced by my first radials from 4Day Tire Stores a L.A. area chain that prospered for a while.
Unfortunately my “reliable” 250 ci 6 ATE(burned) exhaust valves; including on a vacation trip back home to Wisconsin. There good ol Hult Chevrolet apparently did not get paid enough for the warranty work $o they charged me the balance! Given that my second set of keys was back in the L.A. area…I grudgingly paid them. Any wonder that the Nova was traded for a VW Super Bug in 1970? The Nova kept burning exhaust valves, BTW. Also, Hult’s lil e$capade co$t them a loyal customer: my father. His next car was a AMC Hornet after buying several Chevies from Hult’s. OOPZ. Customers DO tend to remember. DFO
Two surprises here, the strength of Opel and the dominance of two-door hardtops. I figured four-door sedans were still the norm.
Opel GT came in 1968 and was sold through Buickdealers, it became quite popular and sales peaked i 1969.
The Kadett B was also available and was advertised as GMs lowest-priced car.
Dearborn’s deathly disappointment in Dagenham Dustbins is obvious reading between the lines, with Opel at #3 (mostly from the Kadett) and British Fords selling less than a quarter as much.
Much has been made of GM giving Opel to Buick to sell but what Ford had done was set the English Ford Line up as a separate franchise back in 1948 with Fomoco dealers getting first refusal for their territory. 20 years later it was clear that wasn’t working and by 1970 we had the “Capri from Lincoln-Mercury”.
According to U.S. Census data, the median household income in 1969 was $9,400 (about $93,500 in 2025 terms),
The current number is $77,700. And back then most households had a single wage earner.
The average new car price in 1969 was around $3,300 (a “relative worth” of about $31,500 in 2025 dollars),
The current number is right at $50,000
Eighteen percent of U.S. families bought a used car in 1969, at an average expenditure of $1,170 (a relative worth of $11,180 in 2025).
The current number is $30,522.
The only positive in these numbers: modern cars last a lot longer.
“The current number is $77,700. And back then most households had a single wage earner.”
So now two incomes amount to less family earnings than one income in 1969.
Meanwhile, CEO pay has increased 2500%.
And let’s not even talk about housing prices relative to household income, yes.
And even more extreme, health care costs and college tuition.
Maybe we should look into becoming the 11th province…
FICA taxes are much higher now. Bracket creep for the income tax became a big deal in the 70s, as inflation pushed middle incomes to pay the higher rates designed for the well off on each additional dollar. The brackets have been indexed to the CPI (which doesn’t always keep up with inflation) since ’81.
I should add that comparing median household income from 1969 to today is not really an apples-to-apples comparison. There has been a huge shift in household composition, away from larger nuclear families to vastly larger percentages of one and two person households, and the percentage of retirees has increased. There has also been a lot of income stratification. So while back in 1969 there were probably a very substantial percentage of households close to that median today there are more likely more well above and below that median.
This is a minor point, but I believe the $9,400 amount from 1969 actually represents Median Family Income, rather than Median Household Income. A Family, in Census Bureau lingo, is a household containing two or more people who are related. “Families” by this definition excludes single-person households and roommate situations… so Median Family Income tends to be a bit higher than Median Household Income.
I didn’t have much time this afternoon to dig around for the Median Household Income figure, but for the 1970 Census, it looked like that was around $8,700.
But this bolsters your point that this is not an apples-to-apples comparison – lots of different elements to a simple number.
Ah, yes, it’s median family income. I pulled the number from a previous post, but the source is https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/1970/demographics/p60-75.pdf. I’ll amend the text.
Median household income for 1969 was $7,683. (The $8,700-ish figure is the mean, not the median.)
On that basis, the most recent (2023) median family income is $100,800. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEFAINUSA646N
Thanks for looking into that!
Okay thats pretty nuts, the traffic death stats. Considering we have 100 millIon more people in this country today. And people drive insane distances for work now days due to unaffordable housing(or they want that house on 40 acres in the country)
Talking about the cavalier attitude towards auto safety back then, maybe it had to do with the greatest generation being a bit desensitized. Grew up in the depression and fought in the war, they saw A LOT of crazy stuff/death as teens/young adults. Also didnt help that seatbelts were a pita to use back then, uncomfortable, flopped all over the place. Volvo was way ahead of the curve with the easy to use and comforable 3 point belt.
Perhaps. I know that it always shakes me to remember how much ink was spilled back then ragging on safety equipment, regulations, and the like. How many people didn’t wear seat belts (even once cars started coming with them), how air bags were supposedly going to be the end of automobiles that anyone would want to drive, etc. etc. etc.
There could be an underlying generation-based attitudinal issue as you say…I never really thought about that. But what I think may be more the case is just that people in general don’t like change; and the media loves making hay out of people’s strong feelings. Avoiding change definitely counts as a “strong feeling”. Thus it seems natural that buff books would include constant yammering about safety equipment.
That remind me of a story from “Life with Archie” in issue #106 where Archie(Archie Andrews, not Archie Bunker) did an editorial in the school newspaper about car safety. He want to offer a ride to his friends in Betsy his old jalopy but they declined because it was unsafe.
https://readallcomics.com/life-with-archie-106/
I came of age during the mid-late 1960s, and I don’t think it was desensitization to car crash deaths. Rather it was the constant propaganda that bad things happen to bad drivers, so that if you were a good driver (as of course everyone believed for the most part of themselves), you would avoid a grisly death. Seat belts and other active safety features were for sissies — if you were a good driver, that stuff was unnecessary.
It didn’t help of course that the auto industry went along with this fallacy, absolving itself from any responsibility (other than Volvo and Mercedes-Benz at the time), and making the early seat belts so difficult and uncomfortable to use. Look at Aaron’s photos of those Mecum Auction/Bring-a-Trailer domestic cars of the 1968-70 era — a spaghetti of webbing in the front seat, with separate buckles for the lap and (nonretractable) shoulder belts.
The automotive press went all in on that as well. From about 1971 through 1976, nearly every issue of nearly ever car magazine is endless anti-regulatory agitprop, jeering at safety measures and emissions controls and ranting about the injustice of unleaded gasoline. (I lost all respect for Eric Dahlquist, then the editor of Motor Trend, over the latter: It marked him as either a singularly credulous idiot or an incredibly cynical shill.) The buff books constantly insisted that the way to prevent traffic accidents was handling suspensions and more powerful engines, so the skilled enthusiast driver could maneuver around freeway pileups and the like. It’s like a MAD magazine parody.
Dahlquist also never seemed to miss a chance to rag on the supposed uselessness of side-impact door beams, head restraints, and impact-absorbing bumpers. Those early door beams proved to better than the unreinforced doors of the past, especially in single-vehicle crashes where cars slid sideways into poles or trees. The first head restraints were in fact poorly designed for the most part, meeting the letter of the law rather than its spirit. Of course today, it would be unthinkable not to have them.
The bumpers remain controversial, but I think the implementation by most manufacturers was not well thought out. We could have had lighter weight bumpers than the “railroad ties” on shock absorbers that were better integrated into the bodywork and provided more effective protection in low-speed impacts. We’ve regressed completely today, where a light tap results in hundreds if not thousands of dollars in damage.
Driving under the influence was not a serious offense in most states until well into the 70s. I don’t recall hearing about vehicular homicide charges, either.
A fair number of drivers during that era had lived through World War I, the Spanish Flu pandemic, the Great Depression, World War II, the Korean War and the polio scares. Dying in a car accident wasn’t the greatest fear – particularly since, even in those days, the overwhelming majority of people who drove a car lived to tell about it.
While federal safety mandates were first enacted in the late 1960s, safety itself really became a sales feature in the 1980s. That was also when states began enacting mandatory safety belt laws (begun by New York in 1984).
By this time, a large number of Baby Boomers were driving. They had been raised in the relative comfort and affluence of the 1950s and 1960s. Dying in a car accident loomed as a bigger threat – even though the road network and cars were safer than they had been during the 1950s and 1960s.
I fear we’ve moved backwards in recent years with touchscreen controls that require taking your eyes off the road to make simple adjustments sometimes buried in a few layers of menus, plus gun-slit windows and trucks/SUVs with tall, level hoodlines that impede forward visibility. This even as active and passive safety continue to otherwise improve.
I’m surprised that Toyota sales were so much higher than Datsun. Maybe it was different in California, or maybe by 1969 the Corolla had added more sales to the fading Corona. But Datsun seemed more common on the roads especially with all the pickups. FYI while the majority of American roads are paved, about 1/3 – over a million miles – are not. But back then people seemed fine driving two wheel drive cars on dirt roads.
Datsun had a bigger chunk of the imported truck market, but not of cars .
In 1969, affording to the Federal Highway Administration, 75.6 percent of all U.S. streets and roads were “surfaced,” about half of which was dirt or gravel and the other half bituminous surfaces. So, it was not all glassy tarmac, although the percentage of “improved” roads was very high on a global scale.
Toyota had a broader lineup. They were selling the Corolla in 3 models (sedan, wagon, fastback coupe – all 2-doors), the Corona as a 2-door hardtop or 4-door sedan, the Mark II as a 2-door hardtop, 4-door sedan or wagon and the Crown as a 4-door sedan or wagon, plus the pickup and Land Cruiser.
Datsun had a couple of sports cars, the 1600/2000 Roadster and the new (during the model year?) 240Z, but in terms of 5-seaters they only had the 510 as a 2- or 4 door sedan or wagon.
Crowns were niche and the Corona past its’ prime, but still Datsun probably sold more 510s than any single Toyota model line.
I also thinking that the Datsun/Nissan dealer network was still concentrated in larger metro areas and along the coasts in 1969, whereas Toyota was quicker to establish a broader base throughout the country, including smaller markets in places like the Midwest and Southeast.
I bought my first car in 1969, a 1959 Ford for $100. Worst car I ever had.
I was wondering why FoMoCo sales went down so sharply in 1967. Was the new Mustang that unpopular? No. It seems there was a 68-day strike.
I love numbers articles such as this in that they add context to the decidedly more qualitative nature of my own recollections of the past. For example, only 29% of Americans had more than one car? I believe the number, but at least where I was in 1969 (Maryland, right outside of DC) it seemed like every driveway had 2 cars. But clearly things average out differently nationwide.
1969 wasn’t a car-buying year for my family. My Dad was looking for a job the first part of that year (having just finished grad school) and was working in DC (at the American Automobile Association’s HQ) the second half. He rode the bus as I recall…until he was “encouraged” by his new employers to start driving in to DC instead. AAA was at the time a major lobbying force against public transportation, and was in a big fight with the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority (aka, Metro) trying to delay/subvert their impending expansion and growth. Having their main urban planner riding the bus was (as we might say now) poor optics. Anyway, the 5 year old Simca 1000 we had was headed on to last another 5 years in 1969…and the 8 year old Plymouth was headed on for another year or two before replacement. We clearly kept our cars a bit longer than the 7.5 year average back then. Generally our cars stayed around until something truly irreparable broke at around 10 years. Which nearly always happened.
My family always split the difference between domestic and import. There were 2 cars for as long as I could recall, but always one of each. Up until the late 1980s, when they went totally import.
Thanks Aaron for this treasure trove of information on the American car scene as of 1969, and thanks Paul for inviting Aaron to join CC!
A couple of things here that resonated with me: I know that Paul has extensively covered the decline of the big car over the decades starting in the late 1950s. But one thing that puzzled me was that I recalled large cars being so prominent into the early 1970s, including the enduring popularity of the full-size Chevy. This article clarifies the situation nicely; yes, big cars were in decline but the segment was still responsible for the greatest share of passenger car sales in the US, and it confirmed that the Chevy Impala was far and away the biggest individual seller. Of course, it wouldn’t be long before the first oil shock when the decline of the big car accelerated in earnest (with a brief respite as GM’s downsized B- and C-body cars hit the market).
The other item was mentioned at the end of the article in regard to the newly mandated safety features. I chuckled at Aaron’s reference to the “relentless mockery from buff book shills,” who derided attempts to make cars safer. Clearly in obeisance to the automakers, they parroted the line that primary responsibility for safety was up to individual drivers. Nearly 60 years later with car crash test deaths being significantly reduced (but still not low enough), we know that advances in vehicle engineering and road hardware design (guardrails, Jersey barriers, breakaway sign posts and crash cushions) have been major factors in reducing the toll.
Crackdowns on drunk driving, as well as graduated licensing requirements for teen drivers, have also reduced the death toll. So I wouldn’t entirely discount the behavior of individual drivers as a factor.
(True story – a friend in college told of being pulled over when she was obviously “buzzed,” as we used to say, by a police officer in her small town. She was driving her family’s 1975 Chevy Estate Wagon, and was accompanied by several friends. The officer simply told her to “go home right away.” This happened around 1979. This would not happen today.)
I was doing some genealogy research last weekend, reviewing my local daily newspaper, from the late 1950’s. In one article, the writer highlighted the number of local deaths that year. Breaking down deaths due to drownings, industrial accident deaths, violence, car accidents, etc., I was stunned by the high numbers. And it was only a partial total, until June. As I believe these sorts of stats, trended upwards into the late 1960’s, across the US and Canada.
Perceptions of buzzed, or drunk, driving have changed very rapidly.
My wife worked for a state legislature in the 1990s – back at a time when drinking among politicians and their staff was very common. My wife told me that one of the state senators would give people advice on how to drive while buzzed. For example, one of this tips was to hold the steering wheel at 10-and-2 and extend your index fingers upward… doing so will supposedly help you drive straighter.
It’s hard to imagine that kind of stuff going on these days. Back then it was just accepted.
Excellent article! It obviously took a lot of time and energy to put this together. Thank you!
1969 was the year that we were finally able to purchase our first new car (after owning 3 used cars). We bought a ’69 Ford Galaxie 500 convertible literally off of the dealer’s showroom floor. Options were a 390 cid 265 gross HP V-8, automatic transmission, power steering, power brakes and an AM push button radio. The price we paid after negotiation was $3,049.00. I have always owned at least one convertible ever since. The current one is a 2012 Mustang Shelby GT500, bought new.
I appreciate the effort that went into the research and analysis in this article…it provides an excellent portrait of the state of the U.S. market on the eve of the massive changes that would completely change the auto industry over the next 20 years.
Two points I will make here: first, the way the Big Three drew so many distinctions between models that were literally the same car, e.g. Caprice, Impala, Bel Air and Biscayne all full-size Chevrolets built on the same chassis with the same bodies and mechanicals, yet recorded separately in the sales totals when often the differences amounted to a few minor bits of trim. I suppose when you sell nearly a million copies of the same model each year, those differences can become important, but from a customer’s perspective, it all seems so pointless and confusing – much ado about nothing.
Secondly, the popularity of two-door cars is mind-boggling in some ways, given their practical disadvantages in terms of accessibility, rear passenger comfort, and overall utility. From a modern perspective, you have to remember how much younger the population was, with so many new Boomer drivers buying their first or second car and seeking performance and style above all else. As they aged, Boomers drove the popularity of other automotive forms that are far more practical, such as minivans and then later SUVs. Now, it’s very difficult to find two-door sedans outside of models explicitly marketed as sports or performance cars.
Thanks again for setting a baseline from which to view the changes in the automobile market over the past 55 years.
The Caprice/Impala/Bel Air/Biscayne completely different names for each trim level thing was a throwback to when most American car brands sold only one basic car, albeit with a multitude of available body styles, drivetrains, and features. If there was a second car, it was a fairly low selling “specialty” model like the Corvette or Thunderbird. (curiously, it was the smaller brands like Nash or Studebaker that tried selling two or three distinct cars in the ’50s). That all changed in the ’60s with the proiferation of small cars, mid-sized cars, personal-luxury coupes, and pony cars. But Detroit couldn’t let go of its old habits so full-size cars continued to be sold under several names each into the early ’70s. That’s when Ford decided all their big sedans save for fleet-oriented strippers would be LTDs, and every big Dodge would be a Monaco. Chevrolet was probably the last to relent in 1986 on their traditional big cars when the Impala was replaced by a low-end Caprice. There would still be the deVille/Fleetwood and Century/Regal (late ’90s) after that that used two names for the same basic car.
(There is also a ton of these in the Japanese domestic market, or used to be anyway, although that almost always changed when they exported their cars).
On the first point, I should note that the Polk registration data I’m drawing from is separated like that for some years and not others. Some years, all full-size Chevrolet (etc.) were simply grouped together and some years not; if there was any rhyme or reason to their doing it that way, they didn’t specify in anything I’ve seen. They generally did NOT do that with the mid-price brands, although specialty models like the Riviera and Thunderbird are called out separately.
There’s an argument to be made that with the full-size “low-price” domestics, the trim series covered a particularly wide range of prices, and the actual difference in market for a Biscayne or Bel Air was sometimes quite a bit different than an Impala or a Caprice: One was a likely fleet vehicle, one was a median family car, the other was a pseudo luxury car. Buyers clearly didn’t regard it as much ado about nothing, so they were perceived differently — more so, I think, than different trim series in the intermediate lines or in mid-price marques, where the accent was on the make more than the model.
On the second point:
I think this is somewhat misleading. By definition, the oldest of the Baby Boom generation at this time were 23 or 24, and the extraordinary popularity of two-door hardtops extended well beyond the Boomers’ actual market reach at this time. The dominance of the two-door hardtop extended into many realms that Boomers (and a lot of 30somethings) were either unlikely to be able to afford or wouldn’t want. For instance, one in four 1969 Electra 225s were two-door hardtops, and the typical Deuce-and-a-Quarter buyer was generally neither young, limber, nor especially interested in what a Boomer would call performance.
I see a confluence of a couple things. First, two-door hardtops, especially on full-size cars, didn’t necessarily entail any meaningful sacrifices in back seat room. (A few did, usually because their roof shape forced the rear seat to shift farther forward, but that wasn’t always true.) Second, there were not yet child seat laws, and there was a fairly common, not always incorrect assumption that a big two-door model was safer if you had young children: Without child seats or child safety locks, a two-door model was the best way to ensure that you arrived at your destination with the same number of children as you started out with. Third, quite a few people didn’t regularly carry rear passengers, children or otherwise, and so the poorer accessibility wasn’t a big priority.
A big part of the subsequent demise of two-door models in favor of four-door sedans, minivans, and SUVs has been child safety seat laws. These weren’t adopted in all stated until the mid-1980s, and for a while, they quite different, but they eventually became widespread and increasingly stringent. When children under 16 must be in child seats (sometimes regardless of height or weight — I had a friend whose 5’11” daughter was still legally supposed to be in a booster seat), putting them in the back of a two-door car is a constant, daily hassle for anyone with kids, and 2+2 coupes became untenable except for empty-nesters or people with the money to treat the coupe strictly as a second car. This tended to push the median age of remaining coupe buyers UP, not down. For instance, as I recall (this isn’t an official demographic figure, so don’t quote me), the core audience for the Camry Solara coupe was unmarried women in their 40s and 50s with no kids.