I was reading through a Motor Life magazine from 1960 that Stephanie picked up for me at a thrift store, and came across a series of editorials from the staff writers on their perceptions of the new 1960 domestic cars. This was a big year for the Big Three, given their all-new compacts that substantially broadened their range from just the single size standard cars they had been selling almost forever. One might have thought there would be a lot of praise, and there was a fair amount. But there was also plenty of dissatisfaction with the still too-limited range of vehicles by the domestics.
This one by Bob Ames struck me more than the others, because it’s quite prescient, especially in light of the Jeep Wagoneer review I posted yesterday. Not only does he point out that the domestics still aren’t really competing with VW and the other truly cheap and small imports, including diesels, but he also identifies a category that’s been grossly under served: “an all-round automobile for the outdoor enthusiast”. And he calls for more civilized pickups.
And today “an all-round automobile for the outdoor enthusiast” (CUVs) dominate the passenger car sales stats, and of course pickups are the top sellers overall. But the big difference is that the CUVs are predominantly import brands. Why was Detroit so slow in identifying what has become the heart of the market?
He points out that “There are several models which fill one or more of the necessary qualifications for an outdoor use car. But no single car is designed to fill them all”. Quite true, inasmuch as in 1960 there was the Jeep CJ, which was extremely compromised for daily use. The Jeep Wagon was available in 4×4 version, but it too was severely lacking in the comforts of a typical car, and was pretty out of date by 1960. And there were 4×4 versions of the Suburban and International Travelall, but these were gnarly, hard-sprung work trucks.
He continues: “The fantastic climb in demand for station wagons should be a clue for manufacturers, but they seem to ignore it completely.” And he goes on to say that the wagons available are just sedans with rear cargo areas, but are as poorly designed for outdoor use as the sedans, with soft suspensions and poor ground clearance. And pickups “ride rough and have little in convenience extras”.
What he’s calling for is the SUV/CUV, and a somewhat close approximation arrived just three years later, in the form of the Jeep Wagoneer. It was the proto-SUV, being reasonably civilized, with four doors and relatively few trade-offs, although it was actually none too roomy. But the Big Three (and International) ignored that formula and instead came out with what were really just slightly civilized Jeeps CJs, in the form of the Bronco, Scout and Blazer. Little 4×4 trucks they were, hard riding, crude handling and decidedly compromised for daily use.
Meanwhile, in 1977 Subaru brought over their first 4WD wagon. It was something utterly new; a compact, efficient and affordable little wagon that could climb like a mountain goat yet no trade-offs in comparison to its FWD version or other comparable little wagons. Is this the car Bob Ames was calling for?
Needless to say, Subaru started small, but now its a monster, although its “wagons” are realistically CUVs at this point. But that’s become a blurred distinction.
Yes, AMC launched its AWD Eagle in 1980, and it had an excellent AWD system. But it was compromised by its 10 year old body with marginal space efficiency, never mind fuel efficiency. It had no real future.
The real irony is that twenty years later, when the first-wave SUV boom was already huge but the big and thirsty domestic trucks needed to be downsized, Jeep again led the way in innovation with its compact four door Cherokee. Meanwhile Ford and GM again came out with 2-door only downsized SUVs. Little or no innovation; just smaller than their big brothers. They were an improvement in respects, but still had issues with handling, efficiency, comfort and performance.
Obviously both the full size and downsized SUVs filled a huge need, and sold in ever greater numbers. But they were all still compromised.
The Japanese previewed the ultimate solution with their AWD tall-boy wagons, like the Tercel, Civic and Mitsubishi. They were the proto-crossovers, with raised roofs and unique bodies (also available in FWD form) that signaled their utility as well as sport.
Toyota’s 1996 RAV4 was the final evolutionary step, and changed all of that forever. And it was quickly followed by the Honda CRV. The Rav4 and CRV are now the bestselling passenger cars in the land.
Looking back to 1960, it’s pretty obvious that the domestic industry missed a huge opportunity, which even the heavy and somewhat clunky Wagoneer missed: a truly civilized “outdoor car”. Of course they didn’t miss out totally, by a long shot. The Explorer was a huge hit, although it never appealed much to the genuine outdoorsy set, seen as a suburban poseur. And Detroit still has almost a lock on the large SUVs. And some of their CUVs do fairly well too. But just like they failed to maintain their grip on the family sedan, so did they fail to ever get serious traction in the heart of the CUV market
And just what would “an all-round automobile for the outdoor enthusiast” have looked like, in 1960? A Corvair wagon with high ground clearance? A 4×4 Econoline van? An AWD Valiant wagon? A truly civilized 4-door Suburban?
Here’s Ford’s lineup for 1960. Fourteen different cars! What more could anyone want?
Absolutely! Sign me up for a Thunderbird convertible with snow tires and a trailer hitch. I figure a tilt trailer (loaded with a canoe and ATV) lugged tires and unlimited headroom (for long fishing rods) would give me all the utility I need for outdoor adventures.
Reminds me of the current lineup. 13 CUVs and the Mustang
LOL, good point!
Interesting – guess the wagons were all on another page.
Corvair wagon with high clearance. I love it! Maybe a rope driveshaft to get power to the front while keeping a low floor. Might cure the “oversteer” as well.
At least one person built an outdoorsy Corvair with very low clearance!
I saw that at the Lane Museum in Nashville last year!
https://www.lanemotormuseum.org/collection/cars/item/chevrolet-corphibian-1961
The complaint outlined in this 1960 article had come up before. About 3 years earlier there was a widely published and reprinted editorial written by a non-automotive writer, called “Those Surley Chariots”. As I recall, the writer went on a camping trip and lamented the contemporary 1950s cars were unsuitable for the task, even the wagons. Too overstyled, the longer-lower mantra had created cars that didn’t function well and lacked the utility required from their owners. The writer called for new designs that actually were SUV or CUV-like. More ground clearance, higher roofs, and less useless styling. It’s been a few years since I read the article, forgive me if my recollection is inaccurate.
Surprisingly, older cars from the teens and 20s were better suited for rough conditions and utility. Despite their primitive engineering, they were a practical product of their times, lots of ground clearance for the poor roads of the day and a SUV-like 2-box profile. Of course, 1950s style trends were reactionary, new and modern meant low and sleek. That SUV profile was too old fashioned for Detroit marketers.
It looks like they caught Bob Ames mid-conversation and took his photo. He looks a little surprised by something.
With that look, he reminds me of Jeff Sessions!
I understand how he missed it, but the 1960 Chevy pickups (2WD) were a drastic redesign in exactly direction he was advocating. All coil suspension and more passenger car options, perfect for the slide-in campers that he was talking about.
As for the electronics, he was way ahead of his time. Most are available today, but only because of powerful microprocessor chips that were not available for decades.
Paul, I hope you realise how lucky you are to have Stephanie.
I do! Every day.
I can hear her making fresh strawberry jam as I write this. 🙂
It is funny that between the Big 3 and the independents, it was little Willys that was the only one with even a little vision beyond what was the norm of the time. The postwar station wagon was a unique vehicle and the Wagoneer started to civilize it. From Willys to Kaiser to AMC to Chrysler, they kept civilizing the basic concepts of the old Jeep CJ and the early steel wagon through the 60s, 70s and 80s. And all of a sudden, here we are. Right where the writer wanted to be in 1960.
It just now occurs to me that a tie-up between Studebaker and Kaiser-Willys would have been a promising niche. The Lark had big wheel wells (and 15 inch wheels) and short front and rear overhangs. The adaptation of Jeep’s 4 wheel drive to, say, a Lark wagon would have been unique in the industry.
And of course the American pickup was becoming pretty pleasant by the mid 70s.
It just now occurs to me that a tie-up between Studebaker and Kaiser-Willys would have been a promising niche.
I’m pretty sure someone’s mentioned that before here. It is a somewhat intriguing thought.
The Wagoneer and Wagonaire were:
– both similarly named
– both similarly styled
– both used Borg-Warner transmissions
– both designed by Brooks Stevens
Sorry, quite a lot leaps of logic here. Too many to call out. So, let’s set the CUV record straight.
The Explorer and Grand Cherokee were wake-up calls for Honda and Toyota. They represented a span between the pure/rough off-road capable utes and the anti-mommobile minivans. Honda lacked a rugged platform for the former, so they re-purposed Civic parts (also, remember they bought time with a re-badged Isuzu… the Passport). In classic Ford v. GM manner, Toyota replied with the RAV4.
I’ll credit the CRV and RAV4 for exposing the public priority for command seating with people/cargo flexibility in an “active” look. In many ways, you can say they legitimized Subaru.
Often overlooked but it was my first what if, dream car, the Checker Marathon station wagon.
If the claim is that the auto industry lacked an ear for CUVs for 4 decades and/or lacked foresight for them, then I have one word to prove the claim false – Isuzu. Isuzu discontinued its cars and adopted an all-utility line-up about 20 years ago. Isuzu exited the US market. The point is that automotive needs and tastes change… mostly based on a combination of fashion, regulatory influence, and shifting generational cohorts (e.g., Boomer eschewed wagons; Millenials eschewed minivans). Simply, Isuzu was too early for the changing fashion and emergence of the Millenials.
Isuzu also left the Japanese market 20 odd years ago. They switched to an all SUV lineup to salvage global sales, but they were already done for in the US and domestically for passenger models. Correlation is not causation…
I wonder what Bob Ames’ opinion of a tri-five Chevy wagon as an outdoorsman’s car would’ve been. It seems to me that one of those would offer a fairly decent combination of space utilization, ground clearance and durability. Not to mention that by 1960, they’d be fairly plentiful at decent prices on the used market.
Good point, although for true versatility, one would want 4-wheel drive. Does anyone know if NAPCO converted any in this manner?
I owned a ’57 Chevy. Not much ground clearance. Post WWII station wagons were not going to cut it. We did beat up our ’65 Impala wagon finding remote campsites in the desert. It did not hold up to that abuse very well. It was replaced by a Dodge A-108 Sportsman. By ’68, an Econoline Chateau Club Wagon with luxury items like rear A/C would have been a good compromise between truck and station wagon. 4×4 just wasnt mainstream enough yet.
The original Wagoneer was only about as long as a 63 Valiant wagon, although it was truck-wide and -high.
This is a great post. The Studebaker-Willys suggestion is indeed intriguing, and Bob Ames was way ahead of his time, should have been picked up by one of the Big 3. Another of his ideas that caught my attention was the $1200 – $1700 car, long a Holy Grail in the industry and one that got me thinking. How about an Opel GT with a Toronado twist… FWD with mid-front Corvair engine for a flat floor, and an extra wide driver’s seat centered behind a steering wheel moved several inches inboard to get the driver off the door. At rear a liftback, flat floor and spare packaged low between the rear wheels. A fun commuter or entry car with spread room for typical big American driver, and a second seat for the occasional passenger.
Cost.
It was all about cost.
My father wanted a 4WD Wagoneer or an IH, but he couldn’t afford them. He earned enough every week to get a new house, raise four kids, and get a new vehicle every three years, but not enough to get that 4WD all-around “camping car”.
Yes- we wanted diesels, Volvo safety, better fuel economy, more rust-proofing, better lighting, better air conditioning, better reliability, and more variety. However, Detroit sold what sold. The marketers who ginned up Edsel, Continental and Imperial were all trumped by a Studebaker Lark, designed as necessity, not for market goals. Detroit did what sold.
It was a very different age in 1960. The auto buying generation had kids and lots of them, grandchildren, and lots of them. What you sold a booming population of blue collar workers and working moms was not what you should sell in the year 2020.