(first posted 10/22/2015) Taken from R&Ts May 1979 issue, these two Japanese cars are the same- or are they?
I thought they deserved a post, since to me these are THE ultimate CCs. I mean, when did you last see any of these still in motion? Also, interesting that those tests should be published in the same issue that hailed the Citation and the GM X-cars, which could well be considered competitors to the Corona and Accord.
First, the Corona:
I love how in last paragraph, one of their testers says: “This car is about as interesting as a 1962 Chevy”…
Now read the Accord’s Road Test:
Well, the Honda gets to be on top. Maybe I shouldn’t compare them. After all, R&T didn’t- those Road Tests were held and published apart. It looked to me like they had too much in common to be addressed separately.
In 1979, I remember when the Accord 4-door came out and broke the $6,000 price barrier–a Honda for that kind of dough, wow!
As recently as 1977, the base prices of Corvettes and BMW 320i and a DeVille were about $7700.
Thank inflation…(and not way of “exporting inflation’ by outsourcing parts or cars to China or Mexico).
Also, on the Corona, look at the prices–the Japanese cars cost so much more than the Zephyr ESO….
Yes, I know, the Zephyr needed power brakes ($70 then), probably power steering ($140). Hopefully, “ESO” meant stiffer springs and shocks and bigger tires, and some exterior trim. Add some “interior decor group” ($150?), a rear defogger ($140), and it still cost less than the Japanese cars. Slower yes, but better handling. Roomier. Better looking. And unmatched visibility!
Want speed? In 1979, you could get one with the V8-auto, OR, a 4-speed manual (3 + OD), Either one was easily the quickest sedan you could get for under $6000, and the manual one was seriously quick….
(BTW, I’d love to see THAT Zephyr road test–really–a 4-cyl 4-speed Fairmont/Zephyr!. I found an old “Road Test” with that, and Consumer Reports, but no mainstream car magazine)
That Hondas & Toyotas could sell well in spite of exchange-rate penalties speaks well of their market reputation.
BTW, “interesting as a 1962 Chevy” is high praise considering how Detroit had declined since then. Toyota didn’t have to impress critics, just buyers.
What Road & Track missed is that lots of people liked their 1962 Chevys. Those buyers also thought describing a car as “durable, dependable and dull” wasn’t necessarily a bad thing.
But way better built than probably the very best 1962 Chevy!
If I had the three to choose from in 1979: Corona, Zephyr, Datsun…obviously the price of the zephyr would make the other two ridiculous. I remember those days and I remember thinking people driving the japanese imports were completely nuts.
Its even worse when you consider ford was cheaper than mercury and very few on the lot had the 4 banger and all those 6 banger fairmonts were being sold well below their sticker price. Yet the Toyota was being sold for sticker price.
So you could have a 6 thousand dollar Toyota or a moderately equipped 6cylinder Fairmont for 4 thousand. Who in their right mind would go with the Toyota? Or the even more expensive Accord?
When comparing the prices of domestic cars to those of Japanese imports during those years, remember that, with the domestic cars, everything was optional. One reason people were moving to Japanese cars was that they featured plenty of nice extra touches that were standard equipment.
A stripped domestic compact, meanwhile, was not a pleasant car to drive.
Exactly geeber. Just look at the Citation X/11 test. The $4,300 car has two thousand in options. They listed all the significant ones down to $50 a piece, and then said there were $1,000 in miscellaneous options. Detroit may have discounted, but the car advertised for $4,300 had a window sticker of $6,300. Where did the transaction end up? Japanese companies could have done the same thing by listing the cars for Big-3 prices and then putting prices next to every standard feature from the day/night mirror to the carpets, but they had the integrity not to.
To me, the significant thing about the 4 door Accord wasn’t the technology, or the eventual market share it drove both as a specific model as well as for Honda as an automaker, at least in the US. My perception is that it helped drive the turning point from 2 doors, whether coupes or hatchbacks, to 4 doors as the default passenger car for people without families. As a young man in the ’70’s, my friends and colleagues typically drove 2 door Rabbits or Civics, or Corollas, or Pintos, or Cutlass coupes. Then a young, single colleague bought one of the first 4 door Accords. Frankly, I thought it was prematurely middle-aged of him. A few years later the 4 door Civic and Jetta came along, and then the Camry, and the first FWD Corollas which were typically 4 doors as well, and everyone was driving a sedan again. In 40 years of car ownership next month, my wife and I have owned a 4-door hatch, two 4-door wagons and an SUV (plus a half-dozen 2-doors) but only two 4-door 3-box sedans; an Alfetta Berlina and a 5-series BMW.
I think this is a very interesting observation; when you think about it, the Accord hasn’t been sold in its original configuration (2 door hatchback) since I think about 1989 (I know because I’m a fan of mid-size hatchbacks, something that has just about disappeared). I know Honda offered the Crosstour, but that wasn’t exactly the same as a regular hatchback (though it was Accord based), but as you mention, trying to find 2 door cars even in small car sizes (not to mention mid-size) has become impossible. Even the “sporty” European models, like the Volkswagen CC are 4 door cars…and gradually the domestic makers got rid of mid-sized 2 door cars and even smaller cars (like the Focus and Cobalt/Cruze) are now 2 door (I guess the last model Cobalt was available as 2 door, but Cruze is 4 door only).
I think it is just part of reducing the number of models offered (at least in terms of cars). As trucks and SUVs became popular, the manufacturers probably didn’t have the capacity to continue to offer 2 door models as well as 4 door models in cars, so as the 4 door was considered more versatile, it “won” and the 2 door cars were withdrawn, unless you were talking about a sporty model in which no equivalent 4 door was offered (kind of like saying, for any model size car, you can only choose one configuration, be it 2 door or 4 door, but not both). This has the effect of eliminating models which might sell in only small volumes, but since all manufacturers tend to do the same thing, several configurations aren’t available at all. Kind of the opposite of having the “large” Chevrolet available in 4 door sedan, 4 door hardtop, 2 door sedan, 2 door hardtop, wagon (and convertible)…and then add in multiple trim levels (3 or more) and you have lots of choices, but only some of them probably sell in much volume.
I agree that the ‘stodginess’ of 4 doors faded away with imports rise in sales. 2 doors are harder to live with day to day. Have to be more careful opening doors, and back seats are nearly useless. And installing a child seat? No way
The days of a 2 door* telling people you were a ‘cool, hep-cat’ went out with Disco and Avacado Stoves.
*Not counting Pony/Sporty cars
Glad to see some corroboration of the driveability problems I experienced with my ’79 Accord. Only I’m not a major automotive publication, and my dealer never improved my car except for disabling a couple of emission components. And if R&T thought you could beat the synchronizers on very fast shifts, they should have stuck with the car for 20K miles, wherein you could beat the syncros just calmly rowing through a parking lot.
The Corona was not on my radar then, and still looks stodgy to me now, but if it’s stodgy or a drama queen, I’ll take the Corona every time.
A Honda for $7,000 did seem like a stretch, but then so did a VW. In 1974 my new Audi Fox with everything but A/C was a $4,500 car, by 1977 it was the same basic car but the price was now over $7,000.
My father bought a loaded (though no cruise control) V8 Zephyr 4 door….it cost him nearly $8,000. When he needed to replace it in 1985, he bought a Fox-bodied Mercury Marquis. The Marquis had a V6 but was otherwise equipped like the Zephyr….it was now $12,000.
There is a tariff on cars imported to Japan, though I have no idea what it was in 1977, IF the Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership is ratified, the tariff on American cars to Japan WON’T disappear but will eventually drop to about 3%.
I doubt many 1977 American models would’ve interested Japanese buyers (leaving aside the issue of dodgy Detroit QC), as they were simply too big, even the compacts. This is why I think reducing Japanese tariffs etc. would’ve made little difference in the “fairness” game.
$8k for a Zephyr, must’ve had every option, or close.
My dad’s Fairmont cost $5300 in 1980. I think it included tax–I know we got a $300 rebate (sales tax was 7%). My memory isn’t perfect about the price and option prices
We special ordered it, and my indulged me with “my” options. I pushed for the 4-speed–“quicker, and better on gas, and costs less”. Also would give me a car to learn to drive a manual. We ordered the turbine wheel covers (I liked their looks, they really did look like alloy wheels!), think that was $40-50; the handling suspension, I think that was $$50-80, which has one size bigger tire (they were Firestone 721s); the Exterior Accent Group (not as plush as Exterior Decor Group, but included the “cool” Mercedes-like aero mirror–for driver only), think that was $70-90.
Beyond that, the car had optional power steering, power brakes, and electric rear window defroster–I estimate $75, $150, $100 for those. I think shipping was…$300?
In 1980, lots of Fairmont autos were 2.3 4-cylinder. The six really wasn’t much quicker, if at all. It was thirstier though I learned…years later my folks got a used one
I think the base MSRP was $4700 for our 4-door. It was raised once or twice during the 1980 model year (the height of US inflation).
During the summer of 85 I inherited it, and my dad replaced the Fairmont with a Fox LTD. Not sure if it was a brougham, but it had very comfy seats, 3.8 V6, power everything, cruise, and was first car my dad bought with A/C. It stickered for around $11.2 k, I think dad paid $10,4 plus tax. My most memorable moment with that car was the test drive–I floored it and it chirped the tires, which I thought was fantastic–“buy this car!”
So, the price of the “Fox” doubled from 1980 to 1985!
The 85 LTD had a lot more stuff, for sure, but the 80 Fairmont was more entertaining, and had more character!
I’ve never owned a 1979 Toyota Corona, but I got to drive one, and I didn’t think there was anything “dull” or “boring” about it. I found it quite interesting. I liked the rectangular shaped speedometer. The Corona I drove had an automatic transmission. And I found its performance to be better than Road and Track made it out to be. It wasn’t lightening fast, but it wasn’t snail slow either.
Well the competition between the Toyota Corona, Honda Accord, Chevrolet Citation and Ford Fairmont/Mercury Zephyr from that era still holds true today with these cars spiritual successors aka the Toyota Camry, and YES still called Honda Accord today, Chevrolet Malibu and the Ford Fusion. But now they are all grown large Compact car segment.
Reading the six “at a glance” choices, the Datsun 510 looks pretty good — even the much-maligned HL510.
Just the other day I’ve seen a Toyota Corona liftback of the same vintage that appears to be in very good shape, also is it just me or did the liftback versions outsell the sedan and wagon versions, I always liked the liftback versions the best, acceleration seems to be adequate considering the times.
The lift back Coronas were popular in NZ right into the late 90s when Toyota withdrew that model, Our 79 models didnt get the 20R but stuck with the tried and tested 1800 motor Aussie models got the 1900 Holden motor,
I had a 79 Corona rental for nearly a week it was nice as it was a new car but the road manners were appalling it wandered in a straight line cross winds blew it all over the road it went around curves on the door handles at slow speeds I was far from impressed but due to an injury I had to rent a car to get around my own car was in pieces but Mr Avis those were not a good car, another 5 years of loud criticism from Chris Amon saw Toyota let him loose in their parts bin and NZ toyotas had their handling transformed from terrible to rather good.
“Durable, dependable, and dull” describes the Corona’s direct successor, the current Camry, even more than the Corona which actually seems quite interesting in comparison. Its interior looks quite plush, and a practical RWD manual hatchback in this price range would be almost one of a kind today.
I remember the Accord sedan being the first Honda that looked like a normal car. I could barely see the kinship between it and the 3-door Accord (which predated it by over 3 years). In typical Honda fashion, there was almost no choice as to how they were equipped. You could have the interior in any color as long as it was red (nice and color-keyed though). Outside you had two color choices – silver or red. A few other choices showed up in the next two model years, including green inside and out. I think this was the only Honda ever made with a green interior.
Back then, Honda options were mostly dealer-installable like A/C, a 2nd mirror, radios, floor-mats, cargo racks, etc. Must’ve simplified factory logistics dramatically; all they had to worry about was color & auto vs. manual.
The Accord 4-door’s greenhouse resembled Mercedes.
During those years, you picked a model (Civic, Accord or Prelude), the body style (if a choice was available) and the transmission (automatic or manual).
You could specify a color, but if that particular color wasn’t available, you either accepted the chosen car in a another color, or waited for the next shipment of cars.
If the dealer was nice, he only asked for the sticker price, and didn’t make you pay $200 for floor mats and $300 for the “paint protection package” (i.e., a really good wax job).
From the late 1970s through the late 1980s, a Honda dealership was basically a license to print money.
Wow. How car prices have changed since then ! In 1984, I paid 5000.00 cash for a brand new Mitsubishi Dodge Colt hatchback .Turned out to be a good car for basic transportation. It didn’t come with any options . Just a basic 4 speed stick. The best thing about it was the gas mileage, up to 47 mpg. hwy. in real driving.
also wasn’t there a magazine where a 1979 Toyota Corona has gotten inferior gas mileage to a 1979 Chevy Malibu with the 200ci V6 and 3 speed manual?
Maybe the Corona buyer was “Thick as a Brick”?
Compared to the Celicas so popular at the time, the Corona would seem dull to magazine writers.
What strikes me is how dainty they look in comparison to modern cars. I parked my current Mazda 3 near one of these Accords a couple of days ago and it blows you mind.
Toyota can be thankful they haven’t needed to sell a car called “Corona” the last couple of years…
R&T found the Corona to have been “Americanized”, which they clearly considered a bad thing. Curiously, C/D tested an Accord sedan around this time and also thought it looked and felt almost like an American car, which they considered a good thing – this despite usually bashing American cars. Though like R&T, they gushed about the Citation and its ilk when it was new. (Of the two, I found the Toyota to look and feel more like an American car than the Honda).
I love reading old car magazines, perhaps because new cars and the people who write about them have almost completely ceased to interest me. Car and Driver did not usually bash American cars in the ’70s. They tried to influence Detroit to make more enthusiast-oriented cars, as well as to make cars that would have made Detroit less vulnerable to energy spikes. They still managed to find positive things to say about practically every turkey that Detroit unleashed on the public.
They had a pretty diverse staff during the era. Sure, the second generation Monte Carlo inspired Patrick Bedard to memorable levels of denigration. At the same time, most of the staff was praising it for its Mercedes-aping steering geometry and popular appeal. Meanwhile, when they were testing a Japanese car that would thrill its buyers, for every editor who said it was exciting there was another who spent their entire counterpoint saying how one minor detail made every second in the car a misery.
Road & Track hated American cars, and Japanese cars, and German cars to a minor degree. They still praised some American and Japanese cars that didn’t directly compete with British cars.
If you look at that R/T rear photo of the Accord, you can see the MB 220 Fintail influence in the car’s shape: the airy greenhouse, the boxy style, the three box proportions, the stance. Then add in the restrained use of chrome, the firm chair high seats (sans horse hair- too expensive), the tasteful interior, and you have a plethora of distinctive MB design features for half the price.