The 1977 Datsun King Cab pickup revolutionized the small truck market in the US, and pointed out a new direction for truck makers that still exists today. As archaeologists of the future dig through the rust flakes of junkyard time, they’ll deduce that the King Cab represented an epochal shift in truck design. Similar to how dinosaurs are marked as before & after the mass extinction event, or calendar years are categorized as “BCE/AC” or “BC/AD”, historians will view truck design as BKC (Before King Cab) and AKC (After King Cab) as markers in their world.
In today’s world where it’s increasingly difficult to find single cab pickups, it’s hard to remember that at one time single cab pickups ruled the land in the US, and no one knew that a tidal shift was about to occur.
So what was the big deal (pun intended) with the Datsun King Cab?
The 1970’s brought dramatic change and upheaval in the US automotive landscape. The freewheeling 60’s zeitgeist of daring style and innovative technology was choked off by US automakers lazy responses to increasing emissions controls and rising insurance premiums. US manufacturers focused on making their broughamtastic cars even broughmier, as everyone knows that landau roofs and opera windows make the man. For “performance”, automakers also knew that consumers didn’t really need fuel injection, overhead cams or other fancy stuff. Instead, just take these 440/460/500 cu in engines with all of 195/197/190 horsepower. Oh, and gas mileage? You’ll take your 11 mpg and you’ll like it because … ‘Merica!
Imported cars provided a different answer, as they went from 8% of US sales (mostly VW) in 1966 to 29% of sales in 1980. Southern California had always been a hot bed of import activity, and represented the largest market for imported vehicles during those years. Growing up in that place at that time, I took for granted the bewildering variety of imports available as daily drivers. Although I was aware of some of the differences between Southern California and other parts of the country, it took a trip to my sister’s house in Rock Island Il. really to drive the point home. On one such trip it suddenly struck me that during my five days out there, I saw – literally – only a handful of imported vehicles. That would certainly change with time, but in the late 70’s/early 80’s those disparate automotive worlds might as well have been on two different planets.
Automotive data junkies can visit https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub1203.pdf (“Imported Automobiles in the United States: Their Rising Market Share and the Macroeconomic Impact of a Proposed Import Restriction”) to get a sense of what was happening and to feed their data nerd habit. It’s OK, go ahead and take an hour if you’d like; we’ll be here when you get back.
It’s hard to imagine now, but there was a time when Datsun competed with the best imports in sales volume and actually led in some market segments. Its 510 was viewed as a mini BMW 2002, even if its sales didn’t match Toyota’s more conventional Corona. Datsun’s 240Z set the automotive world on its ear and beat all competitors for much of its early life.
Datsun trucks made their US debut in 1958 at the Los Angeles Auto Show and began sales in the US shortly thereafter. Datsun handily beat Toyota in US trucks sales in the 60’s and early 70’s, finally swapping places in the later 70’s when Toyota really came into their own.
Mini pickup sales took off in the 70’s in Southern California, much of it due to rising gas and vehicle prices and a desire to express some type of active individuality versus traditional US cars. Domestic manufacturers quickly jumped into the market with captive imports, with Ford bringing its Courier ( a rebadged Mazda), Chevy with its LUV (rebadged Isuzu), and Chrysler bringing its Arrow/Ram D-50 (rebadged Mitsubishi).
With limited room, note that the rear window in this Datsun 521 is also the occupant’s head restraint
All of these pickups shared reasonable size & fuel economy, surprising load carry ability and affordable pricing. They also shared a somewhat cramped cab experience that worked well enough if you were of average size (5’ 9”) or smaller, but six footers and above quickly ran out of room. It was easy to spot those of larger stature that drove mini pickups in those days, as they developed a hunched over praying mantis like pose even when they weren’t driving.
Unfortunate that the smiling model has no legs, as normal humans couldn’t sit up that far
That all changed when Datsun introduced its King Cab pickup in 1977. Datsun heavily advertised the space behind as holding all kinds of stuff, but drivers soon discovered that its greatest utility was in providing enough room for them to finally stretch out and enjoy the truck. Bucket seats were the only ones available (versus the bench seats standard everywhere else) and they could be slid back and reclined to accommodate those of larger heights and statures. Suddenly, the praying mantis pose was passé as drivers actually exited their vehicles with a smile instead of a grimace.
Both Datsun & Toyota introduced longer wheelbase lengths to allow for a second choice in bed length – over seven feet versus the standard six. Datsun took this longer frame, put on the shorter bed and used the rest of the wheelbase for its enlarged King Cab model. They also introduced a five speed transmission in 1978, which made for more relaxed cruising to go with the more relaxed space.
It was 1983, and my wife and I purchased our first home – a foreclosure fixer upper in Huntington Beach for only $100,000. We got an excellent interest rate (for the time) of only 13%! Interest rates like that didn’t leave a lot of extra cash, and this house needed a whole lotta work. But it did have good bones, a good location and a swimming pool (which needed work as well). A pickup truck would be supremely helpful, and a small one would also help with high gas prices.
I had previously owned a Datsun 521 truck (with a flat bed no less) and well-remembered the praying mantis pose my body took after enough time. And I still had PTSD from driving a Ford Courier with three people for six hours to Kings Canyon National Park. That type of experience has since been banned by the Geneva Convention as cruel and unusual punishment.
I had always liked the looks of the Datsun 620 pickups, and the King Cab versions just looked right and offered the promise of stretch out comfort. Their softer curves somewhat reminded me of GM’s “Glamour/Action Line” series of C10/20/30 trucks of 1967-1972; another truck that looked right without a bloated size.
My trusty Auto Trader search eventually found a good condition sample in Kermit the Frog green topped by a camper shell. I called it “Kermit the Frog green” as Datsun’ actual paint color was called “Green” – highly evocative on the imagery those Datsun marketers.
Camper shells were all the rage in the 80’s and gave great protection for additional stuff you might have stowed in the bed. Now, although that previous sentence is completely true, I found that the real reason to keep the camper shell on was to tame the punishing ride these small pickups gave. Owners really had a choice – either keep weight in the back (300 pounds of beer kegs, sandbags or whatever) or say goodbye to your kidneys due to all the jarring motions. Some mini-pickups even offered “soft ride” packages, but the empty, jarring ride was the price you paid for over ½ ton of carrying capacity.
That’s not a stock steering wheel, but otherwise King Cabs were well equipped as shown.
The interior of the King Cab pickup was a relatively pleasant place to be. The instrument panel was functional, clean and far more car like than previous iterations. The bucket seats actually reclined (something not available on the bench seat models) and visibility was excellent. Carpet was standard (versus a rubber floor mat), but sound insulation was nonexistent, so these would never be confused for an LTD. Being a Japanese vehicle, everything was screwed together in a way that Detroit could only dream of at that time.
These trucks were light at only 2286 pounds, so a King cab could carry about 50% of its unladen weight – hence the rough riding kidney comments above. This lightness meant that power steering wasn’t needed, and also meant the insulation and AC were luxuries left to other vehicles.
The L20B engine was part of Datsun’s “L” series Overhead Cam engines in four and six cylinder guises. The four cylinder was used in many of its cars & trucks, while the six cylinder powered the 240/260/280Z and Nissan Maxima. Emission controls consisted of the typical spaghetti mess of vacuum lines, but the OHC goodness and revability was still there, generating 110 hp @ 5.600 rpm. Redline was at 7,000 rpm, but anything above 6,000 rpm generated more noise than actual thrust. Again, this was a whole different world compared to contemporary US engines.
With 110 hp and about 2300 pounds of weight, a King Cab pickup easily kept up in the freeway races. The 5 speed transmission shifted well, and the ratios were nicely spaced with no large gaps. 0-60 came up in about 15 seconds (due to limited traction), and gas mileage was in the mid 20’s. Steering was on the slower side since it wasn’t power assisted, but handling was relatively nimble and it certainly didn’t wallow given the stiff springing.
The stiff springing could make driving an adventure however, since suddenly braking on a less than smooth surface could set up a bouncing pogo stick type motion that was guaranteed to grab your attention the first time you experienced it. Braking was aided by the disc brakes Datsun added in 1978.
Although the camper shell could be removed, I normally left it on as it helped smooth out what was an otherwise jittery unladen ride. The more kegs things that I put in the bed, the smoother the ride. Although these were tough little trucks, rust protection was pretty skimpy, so many areas saw these dissolve before they reached collector status. Fortunately, Southern California is a very low rust environment even with its proximity to the ocean. If you were more than a quarter mile away from the beach then your vehicle would be just fine.
As I said before, the foreclosure house needed a lot of work, and the well sized bed came in very handy for the numerous things required to make the house a home. I bought the house knowing that the furnace didn’t work and wasn’t repairable. This isn’t something you can typically do today when getting a loan on a property, but this was the 80’s and lenders had an “anything goes” attitude back then. I’d budgeted money to replace the furnace about 18 months down the road, so heat would be an issue until then. Although Huntington Beach is certainly not Buffalo, NY, winter could still get chilly, so until the furnace was replaced, the wood burning fireplace would have to do.
One extended weekend, my wife and I took the camper shell off and headed up to see friends in Chico, CA, about nine hours north. Our trip up was a bit bumpy but fine, as we had two adults and luggage for ballast. Once up there, we bought a half cord of firewood and loaded that little King Cab up. The ride smoothed out immensely even as our acceleration slowed. Though perhaps a bit overloaded (OK, there was about 2,200 pounds of firewood…), the truck swallowed the load and ran without complaint. Our speed was definitely lower heading up the grapevine, but we got home in one piece with no damage done. That was one tough and forgiving little truck.
Most other manufactures picked up on the King Cab concept, including the domestic small trucks introduced in the 80’s. Datsun/Nissan eventually lost its pickup sales leadership in the mid 70’s, and Toyota never looked back.
The King Cab was an excellent vehicle during my years of ownership, and reflecting on it reminds me how far modern trucks have come in terms of size and height. The King Cab had generous space for two, over half a ton of carrying ability, decent ground clearance and low loading height. I do wonder sometimes if there might be a market for something like that today – trucks that are just trucks without the height and pretense of size. I realize that market forces and costs impact what type of vehicle is produced, but it seems that there could be a niche for an honest, easy to park and right sized pickup, as even today’s midsize trucks stretch those definitions.
The King Cab gave dependable service for years while in the household, carrying everything necessary to take a house from a forlorn foreclosure property to a pretty nice home. By 1987, the need for the little King Cab was reduced, and I started thinking of something else for my wife to run around in. I already had the Audi 4000S and the two Datsun Roadsters, and no children were in the picture yet, so a two seater would still work. This next two seater though, was about as far from a Datsun pickup as you can imagine, but that’s a story for our next COAL…
Except Dodge invented the extended cab in ’73.
Absolutely right. Dodge then Ford brought out their extended cabs, and those really did have enough room to carry significant amounts of stuff inside the cab.
It’s something of a debatable point, maybe a little analogous to the first minivan or first SUV/CUV argument. While the 1973 Dodge Club Cab and 1974 Ford Super Cab were sales successes (GM bizarrely wouldn’t offer an extended cab for many more years) , I’m not sure they put all that much of a dent in regular cab pickup sales (at least not in those early years). A normal-sized ‘Merican could still easily fit into one of those.
But the extended cab really transformed the small, Asian pickup into a livable daily-driver. I would venture to guess the extended cab had a much larger impact on the compact pickup market.
I have no real data for this, but I’d agree. Compacts appear to have adopted the extended cab/6′ bed as their default config by the mid- to late-’80s, but it wasn’t until the early ’90s that you saw more extended cab/6.5′ full-size pickups than regular/8′. The Ram Club Cab had even been discontinued in 1982, and wasn’t brought back until 1990.
My father bought one from the next generation – an 81 as I remember. It was a 4×4, and I always wondered if that was the reason for the punishing ride. Apparently not.
Yes, here in the land that Rust never forgot, these all went away a long time ago. And every one of them probably drove to the junkyard under its own power.
My grandfather bought a slightly used 620 in the early ’70’s. IIRC, he compensated for the punishing ride by having a couple leaves removed from the back axle and carrying around some large weight in the bed that came off an oil rig (he was an old Oklahoma roughneck, among other things). The next time I saw him, a year or so later, he was driving a ’73 GMC. As this was the beginning of the Oil Crisis, someone offered him more than he paid for the Datsun, and he took it. This was probably the first Japanese vehicle I ever drove at the ripe old age of 14, or so. It probably worked to open up my Dad’s mind a little about Japanese vehicles, which had been influenced by some involuntary time he had spend in the South Pacific.
The king of these was the 86.5 MY Hardbody. V6 power, jump seats for two, 5 speed manual, front discs and a 200SX like interior on the SE V6 model. Ordered mine in medium pewter with dealer installed a/c and rear bumper. Only issue in 70k miles was rear brake fade(drums). $8,300 out the door. Those were the days
The RAM700 (not sold here) is probably closest to the king cab Datsun idea these days although the occupants seem to sit lower to the ground.
This was a great summation of the early mini-truck trend in SoCal at least (and obviously elsewhere as well), and that phenomenon of foreign vs domestic ratios was still clearly in effect when I started going to the Illinois area semi-regularly around the turn of the century, not that foreign cars were as rare as they used to be but markedly less common than in California and astounding on its scale to someone used to the difference.
The Ram 700’s basis, the Fiat Strada, has been redesigned for its home market (Brazil) for the 2020 model year and is now either a regular or crew cab. Still interesting to me, but moving away from the compact extended cab concept of the current Ram 700 and this Datsun King Cab.
Datsun/Nissan mini trucks could handle absolutely anything — except sodium chloride. After a couple of Rust Belt winters, the bed sides started disappearing, often going up and down from the middle, which made for some bizarre sights.
The Datsun 521 was a great little truck, and they were everywhere in Southern California, but the 620 was drop-dead gorgeous when it first came out. Much like the early ’90s Dodge Ram did for full size trucks, the 620 added inspired styling to a utilitatrian box-on-wheels. Toyota followed along with styling on its pickup in the late ’70s, but for a few years there, the Datsun really stood out amongst the small trucks, looks-wise. The elegant simplicity of the dashboard, interior, engine room, and controls all added to the package.
In addition to the 521 flatbed, I also owned a version of the 1978 Toyota pickup. The Datsun and Toyota were worlds apart, and the Datsun seemed to be a generation ahead of the identical year Toyota. It felt like a “vehicle”, where the Toyota felt like a utilitarian “truck”.
Whenever we used to fly back to Baltimore in the late ’70s early ’80s, it was such a shocker getting on the Beltway from the airport to my parents house in Towson: a sea of big American cars. Such a contrast to LA at the time.
It was fascinating to see how that slowly changed over the decade until it was no longer noticeably different anymore.
I’ll never forget arriving in SoCal for the first time hitchhiking there in 1972, driving down from the desert into the Inland Empire, how many Datsun pickups there were, hauling off-road motorcycles and such, from outings in the desert.
Interestingly, my first regular exposure to a Datsun pickup was in Towson in 1968/1969, when a regular customer at the gas station I worked at had one. He made his living delivering/distributing newspapers, and the Datsun with a topper was a logical choice for the most economical vehicle for the job. He was thrilled with it, and he was short, so it fit him well.
Needless to say, these early regular cab Japanese trucks did not fit me well. I’ve had a bit of a bias against them for that even to recent years. Even my son’s current Tacoma has the same flaw all of them do: the seating position is too low to the floor. If the cabs were taller, they would suit me much better. And it wouldn’t have even required an extended cab for that to happen. But that clearly was better than not.
I’ve never grasped how Toyota has gotten away with the ‘sitting-on-the-floor, legs-horizontally-outstretched’ driving position in their small pickups, which exists to this day. I’m not sure it’s particularly uncomfortable or non-ergonomic, but it’s definitely strange and takes a bit of getting used to.
The current Tacoma is by far the worst of the current crop in that regard. You sit on the floor yet have little headroom. Highly odd. The Frontier, Ranger, et al are all much better, i.e. totally livable for my 6’1″ with 32″ inseam. (Paul though may need the sunroof to be open.)
I really don’t understand the current Tacoma. The practical side of me says to drop the ride height by 2 inches and pop the top of the cab by four inches, raising the seat height and improving loading utility. I think that most people would appreciate more seat height than a Porsche 914….which is about what a Tacoma has.
The Taco is the oldest of the compact trucks by far, in terms of its cab architecture. And it’s going to be 100% new within a year, for precisely that reason.
The Colorado and Ranger are tall in part because they have taller seating.
This would be the size truck I would need today. I have no need to carry more than a lawn mower, help a friend move a couch or pull a small camping trailer. The Kenworth sized brodozers at my local Big 2.5 dealers are like using an AR-15 instead of a .22 for plinking for what I’d use them for.
The Ranger and Colorado are my only realistic choices for a new truck these days.
I was at Home Depot yesterday and thought about that little Datsun and how easy it was to reach over the bedside to put something in or out of the bed. It seems to me that nothing offers that utility today – even the Ranger and Colorado bedsides sit so much higher. I think of the previous compact pickups as “form follows function”, versus today’s “function follows form”. Different times for sure.
The high bedsides of modern trucks has been mentioned often. I’m puzzled by the logic but I suppose there’s a reason for it. I can only surmise it’s some sort of aesthetic appeal because it seems like it would definitely be an annoyance when trying to load/unload objects from the side.
In fact, I might go so far as to suggest it’s an intentional, cynical effort to upsell all of these newfangled tailgate option configurations to make it easier to access the truck bed strictly from the rear.
IOW, if the bedsides were lower, a pickup owner wouldn’t ‘need’ a tailgate aid.
Some of it has to do with being able to advertise a larger bed volume, I believe Ford in 2004 sort of started the “race” in the F-150 by raising the sides a couple of inches (when measured from the floor of the bed) and gained a few cubic feet. This comes in handy mainly when filling with loose fill. As far as the raising of the whole vehicle, that’s another story although a 36″ or whatever it is tailgate height in an F150 for example is very good for using as a jobsite work bench.
It seems like the Australians and (some of the) Europeans have it figured out better with a drop side tray, where everything can be reached from pretty much everywhere, the sides can be dropped AND it results in a huge work surface area when needed. Of course it looks more “utilitarian” which may work against some of the reasons that some people perhaps buy trucks.
Maybe it’s due to the popularity of dropside bedsides vs. traditional “tub” beds, but the global style of mid-size truck seems more likely to have tall bedsides than “American-style.” The last truly compact BOF trucks in NA, the 2011 Ranger and 2012 Colorado, sat much lower and had lower beds than the global mid-size versions that replaced them.
That should read “dropside traybacks”.
I can sure believe the bedsides keep going up so that marketing can make the claim that ‘their’ pickup has the most cubic foot capacity, even though most people won’t ever be using it.
Frankly, I’d much rather have ‘less’ capacity that can actually be accessible from the sides. I mean, whatever happened to the slots in the bedsides where wood stakes could be added to raise the bed capacity if it was truly needed?
You mean stake pockets? AFAIK, all full-size pickups still have them. They’re no longer used to make stock racks, since even the smallest farmers use medium-duty straight trucks to haul livestock, but they can hold ladder racks and all sorts of other attachments.
@Drz, yeah they still have stake pockets on the newer trucks, I don’t have a set for my current truck but I did build a set of sides for my last truck that fit in the stake pockets for hauling large loads to the dump. I do occasionally see other trucks with them, being used by landscapers, cardboard collectors, and garbage haulers.
I completely agree on these points. I owned two first generation Chevy S10 5 speed trucks and I loved the packaging. It was at car height, and handled like a car. Easy to get in and out. Low bed, easy to load. They handled like an 80s GM performance car, honest and straightforward, no faults. Great visibility and easy to park. They could do 80% of the work of a full size truck which meant they were up to the task 99% of the time . Fantastic vehicles. The compact truck is a great concept but unsellable in North America as fashion dictates we all must have the biggest, baddest looking trucks possible. It’s depressing imho.
One truck a king cab the other was standard and as you indicate the extended cab makes a big difference in comfort.
Nobody yet has mentioned all the tie-down hooks on either side of the bed rail and tailgate. A great feature, when you needed it. The 620 cleverly “hid” them in plain sight by using the styling indent along the top of the exterior panel of the bed, rather than having them stick out so much like the earlier versions did.
I think some of the increase in height comes from the ubiquity of four wheel drive. My F-150 looks like a lowrider next to most modern pickups, and it’s just a plain 4×2 2002 super cab long bed on stock wheels and suspension. It’s also just low enough to lift stuff over the bed sides and long enough to hold 8′ lumber with the tailgate up.
Wow. I love that video of the Jeeps bouncing around. And I certainly know that feeling from riding in or driving small trucks.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with your truck. Small trucks like the 1978 Datsun were a big influence in my decision to get a Toyota Tacoma Extracab in 2001 (2 wheel drive, base suspension), which is only slightly larger than the 78 Datsun King Cab. I’m still driving the Tacoma today, 19 years later.
What I still love about having a small truck as a daily driver.
* Easy to reach over the sides of the low bed
* Big enough bed to hold a bunch of stuff
* Small enough to park easily
* Great visibility out of the windows
* Decent gas milage for a truck
* Basic, dependable transportation
I’ve often kept a large toolbox in the bed to smooth out the ride or add some extra traction in the winter.
It looks like there are a few companies that are reconditioning older trucks, so guess that helps serve the market for people who don’t want a full size truck today.
Ed, you have completely sold me on the merits of these Datsun King Cab pickups. I wonder what kind of angle the reclining buckets could tilt backwards, given that the seats needed to be pushed back for the average six-footer.
I do recall seeing these around way back when, and yes, many of them were rusty.
Another informing and entertaining article.
You can’t achieve the full “Detroit Lean”, but you can get to the “Kyoto Komfort” position which is still fairly relaxed. 🙂
Accurate and funny! 😂
Thanks for highlighting the US International Trade Commission report here — that series of reports is an invaluable resource for folks doing research on US imports… I’ve found no other source where a lot of the model-by-model sales info is available. The latest such report I’ve found from the ITC is from 1985.
And this was a great COAL — terrific to read about this tough little truck!
This article and the comments confirm why I’ve held onto my 1998 Nissan Frontier. It’s a regular cab 4×2 with 4-cylinder and 5-speed manual. My only wish is that it had been a King Cab, but I couldn’t pass up a really good deal on it from my former employer as a lightly used vehicle.
+1. tomorrow will be 20 years since I bought my 2001 Nissan Frontier XE regular cab I4/5 sp manual. Right size. 286,000 miles. The bench seat is not as comfy as 10 years ago, but there’s always something bulky or dirty to haul. I never regretted passing on a King Cab because it wasn’t really a truck to me; my dad’s last truck (’75 HiLux) was regular and my first truck (1982 Toyota SR5 long bed) was same. Today’s trucks are too high and too big for people who don’t use trucks for a living.
The King cab even shows up on Kei trucks, which desperately need the extra cab space. This is a Daihatsu HiJet Jumbo Cab, grey imported to the US
Wow! We used to drive Daihatsu kei trucks at the golf course resort I worked at over two decades ago as a landscaper / greenskeeper. These things are surprisingly robust. *This* is how I learned to drive a manual transmission in advance of purchasing my ’88 Mustang 5-speed. Thanks for the throwback!
“Imported cars provided a different answer, as they went from 9.65% of US sales (mostly VW) in 1966 to 35% of sales in 1980. ”
Those figures include cars imported into the U.S. from Canada, which I think is misleading. Most cars imported from Canada were indistinguishable from domestic cars; in no way shape or form were they a different answer to what Detroit was providing, because they were the exact same cars. People buying these cars did not think of them as imports; many Americans who in this era who bought cars built in Canada were probably unaware that their car was built there. IINM, these cars were actually technically classified as domestic cars for at least some purposes. They were also imported into the U.S. as part of larger scheme to supply the North American market from factories on both sides of the border, and were likely partially offset by exports moving in the opposite direction.
If we remove Canada from the equation, by my math the percentages drop to 8.02% in 1966 and 28.32% in 1980 – the latter still an impressive figure, but not 35%.
Two side notes:
1) Including Canada in these totals actually causes a lot more distortion in the years in between than it does in either 1966 or 1980. In every year from 1969 to 1975, Canada was the #1 source of imports into the U.S., and in every year from 1967 to 1977, Canada accounted for more than 30% of imports. By contrast, in 1966 importing cars from Canada to the U.S. under the 1965 Auto Pact was just starting to become a thing. And by 1980 Japan had blown past Canada as the #1 source of imports. 1980 was also a very bad year for Canadian imports to the U.S. (lowest volume since 1968, lowest percentage of the overall import total since 1966) due to effects on the 1979 oil crisis and subsequent recession.
2) Speaking of which, the 1979 oil crisis and subsequent recession hurt the domestic manufacturers a lot more than it did imports, which is the main reason Canadian production was down so much that year (since most Canadian built cars effectively were domestic cars). In fact, it didn’t actually hurt the Japanese at all; their sales were up quite a bit that year, and I think this was a significant inflection point in the acceptance of Japanese cars in the U.S. As a result, the non-Canadian import percentage lurched up sharply that year, to a level that was much higher than any previous year. Compared to 28.32% in 1980, it had been 21.84% in 1979, and that had been the first year it had ever cleared 20%. As recently as 1977, it had been just 17.18%.
Can you help me generate import stats separate from the Canadian imports? I’m still trying to get my sales spreadsheet finished up, and that’s a key ingredient.
Well, that and dealing with the transition from purely passenger cars to light vehicles (pass cars and light trucks). That’s a tough one. And finding pickup sales stats from prior to the ’70s.
Here’s what I’m coming up with for non-Canadian imports. These figures are calculated using the numbers in the report series Ed referenced in the article, showing total volume, and percentage of the U.S. market:
1964 – 527,524 – 6.51%
1965 – 530,295 – 5.43%
1966 – 747,562 – 8.02%
1967 – 694,980 – 8.50%
1968 – 1,119,571 – 11.07%
1969 – 1,155,571 – 11.87%
1970 – 1,320,637 – 15.96%
1971 – 1,785,370 – 16.55%
1972 – 1,643,601 – 15.08%
1973 – 1,565,788 – 13.51%
1974 – 1,754,998 – 18.87%
1975 – 1,340,887 – 16.46%
1976 – 1,711,159 – 16.53%
1977 – 1,940,300 – 17.18%
1978 – 2,191,921 – 19.05%
1979 – 2,324,435 – 21.84%
1980 – 2,521,678 – 28.32%
1981 – 2,293,043 – 26.77%
1982 – 2,223,912 – 29.27%
1983 – 2,298,171 – 24.65%
1984 – 2,486,002 – 23.52%
As far as I can see, the reports do not contain country-by-country breakdowns for years prior to 1964, so there is no way to separate out Canadian imports for earlier years. Before the 1965 Auto Pact, however, the volume of cars being exported from Canada to the U.S. was likely insignificant. In 1964, only 9,201 cars were exported from Canada to the U.S., accounting for just 1.71% of U.S. imports, and less than one percent of overall U.S. car sales. The Auto Pact changed that. By the early ‘70s, several hundred thousand cars a year were crossing the border from Canada to the U.S., typically accounting for more than 30% of U.S. imports, and seven to nine percent of overall U.S. car sales.
These figures do not appear to include cars assembled in the U.S. by foreign-based manufacturers. Up until about 1978, that shouldn’t be an issue, but then you have the Westmoreland Rabbits, and starting around 1982 I think Honda also began building some Accords in the U.S. If I’m arguing that Canadian cars shouldn’t be counted as imports, one could argue that these cars should be counted as imports, and should be added to the totals above. If you take that point of view, the years from 1978 onward probably slightly understate import sales volume and market share.
The latest report in the series I can find online is from 1985, with data up to 1984, so I don’t have any figures for years after that.
Looking at those numbers, I’m struck that import sales seem to have hit kind of a plateau around 1970 or 1971, which they didn’t get past until about 1977. That seems kind of surprising, but bear in mind the following:
1) This is all imports, not just the Japanese. For much of above period, VW was rapidly shedding market share. Losses by VW or others (e.g., BL) may have offset Japanese gains, resulting in overall import market share staying in the same general area.
2) While the introduction of domestic subcompacts in 1971 obviously didn’t succeed in “kicking the Japanese back across the Pacific Ocean” (as I think one American exec – maybe lee Iacocca? – said they would), I think they did apply a light brake on Japanese growth for a few years. The American subcompacts sold very well for their first four years on the market. After several years of almost exponential growth, Toyota and Datsun’s U.S. sale volume was up only slightly in 1972, then Toyota was actually down slightly in ’73 (although Datsun was up a quite a bit that year).
3) Contrary to what you might think, the imports were affected by the 1974-75 recession. While many people turned to smaller cars, I think there was some tendency among those who were buying to not be adventurous, and stick to what was familiar (i.e., the domestics), and many people just didn’t buy cars at all, especially in ’75. This is clearly illustrated by the 1975 sales figures. I’m actually puzzled that the imports had such a good year in ’74, to the point where I have to wonder if the number above is actually right. Every Japanese brand was down that year except for Honda (which was up by only a few thousand units), and VW was down sharply. I’m struggling to understand where the 189K increase over 1973 came from.
Thanks! This is most welcome.
And your analysis is spot-on. It started with the 1970 Maverick, which was a huge success, and followed up by the Pinto and Vega. That and VW’s rapid fall. As well as Opel’s, which had been #2. The Japanese were just taking over their share of the import market.
And agreed about the impact of the ’74-’75 recession. That cause the Japanese to start selling “strippers” for the first time, and making other efforts to stimulate sales, which had previously been unnecessary.
The reason Honda was up in 74 was because the Civic was regarded as one the highest MPG cars out there and Honda was rapidly expanding the number of dealers. The 600 was only sold on the west coast and many of those dealers were Honda motorcycle dealers. So by 1974 they had dealers throughout the US.
Nicely done MCT, thanks. I’ll amend the text accordingly (and round up to account for the Westmoreland Rabbits). 1973 seems to be anomaly, almost as if some 1973 sales were reported in 1974. I don’t remember what could have caused that during that time, but the numbers are interesting.
This is interesting! Note also (not that it likely matters all much due to volume) that for example my old 1990 Volvo 740 was built in Canada (Halifax, Nova Scotia) from a CKD kit so not all Canadian imports should really be dismissed as non-relevant (although I agree with the argument re the US makers). This plant was in operation from 1963 to 1998. And of course in more recent times there are several Japanese plants up there.
Table 2 (which appears to tie back to Table 1, not Table 5, i.e., “imports”, not “sales”; see my post below about the difference between the two tables) actually has Canadian imports broken down by Auto Pact and non-Auto Pact. Non-Auto Pact imports are typically no more than a few thousand cars a year, sometimes not even that.
Table 14 shows sales of cars from Sweden broken down by make and model (Table 14 presumably ties back to Table 5, not to Table 1, since it’s “sales”, not “imports”). The 1981 edition, at least, has a note which states the following: “Although Volvos are or have been produced for export to the United States in Sweden, Belgium, and Canada, the bulk of such exports are or were from Sweden. For the purpose of this table, all Volvos are considered to be Swedish.”
Prior to noticing this note in the report a while back, I had never known that Volvos were ever built in Canada.
After further studying those reports, I’ve realized something interesting. I drew my numbers from Table 1 (and Table for 2 the breakdown of Canadian production), which I believe is the same place Ed got his numbers from, and the same place Paul got a figure from he posted in a comment in another recent thread. That table, which goes back to 1947, has figures for cars imported into the U.S. There is another table, however, Table 5, which only goes back to 1964, that has figures for sales of cars imported into the U.S.
As I’m understanding this, these are akin to tables for domestic manufacturers which show production for the U.S. market versus sales in the U.S. market. If a car was brought into the U.S. in 1977 but not sold until 1978, it will be counted under 1977 in Table 1, but under 1978 in Table 2. Or if car was brought into the U.S. in 1977, but fell off a car carrier and was never sold to a customer, it will be counted under 1977 in Table 1, but not counted at all under Table 2.
In general, two tables track each other fairly closely from year to year, but not always exactly. Earlier, I had expressed puzzlement at how high the 1974 figure was, as I didn’t think the imports had a great year in ’74, due to the recession. It turns out the explanation is that I was looking at a table measuring imports, not sales. Table 5 shows that import sales in ’74 were in fact down. Maybe the manufacturers imported a lot of cars in 1974 in anticipation of high demand in the wake of the energy crisis, but found they couldn’t sell them all, and had to hold them over until 1975, when significantly fewer cars were imported as result.
The tables that follow in the report, which give data broken down by make and model, are sales. So those numbers tie to Table 5, not to Table 1.
Anyway, if Paul (or anyone else) feels that Table 5 is more suitable for their purpose, the version of Table 5 in the 1981 edition conveniently has separate breakouts for Canadian and non-Canadian imports back to 1964. It looks like at some point after 1981 this practice was discontinued, as the 1985 edition of the report no longer has that feature. I’ll try to go through the reports later and pull the “Table 5” (sales) data.
“If a car was brought into the U.S. in 1977 but not sold until 1978, it will be counted under 1977 in Table 1, but under 1978 in Table 2. Or if car was brought into the U.S. in 1977, but fell off a car carrier and was never sold to a customer, it will be counted under 1977 in Table 1, but not counted at all under Table 2.”
Correction: in the above text, both places it says Table 2, it should say Table 5.