The 1960 Valiant was the automotive frog prince. It actually looked like a frog from the rear, hunched over on its haunches with a big wart on its back. But under that unpalatable exterior was a real prince, with a heart (and bones) made of gold. It just needed some loving despite its looks to transform into the handsome Prince Valiant. That took three painful years, but it finally happened in 1963.
Better late than never.
The front was certainly better than the rear, although it does look a bit like it might be ready to snap on a fly with its big open mouth. But despite some of the hard-to-love elements, if one looks at with an open mind, there’s some very advanced design and styling elements of the 1960 Valiant. What else would we expect from Virgil Exner, given the opportunity to put many of his favorite experimental design ideas into a brand new compact; this was a very rare opportunity for a Detroit styling chief. Too bad his batting average would turn out to be a bit uneven, at best.
The 1960 Valiant does show the very advanced “fuselage design” that he created for this car, whereby the doors curve in to meet the windows without the usual step or shoulder of the times, which tended to make cars of the period look like a smaller box was set on a longer and wider box below it. The Valiant’s sides were way ahead of their times; only curved glass, which was too expensive, could have made them look even more like they were a decade ahead of the competition. But its rear end is what attracts the attention, or should I say distracts the attention. Oh well; with Exner you have to take the bad with the good.
The side view really shows off Exner’s advanced thinking, not only in terms of the fuselage styling (his term), but also the long-hood, short-deck proportions that were radically ahead of anyone else in terms of passenger car design.
Think 1960 Falcon, which reflected the current state of thinking for a compact car at the time; well, any size car. It was all about boxy symmetry. Even the Corvair had those qualities, if in a more palatable and interesting form. But the Valiant was years ahead, in terms of its proportions and many sculptural elements. It was a genuine piece of modern sculpture, even if the elements didn’t all click.
A number of elements from previous Exner concepts can be found in the Valiant. The most significant one is his 1958 Imperial D’Elegance concept (above); although acknowledged to be flawed by him overall, was the turning point and provided most of the direct inspiration for the Valiant, and subsequently for the downsized 1962 Dodge and Plymouth. The leading edge of the protruding headlight nacelles turned into a protrusion on the front fender that Exner called a “side fin”; he would soon utilize it at the rear too. This would be the feature that replaced the rear fins, still present here. But the most important aspect was the center section of the body. The curved side windows were essentially flush with the doors, to create the “fuselage look” that he was after, obviously inspired by modern airplanes. And Exner’s desire to maximize visibility resulted with thin or no pillars, to the extent technically possible.
The D’Elegance’s set-back greenhouse, semi-fastback rear window and sloping trunk accentuated the extravagant length of the front end, which protruded well ahead of the front wheels. And the windshield was pushed back, close to the driver, to accentuate the proportions even more so. Exner was out to replicate the proportions and feel of his beloved Ghia coupes, but now on the compact Valiant. That alone was a highly questionable move, as it’s generally considered much wiser to introduce a new styling direction on a high-end car, and then have it filter down to the lowly compacts. That’s essentially what Ford did with its 1958 Thunderbird, and GM with its Corvette and Cadillac Broughams.
The impact that the Valiant’s very different proportions in its interior were very noticeable in front. There was no “dashboard” in the usual sense; it dropped almost vertically from the base of the windshield creating a very different effect, especially on the passenger side. It felt very open in one sense, yet one was also aware of the windshield being closer than usual. The highly functional instrument binnacle was very much its own thing, protruding from the cowl. Again, this was very different than any American car of the period. And one that would fully revert to the norm in the ’63 restyle. It was all just too far ahead of its time.
Hiding under its complicated and unloved exterior were the qualities that made the Valiant so attractive to those that could appreciate the:; its superior suspension including a well-tuned torsion bar SLA front and leaf springs in the back. The Valiant was also Chrysler’s first true full unibody, as the big cars in 1960 still had a complete front sub-frame that carried the suspension and drive train loads. The Valiant’s fully integrated body and suspension would be the template for the 1962 down-sized Plymouths and Dodges, which became the long-running B and R body, and various offshoots. In this regard, the Valiant can rightfully be seen as the progenitor of all future Chrysler RWD passenger cars, for decades to come.
And then of course there was the slant six, an engine that was inherently superior to the Falcon six in terms of its displacement (170 vs 144 CID) and power (101 hp vs. 85). That 101 hp rating was commonly held to be a bit conservative, and the slant six’s 12 port cylinder head was very amenable to the typical power-boosting methods, as in the factory-available Hyper Pak, which included a four barrel carb, a 148 hp rating, and made the Valiant the dominant car in NASCAR’s new compact stock car racing class.
The Valiant was bigger, heavier, more powerful than the Falcon and Corvair, which had positive impacts on its ride, performance and handling, but did mar its fuel economy.
What really makes the Valiant remarkable is that it was completely developed in just some 14 months, from the time Chrysler management finally gave the green light to the day it started running off the lines. This was all-too much like the rushed 1957 full-size Chrysler Corp. cars, and with similar consequences: the 1960 Valiants had numerous deficiencies in its build quality, which quickly turned into a public embarrassment and no doubt impacted its sales to some extent.
The 1960 Valiant, with 194k sales, ran a solid #3 behind the Falcon (436k) and Corvair (250k). And Valiant sales dropped in ’61 and ’62. Even adding in sales of its Dodge Lancer semi-clone, the two together sold significantly fewer units than the Corvair did in ’61 and ’62, never mind the Falcon. Things started to get better in that regard in 1963, after both the Chrysler compacts were thoroughly restyled, by Exner, no less.
Yes, Virgil Exner turned out to be the princess that kissed the frog prince, and the result was the Prince Valiant everyone came to love. He was good looking and uncomplicated, loveable by all. His inner virtues were now in full evidence: competent, reliable and eminently practical; the Valiant and brother Dodge Dart would eventually become America’s favorite compacts.
Original images by Mike Burns.
Related CC reading:
Vintage R&T Review: 1960 Valiant — A Technical Analysis Of Chrysler’s New Compact by Aaron Severson
Brilliant Blunder: 1962 Plymouth & Dodge – The Real Reason They Were Downsized by me
Brilliant Blunder: 1962 Plymouth & Dodge – The Real Reason They Were Downsized by Aaron Severson
Interesting lines to this car, I’m not sure I could live with them very long .
-Nate
The “toilet seat” on the rear trunk lid was probably the worst part of the Valiant’s styling. The back of the 61 Dodge Lancer looked much better. The toilet seat looked awful of every car than had it. I still can’t believe how the gorgeous 57 Plymouth morphed into the 59 overstyled mess and then the finned monstrosity in 60 when others were reducing fins. But the toilet seats never looked good on anything.
They were a bit ugly. Especially the back.
One advantage of using this styling on a compact first shows right off – it’s harder to screw up a smaller car because of the inherent packaging limitations of one.
I also think this car’s black paint does it no favors, the early Valiant looks much better in pastel colors or bright metallics.
Some of the Valiant’s design was ahead of its time, like the fuselage contours. Much of it though was just weird, like the bodyside bulges and toilet seat. Was the no-dashboard look ahead of its time? The only other car I can think of with it offhand is the VW Beetle, and it long predated the Valiant.
Curiously, the next (and last) Valiant redesign after the ’63-66 generation reverted to the box-on-box look, just as that style was going out of fashion for good.
Still, Plymouth designers menaged to get a rabbit out of the hat from the boxy Valiant when they created the Duster and to be more precise it’s the last North American Valiant redesign while the Aussie Valiant got a restyling inspired from the fuselage look in 1971. 😉 https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/automotive-history-the-valiant-in-australia-part-2/
A friend of mine had a beater 1960 Valiant. One day, he drove past an ugly car competition. He drove in and immediately won first prize!
Interesting to me as I see similar traits with my 1953 Studebaker Commander “Starliner” coupe. Longer hood, shorter trunk, but especially the no dashboard design. Euro inspired styling was forward thinking.
Studebakers always had nearly-vertical windshields which left little depth for the dashboard. They were also in early on the long hood/short deck proportions – most notably the Avanti predating the Mustang by almost two years.
Not sure why the speedometer is mounted so low though.
Speaking of Studebaker, time to remember a Curbside Classic flashback about the Valiant and the Lark. 😉
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/automotive-history-why-the-1959-studebaker-lark-front-end-looked-so-much-like-the-1960-valiant-front-end-it-was-stolen/
A friend of my dad bought a Valiant when they were introduced and I remember getting it mixed up with the Lark.
A college classmate had a ’62(?) Valiant with an Offenhauser 3-carb setup. Just remember the great exhaust sound, the terrific intake and exhaust plumbing and how it blew the doors off all comers.
Even if the first iteration was weird, it had “good bones” and went on to the be the basis for the first generation 1964 1/2 Plymouth Valiant Barracuda, the Plymouth Valiant Duster and Dodge Demon and Dart Sport, and the handsome Dodge Dart Swinger and Plymouth Valiant Scamp.
2nd-generation Barracuda too! New looks, same platform and mechanicals underneath.
Chrysler certainly got their money’s worth out of their investment in the Valiant (A-Body) platform. It stayed in production from 1959 through 1976 in the U.S. and in other countries through 1981.
I’ve heard that the subsequent Chrysler B-Body platform (used for the down-sized full-sized 1962 Plymouths and Dodges, and then for Chrysler’s 1965 and later mid-sized models) was heavily based on the compact Valiant A-Body platform.
Depends on your definition of “based”. The ’62 Dodge and Plymouth used very similar engineering and architectural solutions, but they were not just a stretched Valiant. Every body part was unique and it was engineered for a more powerful and heavier car. So yes, the engineers saved a lot of time and money by employing the same basic concepts as the Valiant.
Pity poor Virgil Exner. He tried to capitalize on the stunning success of the ‘Forward Look’ cars with another ‘out there’ attempt with the 1960 A-body and it just didn’t work. Simply put, the new Falcon and Corvair looked like the sixties and the Valiant looked like the fifties.
The saddest part is the 2nd gen 1963 Valiant (especially in 1964 after Engel touched up the taillights and grille) was a clean, good-looking car for which Exner typically gets no credit. Imagine if that’s the one that had come out in 1960.
Lord! The quirkiness has faded to “despair”, on this one. Makes a “Stude, Scotsman” look inviting. The interior seems to be a bit a ‘preserved”.
Supposedly, the surprise success of the 1957-58 Scotsman is what led Studebaker to create the Lark out of a shortened Champion for 1959. Unfortunately, the Lark’s success only lasted for that single year when the Big 3 jumped in with their own compacts for 1960.
As the article pointed out, the windshield is way too close to the driver and passenger. I would feel vulnerable to sudden stops…would opt for the back seat.
Would have been quite a contrast to the other cars of that day/time. Ever ride in a “Smart4two”, car? Eek!
The Valiant wagon of the era was only slightly less bizarre looking than the Valiant sedan(s).
Growing up, our next door neighbors purchased a 1961 Valiant wagon at about the same time as my parents bought a new 1961 Pontiac Tempest wagon. Most would agree that the Tempest was a more attractive (or at least less weird) vehicle. But our Tempest was plagued with a variety of ills in addition to the inherent shakiness of the unusual “Trophy 4” engine. I remember how upset my father was when it broke a timing chain shortly after the warranty expired. So just four short years after buying the Tempest, my dad gave up in frustration and replaced it with a new, stripped 1965 full-sized Ford Country Sedan wagon. Our neighbors held on to their Valiant until 1968 when they too succumbed to the allure of a shiny new Ford wagon; although in their case, they took the deluxe route and bought a loaded Country Squire.
I can still remember the distinctive whine of the Valiant starter motor as heard through my childhood bedroom window.
“I can still remember the distinctive whine of the Valiant starter motor as heard through my childhood bedroom window.”
Ah, yes. That unforgettable, distinctive sound of a Chrysler Corporation starter motor forever haunting the memories of the people of a certain age.
The wagons were much less, ungainly, ((visually, speaking))
Better looking than any of the road plastic of today.
Why can’t we order up robot built body work to go on modern technology. Are the Chinese doing it, but we’re too slow?
1008 of these were imported to Australia in late 1961 as Chrysler Australia were tooling up for the facelifted 1962/3 cars to be built here. This first Valiant was called the R series.
I’ve seen 2 in the wild: one was dismantled, the other was a white one parked outside an Adventist church in the Sydney suburb of Waitara.
So the R Series Valiant is actually American? I’m an American and I’m only familiar with that model which is mentioned in a song by the Waifs (Australian band led by two sisters):
“1962 ruby red interior
R series Valiant, mother of a car”.
But wait, if it’s a 1962 is it an R Series?
Yes, we got 1961 models as CKD kits and they were released in January 1962, slightly different than the featured car, being a 61, the grille had the blackouts.
10 weeks later the S series was released, all cars sold out quickly.
Sorry, I forgot to mention they came here CKD.
I wish we were still assembling foreign cars here. At least we would still have some kind of industry.
The S series that replaced it hat a lot fewer of Exner’s doo-das and chrome bits. A lot of people prefer them.
Back in the sixties, the S series was quite common here, but I was always hoping to see an R. There may only have been 1008, but I would have seen about ten-fifteen on the road.
I think people were aware they had a very rare car after a while and held onto them.
Mom traded her ’49 Pontiac fastback for a white ’60 Valiant wagon. Seems like most of them were white for some reason. Even as a kid, it seemed like a bad trade to me. Wish she woulda saved that sweet mayan gold 2 dr Pontiac Streamliner for me.
In 72 years of driving , I have had quite a few cars.My ’61 Valiant V 200, was one of the three best.Well made,comfortable, power enough for me.Few flaws in it.Only design failure? tail lights without adequate protection.I made sure they were safe with speciallly forged cast iron bumpers.
If I had the $$ I’d restomod one of these in a heartbeat.
Superb design analysis.
I agree, it was distictive, radical, and had some styling cues that would ultimately become commonplace. However, the overall effect was confusing and the proportions were really off for a compact. Mechanically however, the original Valiant was top-notch. In 1963 the car got the body it deserved from the beginning.
A piece of modern sculpture? A pile of old de Kooning, I reckon. (We had one outside the State gallery here for years: it looked like a very large dog had left it).
The D’elegance – which seemed lost in translation even as it was being written – has the central body bits, and tail, which work. The windows are low (probably impractically so), and the roof is a nice curve down into them. But the Val is cursed by dead-flat side windows that look too high, topped off by a roof with an appalling square-edged step up in it, which looks like what it probably was – a late move to increase headroom. It’s at best half-fuselage, lower only. Put it this way, if I was about to fly on a new ’60 jet that had a body like that, I’d be leaving it for the adventurous to try.
The other bits from that D’elegance on the front and rear sides don’t work as any sort of a piece with the middle, yet their more vestigial forms made it on to the much shorter Val, where they work even less.
Personally, I think the design is incoherent. There’s too many ideas trailing off.
Having said all this, I did like them for a long time just for their willful difference, a sort of impertinence in their time, but I went off them long ago. Actually, give me that quite-pretty, blowsy, bowed-roof ’60 Falcon over this. Perhaps it does no more than “conventional”, but it does it very well (sad face possibly excluded).
As an actual car, give me the Val any old day. Tough, smooth, comfy, and (comparatively) fast. Miles ahead of the GM Holden and Falcon competition for years here.
I’ve never seen anyone mention the Citroen DS as a design inspiration for the fuselage look and body proportions.
The styling didn’t bother me. Like someone else said, the Studebaker Lark was in the same ballpark.
Comparing a 1960 Valiant with (my former) 1960 Comet. The Comet looks sharp, unified, somewhat sleek. The Valiant looks… let’s just say it’s an interesting period piece. There are certain things about the Valiant design I like–but overall it’s not my favorite.
The unfortunate thing is the Valiant (from all accounts) DRIVES much better than Falcon/Comet. So once again the car buyer faces a common dilemma…
I absolutely loved this car as a kid way back then. The black exterior and red interior was the best. I still remember the distinctive sound of this car starting and then pulling away from the curb. Such a beauty!!! ❤️👍😎
I like this “Frog Prince”. But I also like my 1955 Studebaker Champion.
Exner should have known better. The Valiant design was far too sophisticated for low-priced compact car buyers. Conventionally bland made the Falcon a success. Yes, the Valiant styling needed more refinement to apply it to Imperial where it would have introduced a new design language. Imperial was the place to push the stylistic envelope.
Pretty much everything has been covered, but I can add a few things.
I have a `61 Plymouth Valiant V200 2 door hardtop, 1 of 18,586 built pictured below.
First year as a Plymouth model, since as mentioned Valiant was it’s own make it’s introductory year in `60, and all were 4 doors.
In `61 V100 2 door sedans (22,230 built), and V200 2 door hardtops were added to the line-up.
The 101HP 170/6 was standard, but mid year `61 the 145 HP 225 /6 became optional for an additional $47.30.
Dash gauges, push buttons & radio knobs were black in `60 and white in `61.
The dash and radio design changed in `62, thus making `60 and `61 radios unique to their own year.
V100s had no side trim or deck medallions.
Rear arm rests and rear ashtrays were not available in V100s.
In `60 the 3rd seat in 9 passenger suburbans were factory installed, in `61 they were dealer installed.
So separate productions numbers only exist for `60, no breakdown for 9 passenger suburbans in `61.
I have Virgil Exner’s patent drawings, but this format only allows one image per comment.
I will add them in replies.
Valiant Patent I
Valiant Patent II
A family friend owned one of these when I was a tot – a baby blue sedan, either 60 or 61. It was a mesmerizing design, and I remember walking around and around it, soaking in the weirdness. The lady’s husband was a mechanical engineer, which probably explains the choice. My own parents were far too invested in appearing normal to have made such a choice.
Today, I see the weirdness as a feature rather than a bug. Ulitmate Google weirdness mated to the best chassis in its class makes this early Valiant a winner. I would own one of these in a heartbeat!