(first posted 7/6/2011) Call me crazy, call me nerdy. But one of my favorite cars of all time, just to stare at for hours, is the original Valiant. Within a short three years, it would become the definition of the automotive appliance. But for those first three years of its life, Valiant was the wildest peacock of the Big Three compacts.
Out of the three domestic compacts introduced in the fall of 1959, visually the Valiant had no precedent. The Corvair could reference both roof styles with contemporary large GM hardtops. The Falcon had large afterburner tail lights in common with its larger brethren, except, oddly, in 1960.
Not so much the Valiant. There’s clearly elements of Virgil Exner’s 1958 Imperial D’elegance concept roller. Despite some of its flat-out details, it’s “fuselage” styling, with no break between the bottom of the windows and door upper edge, was very distinct break from tradition, and was first seen in a production car on the Valiant.
But I also see elements of the original Studebaker Champion in the Valiant. Fascinating to me considering Virgil Exner had a hand in designing the original 1939 Champion under Raymond Loewy. Like the Champion, the Valiant was a clean sheet design. Thematically the Champion seemed a spiritual ancestor to the Valiant more so than the dowdy, over engineered Cranbrooks, Cambridges and Concords that were the Plymouth practical bread and butter in the early 1950s.
But the Valiant continued to display Chrysler’s long established reputation for engineering prowess. It was also one of the first cars designed using computers. The taut “Torsion-Aire” suspension, the easy to use pushbutton TorqueFlite, and the seemingly indestructible Slant 6 were attached to its unit body. Special care was paid to sound deadening and vibration control to make the Valiant seem less removed from a larger, more traditional mid century American Sedan.
It rode the second shortest wheelbase in it’s class (106.5 inches) but at 184.5 inches long it was almost 10 inches longer than a Lark. The interior afforded more leg room than either Falcon or Corvair. Also, reflecting its higher entry price the interior wasn’t as spartan as a standard Falcon or Corvair 500.
According to Allpar the Valiant almost ended up a lot like the Corvair. The Slant 6 started as a Slant 4 mounted out back, but didn’t produce enough torque for American tastes and was soon upsized to a six. The stories from the GM proving grounds scared Chrysler engineers to approach their interpretation of the “rationalization” of the American sedan from a more traditional stance. The slant six was named such because of its 30 degree angle slant towards the passenger side of the car.
Due to its longer intake runners and other engineering tricks, it was a superior performer to a majority of the six cylinders offered by competitors. At 101 standard horsepower, the 170 cube version ran 0-60 times in the 15-17 second range (depending on which source), which put it a 3-4 seconds ahead of the Corvair, and up to 9-10 seconds ahead of a dawdling Falcon wheezing through it’s 144 Six and a Ford-O-Matic. The Hyper Pak equipped versions shamed the Corvair and Falcon in a special compacts only 1960 Daytona 500 event. The Valiants took the first Seven positions in the race. On the second day, the first place Valiant averaged 122mph.
So, if the original Valiant was so superior at everything, why was it the (seemingly) most unloved of the first Big Three compacts? Although it sold 194, 000+ units in its first year, that trailed the Corvair’s 250,000 or the 435,000+ Falcons that spewed like ants out of Ford factories throughout the nation. In 1961 and 1962 the sales stayed pretty much steady, never really breaking out of the 150K range. The main reason I can attribute is the curious styling.
The original Valiant looks like nothing that came out of American design studios at the time. There’s a lot of classic design elements trying to break through. The front fender brow hints at trying to have a separate fender look, as does the radius curve around the rear wheel that flows into the slanted fins. The most awkward element of the Valiant to me is the way the roofline was handled on the two door cars. As shown on this 1962 2 door there was still a six window look. It was also retained on the V200/Signet Hardtops.
It gives the upper body structure of the 2 door Valiants a rather pregnant look compared to the smooth taper of the Corvair, or the faux pretense of a Falcon Futura 2 door with its square C pillars cribbed from the Thunderbird. The reason was a cost saving measure, so all Valiant non-wagons could use the same roof stampings and door/window parts.
Another curious throwback of the Valiant design is how far the passenger cabin sits above the fender line. In contrast to even with the beltline design of almost every other American car of the period, the Valiant harkens back to a school of design that says that says film noir more than Fellini. It’s very retro modern in that way. And perhaps details like these hampered its appeal.
But, the Valiant has a fan in me. And my favorite element of the original Valiant has to be its fantastic face. It’s the most complete face out of all of the American Compacts on offer in original form. The Corvair’s face didn’t look quite right until the 1961 nose surgery that gave it more cargo capacity. The Falcon looked decidedly unfinished and cheap with its 1960-61 face.
I know it’s pretty much is a downsized form of a Chrysler 300 Letter series front end. It’s not a “pretty” face. It’s a rather masculine look. But the detail involved with making such an expressive visage gives the Valiant a premium look that contemporaries could not match. Well, until the 1961 B-O-P Luxury compacts did LeSabre, Eighty Eight and Catalina in miniature.
My father’s second car was the Valiant’s slightly more upscale sister ship, the Lancer (in GT Hardtop form) after he had a a disastrous relationship with a Corvair 500 sedan. Although I seriously think the disaster part of the Corvair relationship is that he had to knock the battery terminals off with a stick to turn it off. He highly regarded the Lancer as a great car, and had he not fallen into the Cutlass Cult then sweeping baby boomers in the late 1960s, he might have stayed Mopar loyal.
Or was it the fact that the Valiant grew too plain to catch the eyes of those that wanted more visual bang for their buck? It’s remarkable how quickly the Valiant turned into the functional equivalent of a Camry in looks. The 1963 model, although available in Convertible form, turned up a more crisply tailored version of Falcon design themes.
The brave warrior face was replaced with the face of an accountant in 1963. He was no longer standing on his own four tires as an independent from his parents make. In puberty, dear Lance gained 5 inches in wheelbase and the show car design (with elements from the Turbine Coupe) and got a big boy name: Dart. Prince Valiant became the lowliest of Plymouths, now in the shadow of his flashier, more well endowed brother Dart.
When they graduated High School four years later Prince Valiant became the CPA.
While brother Dart became Joe Namath:
And that was perhaps the final nail in the coffin for Plymouth as a whole. All of the best accomplishments got better accolades as Dodges. Whether it was the massive damage the 1960 Darts did to Fury sales, or Lancer becoming the sportier Dart, or the fact that there’s a Dodge line to revive the Challenger for today instead of a Plymouth line to reincarnate the Barracuda for. The image of Plymouth didn’t handle the outreach to sporty compacts or broughams very well.
But once the Valiant was brave enough to be unique and march to a different drum. Like most cars of the 1960s, there’ll never be another car like it.
Related reading:
CC 1961-1962 Dodge Lancer: How Are We Going To Make You A Little Less Weird?
CC 1963 Plymouth Valiant: When The Curious Looking Get Self Conscious, Conform
Thanks for that one, great choice! Long ago I owned a ’62 4-door Dodge Lancer in Pistachio Ice Cream Green with the 170 /6, pushbutton automatic, and under-dash A/C. Loved that car, wish I still had it today…
Nice article on an often overlooked car.
The Valiant’s styling didn’t help sales, but there were other factors that hampered its ability to compete in the marketplace.
The first was its build quality, which was the worst of the compacts on the market. Chrysler had major problems with body fit and inconsistent build quality in this era. A driver taking his or her Valiant out in the rain could expect to find puddles – or even pools – of water in the trunk or back seat floor.
The second was how Chrysler marketed the Valiant in 1960. It was marketed simply as the Valiant – not the Plymouth Valiant. People didn’t know how to react to it, or where it stood in the corporate lineup. At least the Falcon was the Ford Falcon, and the Corvair was the Chevrolet Corvair. Buyers knew where to find those cars, and where they stood in their respective divisional lineups.
Chrysler also took away the Plymouth franchise from its Dodge dealers that year. Until 1960, Plymouth had been dualed with other Chrysler Corporation makes, an arrangement that dated back to the Great Depression. In the booming postwar market, this was seen as a handicap, as dealers wanted to sell buyers maybe one Plymouth, and then encourage them to “trade up” to the more profitable Dodge, DeSoto or Chrysler next time.
In 1960, Chrysler gave Dodge dealers the Plymouth-like Dart as compensation. Two Chrysler Corporation cars were competing directly with each other. Dart ads even encouraged prospects to compare the Dart to “Car C,” “Car F” and “Car P”! It didn’t help that the 1960 Plymouth was considered unattractive then – an assessment that holds true today.
Even worse, long-time customers who went to what had been the friendly Plymouth-Dodge dealer discovered that it no longer sold Plymouths. The dealer wasn’t about to direct them to another dealer to buy a Plymouth or a Valiant, especially with the low-cost Dart right there on the showroom floor!
Looking back, it’s amazing that Chrysler sold as many first-generation Valiants as it did.
That would explain, considering about 500K of the 60-62 Valiants alone were produced, that they’re so thin on the ground now. Compared to the 1963-66 Valiant (Or Corvairs and Falcons for that matter), there’s remarkably few left. I always chalked it up to how weird they looked and that fed into them being unloved. I guess a fair bit of rust damage took their toll on these first series cars.
Right on, Laurenece! I lived in (and love) Alameda – I can tell some of these pix are Alameda/Oakland and there are MONDO clean, daily old cruisers (Mopars especially) out and about the streets of Alameda/Oakland/Berkeley/San Leandro/Hayward/etc. etc. etc.
Good article. Mopar’s worst enemy was Mopar itself. ChryCo mgt (L.L. Colbert, K.T. Keller, Newberg, etc.) were usually ex-Dodge men, and when Dodge whined, Dodge got what they wanted – usually at the expense (and demise) of Plymouth and DeSoto.
BTW – the relatives in Missouri – ’30’s through the ’70’s in my family – were loyal Moparians. As a small boy, my late Uncle Bill had a blue ’62 Dodge Signet, followed by a 318 Dodge Coronet SE followed by the infamous turd-brown over brown paisely topped ’71 Plymouth Gran Fury followed by his last Mopar (after which he went and stayed Ford) a shit-box, rattling, troublesome ’78 Plymouth Gran Fury wagon. I car, I remember back when he had it new, even at the height of America’s Malaise Era (I was 19)- this car was an ill-fitting assembled, rattling SHIT BOX.
I love Mopars!
The Red Valiant is in Palo Alto, and the daily driver of some guy I went to High School with that tries to outdork his last daily driver with something even more dorky. Before the ’61 Valiant he had a 1963 Ambassador. The Seafoam 62 Valiant, from what I can guess, is someones that had it since their days in the Navy, cause it had a few Alameda Naval Station decals on the bumper and in the windows. I actually caught it in El Cerrito, after tooling through North Berkeley into Albany on Key Route Boulevard.
I didn’t want to go too deeply into the downfall of Plymouth (or DeSoto) for that matter. Paul has done that great multi part series on Chrysler’s many “to the brink” moments, but I also wanted the story to be open to all of the Chrysler Products involved. For instance, if someone ever finds a 1960 Dart Seneca or something. Or a 1961 DeSoto.
But I do think around 1960 is when the rot for Plymouth really started to set in. Plymouth’s weren’t able to successfully build on the “Suddenly It’s 1960” image. For whatever reason Plymouth wasn’t able to bring the affordable sport/luxury cachet that Chevrolet (and to a lesser extent) Ford brought to it’s full sized line. I would say it had to do with the fact that Plymouth buyers didn’t make the Fury the best selling brand in the Plymouth line like Chevy buyers made Impalas the best sellers in the line. Maybe it was the demographic that traditional Plymouth buyers were less into frills and luxury, and those new Plymouth buyers that liked the 1957 Models where scared away by the quality control issues.
Which makes me wonder about the position of Dodge a lot. I always equated 1950s-60s Dodges as equals of Pontiacs. But, Pontiacs didn’t always dip as far into Chevrolet territory as Dodge did Plymouth. And that’s where I really don’t get Dodge’s relative success in the 1960s compared to Plymouth during the decade. You didn’t necessarily get a better car like the difference between an Impala and a Catalina, for instance. And at least from 1960-64 Dodge styling is equally goofy as Plymouth (I actually for one prefer the 1960 Plymouth to Dodge).
My error – I meant my Uncle’s ’62 LANCER’ (oops)!.
The light blue ’62 Valiant (’62?) Cal Black Plate “BRR 365” is an appropriate license plate since the slant 6 and Torqueflite 6 would go “b-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r” away from a dead stop!
And . .. nothing says Mopar like the sound of a Hammtramck Whiner starter in the distance!
Chew – dew -dew – dew -dew -dew VRROOOM . . . . (idle) b-r-r-r-r-r-r-r (if a slant six). Bay Area cars – not just Alameda/Contra Costa county but the whole S.F. Bay Area has MONDO clean cruisers-a-plenty in daily service.
GO (World Champion S.F.) GIANTS!
Geeber – I believe the Valiant (and to a lesser extent 1st gen Dodge Signet) should’ve used Studebaker’s early-60s slogan – “different – by design!”
I noticed there were no photos of the perforated cardboard – or was it Masonite? – headliner. That too speaks for the quality of those first Valiants/Lancers. My aunt had one with the under-dash A/C – Air-Temp did a fair job with that one, as it worked pretty well. But the rest of the car – those interior shots bring it all back to me! My aunt’s car was white with blue interior. A real oddball. The oddest of all were the hardtops that still had a fixed C pillar window! But I will never complain about that! Visibility, visibility, visibility.
I love the little oddball’s styling. To me these always looked (on the outside) like what the stylists of the 40s and 50s were telling us the “CAR OF THE FUTURE!” would look like. One of the reasons I love old cars is they sure were distinctive. Today every manufacturer has a midsize and a compact that if you saw just the outlines of the car you’d be hard pressed to guess the parent company (for most of them.) Just my 2 cents.
I too am a fan of the early Valiant. Virgil Exner seemed to develop a fascination with voluptiously styled Italian cars, and his later efforts at Chrysler carry these influences. But this car is probably the clearest example of that design language (also exemplified by the 62 Fury & Dart and the 63 Chrysler).
As with most Mopars of those years, if you could get past the build-quality issues and the looks, you got a heckuva car. You got Way more engine, and (gasp) a 3 speed Torqueflite automatic (a better automatic than you could get in the most expensive Impala over at Chevrolet). But the looks were probably off-putting to most people. I thought the wagons were the best looking, actually. Of the sedans, I preferred the 60-61 with the cats eye taillights to the 62 with the bland round taillights. I will agree that the 2 door sedan just looks kind of dumb.
When I was a kid, some family friends had one of these. The husband was an engineer, so he was probably in Chrysler’s core demographic then. His wife drove a baby blue 4 door with the pushbutton automatic. As a little kid, I was fascinated by the pushbuttons, and also by the pedals that looked like it was covered by little suction cups (like octopus tentacles). The butt with the little winking cat’s eye taillights looked like no other car, then or since. The famous Exner fake spare tire on the deck lid (shown on your red car) was the finishing touch.
I saw one of these a year or two ago, and was struck by how small it was outside and how roomy it was inside. When I was in college with my 59 Fury, another kid on my dorm floor had a light gray 62 Lancer. We both loved the pushbutton transmissions and had by far the most unique cars on our floor.
edit: I remember one other feature of these cars – the ever present fuel stain flowing down the paint under the fuel filler cap. You can see it in the white 2 door picture. These things must have burped gas out of that fill pipe like mad, because evey one I ever saw looked this way when they were older.
The Valiant was available with the fake tire outline on the deck lid for 1960-61. It was not available in 1962, if I recall correctly.
I always thought that the perfect domestic compact for 1960 would have been a Falcon body and (deluxe) interior with a Valiant chassis and drivetrain, built by Ford. Which, except for the built-by-Ford part, is what Chrysler gave us in 1963.
Anyone here notice the very, very STRONG similarity to the original Studebaker Lark?
And that similarity just grew, when the Lark got quad headlights. I have to wonder, who was copying who? Were BOTH designs farmed out, to maybe different doors of the same concern? Or was there some design espionage? And if so, who copied WHO…since both came out about the same time?
I doubt that there was deliberate copying by either Chrysler or Studebaker.
Exner had always been in love with bold grilles, as shown by the 1957 Chrysler 300C. He originally wanted to apply that front-end treatment to ALL 1957 Chryslers, but management vetoed that idea as too radical. Exner did apply the 300 grille theme to the Valiant.
Studebaker, meanwhile, had the distribution rights to Mercedes-Benz vehicles in the United States. The Hawks of the 1950s also had a bold front grille. The 1959 Lark can either been seen as an attempt to create a family resemblance between the Hawk and the Lark, or an attempt to add a Mercedes touch to a mundane family compact.
According to Virgil Exner, Jr., who worked on the original Lark, the inspiration for the grille was Lancia, not Mercedes. But yes, it was intended to create a resemblance to the Hawk.
Funny that you mention that: check back in a few hours for the next CC today.
I have a 62 Valyant that’s been sitting in a Garage for a little over 10 years now. 200T that will still runs, think it’s worth gettng the bit of rust off the edge of the Fendrs? 12,500 on the odomitor.
Not exactly coincidental, but not in the way you might think.
Virgil Exner, Jr. worked under Duncan McRae at Studebaker when the ’59 Lark was designed, and did a few pieces of the Lark (I think the taillights, mainly). He told Special Interest Autos in 1977 that the McRae had really liked Chrysler’s Ghia-built show cars of the mid-fifties — which of course Virgil Exner Sr. had designed — and those themes influenced the Lark (although the grille was inspired by Lancia).
Studebaker designers were likely aware when the Lark went on sale that the Valiant was in the works — it was approved for production in July 1958, at which point the Lark was about to begin preproduction — but I doubt one directly influenced the other. I think it’s more that both had common stylistic and thematic antecedents in Virgil Exner Sr.’s earlier work, applied to cars of very similar dimensions and proportions. Cousins, in short.
@Just Passin: OK, it wasn’t just me. My great-Uncle had a 1962 Lark VIII, which could have been easily mistaken for an early Valiant at a quick glance.
The other thing is the Lark is a pretty boxy car, and the early Valiants were as far from boxy as a car could get back then. But I have to admit, as a 7 year old, their facial resemblance confused me.
I agree that the wagons were better looking than the sedans. This is one of my all-time favorite cars for looks. To me, it’s the automotive epitome of art deco. They came out when I was six, and I was immediately enchanted. I’m still enchanted. That was the car that got me photographing cars. The head of the MIT Day Camp, where my brother and I went when I was 7, had a wagon, and I was absolutely thrilled to get a ride home in that thing one day.
The quality seemed really good. Several years later, I was in a carpool where one of the dads had one. That thing–a ’60, I think–could whiz up Belmont Hill on Concord AVe. in third gear. Our ’57 Chevy 210 wagon, and later, our ’63 Chevy II wheezed up that hill in second. That Valiant didn’t rattle, either.
Hi David ! Thanks for commenting on the 1962 Plymouth Valiant station wagons ! I REALLY like those cars !! I know you have great taste in automtive car designs as I own TWO ’62 Valiant wagons…………………..how sick is that !! You can view my wagon on the website : Valiantville…….. where you see other ‘ 60 – ’62 Valiants as well !! Enjoy, I can be contacted at : been2abbeyroad@hotmail.com – THANK YOU !! Ray
I wish that the 1962 Signet had the 60-61 taillights. Just like I wish the Mercury Comet kept it’s slanted 1960 Edsel tail lamps for the first convertibles in 1963. To me the Signet (even with it’s “pregnant” roofline) is the best looking (the cleanest trim, the most 300 of front ends).
Its is possessive, it’s is a contraction of it is.
Sorry, not usually an English nazi but this was just too bugsome in this article.
The editor has been a bit lax (summer distractions); but it’s fixed now.
Ditto from another Grammar Nazi. My theory is, schoolteachers aren’t pointing out that irregularity anymore.
Or maybe professional grammarians don’t consider it a mistake nowadays, & the joke’s on me. Language does change, & it’s not as if the rules are written on stone tablets.
LOL! I’m what some would call a perfectionist when it comes to spelling and grammar. If I don’t know how a word is spelled, I’ll just type it in and let spell check catch the mistake. If it’s a mistake I feel should be corrected, I’ll usually go back and correct it. If that’s how a word is supposed to be spelled, and spell check doesn’t recognize the word or the spelling, I’ll sometimes just ignore it and continue. 🙂
“Bugsome”?
I do enjoy these as well as most oddball cars. The styling is just wild. I suspect this was the inspiration for The Homer car on the Simpsons. While I like the Valiant the grill is a big over sized to me. The 1962 Dodge Lancer GT pulled off the same body style a little bit more gracefully.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/daveseven/4819738164/
Lancer did pull it off better than Valiant. As much as I enjoy oddball cars I just can’t find a lot of love for the early Valiant. It’s just so out there. And I love the other odd ducks from Mopar.
I have always assumed the car Homer Drives is a rather beat-up Pink Cadillac Sedan, perhaps a former Mary KAy Cadillac. I have always hoped for an episode about how Homer’s car came into their possession. Does anyone have any theories on this?
Marge’s car I assume to be about a 1974 Chevelle Wagon, Though it also sort of ressembles a 1964ish Plymouth wagon, but I could be way off. Has anyone else here ever given any thought to this?
I also figured Homer’s car was a tired Caddy, and was so transfixed by its tail fins, I never noticed Marge’s car!
I wonder which vehicle might’ve been the inspiration for the Canyonero.
Ford Excursion and Hummer H2, most likely.
Is it just me or does this era Valiant look like the design inspiration for the Nissan Juke?
Chrysler put 14 inch wheels on this and created an Aussie car it competed with the HoldenFB and the Falcon Zephyr Vauxhall Cresta out here and did well We only got the 4 door model and only the 225 engine, These cars did well down under unlike the Falcon which fell to pieces the Valiant was well designed and tough and it was up there with Vauxhalls on comfort and performance only downside was tyre and fuel consumption by local standards they were thirstybut very popular these finally put the Crabrook/Royal out to pasture although the two were produced for a couple of years and established Chrysler as a local car maker Todd motors assembled NZ versions alongside Humber Super Snipes and Minxes a very well reguarded car in NZ better thought of than in OZ where the term ethnic express/wog mecedes was coined due to the bulk of buyers hailing from southern Europe, Real rare cars now and worth big bucks all Vals are thin on the ground now victims of rust and $10 gas,shame.
The NZ car scene must’ve been quite different to here in Oz. Vauxhalls were very thin on the ground, and in a different price class altogether. Supposedly upmarket, with the bigger engine, but oh dear! They had such a bad reputation for rust that Holden had discontinued the big Vauxhalls altogether by the mid-sixties.
Falcons? We had an XL when I was a kid, and I remember the constant front end troubles – always in the shop. It didn’t help that dad was a commercial traveller, and put a very high mileage on his. Early Falcons had very weak front ends, sure, but Ford Oz fixed this by using compact Fairlane bits when they became available. And it was a common fix to fit grease nipples to the front end. The structure was tightened up somewhat with the ’64 XM and finally fixed with the ’65 XP. But you had to wonder what Ford Oz was thinking to release them with such weak front ends in the first place. Especially when the Valiant was so much stronger. And faster. And more stylish. And…..
Great article, sir! A++++
When I was a kid the folks across the street had a green one of these. I liked it a bunch except for the fake spare tire thing on the trunk.
The Slant Six rocked.
My parents rented one of these after a car accident we were involved in. During a left hand turn at a Detroit traffic light, the right rear door popped open, deposited me on the roadway, and my parents never even knew it happened.
I have to admit the thought of your parents driving off oblivious as the door reclosed gave me a rather good laugh.
It seems to me I have heard of this happening in this model of car before.
I’ve heard that more often about Studebaker Hawk Coupes: Accidental tumbles out of the car on hard left turns.
doors popping open was not such a rare occurrence back then. It happened at least once on our ’57 Chevy, but luckily I did not fall out.
This same thing happened to my little sister, who at the age of three suddenly found herself sitting on a sandy Florida road. My dad had no clue this had happened until he turned around and asked, “Where’s Sandra?” “Oh, she fell out,” we casually replied!
I always preferred this to the Falcon or Corvair. I liked the original “Cat’s eye” taillights , which are a little similar to those found on the original 61 Comet.
The taillight/fin/trunk of the revised 62′ Valiant remind me of a miniature version of the 1957 Cadillac ElDorado. rear end. Does anyone else see the similarities?
Crazy! Nerdy! (You did ask us after all.)
Nice write up on one of my favorites. I don’t have much to say – Bryce beat me to it. So I’ll simply add another picture of one that an Australian “hoon” got his hands on (I refer to identifying marks of a hoon owned car: the raised rear, tramp rods/bars, center roof radio aerial, & moon roof).
Never has a 4 door sedan worn the hotrod look nearly so well! That’s a badass looking little car that Id be proud to rock!
The car looked like ass.
I’ve always loved the look of the 60-61 Valiant. I owned a 60 V-200 Wagon back in 98-99. Maybe I’m weird but it seems that the 63 on up Valiants are considered to be way more popular than the 60-62. They are just boxes with no personality. When I had mine I went to a junkyard that dealt in vintage cars. I inquired about 60-62 Valiant parts. Nope, we crushed them all years ago was the answer. I was forced to sell mine and the new owner informed that he was going to convert my baby to a two door. I figured who ever got it would screw it up by doing something heinous to it. I don’t know if he ever did it but I did wonder how it would have looked.
I have a 62 valiant, 2 dr hd top, bucket seats. Need alittle work slant 6 , push button His name is Joe we live in Oregon
These cars were HUGELY popular in Australia! We simply couldn’t get enough of them. First introduced in 1961 with the cat’s eye tail lights and spare wheel impression on the boot, they had the 225 cube slant 6 from the outset. Followed a year later by the revised round tail-light model (although the original 1961 instrument cluster was still fitted to this model). There was never a 170 cube option in this country.
Converting these cars over to right-hand drive was a challenge to Chrysler Australia as the slant of the engine got in the way of where the steering box need to go. I think the problem was solved by remotely mounting the oil filter elsewhere on the engine using extension pipes.
They simply blew away the competition by a massive margin which included Ford’s 144 cube Falcon and Australia’s own GM product, a 138 cube Holden (which looked more like a down-sized 1957 Chev). Style-wise, I still love the A-bodied Valiant. They had a certain “Euro” appeal. The glass and midship area was not unlike a Citroen DS19, and the pleated-look roof-line was somewhat similar to the British Triumph Vitesse. Whatever the comparison, it stood out from the crowd. Big time.
I was 12 yo when these cars first hit our shores, but I can still smell the new space-age interior and marvel at the push-button auto. The delivery of power through the Torque-Flite box was so instantaneous! Other autos of the day seemed to lag, and often felt like a manual car that had a badly-worn slipping clutch when moving off …
Today, these Valiants in Australia are still fairly easy to find, and command a premium price for a unit in good condition.
I second your comments, Carl. Remember how these Valiants had a cult following already in the late sixties? Truly a modern Classic.
Ran across this project-ready 1962 wagon for sale today on CL.
http://vancouver.en.craigslist.ca/pml/cto/4462168119.html
Its 1963 replacement was a harbinger of how mismanaged Chrysler was in the early 1960’s.
A production increase of 53.000 units between ’62 and ’63 and a new sales record for the Valiant (which would be broken again in ’64) is hardly a sign of mismanagement.
The “not ready for prime time” ’57s that permanently damaged Chrysler’s reputation, the ’62 full-size lineup, now THAT was mismanagement!
Scaled up and refined, the ’60-’62 Valiant design should have been reserved for either the next Chrysler or better yet, the next Imperial. To some extent it was, the ’63-’64 Chrysler is in the same idiom. The design was way more sophisticated than necessary for the low-priced, economy car customer. Innocuous, banal styling was one major factor contributing to Falcon’s blockbuster sales success along with better dealer representation and lower price. The skinflint buyers knew the Falcon was their car the minute they saw it.
Odd that Chrysler decided to market it initially as a new, stand-alone make. But Lincoln-Mercury tried that gambit with Comet for 1960-61 as well. The only rational might have been they were taking a page from the American Motors playbook, since Rambler was promoted from a model to a stand-alone make and doing gangbusters.
But AMC could get away with it: witness the bizarre naming convention of an upmarket model whose name was recycled from its now-defunct make applied to another promoted model from that same now-defunct make…..Ambassador by Rambler! Duh!
The Comet was originally planned to be an Edsel, and most likely THE Edsel after 1960. Wiser heads realized that launching a fresh new car with a name that had taken on the stench of failure was a bad idea so it was launched as a standalone, becoming a Mercury after handily outselling the big Merc two years running.
When new these were *so* different looking they were not very popular in spite of being great cars .
More’s the pity as they really did run well and out handled & out rode Falcons and Novas….
I love MoPar ‘A’ Bodies too but the weird styling and often wretched build quality still keeps me away .
-Nate
i’m sorry. it’s. just. ugly.
As a car crazy kid I can recall when the first compacts arrived for the 1960 model year. There were tons of Falcons around, a little fewer Corvairs, and practically none of these. Also, all the buzz and advertising at the time was about the Falcon and Corvair, never the Valiant. As a result I’ve thought little of these in the past 55 years.
Giving them a fresh look now, I’m amazed how attractive the design really was on the four door. Great grill and front end, futuristic sides and the rear, while not its best feature, was at least original. Looking at the front alone. you would think this could be a mini Chrysler 300. The Torque Flight and slant six gave it arguably one of the best drive trains in the business. It far exceeded the frumpy Falcon and controversial Corvair.
Too bad they didn’t give the two door its own unique roofline and C post. Kinda ruined the car. Coupes were very popular in the early ’60’s and I can see potential customers for a compact coupe running away from these. I guess keeping the price low to come close to price leader Falcon made a separate coupe design a non-starter.
Of the 1960 compacts, it’s the Valiant whose styling has held up the best over the intervening 64 years.
And where did you find the photo of a virtual twin of one of my own cars, a metallic blue 1968 Plymouth Valiant Signet (mine had air conditioning, which isn’t visible from outside, and which was quite rare in Valiants)?
Fascinating story about the Plymouth Valiant. I’ve always liked the oddball shape of the 1960-62 Valiant. I’ve never cared for the 1963 Valiant. I thought the grille made the front end look just plain ugly. I did like the 1964-65 Valiant. My favourites have always been the 1967-72 Plymouth Valiant and Duster models.
Yet it did go on to inspire Mopar styling from the `62 Dodges and Plymouthy, and especially the `63 and `64 Chryslers.
I’ve got a soft spot for these, but can’t say I love the design. Even as a kid I thought they personified a funny looking old man and the name Valiant didn’t seem to fit. Coincidentally my grandfather had one of these, which sat in their backyard and rarely moved. As a kid I would play in it, pretending to drive it.
Here’s a 1962 comparison of the Chevy II vs the Valiant, Falcon, Comet, Rambler and Fairlane. The Chevy II beats them all in a drag race with the six or 4 cylinder.
Amusing viewing, but hopefully you don’t expect us to take it seriously, eh? These “comparisons” done by the car companies were notoriously “unreliable”.
Having said that, the ’62 Chevy II six did have the biggest standard engine (194), so it probably was the fastest of its direct field.
As we were mostly a Ford family I was always rooting for them but in most of the comparisons in the car magazines of the time the Chevys usually won. Ford had their own extended ad videos:
And here in 1963 the Chevy II beats them in handling:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbsrO_h3QI8
They also compare the full size cars, all the way to the Chevy 409 vs the Ford 406 @ 9:00.
My family bought a new ’61 base Valiant, with the 170 and 3-in-the-floor. I remember it having the radio-delete plate when we got it, that was later replaced by the dealer with a push-button A.M. I was only 3 when we got it, but what I remember most about the car was a tendency to die after going through a puddle of water or not start after a rain, interior door handles falling off, bad paint, and rusting out floorboards. Nevertheless, the Valiant served as primary family transportation for 7 years.
As an 8 year old child, I loved riding in the family friends red 4 door 61 cat’s eye model. The tailamps and push buttons on the dash were so interesting to me. I do remember comments made by adults about it’s looks that weren’t so flattering. I think because of that the owner didn’t keep it long. It was replaced with a 57 Buick Special. They do have a Studebaker vibe to them. When you saw it you knew what it was. Sort of the Pontiac Aztek or Nissan Juke of it’s day. With a bit of Simpsonmobile mixed in. But with a good, solid drivetrain.
When I was about 10 years old, my grandparents bought me a few Premeir model kits of the “62 Compacts”, a Lark, an Olds F85, and a Valiant, all 4 doors.Nothing like the excellent AMT, JoHan or Revell models of the era{that still hold up today}, these were very crude scale models in appox 1-32 scale withy multi piece bodies,no vinyl tires or chrome plated parts, but they did all have scale engines I was able to build them into decent-not “glue bomb” models. The Valiant was molded in an blue irridescent color that looked pretty good without having to paint it.If memory serves, I believe I blew them up mwith glue and firecrackers on the 4th. of July.As a lifetime car nut and car model builder, I wish I still had them.
I like these Valiants and Lancers. They definitely make you notice them, and I like the idea that they were total terrors on the racetrack. That face definitely supplied DNA to the ’04 Chrysler 300 and in a very good way. Yes, theyre a bit unusual and the bodystyle actually looks really good as a 4 door sedan *GASP*. Its at once distinguished and classy yet as Davo’s pic shows, it lends itself well to the Rat Finked hotrod look too.
The Valiant is obviously unique in the looks department, and its engineering qualities make it a car worthy of respect. The styling however has always looked unresolved to me.
The front end is its most conventional aspect, but even in 1960 the separate fender expression was last year’s look. The sides are slightly skeletal (like an animal with painfully skinny haunches) in contrast with the more muscular, bulked-up front end. And it’s hard not to see the rear as arbitrary. The 6 window greenhouse is also awkwardly handled, and seems to harken back to the early 1950’s.
The overall effect was always interesting, and as time goes by the car’s uniqueness is more valued, but it still seems unresolved. At best, I’d say it looks ‘trim’ from a current perspective. But after all these years I’m still not sure what it’s saying – whether it’s unintentionally saying something different from every angle or whether it’s speaking a language I don’t understand. The 1962 version with the round tail lights looks the best to me, probably because the number of randomly odd elements has been slightly reduced!
I remember when I first saw the 1960 Valiant. This was in the late 70s, long after this generation car was built. I found the car to be ugly looking at best. The grille looked fine, but it didn’t seem to go well with the rest of the car. Today, it still looks weird, but not as ugly as I thought it looked when I was a boy.
And yet, they were so much better than the horrible Falcons.
Similarly, the 1962 Fairlane was inferior to the GM senior compacts, but because the public didn’t recognize that, GM reduced them to Ford’s level.
Surprised the Canadian readership hasn’t piped in yet. Valiant was a stand-alone marque 1960-67 and a huge seller. The series two cars were all Plymouth but had the tail treatment from the Dart.
I share the enthusiasm for the 1960 original model – have loved these since I was 5 and a neighbour’s Dad bought one (a nine year old car at the time; he was (literally) a rocket scientist with a penchant for old beaters for his commute – the Valiant was replaced within a year by a 59 Beetle).
Dad had a new, white ’60 sedan with red interior (photo attached of the car in our driveway). His company (now defunct, St. Regis Paper Co.) decided to offer compacts that year as an alternative to full size cars for traveling sales employees who wanted to try them. My father lobbied for a Valiant. I was ten and was smitten by the look, even if I liked it because Dad did. The control pod in front of the wheel would have been enough to win me, with its fighter pilot’s view. The rest of the dash fell away from the windshield with a disregard for big car pretension that I wasn’t sure about then, but now I think it’s really gutsy.
A ten year old’s excitement should weather over time, but for me, the performance of these cars balances that odd collection of horizontal planes and vertical curves. We became a Mopar family for decades because of that Valiant. Dad still likes to tell a story about the snowy winters of the early ’60s (welcome back!), and the time everyone in the neighborhood wanted to borrow the Valiant to go to town through the drifts.
In my late 40s, I owned a ’61 Lancer (I lean toward the conventional ’60 Pontiac front end on the Dodge because it has better flow, even though it abandon’s Exner’s classicism). The car felt exceptionally stable, yet nimble and low to the ground. Dad bought Mom a medium metallic green ’63 V-200 wagon a couple of years later, and I still think it’s attractive. Yet I agree that its flavor is decidedly vanilla. On his way out of the Forward Look, Ex gave America an unforgettable shape that couldn’t be sustained, nor should it have been.
I’m glad my dad got the 64 Rambler American . I like the front end styling of the original Valiant, with it’s happy smile grill and quad lights. Even the windows aren’t too bad . The ones behind the rear doors remind me of the later Volvos .But the rest of the car is plain ugly. What were they thinking with that rear fender design , and sloping trunk.?That reminds me what Cadillac did with the Seville, a sloping trunk , another ugly car.
I just picked up a red 1960 Valiant Wagon Suburban at the Copart auction. I beat out some guy from S.C.. $1800. It is in great shape and came with a ton of spare parts. I took it to Chuck’s Speed Center here in Phoenix as they have a guy there that works on these old cars. We cleaned out the gas tank, rebuilt the carb. It has a fresh paint job, all the chrome is good. Interior is decent and the engine runs like a tank. I’m having the lights and dashboard guages repaired at Lefty’s electric. This car is rust free. It has the 3 on the floor. It is a bit of a wrestling match to drive this thing. It has a nice set of mag wheels, (try finding a set of 5 on 4’s these days) and new rubber. It looks bad ass and everyone freaks out when they see it. I will attach a photo soon. There isn’t another one for sale anywhere. I have no idea what it is worth.. God Bless
It sounds like you mean the steering is too hard .
If so you have the wrong (too wide) tires on the front of it or maybe the ball joints need greasing as the steering box is likely dry ~ it takes 90W gear oil .
This car should be a pleasant driver in all aspects .
-Nate
Im actually helping a friend sell a 1960 plymouth valiant I think its a beautiful car its been nicely restored and garage kept.
Asking $26,000 o.b.o.
I had a 62 with the 225 and automatic. I had it from 62 to 76 and in that time I repaired pretty well everything on the car including an engine rebuild and a transmission overhaul. Plus major rust repair and repainting. But we thought that was normal for a car those days. Still I shed a tear when I sold it as a parts car. I would have fixed it up again if I had known what a piece of junk the 75 Valiant was that I replaced it with.
My dad bought a red 61 Valiant with the slant 6 for my sister around 68 for her 1st car. She’d gotten a job, and he bought it so she could back & forth to work.
Can’t remember how long she’d had it, but she wrecked the front end shortly after getting it. Then after a couple years or so she ended up totaling it out. Dad told her she was going to have to take the bus until she could afford to buy her own car & pay for her own insurance.
She bought a brand new 73 Duster, and did a good job taking care of that one. In fact I think I had the first accident in it…, but it wasn’t my fault. I was smacked into by a guy who’d been drinking & not paying attention switching lanes while I was beside him. Fortunately no one was hurt, and the damage wasn’t very serious.
I’d LOVE to have a 61 two door Valiant. I love the push button gear selector on the dash, the spare tire stamping on the trunk, and the cats eye taillights with the eyebrows above on the fender, otherwise called “sergeants stripes”. Just something about the body styling I love, it was supposed to be the space age look back then.
However due to my finances I’m not holding my breath that I’ll EVER own one.., unless I hit the lottery and can buy what I want. There again, I’m not holding my breath or planing my retirement around that. LOL
This Valiant reminds me of the 1949-52 Dodge Wayfarer with the 6-windows, that includes the Studebaker Champion even the front fenders which is also on the 1949-52 Plymouth.