This is not the first Subaru car. As most of you will know I trust, that honour was bestowed upon the minuscule 360 kei car (1958-70), though there was an aborted large-for-Japan 1.5 litre sedan produced in a couple dozen units back in 1954. But the Subaru 1000 was the first iteration of the modern family-sized Subaru as it would come to be known around the world, with a water-cooled flat-4 engine driving the front wheels.
The Subaru 1000 is thus a major historical marker in Japan’s automotive history, being the country’s first mass-produced FWD family car (the first FWD kei car was the 1955-69 Suzulight 360). It was the fruition of a lot of reflexion on the part of its maker, who deliberately opted to go for the less-trodden path. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
Fuji Heavy Industries, Subaru’s parent company, was founded on the remnants of the Nakajima Aircraft Co., whose wares were no longer allowed to be produced post-1945. Turning to bus bodies and scooters, Fuji did very well for themselves, but harboured ambitions of manufacturing even bigger vehicles. Hence the P-1, developed in 1954 but killed in utero – the all-mighty MITI had already cordoned off the 1.5 litre bracket for Toyota, Nissan, Isuzu and Prince, no one else could be allowed to join. Subaru’s only viable option was to go for a kei car, the rear-engined 360.
No sooner had the 360 been launched though, Subaru’s top brass understood that Japan’s economic trajectory meant that they could plan for a proper family car, to be launched by the mid-‘60s. There was something in the air: Mazda, Mitsubishi and Suzuki were then busy doing the same thing. But the end product would be rather different, in Subaru’s case. All of their early cars were designed by a team headed by aircraft engineer Shinroku Momose, who was deeply committed to realizing a FWD car.
Initially, they went back to the 1500 class with an OHC flat-4 and FWD. Prototype A5 was tested by 1960, but management figured that Subaru’s limited means would not allow the model to flourish in that highly competitive segment. Something a little smaller would be a safer bet – a conclusion also shared by Mazda, Mitsubishi and Suzuki.
Thus the A5 was shrunk down to the A4, which initially had an 800cc engine – still flat and still driving the front wheels. But in the ensuing years of development, displacement inched up nearer to 1000cc and the heads were refashioned to OHV rather than OHC configuration, mostly for cost reasons. The four-speed manual gearbox was placed behind the engine, which seems logical now but was not yet the norm at the time.
Our feature car is conveniently opening wide and saying “Aaah,” so let’s take a gander in there.
When the car finally hit the dealerships in May 1966, Total displacement was 977cc, providing 55hp. In an effort to improve both traction and use of space, the spare wheel was tucked over the engine; the jack is also in there somewhere.
Subaru worked in collaboration with Toyo Bearing Co. to create an improved CV joint called a DOJ (double offset joint). Suspension was independent and by torsion bar all around, with double wishbones up front and trailing arms (with coil springs in the rear. Throw in the in-board drum brakes on the driving wheels and you had, by quite a distance, the most technologically advanced car on the JDM of the later ‘60s.
Going for a 1-litre engine was wise, in that it allowed Subaru to go for a slightly higher price point than many of its immediate rivals, such as the Toyota Publica, the Mazda Familia or the Mitsubishi Colt. However, the market moved very quickly: the Corolla became the Subaru’s main adversary, as well as the new Datsun Sunny.
Looking at the Subaru from a critical point of view, I guess the lest appealing aspect of the car are its looks. I’m getting some Renault 12 vibes from that profile (three years before the French car’s debut), and a strong whiff of Ford Corsair about the front end. Neither are designs that rank very highly in my personal opinion. But put this next to the Corolla or the Sunny, and it’s not that bad.
There were other options, body-wise. A two-door saloon was added to the range in February 1967 and a van/wagon followed six months later. A two-door van/wagon even joined the fray in early 1968.
Prior to 1968, all cars got a column shifter as standard. From 1968, one could order one’s gearstick to be on the floor, as is the case here, though only for Deluxe models, along with the obligatory fake wood.
Contemporary reviews raved about the car’s generous interior space for its category. The flat floor was a huge factor, but looking at how thin that front seat is, there seems to have been more than just one factor at play. The car’s gawky-looking greenhouse at least provides passenger with plenty of headroom, as well.
In March 1969, the 1000 model was superseded by the FF-1 – a similar car with a few external modifications and a more powerful 1.1 litre engine. In three years, the Gunma factory had produced over 80,000 units of Subaru’s first “big” car.
That modest result would have been regarded as a failure for the likes of Toyota or Nissan – the latter made 450k first-gen Sunnys in that time frame. But Subaru was a much smaller entity with far fewer dealers in Japan and export opportunities overseas. Besides, the car’s avant-garde technical characteristics would have scared away many a prudent potential car-buyer anyway.
The Subaru 1000 was seen as a success by its maker and it formed the basis of the marque’s future, in that all subsequent non-kei Subarus share some of its DNA. Had the P-1 gone ahead back in the ‘50s, the story might have been quite different. The MITI’s intransigeance can be a blessing in disguise.
Related post:
Interesting. And today, Subaru is ubiquitous in certain areas of the country, certainly in the Pacific NW, upper Mid-west and NE. I count my Sube as one of my favourite of all the many I’ve owned.
Neat little rig! Funny to watch the new Subaru puppy commercial as I write this, the have gone all out on the dog/puppy theme. My dog is scared of the Puparu toy given to her my buddy the Subaru salesman though.
Nearly a half century of working on cars and I’ve never heard of the shift lever referred to as the “gearstick” I gotta get out more.
Come to Australia, where no-one ever has used the term OTHER than “gearstick!” (Well, except, occasionally, for the extra levers in a 4WD, but hell, they’re all buttons these days anyway).
Even after owning one, I don’t understand the appeal. It seems everyone over 70 is tooling around in a Subaru.
Quite a brilliant little car. I’ve never seen a picture of the F5 before; now that’s a period piece.
Great find. The front 3/4 view and the wagon is quite attractive, clean and simple.
Pretty, cool, lil, ride!
About 1972 I rented a small Subaru in Morris Plains NJ, don’t remember the model. It was unusual for a new car dealer to rent their cars but it must have been hard for them to enter the market with an unheard of brand with novel mechanicals. A bit buzzy but otherwise a hoot to drive on curvy back roads. The 4 speed stick was easy to control and the engine was willing to rev. My life would have been much simpler back then if I had just bought one of them instead of just using it as a place holder between owning various less than reliable and emotionally entangled vehicles. But I was young and stupid.
I’m so glad you found one of these and told us the story. I’ve always been intrigued by the different engineering approach, and wondered how it came about.
Contrarily, I like the face on these. But yes, the body’s got a bit of the unlovable rhomboids about it. And worse, in these and the next model right up to the Leone – and even in that, a bit – the four wheels look as if they’ve all slid like a billycart too far backwards under the body, for a very amateurish look.
I never knew the bonnet of these opened in that SAABy way – wasabi way? – albeit conventionally rear-hinged.
I think all of these look just fine if dated .
-Nate
Neat car and a good write up by someone who has done proper research, clearly.