The Daihatsu Compagno is not an everyday sight around here. Until I caught this one, I had never seen one in the metal. Earlier this year, CC featured its first Compagno, a highly desirable drop-top. So I guess it’s the famous CC Effect (with a few months’ time-lag) that made me bump into its polar opposite, the pickup. A Vignale-designed pickup, if you please.
I captured this gorgeous Daihatsu (words I never thought I’d write) at the same place where I recently caught a 1964 Plodge Valiant – the Department of Land Transport in Bangkok. I was near there again a couple weeks ago and thought I might take a gander at the cars being registered, on the off chance that there might be something interesting there yet again. And boy, was that a good move. Two great finds – this pickup and a much older car that calls for a full write-up.
The Daihatsu Compagno’s particulars and the firm’s history were all expertly covered by JohnH875 in his post, so I won’t bother adding much. Just a quick refresher, then: these RWD separate chassis cars were the first four-wheeled Daihatsus; originally 800cc, they appeared in 1963 (first as a wagon, then a two-door sedan, followed by the four-door, cabriolet, coupé and (in 1965) pickup versions) and disappeared in 1969, by which time Daihatsu had been eaten by Toyota. The performance-oriented 58 hp 1000cc cars were even given a “GT” badge and a specific grille circa 1967.
Our feature car was the second CC I caught there that day, as I mentioned before. The first was an exceptional find and I took a lot of photos of it; I was walking away from it when I saw this orange pickup, which I recognized as a ‘60s Daihatsu, thanks in no small part to this website, in no time at all. Alas, I only managed to take four lousy photos before my stupid phone died. No interior shot (it was on the move), but here’s what it looked like in a ’65 saloon. The sportier versions had the obligotory floor shifter, but the van/wagon, pickup and early saloons had their four on the tree.
In JohnH875’s Compagno Spider post, lots of CCommentors chimed in, yours truly included, to voice their opinions about the Vignale styling. Yes, it’s a good-looking car. And also yes, it does look a lot like other Italian-styled cars of the period. I went for a Vignale Lancia, but others were suggesting PininFarina. If it had worn a Fiat badge, I wouldn’t have batted en eyelid either. But seeing the Compagno in front of me – especially in this pickup guise, the Peugeot 404 (below) suddenly flashed before my eyes, like it was the Daihatsu’s better-fed twin. I know, the 404 is a PininFarina design, but one cannot deny a certain kinship. Crucially though, the Daihatsu’s diminutive size, its Vignale provenance and very high windshield gives this car just enough personality to make it distinctive.
Some of the period adverts for the Compagno, whether intended for a domestic audience or for the gaijin markets, are (unintentionally) humourous. Here’s a puzzling Japanese “Compagno=Spider” ad (circa 1965), complete with nonsensical Engrish phrase. Some things never change – Japanese fascination for bizarre English-language text certainly hasn’t…
Gotta love these 1964 British ads, too. 22 km per litre (??) and “Duo-surbo” brakes? I’m sold!
The Compagno was sold in various world markets, including Australia and Britain – one of the first Japanese cars to make it there. It was designed at a time when Japan (and the world) swore by Italian styling. Vignale did very well with the Daihatsu account, providing a sober design that was very much of its time. Adding exotic names like Bertone or Touring in the sales brochure was doubtless seen as a great PR move – quite essential when you’re trying to make a name for yourself. Vignale helped put Daihatsu on the map. And they did a couple of really cool specials, too.
Carrozzeria Vignale, who had been involved in the Daihatsu project for some time, were ready with a rather stunning sports coupé and convertible displayed at the 1963 Turin Motor Show. It’s unclear how many (if any?) copies Vignale made. The design was penned by Michelotti, at the top of his game. Aren’t those Lancia taillamps, by the way?
It seems a second series coupé was mooted and shown in 1966, probably with a 1000 GT engine. The Toyota buy-out nixed the whole idea, unfortunately. Funnily enough, the revamped rear bears some resemblance to the second series (1974-80) Peugeot 504 coupé shown below it – another odd PininFarina-Pug connection / coincidence.
I’ve got a feeling the Compagno might constitute a Deadly Sin. (That’s not to say I don’t like it, or that it wasn’t a good car, as per Paul’s Definition of the Deadly Sin.) After all, Daihatsu lost their independence while they were manufacturing it, so something didn’t go according to plan. Perhaps a Japanese Deadly Sins series might exist one day, and if it does, we may have to look into this car again. Which, given its Italian charm, will certainly be something to envisage with pleasure.
Related posts:
Curbside Classic: 1969 Daihatsu Compagno Convertible, by JohnH875
COAL: 50 Years Of Vehicles From My Grandfather’s Life, by JohnH875
Neat little truck. Crazy tall canopy on the back.
I’m not sure how Toyota buying an interest while this car was in production would make it a deadly sin. I’d say if anything the opposite might be true in that Toyota saw something of value so they wanted a part of it.
What a fantastic find! One of the more amazing ones ever here. I only knew these existed from old brochure shots, but here it is in 2018. And yes, it does look remarkably like a baby 404 pickup.
I don’t quite get the Deadly Sin thing either. Daihatsu started a cooperation agreement with Toyota in 1967, but Toyota only bought a 16.8% stake in the company. That’s hardly a controlling share. Toyota didn’t increase that until 1996, when they doubled their stake to 33.4%. The complete purchase came in more recent years.
I assume that the initial cooperation agreement was to Daihatsu’s benefit, given how small they were. They realistically felt more secure being in the Toyota extended family. And they did manage to become quite successful with only a minority share held by Toyota, until recent years.
Knew you’d like this one, Paul!
One question on terminology for you: Peugeot called their “tall, fabric-covered pickup” body style “Camionnette bâchée;” francophones colloquially say “404 Bâchée” (“bâche” means “tarp”). What term, if any, might be used in English?
Re: Deadly Sin discussion, I’m not sure the amount of shares controlled is all that important in this case. From Daihatsu’s perspective, they were independent until the 1967 deal with Toyota; after that, they were 100% under Toyota’s influence. This was not some Ford / Mazda or Chrysler / Mitsu kind of dalliance. This was the big bear eating the little bear’s left leg, so he couldn’t run away and might be fully consumed later on.
Toyota mopped up Hino around that time too and turned it into their heavy duty division, Daihatsu became the Toyota small car manufacturers
The jist of the Deadly Sins are the cars that GM produced that drove away their loyal customers and caused them to go from a highly profitable corporation that dominated the US auto market with ~50% market share for a long time to a fraction of that and eventual bankruptcy.
As you stated Daihatsu was the Little Bear not the most powerful Bear in the land.
Not knowing any specifics of the deal, chances are there were probably a number of advantages for Daihatsu in the deal.
I’ve seen the term “canvasback” to describe trucks with a fabric canopy over the cargo area (bâchée), though usually for trucks larger than pickups.
In English, this one’d be called Abe Lincoln’s Hat.
The Deadly Sins were defined (by me) as those cars that led to the death (meaning bankruptcy) of the company. Clearly, that is not applicable here. Daihatsu never died or went bankrupt. Being bought is not dying. That’s why I never did an AMC DS; they were sold to Chrysler after Renault had bought them. But substantial amounts of money exchanged hands, both times.
I’m not familiar with the specific details of this alliance. I suspect it happened because of the mutual benefits: meaning Toyota didn’t have to invest capital in developing more small cars, and Daihatsu didn’t have to invest capital in building bigger cars. Their alliance allowed both to target their capital in the areas that gave the greatest return. Capital isn’t exactly cheap, and all firms need to think how to best target their capital and business objectives to maximize a return.
I don’t know the financial situation of Daihatsu at the time. But I suspect that during this time of expansion (mid-late 60s) in Japan, this just made lots of sense. And Toyota’s investment brought in capital and technology. I’m guessing the shareholders of Daihatsu made out quite well over time with this arrangement. Independence isn’t the key to defining the success of an automaker or any business; it’s the financial returns that count. It’s a business, after all.
This was not some Ford / Mazda or Chrysler / Mitsu kind of dalliance.
I’d hardly call the Ford/Mazda tie up a “dalliance”. After several decades of selling Mazda products as Fords (and vice versa) and other deep technology and platform sharing, Ford eventually had a controlling interest in Mazda in the 90s, and Ford’s Henry Wallace became its president, later succeeded by Mark Fields. Ford is universally credited with rescuing Mazda from a likely bankruptcy and making it successful.
And although Chrysler wasn’t quite as heavily involved in Mitsubishi, it was certainly more than a dalliance too. They were heavily involved in a wide range of joint activities, Chrysler sold Mitsubishis under its own brands for some two decades, and they had their Diamond Star joint venture in the US. Not exactly “a brief and casual involvement”.
There is also a strong possibility that Daihatsu was pushed in Toyota’s direction by MITI since several Japanese car, truck and motorcycle manufacturers were consolidated or moved into specific market segments in the 60s.
I don’t recall Daihatsu ever building anything particularly bad, although their primary niche in the Kei car market and some unfortunate exchange rate timing meant Daihatsu hasn’t been a very successful exporter.
From this viewpoint, the Daihatsu Compagna is more like a Hino Contessa, a last mainstream car before moving into a different market, trucks for HIno, micro for Daihatsu.
I meant to add that very thing, but forgot until I thought of it shortly later. If I had to guess, I’d say that was the most likely reason. MITI didn’t want numerous manufacturers to waste capital competing against each other, so they orchestrated many such marriages or affairs.
That’s the reason the Nissan Patrol wasn’t sold in the US except for just the first few years; Toyota was given an exclusive for 4x4s in exchange for Datsun not getting competition for sports cars. Or something like that. This kind of thing went on for decades in Japan Inc.
I’m not sure if I’d use the word “oriental” to describe anything. Otherwise, it certainly looks like a cute lil bugger.
Why not? The truck is from the Orient, so it’s Oriental. (It’s certainly not Occidental.) Seems like a pretty straightforward and logical description – and it is a really neat little vehicle.
Oriental means eastern. Asia is east of Western Europe, but certainly west of, say California, and in fact lots of Asia is west of Australia, so it’s a pretty dated Euro-centric term. Common usage, but not very precise and offensive to some.
“Bugger” is ok but “oriental” isn’t?
Great cc Now if you find a Dodge husky (Paykan vanet pickup) it would easily beat this one to second rare bird.None the less incredible found.thanks for making my day(Night).
Lovely find, and lots of interesting back office info too. Thanks Tatra87!
I get the Peugeot 404 connection, but this is like a later smoothed over 404, with the integrated sides of the bed and less wrap around screen
The red Spider looks real neat👍👍👍
It may not be the fastest on the highway, but the purpose of a spider is to enjoy the sunshine 😎😎😎😎😎
Great find! Looks pretty sharp with the exhaust, alloys and lowered suspension.
Not a fan of the alloys myself, but that would be the only thing I would have against this car. Standard dog-dishes would be much better. Just look at those on that GT coupe in the 3rd pic… drool…
This style wouldn’t be my choice either, and a bit out of place with the tall canopy, but I don’t mind a suitable style of alloy on a ute that has been given a sporty flavour. A spoked steel wheel is not a bad alternative either, I’m not really a fan of dog dish hubcaps.
Speaking of Utes and Toyotas here is something I find interesting. http://sodo-moto.com/listings/1973-toyota-el-corona/
What a find. Huge heat and plenty of wetness aren’t usually recipes for a long life in ’60’s cars, let alone a tiny commercial variant. Does the registration give any clues as to whether the car has always lived in Thailand?
The ’63 Turin cars really are rather nice, though perhaps the deletion of the Volga grille couldn’t hurt.
But Toyota was wise if it was they who nixed the ’66 one, as the unfortunate thing would, surely, only be marketable to the aesthetically blind very tall guy who can only afford a very small coupe. A small market, that.
Wonderful find
What a neat little trucklet and I can definitely see the 404 truck design similarity as well. Those Compagno concepts are beautiful.
Yes, it does look like the Peugeot 404 pickup – the wheels come from the first generation Hyundai Accent GT, I’m surprised they fit a vehicle this old.
I think “Duo-surbo brakes” is meant to be “Duo-servo brakes”.
I had a 66/68 Daihatsu wagon in Udorn thailand while stationed there in the army from 1970-75. Great little car- sold it to a traveling shoe salesman who went around to the villages.