The arrival of the T40 Corona in 1964 placed Toyota in the eye of many, and the E20 1970 Corolla established the carmaker for good in the world scene. Conservative Toyota was finding its method of careful progression, all in accordance with a conscientious approach to market needs. With the Corolla 1600, Toyota delivered a model that addressed shortcomings often found in economy sedans. And while the word fun is not really associated with the brand nowadays, the reviews of the time -from press and buyers- suggest otherwise.
As stated in R&T’s review, one thing that had not been a feature of little sedans was sparkling performance, and Toyota just changed all that by offering a new 102-bhp engine in the Corolla as an option. To put matters in perspective, the Corolla 1200 reached 0-60 in 19 sec., while the 1600 did so in 12 sec.; all while achieving a very thrifty 26.6mpg. Numbers which placed it ahead of its class competitors.
The 1600’s extra power was courtesy of a new 1588 cc 4-cyl. pushrod engine developed for the then-upcoming Celica. It was an iron block, topped by an aluminum head with a crossflow design and hemispherical chambers. The mill’s 102 bhp was produced at 6000 rpm, and delivered 101 lb-ft torque at 3800 rpm. A new transmission, attuned to the 1600 engine, gave the Corolla a more relaxed gait at freeway speeds.
As far as handling, the review states ‘ a well-balanced car is always fun to drive and the Corolla 1600 is no exception; the model is extremely maneuverable, responsive and fun to drive. A good gearbox and precise shifter add to the fun.’ Pedal location was considered excellent, and in regards to brakes, Toyota had ‘done good with them.’
Interior accommodations were deemed comfortable and while the appointments were inexpensive, they didn’t feel cheap. Rear seat was limited of course, and there were some quibbles with interior ventilation, but testers admitted ‘a small inexpensive car can’t do everything.’
These ’70s Corollas are mostly gone nowadays, a result of rust issues and being easy to acquire. Once worn out, not many bothered to save them; the curse of the economy class. That said, they offered a lot for the money, and those who purchased one liked what they got. A good number of those buyers remained in Toyota’s fold for many years to come.
Regardless of how one may feel about the early Corollas, one can’t argue with Toyota’s rise. I do remember when these Corollas started to show up as a trickle, and a decade later the nameplate was ever-present, with Toyota being a worldwide player. How did they do it? It was partly due to cars like the Corolla 1600, which ‘changed the standard for low-cost import sedans.’
Further reading:
Curbside Classic: Toyota Corolla – 1971 Small Car Comparison
The 19 seconds-to-sixty figure quoted in the article for the 1200 is suspect; Car and Driver clocked one at 15.5 (January 1971), and R/T themselves were able to achieve 17 seconds flat in a previous generation car with the smaller and weaker 1100 (June 1968).
0-60 times tended to be quicker at C/D; they were known for their very aggressive driving during testing.
I had extensive wheel time in both a 1200 and 1600 Corolla, and the difference was very palpable. The 1200 was geared very low (high numerical) which explains its acceleration to 60, but at 70, its engine was screaming, and there was not much left above that.
The 1600 had much more torque (obviously), was geared lower, which explains why the 0-60 time wasn’t that drastically lower, but it felt vastly more powerful, and could hit 100; or should I say it did hit an indicated 100 in my hands. The 1200 could hit maybe 80 or so.
Bottom line: the 1600 was a huge improvement, especially for Americans that prioritized torque, quick take off, relaxed cruising, and of course it harmonized with the automatic much better. A very big improvement, and the 1200 soon enough was dropped in the US.
1200cc is the engine we got they were not a performance car by any stretch of the imagination
Yes, like Honda with it’s motorcycles, Toyota changed the game in small cars.
It is a challenge to imbibe small cars with attractive styling, that has wide appeal. Imagine, if Toyota and Honda, had managed to give their small cars, Vega-like looks. Or just a bit more of the Toyota 2000’s flavour, in their small car appearance. Combined with their superior fit and finish, performance, practicality, and packaging.
Their early small cars looked so plain and spartan, many people probably discounted them, based on their humble image. They would have rocketed to their higher status, probably a decade sooner, with more appealing/endearing looks. The original ’83 Camry looked as conservative as the GM A-body sedans. More dry, than say the Pontiac 6000 sedan.
The first Toyota Celica addressed the styling issue, and sold quite well, initiating a series of Celicas that were generally lauded for their styling. Datsun went for “styling” in the early 70s, but got the styling a bit “off” in execution, outside of the Z-car. One could argue that Datsun mostly wasted their head start among the Japanese manufacturers in the U.S. market, thanks to their styling mis-steps. So I agree, in total, the Japanese missed out slightly in their styling for U.S. tastes, but with exceptions.
Reading through the Corolla review, the car was celebrated for things that we take for granted in all of our cars now, things such as adequate brakes and handling. Also the good interior ergonomics and proper dashboard readout visibility through the spokes of the steering wheel.
My takeaway is that the 1970+- Japanese cars were not so much radical World-beating cars, but instead the manufacturers simply made the effort to design in the things people actually wanted and should expect in their cars, even cheap, small cars. Many of these things had been neglected here and there, by Detroit and by the Europeans. The radical World-beating cars came a few years later, and those were Hondas.
So I agree, in total, the Japanese missed out slightly in their styling for U.S. tastes
Thanks for your support, of what I was essentially saying.
Imagine, if Toyota and Honda, had managed to give their small cars, Vega-like looks.
They would have suffered the same space utilization issues as the Vega, which was a significantly bigger, heavier and much more expensive car, yet had less real-world usable interior space.
The Corolla’s (and other Japanese/European) small cars’ styling was in large part dictated by very challenging size requirements; external and internal. So yes, they invariably looked narrower and taller than the Camaroesque Vega.
FWIW, the Corolla was a smash hit in the US, so apparently its styling didn’t exactly turn off buyers.
All true. Thankfully in time, even appliances became more interesting to look at.
This is a really good looking car to me. I like these early 1970s Japanese cars. Wish they’d make a small, light two door sedan now like they used to. All gas powered, of course, because the cars were light enough that a 4 cylinder would be enough to move it.
The last of said breed was the Hyundai Accent. It sold poorly and was thus withdrawn from the market.
Early, turn-of-the-century Accents, were serious rusters. Great value, otherwise.
According to Toyota’s own specs, overall height was 53.0″ for the coupe, 54.1″ for the sedan and 55.3″ for the wagon, all with either engine and all with the same ground clearance (6.7″ for the 1200 and 6.1″ for the 1600 which presumably was physically bigger and hung lower) so the added height for the sedan and wagon had to be additional floor-to-ceiling and potentially seat height.
With that, the actual Corolla 1600 “peanut” 2-door sedan might have been an even better deal than the “mango” coupe tested here. More room for a lower base price.
Reference found at; http://importarchive.com/toyota/corolla/1971-1974/specs
My college buddy had the run of a family car bought years earlier – a 1969 Corolla. It was the first Japanese car I had the chance to spend time in. I’ve been in imported sedans and coupes before, DAF, Volvo, VW, Mercedes, and Porsche – but for the price, that Corolla was an amazing piece of work. It was engineered as a unit. There were no suprising compromises in it. Unlike other cars, you didn’t have a part of it that was being used on a larger car, wedged into it and compromising the design. It didn’t feel cheap. We spend years tooling around, getting into places we should have avoided – yet, getting out of it. Gas mileage was high. It was really the first full developed small car, engineered as a small car, that I had experienced. Everything worked very well in it too.
So – I knew that Toyota had set a high bar for the competition. Why drive around in an AMC Hornet with the back end cut off of it and sold as a Gremlin? Filled with vinyl parts that obviously was bare bones plastic, vinyl and cheap feeling? No usable back seat, unless you didn’t have legs. Gremlins were mutant Hornets that spun out of control when road conditions were slick. Geez, it had a six cylinder in it – gutless to get high gas mileage, or a V8 that guzzled gas and made steering a Gremlin require power steering. This was a piece-meal, mismash car.
Or that Pinto – cute looking but you sat on the road. The rear seat was unusable. It was a struggle bus of a cute car. The Corolla was light years ahead of it, and cost about the same.
Chrysler had the Duster. A solid dependable smaller car, but not a subcompact – yet priced as one. Clearly Chrysler wasn’t able to field their own Corolla competitor, and started importing Mitsubishi Colts and Hillmans, sold as Dodge Colts and Plymouth Crickets. The Hillman was a piece of junk and pulled quickly and the Colts were sold for many years as Dodge Imports. A stop-gap until the Omni/Horizon showed up.
Finally – the Vega. Famous for being infamous, even by 1971. It was one of the coolest looking automotive lemons ever. It was designed to be looked at – not driven.
Anyone shopping for a small car could see that the domestic offerings from our legacy auto manufacturers were going to do a whole lot better if they wanted to convince us to select their offerings over what Toyota was offering in 1971. GM, Ford and Chrysler did begin to build FWD replacements for their Vega, Pinto and Duster cars, while AMC looked for a buyer. Yet it took them too much time to field their first Toyota competitors, later that decade. Worse – the Chevette was clearly a sad shadow of a 1969 Corolla, and around far too long as Honda Civic, Subaru, and the VW Rabbit took off with buyers, especially on the West Coast.
My then GF’s mom had a ’72 Corolla 1200 that got totaled when she lent it to a friend (natch). She replaced it with a 1600, and the difference was very substantial. I got the 1600 up to an indicated 100 on a highly memorable first drive to Death Valley, with her in the car (she trusted me totally).
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/auto-biography/1975-toyota-corolla-indelible-memories/
And it also flat-towed my ’63 VW Beetle for some 500 miles when it broke down in Ohio. She had that Corolla for a very long time; it was a keeper.
Seeing the photo of the tapered shift lever reminds me of exactly how light, barely notchy, and mechanical precise the gearboxes in all of these rear-wheel-drive Toyotas felt back in the day. I’m not sure there is a new car on the market today for any price that has a single control which speaks of quality and clarity in the way that a longitudinal Toyota gearbox did.
I would prefer slightly larger and much less known Carina.
If only because a very attractive neighbor had a red one.
I remember her with great fondness…the Carina was replaced by a BMW320i.
My first car was a 1974 Corolla. With the 1600, it felt quick for the day. Alas, by 1985, rust had destroyed it.