Vintage R&T Review: 1960 Valiant — A Technical Analysis Of Chrysler’s New Compact

 

Well-engineered and surprisingly good to drive, Chrysler’s compact 1960 Valiant — which was a brand of its own and didn’t become a Plymouth in the U.S. until 1961 — was a highly competent smaller car handicapped by erratic assembly quality control and styling only an entomologist could love. In the December 1959 Road & Track publisher John R. Bond offered a detailed analysis of the new Valiant and its engineering highlights.

 

The Valiant, like the rival Chevrolet Corvair and Ford Falcon, emerged from the 1957 recession, so its development was unusually hasty by Detroit standards. Chrysler, like Ford and GM, had been exploring “light car” concepts since the ’30s, but the A-901 project that became the 1960 Valiant went from concept to production in less than two and a half years. Even so, Bond called the Valiant “extremely well planned, right down to the smallest detail.”

Bond made this interesting observation:

In size the Valiant is remarkably similar to the “other two” and it might be noted here that the so-called new concept of compact cars is not new at all—we are merely returning to the prewar idea of what constitutes a popular-sized, low-priced automobile. Chrysler’s problem was to produce a car combining high performance, economy of operation and low initial cost. Even a casual look at these three objectives indicates that the obvious key to a successful design is low weight. The Valiant’s final weight of just over 2700 lb shows the result of this thinking and is remarkably close to the weights of low-priced cars in the early Thirties.

A 1960 Valiant was lighter than most low-priced closed-body cars of the ’30s (by around 10 percent), but it was more than 300 pounds heavier than either the Corvair or the Falcon sedans, which each had a curb weight of under 2,400 lb.

 

The Valiant was a few inches longer than the Corvair or Falcon, although it had a shorter wheelbase than either (106.5 inches, compared to 108 for the Corvair and 109.5 for the Ford). Bond said:

These dimensions allow a little more front and rear overhang than is available on its principal competitors and this, in turn, gave Chrysler stylists a chance to proportion their car more nearly in conformance with what has become popular in larger cars.

The powerplant is in front, of course, and since a relatively large 6-cyl unit was planned it had to be located a little farther forward than what might be considered standard practice. Accordingly, we find the engine tilted at 30° from the vertical, with a unique accessory arrangement. These two features cut down the overall length and excessive overhang, allowed more usable body space, reduced the transmission-cover tunnel size and gave the stylist a fairly free hand.

The seating plan specified that there be room for 6 adults and this was easy to accomplish with the engine well forward. An overall height specification that is not extremely low (54 in.) helped solve the problem; higher seats allow adequate leg room without the need for excessive overall length of body.

A 1960 Valiant was only a half-inch lower than a Falcon sedan, but had over 3.5 inches less headroom, although it had more legroom than the Ford, especially in back.

Given the results of their work, the Valiant designers might have benefited from a less free hand — the oddball styling was easily the early Valiant’s single biggest commercial liability. In its long-hood/short-deck proportions, it was ahead of its time, but the busy detailing and lack of a coherent design theme made the Valiant at best an acquired taste.

 

Bond said, charitably:

Without a doubt, the Valiant’s appearance is really unique and distinctive. The front end treatment was developed to simulate the sporting, high-performance flavor of the firm’s 300-series cars and, incidentally, was designed long before Studebaker’s Lark was announced. Though there is a superficial resemblance to the Lark, a side-by-side comparison reveals some outstanding differences, and very little actual similarity.

The Valiant WAS likely designed first, although Studebaker designers Del Coates and Virgil Exner Jr. (son of the Chrysler design chief) each said they had gotten an early glimpse of Valiant renderings (or, according to Coates, an early clay model) and that Studebaker had borrowed elements from the Valiant design.

 

While the various accounts don’t all quite jibe, it seems that to at least some extent, the 1959 Lark imitated the 1960 Valiant rather than the other way around, even though the Studebaker arrived first.

 

Bond continued:

Quite a large number of small styling details were developed to coordinate with body structural engineering—these will be explained later. Chrysler’s well known director of styling, Virgil Exner, has this to say: “This family-size economy car has an aerodynamically clean shape which reduces drag and gives a fuselage styling appearance, an extension of the famous Chrysler Corporation wedge shape.”

I have some figures from contemporary wind tunnel testing of 1960 cars, and the 1960 Valiant was NOT outstandingly aerodynamic. Its high-speed drag was about 5 percent better than the Falcon sedan’s, but its 0.50 drag coefficient was strictly average for 1960 domestics, and it had almost as much high-speed lift as the Falcon. The low-slung Corvair had much lower drag and less lift than either

 

As Bond explained on the following page, Chrysler also claimed that the dramatic sculpturing stiffened the body and prevented drumming in the unit body structure.

 

Bond described the structure like this:

The body/frame of the Valiant is a welded, reinforced shell of great strength and twist resistance. It has a torsional rigidity far in excess of what could have been obtained in a frame-and-body car of similar weight.

Its all-welded structure shows no evidence of wasted metal. The door pillars, for example, have structural inner panels which are formed into smooth, curved contours so that they double as trim panels. The windshield and back window side pillars are made in the same sensible way.

The plenum chamber not only carries all heating and ventilating air, but also boxes in the cowl for added strength. The front fender side-shields protect the engine from road splash and, in addition, act as vital front-end structural members. Everywhere throughout the body are these evidences of dual-purpose engineering.

The hood is reinforced with webs of stamped steel which provide it with excellent rigidity. A solid inner panel, shaped and cut out in the center, gives the trunk lid great strength.

This last point was the ostensible excuse for the infamous Valiant “toilet seat cover” decklid molding, although Exner Sr. had been adding this pseudo-Continental kit excrescence to Chrysler production and concept cars since the early ’50s, and I think he saw it as sporty and exciting. Its main effect was to inspire jokes.

 

Bond went on:

Sturdy reinforcements are used throughout the lower body structure of the Valiant to carry driving, braking and suspension loads. These take the form of heavy box sections which distribute the major road forces to broad areas of the body structure, spreading them out so that each part of the car carries its share of the total load. A welded structure ahead of the cowl consists of deep-section shear panels reinforced along their lower edges by big box-section rails. These panels are connected by a welded-in radiator yoke to form a structure of tremendous torsional rigidity which transfers loads to the cowl and the remainder of the body structure.

Efficient box sections are used throughout the body. All door pillars, sills, roof rails, windshield headers and belt-line rails are fully boxed to provide the maximum strength for the amount of steel used.

Over 5300 spot welds and seam welds are used to join the hundreds of steel stampings. Only two structural members are bolted in place. One is the K-shaped engine-support cross member, and the other is a short member which supports the transmission. Non-structural parts like the front fenders and grille are not welded in place, but are attached with bolts for ease and low cost in repairing collision damage.

Chrysler made much of Valiant corrosion protection, which Bond called “the most intensive rustproofing process ever used by the industry”:

Three major factors are involved in the Valiant’s corrosion protection. First, the metal of critical body areas is thick, particularly in the sills and underbody, providing prolonged life. Second, the body protective coatings are applied in seven separate dipping operations, supplemented by six intensive spray applications. Third, these protective coatings include a newly developed water-thinned primer … Water sealing also received unusual attention during the design stages of this body, as evidenced by the Valiant’s double barrier system. All seams and joints of the structure’s outer surfaces are designed to simplify the task of sealing during assembly. After assembly, these seams are readily accessible for inspection and are easy to repair. Between the structure’s outer and inner surface is a second guard against leakage—an elaborate system of internal traps and drains intended to assure a water-tight car, even after years of service.

The Valiant used Chrysler’s now familiar Torsion-Aire suspension, introduced for 1957, which featured torsion bars rather than the usual coil springs.

 

Bond explained:

Although there is no interchangeability of parts, the Valiant’s suspension system is virtually identical with that of the corporation’s larger cars. At the front we find the usual ball-joint independent arrangement with torsion-bar springs, anti-dive geometry and a raised roll center. At the rear there are asymmetrical leaf springs to reduce acceleration squat. A small rubber buffer over the differential pinion nose gives the axle assembly an extra tilt at the extreme bump position and so allows a lower drive line, resulting in a lower rear-floor tunnel. All suspension units, front and rear, are rubber insulated.

A most important innovation in the ride department is a new tuning-fork application, in which the engine mass is used to cancel road shock. The front engine mounting is extremely flexible, up and down. This mount employs rubber in shear and is so “tuned” that the entire engine will vibrate exactly out-of-phase with any chassis motion. In this way the engine effectively damps out the majority of road-induced vibrations.

The steering gear is a re-circulating ball-type with every known anti-friction device incorporated, including needle bearings for the pitman-arm shaft. The steering column has a fully enclosed universal joint.

This article was a technical analysis rather than a road test, but early testers found the Valiant outstanding in both handling and ride. Hot Rod‘s Ray Brock declared it “better than any other American passenger car regardless of size.” Valiant handling was marred only by the usual Chrysler tradeoff of light but slow manual steering or quicker but very numb power steering. (Only 45.1 percent of first-year Valiant buyers ordered the latter.)

 

The most important new feature of the Valiant was the famous Slant Six engine, which was initially available only in 170 cu. in. form. (The long-stroke 225 wasn’t offered in the Valiant until mid-1961.) Bond explained:

[T]he smaller Valiant engine is somewhat “over-designed” and is, as a result, heavier than it might have been. As an example, the 4 main bearings are no less than 2.75 in. in diameter and the resultant crankshaft weighs about 65 lb.

Nevertheless, this engine has been made as compact and light as possible. Both the block and head are cast-iron, but good design practice in the proper disposition of material has kept the weight slightly below that of the former L-head (side-valve) 6. The block has two interesting features: 1) the usual stamped-steel side cover has been eliminated, and 2) the lower split-line, or gasket surface is .875 in. below the crank centerline, thus giving considerable extra rigidity and simplifying the oil pan seals. An interesting weight-saving feature found in the head is the use of stamped steel wells to form pockets for the spark plugs. (See cross-section.) Weight has also been saved by holding wall thicknesses to close tolerances and by the use of aluminum in such parts as pistons, intake manifold, water-pump housing, oil-pump housing, oil-filter pad, water outlet elbow, distributor body and alternator housing. In addition, the clutch housing, manual transmission extension (but not the case), and entire automatic transmission case (which includes the torque-converter housing) are aluminum die castings.

Here’s a larger version of the engine cutaway, which you can click to further embiggen:

A common misconception about the Slant Six is that the engine was tilted to lower the hoodline. Bond clarified:

As already noted, this powerplant is tilted 30° from the vertical so that the cylinder head is several inches to the right of true center. Because a normal hood is crowned, this tilt does not give a lowered hood line. The primary reason for tilting the powerplant was to permit re-arrangement of the accessories so that the engine could be located farther forward. The water pump is on the side of the engine and the fan blades sweep very close to the block. The net result is a very compact unit (for an inline 6) in terms of radiator-core to front-of-dash space.

Bond continued:

An incidental advantage of tilting shows up in the intake manifolding, for here unusually long passages were desirable for their ram-effect. This would be awkward to achieve with a vertical engine. The manifold, by the way, is somewhat similar to the designs used for many years by Hudson-Essex and White Truck (though somewhat longer). An exhaust-heated hot-spot is provided, and, with aluminum as the material, plus heat pick-up fins, warm-up time should be short. The exhaust manifold is, of course, cast iron and it features very easy bends due to the extra room provided by the long intake manifold branches. The carburetor used is a single-barrel, downdraft Carter, with automatic choke.

Combustion chambers are the usual wedge shape and the compression ratio of 8.5:1 is said to permit the use of regular grade fuel. Because the bore is large, it follows that the valves are large, yet properly cooled via water passages which completely surround each valve seat.

With good breathing provided, special care was taken to achieve a lightweight valve gear which will allow engine speeds of over 5000 rpm. The short pushrods have already been mentioned. The rocker arms are very light sheet metal stampings. Tappet clearance adjustment is by self-locking screws, since there is no automatic hydraulic lash mechanism. Quieting ramps on the cams allow settings of .010 for intakes, .020 for exhausts, hot. Synthetic rubber umbrellas prevent oil from being sucked into the combustion chambers via the intake valve guides. The exhaust valve locks are a 4-bead design and these allow free valve rotation during the interval of no-lift.

An important innovation on this engine was that it had an alternator rather than a DC generator. Not only was this lighter and longer-wearing than a generator, it charged even at idle:

 

Alternators would be adopted throughout the industry within a few years.

 

Bond explained that Chrysler had gone to the trouble of designing an all-new three-speed transmission for the Valiant, still unsynchronized in low, but with a sporty floor shifter. The gearbox was tilted 30° in the opposite direction of the engine, keeping the shift levers below the transmission tunnel, which also provided a passage for the exhaust pipes.

However, even in this very price-sensitive class, more than half of Valiant buyers (54.5 percent in 1960) wanted automatic transmission. Here, the Valiant had a huge advantage, for instead of a two-speed torque converter automatic like the ones in the Falcon and Corvair, Chrysler had created a scaled-down, lightweight aluminum version of its three-speed TorqueFlite (which Bond misspelled “Torque-Flight”), complete with pushbutton controls.

 

Bond noted that it weighed “only a few pounds more than the standard transmission” and offered better breakaway torque. He haughtily noted, “a well driven stick-shift car can always beat an automatic in overall performance,” but for most Valiant buyers, TorqueFlite was $172 well-spent.

 

Bond concluded:

The most refreshing portion of the Valiant story is the fact that Chrysler’s answer to the demand for a more sensible, more practical automobile does not coincide with that of its competitors. The most encouraging sign of all is the meticulous thought and careful planning which went into the development of the Valiant.

In an engineering sense, the Valiant was an outstanding design: Chrysler hadn’t been as aggressive as Ford in weight reduction or as adventuresome as the Corvair, but it was a solid package, which makes the unfortunate styling seem that much more like what soccer fans would call an “own goal.” In later years, Chrysler overcorrected in customary fashion, making the Valiant so inoffensive as to be almost invisible, but back in 1960, a little more styling orthodoxy would probably have made the original Valiant a smash hit.

 

As it was, the Valiant couldn’t do better fourth place among domestic compacts in 1960 and fifth place in 1961 — another sad case of looks outweighing talent.

Related Reading

Car Show Classic: 1960 Valiant V-200 – No, It’s Not a Plymouth, Not Yet (by Tom Klockau)
Curbside Classic: 1960 -1962 Plymouth Valiant – No One’s Kid Brother (by Laurence Jones)
Vintage Motor Life Reviews: 1960 Valiant – “It Will Corner As Well As A Good Gran Turismo” But “Some Defects In Assembly” (by Paul N)
Vintage Motor Life Editorial: The Truth About The Small New Cars (Falcon, Valiant, Corvair) – “Disappointed” (by Paul N)
Automotive History: When The New 1960 Compacts Went Racing – The 130 MPH Valiants Cream The Corvairs And Falcons (by Paul N)
Design History: Why The 1959 Studebaker Lark Front End Looked So Much Like The 1960 Valiant Front End (by Paul N)