The series on the history of the Dodge Colt that started with the 1971-73 Colt and the Cohort Sighting of a Toyota Corolla 1600 wagon, and the fond reminisces that they brought out based on decades-old memories, may have made younger readers who did not experience these cars wonder what mainstream opinion thought of them at the time. A window into that point of view comes from a 42 year old magazine that somehow survived several changes in residence and attic purgings, a July 1972 issue of Consumer Reports with reviews of six subcompact wagons, including a Dodge Colt and a Toyota Corolla 1600. The results of these tests are quite revealing and sometimes surprising.
Consumer Reports car reviews from this era were a fairly accurate representation of mainstream attitudes toward cars, at a time when a full size American land yacht was a “standard” size car and anything else seemed small and uncomfortable. The differences between now and then in views on driving dynamics are apparent in the 1972 Chevrolet Impala receiving a “very good” grade for handling and the 1972 Chevelle an “excellent” mark (with Fords and Mopars scoring far lower), while advanced European cars such as the Audi 100LS often were criticized for seeming relatively skittish and unpredictable. Standards have changed even more in quality control expectations, and in this era Consumer Reports reviews described numbers and severity of manufacturing defects that are unimaginable in new cars today.
The upper tier of the subcompact wagon class in the judgment of Consumer Reports consisted of the Renault 12, the Ford Pinto, and the Datsun 510. The Renault 12, the only front wheel drive car reviewed, finished on top, upholding the French tradition of comfort with superior seats and ride and having the best overall competence, with the caveat that Renault’s small dealer network (400 in the entire U.S., half on the East Coast) would make ownership difficult in many parts of the U.S. The Ford Pinto, not yet known for gas tank fires, finished a close second, its main asset being nimble handling. The Datsun 510 was only slightly behind the Pinto, with its four doors and superior engine driveability being significant advantages.
The Toyota Corona Mark II, Dodge Colt and Toyota Corolla 1600 were firmly in the second tier. The Toyota Corona Mark II, the largest wagon tested, rode and handled poorly, leading to a fourth place finish. The Colt and Corolla finished last, with Consumer Reports finding very little good to say about either (be sure to click on the images to enlarge text).
A cramped rear seat, poor ride lightly or fully loaded, high noise levels, and unpredictable handing described as “whimsical” were lowlights for the Mitsubishi-made Colt. The engine and four speed manual transmission received praise, though.
One problem noted by Consumer Reports is a reminder that the good old days of simpler automobiles were not always good. The report noted that rain — a not uncommon situation in real-world use — disabled the Colt’s ignition system and stalled the engine. It also specified fixes for the problem whose simple nature indicates that Mitsubishi engineers did not sweat the details in the engine compartment: using a 62 cent coil-to-distributor high tension lead made for Chrysler Slant Six engines, and taping over the holes in the radiator filler panel to the left of the radiator.
The Corolla received similarly low marks in most areas. Rear seat access and comfort were poor, as were the car’s ride, noise levels, and handling, the latter described as “treacherous.” The report also warned that the manufacturer’s maximum recommended load overloaded the rear tires and created further handling problems, possibly in violation of federal safety standards.
The tested Corolla had a major strength, however, and it provided a clear indication of the source of Toyota’s future success. The sample Corolla had the fewest defects of any car that Consumer Reports had tested in years, only nine, while the other cars tested each had at least 20. The Renault had 34, including several that were catastrophic failures: a connecting rod that tore through the side of the engine block at 750 miles, flywheel bolts that loosened at 1500 miles, and windshield wipers that jammed on snow and caused the wiper motor to overheat and burn. The Colt was in the same ballpark as the Pinto, 510, and Corona Mark II, with defects numbering in the 20s, none of them as serious as the major problems experienced in the Renault.
Even across the gulf of 42 years of standards changing, this six car comparison reveals some surprising truths and some that are unsurprising in hindsight. Renault had a subcompact with class leading comfort and driving dynamics in 1972, although with serious quality control problems and a limited dealer network. Renault now is almost entirely forgotten in the U.S. and remembered mostly unfavorably. Toyota, on the other hand, had an undistinguished design but quality control second to none and a more than adequate U.S. dealer network. Its success is well known to all. Meanwhile, Ford, Datsun and Mitsubishi were all somewhere in the middle, and so were their corporate fates since 1972.
So it seems that there were good reasons to remember a Toyota Corolla 1600 Wagon fondly, regardless of how it compared to mainstream American cars of its time or what car buff magazines thought about its performance. The Dodge Colt, with similar disadvantages and less of the high quality that Toyota helped to make Japanese cars synonymous with, would have been less likely to be viewed as highly. The Renault 12 would have been hit or miss, with the misses likely to be catastrophically bad.
Wait, what!?! The Renault threw a rod and got a first-place finish!?!
The review stated that the car ran fine with no further problems after a Renault dealer installed a new short block. But I agree, a catastrophic breakdown during the break-in period should be cause for a huge downgrade!
Most new cars in this era required some dealer fettling to make them run properly a proper tune up etc, and most had a break in period too testing cars fresh out of the packet wasnt very realistic.
It was also one of the worst performers in every category. I guess their editors at the time were Francophiles. That they picked the Pinto second is embarrassing as well, considering how poorly packaged they were for family car use. I’m not a Pinto-hater, but they made more sense for two people commuting than as a basis for a station wagon.
On looks, all of these cars appeal to me. Had Pinto’s in the family at the same time as Vegas. Sorry Ed, but protect me from those vegas. The 510s were all over Panama and I liked them better than the other Japanese makes but personal preference is the only reason why.
I do remember that there were always some problems with new cars of any type in those times. Seemed inevitable. Dealers always seemed to sort them out when we found them. I’m on my second Nissan in a row now and have yet to have any problems. There is a price for that. It is several thousand to replace one of these transmissions. I think I did all right with the more stone age cars. I would have been ok without changing all that much except for safety. Guess I’m out of step.
No Lee, I feel the same way and suspect many others do, as well.
Not all dealers adjusted/fixed cars in good faith, but I think people also had different expectations from new cars. Even into the late ’80s, a lot of cars came with obvious defects; consumer reports only stopped counting about 10-15 years ago.
Expecting improvements in solidity, safety and performance does not have to mean expecting disproportionate increases in size and gadgetry. There should be a happy medium.
Lee, if you buy a new car today, any new car, you can safely assume you’ll be able to drive it for ten years or longer, over 200,000 km, without any more than regular service, which isn’t much on modern cars anyway. That’s how good mass production is these days. Better, albiet more boring, cars, lower prices.
Big components were never cheap. Aamco charged $1800 for a rebuilt Turbo 350 in 1986. Even if a Camacord drops a tranny, the first two owners will have been through it. It wouldn’t be worth fixing it would be so old.
Tune-up’s, gone. Points, plugs,condensor, distributor, cap, rotor, leads, all gone. I love modern cars. You can drive them for years and they don’t break.
+1 people forget the frustrations of the generally crap quality of older cars when new. Don’t forget the drivability issues of almost all cars of this era with the early nightmares of emission control too! Flat spots, stalling, dying for no good reason in traffic- even good quality cars like Mercedes Benz and Toyota had these problems.
Of course after 40 years of development cars should be reliable and properly assembled…
My mother had a 1970 Corona four door sedan, complete with “Toyoglide” (how’s that for original?) two speed automatic. The 1.9 litre pushrod four banger, even with the two speed auto, made for a fine urban runabout. What I remember of the car was the high quality material throughout the cars. It was also the fist car I ever saw with bucket seats, and they even reclined. Handling was not the car’s forte, as they were designed to a safe and stolid ride for Japan’s middle management class, which has always been very conservative and status conscious. Even today, no Japanese Salaryman would ever buy a car outside his social class, which is based on age, job, university, high school, elementary school and increasingly more so, kindergarten (and many other factors). This was a good car until my brother turned 16, ran the bag off of it, burnt out the motor and, while forbidden to drive it because of the loud bottom-end knock, he took his friend home in it and rear-ended a pick up, pushing the the vanes next to the headlights into a V-Shape. Dad put a new motor in it, filled up the front with bondo and the car was punished for another couple of years. At age six, my family left for the West Coast and the Corona was just too much of a beater to make the trip, so it was sold. It had ZERO rust on it, even after six years. I heard it ran for several years after that, too.
Yes, the Renault was the best car but it kind of threw a rod after 750 miles. These things sold in Quebec when I was a kid to the nationalistic Quebecious who bought French cars as a way of thumbing their noses at the Anglo establishment (for which they had good reason to do, but that is another story). The cars simply couldn’t stand Canadian winters and most owners would toss up their hands after the second winter. The simply wouldn’t go below -10’C or so, no matter what you did with them. I saw people using block heaters, light bulbs next to the distributor and carb, even having heaters under the engine with cardboard sealing (sort of) the top. Even the final step, canned ether, was not successful. Nothing worked and they would have been in the junk yard in five years or less. Maybe they worked in France, but not in Quebec winters, which are long, snowy and freezing cold.
The Pinto as winner? Granted, the early ones with the Kent 1600 and manual transmission were pretty fun, but the car really never was much to write home about. The handling was crappy, steering slow and I hated how you sat on the floor. The later ones got progressively worse and as their competition got better. Ford had list interest in small cars and paid dearly for it later. Finally, the Pinto rusted like crazy and was a money pit by 50,000 miles.
The Colt was like a tin-can, it was a nice little car, but it always felt kind of willowy and cheap, because it WAS willowy and cheap. The Corolla was a tough, no-nonsense little wagon and it was wildly popular here on the Hippie Coast. The were Granolawagons right up to the early 2000’s you’d see them in Gulf Islands everywhere. I have never seen a 2T-C fail or have a major internal repair, they were that strong. You could drive the thing for 20 years and hardly touch it they were that good, and repairs were easy anyway.
The 510 is in a class above the Corolla and Colt and it would have been my choice hands down. It would be a real toss-up to get the wagon or sedan, as the sedan had IRS and handled a lot better. The OHC 1600 engine was lusty as hell for the day and very easy to hop-up, which almost everybody did. Even the wagon was fun to drive, the package was so good. The engine made really good torque and good power for the days, and in the light cars, grins were a’plenty. However, the metal was cheap, light and thin and these lovey little cars were usually holey after three or four years.
If this were 1970 and I need a small wagon, it’s Corolla all the way. But I would have bought a 510 four door sedan with four speed manual. That’s more my thing.
I replaced a couple 2T-Cs back in the day and did head gaskets on a few others.
The Kent 1600 was pretty doggy, the German 2000 was pretty peppy and was the way to go since it got the same MPG in the real world. The only downside to the 2000 was that it had a timing belt, though unlike many modern engines that have timing belts it was a non-interference engine.
+1 on the 510. Colt 2nd.
Part of the appeal in Quebec was also due to the joint Renault/Peugeot assembly plant that operated there from about 1966-73. I remember marked Renault 8 police cars (probably parking enforcement) in Montreal in the early ’70s. The history of that operation (Société de Montage Automobile – SOMA) is an interesting story.
So the first engine blows a rod at 750 miles and the second engines flywheel bolts came loose at 1500 miles (Maybe replacement did not come with flywheel and bolts were incorrectly torqued), but still, it comes in first? Unbiased Consumer Reports? A friend had a 74 Pinto, totally base 2.3 4 speed from new for about 12 years. Thrashed, offroaded that thing and did almost nothing to maintain it. Hardly ever even changed the oil. I think every interior piece on it fell off, cracked or crumbled away and it rode and sounded like a tractor. But he could not kill it and it had well over 100k (don’t remember exactly). He eventually sold it, same engine, trans and rear end. It was a crap box, but it kept going.
I don’t think that the flywheel bolts could be blamed on Renault as they flywheel was almost certainly transferred to the new engine by the dealer’s mechanic. However the original engine tossing a rod at 750mi should have knocked it out of the top spot, no two ways about it.
Everyone I ever knew who had a Pinto wagon loved them – the hatchbacks not so much. The 2.3L/C3 automatic combo was particularly robust, even if the rest of the car had a tendency to rust (though not to the same degree as the Vega or anything Japanese at the time) and rattle like crazy.
Of course the author had to mention the fire issue, which wasn’t one on the Pinto wagon. The fuel tank was of a different design.
I’m surprised that they chose to test 2 Toyotas but didn’t include the Vega in the test.
Not one of those cars can clear a quarter mile in under 20 seconds, by the test data – it must have been very painful for a diesel Mercedes driver to watch these economy cars keep pace.
Car and Driver had a review this month of a brand-new 2014 Malibu that had a catastrophic engine failure and it didn’t stop them from rating it a success:
“One test condition we didn’t anticipate was an engine failure. The Ecotec four-cylinder in our first Malibu fell victim to a bad main connecting-rod bearing before we could finish testing. We’ve previously covered this anomaly in detail, but the short version is that a small batch of bearings slipped past quality control at an unnamed supplier, and GM is replacing the affected engines. We were able to complete our test with a second car.
The formula for success in the mid-size-sedan class is a simple one: Combine brand-appropriate but anonymous styling with adequate manners, comfort, and performance, and price the car within reach of the masses. By that measure, the Malibu is a success.”
I suppose we’re lucky that Car and Driver mentioned the failure at all, even if they dissembled its meaning for their more ignorant readers.
The Malibu is a success…except for the whole engine-blowing-up thing.
Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?
Predictable results really, gotta keep Americans out of foreign imported cars whether they are any good or not
Despite its obsolescence and many quirks, Consumer Reports in those days always showered lavish praise upon the Volkswagen Beetle. In terms of reliability and quality control the Bug was the standard by which they judged every other car.
In their infamous hatchet job (and deservedly so) on the Subaru 360, CR strongly recommended that buyers consider a year-old used Beetle over the 360.
I’ve been a CR reader since the early ’70s. Back then they would recommend a car based on its performance values such as handling, ride, braking, etc. and not take reliability into account. The Corolla was notable to many readers for its low sample defect count. The Datsun 1200 (which my parents had recently purchased) had over 30 defects, while the Corolla had around 12. The Corolla’s only weak point was the automatic transmission which had solid black dots early on. I wish CR would put their old issues online–just for laughs.
“I wish CR would put their old issues online–just for laughs.”
Same here, but I’d expect they’d want to charge dearly for it, even though the content is obsolete and can be used to promote the organization’s current offerings.
As much as I use and enjoy my CR subscriptions (print and online), there’s a certain hypocrisy within that organization that bugs me. They’d rake a company over the coals for charging customers for online access to content they already receive in print form, yet remain cagey when challenged on the fact that do exactly the same thing.
I love Consumer Reports.
The hypocracy I hate from them is how often they sell their mailing list. I can’t tell you how many mailings I get off of the unique permutation of my name given to them for my subscription!.
I have owned a 72 Dodge colt and a 69 Toyota Corolla back in the day. The Colt was a more substantial car but had many faults. The Toyota was a car full of contradictions but was a fun little car and I do mean little. 1100cc engine, 12″ tires, 8″ drum brakes, 8 gal gas tank and the fact that you could open the door and put the palm of your hands flat on the road only made it more fun. I regularly wound the engine to 6500rpm before shifting this car would not deliver less than 25mpg and up to 40mpg when driven in a sane manner. The Toyota was not perfect by any means but for shear fun from a very small and underpowered econobox it could be beat. I bought it as a rebuilt wreck for $775.00, had someone rear end it which I collected $425.00 never repairing it and sold it for $350.00 after owning it for 4 years. All I ever did during the time I owned was routine maintenance and put gas in it.
When I was a kid, my folks subscibed to Consumer Reports. I remember the Renault 12 wagon review, and it’s smoking wiper-motor and thrown rod.
Where I worked in the mid-80s, I had to check a ‘no start’ problem on a Renault Alliance. I noticed the negative battery cable was loose behind the engine. I tugged on it and up it came, still solidly bolted to a big chunk off the engine-block!
A few years earlier, I took a ’77 Pinto Pony MPG hatchback, in trade for a motorcycle I was selling.
With the 2.3, 4-speed stick and economy gearing, it was like driving a 5-speed without first gear. But it had working AC. Plus the 5-mile bumpers and gas-tank protection package made it no longer the potential firebomb the early ones were.
I fixed it up a bit, then sold it at a decent profit to an elderly woman that lived on Maryland’s Eastern-Shore. Where she lived was flat country, so she had no issue with the economy gearing and enjoyed finally having a decent car with working AC until she passed away a few years later. Then her ditzy daughter inherited it and destroyed the car within six months!
Had it been a wagon, I might’ve kept it.
Happy Motoring, Mark