(first posted 9/29/2016) American Motors Corporation was in a sad state for 1977. The radical Pacer was proving to be a bulbous bust, while the rest of the lineup was ancient. Still Motor Trend did spend a bit of ink highlighting the changes for the new model year. However, nothing was enough to pull AMC products up from the bottom echelons of any vehicle category. Read on to see AMC’s sob story along with car sales rankings by category.
You are looking at the biggest changes from AMC for 1977. “What? Where?” you say? Well, look at that bold new Gremlin grille (unseen in the picture were the revised tail lights and hatch opening)! The freshening failed to raise sales on the old design, and unit volume dropped 13%. Still, that was far better than the far newer Pacer, originally intended to be AMC’s savior. There wasn’t much market for the oxymoronic “wide small car” and the new-for-1977 wagon body style may have helped cargo room but didn’t improve looks or weight. Buyers stayed away in droves, and annual sales plunged 50% compared to ’76.
Was older better? Well, the basically unchanged Hornet, looking much the same as it did when introduced in 1970, was AMC’s biggest selling car line and the only one to post a year-over-year increase (+9%). Designs for the Matador and the Jeep both dated back to the 1960s. Still wearing what was possibly the world’s worst facelift ever–the circa-1974 schnoz job–the Matador limped out of 1977 with sales off 26%. Jeeps were also ancient, but at least they were cool, purpose-built vehicles. Long is the list of companies that the Jeep division has saved through the years–AMC was but one…
As for car sales in 1977, American Motors could not have been thrilled with the 25% drop. Here are gory details:
| Hornet | 77,843 |
| Pacer | 58,264 |
| Gremlin | 46,171 |
| Matador | 30,847 |
Not only did AMC’s 213,125 units trail all Big 3 rivals–the beleaguered 4th place domestic company also ranked behind leading imports in U.S. sales for 1977: Datsun (488,217–includes trucks), Honda (223,633), Toyota (439,048), and VW (262,932). The ultimate irony, of course, was that during the 1970s the market had shifted to smaller cars, which had been AMC’s primary focus since its inception. Yet by 1977 the company was so cash-strapped and the products were so dated or unsuccessful (or both) that it failed to take advantage of the trend and continued to falter.
So now that we’ve seen the 1977 new car offerings from the “Detroit 4,” let’s take a look at the sales rankings by category (and look for AMC products at or near the bottom in each…). In the 1967 New Car Buyers Guide Issue, Motor Trend had grouped the products by category as follows:
- Specialty (including Personal Luxury, Pony Cars and Corvette)
- Intermediates
- Luxury and Full Size
- Compacts
How would this market mix compare 10 years later? Well, for starters, we need to make a few adjustments. First, the Specialty Category as defined by MT in ’67 needs to be further segmented, because Pony Cars–hot in 1967–had withered, while Personal Luxury cars had exploded by 1977. Also, the 1970s saw U.S. makers entering the Subcompact market in a big way, so that breakout must be added for 1977. So with those changes made, the following two pie charts contrast share of sales by segment between 1967 and 1977:
Several key changes stand out. First off, sales of the biggest cars had declined dramatically, with all of that decline coming from traditional Full Size cars. Even with the introduction of the all-new downsized GM big cars, that segment remained a fraction of its former size. The other huge shift was the explosion of the Personal Luxury category, which went from 3% of the market in 1967 to 22% in 1977. Virtually all of that growth was from mid-sized cars, hence the decline in the Intermediate Category between ’67 and ’77 as buyers shifted to the “high-style” personal luxury intermediates. The Compact segment enjoyed a renaissance, driven by the dramatic changes in buyer preferences unleashed during the 1970s. Adding in the Subcompact segment (not a factor in 1967) and the small cars accounted for almost as much of the market as traditional full-size models. The Pony Car category, another Detroit invention, also shrank, as many buyers opted for more economical imported sporty cars or subcompacts. Speaking of imports, according to Ward’s Automotive Reports, sales for foreign built cars topped 2 million units for 1977 (most of them small cars), showing even more clearly how the American market was hungry for rationally sized, efficient cars.
Now let’s take a look at sales volume for each of these categories by nameplate. Some of the results will surprise you!
| Ford LTD | 343,318 |
| Chevrolet Caprice Classic | 284,813 |
| Chevrolet Impala | 254,916 |
| Cadillac DeVille | 234,171 |
| Oldsmobile Delta 88 | 213,851 |
| Buick LeSabre | 190,726 |
| Buick Electra | 161,627 |
| Oldsmobile Ninety-Eight | 139,423 |
| Mercury Marquis | 135,669 |
| Chevrolet Impala/Caprice Wagon | 121,932 |
| Pontiac Bonneville | 114,880 |
| Lincoln Continental | 95,600 |
| Ford LTD Wagon/Country Squire | 90,711 |
| Chrysler New Yorker Brougham | 62,127 |
| Pontiac Catalina | 61,678 |
| Chrysler Newport | 57,880 |
| Cadillac Seville | 46,212 |
| Dodge Royal Monaco | 36,101 |
| Oldsmobile Custom Cruiser | 32,827 |
| Pontiac Safari/Grand Safari | 31,362 |
| Plymouth Gran Fury | 29,929 |
| Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham | 28,000 |
| Buick Estate Wagon | 25,075 |
| Mercury Marquis Wagon/Colony Park | 20,363 |
| Lincoln Versailles | 15,434 |
| Chrysler Town & Country | 7,275 |
| Plymouth Gran Fury Suburban | 6,236 |
| Dodge Royal Monaco Wagon | 5,732 |
| Cadillac Fleetwood Limousine | 2,614 |
Yes, it’s true–the Ford LTD actually topped the Chevrolet Caprice Classic as the best selling nameplate in the Full Size category for 1977. No question, Chevrolet dominated the category in terms of total big car sales, but Chevy’s results were divided between two nameplates, not one. So the LTD nameplate technically won, since all big Ford were dubbed LTDs and there was no such thing as an Impalacaprice.
The other interesting statistic in this category is how well the Cadillac DeVille sold–once again, on a nameplate basis, it ranked just behind the best selling Ford and Chevrolet big cars and ahead of all the other GM B- and C-Bodies. Arguably too much volume for what was supposed to be an expensive, “exclusive” car, but the short-term profits were no doubt irresistible.
| Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme Coupe | 424,343 |
| Chevrolet Monte Carlo | 411,038 |
| Ford Thunderbird | 318,140 |
| Pontiac Grand Prix | 288,430 |
| Buick Regal Coupe | 174,560 |
| Chrysler Cordoba | 163,138 |
| Mercury Cougar XR-7 | 124,799 |
| Lincoln Continental Mark V | 80,321 |
| Chevrolet Corvette | 49,213 |
| Cadillac Eldorado | 47,344 |
| Dodge Charger SE | 36,204 |
| Buick Riviera | 26,138 |
| Oldsmobile Toronado | 24,304 |
The Cutlass Supreme continued to reign over the Personal Luxury Category, though the Chevrolet Monte Carlo wasn’t far behind. It it wasn’t for the new, trimmer Ford Thunderbird, GM would have had a clean sweep at the top of the mid-sized personal luxury market.
| Chevrolet Chevelle | 328,216 |
| Ford LTD II | 232,324 |
| Oldsmobile Cutlass | 208,399 |
| Buick Century | 153,636 |
| Plymouth Fury | 94,813 |
| Pontiac LeMans | 81,391 |
| Mercury Cougar | 70,024 |
| Dodge Monaco | 63,684 |
| AMC Matador | 30,847 |
There were plenty of Chevrolet Chevelle models to choose from–including base cars that retained dual round headlamps–which may have accounted for its resounding popularity in the Intermediate segment, well ahead of the “new” LTD II. Pity poor AMC–the frumpy Matador (pathetically out-of-date by 1977) landed at the bottom of the category.
| Ford Granada | 390,579 |
| Chevrolet Nova/Concours | 365,264 |
| Plymouth Volare | 327,739 |
| Dodge Aspen | 266,012 |
| Mercury Monarch | 127,697 |
| Buick Skylark | 113,472 |
| Ford Maverick | 98,506 |
| Pontiac Ventura/Phoenix | 90,764 |
| AMC Hornet | 77,843 |
| Oldsmobile Omega | 63,984 |
| AMC Pacer | 58,264 |
| Chrysler LeBaron | 46,100 |
| Dodge Diplomat | 34,214 |
| Mercury Comet | 21,545 |
Even with its sales tumble for 1977, the Granada still ranked at the top of the Compact category, though the Chevrolet Nova/Concours was quite strong too. I added the mid-year Chrysler LeBaron and Dodge Diplomat to this category–they were really “tweeners” straddling the Compact and Intermediate segments. However, by 1977 standards they were considered “small” (ironic since the M-Body Mopar would soon be seen as “mid size” and even “full size” in the 1980s).
| Chevrolet Camaro | 218,853 |
| Pontiac Firebird | 155,736 |
| Ford Mustang II | 153,173 |
| Chevrolet Monza | 73,348 |
| Mercury Capri II | 60,000 |
| Pontiac Sunbird | 55,398 |
| Buick Skyhawk | 24,004 |
| Oldsmobile Starfire | 19,091 |
Compared with 1967, the Pony Car segment had lost a lot of its “kick” by 1977. Only the top-selling Chevrolet Camaro and Pontiac Firebird remained as reminders of the original concept, with a sporty compact body housing an array of powertrains so it could be equipped from “mild” to “wild.” All the other players in the category, including the Mustang II, were sporty subcompacts and really more “Pony Car Lite” in execution.
| Ford Pinto | 202,549 |
| Chevrolet Chevette | 133,469 |
| Chevrolet Vega | 78,402 |
| Dodge Colt | 69,963 |
| Plymouth Arrow | 51,849 |
| AMC Gremlin | 46,171 |
| Pontiac Astre | 32,788 |
| Mercury Bobcat | 31,452 |
| Buick Opel | 29,065 |
Not even on the radar in 1967, by 1977 the Subcompact segment was growing in importance, as a broad range of buyers continued to seek economical cars. This chart only shows a few “captive imports” that wore domestic nameplates and were sold in American car dealerships. If “real” imports sold through imported car dealerships were factored in, this category would be significantly larger. Given that most of the American subcompacts were pretty pitiful at this point, the great migration away from domestic manufacturers was gaining steam at the low-end of the market. But Detroit didn’t want to bother paying too much attention to that…
If you wanted four doors and 4WD in 1977, your only choices were the Jeep Cherokee/Wagoneer, Toyota Land Cruiser and Subaru 4WD wagon. (Or a crewcab pickup with an 8′ box). Of the wagons, only the tiny, status-free Subaru was anything like a modern proposition.
Oops, forgot about the Suburban.
“…Yes, it’s true–the Ford LTD actually topped the Chevrolet Caprice Classic as the best selling nameplate in the Full Size category for 1977. No question, Chevrolet dominated the category in terms of total big car sales, but Chevy’s results were divided between two nameplates, not one. So the LTD nameplate technically won, since all big Ford were dubbed LTDs and there was no such thing as an Impalacaprice…”
Much like pickups today. Ford gets to claim #1 while GM sells more trucks.
In most years Ford did sell more full size pickups than GM’s twins combined. Last year tight supplies of the F150 and the lack of any fleet sales until late in the year is what gave GM the lead. This year Ford is ahead again at the end of Aug and we will see if Ford can ship enough of the Super Duty to keep or pull ahead.
Then why is Nova and Concours lumped together? Full size Chevy handily out sold Ford, period. If one could break down to LTD, LTD Brougham, etc, would show Caprice #1.
GMC and Chevrolet are two different brands, makes, whatever, so that is why split. Impala and Caprice are the same car line. As far back as the 1920’s the ‘standard’ Chevy line was counted as one, and not split into trims. 1965 wasn’t split to Biscayne, etc, also.
Check Automotive News and other auto magazines from the time, and their were no proclamations of “LTD is #1”.
Reading the blurb about the Matador sedan is just sad, sad, sad. With the oldest doors available, it notes how the seating package is the same as the new, ’77 Impala. While not quite sure what that means, I can’t help but think AMC was onto something before anyone else. Like a song from that time period, it was country when country wasn’t cool.
Looking at the Aspen/Volare numbers is interesting. Had Chrysler gone the Neon route as it would do 20 years later, they could have had the best selling compact by far in the US.
That ad for the Pinto is rather interesting in a number of ways.
Updated thought: Yesterday, we mentioned Citation being an Edsel name and we all know how that turned out. So, why then, did AMC do similar with “Pacer”? Yes, I know the AMC Pacer came before the Chevrolet Citation, but is there a good history there? It’s like naming a new ship Titanic or Lusitania – it just doesn’t quite work.
If I remember correctly, the “Ranger” was the volume Edsel. So, at least one Edsel name was re-used without causing its namesake to go up in flames! The Ford F series survived the name as a trim package, and needless to say the compact Ranger truck survived for decades.
Interesting that three of the four Edsel model names were eventually resurrected. I imagine the marketers figured a minimum of people would recall their brief association with Edsel.
Make that four out of seven with the Edsel wagons…
Yes, the Villager nameplate was re- used as well IIRC.
Its interesting that Ford sweated the effort to name the Edsel division (a poet commissioned by Ford suggested “Utopian Turtletop”) but the names of the models themselves were excellent, hence their recycling in future years.
Excellent point about the Villager wagon! Now that I think about it, Edsel’s Corsair name was used on European Fords. That gets us to 5 of 7 Edsel names being recycled somewhere.
Roundup and Bermuda are the remaining names.
Hmmm….,. Roundup is a herbicide and Bermuda are short pants. Suffice to say we won’t see those in the dealership.
And Ford reused Corsair in the UK, so it kind of counts as well.
And Ford reused Corsair in the UK, so it kind of counts as well.
Of course, Corsair was a trim level of Henry J before Ford got it’s fingers on it.
And Ford used Corsair in Australia for a re-badged Nissan Pintara between 1989 and 1992.
Late reply, but now all 4 Edsel model names were resurrected. The Corsair is now a Lincoln crossover.
It is impressive how bad things were at AMC by ’77. Not part of the article, but I imagine that Jeep was now quickly becoming part of its survival.
The comments about the Matador’s interior accommodations being dimensionally similar to the new Impala / Caprice ring true. About the time the GM B body invasion was complete, I had a friend that had his grandparent’s pristine low mileage ’72 Ambassador (same car, high trim line), so I’m among the rare people that got at least several rides in one of these cars at a time I was regularly driving a ’78 Caprice.
Since I even saw some charm in the Matador sedan’s last stand ’78 Barcelona package, I long wondered it they had put a timely new (and importantly, attractive) body on the Matador, if it might have been successful for them during the 1975 – 1979 period when cars the size of the Matador obviously sold very well if they were done right.
Going back to the 1967 roofline/beltline on the Matador would have done wonders for its sales.
’67 bladed front fenders, too, if they could’ve made it work with the ’74 hood, maybe an extra die strike for bladed turn signals if it’s in the budget to go with the Granada-esque grille.
Yes, hiding under the Matador’s hideous body work was a roomy, practical car that was right-sized for the time. If AMC had not blown its budget on the Matador Coupe and Pacer they might have been able to at least trot out the old Rebel dies and freshen the body panels up a bit as was done with the original Rambler American.
Interestingly the Matador station wagon still wore the 1967 Rebel body from the cowl back. Unfortunately everything forward of the windshield was beaten with the same ugly stick as the rest of the line.
In ’77 I spent some time in a Pacer, through a carpool arrangement for a long commute. It was a six-and-stick, of course. (Even in an arbitrary connection like a carpool, I always linked up with fellow cheapskates.) It seemed solid like all AMC cars, but not interesting. What I remember most is the sound and feel of that oversized right door. Sort of a papery thump. The sliding rear door on modern minivans has the same sound.
The Pacer was originally designed around a yet-to-be-released GM rotary engine. When GM cancelled that project AMC had to shoehorn in the old Rambler inline six. It might be just as well considering GM’s track record on introducing new engine technology. At least the Pacer’s drivetrain was reliable if uninspiring.
Also the car was not originally intended to be so bulbous. Legal concerns over possible stringent side-impact standards prompted a lot of added width and weight. Being heavy and underpowered gas mileage was pretty awful, not much better than a full-size car.
Really the only technology of interest on the Pacer was the first power rack-and-pinion steering used on domestic product. (The rack was built by GM but unique to the Pacer.) Other than the steering rack and the front suspension it was pretty much, as a friend of mine described it at the time of its debut, a Hornet with a trick body.
I assume the 1975 Pacer offered the first power rack and pinion option on an AMC product, but I own a ’74 Mustang II with factory power steering, and it appears to have been an option on the ’74 Pinto/Bobcat as well.
Interesting, I know I’ve read the Pacer was the first U.S. power rack, but obviously that’s an error.
Some also say the Pacer was intended to use FWD, but a look at the front suspension with coils on the lower arms kills that idea. (The idea was explored early in the design phase but rejected due to cost.)
Thanks for the correction!
The Ford Pinto had rack and pinion steering as standard from the beginning, circa Sept ’70.
Relying on an untested competitor’s engine seems insane to me. But maybe AMC still had a high opinion of GM engineering, although the Vega debacle should’ve put them on notice. Maybe someone like “Ate Up With Motor” can help me here.
Instead of AMC’s I-6, the Buick V6 seems a much better fit under such a short hood, but they sold it back to GM during the Oil Crisis! It took GM no time to put it back into production; could they have spared enough for AMC?
I recall reading (in Collectable Automobile magazine) that they tried to buy GM-made V6 engines, but GM wanted too much money.
They seem to have gotten over this 7 years later when AMC bought the GM 2.8 v6 for the XJ series.
So their hopes for the GM rotary might’ve been dashed on that point anyway. Your explanation makes sense.
Any of the “Gen 2” AMC V-8’s will fit in a Pacer with few problems. Around 1980 a co-worker put a 390 V8 from an AMX into his Pacer. It had quite impressive performance (the engine was somewhat modified to make more than the stock power), at least in a straight line. The guy moved out of town before he got the handling sorted out so I can’t vouch for the finished product. I always found the Pacer an interesting looking car but not one I would want to live with on a daily basis.
The 304 was a factory option in Pacers. I have seen one with 401 power…that thing moved!
The much maligned Pacer had an excellent ride for a smaller car and was an extremely safe vehicle in a crash. In the days before we had serious crash-test-ratings, the Pacer had an “occupant injury” record about as low as any American car. (I remember some Insurance Institute data, but would have to dig for it to back up that claim.)
I believe that, for I understand that it was built to a level of safety higher than ultimately required, thanks to lobbying from the Big 3, resulting in heavier curb weight as well.
Poor AMC. The Matador is so frustrating to me – size and general shape, that car should have been doing really well by 1977. But unlike the elderly Dart and Valiant, the Matador was just unattractive. Some adjustments to the beltline in the rear door area and fitting the milder nose treatment from the 74 Ambassador would have gone a long way to making the car at least moderately attractive. But the company was really struggling by then.
In those sales totals, it is interesting how the New Yorker outsold the Newport, something that had virtually no historical precedent. I guess it goes to show how looks can sell, and when the more expensive car looks more expensive (in addition to beautiful), it can do well.
I had also forgotten how strongly the Aspen and Volare were selling in 1977. Poor Dodge, without that car, almost everything else it was selling was near the bottom of its segment.
With that protruding beak, they took that concept to a whole ‘nother lever.
Looking at that Jeep – I’m sure it’s a great vehicle – Chrysler bought AMC on the basis of the Jeep in its stable. However, that style looks a good 8-10 years old to my eyes.
These numbers speak so loudly for the impact of fashion over substantive practicality in the automotive world. Imagine a 2016 world in which a couple of bloated, gas guzzling coupe-only models like the Monte Carlo and Cutlass would outsell literally everything except the Caprice/Impala. Granted, as we’ve said here before, the fact that nobody bothered with child safety seats back then was a big factor, but clearly the American consumer was (and remains, I suppose) a slave to fashion in 1977.
Looking back, my youngest brother was born in 1978, making us a family of 5. Our family car? A ’77 Monte Carlo (with its miserable back seat, sans windows, essentially), with a ’75 Monza 2+2 as secondary. In fact, I was in college and no longer living at home before there was ever a 4-door car in my family’s driveway. Maybe we were an extreme case, but I find it astonishing now. And I doubt that my family is all too unique. I’m curious to see what arises as the next big thing, automotively. As the baby boomers (who are likely still a big factor in the CUV craze) start to fall out of the majority position as customers, what will America be scrambling for in 2030?
There may have been some fashion slavery, but objectively, the Cutlass and the Monte Carlo were decent, reliable and comfortable cars. They were more often driven as second cars, or driven by singles and couples, so the backseat wasn’t a big issue, and the seat was big enough to accommodate a couple of adults for crosstown rides. I thoroughly enjoyed my ownership of both a ’73 and ’76 Cutlass coupe – as a single man.
Keep in mind, many people also did not regard these cars as gas guzzling. 5.0 and 5.7 liter engines were by far the most popular choice, and these cars had become alternatives to larger, heavier, bigger engined full-size cars. No small number of people actually down-sized to these cars in a quest for what they saw as better fuel economy.
In 1975, our family of five (I was the youngest at almost three years old) went to Disney World in Mom’s new ’75 Elite. Before the Elite, Mom ferried us around in a Pinto Squire! Dad’s car was a ’70 Torino Cobra at the time!
My friend grew up in a family of 6 whose family car was a 1983 Monte Carlo SS. I took a couple of multiple hour trips in a Saturn SC1 as a family of four, with my brother and I both over 6′ tall – those were long rides folded up in that back seat!
It’s fashionable to appear practical today, people haven’t changed much, and cars for the most part fulfilled people’s actual(not perceived) needs just as fine then as they do now.
I find it equally questionable for a single adult without children to own a 5 door CUV today as I do your family’s car choices then. For a time with a declining birth rate it seems utterly absurd how familymobiles are the booming segments.
It is indeed a curious phenomenon, and I’ve scratched my head over it more than once. I think in recent years, and certainly moreso for the Gen Y and Millenial folks, the idea of car ownership as an option rather than as a birthright has come into vogue. Not so long ago it was expected that EVERYONE needed to own a car, and that it’d be updated every 3-7 years. I suppose that meant that practicality was less vital, as one didn’t have to plan for any eventuality when buying a car, and it was generally acknowledged that whatever you chose was going to be out of fashion and pretty much used up after 5 years or so.
I’m sure fashion still comes into play when a single person opts for a CUV. Just make the mistake of stumbling onto an episode of The Kardashians in error and you’ll quickly see why a certain segment of the population would probably not be caught dead in anything not big, square and blingy. I do think though that more and more people view vehicle ownership as a large and imposing expenditure rather than just the fact of life that we once were inclined to see it as. That being the case, maybe because buyers are assuming a longer period of ownership, and perceiving it as a much larger financial commitment, they feel the need to have a vehicle that they believe can “Do it All”.
I have a feeling you may be right but only in respect of the big cities where some form of decent public transport exists. For the Gen Ys and millenials living out in the sticks or where public transport does not exist, car ownership is not an option (it is not a viable option even out in the sticks here in little Austria – notwithstanding a very good train/bus net even in country, so I could not imagine how it could be in the US).
Honda HR-V and Chevy Trax outsell Honda Fit and Chevy Sonic, respectively, despite being worse cars in almost every way for more money. Some buyers think they need AWD – but as always the price premium will more than pay for a second set of rims and TPMS monitors plus good snow tires for the life of the car – but for the most part it’s a matter of wanting to be seen in a “compact CUV” rather than a “subcompact hatchback” that’s not enough lower to be difficult to get into (usually right at 5′ tall) but handles better, has not an inch less room, gets nontrivially better MPG and costs a couple grand less..
My dad bought a new 77 Jeep Wagoneer. It was a great truck, with all options and one of the last 401 V8’s made by AMC. It was marred by missing lightbulbs and a leaking exhaust manifold. The dealership was awful, someone literally stole the new aluminum wheels off it and substituted used steel wheels and half-worn tires before delivery.
It’s fuel economy was poor, but it had the best combination of comfort, utility and handling ease of anything at the time. The 401 was awesome.
Too bad it rusted so fast, despite factory rustproofing.
Great amount of production figures! Thanks for taking the time to do all that research.
“Not only did AMC’s 213,125 units trail all Big 3 rivals–the beleaguered 4th place domestic company also ranked behind leading imports in U.S. sales for 1977: Datsun (488,217), Honda (223,633), Toyota (439,048), and VW (262,932).”
One note on these numbers: I looked up some numbers for Japanese manufactures a while back in the Standard Catalog of Imported Cars, and have the same numbers quoted above for the Japanese Big Three. According to my notes, however, the Datsun figure is stated as including trucks. I suspect that the Toyota one doesn’t, as every other year in this era the Datsun figure is significantly lower, and Toyota was ahead of Datsun. Based on that, I strongly suspect that Toyota was actually the #1 import brand in the U.S. in 1977, not Datsun. I’ve loved to see more detailed, model-by-model breakdowns for the imports, but I don’t know of any source for them.
“the great migration away from domestic manufacturers was gaining steam at the low-end of the market. But Detroit didn’t want to bother paying too much attention to that…”
I think this is absolutely correct. When I looked up those numbers, I was surprised by a couple of things I found. I thought that sales figures for the Japanese manufacturers would have spiked in the wake of 1973 energy crisis, then grew more slowly during the second half of the decade, as gas prices fell and sales of cars in larger size classes bounced back. If you told me that Toyota’s U.S. sales were 326K in 1973 and 507K in 1979, I would have expected the bulk of that increase to have taken place in 1974-75 – to, say, something like 425K-430K in 1975 — followed by slower growth from 1976-79. It turns out that wasn’t true. There wasn’t really any spike in the wake of the energy crisis, but there was then steady growth for the remainder of the decade. Toyota’s 1975 sales were actually below where they had been in 1973. All of the increase came after 1975.
First, the Japanese were hit by the recession that followed the energy crisis, which primarily affected the 1974 and 1975 model years. Based on the figures in the Standard Catalog, four of the five Japanese manufacturers doing business in the U.S. saw sales drop significantly in 1974. The one exception was Honda, which registered an increase of about 5000 units during a period in which its sales were otherwise growing almost exponentially. This really surprised me, because sales of small American cars surged in 1974 (though they then dropped off for ’75). If small American cars were doing well in ’74, I would have expected small imports to also do well. Any theories as to why they didn’t? The recession making people more sensitive to higher purchase prices, or more concerned about higher costs for parts and service down the road? All five Japanese brands did better in ’75 than they had done in ‘74, but Toyota and Mazda were still below their 1973 sales levels, and Subaru was only about 4000 units above where they had been in ’73.
Then, the period from 1976 to 1979 was a time of steady, solid growth. In 1973, Toyota and Datsun’s combined sales were about 557K; in 1975, it was 542K. By 1979, their combined sales were 973K. Honda, which had been at 38K in 1973 and 102K in 1975, was at 353K in 1979. Subaru, which had been at 37K in 1973 and 41K in 1975, was at 127K in 1979. Mazda, which had been at 104K in 1973 and 65K in 1976 (its rotary engines were hit hard by the energy crisis), was at 156K in 1979. Combined sales of all five were about 1.6 million in 1979, double what they had done in 1975, and triple what they had done in 1971. If they had been a single brand, they would have ranked #3 in sales behind Chevrolet and Ford, and not all that far behind Ford.
At the same time, these were also good years for the American manufacturers. IINM, 1977 and 1979 were among the best years the American auto industry had ever had. So the imports’ success wasn’t causing the domestics’ sales numbers to drop in real terms, even if they were slowing losing share on a percentage basis. Against that backdrop, it feels like the Japanese snuck up on the domestics a bit during this era, while the domestics weren’t really paying that close attention.
To be fair, as alarming as it may seem that the Japanese would have ranked #3 had they been one brand, the other side of that coin is that all of the Japanese added together still didn’t equal just the Chevrolet or Ford brands alone, let alone GM or Ford Motor Company in their entirety. Even in 1979, I’d be surprised if import penetration of the U.S. market (all imports, not just the Japanese) was any higher than 20-25%. As much as the Japanese had grown, the majority of American carbuyers still reflexively shopped the domestic brands, even if they were looking for a smaller car. And we may be a bit harsh when we accuse the American manufacturers of not paying attention. During this period, vehicles like the GM FWD X-cars, Chrysler L-cars, Chrysler K-cars, and Ford Escort were all introduced or at least under development. Maybe if the second energy crisis hadn’t happened, and the X-cars hadn’t been such a quality disaster….
There’s no question that Toyota was (and had been) outselling Datsun for quite some time. That number for Datsun is an aberration because of the trucks.
Regarding your observation and thoughts about the seemingly odd momentum of Japanese sales in the seventies period. I’ve noticed that too over the years and wondered about it. I have only one or two speculations: Perhaps the Japanese were production constrained? Although that seems a bit unlikely, since the energy crisis triggered a global recession too, and presumably demand was down all over. Still, it is a distinct possibility. Perhaps new production facilities were in the works, and then came on line after 1975.
Also, the strong growth of the Japanese after 1975 may be a demographic one. A whole lot of boomers were just starting their post-college careers, and Japanese cars did decidedly better with higher educated buyers.
I can come up with a few other speculations too. Like that folks burned on the Vega went to Japanese cars. Or…
I am a big believer in your Baby Boomer theory as being a key driver of the sales growth for imported (mostly Japanese) brands starting in the mid- to late-1970s. In my family, I am the sole Gen Xer–my siblings and cousins are mid- and late-generation Baby Boomers. When they went to get cars starting in 1976–keep in mind this was in the South and Upper Midwest (some cousins in Cleveland OH) and NOT on the coasts–each and every one of them picked an import. My brother got a 1976 Toyota Celica, and cousins all bought Toyotas, Datsuns, Hondas and even VW. Our parents all drove domestics, and were generally pleased with them, so the younger generation should have been predisposed to American products–but they all thought the small and/or sporty car offerings from Detroit were crap. Which they pretty much were. Each of the imports purchased in the late 1970s and early 1980s by my siblings and cousins were replaced with another import. Ultimately the good experiences with the imports impacted our parent’s generation–each and every one of them started driving imports after bad domestic experiences in the 1980s (mostly GM).
So yes, I think a very large generation of buyers came of car buying age when the best choices for an affordable, high quality small car simply did not come from Detroit. So they picked imports and never looked back.
^^^ Seconded.
It may have been discussed here previously, but I wonder at what point anyone in Detroit started really looking closely at the products that were coming out of Japan and gave any thought to whether or why the Boomers might want to buy them. We now know they were studying the Camcords, etc. in the early 80’s when reality started to kick in, but did it really take them that long? It seems like the US Auto Industry was caught napping when it comes to capitalizing on the biggest group of buying prospects in the history of the world. The Mustang and Camaro were obviously aimed at the Boomers, and of course the Vegas, Pintos, etc. were clearly directed toward them, but it’s amazing to me that they were asleep at the switch when it comes to understanding that not every buyer is motivated by style without substance. The only “compacts” available aside from 2 door, sporty-styled mini Mustangs and Camaros originated from the kind of cars meant to be marketed to someone who 20 years before might have been shopping for a Studebaker Scotsman (I’m looking at you, Nova, Falcon, Valiant). It’s been stated a thousand times, but Detroit was so obviously still living in the 50’s. I know Market Research was a new-ish concept back in the late 60’s, but I’d have thought if any US industry was going to strive to keep a finger on the pulse of society it should have been this one.
About 1980, MTN, with the coming Escort and GM’s targeting of the Accord with it’s new Js. The Xs and Ks were the first shot.
You are correct about Datsun, that total does include their trucks, but unfortunately it is the only number I can find. Like you, I wish there was a better source for imported car sales in the U.S., but the somewhat sporadic Standard Catalog of Imported Cars that you reference is the best I’ve found. I will amend the text so people know that Datsun’s number includes trucks–as Paul notes, Toyota was the best seller of imported cars in the U.S. in 1977.
The analogy that comes to mind for the U.S. makers in 1977 is the lobster in a pot of cold water on the stove: it doesn’t know it is being cooked, because the heat is coming on slowly and subtly. But the lobster is done for…
On the other hand, in GN’s follow-up article with the ads for these issues, there is an ad for the Datsun 710 in which Datsun claims to be “America’s #1 selling import”. There is nothing in the ad further clarifying what they mean by this, or on what basis they are making this claim. Based on both the numbers in the Standard Catalog of Imported Cars and my own perception, I have a hard time believing that Datsun was ahead of Toyota in terms of overall year-to-year U.S. sales, but who knows….
Thanks for this slightly depressing look at 1977, GN.
The only real “different” choice presented to the US consumer was AMC, in my view. If you didn’t know your cars really well, it would be easy to mistake any of the Big Three’s more generic products, especially the bigger cars, one for the other. US consumers voted with their wallets. AMC was not the choice they made.
Interesting to see the Pacer and the Granada in the same category.
How did Jeep fare, btw? And IH?
AMC was often “ahead of their time” with their products. Success in the auto industry is a lot like finding a mate. If your timing is off or you show up sporting the wrong look, you’re done. Too bad for AMC, they usually bungled one or the other or both.
I’d say they aimed for the future and landed in the past for many years, then aimed for the future and landed in a different space/time continuum.
Less said about AMC for 77 the better. I’ll take an orange Gremlin with 258/3-speed and hope nobody sees me as I drive away…
This Pacer wagon really looks like the forerunner of the modern CUV. I always like the concept – a wide small car that was roomy and featured great visibility. Sure it looked different, but that was the point and was this any worse than later Vibes, Jukes, Fits and Souls? The concept was fine, but, as usual, AMC botched the production. More expensive and thirsty than the competition, with poor build quality to boot. Too bad. It could have been a contenda!
The Pacer wagon sits low, not high like a CUV. The AMC Eagle is a true forerunner.
MT nominated the Pacer wagon for ’77 COTY, too, since it was considered ‘new’.
Pacer wagon, I wonder what the surcharge would be on the regular rate to tint all those windows if I tried to get someone to do it today?
The other thing that came to mind was the number of sedans the listings of makes and models…
Digging into these sales numbers, we can see that while the Cutlass was the best selling nameplate, Chevy was the king of the intermediates when you combined Chevelle and Monte Carlo sales.
Total Sales:
Cutlass/Cutlass Supreme: 632,742
Chevelle/Monte Carlo: 739,254
The reason for this is clear- Cutlass Supreme sales barely beat the Monte Carlo, but in the intermediate category the Chevelle crushed the standard Cutlass models.
All in all, a good deal for GM- They could crow about the success of the Cutlass nameplate, while taking their Chevy sales to the bank.
Sad part is somewhere between the 1967 and 1977 article, AMC, for a fleeting moment, seemed to be somewhat on track with fresh new attractive designs like the Javelin and Hornet sportabout. What we’ve seen are the sad bookends, last week where the resource hogging Rebel/Ambassador failed, and today the resource hogging Pacer failed.
I too find the note about the Caprice like dimensions of the Matador interesting. For all the deserved scorn the pursuit of those cars got for being the nail in the coffin for Rambler, they were very space efficient, even visibly so with very cab forward like proportions(most noticeable on the coupe), but sadly in the long hood short deck late 60s that was completely unfashionable. Looking at the 77 B bodies though, the proportions are identical, just with far FAR more attractive sheetmetal.
AMC went wrong in the mid 60’s. Flush with success selling boring Ramblers to old people, senior management in a fit of hubris tried to become a full-line company, competing with the Big Three in all categories..
They did not have the resources or money to develop and maintain competitive products and lost their shirts. In retrospect, they should have continued to specilalize in boring economical compacts. Emphasise quality and economy in a limited range. This worked for the imports and the K-car. If they did this, who knows? We might have AMC today instead of Hyundai.
I guess I’m in the inevitable camp with regards to AMC’s failure. The subcompact segment is what AMC should have exploited in hindsight if anything, but for Compacts the big three matched and exceeded the best Rambler ever had by the mid-60s, and had the economies of scale to continually one up them. Romney jumped ship at just the right time before the market caught up to them and would have had to make a big decision like Abernethy made for the company had he stuck around longer.
The K car is pretty analogous to Rambler actually, both in stale execution and dorky reputation. Chrysler ditched that formula completely by the 90s. In the case of the imports they did exactly what AMC tried to do in the 60s, take on the big three head to head, difference is that they succeeded. AMC was unlucky enough to attempt to go head to head with the big three when they were at their strongest, had managment managed to soldier on with the traditional Rambler line to the point the big three would begin to falter in the 70s-80s, maybe they would have had a chance, but there’s no telling how AMC would have fared in the mean time and there was no way to predict just how hard the shit would hit the fan for GM, Ford and Chrysler. The imports were able to take advantage of that and once they got that solid footing it didn’t take them long to expand their lineups to great success.
Well… If they had not wasted funds on the bigger models during the failed attempt to out fox the big three, they might have been able to invest those into developing a world class sub-compact far better than the Falcons, Valiants or Novas. And come 73, they might have been able to reap a rich harvest when fuel prices soared. A US made Hyundai indeed.
The Pacer was really something. A beautiful design that still looks fresh today. Too bad about all the jokes that came early on and stuck, to the point where most people who like the car can’t admit it.
I know a couple of guys who own Porsche 928s. They used to bristle at my claim that the Pacer influenced the designer(s) who worked on their car. When I was able to produce this, they became downright distraught.
“Porsche designer Tony Lapine credits the Pacer with having inspired his use of a bubble-shaped tail end for the highly regarded Porsche 928″ (Orange Country Register, 2001).”
BTW Lapine knew Teague from when they both worked at GM.
Thank you for saying this… I wasn’t waiting for someone else to profess / defend their love of the Pacer to comment, but I was reading through the comments to make sure I didn’t duplicate.
My only beef with the ’77 Pacer was that the really attractive, new wagon was available with the original front clip for only this one model year. The wagon bodystyle was one (or two) model year(s) late. The hare-lipped ’78 restyle just completely wrecked the balance of its clean design.
For all it’s faults, I love the Pacer design as well. I love the 928 too for that matter
Calibrick: Mitsubishi seems to have used the design for it’s Colt hatchback, without the wide body gimmick
Courtesy CC:
I see some Pacer in the 80s Ford stuff too like the side window shapes on the original Tempo and Ford Sierra.
Hopefully over time when 928 guys hear “your car looks like a Pacer” it will come across as more of a good thing. The Pacer was one of the most important automotive designs ever.
I remember seeing on Top Gear years ago that the designer of the Sierra XR4i used a black B-Pillar applique in an effort to give that car’s window profiles the same shapes as the 928’s. I wouldn’t say it was super effective as the proportions were so far off, but I can see it.
Designers certainly watch each other and copy what they like.
AMC’s ’70s cars are a total frustration with me. They were often so close to success but botched it time and again. They had the new Hornet/Gremlin models at the start of the decade, relatively good design with the right size, but marred by poor quality construction and the cheapest interiors in the industry. Then came the Matador coupe, a huge misfire in the styling department, followed up by the cheaped-out and heavy Pacer, which shared no components with other models and was costly to produce. And don’t even get me going about the Matador sedan/wagon’s coffin nose restyle – ugh!
It was no wonder they were on the ropes by 1977. Yet they still found the money to upgrade Hornet into Concord for ’78, a vast improvement, and transform Gremlin into Spirit for ’79, both of which sold quite well. Imagine if AMC had had these upgraded lines 4-5 years earlier? Also, by 1979 AMC had positioned Pacer at the top end of their offerings with a much improved interior and luxury power options – but it was just too late.
There was an story here about the Matador sedans a while back, and someone photoshopped the front end with a set of quad headlights – what a huge improvement that was! Adding that plus wider, beefier tires to fill out the fenders better would have cost peanuts to do and would have vastly improved what was basically a good car to begin with. AMC seemed to be blindsided by it’s own ambitions, it seemed.
Frank, the dual headlight theme is what made the Ambassador a much better looking car. Even the AMC catalogs of the period rarely show the front of the Matador
One of the main failures of the “economy” AMC models in my view was that they looked as such but actually had the fuel consumption of an intermediate. How difficult could it have been to produce a 4 cyl. version of the AMC six fitted with an aluminum OHC head allowing for better combustion chambers and breathing? A Gremlin or a Pacer capable of, say, 28 MPG would have sold very strongly after the 1st oil crisis and then again after the second, but you could never hope for that with the straight six.
“… they still found the money to upgrade Hornet into Concord … and Spirit…”
The money came from Jeep sales and then the Renault buy in of ’77. Jeep would’ve been bought up cheap by GM or Ford, if AMC died in ’79, if not for the French. Chrysler was too poor, then.
Matador was a mid size car inside and out, not a true full size design. This was stated in many CC articles about the Ambassador trying to compete, by adding a longer hood, but still not full sized interior or trunk. It may have looked “efficient”, but compared to GM B body, was ancient and outclassed. Also, dealer training videos try to compare the Barcelona trim to Cutlass Supreme, a huge flop!
Re sales the DeVille numbers are most impressive. I would argue that kind of volume is good for a premium brand as long as you aren’t giving the cars away and they weren’t.
Reading through these articles you might think it was a terrible time to be a young car guy but it was the opposite. Expectations after about ’73 were so damn low. This is why many of us have a fondness for the Mustang II — compared to what else was out there it was pretty great. The addition of the 139HP V8 in ’75 was big, big news, I would say more than when Chrysler products got the Hellcat.
The long and short of it — didn’t take much to get us excited. 77/78 was pure magic because it was the time of rock bottom expectation and a string of new ideas from just about everyone.
If you lived through it, the bookends for the “low expectation” period were Pinto and Versailles. Ford didn’t do anything great after the Pinto, and for a while anyway, nothing really bad after the Versailles.
I think the Chevelle in the lower right hand panel is a 1974-my bud had a Pacer in high school, if you can pickup girls driving that you were the real thing, I remember the passenger door was longer than the drivers door.
Believe it or not, that entire Chevelle shot is from the 1977 Chevelle catalog. The round headlamp car does look like a ’74 in front except for the grille texture. Chevy was the only GM division that kept an old “face” on its base Colonnades for ’77.
Just wanted to say thanks for this terrific series! The articles, commentary, and comments have all been fascinating.
AMC prospered when it offered something different from what the big three offered. As soon as the big three offered compacts and intermediates, AMC really had no place left to hide, so was forced to meet the big three head on. Abernethy really had no choice. Notice that, while Abernethy took the fall, Roy Chapin continued his attempt to offer a full line of products.
The Pacer was an attempt to offer a wildly innovative package as no-one else was making a car with that length/width ratio and George Jetson bubblecar styling.
I have also read the rumor that front drive was considered for the Pacer. There might have been room for FWD, using the Wankel. GM pulling the plug on the Wankel would have been the end of the project as there is no way AMC could have mounted one of their 9 bearing 6s transversely. I wonder what transmission they were considering?
Ah, the “what could AMC have done differently” game!
Ever notice how the early 70s senior AMC bodies seem to be too big for their wheels? The tires look sort of sunken into the wheelwells. The senior AMC’s wheel track was almost exactly the same as the Nova’s. Dead simple thing to do is take a page from the Studebaker Lark’s playbook and cut the body down to fit the existing suspension. Use European styling tricks like thinner doors to create the same interior room as the old seniors, and give it the brougham treatment to differentiate it from the nearly same size Hornet, which would remain aimed at the cheap market. Cheap to develop, but not much to differentiate this downsized senior AMC, which would philosophically resemble the 63-64 Ambassador, from the broughamated Nova Concours and Granada Ghia.
*or*
Look at what Audi was doing with the Super 90 and 100LS, Renault was doing with the R12, Saab with the 99 and Austin with the Landcrab. Keep that ex-Buick V6 and refine it the way Buick later did. They could have mounted it longitudinally, with the Hydramatic that had been designed for reverse rotation for the Toronado. If GM did not want to cooperate, or priced the Hydramatic at an exorbitant level, and lacking a source elsewhere for a sufficiently robust longitudinal front drive trans, mount the V6 transversely with the transverse version of the BW Type 35 that was in production for the Landcrab, combined with European standards of space efficiency. With the largest investment in the engine being the new crank with offset rod journals to smooth the timing, and B-W and Austin already having done the heavy lifting on the trans, this alternative would not have been wildly more expensive than the cut down senior platform, but would have been radically different from the other compacts of the era, while also not throwing any technology curves at the mechanics at AMC dealers as the engine and trans both were…umm..”well matured” technology.
But then you just confirm my point from further up, which is that AMC might have had the cash to develop a sub-compact BETTER than what the big three were making during the early to mid 60s had they not splurged on bigger cars nobody wanted?
AMC might have had the cash to develop a sub-compact BETTER than what the big three were making during the early to mid 60s had they not splurged on bigger cars nobody wanted?
AMC was doing very well in the early/mid 60s. From the numbers I have seen the senior models (Classic and Ambassador) outsold the junior platform until the junior based Javelin came out in 68. The second generation inline 6s came out in mid 64, and enjoyed a life just about as long as the Buick V6 as Chrysler kept that engine in production until 2006, using it in Jeeps. After years of using Audi and GM 4s, AMC did produce it’s own 2.5L four for Jeeps in the 80s.
The door to the front wheel drive option I speculated about opened in 1970, when AMC bought Jeep and thus inherited the ex-Buick V6. iirc, it was about 70 when Borg-Warner developed the transverse version of the Type 35 for Austin, and the Saab 99, Audi 90/100 and Renault R12 were all introduced in 68-70 to serve as inspirations. With a suitable engine and automatic transmission in hand, and enough money to develop one entirely new platform, AMC had all the pieces in place to produce a FWD compact by 74-75.
There seems to have been some bias against the V6 at AMC, as, rather than developing a new crank to smooth the V6, they lengthened the engine bay of the Jeep CJ by some 3″ to fit the 9 bearing in-line 6 instead. The V6 was regarded as crude and redundant and the equipment sat idle at the Jeep plant until Buick came calling with a check in hand, thus closing the door to FWD for AMC until they had access to the Renault parts bin, and we know how that turned out.
The problem with AMC, is that their quality control was bad. How much worse than their competitors, I don’t know, but I do know that my parents said that they had bought a Pacer brand new in 1975, and basically, it had problems since day one. Word of mouth would have then been a killer, because there were lots of people that liked the odd styling of the car, but the constant mechanical problems killed the Pacer, and AMC, as well. You get the impression that they knew that they didn’t have the money to troubleshoot enough things in the R&D stages, and that the production was rushed. You wonder how many things that engineers had suggested to the company needed to be fixed before its launch…..and how many things they were aware of that they just couldn’t fix, due to time/ money constraints.
Pacer was a 70’s “fad” product, and AMC was rushing them out the factory for quick $$$.
The WI plant was ancient and Pacer was a hard to build design. Would’ve better off bringing out the Concorde/Spirit models earlier, instead.
And Matador was {expletive}
Of the nameplates on this list, of this generation, I’ve only owned a Vega and a Firebird. And I’ve driven a Pacer, Monza, Mustang II, Granada, and Pinto as well, but none of the more mainstream sedans or personal luxury cars.
It’s funny, people mentioning the AMC Pacer’s many problems.
My mother bought a new ’76 Pacer. And yes, it had many issues.
The next year, she traded it for a ’77 Buick Electra 225 sedan.
AMC PACER is on a few bad lists. The Pacer and Gremlin are 2 of the 12 worst cars ever built. Pacer is on top 10 list of ugliest cars ever built.
But the PACER was good enough for “WAYNE’s WORLD”, and this is what brought new life to the car.
The ugliest of all U.S. cars built in the ’60s, was the ’66 & ’67 Chevy Nova !!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks!
IMHO, the 66-67 Nova is most overrated car by B-J and cable car shows, just boring as all get out. The 68-74 was much cooler and iconic, I think. Rose colored glasses have made them 6 figure cars for big $$$ car folks.
The Pacer wagon outsold the hatchback for the rest of the model’s short run, and by a lot. It offered a fair amount more total volume, a rear hatch that opened down to the load floor (something the Concord missed out on) and treated back-seat passengers a bit better than the original-style Pacer, having rear windows that at least vented a bit and a longer roof for less sun on your back.