I’ve never seen one last one generation. Cheap vehicles. They were also very very prone to rust. First vehicle I’ve ever heard of where the back seat was optional. Even carpeting was optional. They were marginally better then my Vega.
I checked with my brother, who was a friend of the Opel owner, and it turns out that I misspoke.
He owned a Rekord sedan, which predated the Kadett and which was–I think–not mechanically-related to the Chevette. The one that he owned was bright yellow, and I thought that it was a nice looking car. He was MUCH happier with the Rekord than with the Isetta.
In Ohio, it was floor-boards, shock towers and front springs that rusted to failure. All easily fixed without a re-paint. The bodies tended to look pretty good for quite a while even if the undersides were rusty as heck.
As commuters and kid-cars, they rarely got much beyond 100K miles before heading to the junkyard.
I was living in central NY at the time. And I saw plenty of fenders and bumpers rusting out. As if floor-boards and shock towers weren’t enough,
1 Like
I think about the “land yachts” of the 1950s. When a recession hit in mid 1957, the sales of the VW Beetle and other imports took off. Ramblers and Studebaker Larks sold well. In 1960, the Corvairs, Ford Falcons, and Plymouth Valiants hit the market. For many buyers, these cars were a little too compact, so by the mid 1960s, intermediate size cars hit the market. The 1964 Chevrolet Chevelle was about the same size overall as the 1955 Chevrolet. The full size cars were downsized as well. However, when we got into the 1970s, the cars got bigger until the oil embargo forced a gasoline shortage. Suddenly, the downsize cycle started all over again. I was ready to replace my Ford Maverick in 1978. I had a colleague who died suddenly and had just purchased a new 1978 Mercury Grand Marquis. It had less than 4000 miles and his heirs were offering it at a very good price. However, it was a 2 door. I passed it up because it seemed to me that it was difficult for passengers to enter and exit the back seat. To me, that Grand Marquis took up a lot of space for no more utility than it offered.
At any rate, the downsize cycle that started at the end of the 1950s was repeated at the end of the 1970s. I did buy a Ford Tempo. It was roughly the same size as the Ford Falcon of earlier years. It was a little too small for transporting passengers, so I traded it for a Ford Taurus. The Taurus enabled my parents to ride with us more comfortably than in the Tempo.
I buy the size vehicle that fits my needs. Today the minivan has the most utility for me. When the time comes that I am no longer able to play my horn and am not transporting people and musical instruments, I’ll buy something smaller.
And that cycle keeps repeating. Gas was cheap, and people were buying 19’ long SUVs. Gas got expensive, and suddenly I was being offered stupid money for my old rusty CRX, so I sold it. Now it’s gotten cheaper again and, surprise! Giant SUVs are best sellers.
I’ve never understood the attraction to huge cars regardless of how much it costs to fill them.
Part of it is…these SUV’s are also getting better gas mileage then vehicles from the 80’s. My wife’s Lexus is far bigger and heavier then my 73 Vega with a lot more safety features and gets BETTER gas mileage then the Vega. And lets not forget runs a lot cleaner too.
My 2017 Toyota Sienna gets better gasoline mileage than the 1965 Rambler I once owned. The Rambler was the bottom of the line model. It didn’t have air conditioning, no power steering or brakes and had a manual transmission. The Sienna is just a few inches longer, but utilizes the space much better.
I prefer the smallest vehicle that meets my needs to s land yacht even if the mpg was the same on both vehicles.
Sure, but they’re not getting better gas mileage than a normally-sized car with a normally-sized engine. The Suburban gets 16 city/20 highway which is just pathetic. Heck, its highway mileage is significantly worse than the Corvette.
My Dad had a 1960’s Ford Pickup when I was growing up…Lucky to get 12mpg on that thing.
Vehicles today get significantly better gas mileage then vehicles from the 70’s in every category. The only big difference I see now is we don’t have the land yachts like my 66 Fleetwood. The Suburban is bigger and gets more then double the gas mileage then that thing. You were lucky to get 10mpg.
My parents 1956 and 1965 eight cylinder Oldsmobiles averaged only 8-12 mpg, depending on the type of driving. Their six cylinder 1983 Olds got about 15-16 mpg.
My four hamster 1973 Corolla averaged 16-22 mpg around town but got well into the 30s in highway driving.
My “big six cylinder 3800” 1987 Olds averaged 18 mpg city, 22 mpg highway.
My six cylinder 2007 Impala got only 18-19 mpg city, 22 mpg mixed, and 26-28 mpg highway.
My four cylinder 2014 Camry consistently gets 24-28 mpg city, 32 mpg mixed, and 38 mpg highway.
I’m curious to ask…
I know that fuel injection brought significantly improved mpg over carburated engines. But how much of recent years improved average mpg is due to advancement in engines versus those of transmissions?
While true, that doesn’t mean 16/20 should be seen as acceptable today when we are capable of building vehicles that do much better, and when we are facing a global climate crisis.
I had a Rabbit, built in Westmorland, PA. I had to sell it, though. I worked for a steel mill, and they wanted me in a traditional Detroit 3 car if I drove customers around. They wouldn’t give me a car since I didn’t drive to most customer facilities, I flew. They did make a no interest loan, though. I bought a Cavalier 2L with a 5-speed. Nice car, it turned out. I still liked the Rabbit, though. BTW, this was in the late 1970s. As you may recall, interest rates were something like 20% at the time.
My '77 had power brakes and it was a bottom of the line model so it’s possible your '73 did as well.
I’ve always been attracted to large, heavy cars, mostly for one reason: they have a better ride and quieter cabin.
1 Like
About equal amounts I’d say. Compression ratios in engines routinely exceed 11:1 and run on 87 gas. In the 60s, cars with compression that high needed leaded gas with more than 93 octane. More compression means greater efficiency.
When direct injection appeared, hp increased 30% or so with the changes that allowed.
And then the 4 speed, to 5 to 6 to 8 to 10 speeds that are more fuel efficient and faster than a 6 speed manual in the same car.
Alk this with vehicles that are all substantially quicker 0-60 with much higher top speeds than anything built in the 60s. The slowest Toyota is still quicker than my 110 hp, 2 speed auto 64 Pontiac and gets double the fuel economy and is cleaner by far.
3 Likes
@Mustangman Thank you for the explanation. 
1 Like
@old_mopar_guy. The seats and driving position are more important to me than the size of the vehicle. I drove a full size 1971 Plymouth Station Wagon that was in my institution’s fleet to a conference 80 miles away. I believe there were seven of us in the wagon. For me, the seat and driving position were most uncomfortable. I was glad to get back in my bottom of the line Rambler Classic 550. On the other hand, I was assigned an intermediate size 1976 Plymouth. I believe it was called a Satellite for a trip of the same distance. I found that car quite comfortable to drive, even though it was smaller. There were five of us on that jaunt, and we all had plenty of room. At the time, I owned a Ford Maverick and I hated getting back in my own car.
That is true, but for me the ideal is to feel like I’m still on my living room couch. For that kind of isolation on New Jersey’s potholed roads, you need a wheelbase >=120".