Car and Driver under David E. Davis gave the royal treatment to American Motors’ head Roy D. Chapin Jr. A case in point was a story about the 1970 AMC Hornet, which treated Chapin’s marketing banalities as pearls of wisdom.
“A compact must reflect the appeal of the sporty cars but it must have an individuality of its own,” Car and Driver quoted Chapin as saying at a press conference. “With the Hornet, the buyer can express his feelings about what a small car should be. If he wants economy he can have it. If he wants performance he can have it” (1969, p. 57).
That strikes me as a pretty mundane observation in light of how Detroit had typically offered its compacts in a variety of flavors, from strippo to fancy. Nevertheless, Car and Driver presented Chapin’s words as revelatory, concluding that “he understands the essential difference between small cars and economy cars” (1969, p. 57; original italics).
Car and Driver’s take was more positive than Car Life’s
Car and Driver appears to have been trying to help American Motors in two ways. It boosted the automaker’s efforts to give Chapin more visibility while also distinguishing the new Hornet from the hot-selling Ford Maverick, which had been introduced around six months earlier.
What’s curious is that Car and Driver’s article was considerably more positive than Car Life’s even though both were published in their September issues — and presumably had access to the same cars under the same conditions.
Why was Car Life willing to criticize such things as the Hornet’s handling when Car and Driver announced that it was “unwilling” to do so until it had access to production models that they could “spend a week or two living with” (1969, p. 83)?
Go here to check out a discussion of Car Life’s article. Do you think they were being overly harsh? Or might David E. Davis have put his thumb on the scale for his pal Roy? I’m inclined toward the latter view given that Car Life’s critique was subsequently shared by others.
American Motors partially follows in Maverick’s path
The Maverick was noteworthy because of its laser focus on the economy-car market. It was initially offered in only one body style — a two-door coupe — and with an unusually limited range of colors and options.
This reflected Ford’s attempt to better compete against a rising tide of imported subcompacts by positioning the Maverick below traditional compacts such as the Plymouth Valiant, Chevrolet Nova and its own Falcon.
The Hornet split the difference between the Maverick and traditional compacts. The AMC was 179 inches long — the same as the Maverick — but it had a 108-inch wheelbase. That was the same as the Valiant’s but five inches longer than the Maverick’s. This gave the Hornet a roomier back seat.
And while the Hornet’s base two-door sedan was priced a dollar below the Maverick’s, AMC also offered higher-end models, a V8 engine and features such as a glove box and a counterbalanced hood. Advertising could legitimately argue that you got more car for your money.
So, yes, the Hornet was positioned as a small car rather than an economy car. But then so was every other traditional compact. Once Ford unveiled the 1971 Pinto, the Maverick went upmarket with a four-door sedan, a V8 and more options.
Car and Driver hints at an old bugaboo of AMC compacts
The closest Car and Driver came to criticizing the Hornet was to note that even in base trim it was substantially heavier than a Maverick, which had a shipping weight of 2,427 pounds. A Hornet SST with a V8 and other options almost hit 3,200 pounds. In addition, that car had a “somewhat uncomfortable” weight distribution of 59.3 percent on the front wheels (1969, p. 83).
How bad was the Hornet’s weight problem? A base four-door sedan came in at 2,748 pounds. That was in the general vicinity of the Valiant (2,795), the Falcon (2,748) and the Nova (2,843) even though it was as much as 10 inches shorter.
The Hornet was as much as 81 pounds heavier than its predecessor, the 1969 Rambler, but AMC compacts had always weighed more than comparable Fords. For example, even though a 1960 Rambler American in base two-door trim had an eight-inch shorter wheelbase than a Falcon, it was 221 pounds heavier.
Why? It’s true that the Falcon and its successor, the Maverick, benefitted from Robert McNamara’s single-minded war on weight in the original car’s development (Halberstam, 1986). However, American Motors always struggled with the cost of fielding both smaller and larger cars. Car and Driver hinted at this: “Part of the Hornet’s higher-than-expected weight can be attributed to the suspension parts which it shares with the larger AM cars” (1969, p. 83).
Space efficiency takes a back seat to trendy styling
The most interesting aspect of Car and Driver’s story was a table comparing the Hornet’s exterior and interior dimensions with those of other compacts. Although the AMC was roomier than a Maverick, it was a tighter squeeze than a 1969 Rambler, Valiant or Nova.
Also see ‘Compact cars became the neglected stepchildren of U.S. automakers’
This showed up most prominently in hip room, where the Hornet was 2.4 inches narrower than the Rambler in the front seat and 2.9 inches in the rear even though the new design was slightly wider on the outside. The trendy “fuselage” body-side curvature reduced passenger space.
Meanwhile, the Hornet had only 11.2 cubic feet of trunk space. That was modestly smaller than the Rambler, which had 12 cubic feet, but quite a bit less than the Valiant’s 14.5 cubic feet.
The Hornet’s smaller dimensions were accentuated by claustrophobia-inducing styling. Even Car and Driver commented about how “the driver is immediately aware of the high cowl and steeply raked windshield” (1969, p. 83).
The article concluded that the Hornet would “make some waves” because of its styling and range of options. That didn’t prove to be the case, but Roy D. Chapin Jr. was presumably happy with Car and Driver’s thumb’s up.
NOTES:
Production figures and specifications were from the auto editors of Consumer Guide (1993) and Flory (2004).
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Auto editors of Consumer Guide; 1993. Encyclopedia of American Cars. Publications International, Lincolnwood, Ill.
- Car and Driver; 1969. “Preview Test: AMC Hornet.” September issue: pp. 56-57, 83 (reposted in Curbside Classic on March 25, 2024).
- Flory, J. “Kelly” Jr.; 2004. American Cars, 1960-1972. McFarland & Co., Inc.
- Foster, Patrick R.; 1993. American Motors: The Last Independent. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Halberstam, David; 1986. The Reckoning. William Morrow & Co., New York, NY.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- ads.aacalibrary.org (AACA Library and Research Center): American Motors (1970)
- oldcarbrochures.org: AMC Hornet (1970); AMC Rambler (1969); Chevrolet Nova (1970); Ford Maverick (1970); Plymouth Valiant (1970); Rambler American (1960)
Be the first to comment