The Sorry State of Affairs in Automobilia in the 1970s, 80s and 90s

[PHLBOS]

Here's an article about 6 sedans that did 8-second 0-60s and averaged 40 mpg on a varying driving conditions test loop (note leadfoot tester Martinez):

http://www.motortrend.com/news/40-mpg-compact-sedan-comparison/

I do remember reading that article in the print version when it came out.  Of course, even MT commented at the beginning of the article on whether or not these cars could actually obtain 40+ mpg on the highway.

Worth noting: one reason why those vehicles can do sub-9 0-60 times is the high compression ratios (9.5:1 and higher) of those engines.  Which makes the recommended use of unleaded regular for fuel somewhat suspect.  Although Ford doesn't require it; it does mention for its Ecoboost engines that its posted results (horsepower, performance) were done using premium unleaded fuel.  It makes one wonder whether MT used the higher octane gasolines (except for the VW Jetta TDI obviously) when it did its tests.

Back in the late 70s/early 80s, the average compression ratio on car engines were 8:1 and even 7:1 in a couple of cases.  These lower compression engines were dogs in terms of acceleration but could run on lower octane (87) gas with no issues.

It's not a living room, it's a car.

You obviously don't remember (or forgot about) the seats offered on many 70s large domestic luxury cars.

1975 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham


1978 Lincoln Town Car


1975 Imperial (Chrysler) LeBaron


Those seats certainly could pass for sofas on wheels to me.

[formulanone]

It's not a living room, it's a car.

You obviously don't remember (or forgot about) the seats offered on many 70s large domestic luxury cars.

1975 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham

Those seats certainly could pass for sofas on wheels to me.

Ack! The five-year-old me recalls sitting in Chrysler Cordova with door-to-door velour in a Florida summer. I'm sweating just thinking about it.

I also remember the clock didn't work...gotta love those 12/12,000 warranties.

As an aside: What were those pull handles on the back of the front seats for?

[GCrites]

Here's an article about 6 sedans that did 8-second 0-60s and averaged 40 mpg on a varying driving conditions test loop (note leadfoot tester Martinez):

http://www.motortrend.com/news/40-mpg-compact-sedan-comparison/

I do remember reading that article in the print version when it came out.  Of course, even MT commented at the beginning of the article on whether or not these cars could actually obtain 40+ mpg on the highway.

Worth noting: one reason why those vehicles can do sub-9 0-60 times is the high compression ratios (9.5:1 and higher) of those engines.  Which makes the recommended use of unleaded regular for fuel somewhat suspect.  Although Ford doesn't require it; it does mention for its Ecoboost engines that its posted results (horsepower, performance) were done using premium unleaded fuel.  It makes one wonder whether MT used the higher octane gasolines (except for the VW Jetta TDI obviously) when it did its tests.

You can usually get away with 9.5+ comp ratios on 87 if the engine is all aluminum. My 944 had 10.5-1 and I got away with 87 daily with no audible spark knock ever. And the cam in it was fairly mild to give it that smooth German tick-tock. I run 87 in my 9.5-1 IROC-Z with an iron block and heads, but it has an aftermarket cam with enough overlap that I believe it is reliving compression during overlap. Now that I have a datalogging cable and software for it I can go back and see if the knock sensor has been pulling out timing.

[formulanone]

Here's an article about 6 sedans that did 8-second 0-60s and averaged 40 mpg on a varying driving conditions test loop (note leadfoot tester Martinez):

http://www.motortrend.com/news/40-mpg-compact-sedan-comparison/

I do remember reading that article in the print version when it came out.  Of course, even MT commented at the beginning of the article on whether or not these cars could actually obtain 40+ mpg on the highway.

Worth noting: one reason why those vehicles can do sub-9 0-60 times is the high compression ratios (9.5:1 and higher) of those engines.  Which makes the recommended use of unleaded regular for fuel somewhat suspect.  Although Ford doesn't require it; it does mention for its Ecoboost engines that its posted results (horsepower, performance) were done using premium unleaded fuel.  It makes one wonder whether MT used the higher octane gasolines (except for the VW Jetta TDI obviously) when it did its tests.

I've had most of those as rental cars, and unless you're doing an absolutely steady 55-60mph, you're not getting 40mpg.

If you have that near-magic cool weather that allows for continual driving without needing to use A/C, heat, nor putting the windows down (and hopefully not stuck behind vehicles with a foul exhaust nor near operational paper mills), you might get it.

[Max Rockatansky]

Hitting on some of the topics that I missed while I was out today.  The last two sub-compacts I've owned with a 2011 Ford Fiesta and a 2014 Sonic both had runs over 40 MPG and both had 0-60 times at 9 seconds or better.  The Fiesta was a beast with the dual clutch automatic and I actually averaged 42.4 MPG over the life of the car due to me having 150 plus days overnight on the road.  The 2014 Sonic has had a couple decent runs over 40 MPG but it's more a 34 MPG daily driver due to it being urbanized more than the Fiesta was...damn local commutes.  The Fiesta was a better handler, more efficient but the Sonic is faster at about 8.2-8.5 to 60 and more comfortable.  Regardless I don't know buy a daily driver with luxury in mind, to me that's just the car you rack up 150,000 to 200,000 miles on and throw in the garbage when you're done.  I'm a 6'1 person and I fit pretty damn comfortably into the Sonic, so does the wife...but the best part is that the kid fits into the back just jim dandy.  I don't understand why people need a tank like SUV to transport small children in.  But I'll say that I do like the seats in the Sonic...that Fiesta gave me sore shoulders.  Never got knock in either of the cars on 87 octane and the Sonic is even a turbo.  I did get some knocking once in that Fiesta when I accidentally filled up with 85 Octane in Utah but I was able to clear the issue with some 89 Octane added to the tank about 150 miles into the fuel run.

In regards to CAFE I'm all for cars losing more and more weight.  The Sonic that I own is way too heavy as is and probably should be tipping the scale at 2,500-2,600 pounds in curb weight.  What I'm not willing to accept as a consumer is cars that go 0-60 in under 10 seconds and have a hard time reaching 100 MPH with 80-85 MPH Interstates out there these days.  40, 45, 50 or 55 MPG combined it still has to be able to handle getting up to speed for and running at highway speed efficiently.  110-120 HP/ftlb should be able to fit that bill no matter what CAFE entails in the future.

[SteveG1988]

The SHO V6 from 1989 runs great on 87, reccomends 91 to allow for a little more agressive torque curve. Cast iron block, aluminum head. 9.8:1 versus the 3.0L Vulcan OHV cast iron block/head at 9.3:1

[PHLBOS]

I'm a 6'1 person and I fit pretty damn comfortably into the Sonic, so does the wife...but the best part is that the kid fits into the back just jim dandy.

Regarding the kids in the back seat; are they old & large enough not to require supplemental car seats?  Back in the early 90s, a friend of my brother's had twin newborn daughters and released that two required supplemental seats (for the babies) could not fit too well in the Ford Escort he was driving at the time.  He had no choice but to upsize; he replaced the Escort with an older ('81-'82) Granada.

In regards to CAFE I'm all for cars losing more and more weight.

One main problem with that is that many of the additional safety requirements & standards (those additional airbags do add weight to a vehicle) that have come about in the past decade are the primary reasons that vehicles of the same size have gotten heavier.   So on one hand, newer & additional safety regulations are making vehicles heavier but on the other, higher CAFE standards encourage & require lighter vehicles.  One basically has a robbing Peter to pay Paul scenario.

What I'm not willing to accept as a consumer is cars that go 0-60 in under 10 seconds and have a hard time reaching 100 MPH with 80-85 MPH Interstates out there these days.

You would've hated the vehicles of the 1970s & 1980s then.  It should be noted that those posted 80-85 mph speed limits only exist on a relatively small handful of Interstates nationwide.  Most have a posted maximum of 65-75 mph.

40, 45, 50 or 55 MPG combined it still has to be able to handle getting up to speed for and running at highway speed efficiently.  110-120 HP/ftlb should be able to fit that bill no matter what CAFE entails in the future.

As previously stated, a gasoline-powered vehicle that gets a combined fuel economy of 40 to 55 mpg does not presently exist in the marketplace.

I've had most of those as rental cars, and unless you're doing an absolutely steady 55-60mph, you're not getting 40mpg.

If you have that near-magic cool weather that allows for continual driving without needing to use A/C, heat, nor putting the windows down (and hopefully not stuck behind vehicles with a foul exhaust nor near operational paper mills), you might get it.

So, you're basically proving my earlier point regarding even today's gasoline-powered subcompacts would have trouble averaging 40+ mpg in mixed-driving situations.

[GCrites]

One main problem with that is that many of the additional safety requirements & standards (those additional airbags do add weight to a vehicle) that have come about in the past decade are the primary reasons that vehicles of the same size have gotten heavier.   So on one hand, newer & additional safety regulations are making vehicles heavier but on the other, higher CAFE standards encourage & require lighter vehicles.  One basically has a robbing Peter to pay Paul scenario.

There is a triangle between weight, safety and emissions whose corners can be pulled in different directions to make one or two of the things better while making one or two of the others worse. Cars would undoubtedly be lighter if you eliminated emissions equipment and things like airbags, door beams and bumper supports. Emissions would then begin to drop again since the engine wouldn't work as hard moving the lighter vehicle around. Add mileage and horsepower to the triangle to make a hexagon.

[formulanone]

I've had most of those as rental cars, and unless you're doing an absolutely steady 55-60mph, you're not getting 40mpg.

If you have that near-magic cool weather that allows for continual driving without needing to use A/C, heat, nor putting the windows down (and hopefully not stuck behind vehicles with a foul exhaust nor near operational paper mills), you might get it.

So, you're basically proving my earlier point regarding even today's gasoline-powered subcompacts would have trouble averaging 40+ mpg in mixed-driving situations.

I don't recall denying it.

40, 45, 50 or 55 MPG combined it still has to be able to handle getting up to speed for and running at highway speed efficiently.  110-120 HP/ftlb should be able to fit that bill no matter what CAFE entails in the future.

Getting "up to speed" varying on conditions; many compacts can scoot up to speed limits [or even Speed Limit + 5mph] when floored. If one live, commutes, shops, and is entertained around streets which do not have high speed limits, have an adequate number of lanes of travel, do not have too much traffic during those moments, then you could do it. Does one travel out of the city for work, and return to it afterwards? Work and play times off-peaks? Is the driver relaxed, too relaxed, too hyperactive, carrying other occupants or lots of other stuff? How many times does one have to merge with fast-flowing traffic? How many stop lights? ...Many, many variables.

The thing is, only a few hybrids or some really gentle driving. A Prius could do it, an Insight, a few diesels, a Geo Metro, maybe a few more. I could (but rarely do) get 38 (it was listed at 33 mpg highway) from my Scion; hardly the pinnacle of technology, but it's 2500 pounds at $15-18K...really driving it gently without A/C. Whereas 20-30 years ago, one spent less money to get better fuel economy from the low-priced offerings, now the mid-priced offerings are the fuel-sippers.

To be honest, a typical road-going car really doesn't need to go over 100 mph. I think 90 might be as much as most folks will ever need to achieve, and even then, there's a near-immediate back-pedaling when I hit that (because of law enforcement, high-ticket prices, and safety...those around you going slower and road-going conditions). Sure, you could shorten the gears to permit slower terminal velocities, but you then get poorer fuel economy due to faster acceleration. And vice versa with taller gearing.

One main problem with that is that many of the additional safety requirements & standards (those additional airbags do add weight to a vehicle) that have come about in the past decade are the primary reasons that vehicles of the same size have gotten heavier.   So on one hand, newer & additional safety regulations are making vehicles heavier but on the other, higher CAFE standards encourage & require lighter vehicles.  One basically has a robbing Peter to pay Paul scenario.

There is a triangle between weight, safety and emissions whose corners can be pulled in different directions to make one or two of the things better while making one or two of the others worse. Cars would undoubtedly be lighter if you eliminated emissions equipment and things like airbags, door beams and bumper supports. Emissions would then begin to drop again since the engine wouldn't work as hard moving the lighter vehicle around. Add mileage and horsepower to the triangle to make a hexagon.

I don't think we're going to see those devices and structural components leave typical new vehicles any time soon, unless replaced with even more complicated, heavier, and labyrinthine components. Not unless a lot more creature comforts are deleted and/or exotic (and expensive) composites fall into use. Automakers tout more features, and they help sell it...if people didn't want it, we'd see more spartan vehicles with far less excess. Save a few economy models, tiny vehicles, and limited spec-racer products, the trend has gotten away from this for decades. With Ford's choice to use aluminum bodies on their F150s, I think we might see more of that technology spread towards more of their lineup, although insurance will probably jump up a bit to cover the higher potential repair costs.

[PHLBOS]

Whereas 20-30 years ago, one spent less money to get better fuel economy from the low-priced offerings, now the mid-priced offerings are the fuel-sippers.

Jumping the gun on Throwback Thursday by about 7 hours, here's an old 1981 Plymouth line-up ad that was posted on Collectible Automobile's Facebook page:



Got great mileage but were dogs in terms of acceleration.  Note: many of these vehicles had a lot less standard equipment than today's models.

[Stephane Dumas]

Anyone who heard or remember the 4-door hardtop sedan?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAYyx2_jBOc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBpL8gyeBNA

I miss that kind of body. There was even a time when Toyota and Datsun(Nissan) even offered them in Japan until the 1990s killed by the SUV craze. http://ateupwithmotor.com/model-histories/japanese-four-door-hardtops/

[PHLBOS]

Domestic brands offered the hardtop sedan (aka the 4-door hardtop) from 1955 through 1978 with the '78 Chrysler New Yorker & Newport being the final 4-door hardtops.  Ford & Mercury's last 4-door hardtops were offered in 1974 (on its full-sizes) and GM's final ones were offered in 1976 (on its full-sizes).

Pillared hardtops 4-doors, OTOH, still exist but are somewhat rare or in a very limited number of models.  The last domestic 4-door pillared hardtop was the 1985 Cadillac Seville.  Subaru continued offering the pillared hardtop designs on its vehicles (including wagons) through 2009 with its Legacy & Outback models being the final ones.

The VW CC still offers a pillared hardtop design on its sedan for 2016 along with some Mercedes models and even Tesla.

[formulanone]

Whereas 20-30 years ago, one spent less money to get better fuel economy from the low-priced offerings, now the mid-priced offerings are the fuel-sippers.

Jumping the gun on Throwback Thursday by about 7 hours, here's an old 1981 Plymouth line-up ad that was posted on Collectible Automobile's Facebook page:



Got great mileage but were dogs in terms of acceleration.  Note: many of these vehicles had a lot less standard equipment than today's models.

I'm surprised "Collectible" and "K-Car" in the same sentence didn't cause some sort of type mismatch error.

I have serious reservations that many folks got 40-50 mpg on those vehicles on any sort of regular basis, except for a few hypermilers. No car magazine from those times was able to reproduce the EPA numbers consistent with the manufacturers' on anything in production, so it's not just a slight on Chrysler.

[Avalanchez71]

I had a 1981 Ford pickup truck with the 300 CID (4.9L)  straight six with carburetor.

I also had a 1990 Ford Bronco, same motor, with fuel injection.

The difference between a carburetor and fuel injection was dramatic - the injection provided more power and better fuel economy.

Unfortunately, Ford stopped building that 4.9L motor, which was stout in terms of torque and bulletproof in terms of reliability.

That was one tough, reliable engine.  I think they ran forever.  Probably emissions killed it along with weight. 

The old Chrysler slant 6 paired with the 727 transmission was another tough combination.  Back then we used to always say Chrysler had 200,000 mile power trains in 50,000 mile bodies.   

The main problem I think with the inline-6s is packaging concerns. I really like inline-6s, but they force a "long hood" vehicle. These days the car companies want to be able to put the same engines in both cars and trucks. With a 6 they want to be able to put it in smaller cars and crossovers. Look at how short and high the hoods on today's cars are. I've always drove "long hood" vehicles, but a lot of people today are scared to pull out into city traffic with a long hood.

Car companies are having a hard enough time selling cars to urban Millennials, and a long hood can be a dealbreaker when having to pull out past cars parked on the street. Today's vehicles are so incredibly tall and parking restrictions near street corners haven't moved farther down the streets since everybody stopped driving low Citations, Camaros, Pulsars, Sentras and Impalas with clear windows. SUVs and crossovers have those dark tinted rear windows that you can't see through.

Pretty much all the emissions regs coming almost all at once was a complete disaster for the auto industry.  Catalytic converters, lack of leaded gas and California emissions regulations pretty much sealed the coffin on performance even after gas prices rebounded.

But they can be packed much more efficiently, just look at the the history of the BMW 3 series with I6 engines. 

The problem is that there is a huge disconnect between what even people my age (Gen Xers) and what all these kids growing like.  I've met a lot of people in college who don't even have a driver's license and have zero desire to travel anywhere in a car.  There has been a gradual downhill slide in the popularity of cars with young folks ever since the baby boomer generation.  For me, I just don't plain get it.  I've lived in and worked in six of the ten largest cities in the country and I consider them all urbanized versions of hell.  I'd much rather travel to work and travel out of town...it's completely different for people growing up today.  Kids today by and large...granted I know there are exceptions...are much more connected socially because of technology and in turn largely remain near home.  For people like me when we were growing up we kept few friends, wanted to move from home and see the country...culture among youth has done a complete 180.  For the most part the income levels of young people today will likely progress slower since they are staying home longer which begs the question....is designing city cars with low profit margins really worth the investment to cater to a group that has little interest and little money.  For the kids growing up today that seem to like cars they seem to like the ones everyone else does; muscle cars, trucks and affordable sports compacts.

I just don't get it either.  I know the minute that I turned 15 I went and got my permit.  The minute I turned 16 I got my license.  I had saved up for a car even before I had my permit and was ready to go.

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm a 6'1 person and I fit pretty damn comfortably into the Sonic, so does the wife...but the best part is that the kid fits into the back just jim dandy.

Regarding the kids in the back seat; are they old & large enough not to require supplemental car seats?  Back in the early 90s, a friend of my brother's had twin newborn daughters and released that two required supplemental seats (for the babies) could not fit too well in the Ford Escort he was driving at the time.  He had no choice but to upsize; he replaced the Escort with an older ('81-'82) Granada.

In regards to CAFE I'm all for cars losing more and more weight.

One main problem with that is that many of the additional safety requirements & standards (those additional airbags do add weight to a vehicle) that have come about in the past decade are the primary reasons that vehicles of the same size have gotten heavier.   So on one hand, newer & additional safety regulations are making vehicles heavier but on the other, higher CAFE standards encourage & require lighter vehicles.  One basically has a robbing Peter to pay Paul scenario.

What I'm not willing to accept as a consumer is cars that go 0-60 in under 10 seconds and have a hard time reaching 100 MPH with 80-85 MPH Interstates out there these days.

You would've hated the vehicles of the 1970s & 1980s then.  It should be noted that those posted 80-85 mph speed limits only exist on a relatively small handful of Interstates nationwide.  Most have a posted maximum of 65-75 mph.

40, 45, 50 or 55 MPG combined it still has to be able to handle getting up to speed for and running at highway speed efficiently.  110-120 HP/ftlb should be able to fit that bill no matter what CAFE entails in the future.

As previously stated, a gasoline-powered vehicle that gets a combined fuel economy of 40 to 55 mpg does not presently exist in the marketplace.

I've had most of those as rental cars, and unless you're doing an absolutely steady 55-60mph, you're not getting 40mpg.

If you have that near-magic cool weather that allows for continual driving without needing to use A/C, heat, nor putting the windows down (and hopefully not stuck behind vehicles with a foul exhaust nor near operational paper mills), you might get it.

So, you're basically proving my earlier point regarding even today's gasoline-powered subcompacts would have trouble averaging 40+ mpg in mixed-driving situations.

Yes we had a car seat for a long time but it fit just fine.  Even the wife fits just in the back and I suppose that I wouldn't be too uncomfortable given a short sprint.  I still don't understand how post Mini-Van era we morphed into tank SUVs and now faux Mini-Van/Station Wagons we call "Cross-overs or CUVs."  It just seems like a total waste of space and money, bu then again we made due with the Vista Cruiser until affordable vans came around in the 1980s...so really at the end of the day it was the game changer that everyone thought it was...especially the Chrysler stuff back then.  Another thing, why do most people insist on carrying a small arsenal around for a kid?  I swear that a lot of people are packing more crap on them than I had in my pack in the military. I mean hell I know that I'm talking one kid for me but it never seemed that crazy to get them to fit into a sedan.

The safety equipment adds a crap ton of weight.  I'm surprised there isn't more of push by automakers to get their safety equipment lighter but sustain the same level of standards.  A lot of people assume that cars from the 60s weighed a lot more than they do today when in fact they often were substantially lighter despite being bigger.  Just goes to show how much of an empty void of steel those things really were...no wonder they crumpled on impact.

Actually that Fiesta I averaged 49 MPH over the life of the car and 36 MPH with the Sonic thus far.  So yes I was right the sweet spot with how my driving was done with the former given a large chunk were one in the boondoggles.  The Sonic unfortunately gets stuck in slow traffic zones...stop and go, ect which kill the mileage in any car.  But at the time I was living in Phoenix and it was 110 F or higher pretty frequently and 90F in higher elevations, the AC doesn't pull anywhere near as big of a drag on the mileage as it used to.  Actually I was agreeing with you in that regard that it takes some pretty extreme circumstances to get that 40 MPG consistently...hell the 35 MPG in the Sonic combined is better than I expected.

Whereas 20-30 years ago, one spent less money to get better fuel economy from the low-priced offerings, now the mid-priced offerings are the fuel-sippers.

Jumping the gun on Throwback Thursday by about 7 hours, here's an old 1981 Plymouth line-up ad that was posted on Collectible Automobile's Facebook page:



Got great mileage but were dogs in terms of acceleration.  Note: many of these vehicles had a lot less standard equipment than today's models.

I'm surprised "Collectible" and "K-Car" in the same sentence didn't cause some sort of type mismatch error.

I have serious reservations that many folks got 40-50 mpg on those vehicles on any sort of regular basis, except for a few hypermilers. No car magazine from those times was able to reproduce the EPA numbers consistent with the manufacturers' on anything in production, so it's not just a slight on Chrysler.

Hell a turbo Shelby anything in K-Car form is worth a look assuming it's not beat to hell and the price is low.  I don't foresee them ever becoming mainstream collectibles but it might be worth something to the niche collector looking for something cheap and different. Hell my Uncle used to collect off-shoot Pontiacs.  His prize possession with his Can-Am, even though he was the only one that wanted it.  He even had a 74 GTO of all things.

Anyone who heard or remember the 4-door hardtop sedan?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAYyx2_jBOc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBpL8gyeBNA

I miss that kind of body. There was even a time when Toyota and Datsun(Nissan) even offered them in Japan until the 1990s killed by the SUV craze. http://ateupwithmotor.com/model-histories/japanese-four-door-hardtops/

But hasn't that come full circle with cars like the CLS, Charger and SS just to name a few?  Back in those days everyone had to have a coupe since the sedan was considered the "boring" version of the car.  Man have attitudes changed on that since the 60s and 70s.

[SteveG1988]

[PHLBOS]

I still don't understand how post Mini-Van era we morphed into tank SUVs and now faux Mini-Van/Station Wagons we call "Cross-overs or CUVs."

Part of the reasoning for such was that FWD-based vehicles (which most minivans were) is that while such could hold passengers and/or cargo; are not known for heavy-duty towing.  Since most cars at the time either weren't able or no longer had an available heavy-duty (Ford called theirs Class III) tow package offering; buyers flocked to RWD & truck-based SUVs... at least until gas prices skyrocketed about a decade later.

It just seems like a total waste of space and money, but then again we made due with the Vista Cruiser until affordable vans came around in the 1980s...so really at the end of the day it was the game changer that everyone thought it was...especially the Chrysler stuff back then.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.  The CAFE standards that existed back then made it very hard for automakers to promote & upgrade large station wagons.  GM finally did such circa 1991 (revamp its wagons) but oddly Ford bowed out of the full-size station wagon market when it redid its Panther-based Crown Victorias & Grand Marquis' for 1992. 

Many predicted that those platforms were on borrowed time and thought such would be gone prior to the end of the 80s; so why invest the money & time to redevelop/revamp the vehicles more frequently if such was going to be discontinued?

Anyone who heard or remember the 4-door hardtop sedan?
...
I miss that kind of body.

But hasn't that come full circle with cars like the CLS, Charger and SS just to name a few  Back in those days everyone had to have a coupe since the sedan was considered the "boring" version of the car.  Man have attitudes changed on that since the 60s and 70s.

I believe that Stephanie Dumas was referring to the 4-door hardtop body style in her earlier post; a type that disappeared from the North American market after 1978.  As earlier mentioned, 4-door pillared hardtops are still around but only offered in a handful of models & manufacturers.

As far as performance sedans being offered instead of coupes; one reason why manufacturers dropped their coupes (the last domestic full-size coupes were from 1987) from their line-ups was due to sluggish sales.  If one wanted a sporty or luxury coupe, they simply opted for coupe-only offerings like a Mustang, Camaro or T-Bird rather than a 2-door version of the Crown Vic or Caprice.  Child-safety locks for the rear doors that would become standard equipment also contributed to the sales decline of 2-door models; in the old days, if one was concerned about young kids grabbing the rear-door handle & accidentally opening the door, a 2-door model was the only solution readily available at the time.

[GCrites]

What percentage of private vehicle owners actually tow? And what percentage of those are towing more than 1500-2000 pounds? Aluminum fishing boats, 3-bike dirt bike trailers with bikes, jet skis and even some campers don't hit 1500-2000 pounds. A Corolla can do 1500 pounds. A Syclone should do 0 on the other hand.

[PHLBOS]

What percentage of private vehicle owners actually tow?

Do keep in mind that if someone tows a boat, trailer or camper at least once a year and doesn't have the space for a 2nd, more economical vehicle at their home; they'll buy the larger vehicle and use it for their daily driver in addition to using it for towing.

I don't believe that a Corolla could tow 25-30 foot sailboats (something that's a common sight in towns that abut a body of water during this time of year).

[Avalanchez71]

Funny to think that a car that large selling 100,000 units a year back then was a failure.  You'd never see something RWD and of that size selling anywhere close to that mark today

One needs to remember that the vehicle market then wasn't as fragmented (in terms of vehicle types) back then as it is now.  SUVs were only starting to get noticed and most pick-up trucks came one-way... single-cab.  The term, crossover (aka CUV), wasn't yet even a term in the automotive sense.

True...lineups are far more diverse then they used to be.  Market share probably plays a huge part of all this too, way more than people think it does.  Back in those days GM had market shares near the 40 range while today it's in the ball park of slightly under 20%.

Funny thing about the CUV is that it basically took market share from three segments; boxed SUVs, mini-vans and station wagons.  The boxed-SUV managed to survive the best out of the three while the Mini-Van and Station Wagon basically are close to extinct.  I would find it greatly amusing to rename the CUV segment the Station Van class. 

Color and trim notwithstanding.  Nowdays you are lucky if you get a choice of interior color.  There used to be so many different choices for interior trim back then. 

Whilst there may now be far more items in an automoblie these days they are far less custom.  No longer can you get a list of options and choose.  These days you have to pick a trim level and/or package.

[Brandon]

I have serious reservations that many folks got 40-50 mpg on those vehicles on any sort of regular basis, except for a few hypermilers. No car magazine from those times was able to reproduce the EPA numbers consistent with the manufacturers' on anything in production, so it's not just a slight on Chrysler.

I can confirm it.  We routinely saw 38-42 mpg for highway driving with our 1981 Dodge Aries (2 door, 2.2L engine, manual transmission, no A/C).  It was rather nice to go at least 400 miles between gas stops on the open highway (13.5 gallon fuel tank we'd usually fill up at 10-11.5 gallons).

[Henry]

I miss seeing those Plymouths on the road. IIRC, these were their Dodge counterparts:

Reliant=Aries
TC=Charger
Horizon=Omni
Champ=Colt
Caravelle=400/600
Gran Fury=Diplomat
Arrow=Ram 50 (predecessor to the Dakota)
Voyager=Ram Van (as Caravan didn't exist until 1983 or '84)

[PHLBOS]

I miss seeing those Plymouths on the road. IIRC, these were their Dodge counterparts:
...
Caravelle=400/600

The Dodge 600 was cousin to the FWD E-body Caravelle.

Gran Fury=Diplomat

True for '82-'89 models.  Plymouth's M-body counterpart to the Diplomat through '81 was the Canadian market only Caravelle.  The '80-'81 Gran Fury (R-body) was Plymouth's version of the Dodge St. Regis.

Arrow=Ram 50 (predecessor to the Dakota)

The Plymouth Arrow I remember was a subcompact car offered from '76-'80; the TV ads. had the catchy "Me and My Arrow" song.  The imported Arrow truck was sold from '79-'82.

[Max Rockatansky]

Funny to think that a car that large selling 100,000 units a year back then was a failure.  You'd never see something RWD and of that size selling anywhere close to that mark today

One needs to remember that the vehicle market then wasn't as fragmented (in terms of vehicle types) back then as it is now.  SUVs were only starting to get noticed and most pick-up trucks came one-way... single-cab.  The term, crossover (aka CUV), wasn't yet even a term in the automotive sense.

True...lineups are far more diverse then they used to be.  Market share probably plays a huge part of all this too, way more than people think it does.  Back in those days GM had market shares near the 40 range while today it's in the ball park of slightly under 20%.

Funny thing about the CUV is that it basically took market share from three segments; boxed SUVs, mini-vans and station wagons.  The boxed-SUV managed to survive the best out of the three while the Mini-Van and Station Wagon basically are close to extinct.  I would find it greatly amusing to rename the CUV segment the Station Van class. 

Color and trim notwithstanding.  Nowdays you are lucky if you get a choice of interior color.  There used to be so many different choices for interior trim back then. 

Whilst there may now be far more items in an automoblie these days they are far less custom.  No longer can you get a list of options and choose.  These days you have to pick a trim level and/or package.

That's not just interior, you used to have a lot more options for body style and powertrains for individual models.  That's the problem with everything pretty much being a uni-body construction.  It's a lot more difficult to fit different pieces, parts and even engines when you have to compensate for the biggest of each.  Back in the olden days you just had a big empty car that almost anything would bolt onto.

I still don't understand how post Mini-Van era we morphed into tank SUVs and now faux Mini-Van/Station Wagons we call "Cross-overs or CUVs."

Part of the reasoning for such was that FWD-based vehicles (which most minivans were) is that while such could hold passengers and/or cargo; are not known for heavy-duty towing.  Since most cars at the time either weren't able or no longer had an available heavy-duty (Ford called theirs Class III) tow package offering; buyers flocked to RWD & truck-based SUVs... at least until gas prices skyrocketed about a decade later.

It just seems like a total waste of space and money, but then again we made due with the Vista Cruiser until affordable vans came around in the 1980s...so really at the end of the day it was the game changer that everyone thought it was...especially the Chrysler stuff back then.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.  The CAFE standards that existed back then made it very hard for automakers to promote & upgrade large station wagons.  GM finally did such circa 1991 (revamp its wagons) but oddly Ford bowed out of the full-size station wagon market when it redid its Panther-based Crown Victorias & Grand Marquis' for 1992. 

Many predicted that those platforms were on borrowed time and thought such would be gone prior to the end of the 80s; so why invest the money & time to redevelop/revamp the vehicles more frequently if such was going to be discontinued?

Anyone who heard or remember the 4-door hardtop sedan?
...
I miss that kind of body.

But hasn't that come full circle with cars like the CLS, Charger and SS just to name a few  Back in those days everyone had to have a coupe since the sedan was considered the "boring" version of the car.  Man have attitudes changed on that since the 60s and 70s.

I believe that Stephanie Dumas was referring to the 4-door hardtop body style in her earlier post; a type that disappeared from the North American market after 1978.  As earlier mentioned, 4-door pillared hardtops are still around but only offered in a handful of models & manufacturers.

As far as performance sedans being offered instead of coupes; one reason why manufacturers dropped their coupes (the last domestic full-size coupes were from 1987) from their line-ups was due to sluggish sales.  If one wanted a sporty or luxury coupe, they simply opted for coupe-only offerings like a Mustang, Camaro or T-Bird rather than a 2-door version of the Crown Vic or Caprice.  Child-safety locks for the rear doors that would become standard equipment also contributed to the sales decline of 2-door models; in the old days, if one was concerned about young kids grabbing the rear-door handle & accidentally opening the door, a 2-door model was the only solution readily available at the time.

Right but how many people who bought those SUVs used them for the tow capacity that they came with?...it was very few.  So basically the SUV became the style points vehicle over the Mini-Van somewhere in the late 90s.  Even the people who drove the Mini-Vans would largely ever come close to using the total gross weight capacity much less tow capability.  So when...rather why did this all change that a family needed a monster honking vehicle to toat the 2.3 kids around in?  Look at the CTS wagon that was out for a couple years on the last generation platform.  That was a great vehicle that offered a luxury buyer everything they could have wanted for cargo capacity but everyone hated it.  Even the Dodge Magnum as cool as it was suffered the fate of the Station Wagon stigma....and yes Chrysler going out of the way to not call it one was silly.

As for the large coupe, I think that one was doomed when sedans in the same segment started to catch on.  There always seemed to be a high end luxury tinge to them in the heyday or a gimmick like suicide doors.

[PHLBOS]

Right but how many people who bought those SUVs used them for the tow capacity that they came with?...it was very few.

How many people, in the past, bought mid-70s Ford Country Squires w/460s (or equivalent) that actually used them for towing capacity (those equipped w/the Class III tow package could pull up to 7000 lbs.)?  That type of question has existed for decades.

So basically the SUV became the style points vehicle over the Mini-Van somewhere in the late 90s.  Even the people who drove the Mini-Vans would largely ever come close to using the total gross weight capacity much less tow capability.  So when...rather why did this all change that a family needed a monster honking vehicle to toat the 2.3 kids around in?

Again, many minivans that existed lacked the brawn that the old station wagons and truck-based SUVs had.  In addition to towing ability there's payload; most FWD-based minivans could certainly hold stuff, but not all of them offered optional heavy-duty suspension packages if the cargo was not only bulky but heavy as well.  I know of one company that bought a fleet of FWD-based vans (instead of RWD-based vans)  and discovered that the weight of their equipment was cracking the rear axles.  Granted, one may not experience such in passenger vehicle applications.

Regarding the 2.3 kids... many of these vehicles were used as soccer mom carpools transporting other kids.  Granted, if that was the maximum usage of a vehicle; then sure a minivan or now CUV would suffice.  But how does one know, unless they know the owner/driver, that the vehicle isn't being used for other purposes (hauling and/or towing).  Case-and-point; back in the early 70s when my father had a 25-foot trimoran sailboat, his 8-passenger '69 Mercury Colony Park wagon w/the 390 V8 towed it w/ease... and there were a few occasions when all 8 seats (his was equipped w/the optional dual-facing rear seats) were indeed used when transporting friends & guests.  Note: when he sold the boat (due to financial reasons), he traded the wagon for a '74 Pinto Squire wagon.  Man, talk about a major change/shock. 

Bottom line & long story short; the main reason why many dumped minivans for SUVs was due to choice.  Especially for those large station wagon owners that felt like the automakers largely abandoned them.

Look at the CTS wagon that was out for a couple years on the last generation platform.  That was a great vehicle that offered a luxury buyer everything they could have wanted for cargo capacity but everyone hated it.  Even the Dodge Magnum as cool as it was suffered the fate of the Station Wagon stigma....and yes Chrysler going out of the way to not call it one was silly.

Those two wagons are poster childs of how not to design nor market wagons.  Both wagons lacked what previous station wagons had; visibility & capacity.

The Magnum wagon, despite its long 120" wheelbase, had only slightly more cargo capacity than a compact Ford Focus wagon (which still existed at the time & was cheaper) due to its narrow body and short (for its class) overall length.  Dodge marketers also IMHO get an "F" on how they advertised & marketed the wagon; which was largely non-existant.  Even their product-line brochures listed the Magnum wagon (in its first year) at the bottom of its lineup, despite being the newest vehicle in the line-up.  Such usually gets the proverbial front-page attention.

The Cadillac CTS wagon, IMHO, suffered similarly; but adding insult to injury had terrible visibility, one might as well be driving a panel vehicle.

As for the large coupe, I think that one was doomed when sedans in the same segment started to catch on.  There always seemed to be a high end luxury tinge to them in the heyday or a gimmick like suicide doors.

Okay, since you don't list your age in your profile (your choice); I'm going to assume based on your comments that you were either not alive during the 70s or been too young to remember.

During the 70s and into the mid 80s; the hottest selling vehicle type was the mid-size personal luxury coupe (Cutlass Supreme, Monte Carlo, Thunderbird, etc.).

Prior to the 1960s, most car companies only had one or two car lines and such car lines had various body styles and trim levels (that actually featured different model names).  By the end of the 60s; the number of car lines & sizes expanded and the first casualties of such diversification were the bare bones level full-sizes (Chevy Biscaynes/BelAirs, Ford Customs/Custom 500s) particularly the coupes (those continued for a few years in the Canadian market). 

When the earlier-mentioned mid-size personal luxury coupes dominated the market; the more standard mid-size coupes (like the Malibu & Granada coupes) fell out of favor saleswise and were dropped.

When the SUV market expanded (such had existed but were in smaller quantities & types) during the 90s; those mid-size coupes as well as sporty coupes like the Camaro & Firebird/TransAm took a sales hit and were eventually discontinued (the Camaro was revived after a 6-year absence).

Why did sedans survive when coupes took a hit?  Since sedans are perceived to have more utility than their coupe counterparts; many buyers stood by them.  For those w/small children; the now-standard rear door child locks means they don't have to buy a coupe (that has larger doors) to prevent their kids from accidentally unlocking and opening the rear door while the vehicle is in motion.