While Dinosaurs ruled the Earth back in the day, not everybody drove a '59 Cadillac or a full-size Chevy Impala. Even in the 1950s and 1960s, some people cared about fuel mileage. A nasty recession in 1958 pinched a lot of pockets and caused some folks to rethink the "longer, wider, faster" trend.
So let's take a look at some of the first "economy" cars of the modern era.
Note - I'm sticking with the US market here. This will unfortunately exclude a lot of the cool micro-cars from Europe. I'm also limiting it to the 1950s and 1960s.
The fuel crisis of the early 70s brought on the second round of small cars in the US but I'm more interested in the early days here.
In case you ever wonder how I decide what to write about, it's usually whatever pops into my head when I wake up at 1:00 AM thinking it's time to go to work (except I'm at home).
Yes, most of these come from the fevered imagination of a sleep-deprived mind.
Nash Metropolitan
I so want one of these.
I just love these little things. I think it's the proportions that make them so cute. It looks like a big car that's been shrunk down.
In the mid 1950s we see the start of the "two car" household. Nash-Kelvinator was known at the time for making big, comfortable cars with seats that folded down into beds (really). The Metropolitan was designed to be a household's second car. Either for the husband (usually the wage earner in those days) to commute to work in, or for the wife to run errands with.
These were actually manufactured in England by the Austin Motor Company and were one of the first "captive imports". After Nash merged with Hudson to form American Motors, these were also sold with the Hudson nameplate.
These were quite slow by modern standards. 0-60 mph took upwards of 20 seconds and top speed was maybe 75 mph. To cruise at 60 that little British motor was working pretty hard - spinning at 4300 RPMs.
Still these could top 40 mpg. Compare that to my DeSoto which gets about 15.
Nash Rambler
I like the look of these with the front fender skirts.
While large by today's standards, the Rambler was one of the first "compact" cars to come out of postwar Detroit.
Worried about getting tagged as a "cheap little car" the Rambler was marketed as being stylish and well equipped for the price.
These sat on a 100 inch wheelbase, which was relatively small for the day. A Rambler was around 176 inches long - a full three and a half feet shorter than my 57 FireFlite.
They had pretty good aerodynamics for the time, looking not unlike a rounded off bar of soap. With a six cylinder engine and manual transmission they could get between 25 and 30 mpg.
What I really like about the Nash cars of this era are the front fender skirts. Rear skirts were pretty common but I don't know of too many cars that had them in front.
Volkswagen Beetle
VW's "Think Small" campaign is considered one of the most effective advertising efforts ever.
Some people love the VW Bug. I am not one of them. I'm convinced that people who love these all live in warm climates and never suffered through a Chicago winter in one. Soooooooo cold..........
Still I will try to set aside my dislike for these and give the car somewhat of its due.
Okay, presumably everybody knows the history of this thing by now. Germany, Hitler, Porsche, "People's Car" etc. etc.
I think these started showing up on US shores around 1948 but didn't become really popular until the 1960s. Pretty much everybody either had one or knew somebody that had one.
These, like most German products, were well built cars. They were simple to work on. They had a super low first gear that could beat just about anything - for the first ten feet. I can tell you that a 73 Bug will beat a six-cylinder automatic Camaro from that era in a drag race.
Top speed of a Bug was 80 mph, with a brick on the gas pedal and a decent tailwind. I have tested this theory.
You could also stuff eight members of a high school track team into one of these. Tested that theory as well. Also four members of said track team could apparently pick one of these up and deposit it on my Dad's front lawn while I wasn't looking.
Fuel economy, depending on which engine it had, was in the 30s.
I won't go on about the numerous design flaws in this thing but I reserve special hatred for whoever stuck the master brake cylinder behind the left front wheel. I think I still have scars on my knuckles from that thing.
Studebaker Lark
I think this is what our Studebaker looked like. We somehow crossed the US in one of these.
My parents had one of these, but I was too young to really remember it. About all I remember is it was black with a red interior - which I think I chewed on.
Studebaker was already circling the drain in 1959. US production would end in 1963. They had given up hope of competing head to head with the Big Three and hoped that focusing on compacts would save the company.
The Lark was introduced in 1959 and bought Studebaker a few more years of life.
It could be had with a six cylinder engine or a small V8, which was a first for a compact car. I can't find any good mileage data for these but people claim 25-30 mpg with the six cylinder, which seems plausible.
Ford Falcon
1961 Ford Falcon. This must have been a popular color back then because I've seen a lot of them.
The Falcon was the brainchild of Robert MacNamara when he was President of Ford Motor Company. It was an instant success. Ford sold a million of these in the first two years. He should have stuck to cars is all I can say.
The Falcon was a pretty conventional design, basically a smaller version of the larger Ford products. Engine choices started out with a 144 cubic inch six cylinder and went all the way up to a 302 V8 in later models.
The first generation Falcon sold very well but after 1964 the Mustang pretty much put the kibosh on Falcon sales. Underneath they were basically the same car but the Mustang looked so much sportier.
These were also sold under the Mercury badge as a Comet.
With a six cylinder and a manual transmission the Falcon could achieve 30 mpg.
Chevrolet Corvair
The first generation Corvairs were boxy looking but the later ones were pretty sexy looking.
I have always liked the Corvair, despite its troubled history. I think the second generation models (64-69) had beautiful styling. I give GM credit for thinking outside the box with this car.
The Corvair was similar to a Porsche or Tatra, with a rear mounted air-cooled "flat six" engine. I think where they went wrong was using a swing-arm suspension in back instead of spending the money on a fully independent unit.
This has always been my critique of General Motors (and the rest of the Big Three for that matter). They have always had great engineers and designers - then the corporate bean counters would get hold of the design and start cutting corners.
Swing arm suspension on an early Corvair. Rather than traveling straight up and down the wheel makes an arc instead.
The problem with the swing-arm suspension was that it could cause some handling quirks. Under hard cornering it was possible to roll an early Corvair. Not a good trait in something that was marketed as a "sporty" car. I think they were also sensitive to tire pressure.
They partially fixed this in 1964 by adding a front anti-roll bar. In 1965 they finally switched over to fully independent in back but by then the damage had been done.
Rear shot of a 67 Corvair. The turbocharged models are very collectible today.
I think what really killed the Corvair was the introduction of the Camaro in 1967. For about the same money as a Corvair ($2500) you could get a Camaro and that's how most people went.
That's my other critique of General Motors. Usually when they finally get something right they stop building it.
Pontiac Tempest
1963 Tempest. The first generation was very innovative but by 1964 it was just another conventional design.
Another innovative GM product back in the day was the first generation Pontiac Tempest.
These had the engine in the front, but the transmission was in the back coupled to a fully independent suspension.
The base engine was a 195 cubic inch inline four cylinder that was essentially one half of their 389 V8. The four could be had with a one-barrel carburetor or oddly enough an optional four-barrel. Although 3.2 liters is pretty darn big for a four cylinder so I guess it could handle it.
I would imagine a 3.2 liter four cylinder would run rough unless it had balance shafts (it didn't). If anyone's ever driven one of these let me know.
A few of these were built with the aluminum Buick 215 cubic inch V8 which probably made for a neat little car. A 326 cubic inch V8 was also optional.
Gas mileage was somewhere in the low 20s.
By 1964 GM had redesigned it into an intermediate sized car and went back to a setup with the transmission in front.
Chevrolet Chevy II/Nova
The original Chevy II had pretty clean lines. It's hard to find one of these today that hasn't been hot-rodded.
The Chevy II was introduced in 1962 to compete with the highly successful Ford Falcon. Similar to the Falcon, this is basically a smaller version of GM's conventional larger cars.
Base engine was a rare for General Motors 153 cubic inch four cylinder. They actually made this engine by lopping two cylinders off their inline six.
Of course this being the 1960s, they were stuffing larger and larger V8s into these within a few years. Still, with the four cylinder or smaller six cylinder options and a manual transmission these could be pretty economical cars.
I've always liked the looks of the first generation (62-65) models. Never cared much for the later ones, but they were very popular with drag racers. Little car plus big motor and all that.
Note that it's a "Chevy II" until 1969 when it became a "Nova". Except there was a trim option called a "Chevy II Nova" before that. Also note that these not selling in Mexico because "No va" means "Doesn't go" is purely an urban legend.
Plymouth Valiant/Dodge Dart
The early Valiants were kind of funky looking. I think this styling might have looked better on a larger car.
The Valiant was Chrysler Corporation's first go at a small car. I always thought that the Valiant was essentially the same car as a Dodge Dart, but the Valiant actually rode on a shorter wheelbase than the Dart, at least prior to 1974.
The Dodge equivalent of the Valiant was called a "Lancer" until 1963, because a Dodge Dart was a full-size car from 1960-1963. In 1963 they dropped the Lancer and decided to use the popular Dart name for the compact Dodge. Confused enough now? I know I am.
Of all the Dodge Darts I like the late 60s models best. This one is a 1967.
Both the Valiant and the Dart used the legendary "slant six" engine. This was an inline six canted on its side to allow for a lower hood. Getting into some gear-head stuff here, but this also allowed for nice long intake and exhaust runners which gave these good horsepower for their size.
Of course as the 60s went on they start stuffing larger and larger engines in these, all the way up to the 440 cubic inch V8. You could still get the economical slant-six however.
Fuel mileage figures are hard to come by but people who own them have reported high 20s and one source claims 30 mpg.
Like most cars of that era it depends on which transmission and the rear-end (final drive) gear ratio. Cars back then could be ordered with different rear gearing based on the type of driving you did.
These were known to be solid, no-nonsense cars that ran well and were pretty trouble free. The slant-six engines were known for being exceptionally durable.
In 1976 Chrysler screwed up big time and replaced these with the awful Dodge Aspen and Plymouth Volare. It was the first, but not the last time Chrysler would find itself in trouble.
British Sports Cars
Austin-Healey "Bugeye" Sprite. Looks like a character from Disney's "Cars".
Triumphs, MGs and Austin-Healeys of the day contributed to overall fuel economy by never running very often. I would expect hate mail from angry MG owners but they're all out in the garage trying to get their headlights to work.
Note that my anti-British bias comes from having owned two Jaguars XJs. Glutton for punishment that I am, the second one was a V12. Seemed like a good idea at the time.
If someone were to give me a mint condition Lotus Elite I might change my opinion of British cars. That's some good looking sheet metal.
Seriously though, these were fairly light cars with relatively small engines even if they were meant to be sporty. A Lotus Elite could get 38 mpg and an MG Midget could get 35. The Austin-Healey Sprite claimed 36 mpg. All about what I would expect from a small four-cylinder car with a manual transmission.
Citroen 2CV
It's a stretch including the 2CV but I like them - so there.
This one's a stretch, but if I let the Brits in here I have to include ze French as well.
The beloved "deux chevaux" was indeed imported to the United States, but in relatively small numbers. They were generally too slow for postwar US roadways. I've seen gas mileage reported as high as 50 mpg. That's anecdotal so I wouldn't take it to the bank. Still these were quite economical and could be repaired by the average French farmer using pliers and a toothpick.
The early models had all of nine horsepower and barely made 40 mph. I think there are more powerful riding lawnmowers. Actually, put four doors an a riding lawnmower and you'd have a 2CV.
I like the comment of one British automotive journalist who described it as: "the work of a designer who has kissed the lash of austerity with almost masochistic fervor".
Don't think I'm slamming the 2CV. Francophile that I am, I love these things.
I know for a fact that some did make it over here since I have a picture of my DeSoto next to one.
Toyota
Toyopet Crown. Can't say that I've ever seen one.
I always assumed that Toyota started importing cars to the US in the 1960s, but I was wrong.
In the late 50s you could buy a "Toyopet Crown" for $2187, actually a bit more than the cheapest Chevrolet of the time. They were a well built car, actually overbuilt since they were heavy for their size. Built for Japanese roads of the time, they proved too slow for American highways. Gas mileage was around 24, probably due to the car's weight. Only a couple thousand were sold here. I suspect a Japanese car was probably a tough sell that soon after WII.
Toyota Corona. Unlike the earlier Toyopet, these sold pretty well in the US.
Toyota left the US market in 1961 but came back a few years later with the successful Corona. I remember one of my neighbors had a Corona back in the late 60s. We all laughed at his funny little Japanese car. Nobody laughs any more.
Datsun 1000
1959 Datsun 1000. Japanese cars of this era borrowed a lot of styling from contemporary British cars.
In 1958 the Nissan name was still toxic in the US due to its association with WWII so they were sold as Datsun. The first Datsun sedan to be imported to the US was designated either the "1000" or the "210" depending on who you ask.
I can't find a lot of information about the US models. I can't even tell you how many were sold here. Maybe a few thousand?
Horsepower was a whopping 34 and these hit their top speed of 60 mph in about that many seconds. Fuel mileage was somewhere around 28.
Kaiser Henry J
Kaiser Henry J Corsair. This one is one of the "upscale" versions that had a trunk lid.
The Henry J was a small car produced by Kaiser-Frazier in the early 1950s.
These were meant to be a very basic, affordable car. Kaiser kept it as simple as possible. There was no trunk lid, no glove compartment, and the rear windows didn't roll down. The engine was the same four-cylinder used by the Willys Jeep. Late models got a six-cylinder engine.
Fuel mileage was reported as high as 35 mpg with the four-cylinder.
These never sold well because for a few bucks more you could get the bottom of the line Chevy that had more features.
I've never seen one. I did pass a (very rare and expensive) Kaiser Darrin sports car once in my DeSoto on Rt 161. The driver didn't wave back. Apparently my FireFlite was too plebian for his tastes.
Willys Aero
Willys Aero from 1954. I don't think I've ever seen one.
I knew the Jeep people also made cars but I'd never heard of this one.
These could be had with the same 134 cubic inch four-cylinder that powered the Jeep or with several optional six-cylinder engines all the way up to 225 cubic inches.
Reportedly these would cruise comfortably at 80-90 mph, probably with the bigger engine. The only fuel mileage figure I could find was a combined 28 mpg city/highway.
These were only sold in the US from 1952 to 1955 but were later produced in Brazil.
Subaru 360
The original Subaru 360
Subaru came to the US in 1968 with the tiny 360. These weighed all of 900 pounds and were powered by a 356cc two-stroke engine that put out a whopping 16 horsepower. To put it in perspective, 356cc is considered a small engine for a
motorcycle these days.
Subaru claimed 66 mpg but the reality was more like 35.
Saab 93
Saab 93 from the late 1950s.
The first Saab imported to the US was the Saab 93 in the late 1950s.
These were powered by a 750cc two-stroke three-cylinder engine that produced 33 horsepower. Any time we're talking about engines in cubic centimeters you know it's pretty small.
I seem to recall seeing one of these back in the 1960s. I only remember this because my Dad pointed it out to me.
Jay Leno has one of these (he has one of everything) and claims gas mileage is better than 25 mpg. He described the cruise control as "put your foot to the floor and keep it there".
Volvo P444
Volvo P444 from 1958
When I was a kid one of our neighbors had one of these and we always thought he was a bit, ahem, "eccentric".
Today I like of like them because they look like a smaller version of a 1940s American car.
These were first imported to the US in 1956.
These were powered by a 1.6 liter four-cylinder engine and got 25 mpg when the average American car got 12.
I'll throw a Volvo P1800 in here just because they're so cool. Not an economy car but still pretty economical.
Okay, I think I've got most of them covered. I'm sure someone will let me know if I left out one of their favorites.
I initially left out Honda because didn't think they starting importing cars to the US until around 1973. I've been corrected, however. Apparently you could get a Honda N600 starting in 1969 so I should have included them.
After reading this, perhaps you're wondering "If they could get 36 mpg back in the 1950s why does my 2014 Camryaccordima only get 36 mpg?"
Several reasons. One is government regulations. A 2015 Toyota Corolla weighs 2800 pounds, almost a full thousand pounds more than it weighed in 1979. A lot of that weight is due to government mandated safety features like side-impact protection.
That Corolla, like many of us, has also gotten bigger over the years. In 1979 it rode on a 94 inch wheelbase and was 161 inches long. Today's model is 20 inches longer and six inches wider. It's fairly common for car models to creep up in size over the years. I notice my wife's 2009 A4 is a good bit larger than the 1999 A4 I used to drive.
The other is all the features on a modern car that either weren't available back in the day or could only be found on luxury models. Air Conditioning, for example, was very rare in the 1950s. Today it's hard to buy a car without it.
Some of this has to do with profit margins. Stripped down cars don't make much money for the manufacturer. It's also more efficient to not manufacture as many variations.
Back in the 1960s you could order a car pretty much how you wanted it. If you wanted a 63 Impala with a three-speed manual and air conditioning but no radio, GM would have built you one. Today you may only have a choice of two or three "trim packages".
Oh, and I rather doubt that there was a magic 100 mile-per-gallon carburetor that was purchased by the oil companies and secretly buried. I mean seriously. If we'd had one don't you think we'd have put it on the Sherman tank during WWII?