WI Chrysler Kept Its A-Body Design In The Seventies?

WI Chrysler kept its A-Bodies through the Seventies instead of focusing on muscle cars?

The A body platform was used for smaller cars like the Dodge Dart and the Plymouth Valiant in the early to mid Sixties. It was discontinued in favor of muscle cars like the Plymouth Duster in the Seventies. As gas prices rose during the energy crisis there was a run on these older compacts while sales of big cars suffered.

But suppose Chrysler had kept its A bodies. Could they have been able to compete with Japanese imports more effectively?
 
They did. The Chrysler A-body Plymouth Valiant and Dodge Dart remained in production until 1976. The Plymouth Duster was a dressed up Valiant. It was pretty much a standard Valiant coupe from the the door forward. The rear was new sheet metal. It was built to combat Chevy Novas, especially the Duster 340 to confront the Nova SS. Most Valiants and Darts were basic grocery-getters with slant six 220 motors.

Signed, your friendly MOPARnut
 
^ What he said. And besides that, the A-bodies were not really very fuel efficient. Chrysler was run by accounting numbskulls from the early 60s until Iacocca cleaned house in the late 1970s, which meant that higher-profit performance cars and land yachts were more important.

The best way for the US auto industry to do better is have the Chevy Corvair succeed, and have GM continue to develop better-done small cars that work for the US market. Ford, GM and AMC would have to fight to catch up, and that would leave the best ones in the catbird seat when the oil crisis hits.
 
Most Valiants and Darts were basic grocery-getters with slant six 220 motors.

lol, my great aunt had a Dodge Dart in the Seventies when I was very young. It was more luxurious when compared to my Mom's late Sixties Ford Falcon :)

I also wonder if Chrysler would have done better had they had the sense to market more "captive imports" like the Dodge Colt?
 
The best way for the US auto industry to do better is have the Chevy Corvair succeed, and have GM continue to develop better-done small cars that work for the US market. Ford, GM and AMC would have to fight to catch up, and that would leave the best ones in the catbird seat when the oil crisis hits.

If the car industry had given the unions a seat at the management table, they would have (probably) produced low cost, fuel efficient cars. The UAW's head was pushing for it, but without the seat at the table he was ignored.

The other best way for US industry to do better is have the government deal with pensions and healthcare, as long-term obligations in that department began to cripple most US industry beginning in the 1980s.

The other other best way is stronger unions, generally, so that the US retains a far bigger middle class and a far smaller economic elite (although this will probably hurt places like LA and NYC).


The US car industry screwed up all on their lonesome, sure, but they were also badly hurt by certain trends out of their control.
 
Top