[ Up ]

Popular Science - November 1965

Comparing the Compacts: VALIANT - FALCON - AMERICAN - CHEVY II

In a candid analysis of all four of the compacts our expert critic says two are outstanding buys

by Jan P.Norbye, Automotive Editor     Exclusive Photos by Bill Morris

"VALIANT - has minor changes only for 1966.  It's top in handling has lively slant-six."

"VALIANT's slant-six with four main bearings may be obsolete but it offers pretty good performance.  It's also      remarkably quiet and free from vibration."

"VALIANT has a pleasant driving position with plenty of leg room. The instrument cluster is adequate, but the speedometer should be more legible at a glance."

Who buys compact cars? During the first six months this year, 656330 people did. After having tried the '66 models, I think there will be many more of them next year.   Why do people buy compact cars? There are many economical advantages: The initial purchase price is lower, fuel mileage is better, repair work and replacement parts cost less, and there's even a small savings on insurance premiums. But I suspect that the people who buy compacts do so because they like them; not because they cost less to buy and keep. If you decide a compact car's for you, the difficulty lies in picking the right one. The Chevy II has the most engine options only the Valiant is available with disk brakes, the Falcon is the roomiest and most comfortable, and you'll find the highest-quality finish on the Rambler.

Chassis design. It is basically similar on all four. The Valiant has Chrysler's torsion-bar front suspension, but the three others have transverse control arms and coil springs. Falcon and Rambler place the coils on top of the upper arm with the top anchored in the body structure; Chevy II also carries the coils on the upper control arms. In the rear end, all have semielliptic leaf springs. But while Ford, Chrysler, and American Motors use four or five leaves, the Chevy II has a tapered single-leaf spring; thin and flat at the extremities, almost square-sectioned where it's bolted to the axle housing.

Ride comfort. On good roads both the Falcon and the Chevy ride almost like big cars. The Valiant ride seems harder, but even with its short wheelbase, there's no pitch problem. The American has the same 106-inch wheelbase and less front overhang, but the ride can sometimes be quite choppy. There is some brake dive on all of them, but I wouldn't call it objectionable. On abrupt starts from standstill, they tend to squat at the tail, but the Valiant does it-less than the others. For all-around use, the driver would be happier in the Valiant, while his passengers would probably prefer the ride of the Falcon or the Chevy II.

Steering response. Despite its high steering ratio, the Chevy II responds to the wheel in a very positive way. The Falcon, on the other hand, has a small steering lag whenever you deviate from a straight course. While it's a good thing that the car resists all outside forces trying to deflect it from a straight line, impulses from the steering wheel should have immediate effect. The Valiant has a new power-steering unit that reduces the assist at high r.p.m., so that you get a better road feel at high­way speeds. Conversely, at low r.p.m., such as when parking or maneuvering, power assist is high. This is a sound principle, and I only wish they had taken it a lot futher. Even in its present form, however, the Valiant has the best steering response. The American's steering, on the contrary, seems particularly "dead" at speed. As this car is also highly sensitive to crosswinds and tends to wander in gusty weather, the lack of feel In the steering wheel is a problem and one of my beefs with Rambler.

Stability on turns. The wide track on the new Falcon works wonders for the car. The front suspension was redesigned with a higher roll center to take full advantage of its 58-inch track. The new car has none of the wishy-washy feeling of the old Falcon. On high-speed turns, it leans a bit, but it doesn't mind being driven hard the old one always gave signs of wanting to corner on the door handles. The rear leaf springs are both wider and longer, giving a softer ride on small bumps as well as better stability on turns. High roll stiffness has been built into the Chevy II chassis, but one of the penalties for relatively flat cornering is restricted vertical wheel movement. So, on really hard and fast turns, you lift the inside rear wheel, and the car loses traction just when you need it most. Rambler has a similar problem, but lifting the inside rear wheel on the American is accompanied by more body roll (in standard form, this car has no stabilizer) and greater slip angles on the front wheels. It's very difficult to get around turns fast with the Rambler-handling precision is very poor, and if it's a bumpy right-hander, you end up several feet left of where you want to be. Even with stock suspension, the Valiant has better stability on turns than its rivals. Body roll is slight and balance is unimpaired by fast cornering. It goes through S bends with less fuss than any of the others. It never plays any tricks on you.

Special suspensions. If handling precision means everything to you and ride comfort very little, yon might want your Valiant with Rally Suspension. It consists of heavy-duty leaf springs, larger torsion bars, special shock absorbers and a reinforced stabilizer bar. Rambler American has a handling package made up of a front stabiliser bar and special shock absorbers. For the Chevy II, the only suspension option is special shock absorbers (but stronger springs are used with each engine option). The Falcon has no suspension option (and the Mustang parts won't fit).

Power trains. We tested the compacts with the optional rather than base-model six-cylinder engines. The Rambler engine is the most advanced, with sophisticated crankshaft counterweighting and seven main bearings, short stroke, and extremely short connecting rods, a lightweight cast-iron block, and fairly good porting. The Chevrolet is next in line, but the crankshaft has only four counterweights. The Falcon Six began life with a four-bearing crankshaft, but Ford has updated the design by accommodating seven main bearings in the same basic block. A main bearing between each crank throw may extend engine life—but its main function is to keep the engine as free from noise, vibration, and harshness as possible. The Valiant slant-six has only four bearings, but it has been developed to the point where it certainly has no noise and harshness problems. Neither does it seem to have more vibration than the Ford or the Chevy, though the Rambler is superior in this respect. The obsolescent Valiant and the updated Falcon engines are coupled with, the most satisfactory transmissions. Chrysler's. junior edition of the TorqueFlite has been simplified (the rear oil pump is gone) but its operation is the same. Ford's lightweight Cruise-O-Matic, with three-speed planetary gearing, comes a close second to the TorqueFlite. Rambler's modern engine has a slightly antique transmission—they call it Flash-O-Matic, but it's really a Borg-Warner torque converter with three-speed planetary gearing. Still, it's better than the Chevy II's two-speed Powerglide. Without an intermediate range, you get into unpleasant cycles of up-and-down-changing on hills, and you have a passing problem on the highway, where Low range is too slow and Drive lacks the power.

Comfort and convenience. I was not comfortably seated in either the Chevy II or the American—if I sat at the right distance from the pedals, the steering wheel was too close. The recliner mechanism on the Rambler seats works in notches and therefore misses any opportunity of a perfect adjustment. And the front seats just don't move back far enough for tall persons. The Falcon and the Valiant have enough front leg room but are short on leg room in the rear. The windshield posts are a bit thick on all of them, but they all have good wipers. Only the Falcon has a foot-operated parking brake—the others have little dash-mounted umbrella handles. You'll be interested in trunk size if you travel a lot with your own car, and more so with a compact than with a larger model. The Valiant trunk is by far the roomiest, since the spare wheel is cleverly hidden below the trunk floor. The Falcon has the smallest trunk (as hinted by the short deck), and the American and the Chevy II are about the same size, with spare wheels flat on the floor over on the right.

General notes. Plymouth Valiant begins its sixth model year with merely evolutionary changes in its "Phase-Two" look introduced on the 1963 models. Mechanical alterations include thicker brake linings, new universal joints and a new polyacrylic rear-axle pinion seal, all in the .interest of improving durability. I would say that the Valiant is Outstanding Buy Number One. Ford Falcon is an all-new car for its seventh model year, sharing many of its under-body parts with the larger Fairlane and consequently being the roomiest of the compacts. Naturally, it's slightly heavier than last year's model, but there is no significant loss of economy or performance. I give my vote to the Falcon as Outstanding Buy Number Two. Rambler American had its big change for 1964 and in the third year of its second phase, it is very much the same as last year's car. Some small styling changes add to overall length without contributing to the useful space. The main mechanical news is a Motorola transistorized voltage regulator in a plastic capsule, with full protection against both moisture and shock. Chevy II starts its fifth model year with a wholesale exchange of outer sheet metal, but the overall appearance is remarkably similar to the old Chevy II, and most dimensions are identical. This car represents an average of the compacts, and will probably be an acceptable compromise to thousands of nonenthusiast drivers. If the rear seat has above-average space, the front seating is below average. If the interior trim is below average, the exterior paint and brightware is above average. If it's better built than the Falcon, it still falls somewhat short of Rambler's quality of assembly.