Chrysler Valiant AP5 Safari Wagon vs. EH Holden Wagon

Battle of the Wagons

By 1963 the Station Wagon had become an integral part of the Big Three's model lineup. The Ford wagon had remained popular, but by the time the EH was released Holden also faced competition from Chrysler - the Safari directly competing on price and power. In fact, Chrysler would have had a station-wagon version of the Valiant on the market years earlier if the sedan had not proved such an embarrassing success - the Australian plant's production facilities being incapable of expanding to produce another model variant.

It was the sedans success that inspired Chrysler management to invest in building a much larger plant, and it was only when they had the extra production capacity that they were able to introduce the Safari wagon. However, selling the Safari was not going to be as easy as it would have been a year earler when there was no EH Holden with 115 b.h.p, under the bonnet.

In an era when "extra features" usually meant a little extra chrome work or a fan assisted heater, the main differences between the two were in the body design - and on that count the EH and Safari wagons were almost identical. Side by side, the Valiant was both a little longer and lower, but when you looked behind the EH appeared to have been designed as a wagon, while the Valiant had a more "tacked on" look, afterthought appearance - somethng that had ruined the aesthetics of the EK. Valiant fans will tell you that, to their eyes, the back of the EH wagon dissolves into a maze of thick pillars, ridges, chrome work, handles, buttons and protruding tail lamps.

Chrysler tackled the tailgate arrangement of the Safari in much the same manner as Ford did with the Zephyr wagon and the then current Falcon. Instead of the Holden-style two-piece opening, the Chrysler's window had to be wound down into the gate before it could be undone with the lift-up handle inside. History would reveal that this was the better set-up, as Holden would switch to this arrangement on subsequent models. The main advantage was that the window could be wound to a position which provided good ventilation, and it was completely child-proof.

Since it was virtually impossible to open the Holden's top panel single-handed, the Safari also offered lightness of operation as a bonus. Road testers of the time noted that, in the closed position, the Chrysler's rear end seemed more rigid than the Holden's - and freedom of rattles in any station wagon was a big thing back then. There was also a restriction in the Holden's loading space: Oddly, its widest point was at the waistband, where it ran a shade over four feet, dropping to 3ft. 5in. at floor level. With the top hatch open (that's the way most people placed parcels, shopping and small cases in) the entrance measured 3ft. 9in. at the top, a shade over four feet at the bottom, with an overall depth of 1ft. 4in.

Waistband width of the Safari rear opening was less than the Holden's at 3ft. 8in. At floor level, however, there was 3ft. 9in. available. Top to bottom height was 2ft. 4tin. on the Safari, compared with the EH's 2ft. 4in. With the tailgate's window wound down, you got an opening one inch shallower than the Holden's. Because the tailgate contained the heavy winding mechanism for the window and the securing catches, Chrysler's engineers wisely spring-loaded the travel-limiting arms so that very little pressure was needed to lift the gate up.

On the score of internal load area, the Safari was miles ahead of the Holden. From the rear-seat squab to the tail gate, the Safari measured a staggering 4ft. 3in., whereas the Holden went to only 3ft. 8in. (we have taken both measurements at floor level). When the rear seats were folded down the difference was even more spectacular - Safari, 7ft.; Holden, 5ft. 6in. The Valiant did not do as well in width as it did in length. Between the Holden's wheel arches you got 3ft. 8in. of space, but the Valiant gave only half an inch more. The same applied to the above-arch width - 4ft. 5in. for the Holden, 4ft. 5½in. for the Valiant. Floor to headlining measurements, just behind the rear seat squabs, favoured the Holden at 2ft. 10in. against the Safari's 2ft. 8½in.

The method of folding the back seats to get the maximum load-in space varied substantially between the two wagons. In the Holden the back cushion had to be swung forward (it was hinged from its leading edge) before the squab could be tipped flat. The Safari was a little simpler than this, but did not provide a padded area on the rear deck. Unlike the Holden, the cushion was fixed so that when the squab folded down and clipped on to the rear of the front seat squab. The floor was not completely flat since the back squab was at a slight angle.

Naturally, both wagons had four doors and bench seats back and front (at the time, if you wanted individual seats, you had to opt for the 'Premier' or the 'Regal', which also had carpets, heaters, screen washers etc), armrests on all doors, but none in the seat centres. Rubber matting was used back and front in both, although a couple of Valiant owners have shown us that one problem with their cars is that, when the seats are folded away to achieve maximum loading area, there is an expanse of painted metal which lends itself to endless scratching if the wagon did a lot of work. And whereas the Holden's deck was plastic covered with metal rails on top, the Valiant's protection was merely a loose rubber mat. The Holden's wheel arches were plastic covered, the Valiant's painted - and to our mind that means the Holden's interior was better able to stand up better to hard work than the Valiant's.

Neither the Holden nor the Valiant had heater or screen washers as standard. In fact, they were both quite stark apart from cigarette lighters and two-speed electric wipers. The Valiant had a couple of extra touches over the Holden, such as reversing lights (although these were only the blinkers wired up to illuminate when reverse was selected), two retaining positions for all doors, vanity mirror on the passenger's sun visor, and aerodynamic slats on the wiper arms, designed to keep them in firm contact with the screen at high speed. Compared with fussy lines of Holden's rear, the Valiant Safari was clean and simple. Both wagons had crash-padding on the dashboard, but the Holden had a large, lockable glovebox instead of the spring-loaded affair on the Safari, which was neither large nor lockable.

On The Inside

For years General Motors had steadfastly resisted giving the Holden any more instruments than a speedo, fuel gauge and a group of idiot lights. Chrysler were more generous with the Valiant which had a speedo, fuel, engine temperature and ammeter dials, all neatly calibrated with white letters on black faces. The driving position in both cars was about the same, where moderately long-arm techniques could be employed, but the slightly lower gearing of the Valiant (four turns lock to lock for 37¼ ft, circle compared with the EH's 3:8 turns for a 36ft. lock) made for a shade more wheel winding.

To be honest, we have only had limited time behind the wheel in either an EH or Safari in recent years, but our memory of the experience is confirmed with road reviews conducted at the time, the Valiant steering being lighter than the Holden's, but there was not much to pick between them. The automatic version of the Valiant was a little more special as it used a "press-button" automatic, the switch gear being located on the right hand side of the dash, while the Holden had a more conventional arm-type selector on the steering column. We would challenge anyone to pick the smoothest box - for their age those we have driven have been remarkably good - but for the sake of the argument we will give the nod to the Valiant as it's extra torque should, at least in theory, help the changes of ratio slightly.

Under The Hood

Perhaps the main difference between the EH and the then new competitor Safari lay under the hood. The engines were substantially different in design. The Holden rated a capacity of 179 cu. in. (2934cc) with a bore and stroke of 90.5mm, by 76.2mm, seven main crankshaft bearings, a compression ratio of 8:8:1 and hydraulic tappets. Being a fairly shallow engine (because of the short stroke) it sat upright under the bonnet. On the other hand the Valiant achieved its 225 cu. in, (3688cc) from a long stroke of 104·8mm, and a bore of 86.4mm. Its compression ratio of 8.2:1 was not too demanding on octanes, the tappets were mechanical and the crankshaft ran in five main bearings but with an overall area greater than the Holden's. The Valiant's engine had a tilt of about 30 degrees to keep bonnet height down.

Naturally enough the Valiant's 215Ib./ft. of torque at 2400 r.p.m. got it off the mark faster than the Holden's 1751b./ft. (at 1600 r.p.m.) could manage, and the Valiant held its edge quite comfortably all through the range, widening it higher up as Valiant's lower frontal area and extra cubic inches come into their own. Wheelspin was always easy to induce on tight corners in either wagon if heavy-footed teohniques were used. On dirt or in the wet the tail could be hung-out with surprising ease.

On The Highway

When the EH or Safari settled down on the open road they could be cruised up around the 90 m.p.h. mark for hours on end without signs of mechanical hustle under the bonnet. For vehicles capable of 100 m.p.h. before a favorable wind or down a slight gradient, the brakes could have been better - and to our mind this is the first thing we notice when jumping out of a modern car into a classic (although there are some notable exceptions). On the Valiant they worked pretty well, resisting fade adequately and stopping rapidly. With a load aboard they would lose efficiency through heat build-up if used hard and fast.

But they were definitely a great deal better than the Holden's. No doubt we will receive some emails letting us know how wrong we are - but the facts speak for themselves - the Valiant Safari had 153 sq. in. of lining area and weighed 25cwt., but the Holden made do on 95 sq. in. for 24cwt. The stopping just did not match the performance potential of the 179 EH wagon. A little hard use - even a gentle mountainside descent - would cook the brakes pretty quickly. Both the Safari and the Holden had slightly beefed-up back springs to cater for heavier than normal loads.

Deciding which was the better on the highway is very subjective. We wanted to confirm our own opinions with others, but the differing opinions did not lead to any firm conclusion. It does not matter too much today, but when these were shiny new and in the showroom we wonder how the salesmen would have been able to convince the buyer to choose one over the other.

The Safari was a little smoother, the EH perhaps a little "choppy" over corrugations, but both did a fair job and will surprise anyone who takes a ride in a car that is, shall we say, entering the "mature age". The lower overall height of the Valiant and its torsion bar front suspension reduced body roll to a minimum. The Holden could be pushed through corners about as fast, but in a rather spectacular fashion, with obvious body lean and considerable tyre noise.

Rough road ability was also about equal. Both wagons absorbed shocks and jolts with a minimum of fuss, although again the Safari's torsion bars did the job a little more silently than the EH's. Ground clearance was good on both, too - 7.3in. under the Holden and 7.2in. under the Safari. By using a 14¼-gallon fuel tank, Chrysler gave the Valiant a cruising range of about 280 miles, but the limitation imposed by the Holden's 9½-gallon tank meant a fuel stop every 190 to 200 miles.

Perhaps then the argument for buying one over the other came down to price. We have retail prices at March 1964 with the Holden 179 automatic Special wagon at £1336, while the automatic Safari was £1445. The cheaper Safari, with three-speed stick shift, but otherwise the same as the auto, sold for £1320.

But there was another reason to go for the EH. At the time, Chrysler were incapable of building enough Valiants to keep up with orders, and with a waiting list of several months at best, the 179 EH was so close on performance and ability that only the die-hard Valiant aficionados would have been prepared to wait.

Valiant Safari Wagon Quick Specifications

• ENGINE: 6-cylinder, o.h.v; inclined 30deg.; bore 86.4mm.; stroke 104.8mm., capacity 225 cu. in. (3688cc) compression ratio 8.2:1; maximum b.h.p. 145 at 4000 r.p.m., maximum torque 215Ib./ft. at 2400; single downdraught Holley carburettor, mechanical fuel pump; 12v. ignition with alternator.
• TRANSMISSION: Torqueflite three speed automatic; ratios, first 4.9: 7 to 2.45:1; second 1.45:1; drive 1:7. Rear axle 3.80: 7.
• SUSPENSION: Front independent, by wishbones and torsion bars; long semi-elliptics at rear; telescopic hydraulic shock-absorbers all round.
• STEERING: Recirculotinq-boll; 4 turns lock-to-lock, 37ft. 4in. turning circle.
• WHEELS: Pressed-steel discs, with safety rims and 6.50 by 14in. tyres.
• BRAKES: Hydraulic, duo-servo; 154 sq. in. lining area.
• CONSTRUCTION: Unitary.
• DIMENSIONS: Wheelbase 8ft. 10in.; track, front 4ft. 8in.; rear 4ft. 7½in.; length 15ft. 6in.; width 5ft. 9in.; height 4ft. 7½in.; ground clearance
  7.2in.
• KERB WEIGHT: 25cwt. FUEL TANK: 14½ gallons.
• PERFORMANCE: Maximum Speed: 96.8 m.p.h. Flying Quarter-Mile: 94.1 m.p.h. Standing Quarter Mile: 20.3s. Maximum in direct gears: 1st 42 m.p.h.; 2nd 70 m.p.h. Acceleration (from rest through gears using drive range and full kick- down): 0-30, 4.0s.; 0-40, 6.8s.; 0-50, 9.4s.; 0-60, 13.2s., 0-70, 18.1s.; 0-80, 25.1 s. Rolling Acceleration (using drive range and full kick-dpwn): 20-40, 6.2s.; 30-50, 6.2s.; 40-60, 7.1 s.; 5O-70, 7.3s.; 60-80, 70.5s.; 70-90,-16.2s. Braking: 32ft. 5in. to stop from 30 m.p.h. in neutral.
• FUEL CONSUMPTION: 18.2 m.p.g. over 195 miles.

EH Holden Wagon Quick Specifications

• ENGINE: 6-cylinder, o.h.v, bore 90.5mm: stroke 76.2mm., capacity 2934c.c.; compression ratio 8.8:1; maximum b.h.p. 115 at 4000 f.p.m.; maximum torque 775Ib./ft. at 7600; single Stromberg downdraught carburettor, mechanical fuel pump; 12v. ignition.
• TRANSMISSION: Hydramatic three speed automatic; ratios, first 3.57:1 to 2.93:7; second 7.57:7; drive 1:1; rear axle 3:55:1.
• SUSPENSION: Front independent, by coil springs and wishbones; semi-elliptics at rear; telescopic hydraulic shock -absorbers all round.
• STEERING: Recirculating-ball; 3¼ turns lock-to-lock, 36ft. turning circle.
• WHEELS: Pressed-steel discs, with 6.40 by 13in. tyres.
• BRAKES: Hydraulic, 2 I.s. front; 95 sq. in. lining area.
• CONSTRUCTION: Unitary.
• DIMENSIONS: Wheelbase 8ft. 9in.; track (front and rear) 4ft. 6½in., length 15ft., width 5ft. 8in., height 4ft. 10½in.; ground clearance 7.3in.
• KERB WEIGHT: 24cwt. FUEL TANK: 9½ gallons.
• PERFORMANCE: Maximum speed: 93.1 m.p.h. Flying Quarter Mile: 89.9 m.p.h, Standing Quarter Mile: 20.9s. Maximum in Indirect Gears: 1st 35 m.p.h.; 2nd 63 m.p.h. Acceleration (from rest through gears using drive range and full kick-down): 0-30, 4.5s.; 0-40, 6.9s.; 0-50, 10.9s.; 0-60, 16.1s.; 0-70, 22.2s.; 0-80, 34.8s. Rolling Acceleration (using drive range and full kick-down): 20- 40, 6.4s.; 30-50, 6.6s.; 40-60, 7.0s.; 50-70, 7.9s.; 60-80, 14.8s.; 70-90, 22.3s. Braking: 33ft. 6in. to stop from 30 m.p.h. in neutral.
• FUEL CONSUMPTION: 19 m.p.g. oyer 180 miles. Speedo: 2 m.p.h, fast at 30; 4 m,p.h. fast af 60mph.