Introduction
Through the 1960s and 1970s the Australian motoring landscape was dominated by the “Big Three”, GM Holden, Ford Australia and Chrysler Australia. Competition meant that the specifications of their respective offerings were very similar, the prices were similar – but thankfully for the buying public there was a big difference in the cars. While each car was designed for pretty much the same purpose – a family car for the burgeoning numbers of baby-boomer kids – so 5 or 6 seat capacity a must for the weekend, with the ability to revert to a city work commuter during the week.
Holden started their range with the very basic “Belmont” model, powered by a 173 red engine. Ford’s base Falcon was powered by the 200, while the stocko Valiant had a 215 six. Very few cars were actually equipped with these engines, however, as most punters opted for the slightly larger capacity engines. The Chrysler 215 six, for example, was not readily available off the showroom floor, and needed to be ordered as a poverty pack option when ordering your car. Most opted for the 245 engine. Likewise the 202 was so popular that most Holden dealerships only had cars so equipped in stock and ready to sell.
If you were buying a family car in 1972, for example, most would consider either the Holden Kingswood 202/discs at $3040, the Falcon 500 200 CID/discs at $3031 or the Valiant Ranger with power assisted standard disc brakes at $3060. Four or five years earlier when the cars were designed, the specifications were laid down for all three - they had to be on a 111 in. wheelbase, with a 5ft track. Bodies were 6ft 2 in. wide and about 4ft 6 in. high. Ford and GMH decided on cars 15ft 6 in. long and Chrysler went to 16 ft. All designers were briefed the same way - they basically had the same economic and engineering rules to follow. Yet their products were quite different. And before we get into the comparison in too much depth, the information below is derived from two separate comparisons performed by the motoring media at the time, sprinkled with our own observations and those of people we have spoken to that owned one or more of these cars.
Styling and Design
Based on looks alone, our preference here at Unique Cars and Parts would be for the bold clean lines of the HQ – however exterior styling is largely a matter of taste – so we know many will disagree. However, body shape did have a direct influence on the interiors in all three cars. The Holden HQ was a very clean, modern car for the time. A direct result of this styling - in fact an intentional result - was maximum visibility, and the HQ was way ahead in this area. The seating position was the highest of the three, and combined with the clean sloping bonnet, forward visibility was easily the best. All pillars were slim and unobtrusive and all round vision was excellent. The HQ provided the least visual interference in the rear three-quarter panel, and provided the best eyes-ahead rearward vision with its excellent mirror system.
Combined with seats which didn't tend to envelope the driver (and consequently were not as comfortable either), the overall vision from the driving seat was of a very high standard. The Chrysler and Ford followed the same basic pattern - there was an emphasis on styling at the expense of practicality, particularly in the area of visibility. The Chrysler suffered from the lowest driving position of the three - yet its extremities were easier to see than the Falcon's. The Falcon reached a compromise in interior seating by raising the seat height to overcome the visibility-limiting factors of the high-waisted design. It had better forward road vision than the Chrysler because the driver sat higher and the fall-line on the bonnet was sharper.
But it had even worse rear-three-quarter visibility with its bulky rear turret panel and enveloping seats. That made the Falcon and Chrysler a tougher daily drive for shorter people, who would struggle to see the extremities of the vehicles – however both the Ford and Chrysler catered well to the tastes of extra tall drivers who suffered from a clearance problem on the hood-lining - the brackets could be modified on the Ranger and special chocks removed on the Falcon. Dealers would perform both these jobs - before delivery if specified. It was impossible to see the rear extremities on all three cars, although with the common short-deck styling, estimation was not difficult. Near-equal turning circles made parking reasonably easy on all three cars, but the Holden came out in front because of visibility.
Engines
The obvious man out in engine capacity was Chrysler. As mentioned above, you could get the 215 engine on order, for a taxi or rental car – but the 245 was the most commonly used in any family sedan situation. Given then that the 245 was Chrysler’s basic consumer engine it seemed, on paper at least, to have an unfair advantage on the other two in terms of cubic capacity, which was actually to Chrysler's credit because it added nothing in cost to the basic car. In terms of output and feel - particularly smoothness - the Chrysler's engine was clearly the best. Per cubic inch, it produced more horsepower and torque than its opposition. It was the most tractable and responsive - it developed its peak torque 200 rpm lower than its competitors. And it was also the most economical - proving that extra capacity may not be a cost drag once body weight reached a certain point. Chrysler had invested heavily in the six cylinder and they deserved full credit for doing the best job.
In figures, the order of engine superiority was Chrysler, Holden and Ford. Chrysler's engine pumped out 0.67 bhp per cubic inch, Holden 0.66 and Ford 0.65. In practice, the GM and Ford engines were similar - although Ford’s brilliant 250 CID engine was a step up again because it was an exceptionally smooth and torquey unit. But this engine, when optioned, made the Falcon more expensive than the opposition.
Transmissions
There is virtually nothing between the Holden, Ford and Chrysler in this area. This wasn't always so, and the healthy competition between the three makers had seen vast improvements over the preceding years. For example, all manual gearboxes were equipped with syncro first - but the Ford system came out tops for ease of operation - with a lighter, shorter throw and greater smoothness. All three had similar clutch systems too, and there isn't even much variation in the pedal effort required. Ford and Chrysler offered the only small divergence (an improvement) by offering the external benefit of associating the transmission into the locking system on the car. On manual column shift cars, you could simply throw the lever in reverse and lock-up the transmission with the ignition and steering. As far as automatics were concerned, GM was clearly ahead with its locally developed Trimatic - a fast, super-responsive, sporty box locally built for Australian demands. Chrysler's automatic was smooth, while Ford's was plain sluggish.
Handling, Ride and Stering
This was the area where the Big Three cars showed the most marked differences. In all respects the Holden was superior - clearly beating the Falcon and Valiant in cornering tenacity, wheel location, stability, smoothness and control. It also had the best ride over all conditions though it achieved this at the expense of body roll, which was sometimes quite heavy. That the Holden was ahead in this department would not have come as a shock to buyers in the 1970s, as it was the only car with an all-new suspension incorporating all the latest engineering techniques in its still rather conventional format. The HQ still used upper and lower A arms (or wishbones if you like) at the front, but the suspension sub-frame was integrated in a "partial frame" chassis that extended for two thirds of the body length and was mounted to the main body by rubber bushings.
This engineering allowed more suspension control to be built into the front end - without transmitting excessive road shock and reaction to the passenger compartment, which was relatively isolated. This explained both the good, quiet ride from the front end and its exceptional bite. The car had lost the previous Holden's dread tendency to plough-understeer and in fact could be cornered much faster than the Falcon or Regal without any trace of tyre squeal (providing good rubber was fitted). At the rear-end, the Holden was also the only car to employ coil springs with the four-link location of its live axle. GM insisted this was cheaper to engineer than semi-elliptics - but they had an all-new body to install their new suspension in. In any case, the all-coil rear end put GM so far ahead, the others were barely in the race. The truth was that semi-elliptic-located tails would drag in every area. They were worst on the dirt, where axle tramp was common on even relatively smooth gravel and automatic on corrugations.
Both the Falcon and Chrysler were prone to rear-end wander at speed, and in tight cornering they ploughed-in hard, then broke into violent oversteer with power on exit as the rear wheels danced away on the gravel, losing valuable traction in wheel hop and wheel-spin. The Holden simply powered straight through with gentle understeer. It handled any dirt situation much better than the other two and oversteer exits required extreme provocation. In the wet the story was basically the same. Both the Chrysler and the Falcon were very "iffy" in the tail and the breakaway point tended to be sudden and unpredictable. The Holden hung on longer and let go more progressively. In normal tight round-town corners (right-angle bends etc.) the Holden was the only car that didn't lift its inside wheel and tramp or wheel-spin. In dry weather conditions the Holden was more neutral than the plough-prone Falcon and Chrysler, and was less inclined to break into oversteer on power exit.
And GM gave their buyers a further bonus in control with the best steering in the business. Very direct at 3.3 turns lock to lock, it was light and positive and made correction of any oversteer a smooth, natural reaction. In contrast, the average driver would have been terrified of getting the Falcon or Valiant into an oversteer slide - and in an era long before stability control, it was pretty easy to do in an emergency. Even professional drivers would have had their hands full if the tail kicked out. Over-correction was easy, even for an expert, and the throttle had to be treated delicately at all times. The Valiant came out slightly ahead of the Falcon with the added control of 4.4 turns of the wheel to the Falcon's five.
True, both systems required less effort when parking, but GM did a good job with front weight distribution and geometry and, in an era before power steering was commonplace, the HQ was no beast in the parking lot. Finally, in terms of ride, the Holden was ahead overall. It was not quite as smooth as the Falcon on dead-smooth surfaces, nor did it have the cushy feeling that the Valiant's plush suspension imparted. But it transmitted less road noise, shock and reaction under adverse conditions and was generally a quieter car all round. The HQ achieved the top ride/handling compromise with more suspension travel and softer spring rates - and the direct result was more roll movement. The Falcon cornered flattest of the three.
Brakes
Of the Big Three, only Chrysler fitted front disc brakes as standard equipment - and they did it inclusive in the retail price. In contrast, both Ford and GM provided drums standard and listed disc-brakes as a $60 option - but for the added cost they included power assistance in the price where the Chrysler standard equipment was non-power-assisted. The optional power assistance cost $25 on the Valiant Ranger. While penny-pinchers opted for the standard drum setup on the Ford or Holden, the truth was that any owner with the slightest regard for the safety of themselves and their family would have optioned disc brakes. So full marks to Chrysler then. When comparing all three fitted with disc brakes, for the time these were well up to the performance levels of the cars - as you'd expect since all systems had to stop performance models in the range with speed capabilities in the 120 mph-plus region.
It was possible to induce intermittent rear wheel lock-up on all three cars at different times, but the Valiant generally suffered from this fault more than most. None of the brakes were overly prone to fade, even when being punished. The cars all had a reasonable relationship between brake and throttle so heel/toe downshifting was possible. On power boosted systems, Ford offered a low-pedal which seemed to work better the best. The handbrakes were interesting. Equally efficient on steep grades, the Holden and Chrysler brake levers were located between the driver's seat and door with ratchet backs so they didn't protrude, and the Ford's was still an under-dash umbrella. Ford was clearly trailing on this point. The other two worked lightly and easily and they were suitable for use in emergencies.
Comfort
Ford was clearly the winner when it came to the interior. This was a time when the bench-seat still ruled supreme, based on cost but also that it made the cars capable of carrying six people. Only the Falcon 500 bench seat could be described as comfortable. The Ford’s seat design provided the greatest rake angle on the squab - which was probably the major reason it topped the other two. But its spring rates were softer and more tuned to the car's suspension for minimal reaction. The bench didn't develop "bump multiplication" where the reaction at the wheels was passed onto the driver. Both Chrysler and Holden products were guilty of this to some extent. The Chrysler was reasonably comfortable with at least some lumbar support. The Holden was just plain bad - unmercifully uncomfortable over long distances, with rigid, unyielding springing and a squab set far too upright.
The Holden also suffered from a lack of seat travel - making even a near straight-arm driving position impossible for tall drivers. This was of course largely due to the same problem of rake angle on the squab - the Holden's upright back pushed the shoulder too close to the wheel. The Falcon was clearly ahead on driving position too, with better relationship to both hand and foot controls. Rear seat passengers got about equal treatment except Holden passengers were again pretty miserable and Falcon rear seat passengers sat too close to the roof. The Falcon was way ahead on front knee room - simply by sliding the dashboard closer to the firewall. If you opted for bucket seats, the Ford again led the field in the comfort stakes - with GM's product still lagging. In fairness to Chrysler, they did develop the tombstone or head-restraint-type seat bucket first, and consequently they did most of the sorting work for the industry as a whole. Their bucket seat was very good - and only suffered by comparison with the Ford.
The HQ had the worst of the bucket seats. Flat and with no lateral support, you could tighten the seat belts to give some assistance but to get anywhere near the support of the Falcon 500’s seats you would have to tighten to the point that it would make breathing difficult. Speaking of seat-belts, all three cars had comparable styles, but Ford also had a clear lead in the optional belt market with its self-locking retractors - far more successful and safer than Chrysler's dubious inertia-reel system. And GM hadn't even got around to offering an option in this area, except for the Statesman-type inertia reels which were similar to Chrysler's.
Equipment and Fittings
There was an amazing similarity between the fitments offered by the Big Three - and a disappointing lack of imagination common to all three. Every car came equipped with two-speed wipers, two speed fans, floor dipswitches, instrument rheostats, armrests, lane changers and some other details. Chrysler offered more instruments but lacked through-flow (and Ford offered optional quarter vents). The Valiant Ranger had a speedo, fuel gauge, temperature gauge and an ammeter. The Ford dropped the ammeter, and the Holden was minus the temperature gauge. Ford put four warning lights in its Falcons - for belts (alight for 10 seconds after ignition), oil pressure, alternator and brakes/handbrake. The Holden monitored the last three functions as well as temperature (no gauge) and Chrysler offers only two lights - for oil and brakes. Ford didn't have a handbrake warning light. All three cars were barely equipped to US base-line standards, and fell dismally short of European or Japanese standards. Local manufacturers showed very little initiative in developing a high standard of equipment in Australian cars. Items like glovebox lights and choke warning lights should have been standard equipment, and even ventilation outlets were restricted to the minimum. Based on a "look of luxury" assessment, Ford was tops in this category. Chrysler was clearly ahead of GM.
Lighting
Chrysler topped-out this section easily. Their lights gave good penetration on high beam, and had a sharp cut-off on dip. The Kingswood lights were adequate for the performance, but not quite up to the Ranger's standard. Ford provided the least illumination - the Falcon's lights lacked penetration and were barely acceptable above 60 mph. Reversing lights were standard on all three thanks to Australian Safety standards legislation – and thankfully so as night-time reverse parking would have been a nightmare because of the generally poor rearward visibility standards on all three.
Storage Capacity
All three boots were a compromise, but the Falcon's probably worked best. It offered a flat floor, by recessing the spare into the petrol tank. This was held in place by a long-necked butterfly bolt securing a flat metal plate. The engineers thoughtfully supplied a slit to enable the tyre pressure of the spare to be checked easily Because it used a side-mounted filler system, Ford had a long filler neck cutting across the boot space. However it was relatively easy to work luggage around this. The jack and wheel-brace were carried in a vinyl shield which lay loose on the boot floor. Both the Valiant and Holden located their spares on the hump of the two-deck boot floor - an annoying and bulky fitting that meant stacking luggage became an exercise in packaging. GM was again worst of the two because it mounted its concertina-type jack on top of the wheel where it took up even more space and was likely to damage luggage. Furthermore, the company located the wheel-brace under the spare. Chrysler's ratchet-type bumper-jack clamped neatly into special sockets in the left hand wheel well, with the wheel-brace handily fastened down to stop it floating around the compartment - but ready for instant use. Both boots had good carrying capacity.
Both the Valiant Regal and HQ Holden fuelled through fillers under the licence plate - and both had fuel filling problems. The Holden's was by far the worst, with constant back pressure and air lock problems. Getting the last two few litres was a frustrating business. The Chrysler filler aperture was awkward to get at, and the Ford suffered blow back, spilling fuel down the bodywork.
So there you have it. Three cars targeting the Australian family man. Three cars that were very good in some areas, but found wanting in others. All three were backed with massive options lists that ensured the Australian buyer had the widest possible variety to choose from. There was no clear winner here. Want to arrive at the destination with the least driving fatigue? Pick the Falcon. Want the smoothest engine? Pick the Valiant. Want the best handling of the three? Go with the Holden. Which was the best on-a-budget Australian Built Car of the 1970s? Sorry – but we cannot decide. |
The 
