Some of us can remember the US "economy" cars of the early 60s. given the choice of options Detroit seemed to say "You want a small car? you must want rubber floor mats, cardboard door liners, cheap upholstery and really bad performance from a 3-3/1/2 liter six with a carburetor that could use a quarter as a choke plate." If you wanted a better quality interior you had to buy a bigger car.
I don't agree with you fully here. In 1960 the US auto industry delivered three solid compact cars, the Corvair, the Falcon, and the Valiant. These were very basic automobiles with limited niceties, but so were the foreign cars at the time such as the technologically simple VW (it had no gas gage). The Valiant was probably one the best cars ever built (if you can get by the ugliness of the Exner designed first three years). Combine the slant six, especially the 225 CI one, with the torqueflite, you have a peppy little car with recognized durability. I owned an upgraded compact, a 1963 Oldsmobile F-85 Station Wagon which had equal plushness of the 63 Olds 88 we had owned. It had 185 hp 215 CI aluminum V8, which later became the Rover 3.5 liter V8, and hydramatic transmission. It was a nice car. I bought my son a 1965 Corvair and with its Corvette-like independent rear suspension, it tracked like it was on rails with little body lean. If you want a cheap fun car, get a 65+ corvair with the 140 hp engine and four speed. In 1964, with the advent of the Mustang and GTO, American car industry entered its exciting phase that I was a privileged to participate in. In my opinion, the American automobile reached its peak in style and performance in the later part of the 60s. In the early seventies it started to collapse.
I remember shopping for a new car in 1972, Ford Pinto started at just about 2,000 dollars. hub caps were extra, bumper guards were extra, rugs were extra, passenger side mirror was extra , radio was extra, and so it went. You could add hundreds of dollars to the car just to get it up to a decent standard. Went to Toyota dealer, Got a Corolla SR-5 ( first year) for 2500 dollars. Hundreds less than equivalent Pinto.
All of these things are true but it wasn't what killed American auto industry. People were nameplate loyal going into the 70's, but quality collapsed due to poor management and greed. I am sure you would have found that Toyota much more reliable than the Pinto. Due to poor quality, the American automobile lost its owner loyalty which it has never gained back. Had it not done this, the American public would have stuck with Detroit iron. As proof of this, look at the medium truck business. The best selling vehicle in the US is a Ford truck, Chevy and Ram are right behind. Toyota and Nissan trucks in this category, with excellent vehicles, are struggling, barely making a dent in this very profitable line. That is because the American truck manufacturers never lost their owner loyalty, meeting or exceeding their expectations. A Ford truck owner, is a Ford truck buyer, so too for Chevy and Ram. Oldsmobile owners used to be Olds buyers, but no more, in fact there are no more Olds. This happened to me.
In my opinion, the root of the collapse of the American automobile business was greed on the part of Unions and greed, incompetence, and arrogance on the part of management.
Sometimes unions are a problem and sometimes they are not. Like to guess what the town wanted us to work for
Yes. I am a product of unions. My dad was a fireman/engineer on the railroad, throwing coal into the belly of the beast, and before the unions they could work you to death for little or nothing. Unions let them have a life and a living. Unfortunately too many unions have become greedy and some socialistic. Management have always been greedy.