Can a small actor assist make a Volkswagen appear giant?
Hollywood is thick with brief main males. Do you know that Robert De Niro clocks in at simply 5’6”? Joe Pesci is even shorter, measuring simply 5’ 4” tall. Now, neither of those guys appears to have suffered a lot from their incapability to achieve issues on the highest shelf, as their resumes are chock stuffed with nice movies.
1966 Volkswagen Fastback
Dustin Hoffman
Dustin Hoffman, nonetheless—one other nice actor—appears to have scored an early position exactly as a result of he was brief. Standing 5’ 5”, Hoffman slots between De Niro and Pesci on the peak chart, and was as soon as employed by a carmaker to assist make a comparatively small automobile look bigger. Don’t imagine me? Learn on…
For 1966, Volkswagen added a mannequin to its Sort 3 (sadly, that’s truly the mannequin title) lineup. Becoming a member of the Sort 3 Notchback (2-door sedan) and Squareback (wagon) in VW dealerships for ’66 was the Fastback. Although endowed with simply two doorways, VW referred to the Fastback as a sedan, and to spice up gross sales, the maker was eager to exploits the automobile’s dimension. And, reality be identified, the Fastback was bigger and roomier than the Beetle (Sort 1) it was bought alongside.
Industrial
To get the Fastback phrase out, VW’s advert people produced a TV industrial that includes spokesperson Dustin Hoffman. Take a look:
There’s no probability that this creator might have weaseled his method into the again seat, after which hopped into the entrance seating row. Hell, even Hoffman appeared to have a tough time executing the maneuver.
How Roomy?
Whereas we imagine that 4 Dustin-Hoffman-sized adults might match comfortably in a 1966 Volkswagen Sort 3 Fastback, we now have considerations relating to a number of of the claims made by Hoffman through the industrial. And, it’s not that VW lied precisely, it’s that they could have urged that the Fastbacks specs and efficiency had been extra spectacular than they actually had been.
VW Sort 3 Fastback versus Ford Falcon
To make our level, we shall be evaluating the Fastback to Ford’s then hyper-popular Falcon compact automobile. We’re thus evaluating VW’s largest automobile mannequin, to Ford’s smallest. For the file, Ford bought greater than 200,000 Falcons in 1966, whereas Volkswagen moved an estimate 25,000 Sort 3 fashions.
Room for 4 Adults
Whereas that is declare is true, at the very least for less-than-full-sized adults, the Ford Falcon boasted room for six, thanks partly to its three-passenger entrance bench seat. The Ford was additionally truly a bigger automobile, stretching 184 inches on a 111-inch wheelbase, in comparison with the Fastback’s 171-inch total size on a 171-inch wheelbase.
High Velocity of 84 MPH
I’m unsure to whom 84 mph sounded good to in 1966, however within the U.S. that boast most likely didn’t impress even essentially the most informal automobile fan. Dustin tells us that the Fastback is provided with the most-powerful engine ever put in in a VW, which is slightly miserable.
For 1966, all Sort 3 fashions had been outfitted with a 1.6-liter 4-cylinder engine rated at 65 horsepower. Notice that earlier Sort 3 fashions made do with 1.5-liter engines good for simply 53 horses.
The Falcon, then again, was provided with the customer’s alternative of there engines, the least-powerful of which was a 2.8-liter six rated at 105-horsepower. And although the Falcon did weight extra (2800 kilos versus 2200), interval testing put its high velocity at as much as 95 mph.
Trunk Area
So, the Sort 3 boasts each a entrance trunk (“frunk”), and a rear truck. Did that mixed house add as much as a lot actual room? Seems, it did, however not an excessive amount of greater than the Falcon. The VW’s entrance compartment was good for about 7 cubic toes of house, whereas the rear compact added one other 10. The Falcon’s solely cargo compartment, the trunk, measure about 13 cubic toes. So, rating one for the Volkswagen. Additionally, the engine was beneath the rear storage compartment. Freely giving its location are the cooling vents stamped into the rear fenders.
Cash
Whereas Hoffman by no means will get round to costs, it’s the cash that possible saved the Falcon common, and the Sort 3 comparatively obscure. In 1966, the Fastback began at $2250, whereas the Ford listed for $2171. In 2025 {dollars}, that’s $22,300 and $21,500 respectfully.
And whereas most people acquainted with Volkswagen on the time will let you know that the Sort 3 was the higher constructed, extra dependable, and extra fuel-efficient automobile, the Ford provided a lot more room and energy for much less cash. Additionally, and that is key, the Ford wasn’t some “bizarre” import—it was comfortably acquainted.
Again to the Area Factor
Trendy estimates put the inside quantity of the Sort 3 Fastback at about 75 cubic toes. The less-expensive Falcon 2-door sedan got here in round 90 toes. So, regardless of Dustin’s claims, the Volkswagen wasn’t actually sufficiently big, although due to his diminutive proportions, it kinda appeared larger. Now that’s appearing.
Take heed to the Automotive Stuff Podcast
1966 Volkswagen Fastback Footage
Click on beneath for enlarged photographs
1969 Dodge Adventurer: Favourite Automotive Adverts (Pics and Historical past)
