Can a small actor assist make a Volkswagen appear giant?
Hollywood is thick with quick 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 lack of ability to succeed in issues on the highest shelf, as their resumes are chock stuffed with nice movies.
1966 Volkswagen Fastback
Dustin Hoffman
Dustin Hoffman, nevertheless—one other nice actor—appears to have scored an early function exactly as a result of he was quick. 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 consider me? Learn on…
For 1966, Volkswagen added a mannequin to its Sort 3 (sadly, that’s truly the mannequin identify) 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 measurement. And, fact be identified, the Fastback was bigger and roomier than the Beetle (Sort 1) it was offered alongside.
Business
To get the Fastback phrase out, VW’s advert people produced a TV business that includes spokesperson Dustin Hoffman. Take a look:
There’s no likelihood that this creator may have weaseled his manner 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 consider that 4 Dustin-Hoffman-sized adults may match comfortably in a 1966 Volkswagen Sort 3 Fastback, now we have considerations concerning a number of of the claims made by Hoffman through the business. And, it’s not that VW lied precisely, it’s that they could have prompt 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 will probably 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 report, Ford offered 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, a minimum of for less-than-full-sized adults, the Ford Falcon boasted room for six, thanks partially 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 general size on a 171-inch wheelbase.
Prime Velocity of 84 MPH
I’m unsure to whom 84 mph sounded good to in 1966, however within the U.S. that boast in all probability didn’t impress even probably the most informal automobile fan. Dustin tells us that the Fastback is supplied with the most-powerful engine ever put in in a VW, which is fairly miserable.
For 1966, all Sort 3 fashions had been geared up with a 1.6-liter 4-cylinder engine rated at 65 horsepower. Word that earlier Sort 3 fashions made do with 1.5-liter engines good for simply 53 horses.
The Falcon, however, was provided with the client’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 prime velocity at as much as 95 mph.
Trunk House
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 under the rear storage compartment. Giving freely 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 doubtless saved the Falcon well-liked, 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 conversant in Volkswagen on the time will let you know that the Sort 3 was the higher constructed, extra dependable, and extra fuel-efficient car, the Ford provided a lot extra space 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 House 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 large enough, although because of his diminutive proportions, it kinda appeared greater. Now that’s performing.
Hearken to the Automotive Stuff Podcast
1966 Volkswagen Fastback Footage
Click on under for enlarged pictures
1969 Dodge Adventurer: Favourite Automotive Adverts (Pics and Historical past)