That said, the Forty-Nine doesn't strike me as being particularly Retro, as I'll discuss in the image captions below.
Some background on the Forty-Nine can be found here and here. The latter mentions that Ford brought in Chip Foose as a consultant. Foose was trained in Transportation Design at the Art Center, and produces hot-rod themed custom cars (I wrote about one example here).
1949 Ford Tudor, the first one off the production line, seen here by the Henry Ford Museum.
The Forty-Nine's frontal design. The grille area sports a large horizontal bar, echoing the grille bar on the actual '49 Ford. Missing is the round centerpiece which is the strongest identifier of that design. Big mistake.
The sides of the concept are clean, as was the production car's. But the ornamentation differs. It really needs some taillight assembly side sculpting something like that of the original. Another mistake.
Tail lights are oriented horizontally, a very feeble echo of the 1949 Ford rear design. Mistake number three.
The Forty-Nine captures a hint of the '49 thanks to the bowed-out sides.
Another carryover is the wheel well openings -- full at the front and two-thirds at the rear.
Two Forty-Nines were made: this is the convertible version.
So car as I am concerned, the Forty-Nine was mis-named because it has so little of the design flavor of the original car. Other than that, it's a pleasant-looking design.
I had a similar reaction to this when it came out. Another similarity to the actual '49 is the vertical body edge that the tail lights cross. It's however made into something more like a '60's car. What is amazing about the shoebox Ford is that it is the first really modern body design, with no vestigial fenders or hood prow like every other postwar design (other than Lincoln Cosmos). Too bad Ford didn't go for a one piece curved windshield, but that was probably considered too expensive and too new for Ford production volume. I think the designers of the current (soon to end) Fusion may have given the shoebox a look when doing their work. Maybe they should have looked harder.
ReplyDelete