Stutz Monte Carlo: Advanced Sedan Styling for circa-1930

This post's featured design falls into the gray area of having a coachbuilder's body in a small-scale "production" run.  And was from a low-volume carmaker, to boot.  That car firm was Stutz Motor Car Company that ended production in 1935.  (Technically so, but essentially it was about two years earlier.)  I wrote about late-model Stutz cars including today's subject here.

Stutz's Monte Carlo was a "close-coupled" four-door sedan.  That is, although there was seating for at least four people, the passenger compartment was shorter than normal.  At the likely price of restricted back-seat legroom, the style effect was racier than normal.

A noteworthy feature was a trunk profile years in advance, as will be shown below -- an early instance of a sedan with "bustle back" styling.

Monte Carlo bodies (1929-1933) were by the Weymann licensee Weymann American Body Company of Indianapolis, Indiana, where Stutz also was based.  As the link explains, the Weymann system made use of wood structuring that included flexible joining, along with padded cladding with a synthetic leather protective layer.  The link also lists advantages of the Weymann system.  Defects included minimal collision protection and shorter useful life compared to metal-clad bodies.  By the early 1930s, Weymann bodies were rapidly falling out of fashion.

In terms of styling, a Weymann defect was that the protective layer was not smooth, not shiny.  Sort of like the matte paint finish occasionally seen in recent times.

Most Stutz Monte Carlos had Weymann system bodies.  But at least one 1933 Monte Carlo had aluminum cladding, even though it was built by the Indianapolis Weymann firm.

I do not know who styled the Stutz Monte Carlo.

Gallery

1930 Cadillac Town Sedan - car-for-sale photo
I don't have a decent side view of a 1930-vintage Stutz sedan, so this Cadillac photo will serve to indicate the upscale sedan styling norm for that time.  Note that the aft side of the passenger compartment is nearly vertical.  There is no integral trunk, instead a detached one.

1929 Stutz Blackhawk Doctor's Coupe - Donnington Auctions (New Zealand)
On the other hand, coupes and roadsters did have "bustle backs," often featuring a rumble seat.  So this concept was available for sedan styling, but essentially not used at the time.

1929 Stutz Lancefield Saloon - via coachbuild.com
British coachbuilder Lancefield made several bodies for Stutz's.  This is an early example that used Weymann technology.  Note the modest bustle back.

1929 Stutz Monte Carlo by Weymann (Indianapolis) - Bonhams
Here is an early Monte Carlo of the same vintage.  It features a bustle back with nearly the same profile as that on the Lancefield.  I don't know which design was came first.  Regardless, these are the earliest examples of bustle back sedans that I'm presently aware of.  There might well be earlier examples, so please let us know in Comments.

1930 Stutz Monte Carlo by Weymann (Indianapolis) - via RM Sotheby's
A beautifully restored Monte Carlo.  The beltline two-tone strip enhances the already impressive length.  The passenger compartment greenhouse is low, proving a racy appearance (compare to the more standard greenhouse on the Cadillac in the first image above).

The lower body is massive, helping to contrast and enhance the low roofline.

Even though the bustle back contains trunk space, this car has an auxiliary, detached trunk.

1933 Stutz Monte Carlo by Weymann (Indianapolis) aluminum body - via RM Sotheby's
A very late Monte Carlo example.

The metal cladding provides smooth surfaces for paint.  I find the result much more attractive than the dull-finish Weymann paint jobs. 

No extra trunk here.  The bustle back feature gives the car a more modern appearance than other 1929-origin American sedan designs.

From Ford Crown Victoria to Lincoln Town Car, 1998

I last wrote about the 1998 Lincoln Town Car and related automobiles here.

Today's post examines the differences Ford Motor Company made from its Ford Crown Victoria (and the similar-sized Mercury Grand Marquis) to create the body for its Lincoln Town Car.

All these models, beginning the 1979 model year, were body-on frame construction (rather than the by-then common unitary body type).  This made it comparatively easy and less-costly to vary passenger compartment dimensions, as can be seen below.

Dimension comparisons of the 1998 Town Car versus '98 Crown Victoria: Wheelbase, 117.7 inches (2990 mm) vs. 114.7 inches (2913 mm).  Length, 215.3 (5469 mm) vs. 212 inches (5385 mm).  Width, 78.2 inches (1976 mm) vs. 77.3 inches (1963 mm).  Height, 58 inches (1473 mm) vs. 56.8 inches (1443 mm).

So the Town Car was larger in all cases, but from a practical standpoint, especially due to its 3-inch (76 mm) longer wheelbase.

Gallery

1998 Ford Crown Victoria - factory image
This design is a facelift of the 1992 Crown Victoria, making its 6-window passenger compartment greenhouse the same as the Mercury Grand Marquis' 1992/1998 4-window design.

1998 Lincoln Town Car - BaT Auctions photo
The cars look similar from this perspective, but the only identical parts seem to be the windshield and front door upper framing.

1998 Ford Crown Victoria P71 Police Interceptor - car-for-sale photo
The Crown Vic was popular as a police car.

1998 Lincoln Town Car - car-for-sale photo
The backlight window seems to be the same aside from rounded verses angular framing.  Trunk lid cutlines are nearly identical, as are the bumpers.

1998 Ford Crown Victoria LX - Cars and Bids Auctions
The greatest differences can be seen in these side views.

1998 Lincoln Town Car - BaT Auctions
The added wheelbase length noted above is manifested in the wider rear door and its reshaped window -- front door cutlines are the same.  This altered the Town Car's greenhouse profile abaft of the B-pillar.  The Town Car has a higher beltline, hood and trunk -- all this helps create a more massive, luxury brand appearance.

1932 Daimler Double-Six 40/50 Walter Sport Saloon

Back in 2014 I wrote a popular post titled "Very Long Hoods."  One of the cars shown was a sporty 1931 Daimler V-12 drophead (convertible) coupé.  It seems that there also was a V-12 Daimler with an extremenly long hood that appeared the following year from a different coachbuilder.  That 1932 Daimler Double-Six 40/50 Walter Sport Saloon is today's subject car.  Sources linked below credit the design to H.R. Owen.

Captain Harold Rolfe Owen (1899-1940) was a dealer of luxury automobiles starting in 1932 (Wikipedia entry here) who seems to have had design inluence with coachbuilders such as Gurney Nutting and Walter Martin.  As the links below suggest, the design of today's subject car was either entirely his or, most likely, he provided the concept and details were worked out by coachbuilder staff.

This source states:

"In 1931 Daimler offered a 6.5-litre version of their Double Six 50 known as the Double-Six 40/50.  Our feature car is the very best of these models featuring a Martin Walter Ltd. body designed by H.R. Owens [sic]."

"The imposing proportions of the body were initially penned by H.R. Owens of Gurney Nutting.  He exaggerated an already lengthy hood by fitting an impossibly low windscreen. When combined with oversize wire wheels, the car had massive presence."

"This car was built on chassis number 32382 and is the longest of all the double sixes made.  At 13 feet in length the complex engine could still power the car to 80 mph.  Almost a lesson in over-engineering, the the Double Six used a V12 sleeve valve engine attached to 4-speed Wilson pre-selector transmission."

The Coachbuild website mentions:

"Production of the Daimler Double Six started in 1926 and although the model remained available until 1937, a production figure of as low as 26 is frequently quoted, but other sources mention a figure closer to 75.  All of them were built to meet the special demands of the owners and as a result no two were alike.

"The Double Six in this gallery was commissioned by Herbert Wilcox for his wife and famous film star Anna Neagle.  The car has a very beautiful 'Sport Saloon' body designed by [Captain] H. R. Owen and constructed by Martin Walter [Ltd.].  With a wheelbase of over four metres, it is the largest Double Six ever built."

Some images of this impressive car are from the Gooding auction company, others are from origins presently unknown to me.

Gallery

1931 Daimler Double-Six 50 Drophead Coupe by Corsica
The design of this car surely influenced that of the featured Sport Saloon.  Some background is here.

Now for some photos of the Sport Saloon -- this from a source unknown to me.  Like the drophead coupe is the previous images, this car lacks bumpers so as create a more pure, though less-practical, appearance.

Side view via Gooding auctions.  The hood is extraordinary long, even at a time when Bentleys also featured long hoods.  The motor is located near the center of the hood -- note the access panel's aft cutline, and there is a forward one near the trailing edge of the fender.

Rear quarter view via Gooding.  The passenger compartment greenhouse is rounded at its rear corners, a departure from the angular style of the 1920s.  Spare tires are mounted at the rear rather than on front fenders.  That mounting would have interfered with engine access.  The fenders are near-cycle type and are similar to those of the Corsica-built drophead coupe shown above.

Unknown source view of the front end.  The Daimler ribbed grille frame is less conspicuous than usual, being offset by the size of the car.  Note how low to the ground the body clearance is.

Another front view, this via Gooding.  Unlike the drophead, the hood is higher than the tops of the fenders.  On the other hand, the passenger compartment greenhouse is low.  Given the long, high hood and small windshield, I wonder what the driver's outside visibility would be like.

1958 Studebaker-Packard Hawks Compared

A classic American car design was that of the 1953 Studebaker Starliner hardtop coupe.  Credited publicly to famed industrial designer Raymond Loewy, the principal stylist was Bob Bourke.  For marketing reasons, heads of design firms were credited with designs produced by their staffs.  That said, I give Loewy credit for likely offering suggestions to Bourke and for endorsing the result.  So I'm happy to call that a Loewy-Bourke design.

As years passed, Studebaker's sales declined, depriving it the financial resources to do more than facelift existing design platforms.  So for model year 1956, Studebaker coupes were given substantial facelifts.   They were also renamed.  No longer were they Starlight and Starliner coupes -- they now were Hawks! I wrote about first-generation Hawks here.

Studebaker-Packard Corporation was created in 1954, and the last "true" Packards were marketed for the 1956 model year.   For 1957 and 1958, Packards used Studebaker sedan bodies with Packard-related trim.  Then for 1958, Studebaker coupe bodies were given a Packerd treatment and named Packard Hawks.  The Wikipedia entry about the Studebaker-Packard Hawk series is here, and the entry for the Packard Hawk itself is here.

Given that 1958 saw the basic classic Studebaker coupe facelifted and stretched over two brands, I thought that it might be interesting to show the results.

Gallery

Studebaker Silver Hawk - car-for-sale photo
Starting in 1953, Studebaker coupes came in two varieties -- basic coupes with B-pillars and hardtop coupes lacking those pillars.  Silver Hawks were the former type.  They were available with either inline-six or V-8 motors.  All other Hawks were V-8 powered.

Studebaker Golden Hawk - Hyman Ltd photo
List prices for Silver Hawks began at $2,352, and those for Golden Hawks (hardtops only) were $3,470.  That included a 275 horsepower Packard V-8 engine, not available for Silver Hawks that had to make do with Studebaker V-8s.

Packard Hawk - BaT Auctions photo
Basic list price was $3,995.  The hood-grille combination differs from Studebaker Hawks.  A slight hint of traditional Packard "yoke" shaping on the upper edge of the grille opening would have provided a Packard feeling that's lacking here.  I suppose the hood sculpting was intended to say "Packard," but I find that call too weak.

Studebaker Silver Hawk - car-for-sale photo
The side trim and two-tone for the tail fin is awkward.  It seems a bit cheap.  The heavy B-pillar and related C-pillar zone is visually cramped, but this defect was there in 1953 at the beginning.

Studebaker Golden Hawk - car-for-sale photo
Golden Hawks seem a little over-chromed.  But 1950s American cars were flashy, so this was acceptable.  The side chrome spear works well in this shortened form.  And the two-tone zone for the tail fin is much nicer than the Silver Hawk's, though adding heaviness to the after third of the design.

Packard Hawk - LaVine Restorations photo
From the side, Packard Hawks are nearly the same as Golden Hawks.  One difference is the anodized treatment  on the fin area.  Another is that tan interior material wrapped over the passenger compartment beltline.

Studebaker Silver Hawk - car-for-sale photo

Studebaker Golden Hawk - Hyman Ltd photo
Aside from the two toning mentioned above, we find the rear detailing the same as on the Silver Hawk, but with more chrome -- especially on the tail light assemblies.

Packard Hawk - Hyman
The difference here is the reshaped trunk lid with a faux spare tire cover, a feature previously found on Chrysler Imperials.

Bristol 406 Zagato: What Were They Thinking?

The classic Bristol 401 design that I wrote about here was replaced in 1958 by the Bristol 406.

A year later the Bristol 406 Zagato appeared.  As the link explains, these were "commissioned by Bristol dealer Tony Crook" to a design by Italian coachbuilder Zagato, and fewer than ten were built.

The link (as of July 2024) mentions: "The body of the 406 Zagato is independent.  It has neither stylistic nor technical references to the body of the 406 Saloon designed by Dudley Hobbs and Dennis Sevier."

I don't quite think so regarding styling references.  And will explain why in the captions below.

Gallery

1960 Bristol 406 - Brightwells photo
The frontal design of the 406 is unfortunate -- especially the hole incorporating a recessed grille.  Perhaps this feature inspired Crook to commission Zagato to create an improvement.

1960 Bristol 406 Zagato - Bonhams
Yes, Zagato's front end is better, even though the new grille is nondescript.  The Zagato is 127 mm (5.2 inches) narrower than the basic 406, so the windshields are quite similar, yet not the same.

1959 Bristol 406 - Bonhams photo
The 406 and later models based on its basic body included a front fender-mounted spare tire.  The lid covering the opening is the panel located between the front wheel and the forward cutline of the door.  Its hinging is by the cutline visible immediately below the chrome strip.  This feature was retained by Zagato.

1960 Bristol 406 Zagato - Bonhams
Also essentially similar are the door and firewall-cowling structure, not to mention the basic side-view proportions.  The passenger compartment greenhouse has a flatter roof and different aft shaping.  The beltline is lowered, altering the fenderline.  An oddity is the near-vertical fenderline up-kick abaft of the door.  It does not improve the design.

1959 Bristol 406 - Bonhams
The 406's rear design is also odd, due to the tiny tail fins.

1959 Bristol 406 Zagato - BaT Auctions photo
Less fussy than the aft end of the 406.  This character change contrasts considerably with the rounded, redesigned front end.  Perhaps the basic proportions of the production 406 were partly to blame, and maybe Tony Crook's design taste.  But the 406 Zagato styling did not speak well for that carrozzeria firm.

1992-2011 Mercury Grand Marquis: 3 Generations?

The Wikipedia entry for the Mercury Grand Marquis (as of early August 2024) states that there were four "generations" of that model.   They were in place the following model years: first generation, 1979-1991; second generation, 1992-1997; third generation, 1998-2002; and fourth generation, 2003-2011.

For the purposes of this post, I ignore the first generation because, although it was based on basically the same chassis and drive train, the body was different from later "generations."  My point is that generations 2-4 consisted of a new (for 1992) design and subsequent bodies were simply mild facelifts of it.  So those generation designations had no serious styling basis, though they might have had in terms of chassis / power train engineering.  That is, my opinion is that there were only two design generations for the Grand Marquis: 1979-1991 and 1992-2011.

I make my case via the images below.

Gallery

1992 Mercury Grand Marquis - BaT Auctions photos
The new design.

1998 Mercury Grand Marquis - Cars and Bids Auctions photos
The first, most extensive, facelift included a new grille, bumper, hood sculpting and related details.

2003 Mercury Grand Marquis - BaT Auctions photos
The second facelift included a more angular grille and revised headlight assemblies.

Side views.

New side sculpting -- a more rounded belt and revised rocker panel.

Essentially no change for  2003 here.

Rear quarter view.

Rear end styling is changed.  Revised trunk lid, new tail light assemblies, new bumper, license plate relocated.

Shorter, wider horizontal chrome strip.

Oldsmobile Cutlass' Front/Rear Facelifts 1968-1972

Back around 1970 General Motors had plenty of cash and continued its long-time policy of facelifting cars annually during the course of a design's production run.  The idea was to entice potential buyers with something that was visibly "the very latest" and to shame (in a subtle way) owners of previous models to update and "be with it."

Today's example is the Oldsmobile Cutlass circa-1970 line.  Wikipedia's Cutlass entry refers to the 1968-1972 models as the "Third Generation" (scroll down for information).

Rather than dealing with all styling features, I'm focusing on front and rear ends.  Those facelifts were not massive in the sense of considerable reshaping, as in the case of the 1950 Studebaker's front end (that I wrote about here).  Nevertheless, all but the final Cutlass facelift were not trivial.

Front and rear images below are of the same car each model year.

Gallery

1968 Oldsmobile Cutlass Convertible - BaT Auctions photos
The initial front end design.  Fairly small opening for cooling.  Widely spaced quad headlights.

1969 Oldsmobile Cutlass Convertible - car-for-sale photos
Around this time Oldsmobile was establishing a new grille theme: divided openings.  Nothing really new, because BMWs used that theme for years, and Olds' sister brand Pontiac began it in 1959, not to mention 1953 Studebakers.  Headlights are close together and the opening is more substantial.  The hood has been reshaped, along with the bumper.

1970 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme Convertible - BaT Auctions
New bumper, again.  Grille units are more clearly defined due to explicit framing.  Different mesh pattern.

1971 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme Convertible - car-for-sale photos
Yet another new bumper.  Central hood reshaping.  Grille elements are taller, but less attractive.  Reminds me of BMW's recent atrocious grille segment enlargements.

1972 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme Convertible BaT Auctions
Sometimes final-year facelifts include details that preview some next-year's redesign features.  But not here.  Just a little freshening in the form of new grille bars.

1968 Oldsmobile Cutlass
The initial rear end.  Sorry that this example has a lot of stickers, but I hope the design theme is still obvious.

1969 Oldsmobile Cutlass
A new bumper and tail light assemblies change the character of the car's aft.

1970 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme
Again, a completely revised bumper- tail light ensemble.

1971 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme
The basic bumper is the same, but tail light orientation got the "old switcheroo."  The word "Oldsmobile" is now spread across much of the trunk lid.

1972 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme
Minor final-year changes at the rear as well as the front.  Here in the form of added internal vertical frames on tail light assembles.