The Final Cadillac Eldorado Design: Walkaround

As Wikipedia points out, the Cadillac Eldorado was in production for 50 years.  Today's post features the 12th (and last) generation's design.

I dealt with the 11th generation Eldorado and its shared-platform models here, and the classic 1966-67 Buick Riviera, Oldsmobile Toronado, and Cadillac Eldorado here.

Images of the 1992 Eldorado below are via Bring a Trailer Auctions.

Gallery

1986 Cadillac Eldorado - unknown photo source
The passenger compartment greenhouse dominates this side view.  It's really proportionally too large, making the car seem smaller than a Cadillac should be.  It was designed when Irv Rybicki was General Motors' Design Vice-President.

1992 Cadillac Eldorado
Designed under GM Design VP Chuck Jordan, this Eldorado and the one above share a 110.8-inch (2743 mm) wheelbase, but the 1986 version was 10.8 inches (274 mm) shorter due to less front and rear overhang.  The beltline here is higher, reducing the greenhouse.  The increased C-pillar and sloped backlight window also contribute to making the greenhouse less prominent.  The horizontal side trim retains the'86 Eldo theme--good marketing, if the Eldorado was a strong brand.  Which it really wasn't by 1992.

The design is very clean from this perspective.

Simple shapes.  The trademark Cadillac Vertical tail lights are given a 90-degree echo by the reflectors on the bumper.

I suppose one might characterize this design as "tasteful" -- but not exciting, like the classic 1967 Eldorado was.

One design integration problem was the height of the trunk compared to that of the beltline.  Jordan's stylists chose not to blend.

The hood and front fender slope downwards strongly, creating a grille/headlights zone that seems too delicate compared to the visual massiveness of the car abaft of the A-pillar.  That slope might have been dictated by aerodynamic considerations, but the result was less "presence" for a luxury item.

Frontal design, like that of the rear, is simple compared to today's fashions.

That chromed band wraps entirely around the car with time-outs for wheel openings.

1953 Packard Mayfair Walkaround

General Motors' hardtop coupes appeared during model year 1949 on Cadillacs, Buicks and Oldsmobiles.   But Packard did not market one until 1951, because that was the model year when its entire line was redesigned.  Packard's previous body design did not permit the addition of B-pillarless styling, but the new design did.

Packard's hardtop was built on its 122-inch (3099 mm) 250 series structure.  Senior Packards had wheelbases of 127 inches (3226 mm), so the shorter, lighter hardtops had sportier performance than they might have had otherwise.

For model years 1951-1953 Packard hardtop coupes were named "Mayfair" after London's posh district east of Hyde Park.  I confess that, until I became familiar with London, the name Mayfair puzzled me, a middle-class kid from Seattle.  Model names such as Bel Air, Malibu, Newport and Saratoga were of upper-crust USA places I'd heard of.  Monaco, Riviera and such were fancy European places I also knew about.  But Mayfair?   Clearly, I was never the target in Packard's marketing sights, being unaware of Mayfair.

I think the Mayfair was an attractive car, a few details aside, as will be discussed in image captions below.

Gallery

1952 Packard Mayfair - car-for-sale photo
1951 and 1952 Mayfairs were essentially identical.  There was a mild facelift for 1953 that resulted in a cleaner, less-fussy grille design and a longer chrome strip on the side.

1953 Packard Mayfair - car-for-sale photo set
Those changes can be noted here.

My post "John Reinhard's Complaint" deals with Packard styling director's belief that the new 1951 design would have been better if the lower body were an inch (25.4 mm) or so less tall.  As I mentioned in that post, I disagree with his assessment.

The backlight window has three segments, a limitation related to glass forming technology.  However, some other 1953 cars were getting wide, one-piece backlights.  Packard complied in 1954.

The large, subtly-shaped trunk lid is contrasted by highly detailed peripheral items.  This compositional contrast is a legitimate tactic, exemplified by Spanish Colonial church architecture featuring large, clean areas along with tightly detailed areas such as around and above the entry doors.

Then there are those three accent details on the aft fender.  Buick gained its (in)famous "portholes" in 1949, and variations continued for many years off and on as a visual brand identifier.  Apparently Packard wanted to do the same thing.  But popularly, they were called "bottle cap openers."  That's not something an upscale car line needed to be associated with.  The openers were discarded for 1954.

Those chrome tail finlets on the rear fenders were added for 1953.

An attractive (but not exciting) design.  Getting rid of the bottle cap openers and perhaps also the tail finlets would have improved appearance.

1954 Packard Pacific - car-for-sale photo
The next model year saw the caps eliminated, at least.

Those "teeth" in the 1951-52 grilles are gone.  The revised grille is massive (as was expected in those days), but it works well with the rest of the car's design while retaining Packard's traditional upper grille framing style.

The dashboard.

Chrysler/DeSoto Airflow and Peugeot "Fuseau Sochaux" Compared

The Chrysler Airflow, along with the DeSoto version, was launched for the 1934 model year.  It featured advanced features that included a revised layout with the motor mounted farther forward than normal (in those days) that allowed the passenger compartment to also be moved forward enough that back-seat passengers were seated forward of the rear axle, not above it.  This made for a smoother ride.

The most obvious feature was the body shape that was wind tunnel tested for improved aerodynamic efficiency.  The result was a design that seemed strange to potential buyer's eyes.  The most difficult appearance feature was the rounded grille-hood profile that simply curved upward from the bumper to eventually flatten over the motor.  Folks in 1934 were used to flat hoodlines ending with a vertical (or nearly-so) grille.

For these and some other factors, Chrysler and DeSoto Airflow sales were disappointingly low.  Even so, production continued for a few more model years with facelifts featuring grilles and hoods more in the the traditional spirit -- though still having a streamlined character.

In recent decades, Airflows have been recognized as significant automobiles.  Even in the mid-1930s, some other carmakers marketed Airflow-like designs.  In 2014 I posted "Airflow and its Variations in 1936."   Cited were the 1935 Volvo PV36 Carioca, the 1936 Toyota AA, and the Peugeot 402 that entered production in 1935 for the '36 model year.

Today's post compares some 1934 Airflows with equivalent body-type Peugeot 402s and 302s.  The "Fuseau Sochaux" in the headline above was a nickname the French gave to that design.  Sochaux being Peugeot's headquarters town and fuseau meaning "spindle" as a reference to streamlining.

Gallery

1934 Chrysler CU Airflow 4-door sedan - Bonhams Auctions photo
This was the highest production Chrysler Airflow model.  DeSoto Airflows outsold Chrysler's, but there too, four-door sedans were the production volume leaders.

1938 Peugeot 402 Conduite intérieure - Toyota Automobile Museum photo
Abaft of the firewall, Peugeot's design is quite similar to the Airflow's.  There are even similar decorations on the rear fender's spats.  The Peugeto's hood profile slopes downwards, merging with a more conventional grille than Chrysler's.  The Airflow's doors are hinged on the A- and C-pillars whereas the Peugeot's hinges are only on the B-pillar, a simpler arrangement that makes the forward doors the "suicide" type.  Like Citroën and some other 1930s French cars, the beltline falls away towards the  rear from the B-pillar.

1934 Chrysler CU Airflow Coupe - Worldwide Auctioneers photo
The Airflow coupe's profile forms a smooth ogive or "S" curve towards the rear.  That might have somewhat compromised back-seat headroom.

1936 Peugeot 402 Coach - Artcurial photo
Peugeot's coupe (marketed as "Coach") has about the same backseat headroom as the driver's.  The resulting profile is a modest bustle back style.

1934 DeSoto SE 4-door sedan - car-for-sale photo
DeSoto Airflows had shorter wheelbases than Chryslers.  This is reflected in the shorter zone forward of the firewall.

1937 Peugeot 302 Berline - unknown photo source
The short-lived (1937-38 model years) Peugeot 302 has a wheelbase closer to the DeSoto.  Peugeot's solution was to shorten the aft part of the body.  Hence, four side windows instead of six.  Plus, a narrower backseat door than on the 402.

1934 Chrysler CU Airflow Town Sedan - car-for-sale photo
Speaking of wide C-pillar zones, here we compare the short-lived (1934-only for basic Chrysler and DeSoto Airflows) Town Sedan to the Peugeot 302.

1937 Peugeot 302 Berline - Bonhams Auctions photo
Unlike the coupe situation, the Peugeot has the more pleasing profile.  Note the window-shape similarity to the Town Sedan's.

1955 Chrysler Corporation's Crash-Project Redesign Side-Views

Chrysler Corporation's share of the American car market declined during the early 1950s -- especially during model years 1953 and 1954.  Early in the '53 model year this was so apparent that Virgil Exner was asked by K.T. Keller to prepare total redesigns for 1955.

Given the typical three or four year development time to get to be a new body design into production, Exner's styling staff was truly in crash-project mode to redesign in time for body-engineering and productionizing of cars for arrival in 1955.  Fortunately, the new designs were successful in terms of sales as well as aesthetics.

Chrysler's entry-level Plymouths and Dodges shared one basic body (as they did for 1953-54), while DeSoto, Chrysler and Imperial received a different one.  Exner took charge of the latter, while Henry King led the group working on the former.  But, as noted below, there might have been some tooling shared by all five brands.

In those days, American carmakers with more than one brand in their portfolios shared basic bodies over at least two brands for reasons of economy -- spreading tooling costs over larger production runs.  Usually, brand differentiation was in the form of different front-end clips, especially differing grille designs.  At the rear, tail lights normally differed.  But the 1950s saw a trends towards more serious sheet metal and body framing differences.  For example, 1953 Dodges and Plymouths had differing C-pilars, whereas DeSoto's and Chryslers did not.

Due to the crash-project timeline, the '55 Chrysler Corporation cars had little in the way of basic mid-body differences.  Brand identifiers seen on side views were in the form of chrome trim and paint schemes.

Below are side views of 1955 four-door sedans.  I selected models with minimal trim so as to help reveal the basic sheet metal.  Cars are displayed in descending brand prestige order.

Gallery

1955 Imperial - car-for-sale photo
Imperial was a new brand for 1955.  Previously, the name Imperial was given to the largest, most luxurious models of the Chrysler brand.  The '55 Imperials were nice-looking cars, though some observers didn't like the tail lights atop the rear fenders.  Chrysler Corporation panoramic windshields had a relatively normal appearance due to the backward-slant of the A-pillar.

1955 Chrysler Windsor Deluxe - BaT Auctions photo
Fender designs were taken from the 1952 Chrysler Imperial Parade Phaetons that I mentioned here.  Basic differences from the Imperial are few, but include less-rounded wheel openings and details at the aft of the rear fender.

1955 DeSoto Firedome- BaT Auctions
Nearly the same as the Chrysler aside from the tail lights.  The three cars shown here have differing mid-level side trim, but that trim is found at the same general location on each design.

1955 Dodge Custom Royal Lancer - RM Sotheby's photo
Now for the other basic body.  Although this design looks different at first gone...and even beyond... the greenhouse window framing and front door cutlines appear almost the same.  So there might have been some shared tooling.  Unlike the sculpted fenders shown above, the fenderline here is simple, and sculpting minimal.

1955 Plymouth Belvedere - Mecum Auctions photo
Headlight areas of front fenders differ, unlike the similarities seen in the first three images above.  Rear side doors differ due to wheelbase differences, though wheel openings seem the same.  Again, side chrome trim positioning is consistent for both brands.

More About the 1939 Hanomag 1.3 Liter

Germans like to compress their often long words into simpler, easier to pronounce words.  So the firm Hannoversche Maschinenbau AG -- Hanover Machinebuilder, Incorporated -- was shortened to Hanomag.   Among many other things, Hanomag built cars in the 1920s and 30s.

I think the most interesting Hanomag car was the 1.3 Liter produced for model year 1939 only (World War 2 halted production).  I posted about it here.  Since 2013, more Hanomag photos have appeared on the Internet.  Not many, because few Hanomags exist; but enough to justify a short post.

About the only backgound information on the Hanomag 1.3 Liter is here, on the Lane Motor Museum website.  (When its featured car was noted years earlier on the BaT Auctions site, it was stated that this car lacked a motor.)

Most photos below are from original sources I cannot identify.

Gallery

Side view: Hanomags were not large, but could carry four people.   Plenty of curves give the design a strong streamlined feeling: very 1930s.

This image from the Hanomag brochure grossly exaggerates the car's size.  At least it indicates what goes where.

A simple, functional grille.  More interesting is the vertical chrome bar that transitions into central hood sculpting that ...

... continues as a ridge that passes over the roof, continuing downwards towards the bottom of the the trunk lid while splitting the backlight window's profile.  For some reason, I almost always like that sort of styling touch.

Factory overhead photo.  Some Hanomags had sunroofs.

Probably a publicity photo showing a family and its Hanomag at Heidelberg.  The Neckar River is in the background, but the castle those folks are probably viewing is above the picture frame.

1963 Buick Riviera vs. 1963 Pontiac Grand Prix

Model year 1963 featured three outstanding American car designs.  One was the Studebaker Avanti that I posted about here.  The two others, both General Motors products, were the Buick Riviera (Wikipedia entry here), and the Pontiac Grand Prix (Wikipedia entry here, and a post by me here).  The latter two are today's subject.

The Riviera link above (as of early April 2025) mentions:

"Jaguar founder and designer Sir William Lyons remarked that [GM's styling director] Mitchell had done 'a very wonderful job,' and Sergio Pininfarina declared it 'one of the most beautiful American cars ever built; it has marked a very impressive return to simplicity of American car design.' At its debut at the Paris Auto Show, Raymond Loewy said the Riviera was the most handsome American production car—apart from his own Studebaker Avanti, in his view the Riviera's only real competition for 1963."

Despite all that praise, let me suggest that the '63 Pontiac Grand Prix was at least equally worthy of such remarks.  Let's take a look.

Gallery

1963 Buick Riviera - car-for-sale photos
The Riviera design originated as a potential resurrection of GM's LaSalle brand that ended production in 1940.  Then it was shopped to various General Motors brands, whereby Buick was awarded it in a competition with Oldsmobile.  The result was a sales success.

1963 Pontiac Grand Prix - car-for-sale photos
The '63 Grand Prix was a facelift of the 1962 model that greatly simplified a rather cluttered design.  This is dealt with in my post linked above.

The Riviera design is more cluttered than the Grand Prix's, but still pretty clean.  Those "air intakes" near the rear wheel opening are fakes, for instance.

No fake stuff here.  The rear fended bulges out slightly, but the horizontal mid-body crease holds the fender design together.  Note that both cars have similar passenger compartments and window framing.

The lower body design flows, whereas the after part of the greenhouse structure has English-style "razor edging."  This was a touch that Bill Mitchell used here and on other cars, especially the 1980 Cadillac Seville.

The Grand Prix's backlight window is larger than the Riviera's.  Also, it is concave, rather than the normal convex shape.  Both cars have higher rear fenders than trunk lids.  Aft ends are uncluttered, though the Grand Prix's is simpler.

1963 Buick Riviera - car-for-sale photo
Now for two overhead views.  This image shows how the Riviera's fenders bulge out from the passenger compartment greenhouse.  The hood contains two passenger compartment air intakes that relate to hood sculpting.

1963 Pontiac Grand Prix - car-for- sale photo
As usual, the Grand Prix design is simpler than the Riviera's, even when seen from this perspective.  Only one air intake.  The body sides are only slightly bulged.  Front fender tops are flatter here.  Greenhouses look pretty similar.

1963 Buick Riviera - Broad Arrow Auctions photos
Finally, some glamour photos.  Black, highly polished paint jobs on both cars.  The Riviera's shape flows, yet its front leans forward aggressively.

1963 Pontiac Grand Prix - Mecum Auctions photos
A non-aggressive front here, and the side flows only a little.  Both cars are cursed with quad headlights, but that's how things were done in those days where state laws tightly dictated headlight details.

The Riviera has plenty of detailing all around to amuse viewers, something GM's legendary styling supremo Harley Earl favored on cars such as the 1941 Pontiac.

The Grand Prix, on the other hand lacks such detailing.  The design is simple, yet it has enough shaping to keep it from being boring, unlike so many "boxy" designs of the 1960s and 1970s.
Not that it matters very much, but my preference is for the Pontiac.  I always liked it, but never really cared for the Riviera.  But from my subjective perspective, the Studebaker Avanti design is the most emotionally compelling.  See below.

A Studebaker Avanti photo I took on Baltimore's North Charles Street in May, 1963.