John Reinhart's Complaint

John M. Reinhart (1916-1986) led Packard styling 1947-51 and later worked at Ford where he is credited with the design of the 1956 Continental Mk. II.  While at Packard he was responsible for its redesigned 1951 line.

Regarding that design, he has been quoted in the Packard Cormorant (No. 129, Winter 2007, page 30) and elsewhere as stating that the car looked "...bottom heavy.  I wasn't particularly happy with it, but then I hated every design I ever made anyway.  You never get what you really want because you have to compromise; the thing could have been a lot better looking had we the option of altering the glass along with the sheet metal."  It seems he would have liked to lower the main body to provide another 1 1/2 inches (35 mm) of glass, but Packard engineers supposedly wanted to limit the amount of glass for price reasons.

The situation might have been more complex than that.  Packard built luxury cars (along with lower-priced models using the same basic body).  If I had been in charge of Packard marketing or product planning an important consideration would have been the design's "image" as a luxury car.  To a degree, that would trump the aesthetic considerations Reinhart favored.

Therefore, let's examine luxury car design circa-1950 to see where the 1951 Packard fits.

Unless noted, images below are of car listed for sale.  All are of four-door sedans for comparative purposes.

Gallery

1951 Packard Patrician 400 - Bonhams auction photo
Patricians were the top of Packard's line.  Side window height is less than one-half the height of the lower body.

1951 Rolls-Royce Silver Dawn
Silver Dawns had factory bodies and were meant to be owner-driven.  English luxury cars tended to have large-appearing side windows, though these are proportionally only marginally taller than Packard's.

1950 Daimler DE36 Touring Limousine by Freestone & Webb - auction photo
The same can be said for Rolls' rival.

Jaguar Mark VII
This Jaguar, a semi-luxury car, has windows about half the distance from rocker panel to beltline.

1951 Mercedes-Benz 300 W186
Yet again, similar.

1952 Lincoln
The redesigned '52 Lincoln has windows about the same proportion as Packard..

1950 Cadillac Sixty Special
The redesigned for 1950 Caddy's windows are noticeably narrower than Packard's.

1951 Packard 300
Long-wheelbase '51 Packards such as this 300 had three-piece wraparound backlight windows.  These give the car an airy feeling that complements the solid-looking lower body.

1951 Packard 200
But entry-level 1951 Packards had smaller backlights.  As seen here, Reinhart's complaint has some validity.

1951 Kaiser Golden Dragon - RM Sotheby's auction photo
Kaiser's attractive 1951 design has tall side windows, perhaps a bit more height than Reinhart mentioned.  Their ratio to lower body height was about 58 percent as opposed to Packard's 42 and Cadillac's 35.  But Kaiser was not a luxury brand.  In the early 1950s a Packard with Kaiser proportions would not have seemed big, solid, important.  Perhaps not worth spending luxury car dollars for.

Panhard Dyna Z

Pictured above is a 1954 Panhard Dyna Z posed in front of the Château de Chambord.  Dyna Z's were produced 1954-59 and a lightly facelifted version was continued into 1965.  More background information can be found here on Wikipedia.

Panhard et Levassor was one of the world's first automobile makers.  Early 1930s models were large and luxurious, but the late '30s Dynamic was smaller and oddly styled.  Postwar was the ugly Dyna X that I wrote about here.  The Dyna Z was a new design, larger than the X.  It had front-wheel drive and a two-cylinder (!!!) motor.  Its seating capacity was theoretically six, which was probably one of its marketing standpoints.  The other was the small capacity of its motor that kept its tax status low.

In terms of power and weight, the Dyna Z was comparable to the contemporary Volkswagen Beetle.

Dyna Z styling was aerodynamically-influenced, and therefore rather bland-yet-distinctive.

Gallery

Factory photo of a 1954 Dyna Z from about the same as in the image at the top of this post.  The grille design incorporates what appears to be a running light.  Although there is chrome trim on the lower sides and below the passenger compartment greenhouse, the surround of the curved windshield is black rubber: chrome might be expected there.

There appears to be two turn-signal lights, one mounted in front of the front door, the other abaft of the rear door.

The backlight window is strongly curved, creating panoramic outboard vision.  The trunk is fairly substantial for a non-Kammback aerodynamic design, though its curvature restricts its capacity somewhat.

Side view, Barrett-Jackson auction photo.  The windows are symmetrical, a tooling expense economy, but the doors are not.  As the cut line indicates, most of the front end sheetmetal is taken up by the hood that is hinged at its rear.

Photo from an unidentified source showing an open front "suicide" door.

Studebaker's 1934 Redesign

Although the trend away from boxy 1920s designs had been underway for a few years, 1934 was a model year in America when the trend accelerated in the form of several brands' cars being redesigned.  Among them was Studebaker.

With some exceptions, Studebaker's 1934 basic design was typical of others for 1934.  Those exceptions included the 1934 Chrysler and DeSoto Airflows, Cadillacs and LaSalles, and Studebaker's own Land Cruiser model that I wrote about here.

Cadillacs and LaSalles featured all-steel bodies.  That is, their tops lacked a central fabric insert that was essentially standard for closed-cars of that era.  Studebaker bodies were typical wood-framed, metal-clothed examples.

Today's post highlights nothing unusual.  Rather, it presents examples of the 1933-1934 American norm.

Unless noted, photos below were from Studebaker.

Gallery

1933 Studebaker Commander Eight 4-door sedan
Aside from a slightly sloping windshield, the passenger compartment is typical of 1920s and early 1930s design.  Somewhat advanced touches (for the times) are the slightly skirted front fender and the sloped, faintly shovel-nose grille.

1933 Studebaker President Eight Roadster
An important Studebaker brand identification feature in the early '30s was the sad-expression oval headlight design.

1933 Studebaker President St Regis Brougham
Rear ends of Studebaker closed cars were vertical.  This example has a larger than usual trunk.

1933 Studebaker President Eight Limousine
Top of the '33 Studebaker line.

1934 Studebaker Commander Regal Sedan
Redesigned 1934 Studebakers were more rounded-looking 1933s.  All fenders now have some skirting and the rear is less vertical.  But the windshield angle is only slightly greater.

1934 Studebaker Commander 4-door sedan - Bonhams auction photo
Trunks are essentially standard equipment.  Commander and President models had inline eight cylinder motors and long hoods to accommodate them.

1934 Studebaker Commander 4-door sedan - for sale
The grille remained sloped, but the shovel-nose curve was eliminated.  Headlight lenses are conventionally round and placed in fashionable streamlined housings.  Front fenders are more elaborately shaped than in 1933.

1934 Studebaker Commander 4-door sedan - Bonhams
A brand identification feature for '34 is the two vertical chromes strips on the trunk.  Another is the taillight shape.

Cars With 1950-Vintage General Motors-Style Fenders

The title of this post is cryptic because I couldn't find a brief way to describe the fender design in question.

The Mecum auction photo above of a 1949 Buick should tell the tale visually.  What we see is a front fender that sweeps towards the rear where it is met by a separate rear fender.  And the upper profile lines merge, making the rear fender slightly less distinct than would have been the case had the profiles not merged.

This concept appeared on mass-production cars in America starting with the postwar-redesigned General Motors C-bodies used on most Cadillacs and Oldsmobile's 98 line.  The design spread to all GM brands for 1949.  A few years later Packards and senior Chrysler brands featured such fenders.  By the 1957 model year, it was no longer used.

The advantage of that fender design on the relatively tall cars of the time was that the distinct rear fenders reduced the visual bulk of what otherwise would likely be slab fender sides.

More information is provided in the image captions below.  Unless noted, photos are from the manufacturer or are of cars listed for direct sale.

Gallery

1933 Pierce-Arrow Silver Arrow - RM Sotheby's auction photo
Only a few of these Phil Wright designed Silver Arrows were made.  This might be the first use of a fender design similar to the subject of this post.  GM stylists were surely aware of this car.

1947 Studebaker Commander Starlight Coupe - Bonhams auction photo
Very close to the GM design was the fender treatment on postwar Studebakers.  As with the Silver Arrow, the upper fender profiles do not quite merge.

1948 Oldsmobile Futuramic 98
Here is an early example of the GM design.

1948 Cadillac 62 - Barrett-Jackson auction photo
A Cadillac with those fenders and the first Caddy tail fins.

1948 Cadillac Fleetwood Sixty Special touring Sedan - Mecum auction photo
Sixty Specials received a unique, more squared-off frontal profile of the aft fender.

1949 Chevrolet Styleline Coupe
Chevy's used GM's new A-bodies.  The rear fender was removable, as emphasized by the narrow chrome strip surrounding most of it.

1949 Pontiac Business Coupe
But A-bodied Pontiacs had integral rear fenders.  Chevrolets got these for the 1951 model year.

1953 Chevrolet Bel Air - Barrett-Jackson
New A-bodies appeared for 1953-54, retaining the fender treatment.

1954 Pontiac Star Chief Catalina - Mecum
Pontiac Star Chiefs using the A-body were long cars, the extra length found on the trunk area.  Compare this rear fender with that of the Chevy in the previous image.  This was the final model year for General Motors cars having that fender design.

1953 Chrysler New Yorker
Chrysler Corporation used the design on its 1953-54 Chrysler and DeSoto brands.

1954 DeSoto FireDome
By 1954 the fender design seemed out-of-date to many potential car buyers.

1951 Packard 400
Restyled 1951 Packards also featured the design.

1955 Packard Patrician
1955 Packards were heavily facelifted.  Rear fenders received vertical fronts somewhat like the Cadillac Sixty Special shown above.  Note the side chrome swath, chrome strips and the fake fender airintake.  All of these served to disguise the now-dated fender design.

1955 Packard Clipper
Packard's entry-level (for the brand) Clipper line had more visible rear fenders that featured a revised front profile.  1956 was the last year for this body design.

The Problematical Renault R20 and R30

Renault's R20/R30 cars (produced 1975-1984) suffered from engineering-related defects, as their Wikipedia entry explains.

As for their styling, it was rather generic European "three-box" mid-1970s.  In charge of Renault styling at the time of development was Gaston Juchet, who might have been influenced by the work of Italian maestro Georgetto Giugiaro, as can be seen in the images below.

The nearly-identical R20s and R30s were attempts by Renault to return to making larger cars than its postwar 4CV, Dauphine and such.  Their appearance was not the quirky, French look later used by styling chief Patrick le Quément on upscale models such as the Vel Satis.

Unless noted, the photos below are factory-sourced.

Gallery

1976 Renault R20
R20 and R30 bodies were essentially identical, the most visible difference being their headlights.

1975 Renault R30

1975 Renault R30
Compare this car with the one in the following photo.

1973 Volkswagen Passat (B)
The Vollkswagen Dasher / Passat (B1) (produced 1973-1981) was derived from an Audi. Styling was by Giugiaro.  Both the English and French Wikipedia entries for the R20/R30 fail to mention any connection with Giugiaro's Passat design.  Yer there are many similarities -- for example, the side window profile, front end design, and even the overall proportions and "feeling."

1976 Renault R20
Note the after end of the passenger greenhouse --  the sail panels as well as the relationship of the backlight window and trunk sheet metal.

1975 Volkswagen Dasher - for sale photo
Those details are essentially the same as seen on this VW Dasher (North American name for the Passat).

1976 Renault R20
A R20 seen from normal viewing perspective.  Its wheelbase was about 2665 mm (104.9 inches) compared to the Passat's 2470 mm (97.2 inches), perhaps the major difference in the designs.

1960s Sunbeam Alpine Roadsters

Rootes' Sunbeam Alpine Series I-V (1959-1968) cars were styled with the American market in mind, according to this Wikipedia entry.  Styling was credited to Raymond Loewy's firm.

The first three series featured modest tail fins, an American cliché during the late 1950s when the design was made.  Series IV, launched 1964, had the fins shaved down to bring the design into line with the newer times.  The result was an improved looking car.

I think Series IV and V Sunbeam Alpine styling was attractive, but not distinctive -- unlike that of the 1953-1955 Marks I and III that I wrote anbout here.

I used the term "roadster" in the title of the present post to refer to Alpines as they appeared minus any rigid tops.  Technically, a roadster does not have the roll-up windows found on the cars shown below.

Unless noted, photos are of cars listed for sale.

Gallery

A 1960-vintage Series I Alpine, Shannon's auction photo.  The grille is a simple design with thin, horizontal bars.  The windshield is slightly wrapped in the manner of mid-1950s Chrysler cars.

Side view of a 1963 Series III Alpine showing the modest upsweep of the tail fin.  This distracts from the overall design in part due to the resulting large flat area on the rear side of the car.

1963 Series III model's rear styling.  From this viewpoint the fins also detract from the car's appearance.

Now for finless Alpines.  This is a 1966 Series V.  The grille and bumper guards have been redesigned.

Same car, side view.  I suppose the aft fender area might be seen as tail fins because the ends rise above the trunk lid.  I reject that thought because the fenderline curves very slight downwards abaft of the rear wheel opening.  A much improved, nice, tidy design.

Higher side view of a 1965 Series IV Alpine.

Same car from the right rear quarter.  The gasoline cap would have looked less obtrusive if it were moved down a short distance.

Mecum auction photo of a 1966 Series V Alpine.  Much better looking than what we saw in the rear view of a Series III car.