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.

Auburn 851 Speedster: Multiple Perspectives

Critics needn't criticize in the negative sense.  And, I have nothing negative to say regarding the styling of the boat-tail 1935-1936 Auburn Speedster (Wikipedia entry here.)

The Auburn brand was becomong a victem of the 1930s Great Depression.  Management (quite likely including company owner E.L. Cord) probably decided that a new ultra-sporty model might help Auburn's reputation and draw buyers of its other models to dealer showrooms.  The problem was that the budget for this project was small.

Fortunately, Cord Corporation employed a gifted designer -- Gordon Buehrig -- who succeeded in the creation of a classic design.

Buehrig, in his book "Rolling Sculpture," stated on pages 69 and 71:

"Auburn had built speedsters in the past.  The last had been in 1933, an Al Leamy design.  The bodies of those were built by the Union City Body Company of Union City, Indiana.  [Harold T.] Ames knew that the body company had about a hundred of these bodies left over which had never been scrapped.  His idea was to adapt a few of these to the 1935 Auburn chassis and display them at Auto Shows.  He asked me to see what I could do."

The 1933 body was narrower than the new 1935 frame allowed, so ajustments had to be made.

"By using my group on a heavy overtime schedule, we did the entire design job in two weeks.  We had the body cut in half just to the rear of the top well cover and threw away the rear portion.  We built a wooden armature to hold the clay on the tail section and sculpted the new area in full size.  We also sculpted the front and rear fenders on the mockup, setting it all on a 1935 chassis.  The new hood to match up the 1935 radiator shell and the 1933 cowl was added.  The outside exhaust pipes completed the picture."

I believe that constraints usually lead to better design solutions than "blue sky" unconstrained environments.  So it was for the mid-1930s Auburn Speedster.

Photos of the supercharged 1935 Auburn 851 Speedster below are via Bring a Trailer Auctions.  Enjoy!!

Gallery

The Last Imperial (and Dodge Mirada)

Chrysler Corporation used the name "Imperial" as a model name and a brand name off and on from the late 1920s into the early 1980s.  The model name was applied to the most upscale line of  the Chrysler brand.  At others times, the Imperial brand was the top of the entire Chrysler Corporation line.

Today's post features the last of the Imperial brand -- Wikipedia entry here.  Its body/platform also was used by the 1980-1983 Dodge Mirada, also treated here, and the Chrysler Cordoba.  The Imperial version was introduced for 1981.  Its production over model years 1981-1983 was only 12,385.

The most noticeable styling difference among the three was that the Imperial's rear featured a variation on English "razor-edge" design.  The American verson was a minor styling fad for luxury cars in the late 1970s and early 1980s.  I wrote about that here.

Gallery

1981 Imperial - Mecum Auctions photos
Another fad was placing Rolls-Royce inspired grilles on American luxury brand cars.  In this case, it's flanked by headlight doors, creating a clear appearance for the front end.

1980 Dodge Mirada - brochure image
The Dodge version's grille is also simple, but slightly heavier due to the thick grille bars.

A long hood created by considerable front overhang.  The trunk has a tacked-on appearance created in part by the fastback sculpting that extends the roofline.

1980 Dodge Mirada - Mecum Auctions photo
The Dodge's styling is more conventionally of its time regarding the C-pillar to rear-end zone.  That includes the fussier window treatment.

The Imperial's distinctive rear is comprised of simple elements that relate to each other.  Except for the tacked-on trunk shape caused by the C-pillar's aft crease line.  Like the other cars mentioned in the previous link, the rear end doesn't seem quite correct.

1980 Dodge Mirada - brochure image
What Imperial stylists had to work from.