Edsel's Only Facelift

It's ancient history for most folks these days, but Ford Motor Company's 1958-1960  Edsel brand fiasco was famous.  Nevertheless, car buffs and business schools still find it of interest.

I posted "Edsel's Three Model Years" here, and "Making 1958 Edsels from 1957 Fords and Mercurys" here.  The present post builds on those, focusing on 1959 Edsel design, the brand's only facelift.  (The few 1960 Edsels were new designs, based on the redesigned 1960 Fords.)

Model year 1958 Edsels came in two body platforms.  Entry-level Edsels used Ford bodies and came in two ranges: Ranger and Pacer.  Upscale Edsels were Mercury-based: Corsairs and Citations.  But for 1959, all Edsels were Ford-based, the model line reduced to Ranger and Corsair.

For detailed coverage of the Edsel saga, read "Disaster in Dearborn: The Story of the Edsel" by Thomas E. Bonsall (Amazon link here).

It seems that Ford management was starting to sour on the project even before the 1958 models were introduced to the public in early September of 1957.  By late 1957, sales data revealed that the cars were not selling as well as anticipated.  Given the lead-time to the introduction of 1959 models, it's likely that the decision to drop Mercury-based Edsels was made some time in 1957, not 1958. 

In the Gallery below, 1958 and 1959 Edsel styling themes are compared.  Some 1959 Ford images are included to indicate changes made to create Edsels.

Gallery

1958 Edsel Corsair hardtop coupe - car-for-sale photo
A Mercury-based Edsel with the then-controversial grille design.

1959 Edsel Ranger hardtop coupe - car-for-sale photo
Frontal design was simplified.  Headlights were moved from the fender fronts to the grille zone.  The vertical grille element was somewhat integrated with the rest of the grille by adding horizontal bars.  My opinion is that this resulted in a bland Edsel-look.  I'd be tempted to put sone vertical bars in the vertical element.  That would have toned-down the original grille's visual shock while still being proudly (enough) Edsel.

1959 Ford Galaxie Club Victoria - BaT Auctions photo
The basis for 1959 Edsels, in this case a two-door hardtop.

1959 Ford Galaxie 4-door sedan - Barrett-Jackson Auctions photo
Galaxie was Ford's most expensive line.  For 1959, it and mid-range Fairlane 500s were given wide C-pillars in Thunderbird fashion.

1959 Ford Custom 300 4-door sedan - car-for-sale photo
Ford's entry-level Custom 300 line received thinner C-pillars with panoramic backlight windows.  This version was used on '59 Edsels.

1959 Edsel Ranger 4-door sedan - BaT
The Ford fenderline was retained.  Wheel openings were slightly different, along with the rear door's aft cutline.  Edsel sides received new sculpting below the fenderline and, of course, new side trim.

1959 Edsel Corsair 4-door sedan - BaT
Entry-level Ranger side trim differed from that of the senior-level Corsair shown here -- though the upper chrome pieces seem similarly placed.

1958 Edsel Pacer 4-door sedan - BaT
Original Edsel rear end design on a Ford-based body.

1959 Edsel Ranger 4-door sedan - BaT
For '59, trunk lid shaping was little changed, but not the rest of the rear.  Ford invested in some new tooling here as well as on the sides and front end.

1959 Ford Custom 300 4-door sedan - car-for-sale photo
Ford rear ends were clearly unlike Edsels despite having the same basic body structure.

Grille "Whiskers" on 1937-1938 Hoods

While there is no doubt that automobile styling has a considerable fad/fashion component, often styling fashions are influenced by what is technically available at the time.

Consider the late 1930s American situation.  The Great Depression of the '30s stimulated visual innovation as a means of attracting buyers.  Then there was the concept of "streamlining" -- actual or simulated improved aerodynamic efficiency of body shapes.  This interacted with improvements in sheet metal stamping technology so that rounded body surfaces could be mass-produced.  So American cars of that era tended to have rounded, sometimes lumpy appearances.

Once a production body shape was established, stylists then had to come up with largely decorative items such as grille shapes and details.  Often, such details were similar for competing brands (as is true today).

Today's post deals with what I consider a curious trim similarity found on cars from five different companies for the 1937 model year.  Then for 1938, two more companies' cars used the same idea.

Especially interesting, there was no 1936 American car with that feature.  A quick look at '36 French designs revealed the same thing, though I can't rule out an example from another country or a custom body that might have inspired it.  

From what I've read about the American car industry, a source of that similarity might have been stylists changing jobs and passing along information.  Or it might have been information leaked by parts suppliers.

And it's quite possible that the idea occurred because the 1936 fad for "fencer's mask grilles" led some stylists to the idea that such grilles could be closely linked to the nearby hood sides.

Let's take a look.

Gallery

1937 Studebaker President - Hyman, Ltd photo
Here the chrome strips along the side of the hood overlap the top of the grille itself.  Visually, this is the sort of thing I was discussing above, even though the streaks are not strictly grille bar extensions.

1937 Chrysler Royal - car-for-sale photo
Again, the grille itself isn't quite involved, though the visual concept is there.

1937 DeSoto - car-for-sale photo
DeSoto's hood streaks do seem to be grille bar extensions.  However, the top of the actual grille opening is probably around the "O" of the "DESOTO" on the vertical grille divider.

1938 DeSoto - Barrett-Jackson Auctions photo
DeSoto the following model year.

1937 Pontiac DeLuxe - Barrett-Jackson
A bit hard to see in this photo, but streaks extend from the grille bar zone.

1937 Willys - publicity photo
A small car with small grille-hood streaks.

1937 Nash Ambassador Eight - car-for-sale photo
A borderline case.  The upper grille framing is extended along the hood, but not as chrome strips.

1938 Graham 96 - Shannon's Melbourne Auctions photo
For 1938, we see those streaks on the redesigned Graham.

1938 Ford Standard Tudor - Mecum Auctions photo
Also on the entry-level Fords.  Though no chrome here for that low-priced car.

1968 "Pony Cars" -- Which One to Buy?

When not thinking very deeply or analytically, I sometimes think that there were ebb and flow periods in terms of quality of American automobile styling.  In some cases, ebb tides happened due to technological factors.  One instance was the mid-1930s, when "streamlining" yielded rounded forms that metal stamping  technology could barely support, while auto glass technology was still in the flat-panes era.

A "flow" time seems to have been the mid-1960s.  The tail fin fad was over, but government-mandated restrictions indirectly affecting shapes had yet to be imposed.  In particular, General Motors styling hit several high points because design honcho Bill Mitchell was hitting his stride.  Outstanding designs included 1964 and 1966 Buick Rivieras, 1967 Cadillac Eldorados, 1966 Oldsmobile Toronados, 1963 Corvettes, and the 1963 Pontiac Grand Prix.

Another mid-1960s American experience was the "pony car" (Wikipedia entry here).  The entry mentions some early '60s examples such as the Chevrolet Corvair Monza, but then moves into the era of this post's pony cars.

Our featured 1968-vintage models are the Ford Mustang, Plymouth Barracuda, Chevrolet Camaro, and American Motors Javelin.

First of the lot was the Mustang, introduced in the Spring of 1964.  Sadly, I was in the Army stationed in Korea at the time, and missed out experiencing the initial excitement first-hand.  By the 1968 model year, bustle back Mustangs had only been lightly facelifted, though fastback versions introduced for 1965 had an altered character.  Both are shown below.

Plymouth's Barracuda appeared about the same time as the Mustang.  But its styling (that I wrote about here) was not especially exciting, resembling in respects the Plymouth Valiant that it was based on.  A new Barracuda design appeared for 1967 with bustle back and fastback versions.

Chevrolet's Camaro appeared for the '67 model year.  It was based on the Chevrolet Nova "compact."  Its shared cowling structure dominated stylists' efforts to create a sporty Mustang-fighter.  The result was a slightly chunky look, but the theme with  lower cowling was applied successfully to a different package in 2010.

American Motors 1965-1967 Marlin was akin to Plymouth's first-generation Barracuda, being an obvious fastback variation of the firm's Rambler and Ambassador lines.  Javelin replaced it.  The 1968 Javelin was Rambler platform-based, but had different exterior cladding.

The 1968 Javelin appearance sets the stage for this post's theme: which pony car of that vintage would you have been tempted to buy based on styling alone.  The Gallery presents front-quarter, side view, and rear-quarter views of notchback and fastback versions of each model.  Where possible, I used photos of 1968 cars.  Otherwise, images of similar 1967 models were used to illustrate designs.

Front-quarter views below are a limited model set because front ends are the same regardless of the rear ends being fastbacks or notchbacks.

Gallery

1967 Ford Mustang coupe - car-for-sale photo
The basic shape is somewhat boxy.  The high hood and rather flat front add to this feeling, though the inset  headlights counteract this somewhat.

1968 Pymouth Barracuda - car-for-sale photo
A more graceful appearance ... rather feminine.  (Many guys like feminine-like cars along with their actual girlfriends.)  The two-segment grille was more similar to Pontiac's theme than General Motors might have liked.

1967 Chevrolet Camaro - Mecum Auctions photo
Front end on this Camaro is flat, nondescript.

1968 American Motors Javelin - Mecum
Not much of a bumper, but plenty of visual entertainment up front.  Another two-segment grille, but less Pontiac-like than Barracuda's.

1967 Mustang coupe - car-for-sale photo
Mustang's best feature for hood-loving me is the profile proportions.  Long hood, short trunk, and wide C-pillar.  Works well.  The fenderline flows, adding interest.  The side sculpting became a visual trademark for Mustang.  Interesting that there's no full-length sculpting or chrome trim to tie the front and rear visually -- very plain rear fender.

1967 Mustang fastback - Mecum
The fastback looks racier in profile.  But the added metal creates visual bulk counteracting raciness to some degree.

1967 Barracuda fastback - car-for-sale photo
Lighter profile than Mustang.  Fendeline flow is quite subtle.  Airier passenger compartment greenhouse than the fastback 'Stang's.

1968 Barracuda coupe - car-for-sale photo
The bustleback/notchback 'Cuda's greenhouse strikes me as being too delicate for a pony car, let alone any musclecar  variation.

1967 Camaro - BaT Auctions photo
Typical pony car profile proportions.  The side crease ties front to the rear.  Nice looking car, but rather generic design -- nothing striking about it.

1968 Javelin - Mecum
Proportionally short hood and long greenhouse.  C-pillar pretty heavy in this view.  Has mid-level crease tying the ends.

1967 Mustang coupe - car-for-sale photo
Now some rear-quarter views.  High rear fenders nest the trunk lid.  Tidy backlight window -- no drama here.  The dished-in panel above the bumper adds interest.  Three-piece tail light assemblies also became a  Mustang brand identifier.

1968 Mustang fastback - Mecum
The large backlight counteracts some of the visual bulk noted above.

1968 Barracuda fastback - car-for-sale photo
An "organic," flowing design from this angle.  Note the tie-in of the front C-pillar edge and the top backlight frame: professional touch.  Aft treatment is simple, but the thin bumper and sculpted panel are separated enough to create visual lightness.

1968 Barracuda - car-for-sale photo
All that is lost on the notchback Barracuda.

1967 Camaro - Mecum
The rear is tidy, but rather generic, like the rest of the design.  Nothing objectionable, mind you.  Nothing interesting or exciting, either.

1968 Javelin - Mecum
C-pillars become modest sail panels nesting the trunk lid.  This helps lighten C-pillar bulkiness.  Tidy rear end detailing contrasts the fussiness we find on today's designs.
All the designs shown here are nice aside, perhaps, from the too-delicate Barracuda bustleback.  Your taste will probably vary, but here is my two-cents take.  The Mustang's design seems too static.  The Barracuda is the prettiest, but a tiny bit too much so for me.  As noted, the Camaro is pleasant, but generic -- no excitement.  As for the Javelin, I would prefer a longer hood.  But otherwise, I have no serious complaints.  I would probably buy the Javelin for its looks.

Cadillac's First Tail Fins: 1948-1949

This 1948 Cadillac 62 Convertible car-for-sale photo was used in another post, provoking me to think about those famous, initial tail fins.  They were A Big Deal when they appeared.  A seriously different fender feature.

I was in elementary school then.  Aware of cars and brands, but unsophisticated.  I remember being impressed by a green fastback '48 or '49 Cadillac owned by a doctor who lived up the street from us.  And I recall the add-on tail fins one could buy at an auto parts store for attaching onto one's non-Cadillac. 

Those Cadillac tail fins proved to be a marketing success, even though some important folks in management didn't like what they saw on styling models.  On the other hand, reports I've read suggest that the stylists themselves liked the fins concept since the prewar days when some were taken to the nearby Army Air Corps Selfridge Field to view new P-38 fighters with twin vertical stabilizers.

The Book "Cadillacs of the Forties" by Roy A. Schneider (1976) mentions (p.124) some visual advantages claimed for the tail fins:

"Technically, raising the height or ends of the rear fenders had the visual effect of lowering the upper portion of the body.  Another advantage incumbent to the finned fender was a car that looked longer in  front three-quarter view.  This was true because the full rear fender stayed in sight from any viewing position.  Cars with traditional rear fenders that curved inward toward the rear bumper appeared shorter than they actually were because the lines of the rear fenders tended to fade away when viewed from frontal angles."

I don't buy the cases Schneider makes, though they make logical sense.  In the first place, those early Caddy fins were too small, too short to make the rest of the car seem lower.  Note that their tops were well below of the car's beltline.  Later, larger, higher tail fins could perform that visual trick to a some degree.  As for the other point, one viewing a car from a front quarter, body length is a lesser consideration than front end design.  Length is best appreciated from side-views, where 1948-49 tail fins made the designs slightly shorter visually because they halt the eye as it sweeps from front to rear.

I suppose my problem with early Cadillac tail fins is that they strike me as being too small.  They seem oddly insignificant.  A visual "So what?"  No doubt the profusion of much larger fins, especially on Chrysler Corporation cars starting in 1957, altered my perspective on the matter.

Why were they so successful from a marketing/branding standpoint?  Placing those fins on Cadillacs, GM's luxury/prestige brand, conveyed prestige to the design.  I wonder how they would have been accepted by the car-buying public if they were first given to, say, Pontiacs.

Let's take a further look at fins on various other 1948-49 Cadillac body types.

Gallery

1949 Cadillac 60 Special 4-door sedan - Mecum Auctions photos
Sixty-Specials had longer wheelbases than basic Cadillacs.  On these larger bodies, the fins seem more insignificant.

Here they appear odd.  What are they doing there?

1948 Cadillac 62 4-door sedan - car-for-sale photos
This is the basic 1948 Cadillac.  The trunk profile curves downward enough that the fin acquires a small degree of dominance in side-view.

The chrome strips below the tail lights were found only on 1948 Cadillac model 62s.

1948 Cadillac 62 Club Coupe - RM Sotheby's Auctions photos
Now for the fastback design.

The tail fins seem to work a bit better here because the simplicity of the rest of the rear sets them off, giving them more prominence than otherwise.

1949 Cadillac 62 Coupe de Ville - car-for-sale photos
A high, more squared-off trunk lid offering more capacity was introduced during the 1949 model year.

The tail fins also seem to work better on hardtop coupes than on four-door sedans.  But their perky shape still strikes me as being a bit silly.

Volvo's 1935 Chrysler Airflow-like PV36 Carioca

As I mentioned here in my post "Airflow and its Variations in 1936," an Airflow "look-similar" was the Volvo PV36 Carioca.  One is shown in the evocative photo above.

The nickname "Carioca" is Brazilian, not Swedish -- a mid-1930s thing noted in the Wikipedia link.

A more detailed account is here.  It mentions that "The design was heavily based on streamline styling from American vehicles.  How many influences the Swedish designer Ivan Örnberg brought back home from his former employer Hupmobile in Detroit in 1933 can only be guessed.  In any case, there are various optical parallels, for example to the Chrysler Airflow."

Clearly, Airflow influence was strong.  I see little 1934 Hupmobile influence aside from the very rear.  One  important Airflow detail was placement of the passenger compartment between the axle lines, with the motor mounted more forward than conventional at the time.  Side views of the Carioca suggest that it followed Chrysler practice.  Its body was "all steel" (aside from the fabric roof insert), but probably not quasi-unitized in Airflow fashion.

Gallery

1935 Volvo PV36 Carioca - factory photo
Likely a prototype or early production model.  The slightly raised grille and hood front is more conventional than the strongly rounded (and much criticized) early Airflow front ends.  Basically a decent, tidy design for its time.

1935 Volvo PV36 Carioca - factory photo
Publicity or advertising image.

Volvo PV36 Carioca - via Top Gear
The grille and body shaping above the headlights is different from that show in the top photos.  Perhaps this is later than a 1935 model.

The decoration on the rear wheel spats is similar to that on Chrysler Airflows.  However, that sort of thing was also found on other 1930s cars such as Nashes and Peugeots.

Volvo PV36 Carioca - Bilweb Auctions photos
Same car as on the previous images, but in a different setting.

Rear quarter view.  Compare to the Hupmobile in the following image.

1934 Hupmobile 421 - image via Automobile Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 1
As mentioned above, Carioca's rear resembles this Hupp more than it does a '34 Airflow.  CU Airflow sedans lacked trunk lids, and the spare tire was not sunk into the aft sheet metal.

Volvo PV36 Carioca - via classicandsportscar.com
Again, a slightly different grille design.  License plate appears to be British.

Volvo PV36 Carioca - unknown photo source
Probably the same car as in the previous photo.  Compare its profile to the Airflow below.

1934 DeSoto Airflow - car-for-sale photo
Shown here is a DeSoto Airflow whose wheelbase (115.5 inches, 2934  mm) is closer than Chrysler's to that of the Carioca (116.1 inches, 2950 mm), making for a reasonable comparison.  The Carioca is a 4-window car, the Airflow has 6 windows.  Having fewer windows, the Carioca's aft profile curve is less abrupt than the DeSotos'.  Door hinging is reversed: "suicide" front on Carioca, rear on Airflow.  Airflows got some production cost savings by having major parts of door shapes reversed.  Note the symmetrical (but flipped) side window shapes.  The left front door and right rear door would used the same window shape tooling, ditto the right front door and left rear door.  Carioca seems to have done the same with respect to windows.