My e-book on automobile styling argues that there hasn't been much evolution in the appearance of sedans since about 1950. Yes, technology has improved in terms of metal stamping, autoglass forming, headlamp structure and other fields related to how cars look. And there has been increased attention since the early 1980s regarding improved aerodynamic efficiency as a means of reducing fuel consumption. But the dominant factor is fashion. Automobile styling fashions come, go, and occasionally return.
A case regarding the return of a style is the design of the 2010-vintage Jaguar XJ model. It took me a while to make the connection, but it finally dawned on me that the XJ can be considered a modern version of the "step-down" Hudson of the 1948-1954 model years.
Let's take a look:
Here are the cars in profile, the XJ above, the Hudson below. Both designs might be called "almost-fastback," where the top gradually curves downward and meets the lower body slightly in front of the back of the car. Both designs use a "six-window" treatment, each door having a window plus a window placed to the rear of the rear door. (A "four-window" style has only door windows.)
And here are rear quarter views that offer more information on the treatment of the passenger compartment greenhouse. Note the pinched, roughly triangular aft side windows on both designs as well as their relationship to the backlight windows.
True, there are differences in appearance. The XJ makes plenty of use of technological refinements and wind tunnel testing, but the most visible difference is that its rear wheels are exposed, whereas the Hudson's are skirted. Nevertheless, the cars separated by the Atlantic Ocean and 60 years are conceptually similar in terms of basic shape.
4 comments:
I love Hudsons In the 1990s, I owned 2 of them at once, both driver-quality. The company deserved a better fate -- they built excellent cars.
Even in its tenth year when I see an XJ I think it's in a class by itself among luxury sedans. The rest are varying degrees of commercial junk style wise in comparison.
The new postwar designs of Hudsons and Nashes were in line with a lot of cars of the future drawn in around the WWII period, but the market went in another direction and they were stuck, the companies were too small, a lot of bad management decisions were made, people didn't want to buy an underinvested in orphan....and a death spiral for all of the independents, unfortunately. By the end they were all seriously out of date.
Yes, it occurred to me when looking at a 1949 "Shoebox" Ford a few years ago that it wasn't really all that different than any modern sedan of over half a century later. Only the split flat glass windshield makes it look like it's from a different era. Ford knew how to do a one piece curved one by then (Lincoln Cosmo) but I guess that was a budget and production decision.
I once did some "photoshopping" with scissors and tape, putting a 1952 Hudson Grille on a Dodge Magnum picture. I also put cut-out graphics of the "Fabulous Hudson New Hornet". I always thought that Chrysler, which owns the Hudson name should have done a 'concept' car as
I did. It would have cost a couple of thousand dollars and gotten some publicity for the company. The Magnum always looked to me like a modern version of the Hudson Stepdown.
Post a Comment