1993 Bugatti EB112 by Giugiaro

The car pictured above in front of the abandoned Automobili Bugatti factory in Campogalliano, Italy, near Modena, is the second of three Bugatti EB112s.  Some background on the EB112 is here, and on that car is here.

The iconic Bugatti brand name tempted revival more than once following the original firm's demise not long after World War 2.  The brand is now part of Volkswagen's portfolio, and production Bugattis are supercars that I find difficult to relate to.

The other serious revival took place around 1990.  A factory was built, engines designed, and Giorgetto Giugiaro of Italdesign was hired to create the styling.  A prototype car was completed in 1993, before the Bugatti firm foundered.  During liquidation, parts for more cars were bought by Gildo Pallanca Pastor of Monaco and used for creation of two more cars that were completed around the year 2000.  One of these was sold early 2002 for what must have been a substantial price.

I'm not sure about sources for the images in this post.  A few are likely from Italdesign, others are from Schaltkulisse, the Munich firm dealing with the sale of the No. 2 car.  But there might be other sources as well.

Gallery

It is likely that the body was windtunnel-tested.  The traditional Bugatti horseshoe grille design is retained, though aligned with the frontal shape of the hood.

The crease along the centerline of the car harkens to the famous Bugatti 57SC Atlantic.  It extends across the backlight window, fading to the Bugatti logo on the trunk lid.

Front view, where the horseshoe grille predominates, due to its chrome trim and the lack of chrome elsewhere.  This is the for-sale car.  The car in the previous two images is owned by Italdesign or its successor, so far as I know.

The theme is rounded shapes, unlike the angular designs Giugiaro created in the 1970s.

The roofline is rather high at the rear, but not too high, as in the unfortunate case of the 2010 Porsche Panamara.

The fastback curve reminds me of 1940s General Motors designs, though it lacks the sleeker boat-tail plan profile of those cars.

Giorgetto Giugiaro with his creation.  It's a nice design, and with its V-12 motor it had the ingredients of a successful car (though competition in that price-prestige bracket has always been fearsome).

The Most Attractive Chrysler Airflow?

Chrysler's mid-1930s Airflow line is generally regarded as being somewhat ugly-looking ... maybe even seriously ugly-looking.  I never thought they were attractive, but am starting to change my mind a little.

I'm convinced that perception of beauty is subjective.  And my mind seems to be wired such that I find it difficult to proclaim something as being best or worst.  ("What was the best thing you saw on your last European vacation" is a question I almost always can't answer.  I tend to think of gradations more than absolutes.  Maybe that's due to my super-fancy gold-plated Ivy League grad school training.  Or mental laziness.)

This leads to Chrysler Corporation automobile stylist and styling historian Jeff Godshall (who I wrote about here) and his assessment as to the most attractive Airflow.  It can be found in Volume 23, No. 4 (April 1994) of Automonbile Quarterly, an issue devoted to Chrysler Corporation.  In his article "Form, Function and Fantasy: Seventy Years of Chrysler Design" he stated:

"My own personal favorite was the [1934] Airflow Imperial Eight Series CV five-passenger coupe, whose radically sloped rear deck concealed the spare tire ...."

Let's consider that, along with one or maybe two other Airflows that I currently like a bit better than his choice.  Feel free to disagree with one or both of us.

Gallery

1934 Chrysler CV Imperial Airflow Coupe - Revs Institute photos
Here is Godshall's favorite.  Definitely nicer looking than the bulky Airflow sedans and any of the stubby '34 DeSoto Airflows built on the short 115.5 inch (2934 mm) wheelbase.  The CV's wheelbase was 128 inches (3251 mm).

1935 Chrysler C1 Airflow Coupe - Mecum Auctions photos
My current favorite is this 1935 model built on a 123 inch (3124 mm) wheelbase.  Although stylists and critics such as myself usually prefer the first, pre-facelift version of a new body design, I've recently begun to think that the 1935 Airflow facelifts were better looking than the original design.  Although the rounded-down noses of 1934 Airflows was probably more pure aerodynamically, the longer hoods and stronger grilles on the facelifted 1935 models made them aesthetically superior.

1934 Chrysler CV Imperial Airflow Coupe - RM Sotheby's Auctions photo
Rear quarter view of a CV coupe with that fastback feature that Godshall (and I) like.

As seen on the C1 coupe.

Now for the important side-view evaluation.  This '34 CV Imperial's wheelbase is five inches (127 mm) longer than the '35 C1's.  This greater length was manifested in the zone between the door's after cutline and the rear fender.  The result was a longer, larger passenger compartment.  And a comparatively stubbier hood and front end.

The 1935 C1's passenger compartment is visibly smaller (just compare the aft side window lengths and vent pane break lines).  I usually like long-looking hoods, and so this this C1 is better proportioned than the CV by that metric.  Though I wonder if the hood might be a trifle too long.

1934 Chrysler C1 Airflow Coupe - Worldwide Auctioneers photo
Here's the '34 version.  The hood seems a bit too short.  Should I call it a toss-up between the two versions?

1937 Chrysler C17 Airflow Coupe - car-for-sale photo
This final-year Airflow coupe is not an Imperial, but is built on the same 128 inch wheelbase body platform as the 1934 Imperial Coupe shown in the comparisons above.  I include this image because it shows that body with a longer hood and a fairly attractive, conventional (for the time) grille.  That longer hood better balances the longer passenger compartment mass than the '34 Imperial coupe's does.  And the more substantial body could be a little more attractive than that of the '35 C1 coupe.  So just maybe this was the best-looking Airflow of all (though I'm still inclined to favor the 1935 C1 coupe due to its grille's backwards slant).

What do you think?

John J. Chika 1940-Vintage Styling Sketches at Chrysler Corporation

John J. Chika was an automobile stylist active from around 1940.  His career began at Chrysler Corporation.  Then around 1945 he led the styling section for the Kaiser brand, leaving in 1947, about a year after production began.  After that, he worked for General Motors.

Given that track record, it seems that he was respected in the industry.  Yet his early drawings are not very impressive.  Some of these can be found in the book "Imagine! Automobile Concept Art From the 1930s to the 1980s" by Patrick G. Kelley, featuring renderings from his collection.

Three of the drawings shown below are via that book, and others are images found on the Internet.

Click on the images to enlarge.

Gallery

This was made in 1941.  Note that perspective is distorted, the rear part of the car seemingly being twisted towards us.  Might that have been done on purpose, so as to better show side features?  Or did Chika simply not understand perspective well at that stage of his career.  The concept reminds me of the 1948 Hudson.  Details of note are a wraparound windshield (not seen on production cars until the mid-1950s) and what might be a tail fin (later '50s).

A 1940 drawing.  The band running around the car is similar to those seen on some Chrysler Corporation styling clays that I wrote about here and here.

Another in the same apparent series.  The lower body is not tall enough -- stylists then and later often used a good deal of distortion.

This 1941 drawing is a design for Dodge.  Once more, a lot of distortion.  Ignoring that, one can see a fenderline/beltline treatment similar to a blend of Chrysler and GM features circa 1949.

A 1940 DeSoto drawing, according to the word in the grille area.  That bulge above the bumper is similar to that found on 1942 Lincolns.  Another sign that China's thinking was in line with styling ideas percolating at that time elsewhere than Chrysler.

 
Another 1940 DeSoto proposal, this showing a grille concept not far removed from that of DeSoto's 1942 design.  This drawing is much better than the others in terms of realistically depicting a potential automobile design.

2002 Ford Thunderbird Walkaround

Like the original 1955 Ford Thunderbird, the 2002 final generation model seated only the driver and one passenger.  All other Thunderbirds were at least four-place.

The 2002 car was "Retro" in that while it had a wind tunnel tested shape, ornamentation cues came from the original, non-aerodynamic design.  Unfortunately, sales were below expectation.

I thought the 2002 Thunderbird was attractively styled, its shape more coherent than was the '55 model that in some respects was a scaled-down version of a 1955 Ford convertible.  Today's post presents a walkaround of a '02 T-bird for your viewing enjoyment.

Images below are via Bring a Trailer auctions.

Gallery

BMW From Prewar 326 to Postwar 501

A while ago I wrote about BMW's first postwar design, Type 501 (Wikipedia entry here).  501s were in production 1952-1962, and variations using the same body design were made as late as 1963.

Post- World War 2 military occupation policies along with the shattered German economy delayed serious production of cars for all manufacturers.  But BMW was especially affected because prewar, its carmaking facilities were in Eisenach in a part of central Germany that fell under Soviet control under terms of  the occupation zone agreement.  The Munich BMW essentially had to start from scratch, while Eisenach could build available prewar designs.

Stylistically, the 501s bear some superficial resemblance to two prewar models.  The main predecessor was the (1936-1941) Typ 326.  It was supplemented (1939-1943) by Typ 335, that had a longer wheelbase and a more powerful motor.

One likely reason for a slight similarity of the prewar and postwar designs was that they were styled by the same man, Peter Schimanowski.

Gallery

1936 BMW 326 Limousine - Swiss Auction Co. photos
Germans used the term "Limousine" to refer to what Americans call sedans and the British call saloons.  Schimanowski's design has an airier-looking passenger compartment greenhouse than contemporary American sedans.  That's because American cars were "all-steel" construction that at the time required heavier B- and C-pillars and more rounded window profiles.  As best I can tell, 326 bodies used earlier technology.  The hood houses an inline six cylinder motor, yet is fairly short and a trifle delicate compared to the rest of the design.

1958 BMW 502 Limousine - Gallery Aaldering photos
BMW 501s and 502s looked nearly identical, and I'm using this photo set because it's better than any of my 501 sets.  The difference between the designs is that early 501s lacked the chrome strip running below the beltline.

The main stylistic carryover from the 326 is the side window profile, especially the window abaft of the C-pillar.  The 501/502 cars look noticeably longer that the 326s, but their wheelbase is shorter: 111.6 inches (2835 mm) compared to 113 inches (2870 mm).  They're less tall,  60 inches (1530 mm) versus 61 inches (1540 mm), which adds a little visual length.  However, due to greater overhang, the 501/502s are indeed a little longer than the 326s - 186 inches (4730 mm) compared to 180 inches (4600 mm).  That greater overhang allowed a longer hood that added some visual length to 501/502s.

Some of the sculpting related to the rear fender area is in the same spirit.  But aside from the side window treatment, the designs are clearly of different eras.

Peter Schimanowski layout drawing for BMW 326 Limousine - image via BMW
Like the pioneering 1934 Chrysler Airflow, rear seating is forward of the aft axle, resulting in greater ride comfort.

BMW 501 Limousine publicity photo for a Scandinavia market (cropped)
That's a SAS DC-6 in the background.  The 501/502 BMWs seem large when pictured alone, but the people in this image give scale revealing that the cars weren't big at all.

Airflow Coupes in Three Wheelbases

Chrysler Corporation's Airflow design, launched for the 1934 model year, included many features advanced for its time.  One was an early type of unitized body, unlike the normal (in those days and for the next 20 or so years) body-on-chassis construction.  Such bodies, due to their integration, are usually more expensive to modify than non-unitized bodies.

That said, Chrysler offered Airflows on five different wheelbases for 1934.  The shortest was 115.5 inches (2934 mm) on DeSoto Airflows, the longest was 146 inches (3708 mm) on Chrysler CW Imperial Custom Eight Airflows, of which only 67 were built that year and 32 for 1935, after which that wheelbase was dropped.   I wrote about varying-length Airflows here.

Today's post deals with coupe-body Airflows that had more of a "fastback" profile than Airflow sedans.  Such coupes were marketed as DeSotos, regular Chryslers, and line-topping Chrysler Imperials.  Each was built on a different wheelbase.  Body engineering needed to vary so as to accommodate the various wheelbase lengths.

Gallery

1934 Chrysler CU Airflow Sedan - factory photo
Reference photo: This was the standard, best-selling, 1934 Airflow.

1934 DeSoto SE Airflow Coupe - Mecum Auctions photo
Wheelbase: 115.5 inches (2934 mm).  This coupe body (abaft of the hood) was used on DeSotos and regular Chrysler Airflows as shown in the image below.  DeSoto Airflows featured short front ends (forward of the cowling), and therefore looked stubby altogether.  Note that DeSotos were powered by inline six cylinder motors whereas Chrysler Airflow engines were inline eights, so differing hood lengths were somewhat justified.

1936 Chrysler C9 Airflow Coupe - Gooding Auctions photo
Wheelbase: 123 inches (3124 mm).  The longer wheelbase was accommodated by lengthening the front (this '36 model has a longer prow than the '34s shown here).  Compare the distance between the door's forward cutline and the fender in this photo and in the previous one.  The design has better balance and is more attractive.

1934 Chrysler CV Imperial Airflow Coupe - Revs Institute photo
Wheelbase: 128 inches (3251 mm).  Imperial Airflows had the same cutline-fender relationship seen in the image above.  The longer wheelbase was dealt with by lengthening the passenger compartment between the door's aft cutline and the rear fender.  The dark paint on this car makes it a bit hard to see door cutlines, but the greater length of the after side window is clearly seen.

1934 DeSoto Airflow sedan body structure
This shows the unitized body on the short DeSoto wheelbase.

1934 Chrysler Imperial Airflow sedan body structure
And here is a longer-wheelbase version.  Perhaps being new to unitized construction, Chrysler Corporation body engineers were not very aware of cost requirements for altering framing.  As can be seen, the structure here lacks a fair amount of commonality with that shown for the DeSoto.

1993 Designs for Two Attempted Brand Re-Creations

The original Bugatti company failed a few years after World War 2.  In the late 1980s a revival attempt was made.  A factory was built.  Engineering was worked on to near-completion.  A famous design firm was hired to create a prototype sedan, and one car was built.  Then the company went broke in 1995 before production could begin.  The Bugatti brand was later acquired by Volkswagen.

In that general time-frame, Aston Martin, then owned by Ford, explored reviving its Lagonda brand.   Again, a running prototype sedan was built.  And the project was abandoned so as to have Aston Martin focus on its own brand.  Later, Lagonda was revived for a few years.

Some parallels: Both automobile brands were strongly upscale.  One protoype sedan was built.  The stylists were highly qualified.  Those prototypes appeared in 1993, and therefore were influenced by the same design fashions and by the same state-of-the-art factors.

Some background on the Bugatti EB112 is here, and that on the Aston Martin Lagonda Vignale is here.   (The name Vignale, that of a former Italian coachbuilder, was owned by Ford, as was the Ghia coachbuilding firm that made the car.  I often wonder what folks in marketing departments are thinking.)

As for styling, the Bugatti was designed by the great Giogetto Giugiaro of Italdesign.  The Lagonda's exterior design was by Moray Callum, who later held important styling positions at Ford.

Besides both being sedans, the cars were of similar size.  Wheelbases were 122 inches (3100 mm) for the Bugatti and 122.75 inches (3118 mm) for the Lagonda.

Now let's take a look.  Images below are mostly from the carmakers, coachbuilders, or a firm selling an EB112 built from leftover parts.

Gallery

Bugatti EB112
One of two cars completed after Bugatti folded.  Note the traditional Bugatti horseshoe-shaped grille, here blended into the frontal streamlining.

Aston Martin Lagonda Vignale
Oddly, the Lagonda's grille appears to be a flipped version of the EB112's.  The only traditional Lagonda feature here is the vertical grille bars, not the shape of the frame.  I'm pretty sure Callum was unaware of what Giugiaro was doing in terms of grille design.

EB112 side view.

Lagonda side view.  The Bugatti has a higher aft passenger compartment greenhouse profile than Lagonda's.  The latter features a mild, quasi- notchback shape suggestive of traditional British early postwar saloon (sedan) styling.  The clean fenderline and  smooth sides recall Gerald Palmer's 1953-1957 Riley Pathfinder that I wrote about here.

The EB112 is actually 1.7 inches (43 mm) shorter than the Lagonda, but seems more massive from this viewpoint.  A crease runs down the centerline of the top, creating a two-piece backlight window.  This crease was a gesture to the famous Bugatti 57SC Atlantic design.

Logonda's aft styling, harkening to traditions, yields what looks like less luggage space than the Bugatti's.

Closer look at rear end styling.

Both designs are far simpler than today's fashion.  The Lagonda looks very English from this perspective -- the smoothness, the 1947-size backlight window, the UK-size license plate framing.  Bumper protection seems questionable, and would have been upgraded for production cars.  The tail light assembly extending abaft from the side trim strip is a nice touch.
To summarize, the Bugatti's styling is more contemporary-international (with gestures to Bugatti iconography), whereas the Lagonda's is a clever harking to traditional English design, yet conforming to the emerging aerodynamic standards of 1993.  Aside from the curious grille-inversion feature, I find the Lagonda's styling more interesting (though perhaps less attractive) than the Bugatti's.