France's "Big Three" Styling Variations 1937

In the late 1930s automobile manufacturers were largely concentrated in five countries: United States, England, Germany, France and Italy in descending order of production.

France, like the USA, had three dominant carmakers plus a number of lesser firms.  Unlike America in those days, styling offerings by those companies -- Renault, Citroën and Peugeot -- was notably varied, also true for most French competitors.  I posted "Styling Variety: 1930s French Cars" here.

The present post focuses on berlines (4-door sedans) listed in the 20,000-22,000 francs range, a step up from entry-level.  The Renault is the Primaquatre, Wikipedia entry here.  The Citroën is the 11 CV Légère, general Traction Avant entry here.  Finally the Peugeot is the short-lived model 302, entry here.

The Gallery below presents three-views of each example plus single views of contemporary American "Big Three" models, illustrating styling variability or its lack.

Gallery

1939 Renault Primaquatre Sport Berline - car-for-sale photos
Renault was France's leading carmaker in terms of production.  Styling of most models, including the one pictured here, was the most conventional in the context of its time.  I have trouble finding usable images of many French cars, so this 1939 model will have to represent one from 1937.  The main difference seen here is the grille.

1937 Citroën 11 BL Légère Berline - RM Sotheby's Auctions photos
The basic Citroën Traction Avant design appeared for the 1934 model year, so some details were already old-fashioned by 1937.  On the other hand, its front wheel drive feature permitted a lower-to-the-ground body, creating a racy appearance difficult for conventional rear wheel drive competitors to match.  Note the lack of a running board, radical for 1934.

1937 Peugeot 302 Berline - Bonhams Auctions and car-for-sale photos
Peugeots have tended to feature conservative styling.  But that was not the case in the late 1930s on its xx2 models.  The most radical feature is the Chrysler Airflow- like front end with Peugeot's own positioning of the headlights behind the grille.  Also no external running board.

1930s French cars often featured beltlines that fell off to the rear, as can be seen here.  All three cars shown here have doors hinged on B-pillars.  Related to that, the C-pillar zones are wide.  The attached trunk is the other main 1939 feature.

The low profile slightly exaggerates the already large height of the windows.  Front wheel drive places the grille at about the same point as the front axle line; late '30 cars were tending to have grilles moved forward, as can be seen in the Renault image above.

Profile is similar to the 1934 Chrysler Airflow, though lower and more streamlined than the CU sedans.  Also similar are the spatted rear wheel openings and their winged decorations.

As mentioned, the trunk was added for 1939.  Citroëns began to get such trunks model year 1951.  Note the Renault's large for its time, one-piece backlight window.

I don't have a left-facing rear view photo of this car: sorry.  Again, note the proportionally massive passenger compartment greenhouse.  The lower body and fenders seem more fragile by comparison.

Rear styling is similar to that to 1934 Chrysler CU Airflow 2-door coupés, aside from the exposed spare tire cover.
For some context, below are three 1937 sedans from America's leading carmakers. Their styling is more uniform than what was pictured above.

1937 Chevrolet Master Deluxe - car-for-sale photo
General Motors was the styling leader in those days, so competitors tended to follow its lead.

1937 Plymouth De Luxe - car-for sale photo
Chrysler's entry level Plymouth's styling is in the same general vein as GM's entry-level Chevrolet's, as seen above.

1937 Ford DeLuxe - car-for-sale photo
Fords were more individualistic, perhaps because Henry Ford did not like to copy competing cars' features such as inline-six cylinder engines and independent front suspensions.  He wasn't much interested in styling, a domain of his son Edsel.  The individuality here is front end styling.  Note the headlights blended into the fender-hood catwalks instead of free-standing as on the other cars.  All told, less individuality here than on the contemporaneous French cars.

Chrysler's New 1976 "Compacts" Look A Lot Like The Previous Ones

This post deals with yet another seeming instance of a new design retaining elements of the superseded design, Chrysler Corporation's 1976 compact entries, the Plymouth Volaré and Dodge Aspen (Wikipedia entry here).

Setting the scene, Chrysler was in marketing and financial trouble as the 1970s got underway.  The hemmings.com article "What In The Heck Was Going On With Chrysler in the 1970s?" covers many aspects of Chrysler's trouble during that time.  Regarding the Aspen and Volaré:

"Designed to replace the A-body line and to entice B-body buyers who were ready to downsize, the F-body Dodge Aspen and Plymouth Volaré lines were introduced in mid-1976 as the A-bodies took their final bow.  Chrysler had been busy since the “Aspen/Vail” project was green-lit in 1971 and the company had put in large efforts to ensure that their compact replacements would be winners.  The company wind-tunnel tested the F-car extensively for many reasons, including crosswind stability and wind noise reduction as well as for fuel economy purposes.  The glass area was increased to leave interiors feeling vibrant.  A new front suspension system using transverse-mounted torsion bars, was employed.  Weight was shed.  Chrysler made a genuine effort making the F-bodies as good as they could be and when early cars hit the market, it initially seemed like the company scored a hit."

Sales were good in model years 1976 and 1977.  But during that period a number of quality issues developed, resulting in extra expenses and a down turn in sales as the quality problem word spread.

"By early 1978, Chrysler had spent nearly $200 million recalling and fixing Aspens and Volarés.  The durable, economical and fun compact reputation that the A-body (Dart/Duster) had was lost as irritated customers found themselves in the unenviable position as Chrysler’s beta testers."

Interesting, all that engineering effort.  But what about styling effort?  I can't think of a strong reason to design replacement models that look pretty similar to what was being replaced.  Were I in management, I would have opted for a fresh design with only a few hints of continuity with the previous models.

In the Gallery below, pre- and post- redesign four-door Plymouth sedans and sporty coupes are compared via side views.  Dodge equivalents would have been similar, so are omitted.

Gallery

1968 Plymouth Valiant 4-door sedan - car-for sale photo
This is an example of the third-generation (1967-1973) Valiant design.

1974 Plymouth Valiant 4-foor sedan - car-for sale photo
The fourth generation (1974-1976) mainly had a longer (by 3 inches, 76mm) wheelbase.  Note the relationship of the rear door's aft cutline and the rear wheel opening on each design.  The lower side character line sculpting and rear wheel opening's profile are different.  The C-pillar is a bit wider here, and its aft edge straightened.  Otherwise, these side views seem essentially the same.

1976 Plymouth Volaré 4-door sedan - Raleigh Classic Car Auctions photo
The redesign.  Sedan wheelbase is 1.7 inches (43 mm) longer.  Fenderline and passenger compartment greenhouse nearly match.  Wheel openings and side sculpting/decoration differ, but these are less noticeable than the features just mentioned.

1971 Plymouth Duster - car-for sale photo
The sporty Duster coupe first appeared for the 1970 model year.

1976 Plymouth Volaré Road Runner Coupe - car-for sale photo
Duster's replacement.  Wheelbase grew only 0.7 inches (18mm).  Greater styling difference from the earlier coupe, but the proportions are similar.  The sense of the fenderline is preserved, which is okay.  The bold B-pillar is due to government rollover safety regulation.  This car's design is closer than the sedan's to being fresh, along with those carryover details.

1953 Plymouth in Context

Chrysler Corporation's first new post- World War 2 designs shared the same basic body for model years 1949-1952.  Then for 1953, Plymouths and Dodges were given new bodies while DeSoto and Chrysler were massively facelifted.

From what I've read here and there, it seems that the Corporation's leadership thought that the trend in car size would be to smaller vehicles.  So wheelbases of Plymouths were reduced from 118.5 inches (3010 mm) to 114 inches (2896 mm) on standard models.

Competing 1953 Chevrolets and Fords had 115-inch (2921 mm) wheelbases, but their overhangs and overall lengths were greater, especially the Ford's: 198 inches (5029 mm) versus 189 inches (4801 mm) for the new standard Plymouth's.  So size was indeed a potential appearance and sales consideration.

Plymouth production for 1953 was 662,515 and 399,900 for 1954.  The '53 figure was comparable to  some previous Plymouth numbers, so the new design was not a liability at first.  1954 saw an industry-wide fall-off, but Plymouth's decline was noticeably stronger than the average, as was that for the rest of the Chrysler Corporation line.  Since DeSoto and Chrysler were on a different basic body than Plymouth (and Dodge), I don't think 1953-54 Plymouth styling itself was the only decline factor.

The Gallery below has a brief comparison of 1953 Plymouth Cambridge coupes to comparable competing cars from Chevrolet, Ford and Studebaker (a lesser rival).  Most are from entry-level price lines, though there is a partial exception.  Also, a four-door Ford is displayed, though it shouldn't affect the comparison much.

Images below are of cars listed for sale or assumed so.

Gallery

1953 Plymouth Belvedere
I wrote about the grille design here.  This is Plymouth's top-of-the-line model, showing what potential buyers might consider.  Below are entry-level cars.

1953 Studebaker Champion
Studebakers were redesigned for 1953.  This two-door is more awkward looking than the company's sleek coupes that share its front end and side sculpting.

1953 Ford Mainline Fordor
Not a coupe, but aside from the rear door, styling features are the same.  Fords were redesigned for model year 1952.

1953 Chevrolet One-Fifty
The entry-level Chevrolet.  Like Studebaker and Plymouth, '53 Chevy's were given new bodies.  Not very fresh styling, with carryover features (such as the fender design) from the previous (1949-1952) generation.

1953 Plymouth Cambridge
This is a typical entry-level Cambridge coupe.  I lack useful views of this car, so a variation is pictured below.

1953 Plymouth Cambridge
This is indeed a entry-level Cambridge -- note the lack or chrome around the windshield, for instance.  But the side chrome trim is the same as on the more-upscale Cranbrook line.  The appearance is more rounded than the competing cars.

Not much front overhang -- less than on the other designs.  But rear overhang is similar to the others'.  Side sculpting (enhanced by chrome trim here) visually reduces slab-sides somewhat.  Like Ford and Chevrolet, front doors are free of sculpting, more economical to form the steel.

A simple design, the lack of trim gives the car a 1950s-60s European appearance from this viewpoint.  The passenger compartment top is more domed than the Ford's, Studebaker's, and even the Chevy's.  That makes the car seem more old-fashioned.  A flatter roofline, coupled with the nearly horizontal fenderline would have made for a slightly sleek design.

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.

Chrysler's Other 1950 Concept Car from Italy

Chrysler Corporation's first postwar "concept car" was the Plymouth XX-500 of 1950 that wasn't actually a true Concept Car.  I wrote about it here in 2015.

I put the term "concept car" in quotation marks because the design was never an attempt to test styling features for future production consideration.  Instead, its main purpose was the evaluation of the assembly skill of its Italian coachbuilder -- Carrozzieria Ghia.

Also evaluated at the same time was Pinin Farina, whose work was judged marginally less excellent than Ghia's.  As David Holls and Michael Lamm explain in their essential book "A Century of Automotive Style," page 192:

"Both coachbuilders received chassis through Chrysler's overseas branch, and both fabricated sample bodies on them.  [Chrysler chairman] Keller didn't care what the designs looked like, but he wanted [Virgil] Exner to compare Ghia's and Pinin Farina's craftsmanship and standards of quality."

Here is where things become complicated.  Some sources I've come across say that Chrysler supplied a design that both firms were to actualize, but that Ghia ignored that and built a car they designed.  Other sources claim that there was no directive from Chrysler, each coachbuilder doing its own thing.  Perhaps documentation exists in old Chrysler Corporation archives that would clear up this matter from 75+ years ago.  Absent that, all I can do is speculate.  I do that below in captions for images of Pinin Farina's design.

Gallery

Here is the Pinin Farina car seen parked on a street, probably in the Detroit area.

It's occupied by what appears to be a family doing weekend shopping or some other ordinary activity.  I'll speculate that Chrysler was going to have the car trashed -- a fairly common fate of concept cars in those days, and the driver might have been a worker at the trashing facility, taking it out for one last spin.  Another speculation is that he works for Chrysler in some capacity and was able to borrow the car from a corporate motor pool for the day.

A Pinin Farina rendering of the design done in the exaggerated style used in Italy in those days.  Might this mean that the design is Farina's, and not Chrysler's?  Note the two-piece windshield here, and that the actual car's windshield is one-piece.

Now for some photos taken in Turin by the coachbuilder.

Here is where the design gets interesting in terms of its source.  The image below is of the grille design on 1951 and 1952 Dodge cars.  Note the segment above the main, bold horizontal chrome bar.  It includes five vertical "teeth."  The Pinin Farina grille also features a bold horizontal bar with an above-segment with three such "teeth."  Does this mean that the design was Chrysler's, where the Dodge grille design  was already slated for production and included in the package sent to Italy?  Or was Farina informed of that future Dodge design detail?  The Plymouth XX-500 by Ghia was first shown to the public on 17 March 1951 at the opening of the Chicago Auto Show.  This was a month or so after 1951 Dodges were announced to the public.  The two Italian cars were probably completed at least half a year or so before that.  So it is unlikely that Pinin Farina came up with the Dodge grille concept in time to influence the production design.  Therefore, it's almost certain that the grille design concept came from Chrysler one way or another.  But the source of the overall design Pinin Farina built remains unclear, as best I can tell.

A 1952 Dodge Cranbrook hardtop coupe.