Making a Hash From Nash

Early in 1954 the Hudson Motor Car Company and Nash-Kelvinator Corporation merged to become American Motors Corporation, a firm that continued in business for another 34 years.

This merger was not between equal partners, being essentially a takeover of Hudson by the Nash organization.  The Hudson design dating back to the 1948 model year was abandoned, and 1955 Hudsons were based on the Nash body design introduced for 1952; this link discusses that model year's Hudsons.

Creation of a Nash-based Hudson design was a crash project.  Most American car companies announced their 1955 models in the autumn of 1954, but there wasn't time to style and implement what amounted to a Nash facelift in that time frame.  I suspect the team working on the task did well by getting '55 Hudsons launched early in 1955.

Gallery

1954 Hudson Hornet - Barrett-Jackson auction photo
Hudsons were given a noticeable facelift just before the merger with Nash; I discussed the design here.  The grille design was a departure from a theme used since 1950, but was not carried over for 1955 even though it might have been.

1954 Nash Statesman - sales photo
This shows a pre-merger Nash.  Its basic design served as the basis for facelifted 1955 Nashes as well as for 1955 Hudsons.

1955 Nash Ambassador
General Motors introduced panoramic or "wraparound" windshields on all Oldsmobiles, Buicks and Cadillacs for 1954.  Most other car makers, including American Motors, responded with their own versions for 1955.  The basic Nash body was retained, but besides the new windshield the facelift included a new grille/headlamp ensemble, reshaped front fenders and revised character lines on the sides.  The front wheel cutout was slightly enlarged, but this did nothing to relieve the slab-sided appearance.

1955 Hudson publicity material
Here is a partial view of the grille design along with material related to features inherited from Nash.  According to this book, that design was similar to what Hudson stylists had been considering for a facelift prior to the creation of American Motors.

1955 Hudson Wasp
The Wasp was Hudson's lower-priced model, but its styling was essentially that same as that of the top-of-the-line Hornet.  The main difference was Hornet's cowling to front axle line distance was slightly greater.

1955 Hudson Wasp advertising photo
Hudson retained the headlight placement of '54 Nashes.  Besides the grille and front fenders, the main differences from '55 Nashes were in the side character line and chrome trim and, especially, the large wheel cut-outs that largely eliminated the Nash's heavy, slab-sided look.

1955 Hudson Wasp - sales photo
A view featuring the rear.  The rounded forward edges of the backlight represent another slight change from Nash.

Hudsons for 1955 were stuck with Nash's bulky basic body.  But the hurried facelift resulted in a fairly pleasing result given the circumstances.  Unfortunately, Hudsons now were pretty obviously Nashes despite their disguise, and this probably did not help sales, which were around 20,000 units.  Worse were the facelifts given Hudson for the 1956 and 1957 model years, the latter I discussed here.

And why did I used the word "Hash" in the title of this post?  It's because that's a term some people applied to Nash-based Hudsons in those days; think Hudson+Nash = Hash.  The word "hash" has more than one meaning, at least for American speakers.  One has to do with a type of food that is a combination of bits of meat and bits of other ingredients -- something that might imply the Nash-Hudson mix.  Another meaning has to do with making a mix of things that yield an unfortunate result, as in the phrase "they made a hash of it."  That also might apply to American Motors' attempt to keep the Hudson brand alive.

Not-Quite Badge Engineering: Audi Fox, VW Dasher

Classical "badge engineering" usually is a matter of taking a basic car platform and extending it over more than one brand by varying a small number of styling details to provide a smidgen of differentiation.  The present post presents a case where a platform (Volkswagen's B1) was altered at the rear for Audi and VW variants, so changes were not as minimal as they might have been.

The cars in question are the Audi 80 Fox (1972-78), details here, and the Volkswagen Passat / Dasher (1973-81), Wikipedia entry here.  The names "Fox" and "Dasher" were used in America for marketing purposes.

The Audi design is a clean, classical 1970s "three box" theme featuring large amounts of glass.  The main aesthetic flaw so far as I'm concerned is that the wheels are too small.

The VW version is a 5-door "hatchback" with sail panels providing a fastback feeling.  I'm not certain of this, but it looks like the backlight windows are the same for the Fox and Dasher, keeping costs down.  The only other visible differences besides the sail panels and fifth door are the brand symbol ensembles on the grilles.

Although styling was basically well done, I wasn't totally pleased with my Dasher (yes, I actually bought a 1974 model) due to valve problems in the motor.

Gallery

Audi 80 "Fox" - ca. 1974

Volkswagen B1 "Dasher" - ca. 1974
I owned a '74 Dasher that looked like the ones shown in the first two VW photos.

DeSoto's First Hardtop Convertible

A while ago I wrote about General Motors' first generation of hardtop convertibles -- convertible-like bodies to which a steel roof with a panoramic backlight ensemble was added.  Shortly after, I presented examples of hardtops introduced by competitors in reaction to the popularity of the GM design.

One competitor I didn't mention because it was similar to other Chrysler Corporation hardtops was the 1950 DeSoto Custom Sportsman.  Since then, I came across a nice set of sales-related photos of the DeSoto that provide a fairly comprehensive study of the design.

Here they are:

Gallery

1950 DeSoto Custom Sportsman - sales photos
Viewed from the perspective of 65 years after it appeared, DeSoto's Sportsman hardtop is a fairly attractive car.  Yes, it has plenty of chrome on the grille and rear fender rock guards, but otherwise is restrained from an ornamentation standpoint.  What these photos tend to hide is the fact that 1949-52 model year DeSotos and other Chrysler Corporation cars had a heavy, boxy look when seen in person due in part to their actual size as well because of their styling.

1950 Pontiac Catalina - auction photo
I include this photo of a contemporary General Motors hardtop to illustrate the previous point.  The Pontiac has a more graceful basic body shape.  Its curved, two-piece windshield added a touch of modernity that the flat windshield panes of the DeSoto lacked.  Although the design differences between these two cars might appear small to us in 2015, back in 1950 when the cars were new, the DeSoto and its siblings had an old-fashioned air about them when compared to their sleeker rivals.

Styling the Revived Camaro

Out of production for the better part of a decade, the Chevrolet Camaro sporty car was re-introduced for the 2010 model year.  Given that hiatus, the matter of selecting a styling theme was a matter of more complexity than usual.

To set the scene, let's first consider the original Camaro from 1967.  My information source is Michael Lamm's book, "The Great Camaro," 1979 printing.

1967 Camaro advertisement

1968 Chevy II Nova

It seems that for reasons of economy, the 1967 Camaro was developed concurrently with the 1968 Chevy II using General Motors' F Platform.  The 1967 Pontiac Firebird was added later in the development process to add production volume.  An important result of this was the sharing of the cowling structure which made the Camaro's hood a trifle taller than stylists preferred.  Another shared component was the front-end frame clip that made the distance from the front axle line to the front door shorter than desired for the Camaro.

Camaro: Second Three Generations

1970 1/2 Camaro - brochure photo
Lamm (page 98) comments:"William Mitchell [then head of General Motors styling] likes to say that the first generation Camaro ended up being designed by committee, while the second became a designer's design.... The first generation (1967-69) had to compromise its shape to some extent by sharing the 1968 Nova's cowl and front subframe. Not so the second generation, which became an all-new body, not compromised in any way."

Second-generation Camaros were indeed well-styled by Henry Haga's Chevrolet design group with considerable input from Bill Porter's Pontiac team (because the Pontiac Firebird shared the same basic body).  The only strong criticism I can muster is that it looked too elegant to play the "muscle car" role staked out by its Ford Mustang and Dodge Challenger competition.

1982 Camaro
Another nice design.  The change in the slant of the aft part of the side windows give this Camaro a more solid visual stance than the pervious model had.  Now Camaro has more of a "performance car" appearance.

1993 Camaro
The fourth-generation Camaro appeared when GM styling featured aerodynamic blobs that were sparsely-ornamented.  It lasted through the 2002 model year.
During the years immediately before its 2009 bankruptcy, General Motors' management decided to revive the Camaro.  Two major considerations were (1) the platform it would be based on, and (2) its styling.

As for styling, previous Camaros had no strongly consistent visual theme, unlike Ford's Mustang.  GM stylists could have generated a new theme or might have borrowed from the 1970, 1982 or 1993 Camaros.

Instead, 1967 Camaro styling became the inspiration.

2006 Holden VE Commodore SS
In part, this had to do with the fact that it was decided to use GM's Zeta Platform that served as the basis for the Holden VE, shown above, and other GM cars, a situation somewhat similar to that of the original Camaro's relationship to the Chevy II.  The Holden was a compact design with short overhang, this essentially ruling out borrowing styling cues from the large-overhang 2nd- through 4th generation Camaros.

Still, stylists had the option of creating yet another new theme.  But they didn't, instead going back 40 years to the original Camaro.  Perhaps GM product planners and stylists felt that a consistent Camaro theme was needed, given Ford's long-term success with Mustang.  But forty years is a long time, and a significant share of potential Camaro buyers would not be very familiar with that shape signifying Camaro.  However, there was the fact that GM styling boss Ed Welburn was a fan of the original Camaro.  This General Motors web page dealing with Camaros has the following:

* * * * *First Generation – 1967-69 Ed Welburn, vice president of GM Global Design
Currently owns: 1969 Camaro

“The Camaro should not have been a design success, as it was based on an existing architecture and admittedly hurried to market to address the personal coupe revolution occurring with Baby Boomer customers,” said Welburn. “However, the first-generation Camaro delivered a pure, classic proportion that will forever be regarded as one of the best-looking cars of its time. It was very lean and muscular, with comparatively minor embellishments for high-performance models. That was in contrast to some of the brasher competitors during the muscle car era, and it has helped the first-generation Camaro maintain timeless good looks.”

The Camaro’s first generation lasted only three model years, but one stands out for Welburn: “The 1969 model is the iconic Camaro to me. From the dual-plane grille design and speed lines stamped into the fenders and doors, it was original and distinctive. It didn’t borrow from any other design and all these years later, it still looks fresh.”

Welburn’s design analysis highlights for the 1969 Camaro include:

Every effort was made to make it appear wider, sleeker and more muscular Character lines that trailed the wheel openings gave the car an aura of speed The rear fenders were pulled out, giving the car a wider, more muscular flair Dual-plane grille added visual interest to the nose and became a trademark of Camaro design Wide taillights, with body-color sheet metal between them, exaggerated the car’s width Simulated grilles forward of the rear fenders provided accent detail and became one of the 1969 Camaro’s focal styling cues Chevrolet-signature “cowl induction” power bulge hood signified the muscle beneath it, from high-revving Small Block V-8 to high-torque Big Block V-8 engines.

* * * * *So that awful, designed-by-committee initial Camaro became a design classic 40 years later.  Stepping back from the irony, 1967 Camaro styling was competently done.  Yes, the cowling was perhaps a little higher than what stylists in that era of long-and-low preferred.  And it did make the car seem a bit higher and narrower than the current ideal -- that was the impression I had in the fall of 1966 when first seeing a Camaro in a suburban Philadelphia Chevrolet showroom.  In the present era of taller crossover SUVs, the '67 Camaro's proportions seem just fine.

First and Fifth Generation Camaros Compared

1967 Camaro - Mecum auction photo

2010 Camaro
The two-part grille with that upper across-the-face slash is a current styling cliche and continues with the restyled 2016 Camaros that I will discuss in another post.

1967 Camaro - Mecum auction photo

2010 Camaro
Carryover details include the horizontal crease extending along the side from front to rear and the shape of the side windows.  Much of the rest is contemporary sculpting verging on overkill.

1967 Camaro

2010 Camaro
The quad taillight theme is another borrowing from 1967.

DeSoto's Miller Racer-Inspired Grilles

Until about 1931, American cars faced the world with flat-faced, vertical radiator/grilles.  The Cord L29, introduced in the summer of 1929, featured a V'd grille.  By 1931, a few other brands including Chrysler and Reo did the same.  Flat fronts were largely abandoned for the 1932 model year.

Most brands opted for V'd grilles, some shallow, others bolder.  Some such grilles remained vertical and others began to lean backwards.

One marque didn't take that route.  Chrysler's DeSoto featured curved grilles clearly inspired by some of  Harry Miller's famous racing cars.

Gallery

1925 Miller Junior 8 Special
I took this photo in 2012 at the LeMay automobile museum in Tacoma.  It features the distinctive Miller radiator/grille, the theme that apparently inspired DeSoto stylists.

1932 DeSoto
The photo presumably appeared in a DeSoto advertisement.  It clearly shows the similarity to Miller grilles -- closely spaced horizontal bars combined with three vertical bars.

1932 DeSoto
Another view of DeSoto's front.

1933 DeSoto
Windshields were tilted slightly backwards on 1932 DeSotos, and for 1933 the grilles did the same.  I suppose this was in response to the growing trend to aerodynamic-inspired style.  The following model year DeSoto went whole-hog aerodynamic, the entire line having Airflow bodies.

1933 DeSoto
Another view of the 1933 DeSoto, this taken in Nice, France.

For some reason, I've never liked those DeSoto curved grilles.  A possible reason is that since nearly all other 1932-33 American cars had grilles ranging from V'd to flat, angular appearance was the norm, so DeSoto's grille seemed strange by comparison.  But a more likely reason has to do with the fact that DeSoto bodies, while new for 1932, largely carried over the boxy, angular style of the 1920s to which was added the soft, rounded grille.  The grille also pushed farther forward than most V'd grilles and looked heavy thanks to its curved surface.

In sum, it unbalanced the overall design, making for a slightly nose-heavy look.

Some Thoughts on Rear Overhang Growth

E.T. "Bob" Gregorie, head of Ford styling from around the mid-1930s into the mid-1940s, had the following opinion regarding overhang (the parts of a car's body extending forward of the front axle line and aft of the rear axle line):

"I think the wheels belong as far fore and aft on a car as practical and as looks appropriate, not only for appearance but for what it does.  It gives a car a footing, a stance."

This was from an interview by C. Edson Armi in his book "The Art of American Car Design" (p. 239).

Current automobile design roughly follows this concept if the qualifying words "as practical" and "looks appropriate" are strongly emphasized.  Certainly the "wide track" placement of wheels close to the sides of a car helps to provide a firmer stance than was the case in Gregorie's Ford days and for many years after.  But cars with front-wheel-drive tend to have considerable front overhang due to engine placement.  In compensation, they usually don't have excessive rear overhang.  This is in contrast to some American rear-wheel-drive cars of the late 1950s and 1960s where front overhang was short, and there was plenty of rear overhang.

Now for some data.

To begin, let's consider the length of a car's overall (both front and rear) overhang expressed as a percentage of its length.  For various Chevrolet Impala models, we find the following percentages: 1958, 42.4%; 1971, 45.5%; 1994, 45.9%; 2000, 44.8%; and 2014, 44.5%.  During most of the period covered, the overhang / length ratio was fairly steady even though Impalas were rear-wheel-drive until the 2000 model year switch to front-wheel-drive.  So, whereas the overall amount of overhang remained fairly constant, rear overhang lessened while front overhang grew.

I might deal with that in a future post.  But the subject here is rear overhang, something that became extreme on some cars by the late 1950s.  It got so extreme that the affected cars looked unbalanced, probably giving Bob Gregorie fits during many of his Florida semi-retirement years.

To illustrate this quantitatively, I'm using the rear overhang as a percentage of the length.  I also include the total overhang / length percentage for a kind of context.

Data are approximate because I took measurements from photographs, and those are potentially subject to lens-based distortion.  So the percentages presented below are rounded to the nearest whole percent, and should be regarded as indicative and not precise.  The images below are not necessarily the ones I used for measurements; some of those photos were found in my collection of automobile books.

Gallery

1932 Chevrolet
Total overhang as % of length = 28; rear overhang as % of length = 17.
Bumpers were not counted in car length.  This Chevrolet is fairly typical of American cars before streamlining and placement of the back seat ahead of the rear axle became the norm.  The numbers are probably very close to the absolute minimum.

1935 Chevrolet Master De Luxe
Total overhang as % of length = 30; rear overhang as % of length = 19.
Bumpers are not counted in car length because they are separated from the car body.  Rear overhang and overall overhang increase from the baseline data above.

1941 Pontiac Custom Torpedo
Total overhang as % of length = 38; rear overhang as % of length = 23.
Again, bumpers are not counted in car length.  Overhang continues to increase.

1954 Buick Super 4-door sedan
Total overhang as % of length = 39; rear overhang as % of length = 24.
Starting here I include bumpers as part of the length, as they are closely related to the body unlike the tacked-on bumpers of the earlier examples.  Rear overhang of this Buick is about the same as that for the '41 Pontiac, but front overhang increased, dropping the wheelbase/ length ratio further.

1958 Buick Limited Riviera 2-door
Total overhang as % of length = 44; rear overhang as % of length = 29.
Here is an extreme example of rear overhang that creates the unbalanced appearance noted above.  Rear overhang is about half the length of the wheelbase.

1954 Ford FX-Atmos concept
Total overhang as % of length = 49; rear overhang as % of length = 26.
By the 1950s, some stylists and styling executives were looking at jet fighter planes and science-fiction space ships as inspiration for future (and futuristic) car designs.  In design renderings, scale models and even full-size concept cars, wheels were secondary to the overall design, as was the case for Ford's Atmos, shown here.  This, and the dream cars shown below, lacked motors.  The Atmos' rear overhang was half the length of the wheelbase which, in turn, was half the vehicle's length.  We are a long way from the 1932 Chevrolet in the top image.

1955 Chrysler Ghia Gilda concept
Total overhang as % of length = 44; rear overhang as % of length = 25.
Extreme, but not quite as extreme dimensionally as the Atmos.

1964 General Motors Firebird IV concept
Total overhang as % of length = 48; rear overhang as % of length = 23.
Shown at the 1964 New York World's Fair.  The statistics are bit iffy due to the camera angle (I couldn't locate a clean side view), but this is probably the most extreme overhang example.  The lowest length / wheelbase percentage on a production car that I've calculated so far is 46.7 % for a 1974 Chrysler New Yorker.

Pontiac's Silver Streak 1935 Debut

Luxury or prestige automobile brands usually maintain continuity of certain styling details.  Entry-level brands are more likely to change styling themes fairly often, perhaps in an effort to appear "fresh" or "new."

Most often, continuity has to do with the grille which is a major element of the face a car presents to the world: think Rolls-Royce, Mercedes, BMW and others.  Sometimes other parts of a car are given styling continuity.  In recent years BMW has used the shape of rear side windows in this manner.

An earlier instance is the Pontiac "Silver Streak" brand-establishment motif used for model years 1935-1956, inclusive.  A short history is here, and I might write about how the streaks varied over time in a later post.

One factor in General Motors' success during the period 1925-65 was that a hierarchy of brands was established.  For most of that time it was Chevrolet, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick and Cadillac in that order from entry to luxury.  The concept was that a young adult buyer might start with a Chevrolet or Pontiac, then had a path within the GM lineup to buy more expensive cars as his income grew over time.  On the other hand, Ford offered nothing but inexpensive Fords and luxury Lincolns for most of the 1920s and 30s.

Silver Streaks gave the Pontiac line a measure of distinction during the many years when the brand was little more than a placeholder between Chevrolet and GM's more upscale marques.  Besides the Streaks, Pontiac also had eight-cylinder motors offered on some of its models whereas Chevrolet only had sixes.

The Silver Streak motif usually consisted of a set of parallel chromed ribs running along the hood from front to rear and a similar set running down the center of the trunk.  The initial 1935 version had the streaks cascading down over the grille with no streaks at all at the rear of the car.  This ornamentation recognition device proved highly successful, which was why it was retained for so many years.

Gallery

1935 Chevrolet at the Berger dealership in Grand Rapids, Michigan

1935 Oldsmobile

1935 Pontiac, actress Helen Twelvetrees
For 1935, General Motors introduced new, all-steel bodies (with no canvas inserts on their tops) for Oldsmobiles, Pontiacs and Master series Chevrolets.  As the images above indicate, the cars looked pretty similar, especially when viewed from the side.

1935 Pontiac ad card
Viewed from the front, those Silver Streaks made a huge difference.  Pontiacs became truly distinctive, never to be mistaken for a 1935 Chevy or Olds.

1935 Pontiac advertisement
This shows Pontiacs from more normal viewing angles.  Again, the Silver Streaks stand out.