1934 Chrysler Airflow Grille Up Close

Unsuccessful sales-wise in its day, the Chrysler Corporation Airflow continues to fascinate the design community, and not just automobile stylists.  Books and exhibits dealing with "Moderne" or "Art Deco" can include photos of Chrysler or DeSoto Airflows to help establish an early 1930s mood.

Books and web sites dealing with automobile design history -- including this one -- ignore Airflows at their peril.  For example, as of the time this was drafted, I'd featured Airflows here and here, as well as having another Airflow post besides this one written and awaiting future publication.

Airflow design was wind tunnel tested at the instigation of Carl Breer, a leading engineer who had the ear of Walter P. Chrysler.  Chrysler's styling section had been established in 1928, but was under the thumb of body engineering.  According to Lamm and Holls in "A Century of Automotive Style," stylists seemed to have been involved mostly with decorative aspects of 1934 Airflows: the design was essentially engineering-driven.

I want to focus here on the styling of the front end of the original, 1934, Chrysler Airflow.  It seems to have been a factor in the car's disappointing sales.  That's because Airflows for 1935 and succeeding years received more prominent, elevated grilles more in line with mid-1930s customer tastes.  For example, the second link, above, deals with the case of DeSoto Airflows and how Chrysler stylists tried to deal with problems created by the 1934 models.

Below are some photos I took a while ago at the National Automobile Museum in Reno Nevada. It is what remains of the huge Harrah collection.

Gallery

First, some stage-setting.  Above is a CU model, the archetypical Airflow.

Another 1934-vintage photo, this of the front end of the same car.  The dark rectangle is the opening to the radiator.  All those thin, vertical chromed bars serve to largely conceal the opening when viewed from other angles.  Now for my photos:

The subject is a 1934 Chrysler Airflow 5-Passenger Coupe wedged between a 1939 Mercury and a 1933 Studebaker.

Even from this nearly head-on angle, the opening cannot be seen -- though the black body color helps to camouflage.  Headlight assemblies are placed on the aerodynamically shaped nose of the car.  The Studebaker at the right of the image shows the sort of frontal designs potential Airflow customers were familiar with: the differences were shocking to many.

When not supported by sheet metal, the grille bars are attached to roughly horizontal metal frames at the upper and lower edges of the opening, allowing them to span the gap.

Chrysler symbolism included wings and a blue ribbon (first prize winner) enhancing the name badge.  The grille bars are attached to connective bits.  This is more evident in the photo below.

Closer view of the wings and badge.

Market Hierarchy-Based Trim Variations: 1950s USA

I touched on the matter here, and am now expanding on it.  Many automobile models have variations in price and prestige.  For example, my own model comes in three trim varieties, mostly having to do with the interior.  From the outside, these varieties are distinguished by the type of wheels and a few letters attached to the trunk lid.

At the other extreme, back in 1950s America during the fashion of elaborate two and even three color paint schemes and variations in chrome trim, the top and bottom of a brand's line were often easy to distinguish.  Despite my academic degree field, I'll do my best to avoid committing an act of sociology (being an apostate) to explain this.  From a strict automobile styling standpoint, the 50s was a time shortly after a strong, evolutionary trend had ended and styling staffs were groping (and failing to find) another evolutionary path.  See my book "Automobile Styling" for more detail.

This business of creating distinctions of price/prestige is a tricky one for manufacturers.  On the one hand, many buyers of top-of-the-line models enjoy being able to show off that they bought the best of the lot.  On the other, buyers of lesser models might feel a little unhappy that that other people can notice that their car isn't top-drawer for the brand.  So a certain amount of care needs to be taken to avoid loss of sales at either end of the continuum.  Of course, many buyers are not snobbish in this way; some are utilitarian in outlook and buy the model that best fits their budget and practical needs.

In today's automobile world, models of differing design within brands are what serve as price/prestige indicators.  Examples are letter-series Mercedes and number-series BMWs.

Returning to 1950s America, here are some examples of strong differences between models (though I must note that many brands' trim differences were more modest than what is shown below).

Gallery

1950 Chevrolet Styline Special Sport Coupe (for-sale photo).  Bottom of the line.  Exposed rubber windshield moldings and rubber rock guards on the rear fenders.  The chrome strip running along the top of the rear fender hid a cut-line, the fender panel being detachable on 1949 and 1950 Chevys.

The top of Chevrolet's 1950 line, the Bel Air hardtop (Barrett-Jackson photo).  Much more chrome trim can be seen here, though it isn't very gaudy.

1952 Ford Mainline Tudor.  Bits of rubber here and there like the Chevy shown above.  The only chrome trim on the sides is along the belt line.

The Customline Fordor.  Not much chrome, but enough to distinguish it from the almost totally-plain Mainline series.

1951 Hudson Pacemaker (for sale photo).  A thin chrome strip low on the body is the main bright side decoration.

The '51 Hudson Hornet in this for-sale photo features a chrome strip echoing the pressed character line along with a wide swath of chrome along the lower edge of the body.

1955 Chrysler Windsor DeLuxe Nassau hardtop, Mecum Auctions photo.  We are now well into the era of elaborate paint jobs set off by chrome trim.  But this entry-level hardtop lacks all of that.

Top of the line '55 Chrysler New Yorker DeLuxe St. Regis hardtop.  Aesthetically a few notches down from the Windsor, though it follows the function of proclaiming what it is.  Interestingly, the first Chrysler 300, introduced partway into the model year, had a clean side like that of the Windsor in the previous photo.

1955 Chevrolet One-Fifty Utility Sedan (for sale).  During the era of 1950s excess, we find this almost totally plain automobile.

1955 Chevrolet Bel Air hardtop at the other end of the line (Auctions America photo).

1956 Nash Rambler Super.  It isn't nearly as plain as the Chevy One-Fifty, having a swoopy two-tone paint scheme.  But it isn't nearly as elaborate as...

... the three-tone paint job on the line-leading Rambler Custom 4-door hardtop.

Finally, a 1958 Chevrolet Delray coupe.  Two-tone paint schemes were possible due to the chrome strip running along much of the side, though this car has only one color.  The color break at the front was via a small chrome piece linking the side strip with the top of the wheel opening.  This car lacks it, being monochrome.

This Bel Air sedan shares the side body stampings with the Delray, but uses a different trim design to proclaim its higher status.  It has the forward color divider above the wheel opening.

Chrysler's German Engineered, American Styled Crossfire

During the DaimlerChrysler AG era there were efforts made -- some strong, others not -- to share parts and engineering design between the German and American components of the organization.  An example of a Chrysler model with a great deal of German roots is the Crossfire, offered model years 2004-2008.

As the link mentions, it was essentially a Mercedes-Benz sports car with a body designed by Chrysler stylists and built by Karmann in Osnabrück.

Sales amounted to about 76,000, of which 61,000 were during its first two years in the market.  The first year, the Crossfire was offered in coupé form, and a cabriolet (marketed as "Roadster") was added for 2005.

Its styling theme might in part be classified as a 21st century take on the feeling of 1930s German industrial design.  Here I'm thinking of its fastback profile and the inverse ribbing on the hood.  Certainly not as 1930s Germany as the original Audi TT, however.  But the most striking feature was the tapering effects on the sides.

Gallery

From the license plate, it's likely that this photo and the following one were taken in or near Karmann's Osnabrück facility.  The unusual side sculpting is more clear when viewed in person, but here is what is happening.  The rear fender is wide, but its side panel extension tapers inward going forward across the door and approaching the air outlet abaft of the front wheel opening.  The upper part of the front fender extends across the door, also tapering inwards to blend into the C-pillar zone. That is, the are two inwards tapers, but in opposite directions, hence "crossfire."

The tapering as seen from the rear on the same car.  I find the concept fascinating.  Note the "dead zone" towards the forward edge of the door where the tapers converge and briefly disappear.

A side view where the convergence area is clearly shown.  There is no convergence in the lower side panel, as the fore-to-aft taper is at the top of the fender only.  All we find here is the aft-to-fore taper just above the cut line at the bottom of the door.

Looking down on a Crossfire with a Bremen license plate.  This shows more clearly how the upper part of the front fender tapers aft to blend with the fastback.

The Roadster model that appeared for the 2005 model year.

Rear view of the Roadster.  No fastback, of course, but the part of the trunk lid immediately above the license plate indentation includes the the same brand symbolism.

Chrysler Chronos: Concept Retros a Concept

The 1988 Chrysler Chronos concept car was inspired by Virgil Exner's 1953 D'Elegance concept car -- a 35-years-later echo.  (The D'Elegance was built in 1952 and displayed that fall at the Paris auto show, but its American debut was in 1953.)

A minimal Wikipedia entry for the Chronos is here.  Background regarding the Chronos is here, mentioning its stylist and the enthusiasm Chrysler expressed for it when it was new.  Despite that, the Chronos had no impact on future production Chryslers apart from, perhaps, its grille bar design.

The Chronos was large, having a 130.9 inch (3327 mm) wheelbase.  No current or future Chryslers had wheelbases that long.  It was a four-door car, whereas the D'Elelegance was a coupé. Further comparisons with the D'Elegance are in the image captions below.

As for the D'Elegance, it was auctioned at Monterey in 2011 by RM Sotheby's whose web site has this page describing that car and its history.  I posted about its degree of influence on Volkswagen Karmann-Ghia styling here.

Gallery

The Chrysler Chronos.

And the Chrysler D'Elegance.  This photo was taken in Italy soon after it was built.

Chronos styling carryovers include the hood taper, the "eyelids" around the headlights, the general shape of the side windows and, of course, the fenders.

Side views of the cars, further illustrating their fender designs and window treatments.  The color images of the D'Elegance are from RM Sotheby's.

Chronos and D'Elegance differ most thematically when viewed from the rear.  The D'Elegance features gunsight tail lights and a spare tire cover where the trunk lid would be (there is none), whereas Chronos has an actual trunk lid with partial boat-tail sculpting and conventional taillights.  The backlight windows and C-pillars differ in detail, but have a similar feeling.  The Chronos photo was taken at the WPC museum, but I don't have its source.

My guess is that this was a publicity photo from around 2005 when the new Chrysler 300C was introduced -- I don't have the exact source.  Note the grille bar treatments.

Chrysler Europe-Oriented 300M

Back in 2001 I was in London, strolling through the Eaton Square area, when to my surprise I noticed a Chrysler 300M.  As I now discover reading its Wikipedia entry, it turns out that the 300M was originally conceived as an Eagle Vision scaled to a five-meter European size class with the idea that it could be exported to Europe more easily.  It was an LH platform car, but was noticeably shorter than domestic LH platform Chryslers because front and rear overhang were trimmed.  Because the Eagle brand was dropped, it was rebadged as a Chrysler 300 even though it lacked the high performance engineering expected of 300 models.

The 300M was produced for model years 1999-2004.  For 2005 it was replaced by a new 300 line that remains in production as this post was drafted.

Gallery

1998 Chrysler Concorde, an LH platform car from which the 300M was derived.

A 1999 Chrysler 300M. The hood, headlight assemblies, grille and front cap are different.  Note the vertical cut lines forward of the front wheel openings; the 300M's is closer to the opening than the Concorde's.

Side view of a 300M.

Rear 3/4 view of a 2002 Chrysler Concorde.

The shaved-down rear of the 300M.  I think Chrysler stylists did a better job here than at the front, which strikes me as being a bit forced.

Updating the 2005 Chrysler 300C

For some time now, I've been thinking that I ought to write about the 2011 facelift to the Chrysler 300 series introduced for the 2005 model year.  But I couldn't quite make up my mind what to say.  And for 2015 there came another, lesser, facelift.  Now that it's 2017, more delay is hard to excuse, so here I go.

I wrote about the 2005 Chrysler 300 here.  I mentioned that the initial photos I saw were not appealing, but after seeing the cars on the streets and roads, they interested me to the point that I actually bought one.

The 2011 facelift changed the character of the design, and not in a good way, in my opinion.  It seemed like changes were made for the sake of change.  Actually, there was a new design theme, but it was not strikingly clear to me.  I'll describe it in the photo captions below.

As for the latest facelift, it marks an improvement over the previous one.  In several respects, the 2011 facelift should have used the 2015's features.  That's because the '15 returns partway to the 2005 roots, correcting what I consider the mistakes of 2011 that never should have happened.

Gallery

The 2005 Chrysler 300C.

Here is the 2011 frontal facelift.  The grille's grid pattern of bars is replaced by sculpted horizontal bars.  This softens the car's face, making it look less aggressive, a big change from what was supposed to be a "performance" car.  Apparently product planners wanted 300s to be seen as upper-medium priced town sedans rather than rubber-burning street rods.  Headlight assemblies were restyled to conform to the new fad of LED pattern creation.  Hood stampings, the strike panel and the Chrysler emblem were also changed.

The main 20015 changes were a revised strike panel, a reshaped chin air intake and a different grille. Gone was the bright grille frame with the Chrysler wings.  The wings moved onto the grille face where the horizontal bars were replaced by a mesh design.  The overall effect is increased boldness, a partial return to the 2005 version's character.

The 2005 Chrysler 300C as seen from the rear on its way into Palm Springs, California.

The front wheel opening lip on this 2011 model is linked to a more strongly defined upper-fender character line crease.  This stronger crease destroyed the unity of the side aspect of the original design by emphasizing the contrast between the rounded wheelhouse and the rising line to the rear.  The trunk lid is new, its bottom fold aligned with the side cut line of the strike panel which also was reshaped.  The extreme rear of the fender lines are now slightly peaked, the apexes aligned with with thin, vertical accents on the tail lights.  The overall effect is increased formality and less aggression, as was the case at the front.  I always disliked these tail lights because they seemed so unlike what I expected of a 300.

For 2015, the rear features a redesigned strike panel and exhaust pipe lips.  Better yet, the tail lights revert to something like the 2005 pattern on lesser (non-300C) 300s.  As with the front, the rear seems more like a road car than a town car.  The sculpting of the side character line seems to have been reduced, bringing it more in line with 2005.

Chrysler's 2003 Airflite Concept

The 2003 Airflite concept car from Chrysler was not a thinly disguised version of a future production model.  But a number of its styling details did appear on Chrysler products.

Wikipedia's take on the Airflite is here, and here is a link whose text strikes me as being taken directly from a Chrysler press release.

The Airflite was a four-door sedan without a full-height B-pillar.  In America 1955-1976, we called them "four-door hardtops," "pillarless sedans," "hardtop sedans" and perhaps a few other titles.  But they did poorly in roll-over tests and disappeared from production lines nearly 30 years before the Airflite.  So to that degree, the Airflite was car-show jazz.

Gallery

General view of the Airflite.  I think the wheels are a little too large -- yet another show car feature.

The front end "smile" theme, including the inverse ribbing effect on the hood was picked up by the Chrysler Crossfire and Chrysler Sebring pictured in some images below.

This side view shows the low, long greenhouse.  It's long because it transitions into a fastback.  It also makes the front end seem stubbier than it is.  The Airflite is actually a five-door or hatchback car: note the roof cut line at the C-pillar.

The hatchback cuts are clearly seen in this rear view.  The opening is wide at fender-top level, but narrow at the rear.  Potential buyers of a production Airflite might consider this a demerit.

The side sculpting also carried over to some degree on the Crossfire and Sebring.  The pointed rear of the window profile can be considered logical design, but it bothers me for a reason that I can't yet explain.  In any case, it isn't functional in terms of the rear door cutline and the roll-down window's aft edge.

The fastback aspect.  The roof treatment works best from this point of view.  Note the crease in the backlight glass, part of a crease extending over the roof down to the rear strike panel.  It's one feature I like.

The Chrysler Crossfire appeared about the same time as the Airflite, so it's a slight stretch to claim that the Airflite "predicted" the Crossfire.  Both cars have essentially the same windshield.  The hood and "face" have similar detailing.

The Crossfire also has fastback styling, but all its details differ from the Airflite's.

The 2007-2010 Chrysler Sebring used several Airflite features.  Like the Crossfire, the it has the Airflite facial theme.  Side sculpting is from the Airflite, as is the general treatment of the greenhouse.  However, the Sebring has a slight notchback, and this does not integrate well with the C-pillar area design.  The sense it provides me is that the car seems more industrial than automotive, something that applies to the Airflite as well.