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.

Early 1970s U.S. Bumper Standards and Car Styling

The 1970s were especially difficult times for the American automobile industry.  As the decade began, engineers were dealing with regulations concerning emissions.  Following the petroleum crunch in the aftermath of the 1973 Yom Kippur War, fuel economy became an important concern.  All this while and into the far future, state and federal governments piled regulation upon regulation on the industry.  But the worst of it was in the 70s when major changes had to be made quickly.

Regulations that affected car styling the most in the first half of the decade had to do with bumpers.  This link mentions a 1971 regulation taking effect for 1973 models that dealt with collision damage, and bumper designs had to be adjusted to protect more parts of cars.   The next year, regulations dealt with placement of bumpers and the impacts they had to be designed to deal with, requiring even larger protection systems.

These regulations could have been more easily dealt with if designers were allowed to implement them when a new design was launched.  Unfortunately for stylists and engineers, designs already in production had to be modified.  The result often was heavy, awkward-looking bumpers placed on designs originally featuring far less protection.  As time went on, bumper impact criteria became more easy to accommodate, and protection systems on today's cars are hardly noticeable.

Below are some examples of Detroit cars and how they coped with the new rules.

Gallery

1973 Chevrolet Camaro Z28.  The bumper guards in front of the grille were in reaction to the first regulation.

The 1974 Camaros received a much more massive bumper whose styling wasn't quite a design theme destroyer.  Other parts of the front end were restyled to accommodate this change.

This is the newly designed 1972 Ford Torino produced before the regulations took effect.

This Ford press release pictures the 1973 Torino with a massive front bumper that anticipates the regulations to be in effect for the 1974 model year.  Again, other parts of frontal styling were modified.

A pre-regulations 1972 Mercury Cougar.

Like its Ford stablemate, Mercury went straight to the heavy bumper required for the following year.

Mecum auction photo of a 1972 Dodge Dart with its pre-regulation bumper.

Like Ford, some Chrysler Corporation models such as this Dart got large bumpers that didn't easily fit the existing styling theme.  Barrett-Jackson photo.

Complete Re-Designs ... or Major Facelifts?

Sharp-eyed reader "emjayjay" questioned in a comment to this post my assertion that 2011 Chrysler 300s were a facelift of the 300 series introduced for the 2005 model year.  I responded that I hadn't noticed that the 2011 model was a new design at the time, though a current Wikipedia entry notes that it was.  Troubled, I thought it worthwhile to delve further into the matter of 2011 Chryslers as well as another facelift controversy -- the 1955 Ford (and by extension, Mercury, that I won't deal with here because both brands had similar basic bodies that were updated in a similar way for 1955).  This post is my present take on the matter of facelifts that are so major that they seem to be complete redesigns.

Chrysler line 1939:

A couple of years ago I posted about the 1939 Chrysler Corporation models that (aside from Plymouth) appeared to be a redesign but seemed to me to probably be a major facelift.  I haven't changed my position on that, so you might link to that post, treating it as an introduction or companion piece to the present one.

Ford 1955:

For many years I thought that 1955 Fords were new designs: they certainly looked different from 1954 models.  But in recent years I've noticed some claims that the '55s were actually major facelifts.  For example, the current Wikipedia entry states (as of when the current post was drafted) that "The American Ford line of cars gained a new body for 1955 to keep up with surging Chevrolet, although it remained similar to the 1952 Ford underneath."  But the How Stuff Works site states: "Retaining the 1952-54 shell, the 1955 Ford was completely reskinned, emerging colorful if chromey, with a rakish look of motion and a modestly wrapped windshield."

Sort of a toss-up here, so I present images and an analysis below.

Chrysler 300 2011:

Now for the 2011 Chrysler controversy.

Motor Trend magazine published this "First Test" of the 2011 300 that reads more like a Chrysler press release than a critical evaluation.  It implies that the car is a new design.

Car and Driver magazine, on the other hand, held that the 300 was actually a facelifted 2005 model.  Here it stated: "Chrysler had to deal with that whole bankruptcy thing, and so the 2011 300 received more of a thorough face lift than the total overhaul for which it was due."  And here it added: "And as much as the 300 might have looked like Chrysler’s chef-d’oeuvre in 2004, the company couldn’t just sit back and let it be. For 2011, the 300 receives a refresh rather than the redesign for which it is due, but the update addresses the most important things."

In addition, Consumer Reports asserts here that "Chrysler's flagship, the 300C, is muscular and luxurious. An extensive freshening has made this cruiser a lot more competitive than before."

And finally, Popular Mechanics' review mentioned: "With ambitious refinement targets (the Lexus LS460 among them), the new Chrysler 300 required all-new sheet metal and suspension components."

These items tend to confirm my memory that 2011 300s were facelifed 2005s.  Certainly their appearance suggested that.

Let's look at some photos.

Gallery

First is a "for sale" photo of a 1954 4-door Ford followed by a Barrett-Jackson photo of a 1956 Ford 4-door that has post-market wheels ('56 Fords were lightly facelifted '55s).  The window shapes aside from the wraparound windshield on the '55 are the same, as are the door cut lines, door handle locations, and the beltline.  The front door forward cut line distance from the wheel hub confirms that the cowling is in the same position -- a key indicator of continuity.  Also, the 1955's wheelbase is essentially the same as the '54's (0.5 inches longer, a little more than one centimeter).

These views of two-door Fords help confirm that 1955 Fords were heavily facelifted 1954s.

Here are side views of a 2008 Chrysler 300 (top) and a 2011 model, the '08 being essentially the same as the 2005 version.  Again, the cowling positions, door cut lines, aft window shapes, and gas filler doors are essentially the same.  Aside from all the new sheet metal, the main difference related to body structure has to do with the windshield.  The 2005-2010 Chrysler 300s had a fairly narrow windshield in the spirit of 1948 Hudsons.  A major problem was that this reduced visibility for the driver.  For example, sometimes stoplights would be obscured.  I know this because I owned a 2005 300.  So for 2011 the windshield was enlarged and its slope increased so as to improve visibility and aerodynamic efficiency.  Note that the windshields on both cars shown here are based on the same cowling position.  The differences are in the merger of the windshield and the roof and in the shape of the front window.

For the purposes of this blog, I consider continuity of body structural elements (cowlings, door posts, etc.) as the key factor dictating that any appearance changes from model year to model year can be considered facelifts, whether minor or major.  Therefore, until I learn otherwise from body engineers, the 1939 Dodges, DeSotos and Chryslers, and 1955 Fords and Mercurys, and 2011 Chryslers (and Dodges using the same body) -- represent major facelifts and not new designs.

1992 Ford/Ghia Focus Concept vs. Porsche Speedster

Normally when I compare the design of one car to that of another I deal with specific similarities and differences.  This time, I compare two cars that have no design details that closely match, yet share a common feeling thanks to a few features that are evocative.

The primary subject is the 1992 Ford/Ghia Focus concept car.  Background regarding it can be found here and here.

It is a striking design, basically clean but with odd, "organic" (in a kind of biological sense) details placed here and there.  About all that came of the Focus was its name that has been widely used on various Fords cars starting in 1998.  In other words, it is an example of a pure styling exercise.

And the other car?  It's the Porsche 356 Speedster launched in the mid-1950s (information about the 356 series Porsches here, scroll to"Body styles" for mention of the Speedster).

The following images are paired with the Focus on top, Porsche Speedsters below.

Gallery

Both cars are two-place roadsters with low, moderately-wrapped windshields.  Porsche: Bonhams photo.

Hoods are low, flowing down towards the bumper / impact area.  Each has thin, chromed side decoration.  Porsche: For sale photo.

Perhaps the major thematic similarity lies in the broad "shoulders" on each side of the passenger compartment opening related to the large-radius upper parts of the fenders.

The Focus features an interesting sprinkling of tail lights.  And the early Speedsters have some rather little dots too, especially if the reflectors are included.  Porsche: RM Sotheby's photo.

Ford's Controversial Scorpio II in Context

Ford of Germany marketed a model named Scorpio from 1985 to 1998.  There were two versions, the second of which, sometimes called Scorpio II, was produced 1994-98.  Wikipedia provides background information here.

As of the time this post was drafted, there was a Wikipedia entry section noting that Scorpio II styling was criticized be several noted car buffs who proclaimed the design ugly.  I would not go that far.  To me, it was nondescript in the soft, aerodynamic sort of way seen from the mid-1980s unto the early 2000s.

Here it is, placed in some contexts.

Gallery

The Scorpio II sedan (there also was a station wagon / break version) was a six-window affair with a low, rounded nose.  I don't notice a large chin air dam, and the spoiler on the trunk lid is quite small.  Given that Ford was into aerodynamic efficiency ten years earlier, I find the modesty of these details puzzling.

Front end.  Soft, and not cluttered like current cars.

Two views of the rear.  Again, large-radius rounding that might have pleased General Motors' Harley Earl in his heyday.  The wide tail light / reflector assembly is clean with a dab of variety in the width of the upper framing strip.  See how modest the spoiler is.

This rear view is of a 1985 Ford Tempo, the company's first American compact car with proper aerodynamic basic body shaping.  It considerably predates the Scorpio II.  Its front has a chin air dam, but there is no trunk lid spoiler.  It too is a six-window sedan with a simple rear-end design that is less rounded.

General view of a 1985 Tempo.

1992 Mazda 929 ("Sentia" in some parts of the world).  Ford had ties with Mazda in those days, but I don't know how much that might have extended to styling.  This is a four-window sedan, but it has a rounded, spoiler-free trunk lid.

Now for the front.  Here is a Cadillac Deville from the early 2000s.  The hood is more raised and sculpted than that of the '94 Scorpio II.  Otherwise, the shape of the grille is reminiscent of Scorpio's and the headlight assemblies' overall shape in quite similar.  Again, a soft, uncluttered design.

Ford Taunus: The First Generation

As this Wikipedia entry mentions, Ford's German subsidiary introduced "a mid-size car intended to slot into the range between the little Ford Eifel and the company’s big V8 models."  Moreover, "It was the first car developed at Cologne by Ford Germany which previously had built cars originated by Ford businesses in the US or the UK."  Production began at the end of April 1939 and it was first exhibited in June.  Germany invaded Poland on 1 September, so Ford's timing was unfortunate.

Unlike the USA, wartime civilian automobile production was not quickly halted in Germany.  Taunus cars were built as late as February 1942.

Production resumed a few years after the war with a slightly changed version.  Model identifiers for this first generation of Taunus cars were G93A (1939-1942), and G73A (1948-1952).  A redesigned Taunus line appeared in 1952.

Wikipedia asserts that the Taunus was developed in Köln, but styling was adapted from Ford's 1939 De Luxe Tudor models that, in turn, were facelifts of a body introduced for the 1938 model year.

Gallery

A 1939 Taunus.

Here is a 1939 Ford De Luxe Tudor.  It is larger than the Taunus in virtually all respects, so the Taunus can be considered a shrunken '39 Ford.  Aside from altered proportions and size, salient differences are the Taunus' lack of flat running boards and its use of rear-hinged "suicide" doors.  Oh yes ... and the grille bars are not vertical.

Rear 3/4 view of a '39 Taunus.

This is a postwar Taunus.  Changes I note are new grille bars and the addition of a turn signal wand just aft of the door.

A later postwar Taunus.  It features a different bumper, and more chrome trim on the sides and framing the windshield.  Linking the fenders is something that might be either a sheet metal strip or a partly enclosed running board.

Comparing 1939 Mercurys and Fords

Ford Motor Company's mid-range Mercury brand spent most of its 72 model-years life sharing basic bodies with Ford and, at times, Lincoln.  This is well known.  Not so well-known, yet no secret, is that the original Mercurys had their own bodies.  The problem being that those bodies looked very similar to those used by contemporary Fords.  Perhaps that, plus the need to keep production costs reasonable, led Ford management to use Ford bodies as the basis for 1941 Mercurys.

The Wikipedia entry on Mercury is here, and Joe Sherlock's thoughts on the brand as it lay dying are here.

The original Mercurys were larger than Fords, as the Wikipedia entry mentions.  So if a 1939 Mercury were seen next to a 1939 Ford De Luxe, this would be obvious.  Normally, it was fairly rare that people saw such juxtapositions.

I don't have photos of the cars side-by-side, but perhaps the images below will illustrate their similarities and differences.

Gallery

Publicity photo of a 1939 Mercury 4-Door Sedan.

A 1939 Ford De Luxe Fordor on display in Salt Lake City.  Similarities: headlights, grille shape, hood shape and cut lines, chrome trim along the belt line, windshield and side window shapes, door openings, door hinging and general fastback shape.  Differences: position of windshield wipers, fender profiles, rear door hinging, and the degree the bodies overlap the running boards.

A two-door '39 Mercury.

A Ford De Luxe Tudor.  Again, side widow shapes are essentially the same, though the Mercury's aft window is longer thanks to its larger body.  The length difference in this zone of the car is between the door and rear fender, the Mercury having a longer wheelbase.

Publicity shot of a convertible.  Note the Moderne trim on the building in the background, perhaps to hint that the Mercury is in tune with the future.

Grist for another comparison, the Mercury here...

... and a Ford here, albeit a Tudor (for-sale photo).  This offers a better view of fender differences, slight though they are.

Rear three-quarter view of a '39 Mercury 4-door sedan in another for-sale photo.

1939 Ford De Luxe Fordor, Barrett-Jackson photo.  Back windows are about the same, as is the trunk and its cut lines.  The Mercury's rear fender is fatter than the Ford's.