Prodigal Roadster

Photo courtesy RM Auctions.

In 1932, Ford introduced their Model B, the two-door coupe version of which would be nicknamed Deuce Coupe, for the year it was born. It sold for $490 in 1932, which would be about $7800 today. It was a favorite of hot rodders, likely because it was so easily modified.

Photo courtesy Oregon CCCA.

The Lincoln Model K was introduced in 1931. In 1932 it was split into two lines, the KA and the KB. The 1932 Lincoln Model KA V8 Victoria shown here was clearly fancier, more powerful, and more luxuriously detailed than a Ford. It sold for a little over $4400 in '32, almost $70,000 by today's standards. Despite the outrageous price difference, it's not all that significantly different in style.

In 1932, Edsel Ford went on a trip to Europe. Who knows if his primary goal was to get a look at the European cars, but there probably can be not the slightest question that someone as intimately involved with the automobile industry would have his eye on every new car he saw. What's more, if a man like Edsel Ford were visiting Europe, I can't imagine he wasn't eating most of his dinners at the homes of people like Aston Martin founder Lionel Martin and Bindo Maserati. I don't know exactly where he went or what he saw there, but I'd like to try to piece it back together using some possibilities.

Photo courtesy Steve Sexton.

In all likelihood, his ocean liner would have dropped him in the UK. He almost certainly saw the SS 1 by Swallow Sidecar and Coachbuilding, the company that would be renamed "Jaguar" after WWII because of the negative connotations of the initials "SS." He probably wasn't as impressed by its overall boxiness as he was by the relative seamlessness of its contours (note that the door is slightly ajar) and that it was much lower to the ground than the current offerings by Ford or Lincoln. He may very well have appreciated what Aston Martin were doing, also. I doubt he'd have been very interested in Triumph's styling, although he may have appreciated their sporty proportions. There's a small possibility he spotted a Vale Special, built with Triumph components. But if the scarcity of images of it to be found today is any indication, and especially considering that it was handmade, the Vale couldn't have been particularly numerous at the time, either.

I can't be convinced that Ford went to Germany at all. Porsche was only a consulting firm at the time, anyway. There is some possibility that he saw the BMW Wartburg DA3, but it was kind of such a frumpy little thing that I can't imagine he would have been very impressed by it, not to mention that it almost looks taller than it does long. I also find it hard to believe that he could have seen the Mercedes-Benz SSK Trossi (named for its first owner, racecar driver Count Carlo Felice Trossi). First of all, very few of them were ever made, so it's not as if he were likely to have stumbled onto one on the road or even in a showroom. Plus, its design by Ferninand Porsche would have been so shockingly futuristic and--if I had to guess--astonishingly beautiful to Ford that its influence would have been far more apparent in what he ultimately created. I mean, for crying out loud, the thing looks like a freaking Batmobile. Although it does have the tapered tail, that could be found on plenty of race cars at the time. Mercedes' regular-production cars tended to be high and regal like the Rollses and Bentleys...and the concurrent Lincolns.

Traveling through France, there wasn't much to see. The Renaults and Citroëns were higher and boxier than the Fords, and neither Citroën nor Peugeot would introduce streamlined models until well into 1933 or 1934. There's really no way he couldn't have noticed the gorgeous Bugatti Type 50T, but I suspect it was a bit too voluptuous for him and not exactly what he was looking for. Avions Voisin, although decidedly interesting and even distinctive, rested somewhere between clunky and relatively bizarre.

Photo courtesy David van Mill.

In Italy, however, Ford very likely saw the Alfa Romeo 8C 2300 Spider Corsa designed by Ugo Zagato.

Public domain.

 
Perhaps it should come as no surprise that the car that appears to have impressed Ford the most was a Maserati. It was the 8C 3000, designed by the eldest Maserati brother, Alfieri, who passed away before he could see it finished. It has the correctly raked front end (a tiny hint of the streamlining to come) and the tapered rear end, in addition to the comparatively low profile of all the others.

Photo courtesy Gerry Swetsky.

When Ford returned home, he began talking to his company's head designer, E. T. "Bob" Gregorie, asking him to design a new car based on what he'd seen and liked in Europe. The first design was actually taller than Ford wanted, so Gregorie went back to the drawing board and finally created something much more streamlined. The normal Ford roadster chassis was modified and lowered by slinging it under the axle.

The tail extends further out in the back, making it appear longer and lower than a typical Ford. The new car was built by the Ford Aircraft Division using the same tubular aluminum construction methods, making the body extremely lightweight and strong. Along with its exhaust pipes, its headlights and taillights were sunk into the body itself, an innovation of Ford's for which I could find no European precedent, but which clearly made the overall design more streamlined still.

The final result of all of this was Edsel Ford's 1934 Model 40 Special Speedster.

Restoration and vintage photos courtesy Ford Hous

But this is not exactly what showed up at the 2012 Auto Show. Its engine had a tendency to overheat, so sometime before 1940, Gregorie redesigned the front end to allow better air cooling and in the process, make it more streamlined again. A winter freeze had cracked the Model 40 engine, so it was replaced with a 09A Mercury V8, the most powerful Ford V8 engine at the time.

I find the redesign a bit odd because it looks to me like the original grille was larger in area than the 1940 version. However, the overheating may very well have been as much about the location and direction of the incoming air as the amount or speed of it.

Aerodynamics had been discussed by Aristotle, da Vinci, Newton, and plenty other thinkers over the centuries. It remains a mystery why it was not considered by manufacturers of ground transportation vehicles--outside of racing--until the mid-1930s. Perhaps the Depression was sufficient impetus for car owners to consider the fuel economy even in vehicles that didn't necessarily travel very fast. I'd like to point out, though, that Buckminster Fuller's Dymaxion car didn't appear until 1933, the Chrysler Airflow and Union Pacific Railroad's M-10000 not until 1934. But as early as perhaps 1931, Edsel Ford was already on board with this upsurge of interest in the subject, enough so that during his European trip, he knew exactly what to look for. I think it proves him to have been a remarkably forward-thinking individual.

After the 1940 redesign, sadly, Edsel Ford got to enjoy his Speedster for only another three years before passing away in 1943. Strangely, the car was estimated to be worth only $200. This is considerably less than even a regular-production, bottom-line Ford, which probably would have sold for about $750 if most all manufacturing hadn't been focused on the war effort.

The Speedster kind of bounced around the country for a long time, from owner to owner. It went to Atlanta and then to Los Angeles, where someone replaced its engine and possibly painted it red with new leather upholstery to match. In 1957, it showed up back in Georgia and then went down to Florida, where it ended up with a man named John Pallasch. He had intended to fix it up but never finished. There it remained, stored in Pallasch's garage, abandoned and forgotten for almost forty years. It was sold twice more before Edsel Ford II arranged for it to be purchased for the museum at the Ford House. I don't know about that sale, but the previous owner had paid a justifiable $1.76 million for it at auction.

It was then handed over to RM Restorations in Canada. RM took the entire thing apart piece by piece and meticulously restored it to its 1939-40 iteration.

The newly restored Speedster was unveiled in 2011, but traveled with Lincoln for their auto show appearances.

That was how I first saw it in this glorious condition.

Presumably, once it's finished touring, it will go on permanent display at Ford House.

©2012, Ryan Witte

Extraordinarily Ordinary

(NYIAS)

The next thing to talk about was in the booth for Chevrolet to accompany the release of their new Impala. It was a sky-blue, convertible 1966 Impala Super Sport in seemingly perfect mint condition that was actually much more interesting than the new one. I'd like to say right off the bat that many of the interesting facts herein are courtesy of my friend over at Ate Up with Motor. A huge nod of thanks to him and his vast automotive knowledge.

It's fortunate that I have such a good excuse to talk about the Impala, considering that I so recently examined Levittown, because the Impala was sort of like the 1960s automobile equivalent to a Levittown house. There was nothing at all exceptional or innovative about it, in fact, its appeal was that it was utterly ordinary. Adding to this is Chevy's choice of a model from 1966 to display at the show. The Super Sport options package was first offered on the Impala in 1961. In 1964, it became the top-of-the-line model, but in 1966 it was surpassed in prestige by the Caprice, which had become its own series. All the standard cars in Chevy's line-up, including Impala and Caprice, shared most of the same basic innards. The differences were in power, styling, and options. There was nothing particularly new about the '66; it was mostly a cosmetic upgrade of the '65. The moral of the story, by 1966 the Super Sport was even less exceptional for a Chevy than previous Impalas had been.

It was most popular with exactly the same demographic who a decade earlier would have gravitated toward Levittown and communities like it. It was a preferred car for mostly middle-income buyers who wanted a relatively good quality car, easy to service and maintain, but nothing too flashy or outrageous. It's the same demographic that today buys the Toyota Camry and Honda Accord. But while the Camry enjoyed 3% of the market as the best selling car in the United States in 2008, Impala in the 1960s commanded 15% of the market. Out of ten of your car-owning friends, at least one if not two of them would have had an Impala.

It's a fairly mammoth car, over 312 inches long (792cm) and almost 80 inches wide (203cm). Perhaps one of the more interesting things about the engineering of the Impalas from '65 onward was their flexible frame. At the points where the frame curved inward for the wheels at front and rear, the frame was designed to flex to absorb impacts from the road. The body was then mounted onto the frame with no metal-to-metal connections. Instead, rubber pads separated the frame from the body in up to fourteen places, depending on the model. The body was welded together and gusseted extremely rigidly and cross-braced, especially at the front end. The idea was that the body would feel extremely firm while all the vibrations and shuddering from the engine and road were handled by the flexible frame.

My friend from Ate Up... shared with me one of the critical reactions to Impala at the time which I thought was rather funny. Evidently, the resonant frequency of its coil spring suspension was such that the car would start hopping at certain speeds when driving over the seams of a concrete highway. I'm amused by this in part because I can't remember the last time I was on a highway paved with concrete. Having driven around many parts of the country, I remember the familiar rhythm of those seams in the road slabs. But they use asphalt almost exclusively in the New York area. Asphalt is cheaper and much faster to install on highways that, around here, serve enormous amounts of traffic almost continuously. Potholes in asphalt can also be more quickly and easily spot-repaired rather than having to replace entire sections of road at a time as with concrete slabs.

In its design, the Impala is anything but a remarkable car. Evidently that was sort of the whole point; above all, it was a safe choice. To put the design of the car under discussion here in some perspective, 1966 was the same year that Ferrari unleashed on Turin this masterpiece by Pininfarina. Nonetheless, in retrospect, there are some nice things about the old Impalas that could have inspired their new one with fantastic results. I think Chevy would have been wise to take a similar approach as they did to the Camaro--and as Dodge did to the Challenger--and look back to the older models for inspiration. For a few things, the broad, muscular grille, forward angled front end, or the side detailing that streaks straight from the front all the way to the back end (most pronounced on the 1964), could have been extrapolated quite wonderfully on a car for 2012.

Instead, Chevy seems to have recreated the past glory of the Impala in spirit rather than style. Their new offering is about as bland today as the '66 may have seemed when it appeared on the market. I might be tempted to wonder whether it's more difficult for the huge corporate manufacturers to reconcile good design with other concerns like marketing and economics if it weren't for the fact that I've seen comparably large manufacturers overcome these conflicts quite adeptly.

The 427 Turbo Jet was newly available on Impala in '66, and was the biggest engine option. 

All text and embedded images ©2012, Ryan Witte.

Visual Accuracy

Another New York International Auto Show has come and gone. It's sort of a fortunate coincidence that it happens to fall right as, in other posts, I'm discussing the subject of Transportation. There were actually a lot of very interesting things to see this year. I had contemplated starting out my Auto Show posts by talking about a few of the more unusual things on view. Instead I'd like to make a number of smaller posts devoted to each. So to begin, I'd like to show the car that really stuck with me the most, even several days later. Part of it was that getting to see it at all was something of a happening; I got to see them rolling it up onto the platform and onto the turntable. This was the second press day. For anyone who makes a point to go on the first press day to get a leg up on competing journalists, be warned: they don't have everything loaded in yet. There may be things you're missing.

The other part, I think, is that it was shown by a manufacturer who I might not have expected to have something this impressive on view. It's the 2013 Acura NSX.

During the Superbowl, Jerry Seinfeld was trying desperately to get the first one of these in the television commercials, only to be thwarted in the end by Jay Leno. But they don't show the car in the commercial very close up or for very long. It's more stunning in person than can possibly be imagined. Its low, truly sleek profile doesn't seem to read well in photographs, for some reason. In any case, the profile is nice, but it's also the addition of some really sharp, striking, and distinctive detailing that makes the whole thing work so well. The solids and voids are especially dynamic and futuristic.

We have industrial designer Dave Marek to thank for this beauty. He's head of Acura's design team and has been since 1987.

The NSX has all-wheel drive--for handling and efficiency--powered by the hybrid of a V6 combustion engine and two electric motors. Finding a sports car that's hybrid is not all that shocking. Fisker already proved that idea sound. The vast majority of concept cars these days are at least hybrid, if not entirely electric.

It's the V6 engine that makes the NSX interesting as a "supercar," although some people have suggested that description is questionable applied to a vehicle that is unlikely to be able to deliver the kind of astonishing performance required of the term. What I'm saying, though, is that it's a V6 and not a V12 or V16. The NSX's V6 has been estimated to deliver a little over 400 horsepower, which is nothing to scoff at. But Acura, or more accurately their parent company, Honda, has attempted to provide the NSX with superior performance using strategies other than brute engine strength. For instance, its frame is constructed of an extremely light-weight material, presumably carbon nano-tubes or something high-tech along those lines.

According to Acura, the NSX is due to be released some time around November of 2013. Speculations as to how much it may cost quite comically range from about $30,000 to about $130,000. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

©2012, Ryan Witte

The Cost Effect

Since my last car post was about something so expensive, I thought I'd switch gears. Of course I love to see all the crazy stuff I'm not likely to be able to drive any time soon, but I can be a realist, also. If I were legitimately going to purchase a car, for the price, I'd have to say I'd be looking at Mazda. I also like the Chryslers a lot in this range, and of course I'd want to test drive a few things, but I really do like Mazda's styling.

Since I've gotten my Zipcar account, I've been trying to choose a different model each time I go out. I did get a Mazda the first time. More recently I drove a Kia Soul. It was a nice enough looking car and nice enough to drive, but I couldn't get past the miserably huge blind spots. I once got into a minor accident merging lanes on the highway (which I still don't think was my fault), so I'm particularly paranoid about that.

I did say that if you're going to spend the money on a Rolls, you deserve something that looks like it costs that much. At the same time, I can't put my finger on how they do it exactly, but the cheapest cars just look cheap. Mostly I'm thinking of the bland sedans offered by Toyota and Ford, the magnificent new Mustang notwithstanding. It's as if they strip the cars of every last detail that could make them remotely interesting. They're about as boring as they could possibly be at best, at worst their design is ugly and awkward.

And I'm actually confused as to why they do it. That is to say, what marketing goal do they hope to accomplish? I've seen some concepts from them and some design drawings that were really not bad at all. What demographic is turned on by this? But maybe I'm asking the wrong question. Maybe the consumer they hope to attract doesn't want to be turned on, because something that turns you on can't possibly be a "sensible" purchase.

Since we just had Fashion Week, I'll use a clothing analogy. We all know someone who can say with the ultimate sincerity that they do not care about clothes. He or she is most often found in jeans and a t-shirt, a plain white one preferably, or something they got for free. Seemingly, very little thought went into their choices and it's purely a matter of luck whether he or she is matched or mismatched. I find this whole notion to be terribly oxymoronic and even self-deluded. The operative word here is "choices." A hundred different choices were required for the resulting jeans and t-shirt outfit, the same amount of choices as for any other outfit. Faded boot-cut button-fly, not pegged stretch acid-wash with too many zippers: choice. Red flannel shirt, not bomber jacket: choice.

Even the person who tells his or her significant other to purchase something at the store that will fit them--beyond that he or she "doesn't care"--is making a wardrobe choice, the choice being that the other person knows what will look good on them and will get it. "Something that will fit" is yet another choice, as opposed to too tight or too baggy, and plenty of people do both.

I'd like to say to these people: you're still making all the same choices the rest of us are, you still have to do the work making those decisions, why not just make better choices or more interesting ones? It isn't passively "not caring," it's actively presenting the appearance of not caring.

So why do people choose the automobile equivalent of jeans and a t-shirt? The purchase of a car is a much bigger commitment than an outfit, so it can't give the appearance of a thoughtless decision. Do they want to attract as little attention to themselves as they can? Or do they want their car to look as much like everyone else as it can? It's a person who presumably wants their car to say to the world, "I'm just a normal person with a normal car, nothing flashy, nothing distinct, nothing special about it or me." Or maybe they simply have bad taste. Who are these people?

This is not to say that the Mazdas are so other-worldly or loud, especially compared to something like the Spyker Aileron. And I will have to say that their interiors leave plenty to be desired. They really need to get an interior designer who can keep pace with their exterior designers. The insides of them can be quite clunky and mostly unattractive. But for a relatively inexpensive car, I think they have a lot of character. They didn't actually unveil anything new this year, except for a new version of the Mazda2, their minicar, with few, if any, improvements. The MX-5 Miata filled an untapped niche and remains a very sweet little car, but it's more or less looked the same since it came on the market. I never did get around to discussing them last year as I'd planned, and I have more to say on the subject now.

Let's start at the beginning, shall we? Here are some early drawings for the Mazda3:


The first thing to notice here is that, aside from some not unexpected stylization in the drawings and a little bit of an overzealous curvaceousness on the front end, this really doesn't look all that significantly different than what came off of their assembly line. For the ways in which it does, I still don't think they lost much of what made this early design concept interesting. All I can say is that they must have someone up top making decisions who has some guts, because their designs are not being watered down for the lowest common denominator like so many other manufacturers do.

Here's an early computer rendering:

Now those three parallel lines at the back end--window, shoulder, and tail--create a really great moment. But the fantastic thing about this is that the final production model is actually nicer and more interesting than this concept. Obviously in these early stages, they just want to work out the basic profile. It's truly a testament to the talent of their design team that as they start adding more of the necessary details to what will be the final product, they don't screw it up along the way.

Here's the Mazda3, and if I'm not mistaken, I believe this was the one I rented:



Here's their CX-7 wagon/minivan crossover:


It's not the best thing they offer, but for what it is, I think its very well done. I especially like how, although it is clearly higher and bulkier, it very much manages to stand like a bulked-up car, rather than a squashed-down van. I also think using a bit of a sharper prow and a smoothed-over back end was a smart move. It makes it feel sleeker and less cumbersome.

Mazda has always done a sports car well. My teacher in fifth grade had an RX-7. He was the kind of guy you'd imagine didn't realize that Disco had died, or if he did, he wished it hadn't. But I thought that was one seriously cool car. Even looking back now, I still think it was incredibly well designed.

Here's the gorgeous Shinari Concept from a couple years ago:


The one we can own is the RX-8. In my opinion it's one of the best designed cars I saw at the show in this relatively reasonable price range.



Normally I much, much prefer a car without all the spoilers and scoops and ground effects. The Lamborghini Countach, for a great example, is absolutely exquisite without them and with them is a complete mess. Why anyone would buy a car like that and then ruin it with all that extra crap is beyond me. The RX-8, on the other hand, is helped by a few added details. The ground work gives it a more solid stance and gives its contours a little bit of needed sharpness.


It also helps to amplify one of the best things about the design: the contrast between the wide, flat, angular front end and the smooth, tapered, upturned back end. They knew what they were doing, too. The front wheel wells and headlights, as well as the taillights and the back of the roof line all work so well with the overall profile. Granted, it's not a Ferrari, but I think this is a great car.

©2010, Ryan Witte

Boo

I never go into the Rolls Royce/ Bentley booth for a number of reasons. First of all, the whole thing is cordoned off with velvet rope like a hot new Hollywood nightclub. I always felt like I'd need to have on a custom-made Stetson, Rolex, turban, three-piece suit, or some combination of the above for them to even unlatch it for me. It hardly seemed worth the bother since you can more or less see their offerings without going inside.

Secondly, they're just too exclusive. Few people will ever come into personal contact with these machines. It's as if that makes them a less than ideal topic for a blog with a tone like this one. Of course we see them on the street from time to time, but it's one of the things that makes automobiles a very peculiar area of design.

I touched on this a bit in a previous post, but while the car exterior is one of the most public expressions of ourselves by way of a consumer object, the interior is one of most intimate and private. Even a living room or dining room is likely to see guests, on occasion large numbers of them, even people we've never met before. As far as the people who will see the inside of our cars, it's pretty much the same people who we'd allow to see the inside of our bedrooms. Limousine's don't count, that's more like a ballroom, or if rented, a catering hall.

It's not even that we consider it a private realm, although we do to a degree subconsciously. Consciously I suspect most people consider themselves to be in the public eye when in their cars, unless they have windows tinted to an illegal darkness. It's more the size of it.

We used to pack sixteen teenagers into a Toyota like it was a clown car when I was in school--I'm sure other generations of kids did the same. Hey, if you need a ride and only a couple people have their license and a car, you get in whatever car you can. I remember having my face plastered up against the hatchback window. But under normal circumstances, we don't usually squeeze more than four or five people into the car. So of the many people we might choose to offer a ride, who will those three or four others be? Family and close friends, of course. Anyone who's not close would ride with someone else. It means, then, that a smaller number of people can potentially experience these cars than practically any other art form.

It's true that very few of us can afford to purchase a David Smith or a Damien Hirst to enjoy in our own homes, but these objects are so regularly and frequently shown in museums that it hardly matters. They become public, in a way.

Now, the same issue with Rollses and Bentleys can most certainly be said about the top-of-the-line sports cars, which I do often discuss despite their exclusivity. The difference with the sports cars, though, is that the whole point of the industrial design of them is to push the very limits of style and technology. Rolls and Bentley, on the other hand, although consistently handsome, are desperately conservative. In a way, they have to be, because they're so expensive. Because of the kind of cars they are, and have always been, their customer base also tends to be decidedly older and less interested in the cutting-edge.

And that brings me to my last reason for not taking more interest in them: their design. It's never really struck me as being particularly interesting. On the contrary, I've found it to be quite stodgy in recent decades. With so much else to look at and absorb at the auto show, I felt no burning desire to waste time on them.

Having said all that, this time, on a deafeningly quiet press day, there was little reason not to take a closer look. The velvet ropes were just open. I do need to say that the mind-boggling high quality of these vehicles is immediately obvious with one glance. The materials, the craftsmanship, the detailing, it's all exquisite, which should come as a surprise to no one. For this post, I wanted to talk about Rolls Royce's new Ghost, which is a beautiful car without question.


The Ghost goes back a very, very long time. Here's the original Silver Ghost from 1907:

--Photo courtesy Retro Cars in Belarus.
When I was a young lad, I actually had a very accurate model of this car from the Franklin Mint. I collect Franklin Mint! I don't think I have it anymore, but it was beautiful.

One small feature perfectly sums up everything you might expect to get by spending this outrageous amount of money on a vehicle (it goes for around $250,000), and I think it needs no explanation:


Click that if you can't tell what it is.

Anyway, here's the Ghost, designed by Ian Cameron:


It's very smooth and has a wonderfully heavy stance that plants it firmly on the ground. I also think rejecting the Parthenon grille was a wise move in this case. On top of everything, its V12 engine provides 500 horsepower, which is insane. The suicide doors are also quite cool, but the center pillar seems to kind of defeat the purpose of suicide doors in the first place.

The really cool thing about the 1961 Lincoln Continental was that, when you opened the windows or the doors, the entire side of the car was completely opened up to the outside. I believe its door pillar was half-height. I can't help feeling that Rolls could have derived structural integrity from elsewhere, and they might even have figured out a way to latch the doors safely to the floor and ceiling and remove the pillar entirely.

The main problem I have is that the Ghost is not all that terribly distinct from the Chrysler 300 or the Dodge Charger. And it should be. It should be significantly different. Obviously the 300 isn't built as well as this and doesn't have anywhere near the power.

But you really should not be able to get a Chrysler loaded with every possible luxury extra and add-on for a third of the price and have something even remotely close to a Rolls Royce. On the one hand, the price of a Rolls should buy you not only impeccable workmanship, but also distinctiveness of style. On the other hand, looking too much like a Chrysler makes its exorbitant price-tag seem even more outrageous.

Don't misunderstand me; this is a gorgeous automobile. I actually think it's a bit of a leap forward for Rolls. If you want to buy me one as a present, I encourage you to please go right ahead.

©2010, Ryan Witte