Hudson's Not-So-Italian Italia

I've tagged this post "Concept Cars," but the Hudson Italia of 1953-55 vintage was one of those cases where it was sort of a concept car while also being a car produced in very small numbers for sale to the public.  Background information regarding the Italia can be found here, here and here, but some of the details are contradictory and questionable, though the general story is correct.

By the early 1950s, Hudson, along with the other smaller American car makers, was in decline.  It was beginning to lack the financial resources needed to develop new models and the cost-per-sale of advertising its current cars was higher than that for the Detroit "big three," General Motors, Ford and Chrysler.  Hudson's management placed their financial bet on a new smaller-size car.  Nash had done so already with its Rambler, which was profitable.  Willys and Kaiser also had new small cars, respectively the Aero and the Henry J, but these were not successful.

Hudson's entry, the Jet, was too tall and too narrow for its styling theme and sales were poor.  According to the links, Hudson management placated styling director Frank Spring, who felt that his Jet design had been ruined by making it taller and narrower that he wanted.  That came in the form of allowing him to create a design for a sporty car that became the Italia.

Although Spring and his team styled the Italia in Detroit, the cars were built by Carrozzeria Touring, an Italian coachbuilder noted for its stylish, light-weight bodies.  So to that degree the monicker "Italia" was legitimate.  According to the links above, it seems that the plan was to build 50 cars, but only 26 were actually completed.  The reason given was the early-1954 merger of Hudson and Nash into the new American Motors Corporation, wherein Nash interests prevailed and the Italia was ditched.

Here is what Italias looked like.

Gallery

It's too bad Hudson didn't let Touring create the design.  Although Spring began his career at a coachbuilding firm, most of his designs for Hudson were mediocre.  Perhaps some of that was because Hudson launched only three completely redesigned models after the early 1930s -- a 1936 Hudson that was heavily (and, to Spring's credit, inventively) facelifted until the new, nicely done 1948 Hudsons appeared.  The Jet was the third design.

The Italia is an awkward design.  In part, this might have had to do with the fact that the Jet, narrow as it was, served as the platform for the Italia, and even the Jet was a bit wide for early 50s vintage sports car designs.  Which might be why the fenders are a little too rounded.  Alas, the other surfaces are not well developed either; perhaps Spring didn't have the time to refine them.  The rear of the car is bland aside from the outrageous stunt of disguising taillights as exhaust pipes.  The side trim is 50s cliche, and doesn't relate well to the greenhouse, fender line and other side elements; more thought and development needed here too.  A particularly amateurish (for automobile design) touch is the shape of the opening in the rear fender where the taillight housings emerge.  The air intake "eyebrow" over the headlamps is an odd, not very functional feature that echos the long-time Hudson triangle theme, but otherwise is an intrusion on the fender line.  The grille opening shape is soft, flabby.

I could go on and on, ranting about the shape of the hood, the wheel housing openings, the form of the C-piller on the greenhouse, and more.  So I'll conclude by saying the the Italia's design is nothing more than a collection of poorly styled elements that do not relate well to one another.  It is incoherent.  Which is sad.

Perhaps three Italias were built as four-door sedans. This might have been an exercise to see if the design might be suitable for a future production Hudson.  I think this greenhouse style works a little better than the two-passenger version.  In fact, the overall design seems better because it is more compatible with its Hudson Jet platform dimensions.  Otherwise, my criticisms hold.

Here is a photo taken in Italy confirming that Italias were indeed made in small numbers.  Due to their rarity and history, Italias can commanded auction prices approaching $300,000.

Aston Martin Lagonda 2: Too Long, Too Low?

Lagonda was a British maker of sporting, luxurious cars whose products reached their apogee in the years prior to World War 2.  After the war, the firm was purchased by David Brown and then consolidated with his Aston Martin operation.  Production dwindled to an end in the late 1950s.

Nearly 20 years later, Aston Martin revived the brand in the form of the extremely expensive Aston Martin Lagonda (Wikipedia entry here).  A Series 1 design was soon replaced by the Series 2 styled by William Towns and produced in limited numbers from 1979 to 1985.  Later, facelifted series were then introduced, but production ended in 1990 following continued low sales.

The Aston Martin Lagonda (I'm referring to Series 2 and later) was controversial.  One problem was the incorporation of advanced (for the time) electronics that suffered from reliability problems.  Styling was also controversial, and I'll deal with that here.

During the 1970s a major automobile styling fashion was stark, nearly flat body panels.  Greenhouses featured large areas of glass, and roofs were thin.  The overall effect was a trim, angular, simple, rather classical appearance.  This fashion came to an end during the 1980s when automobile companies had to make their cars more efficient aerodynamically.

Gallery

Although the AM Lagonda has interesting styling details, in my judgment the design suffers because of the dimensions of the "package."   The car is simply too long and too low; its proportions would make almost any styling seem wrong.  This is most evident in the side view above, but also can be seen in the upper image.  Notice that top of the front wheel housing opening comes so close to the top of the front fender that the fender seems pinched off at that point.  This effect is exaggerated by the long front overhang that adds visual bulk to the front of the car.   If the fenders, roof, hood and trunk had been raised even two or three inches (5-8 cm) and the overhang was reduced perhaps six inches (15 cm), the car would have been better proportioned.  And it would have looked more conventional, less distinctive.

The Wikipedia entry states that only 645 of the Series 2-4 cars were built.  Given that even the newest ones are now nearly 30 years old, AM Lagondas are seldom seen.  Lucky me, I encountered one while driving on a motorway in England last summer between the Lake District and York.  Low and angular it was.

Plymouth Belmont, a Briggs Design

Briggs Manufacturing for many years had been an independent firm building bodies under contract to various automobile companies.  But in 1953 it was purchased by Chrysler Corporation.  That year Briggs created two show cars with bodies made of fiberglass, a material of great interest at the time. One car was the Dodge Granada which I discuss in a separate post. The other was the Plymouth Belmont. Although both were displayed under Chrysler brand names, their styling was created outside the influence of the corporation's styling staff which at the time favored elegant Italian-influenced designs.

The Belmont's styling was by Bill Robertson working under the direction of Briggs' Al Prance.   Both the Granada and Belmont were two-passenger "sports cars" built on passenger car chassis and running gear.  Both had high, rounded cowlings and similar, perhaps identical, windshields.

Like the Granada, the Belmont was confusing to some car fans because its styling was at such great variance from the Italianate concept car themes by now (1954, when the Belmont and Granada where first shown to the public) expected from Chrysler.

Gallery 

The Belmont's styling is in keeping with they way sports cars were expected to look in the early 1950s, in particular its flowing fender line.  However, the Belmont was longer and wider than real sports cars of the day, as the rear view I found on the Internet suggests.

As for specific criticisms, I think the rear fender kick-up is too extreme, too high.  I think the sides look a little too puffy, but that opinion can be fairly debated.  The high, rounded cowling might have been necessary for engineering reasons, but adds a little heaviness to the design.  The bumpers were stock Plymouth items, and therefore not part of the stylist's intent.  The air intake vent on the hood was a styling cliché of the early 50s.  It does add interest to the hood area, but added interest could have been accomplished by other kinds of panel sculpting.  The headlamps seem small for the times, so I would have liked them a little larger.  Plus, the chromed "frenching" (a 50s term) around them gives the car's face a a strange appearance.  The front could have been better composed had the stylist been allowed to design a bumper that harmonized with the grille shape and content.  Overall, the Belmont's appearance might be classed as "clean," but heavy looking; not a successful design.

Vauxhall's Concave Accents

In the early days of the automobile industry, a number of manufacturers tried to establish stylistic iconography so as to make their cars instantly recognizable.  Examples include Rolls-Royce's "tombstone" radiator/grill ensemble and Packard's red hexagons on wheel hubs and hubcaps.  This worked fairly well from around 1910 into the early 1930s when automobile hoods, headlamps, bumpers and fenders were the major visual elements of the car's front end, and they were physically distinct.   Blending of these elements began in earnest starting around the 1934 model year, and by 1950 most cars had so-called "envelope bodies" where all those bits except the bumpers were integrated into one mass.  This usually made it difficult to maintain distinguishing iconography.

A case in point is the British brand Vauxhall (Wikipedia entry here).  Before 1910, Vauxhall came up with the idea of placing tapered, concave depressions on each side of the hood where it transitions from horizontal to vertical.  Visually, these seem to be scooped out from the hood mass.  British car styling being conservative and World War 2 having dealt a serious blow to the economy, Vauxhall cars didn't receive fully envelope-styled bodies until the early 1950s.  Nevertheless, these concave streaks continued on Vauxhalls until the 1957 model year began their disappearance.

Gallery

1909 Vauxhall

1920 Vauxhall D Type

1927 Vauxhall Type 30-98
These Vauxhalls are from the era when exterior components were separate units.  The tapered depression is clearly seen on the 1920 and 1927 vehicles.

1936 Vauxhall Big Six

1939 Vauxhall advertisement
By the mid to late 1930s, Vauxhall bodies were becoming increasingly rounded, yet stylists still had no difficulty incorporating the traditional hood accents.

1948 Vauxhall Wyvern or Velox
Vauxhall's first post-war body retained a tall hood that could support the accents (which were embellished by chrome plating).  But there was now a disconnect with the grille which was horizontal and low.

1955 Vauxhall brochure cover
Another complete body restyling appeared in the mid-50s, the transition to the envelope type being completed.  The hood was now lowered, leaving less room for the accents.  Another complete restyling came in the form of the 1957 Vauxhall Victor whose hood was lower than the fender tops.  There being no place for the accents, they finally disappeared.

Ugly Car: Nissan Juke

The Nissan Juke, a vehicle occupying the cloudy space between sport-utility (SUV) and hatchback, was styled at the company's British design center and refined in Japan. Then Nissan styling supremo Shiro Nakamura must have signed off on it, for reasons I find hard to fathom.

Actually, I can imagine a likely justification from some of the younger folks in Nissan's marketing and product planning groups.  Expressed in American English, words such as "edgy," "funky," "provocative," "postmodern" and "countercultural" and others might have been bandied about conference tables or infested emails and memoranda.  For the Juke seems to have been slotted into a market segment of young buyers with just enough extra money to indulge themselves with a vehicle that makes a statement.

I'm note sure how large this market might be, world-wide, but Nissan hedged its bet by building the car on the Nissan B platform shared by a number of other Renault-controlled brands including the Nissan Leaf electricity powered car (which has a slightly longer wheelbase than the Juke).

Gallery

The Juke does not have much brightwork, yet nevertheless is a "busy" design due to the elaborate sheet metal bulges and creases, especially those on its stubby sides.  Such sculpting might be expected these days on standard-size cars, but everything is jammed onto the Juke.  This is not to say that the Juke's shaping had to be austere and bland; but a compromise such as having the fenderlines flow a little more might have helped.  The really off touches are the taillights and front turn-signal and auxiliary lighting fixtures set atop the fenders.  They enhance the stubby appearance and generally clash with the rest of the design, such as it is.  I find the use of round headlamps a nice touch, though their placement on the front strike-panel is both odd and risky.

This side view clearly shows the strange roofline.  It is nearly flat, which makes me wonder about its aerodynamic usefulness.  But its most serious defect is that it slopes to the rear, pinching off potential carrying capacity for objects placed in the trunk area.

A view of the lumpy rear.  The most interesting feature here is the wraparound backlight (rear window).

These views from above provide more detail as to how the body was shaped.  I would have placed the front auxiliary light ensembles right above the grille opening with the hood cut-lines as their inner edge.  But I suppose that wouldn't have been funky enough for the target market.