I spotted an (insert obscure car name here) classic car today! (Archived)

jljac

The title of the post is "Post-war European innovation" but I still don't see any specific examples of European innovations that were adopted for American cars during the 20 years following WWII, such as automatic transmissions, power steering, power brakes, tubeless tires, and electronic ignition. (Note: front wheel drive and monocoque construction was not a post-war innovation, they were in production cars before WWII, but did not sell in large numbers.)

There should be some example of a European engine that ended up in an American car (before the Ford Pinto motor) or something we bought from them to put into our cars. Time after time the Eurpoeans tried to sell cars in American without success before VW passed Studebaker in USA sales in 1960, although they tried with the Austin Seven, the Renault Dauphine, the Simca, the Fiat, the Citroen, the Hillmon and finally the Austin America.

Nothing prevented Eurpoeans from selling cars in America, BUT the best American cars could not be sold in Europe because of taxable horsepower penalties. That is why the Studebaker GT Hawk was sold in Europe with a Skybolt Six cylinder motor (not sold in America) while 80% of the Mercedes 300 SLs were sold here.

I am willing to concede that Eurpoeans, and specifically the Germans, took the lead in auto technology more than twenty years after the war, but not before then. Ralph Nader trashed the Corvair because it was too much like the cars most Europeans drove.

In the 20 years following WWII European cars had such "innovations" as air cooled engines, engines mounted in the rear, under powered diesel motors. two-stroke motors, cable brakes, cars that cars that over steered and easily rolled over, and finally the crowning achievement listed in the top 26 most important cars of the 20th century. . .the Wankel rotary engine.

Europeans built cars that opened from the top, cars that opened from the front and cars that opened from both the front and rear. . (Which way is it going?)



The only type of cars that Europeans did NOT build in large numbers were inexpensive, reliable and quiet cars that could carry five or six people comfortably and safely. That is why the American Big Three automakers were able to build and sell cars millions of cars in Europe while Europeans were not able to build and sell their cars here until recently.

hpmctorque

The interesting thing between the Corvair and the Falcon is that the Falcon outsold the innovative Corvair by a wide margin. This indicated that more Americans were interested in basic transportation than innovation in the '60s. While many of us are fascinated by innovation, Ford read the market correctly.

Mr_Shiftright

Detroit controlled huge market share in postwar America and could resist any form of innovation they felt was not necessary or profitable; thus they stuck to a lot of pre-war technology until such time as the loss of market share became too painful for them, and consumers started *wanting* these innovations----and then, reluctantly, and kicking and screaming, they adopted ohc engines, FWD, active suspensions, 5-speed transmissions, AWD, fuel injection, radial tires, aero headlamps with replacable bulbs, better handling and braking, downsizing, etc.

Most of what is in an American car today came from Europe.

FIAT was the first company to offer electronic ignition as standard equipment, in 1968.

tjc78

In fact, those Toronados had completely flat floors

My 06 Avalon had a nearly flat rear floor (the hump was about 1"). Anyone who sat in the rear loved the room. My current RWD car has a huge hump.

jljac

Yeah, but think about what the Toronado would have been like if it had been RWD

If the Tornado had rear wheel drive, it would have been called a Buick Riviera. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldsmobile_Toronado

As for the claim that Fiat was the first car with electronic ignition standard, the final year of Studebakers (1966) had it. They were GM engines, so I do not claim this as a first for Studebaker.

jljac

The image of the Zundapp Janus I posted earlier did not show up. This car had all the advances claimed by the mini-Cooper and more; monocoque construction, wheels at the corners of the vehicle, front or rear wheel drive (who can tell which is what?) This baby even beat out Studebaker for the "Which way is it going?" title.

Mr_Shiftright

Ah, not quite. Studebaker didn't offer it across all models, and it was a Canadian (McKinnon) engine, not American. Chrysler was the first American car company to offer it standard on all models. (see http://www.allpar.com/ed/scams.html, and Standard Catalog of American cars, p642))

Mr_Shiftright

Love that thing!

ab348

I understand the early-60s Chrysler 5/50 warranty was a marketing device, driven by Chrysler's reputation for shoddy build quality and the poor market reaction to their downsized big cars.

jljac

Electronic ignition was invented by Delco in 1960. Delco is a division of GM, an American corporation no matter which side of the border the factory is on or what company installs it. I will have to check and see if it was not offered on both Studebaker engines supplied by GM.

IF Fiat offered it on all models in 1968, it is another example of US technology Europe got from us. What did we get from them in that era? There must be some examples.

Studebaker had the first dash board mounted fuel gauge in 1914. VWs were sold in America without any gas gauge. They had a fuel reserve tank like a motorcycle. My Messerschmitt has the same advanced fuel metering system. I measure the fuel level with a dip stick and mix the oil with the gasoline when I fill it.

I did not have to mix it myself when it was in Germany because most gas stations had two-stroke premixed gasoline. More examples of Eurpoean technology a little bit behind the curve in the post-war era.

The Zundapp Janus was pretty cool. You could fold the cushions so the whole interior was like a matress. I think they stole that idea from the Nash Rambler.

Added note: I just realized that my Messerschmitt is the first gull wing vehicle because a have to lift the top to get in. It is a bit of a hassle in rain and snow, but I don't have to move the steering wheel out of the way to enter because the seat is on hinges and it lifts up. Also, the Schmitt does not have a steering wheel, but a half yoke like the airplanes.

Therefore, the MB 300 SL should be called the first "Gull wingS" because it has two doors that open that way and it should be kicked off the list of the 26 most inflential cars of the 20th Century because it does not have a driver's seat that can be raised and its motor cannot run backwards.

ab348

I'm unsure of you're talking about fuel injection on the big GM cars or across the line. Didn't the 3rd-generation Camaro offer "Cross Fire Injection" around '82 or so? Admittedly I don't know exactly what that was.

andys120

"Cross Fire Injection"

IIRC that was not a true fuel injection but a throttle-body system.

wevk

I had a 1964 Pontiac Tempest with a 326HO with factory transistor ignition as an option

fintail

Of all the things to preserve and bid crazy on

Cool wagon, cool bids

Lemko-mobile maybe

Or this might be more his style

"El Ballero"

I think I'd just drive it as-is

The 80s

Compact truck

Awesome pics

Andre-mobile

First 4-door

Another to drive as-is

Interesting mileage

Weird

If you like green

An odd year, some unique design

Early muscle

"Color: Other"

A little more tasteful

A little crusty

hpmctorque

Judging from the general condition of the interior, and particularly the pedals, every single one of that '80 Accord's 71,101 miles must have been driven in stop-and-go traffic.

kyfdx

The '65 Datsun pickup and the '60 Catalina would have to be my favorites, out of that bunch....

That might be the first '60 model of anything that I've ever been attracted to... other than former girlfriends...

hpmctorque

I wonder how the model you dated in the 1960s has aged, compared to that Datsun and Catalina.

kyfdx

I didn't date them in the '60s....

They were 1960 models.....

ecotrklvr

Well shame on me in public for not knowing it was a 60 degree. It sounded so rough, I assumed it was a 90. My next car, the Maxima, was soooo smooth by comparison.

At least the Taurus didn't whine from the stock Ford power steering pump in EVERYTHING else, that whined so loud, you could tell it was a Ford turning the corner with your back turned.

ecotrklvr

You didn't go back far enough. In 1969, you could get the Caprice with three different choices of 350's, or 427 power. At least 400 Hp. The mid-Seventies were not cool years for American iron. Unless you were Red. And had a late-60's car.

Back on topic - saw a ~ 1977 Peugeot today. I think it was a 504 waiting at a cross-street while we blew past. I see where Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad auctioned his old 1977 Peugeot 504 lately. Gave me a weird feeling. Not much into French cars myself, but throwing it out there.

I also routinely see 1955 Chevy's around at the Fuddruckers on EL Toro Road. Oh, and my neighbor has a '59 T-Bird in Teal Blue. Nice to look at... but neighbor's bedroom smoke alarm has been known to go off when it starts up.

ecotrklvr

See "Tucker - A Man and His Dream" for more info (and a little too much drama) but still informative on the subject of post-war resistance to innovation.

The most dangerous place on Earth to stand? In the path of a powerful Company's cash flow.

ecotrklvr

Delco may have invented Electronic Ignition in 1960. Didn't do me much good, though - I had quite a few 1966-1971 Chevies (7 to be exact) and they all had points and condenser. Glad I worked at an auto parts store at the time. Did it make it into production in anything in the 60's?

The term Innovation takes many forms. Making cars big, comfy, easy to buy, and easy to drive seems to have been the American claim (power steering, brakes, auto transmissions, financing, etc.). Making them light, efficient, and fun to drive was left to Europe and Japan. My Dad's 1974 Datsun 1200 was a blast, and got 35 mpg. Even with NA Smog add-ons. All in an engaging way that the Vega, Pinto, and Maverick were not.

andre1969

spotted in the rear view mirror on my way into work this morning. '65 or '66 (although I dunno Shifty, could have been a 1964.5 :P )

Never got a real good look at it, as it was way off in the distance when I merged in front of it. One thing that was kinda interesting though, is that initially, it looked like it was further away than it really was. Cars today are a lot taller than back in the day (unless you go back to the early 50's). So, at a quick glance, it looked like a big car way off in the distance, rather than a small car that was closer up.

hpmctorque

Is it possible that the main reason your Maxima's engine ran smoother than that of your Taurus is that the Max had overhead cams, while the Taurus had overhead valves? Probably not, but just asking whether that could be a factor.

hpmctorque

I assumed that, but couldn't resist exploiting a play on words.

andre1969

The upgrade was the 90 degree 3.8 V6, an older design derived from the Ford small block V8 family. This engine was troublesome.

That Ford "Essex" 232/3.8 V-6 is 90-degree, but I'm not sure if it's actually based on a V-8 or not. For instance, a Ford 302 has a bore x stroke of 4.00 x 3.0 while the 232's is 3.81 x 3.39 inches.

I always wondered why Ford didn't just take a 302 and lop two cylinders off, like Chevy did with the 200/229/262 (corresponding V-8's were 267, 305, 350), or Chrysler did with the 3.9 V-6 (a lopped 318). Buick's 231 had previously been a 225, 3/4 of their 300 V-8. Well, the 300 went to a 350, and the 225 went to Jeep, with what little market there was for a 6-cyl Buick filled with the Chevy 6-cyl.

When fuel economy became a concern, Buick bought that tooling back, but enlarged the bore so that it could use the same pistons that the 350 used, and that's what took it from a 225 to a 231.

I've heard from various sources (and Wikipedia mentions it too) that Ford reverse-engineered the Buick 231 and came up with the Essex. Dunno if there's any truth to that, but maybe it explains why both engines were initially trouble-prone!

I think the trouble spots were different though. With the Buick 231, there were a lot of narrow and right-angle oil passages that could easily get blocked, and the nylon/mesh timing gear tended to disintegrate. The block in general was also pretty weak, unless you got the turbo, which probably had its own problems. For 1985, the regular 3.8's got the beefier turbo block, and almost overnight, the 3.8 went from being one of GM's least durable engines to one of its best.

With the Ford 232, I think its biggest issue was blowing head gaskets. According to Wikipedia, it used aluminum heads, something I never knew. That would probably explain why, since aluminum and iron expand and contract at different rates. I think the auto makers have it pretty much under control these days, but back then, mixing metals like that usually didn't yield favorable results.

My grandparent's '85 LTD and '89 Taurus both had the 3.8. However, they didn't keep either around long enough to develop any serious problems. I do remember the '85 would overheat sometimes though. In 1987 they took me to Florida, and it overheated on the trip.

hpmctorque

"...I'm not sure if it's actually based on a V-8 or not."

Just wondering whether the Essex may have been based on one of Ford's 351 V8s. The 351 Cleveland, which was higly acclaimed by ford fans, was based on the 260/289/302 small block, while the Windsor 351 was based on the big block engine. Assuming I've got this right, I presume the 232 V6 was based on the Cleveland, although I wouldn't stake my life on any of this.

Can someone who's more knowledgeable than me validate or deny my explanation?

texases

Close, but I think you have your 351s reversed. From a Mustang web site:
"Now a 351 Windsor is really a slightly enlarged 289/302, as it's name implies it comes from Fords "Windsor" engine family (a.k.a. the 90-degree V engine family). The thin-wall cast SMALL BLOCK accepts regular sized spark plugs, uses a timing chain in the block, routes water through the intake manifold, features thin main-bearing caps, a very good oiling system, and uses the same heads for 2V & 4V versions. The heads are are small, utilizing in-line valves with relatively small ports. The valves are 1.78" intake and 1.54" exhaust, i.e. the same size as a 289/302. The valve covers are straight (front to rear), attached by 5 bolts, and when removed you can see 351 cast in the lifter valley. The small side-by side (in-line) valves are the dead give-away.

The 351 Cleveland, on the other hand, belongs to Ford's 335 engine family. This thin-wall cast BIG SMALL BLOCK uses the smaller 14mm spark plugs, has a separate front cover (bolted to the block) housing the timing chain and routing water - so that water does not go through the intake manifold, features beefy main caps (wide enough to drill for 4-bolt mains), a poor oiling system, and uses different heads for 2V & 4V versions. The heads make all the difference and these fire breathing babies make this motor the legend it is. On the 4V, the valves are HUGE, measuring 2.19" intake and 1.7n" exhaust (don't remember exactly). Valves this large are only possible via a canted valve arrangement, forming what Ford refers to as a "poly-angle" combustion chamber. The valve covers are not straight - the front is flat and parallel to the ground, but a curve twists the rear parallel to the head. They are attached by 8-bolts and when removed, there is a 4 cast into the corner of the 4V and a 2 cast into the corner of the 2V (at least in 1970). The canted valves are the dead giveaway."

andre1969

Something else that Wikipedia mentioned about the Ford 232 Essex, is that it has an external oil pump, similar to the Buick 231 V-6, whereas the Ford V-8's did not. Even though they still had the distributor up front.

So, it really has me wondering...why DIDN'T Ford just take the 302 and chop off two cylinders, rather than come up with the Essex that apparently doesn't share much of anything with the 302?

hpmctorque

Thanks for the clarification.

jljac

See "Tucker - A Man and His Dream" for more info (and a little too much drama) but still informative on the subject of post-war resistance to innovation.

I enjoyed the movie Tucker very much and watched it quite a few times, especially the part where the Studebaker made to look like a Tucker was crashed in road tests. It was nice to see the modified Studebaker instrument panel in the interior shots, which was actually used in the real Tuckers. I was also interested because Tucker factory was not far from where I lived in Chicago and I often shopped at the part of the building that was converted to a shopping center. It was a huge building.

The movie is great entertainment, but not historically accurate. This is a great site about Tuckers and the movie. http://www.tuckerclub.org/html/movieinfo.html . The litigation over Tucker at the time was whether he really wanted to build cars for sale or whether is was a fraud to fleece the inventors out of their money. I believe that he really wanted to build and sell his cars, but the Detroit automakers had nothing to do with his failure.

Conspiracy theories are popular themes, but Tucker only built 52 cars. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/29/automobiles/collectibles/29TUCKER.html?_r=1&ad- xnnl=1&adxnnlx=1299254563-KahRpYBmluZsWzWdrqzA8Q.

The latest installment in the conspiracy series is “Who Killed the Electric Car?” In a few years when memories have faded, expect a movie about how automakers and/or the government conspired to kill the DeLorean car.

The true challenge to established US automakers in 1948 was not from Tucker, but from Kaiser-Frazer with 91,851 Kaisers and 48,071 Frazers built for a combined total of 139,993. By way of comparision, Studebaker built 184, 993 that year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Automobile_Production_Figures.

This is an informative site and I wish one existed for European Auto production figures or even for post-war Mercedes Benz. If such sites do exist, I would like to know about them. All I know is that in 1957 when Mercedes Benz was joining Studebaker for dealership sales, MB total
production was approximately 80,000.

jljac

See "Tucker - A Man and His Dream" for more info (and a little too much drama) but still informative on the subject of post-war resistance to innovation.

The two persons most responsible for bringing Mercedes Benz cars to America were Maxie Hoffman and Heinz Hoppe, both from MB in Europe, not Studebaker agents or employees. Below I quote Heinz Hoppe from More Than They Promised - The Studebaker Story at page 28-
29. http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=321

Mercedes- Benz models were just not available with the kind of equipment specification that people expected in this price category. The air conditioning that than an American customer expected as a matter of course was quite unknown in Germany. Power steering was added to the 300d but performed dreadfully, and an automatic transmission adopted by Borg-Warner to suit the car made it quite undriveable. Back in Stuttgart, [chief engineer] FritzNalliger clung determinedly to the standpoint that a Mercedes would lose its sporting character is it had an automatic transmission. His humorous contribution to the discussion was merely,“‘You’d better teach the Americans how to use a gear shift.’”
=====================================================

Above is an example of why I shake my head and roll my eyes when I hear that the US automakers were set in their ways in the post-war era while the creative Europeans raced ahead of the US in automotive technology with their advanced innovations.

fintail

I am unaware of any sources detailing total MB passenger car and commercial vehicle production. One can find passenger car info In This Book, but some of the data for others just isn't out there. I can believe 80K passenger cars in 57, with numbers rising steadily over the next decade - a million various fintails alone were built in from late 59-early 68.

There remains a resistance to automatics in Europe today - it's a badge of shame to not know how to drive a manual. You could get a 5-speed in an S-class up through 1991. Often I think the automatic is at best a mixed blessing. But speaking of innovation, I have a nearly 50 year old MB, it has FI, 4 speed auto, dual circuit discs (front, 4 wheel was a couple years later), front and rear crumple zones, 4 wheel independent suspension, and so on. It drives almost like a modern car in some respects. Had such cars not been early adopters, forcing competitors to look, would the tech have spread as it did?

jwilliams2

I agree. The European market had totally different priorities during the post war years making it hard to compare. My first introduction to European cars was in 1963 in Germany, and I was amazed at the difference in the way they drove. US cars were bigger, but lacked the handling and refinement of the better brands in Europe.

Check out the "Mercedes-Benz Production Models Book 1946-1995" by W. Robert Nitske. It has production and US Sales numbers for the 1946-1994 period. Plus detailed information on all models. Nice book for the Mercedes aficionado.

fintail

Even today the priorities are different. At the least, the innovation flowed both ways. Both sides gained something, eventually.

Funny, that's actually the book I linked. I have many MB specific titles, but I don't own that one.

ecotrklvr

Chevy I-6's & small-blocks with pushrods are pretty smooth.

Production engines usually have a wide tolerance on piston weights and crankshaft balance, for example. I think that Nissan just made all reciprocating masses lighter and weight-matched, and then balanced everything to tight tolerances. That was the fist of Nissan's VQ's. Just inherently smooth.

jwilliams2

My bad for not clicking your link. I too have many MB books, as well as product CD's and DVD's, having sold them for 11 years. I also have lots of pictures from trips to the factories (including AMG), museums, homesteads, etc. :P

The company has an amazing history, and certainly holds a place at the forefront of automobile development.

jljac

Often I think the automatic is at best a mixed blessing. But speaking of innovation, I have a nearly 50 year old MB, it has FI, 4 speed auto, dual circuit discs (front, 4 wheel was a couple years later), front and rear crumple zones,

Automatics are a mised belssing but women usually don't like them and many drivers today don't even know how to use them. I am interested in this information because I would like to know the point in time when MB stopped using the Borg-Warner automatic transmissons so that I have the information for getting my Studebaker transmission serviced. There was a Jaguar dealer who used to service mine but he went out of business. This is the first time I heard of a four-speed automatic in a 50 year old car. Fisty years ago, many (most?) automatics had only two speeds.

The Avanti used the MB Benz door lock mechanisms and adverstized them as a safety feature. I believe that both got their disc brakes from Dunlop/Jaguar. Studebaker and MB had a mutually beneficial business relationship and some of the MB dealers today were originally Studebaker and/or Packard dealers.

I heard a story that MB liked the location of the gas tank in the Avanti (behind the rear seat over the rear axle) and that they crash tested one.

fintail

I think driving skill out on the road would be better without automatics - but they do make congested driving more pleasant.

I want to say 1963 was when the in-house MB automatic was in full production, might have been 62 though. The MB unit was a 4 speed, non OD - so it kind of winds up at 80+, but the engine is made to take it.

No doubt Stude helped MB get started in the US, at a time when an indepenent dealer network wasn't really feasible.

fintail

I went to the AMG factory not too long ago - awesome place, even got to go on a tour of the engine room. The new MB museum is also fantastic, I'd ike to visit again, hopefully this year or the next. No company handles heritage better.

hpmctorque

Regarding 4-speed automatics, GM's Hydramatic, introduced before WWII, had four speeds.

andre1969

Yeah, I always thought it was interesting that when the automatic transmission was invented, it had four speeds! Yet 4 speeds wouldn't really catch on until the 1980's. And Chrysler was still peddling Neons with 3-speeds until 2001 or 2002 or so!

I've never driven one of those old 4-speed Hydramatics, though. I wonder how 4 speeds and a fluid coupling compares to 3 speeds and a torque converter?

jimbres

According to this interesting Wikipedia article, the Hydramatic was prone to balky 2 - 3 shifts.

fintail

Probably not unlike the MB 4 speed unit, which can really be clunky sometimes. Very hard to kill though, or so I hear.

hpmctorque

Hydramatic was great (efficient, rugged), although the first to second shift, especially, wasn't smooth.

hpmctorque

Wiki is incorrect on this.

ab348

I have never driven an early HydraMatic car, but have ridden as a passenger in some - I'm talking restored 1950s cars. Shift quality all depends on the condition and adjustment of the transmission. I've been in some that were very smooth while others were very rough, especially the 2-3 shift.

hpmctorque

When discussing the Hydramatic transmission, a distinction must be made between the original and the post-'55 units, as correctly explained by the following Wiki quote:

"before being replaced by the substantially redesigned Controlled Coupling Hydramatic (also called Jetaway or dual-coupling Hydramatic) in 1956. The new four-speed transmission incorporated a secondary fluid coupling and a pair of sprag clutches in place of the former friction clutch and brake bands, shifting in part by alternately draining and filling the secondary coupling. It allowed the driver to hold the transmission in second or third gear until the maximum allowable upshift points, for improved performance in traffic or in mountain driving, and incorporated a separate park position.

The Jetaway was substantially smoother than the original Hydramatic, but also more complex and expensive to produce, as well as less efficient."

My earlier comments related to the Hydramatics through '55 (actually, the lower trim line Pontiacs continued using the original Hydramatic through '56).

In my opinion, each time GM tried to improve the Hydramatic after '55, the tradeoffs were net negative.

Pre-'55, one very worthwhile improvement was made. For the '52 model year GM introduced "Dual-Range" Hydramatic. Prior to that, the gear selector had Reverse, Neutral, Drive and Low. Dual-Range added a second choice to Drive, which enabled the driver to hold the transmission in third gear, or downshift from fourth to third without flooring the accelerator. That, coupled with a reduction in the rear axle ratio (to 3.08?) was a real improvement for many driving situations. It made for quieter, more economical cruising on the highway, and added flexibility in gear choices. Additionally, as set up in Pontiacs, at least, if you set the selector in Low, the car started out in second. The stated reason for this is that second gear starts allegedly allowed the driver to better control rear wheel spin on ice and in snow. I think this was more of a marketing gimmick than anything, to appease some die-hard manual transmission fans who groused that the driver lost control with automatics. Just my guess. In any event, flooring the accelerator while in Low produced a downshift to first. That wasn't a wise choice on slippery surfaces, of course. Starts in Drive were in first gear, and the transmission shifted through all gears. After the car shifted into second, you could hold it in second by shifting to Low. As explained earlier, you could hold third gear by moving the selector to the lower of two markings in Drive.

danfromm

That Ford "Essex" 232/3.8 V-6 is 90-degree, but I'm not sure if it's actually based on a V-8 or not. For instance, a Ford 302 has a bore x stroke of 4.00 x 3.0 while the 232's is 3.81 x 3.39 inches.

That's really funny. Ford UK made a two V-6s that they called Essex. 2.5 and 3.0 liters respectively, 60 degree engines. I've had two cars with 3L Essex V-6s. Where did you get your information?

jljac

I found it very interesting that in 1948 when Pontiac first offered hydramatic transmissions as an option, 70% of them were sold that way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydramatic

What makes that more amazing is that in 1948, American automakers could sell all the cars they could build and everyone who knew how to drive knew how to operate a manual transmission.

I have been thinking about why American cars were so different than European cars in the post-war era and I believe that America had a greater percentage of women drivers. Most new cars were bought by married couples, and the wife wanted the automatic more than the husband wanted a manual transmission. I witnessed such a debate in 1967 when my girlfriend's father wanted to buy a VW Beetle but her mother wanted an automatic transmission. They ended up with a Renault. It had a 4 speed automatic, but is was a dreadful device that would cut the engine power between shifts.

It is hard to blame the Big Three automakers for giving Americans what they demanded. In 1953 Henry Ford II began selling full size cars for less than the price of small cars and the expensive (and heavy) Buick moved into third place in auto sales, which created great profits for GM. By 1956, the small American small cars were gone (although the Nash Rambler was put back into production two years later.)