Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Chrysler "Airstream"
The Chrysler "Airstream" (1934-37) was in many
ways the most technically advanced car of its day.
Yet, it was a commercial flop-people were not ready
for such a radical design. It had a slew of
innovations-all-steel body, aerodynamic design, low
slung body, etc. How many of these cars were
produced-and, has anyone ever driven one? How do
they compare to a modern car?
ways the most technically advanced car of its day.
Yet, it was a commercial flop-people were not ready
for such a radical design. It had a slew of
innovations-all-steel body, aerodynamic design, low
slung body, etc. How many of these cars were
produced-and, has anyone ever driven one? How do
they compare to a modern car?
Tagged:
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I'm not sure about production figures, but I think they peaked in 1934, the first year. DeSoto, which relied solely on the Airflow body, sold about 14,000 that year. Chrysler, which had the Airflow and a conventional body, sold about 11,000 Airflows (I think) From there, sales went downhill.
Sales flop that it was, though, the Airflow got the automobile out of the horse-and-buggy days and into more-or-less the shape of cars today...integrated trunk, body between the wheels instead of over the rear axle, etc.
I've also read that they could do 100 mph with little strain, and in a publicity stunt, an Airflow was pushed over a 100 ft cliff, where it rolled end-over-end. It landed on all four wheels, and was driven away.
Compared to a modern car, I'm sure they'd be slow and sloppy, but for the time period, they were probably some of the best handling cars around (I can't speak from experience, I came in about 35 years after they went out).
The closest "modern" comparison would probably be a 1980 Volare with a slant 6 and stock tires. Fairly heavy, fairly sturdy (if you find one that's not rusted out), not much horsepower but torquey enough to get you around.
-Andre
Nice ride, too, for that time period. But by modern standards, they feel like big old cars, just as you might expect.
Mostly their failure was, I think, a lesson in "being ahead of your time, but not TOO far ahead", which can be deadly in the marketplace. Consumers need change, but not too radical. YOu can recall, say, the resistance to the first Ford Taurus, and to the current Audi TT and VW Bug. Most automakers play it pretty safe. Chrysler felt so "burned" by the experience that it was years and years (decades) before they ever tried anything bold again. The Airflow failure put a big of a damper on American innovation, that wasn't really broken until 1955, when cars got really "modern", at least in looks.
And now for something completely different: Shiftright, have you driven any of the hi-perf MoPars from the Exner era? The V800 Plymouth, D-500 Dodge, DeSoto Adventurer, Chrysler 300. Apparently even the cheaper names were serious cars, with big brakes and H-D suspension. I'd love to own a 300C, but I've read that even the standard cam is so lumpy they're not real happy around town. That's why I don't have one--not.
I wouldn't say any of those 50s or 60s car "handle" in any modern sense of the word, but they could be stiffened up so that they would corner reasonably flat and not exhibit much of the typical American body roll problem. The power was great, but the big problem of course with American cars of that era was the brakes...the cars were under-braked for all their power, and way too heavy. Still, those 50s/60s engines had tremendous torque and were fun to drive in a straight line. Top end speed wasn't very high, though, compared to modern cars, and going 120 mph was, I recall, a pretty scary experience due to the not so sophisticated suspension and braking package.
But I'd own a 300C in a red hot minute. I think the 55 is a lovely car without those monstrous tail fins of the later models. I know some of you like Virgil Exner but I guess you remember how I fantasized about having him dragged out of his styling office and shot...just my little prejudice, sorry Virgil!
I knew a guy who had one in high school. The rest of us had Chevys and teased him a bit.
But, that De Soto had the D-500 engine! It would SMOKE a 327 Chevy and would chirp the tires when the torqueflight shifted into second!
It also had the WORST brakes in the world and it couldn't handle!
He bought it for a song...nobody wanted an orphan I guess.
Your friend in high school, did he swap the motor out? The '57 Fireflite should just have a 341 Hemi 4bbl (mine is a 341 2bbl). I think the D-500 was a 354 (or somewhere therabouts) hemi that was an option package for the Dodges. Even the DeSoto Adventurer that year only had a 345 Hemi, although it put out 345 hp.
Your friend in high school kind of reminds me of myself in college. I drove a 1969 Dart GT with a 225 slant six. This was around 1989-1992, so naturally my friends made fun of it...even though it would smoke most of their cars. One of my friends had a POS 1980 Honda Accord (sorry, Isell ;-) and anything would smoke it! Then one day, he showed up in a 1986 T-bird, loaded with just about everything, all bragging and arrogant...until I walked his overblown Fairmont like the dog it was. Well, the '69 got totaled, and a few weeks later I showed up with a primer-black '68 with a 318 and dual exhaust...I think my friends were afraid to make fun of it...
It's fascinating to go back to the mid '50s and find out there was a horsepower war going on. Most people know about the hot Chevies, but quite a few manufacturers were using either multiple carburetion, hot solid-lifter cams, huge engines or some combination of the above. This tapered off in the late '50s--Ford completely checked out for a few years--but there were still some very quick 348s and 389s.