(first posted 2/7/2017) How many large (over 1.6 litres) rear-engined four-door cars can you name, offhand? The Corvair, obviously: the most widely-built “big” rear-engined car, over 1.6 million made. The Tatra, naturally: the first genuine production car with a motor in its tail, followed by several generations over six decades. The ’48 Tucker, of course: so cool they made a movie about it. Oh, and the sorry-looking Volkswagen Typ 4 (411/412). And… er, that’s it?
Beginning of an archetype: the 1934 Tatra T77.
Sports cars (Porsche, Alpine, etc.) and subcompacts (NSU Prinz, Hillman Imp, etc.) constitute the overwhelming majority of mid and rear-engined (RE) cars, and are still with us today. But since Tatra quit making cars in 1999, no large RE four-door remains in production. Years before Tatra, there were a few who gave it a go, but the issue with these pioneers, which we will examine in Part 2, was that they were talented eccentrics, not industrialists.
Chevrolet Corvair sedan with experimental fastback body.
This was about to change on both sides of the Atlantic. There were a more than a few interesting attempts, right up to the ‘60s. American engineers’ enduring love affair with large RE streamliners in the ‘30s and ‘40s can perhaps partially explain the existence of the Corvair, beyond the success of small RE imports such as the Beetle or the Dauphine.
Ford
One of the first American RE designs were the John Tjaarda-penned Briggs prototypes, built in 1932-33. Tjaarda had been designing his “Sterkenburg” prototypes for a few years by then, but this one was the first to be actually built and road-tested. At least two prototypes were developed by Briggs in close collaboration with Lincoln, whose president, Edsel Ford, wanted a smaller car to improve dwindling sales. One was shown at the Ford Pavilion at the 1933 Century of Progress exhibition.
An all-alloy V8 (based on the Ford flathead) was even made for it, sitting just ahead of the rear wheels, and the prototype was road-tested in 1934. However, it was a little too “out there” for production and was soon succeeded by a more traditional V-12 front-engined design, which would ultimately become the 1936 Lincoln Zephyr.
RE Ford design with FWD, patent filed in 1936. Source: Special-Interest Autos
Throughout the ‘30s and into the ‘40s, Ford experimented with other RE cars, issuing patents (many by Henry himself) for various compact mid/rear-engined designs, including at least one with a V8 atop the rear wheels and FWD, as well as a four-wheel steering concept. Though some of these were tested – in chassis form – in Dearborn, it seems others were only paper cars. At least one used a modified French Matford body. It is unknown whether Henry Ford was seriously considering making RE cars or whether these were made in part to deceive Ford’s competitors.
Dymaxion
How would a sausage-shaped three-wheeler with a Ford V8 in the middle, rear wheel steering and FWD sound? Bonkers, in all fairness. But mad as it was, the Dymaxion 4D did exist – the first one was built in 1933 by its inventor, Buckminster Fuller, an architect with unconventional tastes. It seems three were made in total, all slightly different in detail. More doors and headlamps were added, for instance.
The Dymaxion was an outstanding vehicle, but it did negate the benefits of the whole RE layout by going FWD, which meant it needed a driveshaft and that the engine’s weight did nothing to add traction to the driving wheels. Under the aluminum skin and wood skeleton, the Dymaxion had two frames, a one horizontal for the body and a canted one for the engine, which were hinged together near the car’s centre of gravity.
Second Dymaxion with vertical front bumper and rear fin.
The highly unusual layout did enable the vehicle to have an extremely well-streamlined body, but the complexity of the concept made it less practical than it might have been, as well as very peculiar to drive.
“Drive us to your leader!”
The massive front overhang placed the driver well ahead of the front wheels, which did not do much for stability and safety. A well-publicized crash of one of the Dymaxions during the 1934 Chicago World Fair (which killed the driver) seemed to arouse the public’s concern about the concept’s overall soundness…
Stout
First Stout Scarab prototype (1932)
Another early example of the MPV / one-box concept, the Scarab was the brainchild of engineer William B. Stout, who developed it in the mid-‘30s. Uniquely among most of the cars we will be looking at in this post, this one was actually sold (at a very high price) circa 1935-36. The Scarab’s engine was a 3.6 litre Ford V8, positioned atop the rear wheels to maximize interior space as well as traction. The RE also allowed for a flat floor and the forward driving position, though less extreme than the Dymaxion’s, increased the amount of passenger space.
The Stout Scarab’s aircraft-like qualities extended to its low weight, though the original sketch called for more use of lightweight metals and a 4-cyl. engine instead of the steel and V8 that Stout ended up using for cost reasons. Stout built a first prototype in 1932, and then derived a 24-pax bus design that was made in about 175 units by Gar Wood until 1936. Stout then tried his hand at a railcar version, the highly advanced 120 mph Railplane, but no operator bought the idea. By 1935, Stout revisited his car concept, giving it a stunning Art-Deco visual makeover by a stylist named Gaston and selling a precious few to the likes of Wrigley (as in chewing gum), Firestone (as in tyres) and Dow (as in chemicals).
No two Stout Scarabs were strictly identical, being very much in the bespoke / prototype category. One or two even featured a pneumatic suspension, developed by Firestone. All of them seemed to use a two-door layout, one on the right side for passengers and one on the front left side for the driver.
In 1945-46, Stout built a final iteration of the Scarab, this time using fiberglass. Not just for the body though: even the last Scarab’s platform and seats were made of the stuff. The last Scarab, which also featured the world’s first wraparound glass windshield, looked decidedly different from its previous incarnation.
Several in-depth articles on these fascinating cars are available online. I recommend this one.
Hoffman
Source: Special-Interest Autos
The story around this prototype is somewhat muddled, though sources do agree that Roscoe C. Hoffman, a Detroit-based automotive engineer who worked with several automakers, built at least two of these in 1934-35 in close collaboration with Budd. Hoffman drove this particular one as his personal car until 1961, when he gave it to Brooks Stevens.
Almost everything about this car is out of the ordinary: the Budd-designed unibody with interchangeable doors, the rear independent suspension with Cardan joints, the engine mounted atop the rear wheels… The most intriguing aspect is the engine: a water-cooled X8 displacing 170 ci (2.8 litres) with OHC, producing 75 hp. It is known that Ford made several prototype X8 engines, both air- and water-cooled, but this one seems to be unrelated to those.
It seems that the Hoffman car was at least partly funded by French industrialist Emile Mathis, who was doing business with Ford at the time. The deterioration of the Mathis-Ford relationship after the creation of Matford may have doomed further development of the Hoffman X-8, which was much closer to a practical RE car than many of the wackier designs of the period.
Checker
The famous Kalamazoo-based cab company made increasingly oddly-styled taxis throughout the ‘30s, but underneath it all, they were well-built and very conventional. This was about to change in 1944, when Checker design and built the Models B and C, going for a RE layout to maximize passenger space while minimizing exterior dimensions. A rather crude test mule was developed under the supervision of Herbert Snow. And unfortunately, only one photo (also quite crude) seems to have made it to this century.
Checker did not build much of its cars’ components aside from the chassis per se and the body: the suspension, wheels, steering and brakes came from Studebaker; the engine was a Continental side-valve 6-cyl. (probably the 226 ci (3.7 litre) 80 hp “Red Seal”) mounted transversally behind the rear wheels, mated to a Warner 3-speed manual gearbox. The 100 inch (254 cm) wheelbase gave ample room to the four rear seats thanks to the driver’s position sitting atop the front wheels. The overall styling would probably have been much easier on the eyes than the test mule’s.
1947 Checker A2 taxi in Helsinki – no Finns at the rear?
The prototype was tested through 1945, but ultimately abandoned: Checker determined that the rear-facing seats would probably be very unpopular with the clientele, and the RE made the prototype’s handling extremely tricky and not especially comfortable. Checker completely changed tack and designed a FWD prototype (Model D), which also ended up being canned in favour of the traditional RWD layout of the Checker A2.
Beechcraft
Source: Special-Interest Autos
Around 1943, the Beech Airplane Co. shrewdly figured, not unlike SAAB, that aircraft orders might dry up once the war ended, whereas demand for cars would be very high. The company had been working on a four-wheel-drive hybrid vehicle for the army, of which two prototypes were made with air-cooled 100 hp Franklin flat-4 engines in the back. The engine powered DC motors powering each wheel (one prototype used GE motors, the other Westinghouse).
But the idea of a gasoline-electric hybrid four-wheel-drive civilian car was soon to take hold. This was not an entirely new concept, having been pioneered at the turn of the century in Europe (as mentioned in this CC article). The Beechcraft Plainsman, as it was dubbed, was shown in 1947, although it seems the civilian mock-up was never mated with its military-derived drivetrain.
Source: Special-Interest Autos
Beech had designed a truly unique body for the Plainsman, with panoramic windows and windscreens that did not go unnoticed in the automotive world: soon, this was copied by Zagato on a few bespoke Fiats, as well as by Isotta Fraschini, as we will see in Part 2 of this article. This luxurious car was to be aimed at the top end of the market, with a projected sales price of US$ 5000 – above Cadillac and Packard. This may have contributed to the project’s demise, as did Beech noticing that demand for small aircraft remained pretty healthy.
General Motors
Source: Special Interest Autos
There were RE experiments at GM in the mid-‘30s of a very innovative nature. These compact cars, nicknamed “Martia”, featured a very odd two-stroke all-alloy X-4 engines with twin pistons in the back in three displacements: 101 ci (1.65 litres), 130 ci (2.1 litres) and 160 ci (2.6 litres). The prototypes also had unibody construction and all-round Dubonnet independent suspension.
GM Research boss Charles M. Kettering and the Martia. Source: Special-Interest Autos
Three prototypes were put together and tested from 1934 to 1938, although the radical X4 engines were further developed (albeit in standard Chevrolet or Oldsmobile chassis) through to the mid-‘40s. The cars ran rather well, with a rear weight bias of only. 52/48, and fuel economy as well as durability were reported to be above average. But there were setbacks, including an apparently terrible exhaust odour (“a mixture of tear gas and skunk,” according to one of the GM engineers) that proved insurmountable.
But GM didn’t stop there. More RE projects were to flourish after the war – with grander ambitions. This 1949 article from Mechanix illustrated goes into the matter of RE cars in general (and the GM Corsair concept car in particular) into much more detail than I ever could. It’s very interesting to see the RE issue from a 1949 American point of view, when RE cars were still very much the “in” thing.
GM ended up shelving the idea of a truly big RE car, though of course the concept would be completely re-engineered for a well-known RE compact a few years later. As a side note on this, the Corvair prototypes made and tested circa 1957 were all badged as Holdens. Even memos produced by Ed Cole and other GM top brass regarding the upcoming RE car used Holden stationary, so as to keep as many people as possible off the scent. Just like the RE Pontiac (a Corvair with a pointy nose), the RE Holden was not to be, just a means to develop the RE Chevrolet with added discretion.
Studebaker
Source: Special-Interest Autos
During the Second World War, there was still much non-military activity going on in many automakers’ R&D departments. After all, the war would end someday and military contracts would dry up. In South Bend, the men in charge of forward planning were consultants from Raymond Lowey Associates, namely Bob Bourke and Virgil Exner. Letting their imaginations run wild, they developed a proposal for a RE Studebaker around 1943.
The car was different from previous American RE designs, owing little to the Tjaarda prototypes or the Stout Scarab. Studebaker soon decided to drop the RE idea and go back to the traditional RWD set-up, but the RE car’s sloping tail remained. The new post-war Studebaker applied this language to great effect, setting it apart from the competition’s warmed-over offerings.
Porsche designed and made the 542 for Studebaker. The paper RE car below, also proposed, never got made.
Studebaker found itself in dire financial straits by the early ‘50s. A novel Porsche-designed sedan (Typ 542, with a front-mounted V6, unibody construction and all-round independent suspension) was nixed by the Packard merger, as was a second Porsche proposal for a 2-litre flat-4 RE car (Typ 633) that could have been the American Volkswagen, well before the Corvair.
For reasons that remain unclear, Curtiss-Wright (who had bought Studebaker-Packard) looked into a RE version of the Lark. Sometime in late 1959, some C-W engineers bought a Lark coupe at a South Bend dealership and installed a Porsche 1.6 litre flat-4 in the back. There were a few sketches of a RE Studebaker compact made around that time, so this might have been an attempt to prove the concept on the cheap. Nothing came of it, as far as is known.
End of Part 1…
It’s no Tatra, but it’ll do.
Is it any wonder, given the abundance of RE prototypes made in the US over the years, that one of the Big Three ended up making over a million of these cars, i.e. way more than any other large RE sedan design anywhere? But don’t discount old Europe. As we will see in Part 2, switching from sedans to saloons, big RE cars aroused a lot of interest there, too.
Interesting article. The 2nd gen Corvair 4-dr hardtop in the last pic has great proportions and lovely lines. This is a car that looks great from any angle.
+1.
It could be the only American compact made as a 4-dr HT.
Rambler made 4-door hardtops in both sedan and wagon form. (Granted this was the in the larger Rambler lineup, but these were still considered compact cars at the time.)
I love the 2nd-gen Corvair. In typical GM fashion the Corvair was introduced as a beta-test product and the car was discontinued after they finally got it right.
The second aka “final” gen or the Corvair is my fav too. Few “4 doors” to be found though.
For sure! Would like to see the “p/type , Corvair fastback pictured with the back closed. The rear window on that one does nothing , seemingly, other then let light inside. Heat in the summer months.
Good stuff. I can recall reading about some of these years ago, but had forgotten pretty much all of the details. I find it fascinating just how much allure the idea of a rear engine had among engineers, and for so long of a time.
That rear engine Stude Lark is in the Studebaker National Museum. I found it odd that after Curtiss-Wright’s soured relationship with South Bend they chose a Studebaker for this experiment. But perhaps having been so intimately involved with the company in 1956-58, familiarity with its underpinnings made the project easier.
The automobile was seen ripe for re-invention in the early 1930s, as just about every car was just an evolution of the 1901 Mercedes. And one key aspect was the issue of how cars all sat so high on top of their ladder frames, with their transmissions, drive shafts and solid rear axles taking up so much room underneath the body.
So to re-imagine the car as a low and self-supporting body, with an engine and drive-train completely out of the way, was seen as the way to do that. And it so went hand-in-glove with the desire to also make cars aerodynamic.
FWD was of course also explored, but seemed to have several disadvantages, such as higher steering effort, issues with universal/CV joints, weight distribution and front suspension, among others. Rear engines seemed like a more advantageous way to go, and realistically, it largely was, until some of those issue were resolved.
But clearly, some hung on to it for too long. As much fun as the Corvair was, it was a bad idea to make it rear engine by 1960.
Oh, and that Lark with the VW engine in its trunk looks like a prank.
Oh, I agree completely that there was lots of allure to a rear engine design in the 1920s and 1930s, when it was the cutting edge hot new thing. The part I have trouble with is why folks continued to flirt with it for so long. Porsche and VW were the only two who were really successful with it, but both of them had strong roots in prewar engineering, so the setup is understandable there.
But by the end of WWII, the Tatra’s nasty handling issues had to have been well known. And I occasionally wonder if VW’s early success was in spite of its rear engine rather than because of it – there was a lot offered in that car that was not available anywhere else at the price. It just seems to me that the concept was at a dead end well before 1950, (but like communism? 🙂 ), it kept being given fresh tries because the previous attempts had not, in the view of the designers, been properly implemented.
The handling issues of RE cars is most of all affected by just how much of their weight they carry on their rear wheels. The V8 engine in the Tatra made that a serious issue, although in later generations, suspension tweaking improved that considerably.
And the VW’s weight distribution wasn’t all that bad, due to its very compact and light boxer four tucked up against its rear axle.
The question as to why RE was still seen viable after 1950 or so? Because it still had some perceived advantages over conventional front-engine RWD, and there were still challenges with FWD. I think RE still made quite a lot of sense in small cars through the 50s. A car like the Renault 8/10 were really a quite good solution with very few negatives and lots of positives.
But for larger cars like the Corvair, it was a much more marginal proposition. But the improved braking despite the drum brakes, and the light steering and superb traction were all still valid advantages.
If you’ve ever driven a Corvair and a Falcon, you might feel somewhat different. Or maybe you have.
Good point, Paul!
I was fortunate enough to take a ’65 Corvair for a short drive, and to this day, I recall how well I thought it drove/handled.
My dad owned a Renault R10 in the 70’s. The first time I got behind the wheel, I was amazed at how well it drove/handled.
It didn’t dissuade me from dreams of ’55-’57 Chevies with hi-performance small-block V8s and 4-speeds, but it did open my eyes to what else was out there.
I have driven them both, years ago, a 61 or 62 Falcon and a 63 Corvair. Both of them six cylinder automatics (the Corvair was a standard grade Monza). There is absolutely no comparison between the two: The Corvair is definitely the better car.
As long as you had a clue in how to drive it. The Falcon may have been a boring old stone, but it was the kind of boring old stones that American drivers had been driving all their lives.
The Corvair was different. Yes, better. Much better. But most American drivers weren’t interested in learning how to handle different.
My 73 super Beetle drove pretty nicely – upto 50mph at which point the noise became uncomfortable, but if you didnt mind that and kept the foot to the floor you could keep up with motorway traffic pretty well.
It was best in the 20 -40 mph range though when a little squirt on the gas would get that great sound.
It would’ve made an interesting alternate history if the Corvair had been front engine/FWD. It wouldn’t have had the safety issues the rear engine had and GM would’ve possibly gone into the OPEC years with a sorted FWD compact – possibly the Corvair nameplate might be with us still?
Wouldn’t have happened. The Corvair’s layout existed for one specific reason: They were going after Volkswagen. After all, we’re talking GM here, they can certainly do a better car than a bunch of Germans. Especially a fugitive from the Third Reich.
And, they were GM. Let lesser companies like Ford and Chrysler just shrink their big cars. GM would do it right.
Jim, when you and I saw the rear-engine Lark in South Bend, wasn’t there information stating it had actually been used by somebody for quite the period of time, not just thrown to the side as it might seem for such an experiment?
Good question, I am trying to remember but cannot.
Here is an article about the Studebaker-Porsche.
http://www.studebaker-info.org/studeporsche/stude-porsche08.html
Back in the day, a rear engined car made a lot of sense for the time. Yes, front wheel drive was known, and had been successfully sold (Cord L29 of 1929-1932, then the Cord 810), but the big reason they didn’t take off is because the technology for constant velocity joints was good enough yet. At least not good enough for the size of cars and engines that Americans demanded.
Front engine, rear wheel drive might work wonderfully well in performance, but they package lousy. Either you’ve got this big driveline hump cutting into the interior room, or you raise the floor of the car above the driveline, thus affecting ride and handling. Until front drive joints were improved where they gave front engine, rear drive dependability, the rear engined car was the best idea available for maximum interior space while still having acceptable vehicle dynamics.
I’m glad mention was made of that Ford rear engine, driveshaft, front wheel drive idea. To me, that’s a prime example of an answer to a question that nobody is ever going to ask. Traction would be the worst of the four possible ways to do a driveline, coupled with the space robbing inclusion of a driveshaft.
The Stout Scarab immediately came to mind for me, as I’ve seen one of those “in the metal” twice, the most recently just a few weeks ago. Several survive and they are truly stunning–the art deco detailing is really breathtaking, even on what amounts to a rather odd overall shape. Lovely interior too, like a rolling lounge. I can see how they would have been popular with the wealthy, and the fact that only six were sold seems a little low.
As a sidenote, it has to be one of the more anthropomorphic cars out there. The grilles over the headlamps even suggest eyelashes. (The Scarab would most definitely be a “she”.)
Looking at that first Studebaker concept posted, I see a Citroen DS with a notchback. And speaking of the DS–there’s a car that *looks* like it should be RE but isn’t.
“no Finns at the rear?”, wow. 😛
Yeah, nice work shoehorning that photo into the mix.
Wow, lots here that’s completely new to me, but the Porsche-designed Studebaker – and the Porsche-powered Lark – stand out. Thanks for the research and write-up! One minor nit, in the paragraph about the Hoffman, “Brooke” Stevens should be “Brooks”.
D’oh! Thanks for picking that typo up.
“But since Tatra quit making cars in 1999, no large RE four-door remains in production.”
Don’t forget the Tesla Model S, its powerful powerplant is mounted in the rear.
Fascinating and amazingly complete article, thanks.
Quite true, about the Tesla. And it’s acknowledged as such in tomorrow’s Part 2.
To my eyes, I think that the John Tjaara Lincoln prototypes were on the table when the Volkswagen Beetle was conceived. The resemblance is striking.
Josef Ganz, 1933 design.
Splendid, comprehensive and indepth article, Tatra ! Are you and Don Andreina brothers ? Father and son ? The same person ?
By 1933, there was nothing original in Ganz’ design.
Tatra started the look with its 77 streamliner in 1933. And its small V570 (below) from 1933 too was also influential and looks even more VW-like.
Starting in 1932-1933, this was just the hot new look. And a lot of folks were jumping on the bandwagon. By the time the VW came out, it was hardly anything new or radical in terms of its design.
Do not forget the Hanomag “Kommissbrot” and the Benz RH (Renn Heckmotor) from 1925.
Broer Johannes: Thanks for the compliment!
There’s been quite a bit of speculation as to the Zephyr prototype’s influence on the final VW styling. It’s hard to pin down; Porsche had been working on rear-engine small cars for some time, and they all were hunch-backed things. But Erwin Kommenda must have been aware of the Zephyr when he sketched the final VW body design in 1936 to some degree or another.
Now you mentioned it, when I first saw the pictures of the GM prototypes, I thought “oh, some German experiment I’ve not seen before” – they are very Central European looking.
Porsche visited Ford US while designing his VW to see production en masse you never know what else he got to see.
The Stude-Porsche tie-up and prototypes are almost incredible. Be fun (with very deep pockets) to recreate these.
It’s Christmas in February! A splendid article on one of my favorite subjects. And yes, my first three cars all were rear-engine (Corvair and VW).
And with the emergence of EVs, we’ll undoubtedly be seeing more of them again.
and the current Renault Twingo amazingly enough
We didn’t call that place in front, a “frunk” then. lol The one “over top” the engine, in our “VW, fastback” we called the oven though.
Everyone was trying to figure out how to get that heat into the car during the winter months..
I don’t remember how big it was, but the rear-engine Fedden prototype was a 4-door:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedden_car
There was a history of it some years ago in a British magazine.
That’s British (so it would be for part 2) and 1100cc, so too small for the purposes of the post.
I have been hoping for an RE revival. The new Smart ForFour/ Renault Twingo is a good small step …
A mid-size sedan with a transverse RE has many advantages: Aerodynamics. Low cowl. Frontal crash protection crumple zone. Pedestrian protection. Low steering effort. Reduced turning diameter. Balanced weight distribution during braking. Reduced engine noise for driver … And it’s readily made with today’s ubiquitous transverse FWD power packs, relocated (in either mid/rear or rear engine configurations).
Also the Tata Nano!
For the reasons you highlighted, RE for small cars and sports cars still works and is still very much with us, albeit on fewer models than half a century ago….
Thanks for a great article.
No reason RE couldn’t work for Camry-sized mid size 4-door sedans. Modern design will be liquid cooled, with either front or side mounted radiators. That solves many of the problems with classic air-cooled RE designs: Marginal interior heating, noise, fuel economy, emissions, etc. Using the transverse FWD packs is also much more space efficient, enabling front and rear cargo spaces. The only problem I see is lack of fold-down rear seats. But that shouldn’t be a deal breaker. Many conventional front engined cars don’t have that feature. My ideal is a transverse inline six RE. The power pack could be wider since rear wheels don’t steer.
It’s natural for Tatra, Skoda or VW to offer a new mid-size RE sedan. Or imagine a new Porsche Panamera with transverse twin-turbo inline 6 RE … RE fans the world over would go wild.
In the American suburbs, the default commercial (shopping mall, employee lot, airport, etc) parking orientation is one-in or nose-to-nose in a multi-acre parking lot or garage. So a rear trunk is very handy for loading purchases, luggage, etc. Ditto with folding rear seats in sedans, which have mitigated the lack of wagons or hatch backs in the US market. To many people, I think that could outweigh any space efficiency or handling advantages of a rear engine layout.
What a coincidence, the magazine Collectible Automobile feature an article about the aborted Studebaker-Porsche rear engine car attempt in their new issue.
What a great article! I had forgotten about the Hoffman car.
A friend of my dad’s had a rear-engined Mercedes-Benz from the 1930’s (it MIGHT have been a 170H, from brief glimpses I had of it long ago).
I believe the friend’s father had bought it new (he liked quirky, offbeat designs).
I’m not sure that qualifies as a LARGE RE vehicle. And certainly not American. but interesting!
If it hadn’t been identified as American, I would have assumed the Hoffman was a Citroen or Renault concept. Looks very French, somehow.
Beechcraft were expensive airplanes. They had by far the best quality in GA during the late ’40s and the ’50s. Think ’80s/early ’90s Mercedes quality. Their airplanes did have faults (Beech 18 spar for example) but the build quality was superior to that of any competitors.
A Beechcraft automobile would have been too expensive for any normal car buyer – think Lincoln Mark II type expensive. Beech would not have compromised and any production car built would have failed because, like at Mercedes, engineers ruled.
Always a revelation or two in your pieces T87, and in this one it’s the Beechcraft. What a great shape – far more modern in appearance than 1943.
@Johannes: we’re all family under the skin here. Kick out the jams brothers and sisters! hehehe
Outstanding information.
Henry Ford Museum photo here from the Century of Progress–is this the same Zephyr? (interesting “not scheduled for production” signage)
Yes it is. And what’s a bit odd is that it appears that the whole front end bodywork is one piece, and that there’s no opening ‘trunk’.
I have really, really liked the Dymaxion since I first heard about it.
In case some of you didn’t know, Norman Foster, had a replica made. There’s a video of it here: http://www.archdaily.com/121530/video-norman-foster-recreates-buckminster-fullers-dymaxion-car
Autoweek did an on-the-road test drive of a Dymaxion replica in 2015:
http://autoweek.com/article/classic-cars/buckminster-fullers-dymaxion-car-probably-scariest-thing-weve-ever-driven
That 542 Stud looks awesome
+1
Outstanding site / information….
Regarding Ford’s attempt at a rear-engined car, is the Flathead-derived All-Alloy V8 related to another 1940 All-Alloy Flathead V8 project for experimental use in small airplanes? Would have be interesting seeing such engine reach production in OHV form. – http://www.jalopyjournal.com/?p=1064
Also interested into know whether Ford (or even Chrysler / etc) ever developed a All-Alloy V8 equivalent to the 215 Buick V8 sold to Rover?
Have read of the Chevrolet Corvair’s Flat-6 being a modular design and was wondering whether GM was actually considering developing smaller rear-engined models below the Corvair, such as a direct 4-seater Volkswagen Beetle challenger powered by a Flat-4 or even a NSU Prinz-sized Flat-Twin powered microcar?
Earlier on Grantham MP Denis Kendall also looked at developing a rear-engined car under the Kendall name before he looked into a front-engined FWD car derived from Jean-Albert Gregoire’s AFG (that later became the Panhard Dyna X), which formed the basis for the Australian-built Hartnett. Would have been interesting to see Denis Kendall and Roy Fedden work together to found a UK Volkswagen,
What engine would to power the Raymond Loewy designed rear-engined 1943 Studebaker Coupe proposal?
Kind of a pity that various rear-engined proposals were held back by unconventional X or Radial engines, especially as the Hoffman looks the most viable of the US attempts at designing a rear-engined car outside of the production Chevrolet Corvair or the 50s Studebaker Porsche Type 633 proposal (also like the Type 542 prototype).
The myth of poor/deadly T87 handling stems primarily from the post war evaluation report by Morris of a thrashed T87 with bald tires… A good condition T87 with properly inflated tires, (and plenty of life left in them) handles fine at speed. Like any car it can be manhandled, but generally speaking it’s pleasure to drive, and a revelation considering it’s time period
Also, no mention of the Mercedes rear engine series?.
Checker also planned on producing a rear engined limo version of the Model C, called the O’Hare Airport limo. This project never got farther than the build out of a chassis. The Blueprints are on file with the ICTA.
Interesting article on the Dymaxion, including the crash that killed the driver:
https://slate.com/technology/2022/08/the-dymaxion-car-the-true-history-of-buckminster-fullers-failed-automobile.html
Thank you for the amazing article. I had never heard of the Studebaker/Porche connection until now. I HAD heard of the Dymaxion, and how that incredibly ill-conceived contraption received and continues to receive positive press, still amazes me.
I wonder if the early Checkers were styled so weirdly simply because they were supposed to be taxicabs, and being easily recognizable as such was a selling point, weird being beside the point?