1949 Chevrolet images posted by William Rubano
(first posted 11/14/2015) We commonly talk about the “aero era” of car design, one that started roughly with the 1982 Audi 100/5000, and really kicked into high gear with the 1986 Ford Taurus. But that was just “aero V 2.0”, as the original aero era started some fifty years earlier. I’ve covered that in my Automotive Aerodynamics series, starting here. Actually, it started earlier than that even, in Europe, but it really took flight with the Tatra streamliners, starting in 1933, and in the US with the 1934 Chrysler Airflow.
But Americans, and GM in particular, had somewhat ambivalent feelings about the fastback. In the case of GM, they hedged their bets; actually they did more than that. They adopted the fastback, but also developed its opposite, the first modern three-box sedan, in the form of Bill Mitchell’s 1938 Cadillac 60 Special. It would seem that GM just couldn’t make up its mind which approach they should fully embrace, so they offered both styles. In 1949, buyers had the choice of either fastback or notchback Chevys, at the exact same price. Which would you have picked?
GM’s first fastback was this superlative 1936 Cadillac V16 Aerodynamic Coupe. Of course, giving a big tall car with a classic front end a fastback didn’t really make it very aerodynamic, but that was the hot new thing at the time, as long as the unfortunately-blunt front end of the Chrysler Airflow was avoided. And the Cadillac certainly did that, as would all subsequent GM fastbacks.
A young Bill Mitchell’s first new design for GM was the 1938 Cadillac 60 Special, which was a decided turn away from the fastback, just as it was becoming more common. The 60 Special pioneered a distinct notch-back roof line without the typical third side window behind the rear door, a big C-Pillar, and a squared-off trunk, all features that came to be near-universal in the many decades following until quite recently, when the fastback came back to predominate again.
Chevrolet, which always tended to mirror Cadillac design, featured two body styles at the top end of their 1942 line (actually, the 60-Special inspired Fleetline Sportmaster, joined the line in mid-1941). These were the two most expensive Chevy models, and of course the most stylish. And they embodied the two design schools at the time. It should be noted that the Fleetline Aerosedan had a lower roofline (by 2.5 inches) compared to the rest of the body styles, so it was more than just a grafted-on fastback.
Americans were smitten by the fastbacks on the new Chevys, but not consistently. The Fleetline Aerosedan became the top selling ’42 Chevy, dropped back to number three in 1946, and bounced back for a very overwhelming favorite in 1947 and 1948.
For 1949, the Chevrolet was all-new. And again, it was offered in two basic body styles; the notch-back Styleline and the fastback Fleetline. And it was unique in its price class to do so. Buyers made a fairly predictable choice: those going for a four-door sedan preferred the Styleline notchback sedans.
But among the several two-door sedan versions, the Fleetline was still the best seller (some 240k units).
In fact, it’s a bit surprising that there even was a four door Fleetline. And it sold quite well too (166k units), if not as well as the Styleline sedan (235k).
Undoubtedly, its appeal was primarily with those who wanted something a bit more rakish and sporty looking, regardless of what was under the hood (90 hp 216 CID ohv six). With some different big wheel covers from the hub cap shop (Buick?) and some fat whitewalls, this is what a guy might likely be very drawn to as a first new but used car, as this owner was in 1952. The clean “custom” look was in, and the Chevy, along with the Mercury of the same vintage, carried it best.
Of course, this is what the owners of Chevy Fleetlines really wanted, but then a Cadillac was out of reach for most buyers at the time. The styling similarities are hardly coincidental. Until 1959, Cadillac used a larger C-Body, which was bigger all-round than the Chevy’s A-Body, and was not just a longer B-Body as would be the case from then on.
This ’49 Fleetline looks to be in very good original condition. Needless to say, I’ve always been a fastback lover (when they’re done right), and these GM cars certainly were. No wonder they undoubtedly played a role in such classics like the 1952 Bentley Continental.
I’m going to use the top photo again, as there’s only one that shows off its very fine lines. This one is of course a low-trim Fleetline Special, but the lack of chrome doesn’t detract. I’d love to have this car, a poor man’s Bentley Continental. And with a warmed-over GMC 302 six under the hood, it would outrun the Continental too.
Related:
Who Actually Styled The 1952 Bentley Continental? by Don Andreina
1954 Sorrell-Manning Roadster: Hot Six-Carb GMC Six Under A Sexy Fiberglass Roadster
These sure are nice looking cars and just to think that 50 years earlier people were getting around via Horses, the shoe lace express, or steam power and none looked as sharp as these. It would be cool to hold one of those pieces of chrome that are affixed to the front fenders of the Fleetine Aerosedan, were they actual 100 percent Chrome? I wonder if they were attached really well or would fall off over time? The fact that the wheel wheels front and aft are smaller than the wheels they shroud is also interesting. So, how long did these last in the real world? I would like to think they were like other cockroaches of the road such as the 90s Buick Centuries, Mercury Villagers, and Toyota Camries.
Chrome is always plated over some other metal. Typically steel for the trim, except for the cast pieces, which were made from “white metal” (alloys) or such.
These were very well-built cars, although some like to knock the Chevy six for its lack of a pressure oil system to some internal parts. Yet they seemed to hold up well enough. Old Chevy’s from this vintage could be picked up easily for dirt cheap in the late 60s and well into-through the 70s, from old farmers and such that kept them going for decades. And the bodies were of heavy-gauge steel, and held up quite well.
I can attest the latter fact by my own experience, as sometime around 2009 I helped some friend of my father to sell his late Dad’s 1954 Chevy 210 (bought brand new in USA and shipped to the USSR, supposedly by the GAZ plant for study & comparison tests, later sold via consignment shop to a private owner – remained his daily driver in summer months until late 1990s).
Both body & frame were in excellent condition for its age, almost without any major rust damage or signs of repairs. Despite the original engine & gearbox missing (it had 1970s Volga drive train swapped in), it still gave the impression of a sturdy, well built car, with surprisingly tight fit & finish (wanted in for myself, too, but didn’t have a proper storage place at the time).
That’s a ’53 Chevy there .
Yes , these were beautiful , well designed and built cars ~ the only thing that killed off those 216 C.I.D. ‘ Babbit Pounders ‘ was high RPM’s on the freeways .
-Nate
A pressure-lubrication kit to the valve train was available for the old Stove Bolt Six, at least in its 1950s versions. Ours in a 1957 Two-Ten station wagon punched out valve caps and broke valve springs with seeming regularity when asked to make long, 65 mph trips; until we installed one. Didn’t happen any more, after that.
It also frequently burned up and brinelled its front wheel bearings. We didn’t learn until after it was replaced that the old way of packing the bearings with the thickest, gooeyest axle grease wasn’t the best way; a thinner, more oily grease, and GOOD GREASE SEALS to keep it off the brake shoes, would lubricate better. Or so we were told; by then we didn’t have the car any more, to try it. Now, of course, there are tapered roller bearing retrofits that eliminate the issue entirely; and a disc brake conversion would have roller bearings, too.
This story takes me back to 1963 when my daddy bought my great-great aunt’s (widow of a farmer) ’49 for $75.00. It had been sitting a long time, but a new battery, some gas, and some TLC got it home. A well-worn front end, and my mother’s refusal to put her children back in that car, led it to soon be traded for a creampuff 9-passenger ’56 Beauville.
The big ends only dipped oil at idle above idling speed they were fed by pressure jet stream of oil, I can still remember seeing the jig used to ensure the jet nozzles were correctly aligned in the special tools rack in the Chevy dealership where my dad worked
@ Brice :
“Target Lubrication” ~ it worked well until the oil pan got dented…..
Those Babbit Pounders were pretty stout, they didn’t like the open highway much though .
Nate
Definitely the fastback coupe. Always reminded me of a `53 Bentley Continental,especially from the back of the doors to the rear end.
Ive always like the Aero cars from GM unfortunately rarely seen in the metal over here only fourdoor sedans were locally assembled though the occasional refugee has snuck in lately, and a 214 cu Bedford truck motor gives old Chevs a nice bolt in giddyup extra 1000rpm, stock.
Interesting to go with the fastback and swapping the old I6 for the V8. ^^;
I spotted on this Portugese blog via Hemmings blog, a interesting “what if?” about what if Chevrolet had kept a fastback version for 1953-54 as well as Ford doing a fastback version of its 1949 shoebox model done by a car fan from Brazil.
http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/2013/11/27/what-a-difference-a-roofline-makes/
http://garagemdigital.blogspot.com.br/2013/11/shoebox.html
This body looked best with Pontiac’s Silver Streaks running down the back. Just perfect.
I’ve always been puzzled by the Fleetline/Styleline names. GM normally got those things right. To most people Fleet means ‘quantity sales’ as in stripped business coupe. It doesn’t evoke ‘fleet of foot’ or ‘sleek’. I’ll bet some fleet buyers were confused into buying the more expensive series.
Hmm. Maybe that was the point after all.
Back then, “fleet” implied speed, not fleet sales. That’s a concept that’s really only become a significant one in more recent decades. No one really talked much about “fleet sales” back then. I’m not even sure they were called that back then.
My dad bought his ’51 Fleetline in ’53, and it became mine in ’60 as I finished my bachelor’s degree. As a Chevy it was dependable, stodgy, and easy to repair. Of course it “hung up” when shifted too fast from first to second (non-syncromeshed). But the best thing about it was that fastback. Impossible to see out with a quick glance, enormous blind spots, and the inside window was a beast to clean. But I loved its looks. Still do, and just a couple of years ago I found myself admiring a restored ’50. But it was too much money for a toy. But I still have good memories. And, yes, it did look like the Cadillac!
Beautiful looking cars. With its rounded edges of the car, it’s aerodynamic where it counts, while still providing enough room for a man and/or a woman to get into and sit while wearing their hats.
Both, in fact. Moreover, I like the idea of selling both formal-roof sedan and fastback versions of the same car. I wonder, what if they built a proper fastback / hatchback in the 1950s ? Could it save this body style from falling into oblivion (in USA, at least) for something like 10 years ? Chrysler tried to revive it around 1957 with the Norseman and the Imperial D`Elegance; GM built several fastback bodied dream cars, too – not bad looking at all.
The fastback is the one for me. After all I did have 4 VW fastbacks in the past. The black ’49, being a base model with less chrome makes it look all that much cleaner and sleeker.
These always seemed so old as a 10-15 y.o used car. They seemed to predate modern styling and luxury standards.
I’m still not a big fastback fan.
I’ve never been crazy about these Chevys, no matter the roofline. Like my Grandmother’s ’50 Buick Super, they look too stodgy for me. But that ’49 Cad is a beauty.
What really motivated me to comment is that for all my years (62), I never knew what those “straps” were attached to the backs of the front seats. Robe cords!
Handy for hanging the rugs on, in those pre-heater days!
Count me as another fan of the Chevy Fleetline. I always thought that the fastback roof was done just perfectly on these.
For about a decade, there seemed to be a real split of opinion on whether the future lay with the notchback or with the fastback. Every carmaker placed their bets (for better or worse) except Chevrolet, which was probably the only volume brand with the resources to offer both. Plus a hardtop in 1951. Game, set, match.
As much as I like this 49, I never thought Chevy got all of the details right until the final year of this body in 1952.
Packard in that era hedged its bets by producing a notchback 4-door sedan and a fastback 2-door sedan.
I prefer the ’51 most of all. Not sure they had the fastbacks in ’52…if they did I’d go that route.
The 4-door was dropped after ’51, the 2-door after ’52.
Anybody knows who invented the word “fastback”? And when was it used for the first time?
Wikipedia says it appeared in Webster’s dictionary in 1954, so was probably used before that. I remember by 1962 or so, my mother (who was the car person in our family; my dad never learned to drive) used the term fastback when referring to these old Chevies. Of course, she called our Volvo a fastback also, though later one of my friends dubbed the 544 as a “hunchback”. But as a kid in the early sixties, I was familiar with the term fastback and associated with the Chevies, to the point that I was confused when the 1963-1/2 Galaxie came out and was called a fastback by Ford, as it looked nothing like an old Chevy. Thank God!
re “Fastback” and “Notchback”–a column from the Bakersfield (CA) paper, March 1950:
And I see Nash was using “fastback” in ads as early as ’39:
Interesting. Helps answer a question I’ve wondered about too. It must have been coined soon after the first ones were built.
Ford in 37 though without the fastback title.
In today’s newspaper searching, Paul, the term appears all of a sudden with those Nash ads in the spring of ’39; can’t turn it up earlier. I’d always thought it brand-new auto jargon, coined c. 1964. I learned plenty from today’s essay–thanks!
Thank you, Sally, for the enlightening information. I always believed I had readen the word in some US magazine from the early 50′ s (Life? Reader’ s Digest?). And the Nash ad makes it clear that “fastback” was colloquial before 1939.
There were still a lot of these GM fastbacks on the road when I first became aware, some might say obsessed, with the cars in my environment. To me they were just old, dowdy cars compared to a ’57 Chevy 🙂 or a late-fifties or early-sixties Cadillac or Chrysler, let alone the new Lincoln Continental. A few years later, when first the Barracuda and then Mustang revived Fastback styling, they were so different that the Chevies still looked dated. Today, the 3-box versions are the ones with no appeal to me. Of course, the fact that our family car in the early sixties was a Volvo 544 may have influenced my perspective of these Chevies. They were certainly sleeker than the Volvo!
“among the several two-door sedan versions…”
In the styling generation that began in 1949, is there any difference between a 2-door (pillared notchback) sedan and a 2-door (pillared) coupe? Through 1953, each still has its own separate body code, but from the pictures in the brochures, they look like the same body to me. In earlier generations, by contrast, there was a definite difference between the two; a ’48 coupe clearly has a different, shorter roofline than a 2-door sedan.
In 1954, the body code for the pillared coupe became the same as the 2-door sedan, so by this point there seems to be no doubt that two used the same body. Chevy also cut the pillared coupe lineup to just a single model, and began referring to the model formerly known as the Business Coupe as the Utility Sedan. IINM, the pillared coupe lasted until 1957, after which it disappeared, leaving 2-door sedans and 2-door hardtops.
Some backstory: in the 1920s, there had been a very clear difference between a sedan and a coupe. A sedan had a passenger compartment that carried all the way to the back of the body, and invariably included a rear seat. A coupe had a passenger compartment that stopped well short of the rear of the body (leaving room for a trunk or a rumble seat), and most coupes had only a single row of enclosed seating within the passenger compartment. Over time, as sedans grew trunks and as it became universal for coupes to have a passenger compartment large enough to accommodate an enclosed rear seat, the two became more and more alike. In the Chevrolet styling generation that ended in 1948, the coupe still had a noticeably shorter roofline than the sedan. 1949 appears to be the point where the two became one and the same.
In the styling generation that began in 1949, is there any difference between a 2-door (pillared notchback) sedan and a 2-door (pillared) coupe?
Yes. The coupe was closer-coupled (shorter roof, longer trunk) than the 2 door sedan. The coupes are below:
And the 2 door sedans are here:
And here’s all the models:
I had looked at the brochure pictures before and didn’t really see any difference. The diagram in your last post does seem to show a longer roof on the sedan, though, and after then looking back at the brochure photos, I think I see the difference now. It’s probably easiest to spot by looking at the shape of the rear side window. I should’ve known Fisher Body wouldn’t give each style its own code unless there was some difference.
The difference is pretty subtle, though, to the point where I have to wonder why they even bothered making two distinct bodies. (By 1954, it would appear that Chevrolet agreed, given that ’54 and later pillared coupes no longer had their own body code, but carried the same body code as the 2-door pillared sedan.) Contrast this with 1948 and earlier models, where the difference between the coupe and the sedan is very easy to spot.
The 2-door sedan body generally had exactly the same roofline as the 4-door sedan, but longer doors for better access to the rear compartment. The coupe normally had a shorter roof, even if by the early 1950’s it was not very much shorter than the sedan roof.
Spent a lot of miles in a 49 Chev fastback. Dad bought it in about 56. In 59 he was taking me to school and a kid in a 51 chev notchback centerpunched us in my door. Broke my collarbone and gave me a concussion. Ruined the car but Dad and BIL pulled the engine and put it in a 46. It became my second car. Actually probably liked the 46 better but learned to drive in the 49.
Memories. Happy to still have them.
In the mid-1970s, someone in my high school got a black Fleetline two-door just like the one featured, except that it was absolutely immaculate – the proverbial little-old-lady car.
“It would seem that GM just couldn’t make up its mind which approach they should fully embrace, so they offered both styles.”
What is wrong with that? It was the smart move – some want fastbacks, some want traditional 3-box cars. Might as well throw in convertibles and hardtops, too. I think it’s called offering something for everyone.
The implied GM-hate is years past worn-out and tired, and personally, I’m sick of it. No car company forces anyone to buy their cars.
If they could afford to do it, good on them. Buyers seemed to agree with this approach.
When I was a kid in the late 1950’s, an elderly woman who lived three doors down from us had one of these, in a striking baby-blue colour with fat whitewall tires. Memory says it was a four door sedan, with an impressive amount of chrome – probably a Deluxe? She was a widow from a well-off family, and on one occasion when I was in her house I remember being surprised by a living room containing Chinese-style furniture and porcelain. The richness went with the colour of the car in my mind.
It was a car that rarely came out of its garage, which was hidden semi-mysteriously somewhere behind the house. When it did appear it always seemed immaculately clean and polished, and was generally being driven very slowly. At the time, it looked old-fashioned to the average 8 year old, but its colour and presence made it something of a star in our small town.
We used to call those late ’40’s fast backs “turtlebacks” because they were so slow and cumbersome. Did anybody else note how common the hoffmeister kink was used in the C pillars on most of those GM styles?
I don’t know if I could choose but whenever I see a fastback I immediately think of the late 30s and the post war 40s. Notchbacks don’t bring the same nostalgia immediately to mind.
One of my neighbors (he was a senior in high school when I was a freshman) had one of these his final year of school. Larry spent a lot of time and effort replacing the six and three on the tree with a 327 and four speed from a wrecked Corvette. Occasionally he would take pity on me and my friend and offer us a ride to school. It was only a mile or so but even as a passenger it was easy to tell that Larry’s Chevy was quicker than your run of the mill stovebolt. I don’t know that he did anything to the brakes and suspension (other than bolting on some traction bars) so the old Chevrolet might have been a handful on any kind of twisty road. Larry ended up going to college out of town and I never saw the car again.
Perhaps the first GM fastback was the 1935 Chevrolet Master All-enclosed Coupe, which were built in Adelaide, South Australia with a Holden body. They made nearly 5000 Chevrolets from 1935-41 and another 2550 between Oldsmobile, Pontiac, Buick and Vauxhall (in descending order of production).
These late-40s fastbacks are beautiful although I think the bigger Buick or 46-47 Cadillacs (pre-tailfin) carry the look better than the Chevrolet.
Dad had a ’35 Chev Master Close-Coupled Coupe (as he insisted it was called) when he was a commercial traveller for Irish Linen in the western district of Victoria in the mid-late thirties. Plenty of room for his samples, and on occasion he slept in it. Sold it when he went away to the war in ’39. He loved that car. Google images found this, probably not his.
Offering two variations of mass-market sedans was the luxury GM enjoyed by holding fifty percent of the U.S. market then. GM had given customers a choice of fastbacks and notchback since 1941 over a variety of their makes and models, the fastback the ‘sportier’ option. The preference shook out weighted toward a two door fastback, and a four door notchbacks in lower and mid-priced makes except where only B-Body fastbacks were the only choice.
C-Body Olds 98, Buick Roadmaster and Cadillac 62 lead the notchback four door popularity, the two door fastback as adjunct. Whatever sporty image the fastback held was quickly replaced by the hardtop for 1949-50. Its appearance pretty well sounded the death knell of the fastback in either form, at least for a while.
My father’s first car was a black ’49 Chevy Deluxe – most likely the coupe. I’ve seen a picture of it, probably the last time was 25 years ago.
He picked it up around 1955, in pristine condition, as he was starting college. It’s really the only car he ever reminisces about. He came to the U.S. in 1949 with the shirt on is back as a displaced person from WWII. By 1955 he had a sharp looking car and was beginning his time in a private college on an athletic scholarship.
I think it just blew his mind that his fortunes in 1955 were so different after spending 1945 fleeing from advancing Soviet forces. Few people are prouder to be an American than my dad.
When I was 16, I bought a 1952 Chevy 4 dr. sedan out of a local junk yard for $35.00. Had it towed home and I got it running. Had to do a valve job, replace the windshield and some front end parts from what I can remember. I drove that car for two years until it died (engine) and then bought a 1947 Plymouth 4 door. The the military came calling.
I also had to put a new grill in that Chevy and I believe it was from a 1951.
Yep, ’51 grille, ’52 side trim.
GM’s first fastback was this superlative 1936 Cadillac V16 Aerodynamic Coupe
It’s based on a custom show car for the ’34 World’s Fair.
I assume the Chevy 4 door fastback has less rear headroom than the notchback. I’d forgotten they existed.
I didn’t know the fast back was available in a four door version, I have never seen one until now. I believe my parents bought a ’50 two door fastback-I have an only vague memory of it. I think I was about five at the time they purchased it.
Here’s Bill Knudsen’s ’38 V16 custom fastback. I suspect it looks better from other angles.
Me, I like the aero body style its just a shame it wasnt on the local assembly menu we got from Canada, four door only take it or leave it was the choice.
This 1950 4 door was at a recent film shoot.
Wrong photo. I meant this one.
Thanks for the story! IMO these fastbacks chevys are handsome… and one of the most beautiful car designs EVER…
In person they are even more classy and well proportioned than in pictures
My parents had a grey 2 door which is the first car I can remember. We were living with my grandmother and I can picture looking at it backed into the driveway, which is the best angle to see the fastback. It was replaced by a 53 Ford 2 door in 1955.
These cars make me think about the 1978 Oldsmobile Cutlass Salon and Buick counterparts. GM tried to revive the notchback/fastback cars but they didn’t last long. Notchbacks with trunks quickly became the only cars offered.
I’ll take a 1950 2-door fastback. My Grandfather had a ’52, My godfather a ’49 (I think), Uncle Zoltan a ’50 and Uncle Fred a ’51 – all 2-door notchbacks.
I loved reading all these stories/posts! I brought my 50 chevy in 1998. I felt so proud when my dad told me my grandfather had one (never knew him as he died in the mid 50s). I feel so peaceful when I’m driving on sunny days.