(first posted 11/1/2012) The 1930s were the greatest decade of automotive innovation and change. At its beginning, cars looked like tea tins with wheels sticking out; by its end, some looked ready for the 21st Century. Although more conservative America didn’t exactly embrace radical, rear-engined streamliners like the Tatra, there was a seemingly infectious spirit of exploration and innovation in the air on both sides of the Atlantic.
Stylistically, the influence of the Streamlined Decade was evident on even the most prosaic American sedans, including this sleek 1936 Chevy. It wasn’t all show, though; all those tasty curves and graceful accents sat atop a very innovative independent front suspension–designed in France, no less, that incubator of automotive radicalism. Then again, this might be one of many Chevys that were converted back to a more familiar (if less comfortable) solid-beam axle. In a scenario that would play itself out so often, the maintenance-intensive Dubonnet “Knee-Action” was not yet up to American-style use and abuse. Innovation is a bitch…
André Dubonnet was a wealthy heir to the Dubonnet wine business who lived life fully, although he did end up almost bankrupt. A highly-decorated WW1 fighter ace, he went on to race cars before turning his attention to a number of automotive inventions and innovations. The most commercially successful one was his trailing-arm independent suspension “système Dubonnet”, which he sold to GM as well as a number of other major European manufacturers.
Dubonnet went on to father one of the most remarkable cars ever, the 1937 Dubonnet Xenia, a one-off Hispano-Suiza H6C built by Saoutchik and designed by Jean Andreau.
That was followed in 1938 by this radical streamliner, powered by a rear-mounted Ford V8. Eventually, Dubonnet lost most of his fortune on early flirtations with solar power; nothing ventured…
image:earlytimeschapter.org
The steering kick-back and other annoyances of rough-and-tumble solid-axle front suspensions were a formidable issue prior to the wide-spread adoption of independent front suspension. There was an industry-wide (Ford excepted) move to IFS in about 1934. Cadillac engineer Maurice Olley developed a SALA (short arm-long arm) system that would become nearly ubiquitous. However, in 1934 Chevrolet and Pontiac did not have the equipment to make enough of the big coils springs required, so the two divisions looked to France and bought Dubonnet’s system, where it was already employed on some race cars and high-end machinery. It was actually more expensive on a per-unit basis, but it could be made on the machinery that they had. That was the reason they adopted it.
It’s seemingly impossible to get a really good image of how the Dubonnet suspension looked, but here’s a few cutaways. It’s unlike any modern suspension system; here’s an excellent description from an article on the subject at obrasmechanicos.com:
The Dubonnet system consists of a pair of oil-filled shock and spring units, hung off the king pins and connected to the wheels by short trailing arms. A transverse link pivots on threaded bushings at the brake backing plates to provide lateral wheel support. Each unit contains two shock absorbers and two coil springs, one inside the other. As the trailing arm rises under load, it cranks the lower spring seat upward, compressing the outer, main spring against the upper spring seat. After 1 7/8” of movement, the secondary spring comes into play to give a progressive spring rate. Preload and ride height can be adjusted externally. The upper shock functions during spring compression, the lower shock dampens rebound. A massive cross member provides the torsional rigidity needed to keep the wheels parallel.
A unique feature is the way all traces of bump steer are eliminated. The tie rod ends mount to the shock units, which pivot on the king pins, but do not move vertically with the wheels. Thus, wheel joust and rebound cannot translate as steering inputs. All other commercial IFS systems which I am aware of require the tie rods to rise and fall as the suspension works. The tie rods can only be in a geometrically neutral position when the wheels point straight ahead under moderate load.
The really unique aspect is that these self-contained units sat outboard of the kingpins and rotated with the wheel. Interestingly enough, in recent years both Michelin and Continental have developed integrated, in-hub e-drive/suspension systems. While not exactly along the Dubonnet’s lines, they do share a certain conceptual similarity.
Despite lacking any anti-dive geometry, it was an innovative approach, and a very effective one–as long as a full oil level was maintained. Otherwise, the double-acting shocks became utterly useless, turning the front end of the Chevy into a pogo stick.
Chevrolet warned owners to check the oil level every 1,000 miles, but it wasn’t a habit “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” Americans were willing to take up. The seal where the pivot arm exited the bottom of the unit was prone to deterioration, and the oil leaked out. Chevrolet made some running improvements, but by 1939 gave up on the Dubonnet in favor of a more conventional IFS. Since the Knee-Action system was installed only on the Master DeLuxe Series, the parts for converting to a conventional front end were readily available.
I found this ’36 Master DeLuxe sitting in mixed company; guess which one I headed to first? I’ve loved mid-thirties cars since my earliest days. The design language of the Streamlined Decade spoke most eloquently to me even as a very young child, and it has never stopped. Even fairly prosaic cars like this Chevy are a magnetic force field that sucks me in.
This is my language of choice, expressed through the right materials. Within a few short years, a heavy and crude hand would take over, and it’s just never been quite the same for me since.
I didn’t take a lot of pictures that day, but I could spend quite a bit of time just relishing how that windshield is set into the body. Its lack of a chrome surround takes the cake; in the ’50s customizing era, that came to be known as “Frenching”.
I don’t know who exactly takes credit for the ’36 Chevy, but it was during the glory days of Harley Earl’s Art and Colour Section at GM, founded in 1927. By the mid-thirties, Earl was on a roll, and GM’s design supremacy was in ascendancy. Earl’s work rarely challenged the best and most innovative designers out there, but he knew what his job was: to consistently make GM products highly attractive, without ever pushing the frontiers; no Dubonnet for Mr. Earl. I’m speaking of the thirties, forties, and early-mid fifties. We all know it didn’t end so well.
In 1936, the original generation of the Chevy “stovebolt” OHV six was in its last year, making 80 hp from its 206.8 cubic inches. It was a sensation when it debuted in 1929–“a six for the price of a four”– and Henry Ford countered it with his 1932 flathead V8. Chevy then decided to spend the next 23 years focusing on things other than being the fastest low-priced car, although in some years the “Blue Flame” six was almost the equal of the Ford. More significantly, the Chevy’s torque curve made it more tractable in typical daily driving, and it was smoother to boot. Built to Henry Ford’s exacting standards? Maybe not quite. For 1937, the Chevy six was totally redesigned, and subsequently enjoyed a long life that lasted through 1962.
Another innovation appeared on the 1936 Chevy: Hydraulic brakes. Needless to say, Henry Ford wouldn’t have any of this new-fangled stuff: No independent suspension, no sixes and no hydraulics. Henry had been to the mountain top, where he was given the one true template for the automobile. The rest were all heretics.
The interior is attractive, and pretty typical for American cars of the period (as well as a few British ones well into the late ’50s). And that steering wheel looks almost exactly like the one on the 1967 Mini Cooper S from the other day. One could argue that everything that followed was mere window dressing, for better or for worse.
That’s how humans were designed to sit, as long as there were just two of them. And getting into and out of a two-door back then was more a matter of just walking in, rather than an advanced yoga exercise.
From the late fifties on, cars from the thirties looked so old-fashioned with their tall bodies, big wheels, separate fenders and truncated back ends. It’s no secret that automotive shapes have been moving back in that general direction for some time now. Hallelujah!
Now how about some waterfall grilles?
I thought Chrysler was on to something with the PT Cruiser, but to no avail. I have often wondered why automakers have not gone back to the 1930’s designs and brought them up to date, so to speak.
With an aging population, taller sedans are it. I park next to a 90’s Dodge Status – we ownd a ’99 model – and realize just how much taller my Impalas – the recently-sold 2004 and my current 2012 are, and consequently, how much easier they are to get in and out of.
To me, those latter 1930’s streamliners evoke practicality and I want to believe the aerodynamics would allow good CAFE numbers, too.
The oldest car I have ever drove was my first car, a 1952 Chevy DeLuxe. I can only imagine what driving one of these is like – I sure would like to find out – on a nice, little-traveled road to start!
Oh yeah, park my 77 Chevelle next to any new car and they tower over it. It really does have the ‘longer lower wider’ look down pat. the proportions look off when comparing it to new cars.
Even Dad mentioned when he drove the 77 a few weeks ago, how low it sits and makes 72 year old him have to work to get in and out of it.
When my now seven-year-old son was smaller, he would sometimes use the phrase “flat car” to describe certain cars. It took me a while to figure out what he meant by that, but I eventually deduced that he meant cars that don’t have the upright, SUV-inspired styling that many modern vehicles have (note that he drew no distinction between cars, crossovers, SUVs and minivans — they were all “cars” to him). So many vehicles on the road today have that type of styling that the ones that didn’t stuck out to him and seemed to merit their own special name. Many though not all of the vehicles that he dubbed “flat cars” were older cars.
On one occasion, I pointed out some older cars to him, and explained that they were old. He responded by saying something to the effect of “Oh, you mean flat cars”.
Yes, that is the term, “flat car”. My 1991 Sedan deVille looks fat and dwarf next to any other newer model, I mean, 2000 and up. I feel as if I was in another world, but i got a lot of pride of owing a Cadillac, no matter how old or flat or dwarf its looks are. This image is from the internet, but very similar to mine.
Cheers for the old iron that we will never see again.
I’ve never driven a Chevy with the Dubonnet front suspension, but I have driven a 1939 Chevy and I would imagine that it would have felt very similar to your ’52. Both featured kingpins, which when worn, could make you think you had a solid front axel. Chevy used kingpins up thru 1962 on the Corvette. The ’30s Chevys with solid front ends would have felt very much like Chevy pickup trucks until IFS came into being in ’57 or ’58.
For being a representative of the low-priced three, this Chevrolet exudes class and elegance. This was a great find.
It would be revolutionary now for an automobile to have such a mixture of tasteful styling and comfort in an economical package.
This is a beautiful car. I hope it still sports the stovebolt six.
That Chevy has A TON of legroom!
I’ve been fascinated with this era since elementary school, when I found a bargain-bin book called “Cars of the 30s” that I read until the binding fell apart. Without it in front of me, I do think that Plymouths already had IFS, hydraulic brakes and steel bodies by this time.
There is a certain dignity to even low-priced cars from the 30s. They seem to say, if we’re going to build it at all, it needs to be a respectable piece of equipment, with just enough attention to style. Like a farmer in his best suit and hat.
Nicely put.
Plymouths were introduced by Chrysler in 1928 with juice brakes and all-steel bodies (Dodge had been using all-steel bodies since 1915). Plymouth came out with IFS in 1934 but required more maintenance than a beam front axel so they went back to that arrangement in 1935. Plymouth didn’t get a redesigned IFS system until 1938.
The reason Plymouth dropped IFS was because they adopted a variation of the “Floating Ride” arrangement Chrysler developed for the Airflow cars. By moving the engine forward to alter the weight distribution and reducing spring rates at both axles, they got a ride comparable to an IFS car without the expense, so they decided the Plymouth didn’t need it. I wouldn’t be surprised if the early experience of Chevrolet’s IFS had something to do with that.
In the 36 salesmans guide they make a big deal about a one piece roof pressing the ‘turret top’ no more canvas centre section to rot away claimed as an industry first.
Nice Restoration. A dignified color for a dignified car. I assume the wheels aren’t light blue as they appear on my screen. Not sure about those wide whitewalls either.
True story about 1936 Chev tires. During WW2 my Wife’s Grandmother was working in a parachute factory while Gramps was off in the Pacific. The tires on her 1936 Chev were down to the cords. (Now play this in your head in grumpy granny voice)
“And I went down to the ration office and I told them I am alone, I am pregnant, I am a war worker and I need new tires!!”
Grandma got her tires. That was one of her favorite stories, God bless her.
Yes, and I’ve heard stories during those years of cars trundling down the street with only three wheels, too. I’m sure they didn’t travel far!
BTW, I still have mom’s ration card and a red meat token! Her family ran a grocery store. Dad worked at Landis – the shoe repair machine company making who-knows-what at the time, too.
They got me in 1951, so I missed all that particular fun, but I remember very well what the recession of 1958 did, and that’s another story.
Gorgeous! I own a one-of-a-kind 1936 Chevy woodie wagon, and the phrase “1936 Chevy” has always been magical to me. I got mine from my grandparents in 1969, when I was 17, and have loved it ever since. 82,000 miles. Paint and chrome redone in 1984, along with some minor body work. Some wood replaced by my grandfather around 1950. Otherwise it’s original.
Paul, come to Maine and take it for a drive. it’s a half-ton truck chassis, so no worries about the front suspension.
Go to http://www.oldwoodies.com. Click on the gallery of woodie trucks of the thirties, and you can find its picture.
Morris; Thanks for the invite; I just need someone to take over this website, and I’ll be there 🙂
And what about the ’57 in the background?
’57 Chevy? Yawn.
I do find it interesting to compare windshield sizes and angles across all five cars. The ’57 is midway between our ’36 CC and today’s cars.
I’ve often wanted to get a car like this, but alas finances are not where I can do that. There’s a timeless grace to this area.
I’ve wondered how the Knee Action worked, if it was a SLA setup or not.
Knee action was only on the deluxe the el cheapo used leaf springs still and a solid beam axle, Paul seems to have neglected that point.
No I didn’t. More like you neglected to read the text carefully: 🙂
Since the Knee Action system was installed only on the Master DeLuxe Series, the parts for converting to a conventional front end were readily available.
I am a big fan of 30s cars as well and love to see them featured on this site, as rare as they may be. I especially like the wheels on this car. I have seen them described as “artillery” wheels and plan to put a similar set on a Studebaker I purchased recently.
They are, indeed, known as ‘Artillery Wheels’ to distinguish them from the Wire Wheels and solid Disc Wheels common in the era.
I, too, think they are gorgeous. On the light trucks, like mine, they were a mid-year change from wires – much nicer. Probably looked much more modern.
I’ve always been crazy about artillery wheels. Maybe an imprint on my early brain. I like them better that alloys on lots of cars, especially when they’re painted body color.
Everything’s flat black and chrome now. Bring back colors!
Originally artillery wheels were timber spoked wheels, these steel wheels imitate that look
I’m in the <3 Artillery Wheels camp too (though I never knew they were called that til just now).
My favorites are the ones on the Airflow cars – which may actually have been on all Chrysler vehicles at the time, but I notice them mostly on Airflows.
Allow me to cast another vote for 1930s styling. It truly was a golden era, and the big three were all blessed with great styling talent that made for some beautiful cars. E. T. Gregorie of Ford had a string of beautiful cars in the 1930s that could certainly rival (if not surpass) those of Earl’s Art and Colour. Also, Chrysler’s styling was under the direction of Ray Dietrich, who was also quite a good designer. Although his Chrysler designs were a bit more uneven than those of GM and Ford, they were a whole lot better than the work of Henry King whose influence showed up in the 1940 line and remained until the arrival of Virgil Exner in the 1950s.
On the suspensions, it turns out that Henry Ford may have had a point, at least with low priced cars. The entire country had been lulled into a sense of false security in that the Fords they grew up with during the Model T’s reign never required a lick of significant front end work. The Dubonnet system may have worked out on a high priced car where owners with money had people to keep the cars serviced. But your typical farmer or vacuum salesman had neither the time nor the money to keep up with a maintenance-intensive front end.
These were the cars that made GM the juggernaut that it became in the 1950s. Stylish, decent performance and reliable. They may not have had the outright durability of the Fords or the Plymouths, but most of America (then as now) would happily trade away 20 year durability for 5 – 10 year beauty, comfort and reliability. Nobody did this better than Chevrolet for a long time.
Edit – one final point. Am I the only one who thinks that Chevrolet has missed an opportunity to bring back the classic/retro Chevrolet bow tie as seen on this car? They have messed with the emblem’s dimensions and color, and to me, have killed its beauty. The old slim emblem with the car’s name spelled out within is every bit as iconic as Ford’s blue oval. GM ought to resurrect it.
Agree on the bow-tie badge. At the very least, it should be blue!. But why not a resurrection, as Ford did with the oval?
Somebody on the web appears to agree. I do too.
I like that!
A good start, but the dimensions are still wrong. The emblem has too much vertical and not enough horizontal.
But all cars had a dozen lube points that needed a shot from the old grease gun every 500 or 1000 miles. Plus oil changes every few thousand. That’s why the classic gas station always has two garage bays and a lift. What was so hard about checking the oil on those knee joints at every lube?
They had to have known about these new front ends. Chevy and Ford took turns at #1 in sales all through the 1930s.
Exactly right. Lack of maintenance would have been unforgivable, but… .
And so the Chevrolet Dubonnet knee action suspension became wildly successful and remained in production through the 1954 model Chevrolets, as well as many other brands influenced by their success. 🙂
Agreed that there were lots of lube points and frequent oil changes,but I suspect that Fords and Plymouth owners who were less than scrupulous about these maintenance points could skate with very little harmful effect, until quite some time down the road. It was apparently not so with these front ends. I am guessing here, but there have probably always been a lot of folks who did not follow the recommended maintenance schedule.
That was the recommended maintenance schedule. But if the seal went south, the oil leaked out much quicker than that. And then it had to be repaired.
Traditional front ends just didn’t depend on a single vulnerable oil seal to function (or not).
Without oil, the Dubonnet unit still has its spring. But if it dumps all its oil, it’s as if a shock absorber fell off. That’s not good. Shocks in my experience have always worn out over time without any sudden failures.
Was Dubonnet knee-action an early step in the evolution of the telescopic shocks we all know? When did the modern shock absorber emerge anyway? Was the lack of a good shock why they didn’t just use dual A-arms back then?
On the latter point, the answer is no, since the SLA system adopted at the same time by Cadillac, Buick, and Olds had double wishbones. According to the late Arch Brown, the reason Chevrolet went with the Dubonnet was because GM’s machinery for grinding the big coil springs needed for the SLA layout was hard-pressed to keep up with the volume of the upper-series makes, let alone Chevrolet. The Dubonnet was more expensive to make on a per-unit basis, but didn’t require as big an investment in new equipment, a very important consideration in the depths of the Depression. So, Chevrolet (and by extension Pontiac, for reasons of production commonality) ended up with Dubonnet.
I honestly don’t know when tube shocks started becoming available in general, but they started becoming common in Detroit in the mid-1950s. Buick switched in ’54, Oldsmobile and I think Chevrolet in ’55.
Oh, and I think the Chrysler Oriflow shocks introduced around MY1951 were also telescopic.
That’s really the inside story. Makes total sense, thanks Aaron!
Monroe furnished the first OEM shock for the 1933 Hudsons. By the end of the ’30s tubular, double-acting shocks were becoming common on American cars. It took the racing community far longer to learn the benefits of this type of shock. Tubular shocks worked so much better than the Hartford friction-type shocks that speeds increased at Indy, largely because the driving wheels (front or rear) remained in contact with the bumpy (brick) track surface for longer periods of time, thus improving forward momentum. By the early ’50s tubular shocks were the rule at Indy.
I understand that the Houdaille units that were standard on the Ford Model A (that were reputed to be the best on the market at the time) starting in 1928 were double acting hydraulics as well, although were lever action instead of the later tubular kind.
1949 is when Chev passenger cars switched 2 tube shocks (referred 2 by Chevrolet as “Airplane type shock absorbers”)
Mike, you must be a gentle driver. Sudden or catastrophic failure of hydraulic shocks is not uncommon. We blew out three shocks driving on the “piste” in the Sahara on our new 1974 VW Westphalia. Not a fun drive after that. The Bilstein shocks on my Rabbit were so fragile that all it took was one good pothole to blow a front strut. I got tired of replacing them and went to Japanese units that were more reliable.
Few people born in money these days go to engineering or do any kind of scientific or technical pursuit. Reading this story about André Dubonnet paints a picture of a very different world.
I know a computer engineering professor at the Univ. of Pa. He says Penn’s own career counselors steer all his grads towards Wall Street, not manufacturers.
Funny thing, most of the new-grad engineers coming into the chip company I work for are Indian and Chinese. Asians are still living in the real world.
Which is of course why I do what I do, to get kids in the US Inspired to pursue degrees and careers in STEM fields, we aren’t producing enough and we are having to either import workers or export jobs.
Science
Technology
Engineering
Mathematics
I’m an Engineer and I had to look that up. Slightly embarrassing. I’ve done some high school career days with my career highlights, and my engineering heroes Brunel, Colin Chapman, and Elsie MacGill. Don’t know if I ever convinced anyone…
I get a laugh every time I see that STEM acronym because it’s “METS” spelled backwards. Guess they won’t call it that because they want to associate it with success.
That started a generation ago when kids with engineering degrees could only get jobs in auto parts stores because all the defense contractors shrunk, merged or faded away when the Berlin Wall fell.
Grumman, for example, did try to diversify and use its engineering resources for peacetime applications back in the 1970’s. They got into truck bodies, ambulances, medical equipment, boats and the infamous not-so-Flxible buses. The problem was that they tended to pull the plug just as these businesses were about to turn the corner. Now they’re part of Northrop Grumman and just a shadow of their former selves on Long Island. Really a tragedy.
Good point. I have a bachelors degree and a masters degree in engineering. It was necessary to hop from one job to another to stay employed. Late in my career, I was offered a position as an internal auditor. I was shocked by the offer, but I took it. I made more money, had better benefits, and better job security being an auditor than I had had as an engineer. I retired last year and am now collecting a pension from my auditing job. Meanwhile, the same company laid off many of its engineers.
Here’s the car. Not sure if it was pre-tire or post tire.
That is one cool photo.
Did they use green-tinted glass on cars back in the day? AGB
Here’s a great video of the 1936 Chevy assembly line in action:
The ’36 Cadillac SIA Flashback in today’s Hemmings Blog has a complete explanation of GM’s use of the term “knee action”.
GM decided to put independent front suspension in all five car lines for 1934. Testing showed the wishbone was superior to Dubonnet, especially for heavier cars. But they didn’t have enough of the centerless grinders needed to make the coil springs for all GM cars.
So they went with Dubonnet for the high-volume Chevy and its Pontiac sibling, while Olds, Buick and Cadillac got their coil-spring wishbone front ends.
“General Motors advertised both i.f.s. systems under the catchy title “Knee Action,” and much was made of its virtues in the corporation’s advertising program.”
Pontiac got wishbones in ’37 and all Chevys had it by ’41.
““General Motors advertised both i.f.s. systems under the catchy title “Knee Action,” and much was made of its virtues in the corporation’s advertising program.””
Nice .pdf direct from GM:
https://www.gmheritagecenter.com/docs/gm-heritage-archive/historical-brochures/Innovation_and_Technology/Story-of-Knee-Action.pdf
Vauxhall continued use of the Dubonnet system untill 1952 with the EIP Series cars, I had a LIP Vauxhall with knee action front end standing on the brake caused the front to rise not dive, very poor steering traction on corrugated gravel roads.
Chevrolet adopted hydraulic ” HUCK ” brakes in the 1937 Model year and they were _barely_ adequate for a two dor coupe . they retained this system through 1950 in cars and light duty trucks .
Bendiz brakes were adopted in 1951 , what a tremendous improvement .
Interesting how ” Huck ” rhymes with ” suck ” .
-Nate
The guide talks of perfected hydraulic brakes for the 36 model, and the rabbit on about double articulated brake shoes for the 37 model, from my experience on well worn Chevs they worked ok, better than poorly adjusted mechanical brakes any day.
André Dubonnet obviously was one hell of a awesome man! I wish I could have been his Nick Carraway to his Jay Gatsby!
Tonight I’m drinking a single malt to men like him!
A couple of years ago on another thread I posted an external shot of a Dubonnet front suspension unit from a Chevrolet a 38, Only Chevrolet and Vauxhall used the dubonnet knee action system and Vauxhall’s effort differed from the Chevy system, Nice 36 Chev I have a new car salesmans guide for the 36 and 37 models but Dubonnet debuted well before the 36 model I can remember a mates 34 Chev coupe getting a Holden front suspension implant to cure a terminal knee action front end many years ago.
Ah- you do have a period key!
Must have missed this first time around, but interesting reading. My head hurts trying to visualise how the dubonnet system works…!
I could see where a “hi-maintenance” shock absorber could be an issue. having a dad that was a mechanic I was always taught to be “pro” maintenance but my attitude on shock absorbers was “if they are still attached to the car…eh”. it wasn’t till I started getting into macpherson struts and the like that I fully understood.
lol…of course when you are driving full size, old school Chryslers, fords etc, you really didn’t care if that third bounce after the dip in the road was bad shocks or 4,500lbs of road hugging weight doing its thing!
Tremendous article! I agree that the 30’s cars have tons of great styling and a certain yearning for the future that probably has never looked more optimistic (despite the economical woes of The Great Depression decade). Maybe that’s just the old soul in me that seems to have always had an affinity for the old and forgotten as the “good ‘ol days”, but would today be a better day than that same today would have felt back then when each day was new? I’m not so sure.
How were the Dubonnet spring/shock units accessed to top them up? Was it done from underneath with the car on a lift or jack stands, or was there access from above (short of taking off the fender?)
Looks like the inspiration for the “in-wheel” suspension on the Edison Very Light Car, winner of the Progressive X-Prize. Speaking of which, I thought the winner was supposed to do something to bring the concept to production reality…
I too find the 30’s car very good looking. However If I was buying one from that era, it would have to be a 37 or 38 1 ton Barrel Nose Ford with a 10 ft stake bed and perhaps a Marmon-herrington 4×4 conversion.
But they didn’t have enough of the centerless grinders needed to make the coil springs for all GM cars.
Then where did they get the coil springs for the Dubonnets? And aren’t coils bent, not ground?
On the discussion of returning to 30s’ proportions, it’s funny that old style seats were so much more comfortable for our modern, wider butts than the cramped buckets and sculpted rear seats we are stuck with now.
They are much smaller and presumably made on different machines. I’m only going by info passed on by a reliable source.
The early Nash 600 had a sliding-pillar front suspension licensed from Lancia. Like the Dubonnet suspension, it needed to be topped up with oil from time to time and was dropped for that reason.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1947-nash-super-600-an-early-unibody/
No one asked how the Dubonnet is on the rocks when it’s raining.
My Gawd that’s a good looking car. I’m not a fan of any of it’s market segments, but that front view is gorgeous. Suspension aside, it looks very French to my eyes. I’m not crazy about the trunk, but it’s fully lust worthy from the front. I’m sure it didn’t look that good when it was new, paint etc, but it’s just a jaw dropper now.