(first posted 1/21/2017) Welcome to part two of this new round of French Deadly Sins. As we saw yesterday, Bugatti was an old marque at the end of its rope, but by the late ‘50s, French luxury and sports cars were limited to one name: Facel-Vega. The marque was launched in 1954 and produced minute quantities of extremely high-end cars (mostly for export) with considerable success. But when Facel-Vega tried to move slightly downmarket and launch a 4-cyl. model, they committed a very Deadly Sin…
La Facellia Fatale: A Gripping Drama In Four Cylinders
A young Jean Daninos poses with a Citroën C6 roadster he designed in 1931.
The brains behind Facel (Forges et ateliers de construction d’Eure-et-Loir) was Jean Daninos (1906-2001), a man who made a name for himself as an automotive stylist early on. He was notably in charge of Citroën’s special coachwork department in the early ‘30s, when it is alleged he helped design the two-door Traction Avant coupé and cabriolet.
Facel was a leading producer of gas generators for cars and trucks during the war.
After a stint in the aircraft industry, he became one of the directors of the newly-founded Facel in 1939, focusing on gas generators and aircraft parts. Daninos went to the USA in early 1941 and worked in the aviation industry there, coming back to France after it was liberated in late 1944. All the Facel executives were purged and Daninos ended up as the company’s CEO in 1945. Facel soon merged with another similar firm, Metallon, and started to broaden its product range.
Facel-made, clockwise from top left: Delahaye VLR, Bentley Cresta, Simca 8 Sport, Ford Comète.
Facel-Metallon had three factories to keep busy, so Daninos began to offer his services to the car-making industry. Not only could Facel-Metallon build trim pieces, hubcaps and bumpers, it could produce complete bodies. Panhard’s all-alloy Dyna X body shells were all made by Facel, as were the Delahaye VLR 4X4s used by the French army. Daninos remained a gifted stylist: when Simca asked him to produce their Farina-designed Simca 8 Sport convertible, he designed a hardtop for the coupé version – even the Italians thought it very attractive. Facel ended up styling and producing all subsequent iterations of the Simca Sport, which sold over 25,000 units until 1962. The Farina connection led to Facel producing the Ford Comète and the Bentley Cresta. Facel-Metallon became a leader in a specific niche – the production of stylish, low-volume all-metal bodies and/or finished cars – that was in high demand and were there was virtually no domestic competition.
1954 prototype “Vega by Facel” with DeSoto Firedome V8.
It did not escape Jean Daninos that, by the early ‘50s, high-end French car-makers were moribund, stuck as they were with outdated designs and production methods. The time was right for a new car in that segment, one that would appeal to export markets and the glitterati. Pierre Daninos, Jean’s brother and a famous writer, suggested using the name Vega for the new car. The styling was no issue – that was Facel’s strong suit – but the choice of engine was thornier. Something powerful, reliable and available was needed, but nothing was available domestically. So Daninos turned to Chrysler’s Hemi V8 and never looked back. From the first FV coupé of 1954 to the final Facel II a decade later, all big Facel-Vegas would employ Chrysler V8s.
Facel V8 owners included Sinatra, Picasso, Ava Gardner, Dean Martin, Ringo Starr, Stirling Moss, Tony Curtis…
…as well as Robert Wagner, pictured here with an ultra-rare 1955 FV1 cabriolet.
The V8 Facel-Vegas became status symbols of the late ‘50s. They were beautiful, very fast, superbly built and rare. But to enable the car-making side of the business to flourish, Daninos figured by 1957 that a higher production rate was necessary. This meant designing a smaller car aimed at the sporty 4-cyl. niche of the market – something more European. Facel-Vega were about to take on Alfa-Romeo, MG, Porsche and Triumph. But the same issue remained: what to do for an engine? There were no suitable French engines in the late ‘50s to take on these formidable opponents. And now that volume production was on the cards, the French government would not allow Facel to use imported engines.
The Facellia’s infamous engine and a 1959 prototype.
Facel-Vega’s gearbox and drum brake supplier, Pont-à-Mousson, had been toying with an interesting 6-cyl. engine design since the early ‘50s. Out of options, Daninos contracted Pont-à-Mousson to finalize and produce a related engine, a 1.6 litre hemi head DOHC 4-cyl. plant that seemed ideal for his purposes. The engine, designed by Jean Cavallier, was refined and perfected throughout 1958-59. It delivered 115 hp (gross) @ 6400 rpm with a single double-barrel Solex carb and was mated to a (no points for guessing) Pont-à-Mousson 4-speed gearbox. Top speed was around 180 kph (110 mph). The Facellia’s tubular chassis was basically a smaller and lighter version of the V8 coupés’: independent coil-sprung front suspension, leaf-sprung solid rear axle and optional Dunlop disc brakes. Protoype testing was unusually short, especially for a completely new car with an unproven engine from a novice manufacturer.
The star of the 1959 Paris Motor Show…
The Facellia was launched in October 1959 at the Paris Motor Show. The car caused quite a sensation: it was like a mini Facel, albeit with a leather-covered dash instead of the V8 models’ trademark painted wood. And it was available as a convertible. There had been very few V8 drop-tops, as Daninos thought the cars’ structural rigidity mandated a metal roof. But the Facellia had been specifically engineered with convertibles in mind.
The two-seater hardtop was the least popular variant; pre-production “small” roof 2+2 coupé below.
Two coupés were also available: a two-seater (essentially a convertible with a welded hardtop) and a 2+2, whose roofline was soon revised to improve headroom. The first cars were delivered to their beaming owners in early 1960; over 1000 Facellias were on the order books.
Jean Daninos and his latest creation in 1960.
Dark clouds gathered over the new car very soon indeed. The engine was at issue. One of the quirks that the Pont-à-Mousson engineers had included was chromed cylinder liners. This feature meant that the engine’s running-in period was not the usual 500 km, but nearer to 5000 km. Many new Facellia owners did not heed the factory’s recommendations and began to drive their cars fast before they should have. There were other issues too, including overheating, fragile camshafts and valvetrains, etc., all pointing to an underdeveloped motor. Most of the first batch of 350 Facellias broke their engines within six months of purchase.
Very few Facellias made it to the States, compared to the V8 models.
It was a disaster. Facel did the only thing they could to salvage the Facellia: quietly replacing the engines under warranty as quickly and as quietly as possible. But the replacement engines had the same problems. Even though fewer cars came back for another round of new motors, the little Facel’s reputation was soon tarnished and many orders cancelled.
Coincidentally, the V8 range was affected in January 1960 by the death of publisher Michel Gallimard and his passenger, Nobel laureate writer Albert Camus, in the former’s FV3 coupé. This led to the issuing of a rather disingenuous note from Facel-Vega to their élite clientele, telling them to mind their car’s tyre pressure and to avoid smoking, turning on the radio or talking while driving fast. Sales plummeted, dealers fled and the business was in a sea of red ink.
Facellias could be ordered with optional headlamp covers that improved the car’s aerodynamics.
Facel-Vega called upon the engineers of Moteur Moderne to address the engine’s most pressing issues: the wet liners, pistons, valves and cams were all revised; a brake servo was also added. The much-improved 1961 Facellia F2 was the result, though the engines still had overheating issues. A twin-carb F2S was also proposed, which produced 126 hp and allowed the car to reach over 190 kph.
Facellia assembly line in Dreux, a dozen miles west of Paris.
Daninos himself was in a precarious position: he was demoted from CEO to Technical Director in mid-1961 as Facel-Vega became part-owned by MobilOil, Pont-à-Mousson and Hispano-Suiza so that additional investment could be obtained. In January 1962, Facel-Vega issued a communiqué acknowledging the Facellia’s engine issues. While this may have been true, it was unprecedented and led to another tidal wave of engine replacements under warranty, which drained the company’s finances just as they were being restored.
Facellia F2B at the 1962 Paris Motor Show. New headlamps and dash did little to improve sales.
Against Daninos’ wishes, Facel-Vega went into voluntary liquidation in July 1962, but the industrial tribunal gave the automaker a stay of execution. Production was allowed to continue under a court-appointed administrator and another round of modifications was ordered for the Facellia, which became the F2B. It now featured Marchal Megalux headlight clusters like the new Facel II, as well as the large cars’ beautiful painted dash – and further engine improvements. Alas, it was too little, too late. A more drastic solution for the Facellia problem was being mooted for the middle of the 1963 model year.
The Facellia name and the ill-fated Pont-à-Mousson motor were finally abandoned. The car became the Facel III and the French authorities allowed a foreign engine to replace the dreaded French four. The Volvo B18 (the P1800 S engine) was now under the Facel’s hood; disc brakes became standard and the car’s front and rear styling were mildly updated. Power was down to 108 hp, but at least that engine had a favourable reputation.
Sales increased noticeably, but never approached the 5000 units per year that Daninos had envisaged back in 1959. After a year of temporary administration, the firm was put up for a “location-gérance” contract in mid-1963: another company would manage Facel in exchange for paying rent to Facel’s shareholders.
Automobiles Facel-Vega was now run by Paul Badré, the director of SFERMA (Société française d’entretien et de réparation de matériel aéronautique), a branch of Sud-Aviation, the makers of the Caravelle aircraft. Things were not as bad as before, but still far from rosy. The Volvo-powered Facel III was given a new stable-mate in the spring of 1964: the Facel 6. Based on the Facellia’s underpinnings but featuring a slightly longer wheelbase and wire wheels, the new car was an attempt at bridging the gap between the 4-cyl. range and the V8s. It sported a BMC 6-cyl. plant (as seen on Austin-Healeys) brought down to 2.8 liters so that it could be in a more palatable tax band.
Daninos and de Gaulle at the Paris Motor Show. The body language is quite telling…
Then, in September 1964, a bolt came down form the blue. The Ministry of Finance, who owned Sud-Aviation, wanted to reconfigure SFERMA in view of the aerospace industry’s consolidation. The Minister, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, ordered SFERMA to cease all non-aircraft-related activities at once. Did he know this would put Facel-Vega’s future in jeopardy? Perhaps not, but then Daninos’ foreign-powered cars were never popular with the man who mattered most in France at the time, Charles de Gaulle. No Facel-Vega was ever graced by the general’s derrière, nor were any ordered by officials (except a few Excellence saloons discounted to some French ambassadors). Jean Daninos frantically tried to find a new partner to buy out Facel-Vega. Rover showed interest and initial talks began, only for Daninos to learn that the French government would veto any foreign takeover.
Facel’s last stand in October 1964, opposite another zombie marque, Panhard.
There was no time to look for another solution: Facel-Vega would cease production and be dissolved before the year’s end. The marque was still present at the October 1964 Paris Motor Show, but was forbidden from taking in any new orders. The final cars were assembled by November 1964. Jean Daninos went back to being a sought-after consultant for various industries and witnessed the revival of interest in Facel-Vega that took place in the ‘80s and ‘90s with great pride.
The Facellia was a clear-cut Deadly Sin: rushed into production when it merited at least another year in development, it destabilized its maker and sent it into a tailspin of unforced errors, even as the market was hungry for more Facel-Vegas, big or small. In ten years, Facel-Vega produced a grand total of about 3000 automobiles, including about 1900 Facellia/Facel III/Facel 6 models – in a singular twist of fate, the Deadly Sins therefore represented a majority of the marque’s output.
We will move on to the next decade tomorrow and examine the last French attempt (to date) at a large V8-powered luxury-sports saloon, the Monica 560.
Too bad the proposed deal with Studebaker-Packard fell apart. While the big V8 Facel was being transformed into a Packard, these lighter cars could have become the next generation of Hawk. With a better engine.
Jean Daninos has clearly stated in writing that the Packard deal was a fabrication. He was never contacted by S-P, nor did he ever talk to them.
Yet another fine piece. While I knew about the V8 cars, never knew about the 4cyl cars. Can’t wait for tomorrow!
I’d heard about the four (I started reading car magazines just as Facel adopted Volvo power) but had never heard of the Facel 6.
Another very well told sad story, including a lot of details (as usual, for your posts) that I did not know. Like the Facellia 6, with the 2.8 Austin engine. I had no idea.
Reminds more than a bit about another brand new car with a brand new engine that also shared the name Vega.
But that was from an old-time manufacturer.
Interested to know more about Pont-à-Mousson’s 6-cylinder engine design it was toying with since the early-50s, particularly whether it was related to the underdeveloped 1.6 Twin-Cam Facellia engine?
Fascinating that Rover (pre-Leyland/BL) showed interest in buying out Facel-Vega though wonder what Rover could have done with Facel-Vega since it already owned Alvis around that time.
Rover did develop a 150-160+hp 3-litre 6-cylinder in the P7 prototype that might have suited Facel-Vega’s purposes (theoretically capable of being brought down to 2.6/2.7-litres) along with an unproduced Alvis developed 220-260 + hp 3.5-4.0 6-cylinder DOHC engine, while the Buick-derived Rover V8 would needed to have been further developed to at least 4.8-5-litres+ (as well as significantly tuned) to adequately replace the Chrysler V8 engines.
At least the Facellia would have received a suitable 4-cylinder engine from the 114 hp 2-litre OHC Rover P6 engine (capable of being brought down to 1.7/1.8-litres) that would have put out more power with fuel-injection, while Rover planned to eventually replace this engine in the early-70s with a 143-170 hp 2.2 16v Twin-Cam fuel-injected 4-cylinder engine before it was cancelled under BL.
Back in 1950, Daninos and Pont-a-Mousson were trying to get a car project going and contracted former Talbot engineer Carlo Marchetti to design the “Alerion”, a 2.8 litre DOHC all-alloy six. The project aborted, and only about five Alerions were made. The Facellia plant is a direct descendant, though with several differences (e.g. it’s an iron block and the wet liners weren’t the same, etc.)
Thanks
So based on the Facellia’s engine as well as using the similarly sized 2.6-litre Twin-Cam six found in the Alfa Romeo 2600 as a rough quide, it is likely that the Pont-a-Mousson’s 2.8-litre Alerion DOHC all-alloy six was capable of roughly around 150-190+ hp?
The Alfa Romeo part is based on Facel Vega’s desire to be an all-French equivalent of Alfa Romeo and move away from using American engines, starting with the underdeveloped Facellia.
Your guess is as good as mine on the power output.
The Pont-a-Mousson engine was developed along with the the four-speed gearbox that ended up being used with the Chrysler V8, so the whole operation wasn’t a total loss.
Apparently, Daninos shopped around for an engine throughout 1950-51, but the only suitable domestic one in terms of size and weight was the Hotchkiss 6-cyl., which was not up to scratch performance-wise.
For the Vega, it was a toss-up circa 1952 between Chrysler’s V8 and the Alfa 6C engine for a while, then Alfa pulled out of negotiations (they were phasing that engine out).
It is interesting to contemplate how Facel Vega would have gone about eventually replacing the Chrysler V8s with their own all-French Inline-6 / V8 engines had the Facellia been a success.
Difficult to see how Pont-Mousson would be able to produce a compliant 2.7/2.8-litre V8 with comparable power to the Chrysler V8s, for example the 2.5-litre Daimler V8 put out 140 hp while the 2.6-litre Alfa Romeo Montreal V8 put out 197 hp.
That is unless they go down a similar route to Maserati under De Tomaso, whereby Facel Vega ends up selling the same cars with different engine displacements depending on the market and make use of turbochargers or superchargers for certain markets (e.g. Italy, etc).
I seem to recall that the 4-speed manual in 50s Chryslers was a Pont-à-Mousson unit. Was that a result of this relationship as well?
Undoubtedly so. Since it was already adapted to their engines for the Facel-Vega, it made it easy to offer in the Chryslers too.
Didn’t Chrysler recalled all the cars with the Pont-a-Mousson transmission and replaced them with automatics. I think there a few that escaped the change and are now very sought after.
You may be thinking of the 1958 Bendix EFI system, which was a regular factory option and flopped in the field.
According to Speed Week project manager Burton Bouwkamp, Chrysler built six 1960 300Fs for the Daytona speed trials with special engines and P-a-M four speeds. These cars were line built with the standard 375HP/Torqueflite and modified off line. The modifcation isn’t a documented option in corporate microfilm records for regular production cars. A modern 300F expert says that Chrysler had started with a batch of about 20 transmissions from P-a-M and built three more P-a-M 300Fs after Daytona for special customers (about six more 300Fs were equipped by Chrysler with ‘Daytona’ engines). The remaining P-a-M transmissions were held by Chrysler. The cars weren’t recalled; in fact, Chrysler’s Bob Rodger referred a buyer to Gregg Ziegler for his 1960 Daytona winner. Four P-a-M 300Fs are known to exist.
The 1961 Chrysler 300F, including Gregg Ziegler’s 1961 Daytona winner, used a New Process three speed transmission.
The 300F Special which set the speed record on the sand was recently sold at auction for $440,000. See latest issue of Hemmings Motor News. I think Richard Petty’s cousin owns a Special, and I’ve seen an official Chrysler photo of a convertible Special.
One 300F four speed convertible was built; it was auctioned in 2010.
Thank you for the well-written article. I enjoyed and learned from the Bugatti article yesterday as well.
It reads more like the Facel’s sin was being a French company. They succeeded well until they were forced to use a native engine. Yet when that failed, they were scorned for trying to adapt and do what they wanted in the first place. They had no governmental help getting a good engine developed, just marching orders.
If they could have used a B16 or B18 from the start the name might still be around. Still lovely automobiles, the designs have not faded any more than contemporary Mercedes, perhaps less.
The Camus incident is why I dislike riding in any car that the owner wants to show off. I really don’t like being driven at all. If he’d taken the train that day it might have been a boring trip, but he would have only had to find a new publisher.
The various luxury taxes and displacement taxes installed by the French after WWII really killed off their luxury car brands. Luxury French fashion, perfume, and food – oui, luxury French cars – non.
Again with this…
Look, regulation did not kill French luxury cars. That’s lazy thinking, akin to saying CAFE drove Chrysler and GM out of business: there are market rules and government rules, and either you sink or you swim. French luxury cars, as I hope to have shown in the Bugatti, Hotchkiss and Talbot posts I wrote, died out chiefly because they weren’t competitive on the global market.
Ferrari, Lancia and Maserati battled under a very similar domestic tax regime and did very well. Purchase tax in the UK was a whopping 66.6% in the early ’50s. Didn’t kill Aston, Rolls or Jaguar off, did it? But Daimler, Armstrong-Siddeley and several others also died out — because their designs / production methods were obsolete. BMW almost went belly up for the same reason around the same time, as did Packard, Hudson, etc.
The very fact that Facel did as well as they did in the ’50s is also proof that the tax regime was not the decisive factor. Their collapse was 90% their own doing, and had to do with a small car. The French government did provide the coup de grace in Facel’s case. But they did not employ the tax code to do it, nor can the government at the time be suspected of creeping socialism.
Inept management always has a talent for shifting the blame to others, especially to (equally inept) government. But it’s management’s role to assess the best course of action to ensure the company thrives. Had Daninos insisted on another year of testing for the Facellia, perhaps his company would have survived.
The 2.7 litre threshold was a measure to stem the success of the 2.9 l Model T and assist the local industry and somehow it remained on the books into at least the 1970s.
Nonsense.
Imposing a punitive tax on all engines above a certain capacity to hinder one imported model’s success would be nuts. Like chopping your foot off to cure an ingrown toenail.
Such as imposing a RAC tax rating based on an archaic formula favouring a small bore and long stroke, despite making a nation’s industry internationally uncompetitive? And failing to repeal it until about 1948? Self defeating moves by the executive branch of government are not unheard of.
In any case, the initial statement is something I read a while ago and have forgotten the source. Thank you for this article on one of my favourite marques.
This is exceedingly difficult to track down – another reference, nominating 2.8 litres however, and not seeking to define the initial motivation/history of the tax:
“it could displace no more than 2.8 liters (171 cu. in.), a threshold beyond which French tax laws became too onerous, even for a luxury car”
From: http://jalopnik.com/5516042/citroen-sm-the-history-of-the-140-mph-french-supersled
Yes, this is an oft-repeated trope, especially in English-speaking countries: French cars were taxed to oblivion. Some say it was after WW2 (which you don’t, if we’re talking about the Model T), some say “anything above 2 litres (or 2.5 litres, or 2.8, etc.)” was too taxed to be worth the trouble.
I’m not disputing the fact that tax was very high for 3+ litre cars in France (around 16 fiscal HP), all I’m saying is that tax is not a very significant deterrent.
In no European country were cars above 2 litres anything but a marginal slice of the market anyway. Having a large car back in the day meant you were part of the 1%. Having a car at all was quite an achievement until the post-war boom.
If you were part of the happy few, you had to pay the tax (a certain amount of money per fiscal HP) when you registered the car. Hefty? Yes. But not as dear as repair work on your precious motor, or your petrol expenses with a 10mpg average.
Remember, there was no yearly “road tax” in France before 1956, unlike in many countries. And it’s not impossible to cheat the tax system – a lot of folks did, it’s a French national sport. But you cannot cheat the running costs.
A Model T’s running costs would have been pretty high for the kind of comfort and refinement it provided. And while it may still have been the bee’s knees in the US, the Model T was not very competitive by the early ’20s in Europe.
As regards the RAC tax in the UK, yes it was an archaic formula that had long-term consequences on British engine design, but the fact is that the UK was the number one European car-manufacturing nation in the ’30s and into the late ’40s / early ’50s. The tax system had a marginal effect, limited to engines. All other negative aspects of the cars were down to the car-makers themselves, and there were plenty. The main gripes foreigners had about British cars had to do with their narrow design, lack of trunk space, dated/awkward styling and poor adaptability to rough roads (dixit a Canadian commentator in the Economist in 1949).
And as US car-makers made huge economies of scale, despite Imperial Preference, they started to drive the Brits out of many markets. By 1948, a Riley RM or a Wolseley 18/85 more expensive than a Buick Eight in Australia. A Standard 14HP, with a 1.7L four, cost more than a top-of-the-line Chevy or Ford. In this instance, the taxes were trying to work in the British cars’ favour, but to no avail: US industrial might, productivity and far better design trumped the tax advantage.
I want to note for the record that some U.S. states still use the RAC taxable horsepower formula in the calculation of automobile registration fees. It’s quaint, to be sure, but it obviously hasn’t itself deterred people from buying bigger cars and trucks with bigger displacement engines.
Of course, it’s not simply about how the tax bands are calculated, but what effect going up a band has on the actual cost. In Japan, for instance, my understanding is that annual road tax, already not inexpensive, more or less doubles if you cross the 2-liter threshold.
Tatra 87: I totally agree with your argument on the taxation to the extent we are talking about very low volume luxury cars, but not to large (by European standards) middle-volume sedans like they in fact did build in France. Anyone who drove a DS (I have) and argues that the car had sufficient hp for its size does not know what he is talking about. It really could have used a far bigger engine, at the very least in the top versions (bigger than 2.3L with which they ended with). And if the rule was so unimportant, nobody told this to Peugeot, Renault and Citroen who only offered 2.7L engines on their top offerings, ones which were in my view about 0.8L too small for cars like, say, the Peugeot 604 and hence at a disadvantage with the competition. That rule hampered French cars in the same way the RAC Treasury Rating did to their British equivalents (drive an XK-engined Jag like you would with the equivalent M-B and see what happens).
Again, that excuse of course does not avail any manufacturer failing to develop its products or indulge in any other foolishness…
T Turtle, the fact that car X or car Y is underpowered in your view is irrelevant. Engine size and performance do not necessarily correlate, so saying “it’s 800cc too small” makes for a weird argument. But that aside, the thing is neither Peugeot nor Citroen have a tradition of really big cars. The last truly big Peugeot was the 3.8 litre Type 184 of 1928-29, which only attracted 30 sales. Citroen never made any engine larger than the 15-Six (2.9 litres). Renault had a range of large engines before the war, but if you think the DS is a gutless wonder, you’ve never tried a big ’30s Renault! Point is, these automakers never were in the business of making Mercedes-size vehicles. It’s kind of like Fiat: they always had a range-topping sacrificial lamb that never made much money, just waved the badge to signify their presence. But they made their money doing smaller cars, and always have done.
Well, my point is that the cars I mentioned were supposedly serious attempts by the French manufacturers to compete with offerings from other EU manufacturers (and possibly, the Japanese on the export markets) in the big European sedan segment. Drive an early PRV-engined Renault 30 or a Peugeot 604 and you’ll see what I mean. Neither is particularly powerful or – more importantly – has any torque, so you have to thrash it to gain progress. This is not what buyers of such cars want. With the extra cubes, you’d at least have had torque and at the rev-range you want it. Citroen (on the CX) and Peugeot (on the 505) partially got around it with turbos fitted to their 4 cylinder cars but once more, turbo/FI technology of the times was not as it is today with the result that the cars in question all appealed to a more limited set of buyers. Yes, they got that engine right later (my long-gone Renault 25 FI with the slightly bigger 2.8L is a good example) but I always felt more cubes would have helped right from the start; when freed from the taxation rule, it’s no coincidence Renault went to 3.0 L for its next big sedan, the Safrane.
Would another contemporary car, from a different manufacturer, fared better in that accident. Or was there an inherent safety issue with Facel Vega?
It is impossible to say what caused the crash. Contemporary suspicions included a tyre blowout, but this was never proved. It’s therefore difficult to say what contemporary car would have fared better. Gallimard’s FV3 was going at about 130 kph according to witnesses. If a tyre did burst at that speed, few cars aside from the Citroen DS would have behaved better.
The criticism levelled at F-V at the time had to do with the car’s drum brakes. After the accident, the HK500’s optional discs became standard. But really, if you’re going at those speeds on a French road lined with plane trees (one every 8-10 meters) and you lose control, you’re going to wrap yourself around a tree trunk for sure.
The V8 cars’ reputation was only temporarily affected by this high-profile crash. The type of clientele F-V aimed at knew that a Ferrari or Bentley would have faced a similar fate. And the Facel IIs were very attractive, with disc brakes on all wheels and a 240kph top speed vaunted as “the fastest four-seater in the world”. The big Facels sold well in the marque’s last couple of years.
They were pretty primitive times generally for safety. No one knew much about how to make a car safer, other than deciding to make parts of it bigger and heavier.
The FV might have been the fastest passenger car in the world at the time. No other company would have needed to make its cars capable of surviving crashes at the FV’s speed, because their cars wouldn’t go that fast.
Here’s a 69 Corvette cut in half by a crash.
The small Facel never really appealed to me as a shape. Centre grille piece should have been taller and the roofline on the 2+2 was awkward, but that’s just me.
In late 1959, the Yasukawa Institute (an offshoot of Yamaha) bought an MGA twincam and a Facellia to study the DOHC arrangement for their own purposes. They were bought from US servicemen as the institute was apparently not allowed to buy foreign made cars new.
Does this XY30 prototype look familiar?
It’s hard to beat the fun to be had with a Facellia with a proper engine. Like here, piloting a Facellia-Volvo in a Malibu, California rally.
The ultimate Facellia? How about a Buick 215 (3.5L) V8! Lighter than the PaM or Volvo engine, smooth idle, with HK500-like performance!
What an elegant conversion. It looks factory too. Any chance of some more pics somewhere? Sensible upgrade to dual circuit brakes too.
Another fine article Tatra. Well done.
That engine certainly gets around!
Very interesting read, thanks. I’ll take the fixed head coupe given the choice, what’s yet another inherently flawed engine in the stable? They look soooo pretty.
That selection is after a first series Excellence, of course.
Another view of the Facellia-Buick 215 engine compartment. Looks like they were meant for each other and a pure joy to drive!
An elegant Facellia-Volvo 4-place coupe. Anyone recognize the Location?
I’ll say Palm Beach. Can’t name the house and Google tells me it’s not the former Edsel Ford Jupiter Island house.
Jim, thanks for your guess, but wrong coast. The house is Wrigley mansion, of the chewing gum Wrigley. The house is on Orange Grove in Pasadena, California, where the Rose Parade starts. If you look at the photo of the four Facels, that dealer photo was taken in the same spot. Peter Satori of Pasadena was the dealer who carried Fiat, Alfa-Romeo, Jaguar, Rolls-Royce, and Facel-Vega.
Politicians and business, especially in Europe an often deadly mix.
Valery Giscard d’Estaing is the ‘ inventor’ of the VAT tax.
To import one Chrysler V8 from America, Citroën had to export 3 2CV’s to equal the export/ import balance.
So the Facel Vega was seen as a very lucrative export product for the French.
Pont à Mousson is also the name of a town in north eastern France in the Lorraine region, you could say quite near Peugeot country and near Germany, a lot of steel industry overthere.
I still want a Facellia Coupé, a very elegant car, very very French I think.
Great series tatra Ive read about the four banger bringing down Facel before pity they couldnt get the Volvo engine earlier, it might have saved them.
The little Facellia’s motor sure looks a lot like the Lotus motor used in the Jensen Healy.
Lovely design, but the rush to get it out the door was fatal and the French government delivered the final blow. Interesting to think what could have happened with a Rover buyout or partnership–the 215 V8 in the small Facel could have been factory! Though I also wonder what the consequences would have been for MG in that eventuality?
Did Facel Vega have any plans for a 4-door Facellia?
The following article about a ex-factory Facellia experimental test car is fascinating since it seems the engine issues were resolved, utilizing dual-ignition aka Twin-Sparks and being enlarged to 1980cc putting out 150 hp.
https://www.classicdriver.com/en/car/facel-vega/facellia/1960/656222
Also read Harry Mundy was involved with Facel Vega with French language sites mentioning he suggested a 5-main bearing crankshaft (instead of featuring 2-main bearing crankshaft) which was rejected as well as a new DOHC cylinder head for the Facellia as well as was involved in the development of a 2.6-2.8-litre 60-degree quad-cam V6 capable of 200 hp (up to 280 hp in sport or racing form), only for nothing to come of it by which time he played a role in the development of the Lotus-Ford Twin Cam engine.
http://www.facel-vega.com/hifrog10.shtml
Great article. Always wanted to know more about this make since my first and only encounter at The New York Auto Show when I was a kid in 1961. Talk about product placement, look how easy it is to read the letters on the tires of that C6 roadster shown above. I figure the photo must have been taken around the time of the Michelin bailout. Wonder if they could have used the Champion 6 in the Facellia?
The Facellia is a beautiful car, and IMO would’ve been successful if it were underpowered-but-reliable, say if it were powered by a stock Peugeot 403/404 engine. A breathed-upon one would likely have been acceptably powerful and reliable. I’m sure that road was looked down and I can only wonder why it wasn’t taken.
One wonders a bit:
Bugatti by the 1950’s was essentially incompetent at anything except engine design (solid front axle in 1950?). They had essentially no competence in either body design or manufacture, and the chassis they produced were both archaic and heavy.
Delahaye likewise with their mainline passenger cars (mechanical brakes in 1950?). However, they maintained competence in engine design. They even built a 4-cylinder, 4r-litre ohc engine for their VLR Jeep-like thing.
Facel was highly competent in body design and manufacture, and seemed competent as well in chassis design, but had no competence in engine design or manufacture whatsoever.\
Seems like they should have talked.
I had a friend around ’75 who said he had a Facellia he needed to sell as he needed money. Never saw it, but he spoke well of it, said it was fast in top speed, but not quick. He and his gorgeous 16 year old girlfriend were living in his VW bus at that time while I was rebuilding the engine for them. Different times indeed.
Outstanding review. And excellent comments. That’ s what I praise CC for.