I was cruising through Dean Edwards’ endless downloads at the Cohort when this stopped me in my tracks. An Exner vintage car with a genuine spare tire on the trunk, and not just a fake bulge, or toilet lid, as some called them.
Here’s the real (fake) thing:
So, the real thing is a fake thing, but the thing is, is this real imitation of a fake thing a thing that is fake or real?
This thing is real. Had it been a dinky temporary use spare tire, that would have been the poseur.
The fake tire bulge more closely resembled the toilet seat (donut) rather than the lid. With that said, it’s funny how much better the trunk of the lower-tier Chryslers look without it.
Exner’s affectation must have been something of a nod to the popularity of the Continental kits at the time. In that regard, I guess the toilet seat was better (but not by much). What’s interesting is how Iacocca was able to pull it off with the 1969 Mark III. That fake version lasted for a very long time.
But . . . but . . . the one on the DeSoto isn’t centered!
The 60-61 Chrysler/DeSoto 2 door was such a fabulous shape that was let down by a dozen small details – the toilet seat spare being the least disruptive. Can we talk about that 2 tone roof?
It’s not centered because there are two of them. Like those ritzy cars from the ’30s you know. 😉
What is not to love about the shape of that car? Sure, the toilet seat’s a little dopey, but to me, barely noticed.
Suddenly – it became 1960!
I like the ‘toilet seat’, on this car, and the Valiant. Hey,at least it looks better here than on the grill!
Happy Motoring, Mark
I remember way back that Car & Driver had a picture of the wonderful looking 1960 DeSoto Adventurer, calling it a
Grinmobile
Moparlee has given us a laugh. His statement is of the words used to advertise the 1957 Plymouth. By that time we also had astronomers who turned back the astronomical clock and found that two stars coincided in the skies over the near east in 4 B.C. To wit, the A.D. calculation was four years off. Thus, it was 1960 in 1957! Good one, Moparlee!
The demise of the De Soto was an internal political affair at Chrysler, sadly. In 1954, De Soto started to shed it dowdy image with the introduction of the Coronado, one of just two production cars whose door panels did not meet the window with a frame. Then in 1955, De Soto started doing more and more – until a Chrysler Division executive avenged some nonsense of his. Thus, dealerships with five-digit codes starting with a number “3” disappeared. Those were De Soto dealers.
Internal political intrigue seems to have been rife at Chrysler Corporation in the 1950’s. Both Chrysler and Dodge management set their sights on portions of DeSoto’s and Plymouth market shares.
DeSoto was an easy pigeon, Dodge taking the Firesweep/Firedome customers with Matador and Polara; Chrysler divert the FireFlite/Adventurer more affluent with a Saratoga/300/New Yorker. Newport to mop up any residual DeSoto loyalist who saw a Dodge as a step backwards.
Dodge’s plum was the Plymouth market as a whole: the 1960 Dart the first salvo across Plymouth’s bow that would take another four decades to complete. But, in the day when everyone knew that a Dodge was a ‘better’ car than Plymouth, and the new ’60 Dodge Dart just $20 more than Plymouth, Why not move up in real value…to Dodge!
Serious question, how much did the larger tailfins affect rear, especially passenger side visibility? I mean, there’s this large and airy greenhouse without much in the way of pillars to impede visibility and then large billboardy expanses of metal at the extreme end of the car. And many cars seemed even more so endowed. If one was smaller-statured was this an issue?
A few years ago, my friend gave me a ride in his 1957 DeSoto Fireflite Sportsman coupe. I kept seeing the tailfins out of the corner of my eye…which made me think we were about to collide with another car.
No doubt over time drivers and passengers got used to it, but it was annoying at first.
Those are not fins my good man. According to the owner manual, the proper term is towering directional stabilizers. Once you experience the road feel (or lack thereof) of finger touch Mopar power steering, you’ll see why Chrysler saw a need for such devices.
The amusing thing, of course, is that tailfins do anything ‘but’ stabilize. And Chrysler’s weren’t the worst. From what I understand, the ‘batwing’ ’59-’60 Chevy had an alarming tendency to lift the rear end up at speed. I can’t imagine what it must have been like for NASCAR drivers back in the late fifties.
As to an actual benefit, it seems like they were an early iteration of the spoiler fad. Neither have a legitimate performance purpose (at least on street cars), but they do aid somewhat to gauge distance when backing.
The claims regarding the 1959 Chevrolet fall into the category of urban legend. I believe that Motor Trend Classics tested one a few years ago, and nothing of the sort happened.
From what I’ve read, fins can add stability, but they have to be a specific height, and canted at a certain angle. I’d imagine that the height of the deck lid in relation to the fins, and the shape of the roof line, would also be factors.
From 1957 through 1961, Chrysler kept changing the height and cant of the fins, while restyling the deck lids and roof lines of the vehicles. So this “advantage” provided by the fins was just advertising puffery. Today a car maker would have to provide actual proof to back up such claims.
Sad condition to see. I would love to drive something like that!
My brother had a 1958 Plymouth Fury sedan that he bought in 1966. I drove it and had little problem. Of course, I was also young and stupid. He did go hunting with it, however. He was living on the Virginia Peninsula driving on a high-speed road when a deer crossed his path. He spent the next two weeks driving only in the daytime. There was no reason for him to repair the Plymouth because his 1967 Dodge Charger was supposed to arrive soon – and it did. As ordered, dark blue with blue interior, a/c, heavy-duty drum brakes front and rear, 383 CID four-barrel, automatic, stereo radio. That car could move!
The toilet seat bulge always looked stupid to me. Everyone knew there was no tire in there so I never understood the point. I think it ruined some interesting designs.
I hate the Continental Kits that they added to so many cars. They extended the bumper and out that huge horizontal panel between the bumper and the body. You could have a picnic on some of those shelves. It looked stupid and ruined the whole design of some gorgeous cars. Just my opinion.
“I hate the Continental Kits that they added to so many cars. They extended the bumper and out that huge horizontal panel between the bumper and the body. You could have a picnic on some of those shelves. It looked stupid and ruined the whole design of some gorgeous cars.”
Saved me a bunch of typing. Thank you.
The 300F you show was bought brand new in my city by one of the Dodge dealership owners, named McAfee I think. It is one of the rare 4 speed cars and it set top speed records on the beach in Daytona. I remember when he had it for sale in the mid/late 60s, he said it had never been rained on. It sold a few years ago for the small sum of $275,000 or something close. That rare, that history and only that little money?
There was a photo essay of the car when it was for sale, and this photo was part of that essay.
What’s the deal with the small, oval vent on the Trunk Lid? Flow-through ventilation exit?
Don’t overthink it. It’s merely sort of a handle to use when trying to open the trunk lid.
The 55-61 Chrysler cars were all beautys in my opinion I had a few of them as well as selling parts for these cars in the past. Everyone thinks of 57 Chevys which were ugly & catch up to all of Chrysler lines.
Aside from any claims of enhanced high-speed stability, modest fins and trunk-spoilers can have a significant low-speed benefit. While parking my Fintail Mercedes and ’98 Altima, the fins or spoiler can be seen from the drivers seat, to provide a visual reference to the rear of the car.
Happy Motoring, Mark