One cannot summon the goddess. She just appears from time to time, when the stars line up fortuitously. Or is it when the lines start lining up fortuitously? As is her mysterious way, those appearances may be in more than one place at at time. And express themselves somewhat differently depending on the local culture. But wherever and however she appears, she is inevitably recognized.
Ever since I was a kid, I couldn’t help but see a distinct similarity between the 1955 Citroen DS, called “Goddess” because that’s what the French pronunciation of DS (“Déesse”) is, and the ’53 Starliner. And a highly suitable name, of course. Although the coupe-to-sedan comparison may be just a bit off, wait ’till you see the Chapron coupe version; how does one say Starliner in French?
Chapron made a number of custom variants of the DS, including several coupes. But his first one, called le Paris, has a decidedly Starliner-esque posture. Of course, its rear wheels are even further back than the Studebaker. Needs some photoshopping!
The “le South Bend” may share certain progressive styling cues with the Citroen, but technically they couldn’t be more dissimilar. The Citroen was as advanced, or more so, under its skin, with fwd, hydropneumatic suspension, and high-pressure hydraulics for disc brakes and steering. The Studebaker was dead-conventional, with its old-school frame, and traditional drive train, etc.
But the clean sloping hood, and delicate air intakes on the front have a decided resemblance. Well, then, let’s not forget that Raymond Loewy was French.
(image: histomobile.com)
Chapron also made the famous “Decapotable” convertible version of the Goddess.
Studebaker did make one prototype Starline convertible, but the structural challenges of the willowy frame and the lack of cash for its proper development led to it being a one-off. That hasn’t stopped plenty of American-Chaprons from building their own.
The prototype is still around, and here’s a picture of Loewy’s daughter Laurence with it.
Remakable though the DS was ( and still is ) the lack of rear overhang always spoilt it for me.
I don’t think the Studebaker works as a convertible – the roof style is one of its’ best features.
Actually, have never seen one, I like it. I looks so sporty, the white with red guts color combo is sharp!
“Of course, its rear wheels are even further back than the Studebaker. Needs some photoshopping!”
Alternatively, could it be that the Citroen’s wheels are in roughly the same place, it is just that the Studebaker has a large trunk/rear overhang? Interesting comparison.
Inspired comparison! The Stude is clearly in the American idiom, while the DS comes from another world. It’s a true clean sheet design, a fresh start. Still used in movies as a car of the future.
Rear overhang reflects rear suspension. Leaf springs require it. Long rear overhang is an American look. Because American cars hung onto leaf springs?
Different expectations of trunk space too
Indeed.
Were there a Louvre for autos the Starliner would be its major attraction.
The web site of Raymond Loewy says:
1953 – Designed the Studebaker Starliner Coupé, which the Museum of Modern Art later called a “work of art.”
Great blog but you’re kidding, right? One vehicle represents an undisputed classic of automotive design. The other resembles a giant irradiated insect.
Yes, yes- I know: power-assisted semi-automatic gearbox, detachable body panels, self-leveling suspension, cutting edge this and that. Sorry- it looks like something out of a Mothra movie.
After reading your first sentence, I thought of course you’re referring to the Citroen as ‘the undisputed classic of automotive design” I assume you know that the DS was named “The world’s most beautiful car ever” by an international panel of designers? And the ’53 Studebaker didn’t even make the long list of also-rans?
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/02/12/car-designers-name-citroen-ds-most-beautiful-car-ever/
Ha Ha! I thought he referred to the DS as the `undisputed classic’ too, and was about to comment against calling the beautiful Stude a `giant irradiated insect’, but then I saw better. 🙂
The large overhang on the Starliner is one of things I dislike about it. The damned `fins’ on the thing are repulsive. I don’t think the leaf springs were *that* long to demand such a large overhang. Some photoshopping (GIMPing?) is in order.
Update: GIMPed image: See? Studebaker DS indeed. Please excuse the modest drawing skills.
Good, but the tail’s a bit short. Need to keep the original tail length, and push the rear wheel back! We need some serious wheelbase!!
Wheelbase on this Stude DS is unchanged from the original already loooong 120in or so. I’ve just chopped off the overhang leaving space for the leaf springs. Its proportions are the same as the Citty, or rather the Chapron coupe. Note the similar space between the front door and the leading edge of the rear wheel. It looks somewhat different because the roofline of the Stude extends farther back than the Chapron coupe, the rear windscreen of the latter in the same vertical plane as the leading edge of the rear wheel, but farther back in the Stude. I resisted the temptation to shift the rear wheel because I wanted it to look like Studebaker actually made it on their existing frame with same cost to body panels as the original coupe. This car, if made, would’ve cost exactly the same as the Starliner. Also, I’m a big fan of short rear overhangs, like the Austin Maxi, among others: 🙂
You’re essentially right. Here’s both of them together. FWIW, the DS wheelbase is 123″, Stude 120″. The DS is 189″ long, the Stude 202″. Maybe a couple of more inches in the wheelbase?
Sorry, but ours is a small company. We have to build the new coupe on the existing 120in frame to avoid major retooling. Body panels only.
Yours truly,
James T. Studebaker.
That was probably the only good part of the Maxi
You dare diss theb DS? Vous etes un cochon.
The 1953 Starliner 2 door hardtop—-the holy grail of Studebaker folks. It was the best looking American car of the ’50’s (my opinion) and also the car which helped to send Studebaker to its grave because of the many production problems encountered. My ’63 GT Hawk shares some of the same body panels with that car, as well as most mechanical components. By the way, Bob Bourke really designed the car—he worked for Loewy at the time. Gone but not forgotten…
Here one more Starliner oddities coming on the table. I spotted this article on Hemmings blog about a little clay model at Ford known as the Volcano who had lots of similarities with the 1953 Studebaker Starliner.
http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/2011/11/30/the-volcano-and-the-studebaker-wheres-the-missing-link/
I saw that too. Interesting.
Wow, I never would have compared the DS to the Starliner, but now that I’ve seen the resemblance, I can’t un-see it. That Chapron DS is pretty neat, but I don’t like that vertical chrome piece on the bodyside below the C pillar. Is it a cooling duct for the brakes or something?
Corgi made a diecast in the ’60s of a Chapron DS coupe with opening doors and trunk. They came in burgundy with yellow interior, and a fairly rare two-tone blue and white with light blue interior. I have a couple of burgundy versions in my Corgi collection.
Also Paul, thought you would want to know the recent photo of the ’53 Starliner convertible is a recreation of the prototype by a former Studebaker employee. The original was destroyed years ago. For those interested, below is a link to a Hemmings article on the car and its creation.
http://www.hemmings.com/hcc/stories/2006/08/01/hmn_feature8.html
I saw that. And from that same linked article: “Ed Reynolds of Studebaker International, who has 8mm film footage of the prototype convertible, says that Studebaker repainted the car white and updated the trim in 1954, and that it is reportedly in private hands in California today.”
That picture of Loewy’s daughter with the prototype was taken in ’98 or so, in California.
Do you have other information that confirms it was destroyed?
Nope, I read that issue five years ago and just didn’t remember it correctly. Serves me right for not re-reading it! I may have been thinking of most ‘dream cars’ and prototypes of the 1950s, where they were crushed after their purpose had been served. I still think the photo with Loewy’s daughter is the recreation; both it and the car on Hemmings have Connecticut ‘1-OFF’ personalized plates. At any rate, I am glad to hear the original convertible is still with us.
You (and fellow CCers) might find this picture of the Studebaker Model N prototype interesting. It was in the February 2000 issue of Collectible Automobile, they had an article on the ’53-’55 Studebakers. I think the Model N looked pretty nice. It was supposed to be a 1952 model, but the Loewy coupes changed all that.
Tom, regarding that chrome band: it was necessary in order to cover the line where the rear fender and rear door met on the sedan. Later Chapron convertibles and coupes got a whole new rear-quarter panel to deal with that little problem.
How exactly did they convert the sedan into a coupe? I mean, did they just weld the rear door shut or what? From the photos it seems the front door on the coupe is bigger, and the roof is also different. Why would someone go to this much expense and leave an ugly side panel? Or is it an optical illusion and the front door is really the same?
The door is indeed lengthened (by 10cm IIRC), the B-post moved rearwards, the rear door welded shut, and the door panel used for sheetmetal.
Remember, the DS is essentially a superstructure with bolted on unstressed panels. Except for the hood, boot, and doors, also the roof and the four fenders can be unbolted. The rear fenders are only attached with one long bolt accessible from the rear.
One of the quirks with the citroen is that the car can jack itself up with its own inbuilt hydraulic system. Perfect for changing tires, though to unscrew the rear wheel. the entire rear fender has to be unbolted. Which is easily done.
Chapron made several different versions, that differ quite substantially in execution. The first versions used essentially standard rear fenders (to be unbolted as standard). Other versions (like the Coupe pictued above) seems to be using what’s left of the rear door for sheetmetal. Tirechanging problem solved by cutting into the fender. For the later versions they used an entirely new rear section, from the B-pillar and back, in moulded glassfibre. I don’t know how they solved the rear tire changing problem with that one.
But looking at all the different versions, it’s quite astonishing how much work that went into it. Citroen adopted the finalized Chapron version as their own, that version is often called the Usine (works, factory) Convertible. Prices range from a hundred grand and up, and I’m not kidding about that, the prices on DS Convertibles are sky high…
So the front door in the coupe is exactly the same as that in the four door saloon, and the rear door is replaced by a welded panel, the whole thing being topped by a new roof? To be clear, I’m not talking about the convertible. Bonnet, doors and fenders can be unscrewed in many cars, but even the *roof* is non-structural?
The DS can actually be driven around “naked” with no panels or doors at all, as have been seen in publicity shots. That really shows off the underlaying loadbearing superstructure.
From looking at the picture of the Coupe in the picture above, it seems the door front door is lenghtened by appx 10 cm. But I’m not certain. The White convertible seems to have a standard front door.
OK. So a French Standard Herald, if I may compare apples to pigs. Thank you.
Here’s a page on the early Chapron cars. All the different versions have their own page:
http://www.citroenet.org.uk/passenger-cars/michelin/ds/chapron/chapron-index.html
And here’s the later Usine Cabriolet:
http://www.citroenet.org.uk/passenger-cars/michelin/ds/chapron/usine/usine.html
Tom; I was wrong about the location being CA. Bob Marcks, the ex-Studebaker designer sent it to me. I’m not even sure why I said that.
You have a good point about the license plate; I didn’t notice it. The truth is, I don’t really know if the original still exists or not. I was making assumptions I shouldn’t have.
I regret not having the time to explore the whole history of the ’52 – ’53 sedans in my piece. Langworth really doesn’t cover that properly in his book. I need to order all the back issues of CA that I don’t have.
Nevertheless, I’m not so sure that Model N would have set the world on fire either.
Probably not, but for 1952 they look pretty modern. I like that they were going to continue with a subdued version of the bullet nose too. The Model N kind of reminds me of a 1952-54 Ford with a chopped top and Coke-bottle fenderline.
The picture of Loewy’s daughter Laurence next to the convertible with the license plate “1 OFF” isn’t the prototype. It’s a custom built model by Jim Maloney of CT.