I always thought it was pretty blatant for Ford and Studebaker to take the names of Willys’ ambitious but sadly failed compact for their new compacts, never mind its whole format (both Falcons were 181″ long). The ad was right: The Measure (and names) of Tomorrow’s Motor Car Standard.
Here’s the Aero-Lark:
Here’s the Aero Lark. 161 cubic inch six, in either flathead or F-head (overhead inlet valves) versions. The Lark had a 170 inch six, flathead, until the ohv version came along in 1961.
There was also a top-trim Aero Ace; maybe Chrysler should have used Ace instead of Valiant?
The Willys Aero was ambitious but ahead of its time; the market just wasn’t ready for it…yet.
Here’s my full CC on the Willys Aero:
Basically attractive little cars but the gaping grille opening with no trim surrounding it is a little iffy to me. Looks like a whale’s gaping mouth.
Agreed. Brazil gave it a better mouth but then spoiled it with sleepy eyes.
Never a fan of small cars, it was a amazing what Nash did with the compact Rambler of early 50s. Think it benefited from similar body styling to full size Nash models giving small car buyers an upscale look. Plus Nash reputation for quality helped! At different times family had (for second cars) a 59 LARK with many quality issues and a 61 Valiant, which was actually a pretty good car. Overall in the early 50s most buyers were not really looking at small cars. BIG THREE each had own hierarchy. If you wanted a cheap car you went for base model Plymouth, Ford, or Chevy with lots of room.😎.Thanks for another great post on the ORPHANS!
Not Shown: the Aero Rambler, the Aero Corvair, and the Aero Dart…
So what went wrong with these? They seem a sensible smaller vehicle for a household’s second car or an economical first one. They look nice, they could play of the Willys Jeep’s success in WW2, and have proven components. It’s easy to figure out why the likes of the Henry J. failed; the Willys Aero, less so.
Besodes the Low-Priced Three not being all that huge yet (as they got by 1958-59), once Korean War steel rationing and price controls came off they got into a price war that crushed all the independents’ moves in compacts.
The Nash Rambler survived because it wasn’t *that* downmarket and the Ford-Chevy price war was largely focused on basic sedans giving Rambler’s hardtop, convertible and (especially!) wagon room in the marketplace.
Let’s not forget the high-end hardtop, the Aero Eagle. Chrysler did take that name (eventually, after AMC got there first).
It is amazing to me that out of the initial batch of compacts in the early 50s (Willys, Jet, Henry J and Rambler) the Rambler was the only one that was successful. This despite Willys’ history as a specialist in small vehicles. I guess Rambler’s hunch to sell on prestige and not on price or economy was a good one. I also continue to believe that the Stude Champion was close enough to the attributes of the compacts that it was a good choice for a lot of people. I just looked it up, and while a 53 Champion sedan had a significantly longer wheelbase (116 to 108 inches), it was actually narrower than the Willys Aero (69.5 vs. 72 inches).
I still think these are the best looking of the early compacts.
If Willys had bet on prestige and not on price and economy like Rambler if things could have been different? Still the Willys Aero got a second life in Brazil. https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1953-willys-aero-lark-the-failed-sneak-preview-of-the-falcon-lark-and-other-compacts/
Correction: The engine was a flathead or F-head (IOE).
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/qotd/qotd-how-many-cases-are-there-of-the-same-block-being-offered-with-different-cylinder-heads-in-the-same-car-in-the-same-model-year/
Oops; it was getting late last night. “Overhead inlet valves”.
Agree with JP above, I’ve always thought these were good-looking cars. The fancy Bermuda model that came at the end was really attractive. I’ve actually toyed with the idea of buying one, but they seem basically unavailable in reasonable shape — the only ones I ever see are pretty much junkers.
This May 1959 story about the Falcon’s name-claim surprised me (and so close to the car’s introduction, which is still a mystery):
Ooh, the AMA Proprietary Name File! That must be the list made famous in Mopar lore, where having “Road Runner” on the list put Warner Bros. on the defensive in licensing negotiations…
Exner did have that Falcon show car – ’52-ish, right? So if Chrysler had put ‘Falcon’ on the AMA’s list then, maybe the Aero-Falcon really would’ve had to be Aero-Valiant (Aero-Tempest, Aero-F-85, etc.) 😉
Exner’s Falcon was built for the 1955 model year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Falcon
Had Chrysler menaged to put the Falcon name before Ford. I wonder which nameplate Ford would have used instead?
Ah – okay. Thanks!
Hmm… too early for “Torino” but boy, the ramifications if they had…if the Falcon had had an Italian name, how well would Mr.II have done with the future Mrs.II? Or what if they just moved ahead to the horse name, instead?
Bit of a mind boggle, now that you bring it up.
Or they could have used the Comet name, originally intended for Edsel and ended as a Mercury or going also with a cat name like Cougar. 😉
One of the names Willys came up with was Aero-Comet, and the name was used in several venues. I have a factory parts book with this name used.
Well, there was also the AC Ace, and various Saab Aero’s. Those are perhaps even more forgotten now than these Willys. Which prompts this thought: what’s the plural of Willys?
I imagine the AC Ace is better remembered in the UK, its country of origin. Is the AC Cobra better remembered in the US than in the UK?
Willyses would be the plural. Just imagine the “y” is an “i” and it makes sense.
I have always liked these Willy’s. Particularly in hardtop form, the two door highline model looks really good. Shame they weren’t more popular in the U.S. I think they were too high priced.
Today’s “Chevy-Ford price war” is who has the most expensive 4 door pickup. New top trims come out every week, jk.
The Willys Aero was designed to compete against the Chevy, Ford, Plymouth, full size cars, and for example, the width of the seats was 54 inches, the same width as a Buick Roadmaster. The wheelbase of the Aero was 7 inches less than the Chevy. So outside of maybe a little less rear leg room, the Willys Aero was similar in size to the full size Chevy, Ford or Plymouth. The Aero was lighter weight with unibody construction, as compared to the body on frame of the big 3 competition. So whenever I see the Willys Aero described as a small car, or a compact, I just don’t see it. Maybe the smooth styling makes the car look more svelte?
Aside from the shorter wheelbase, the Aero was about 15 inches shorter than a ’53 Chevrolet and 17 inches shorter than a ’53 Ford, so it was certainly a visually smaller car. It was about the same length and wheelbase as a 1960 Corvair, so if that was a compact, so was the Willys. (The Corvair was significantly narrower, though, and of course a whole bunch lower.)
I think it could be said that the Willys Aero made a more efficient use of space than the big three with interior width comparable to a Buick Roadmaster, kind of similar as to how the GM full size cars went to front wheel drive with a smaller size car but managed to be just as roomy on the interior passenger space in the 1980’s. The GM models of 1952 were still using the body design of 1949, whereas the Willys design was three years newer. With lead time GM was probably working on the 1949 design in 1946.
I think it could be said that the Willys Aero made a more efficient use of space than the big three
That is the essence of the whole point of a compact.
From a distance, having never seen one of these “in the metal”, that these were really well-designed cars, if they had been introduced a year or so earlier they would have taken the market by storm, and likewise if they had been introduced in 1957/1958. But 1953-1956 was not a good time to be competing directly against Ford or Chevy, and they had the Hudson Jet, Nash Rambler, Henry J to contend with, as well as the aforementioned Studebaker Champion. The independents ate themselves for lunch, as it were.
A bit behind the times to have a two-piece windshield. But the Aero Ace looks to have a single-piece. Surely it would have been cheaper just to offer the one?
Not necessarily. The reason for the slow adoption of one-piece windshields was that forming a single piece of glass with the necessary curvature was more difficult and more expensive, so the one-piece screen cost more on a unit basis. So, sticking to the split windshield was probably a way they could take a few dollars out of the low-end models.
The Aero-Ace and Aero-Eagle (which had the one-piece windshield as well) also had wraparound rear windows, which were also more expensive for the same reason.
Think Ate Up With Motor is accurate. Some examples, there were many other manufacturer’s who produced models with two piece windshield and then went with one piece Such as Kaiser, GM, Hudson, etc. Inventory and stocking parts and shipping was easier with the 1/2 windshield costing less money