(first posted 3/9/2016) The question of how the all-new post-war cars would look was a pregnant one. Since the Big Three mostly stood pat with their 1941/1942 designs right through 1948, expectations were high for their 1949 models. Chevrolet, Ford and Plymouth handled this challenge rather differently, and arguably the Chevy was the most successful of the bunch. It was built almost unchanged for four long years, and by 1952, it was ready to ride off into the sunset. By then it was already something of a classic; having walked that tightrope of being neither too advanced nor too stodgy, it hit the all-American sweet spot.
Beginning in 1933, a design revolution took place. 1932 was the last year most American cars would sport the “classic” look, with fully exposed flat radiators, free-standing headlights and fenders, and narrow, boxy bodies, like this Chevrolet,
The 30s were “The Streamlined Decade”. There was a huge influence from radical aerodynamic cars with “envelope” bodies, as pioneered by the highly influential Tatra 77 streamliner of 1933. With its short, blunt hood, wide body, flowing and integrated fenders, and long, swept tail hiding its rear mounted V8, it was a complete departure from the “classic” design, whose origins were the horse-drawn carriages of the previous century.
Starting in 1933, all American cars started showing evidence of streamlining, if only very tentative and superficial ones at first. They were wise not to adopt aerodynamic design too radically, having learned from the painful example of the 1934 Chrysler Airflow (above). Americans were (and are) both fashionable but yet also conservative; negotiating this radical transformation of the car successfully required waking a fine line.
Within just a few years, American cars had adopted much of this new design language, but substantially watered down. They still sat on conventional chassis (no rear engines, please!), the bodies were tall, and they still sported long and proud hoods, like this 1946 Chevrolet, which was new for 1942. And it would be built with almost no changes through 1948. The forties were off to a very slow start stylistically, thanks to the war, mostly.
Alternatively, Chevrolet also offered the fastback Fleetline body style starting in 1942, as a more serious nod to the streamlining trend. Have it your way.
But the extreme aerodynamic style created a conundrum for the designers: taken to its logical conclusion, wouldn’t all cars end up looking like pods, like this 1939 Schlörwagen?
It’s a problem that has been vexing designers since the late 1930s, and is very much a front-burner issue today again, with the advent of self driving cars, like this Google prototype. Who cares how it looks if it’s just a generic transportation pod? Automotive design needed to be expressive and emotive, in order to keep folks coming back for a new one every two or three years.
This problem kept GM designers busy during the immediate post-war years, and undoubtedly some advanced design work was going on all through the war. This shot from 1946 shows a number of ever-more advanced models, reflecting a natural progression towards a rear-engined, short-hood model not totally unlike the Schlörwagen, right down to its center driving position.
This Cadillac clay from 1945-1946 clearly shows the influences of that model, with its enclosed front wheels, short hood, hidden headlights set in rounded and bladed fenders, smooth flanks and wrap-around windshield. Clearly, the all-glass roof was not going to fly. It was also very low for the times.
Called “Interceptor”, this design graduated to a proper running prototype. This could well have been the 1948 Cadillac, and if so, would undoubtedly have been the template for the rest of the GM line. The 1949 Chevrolet could well have looked like this, with a bit less chrome and exposed headlights.
Needless to say, GM thought the better of it, and took quite a different tack with what became the production 1948 Cadillac. A much more conservative, restrained, traditional and taller design was adopted, with a classic long and proud hood that featured a more expressive front end with exposed headlights and classic egg crate grille. GM was not quite ready for a design revolution as embodied by the Interceptor; the lesson of Chrysler’s failed Airflow would affect Detroit’s studios for decades.
At the rear, the final ’48 Cadillac design also deviated from the long and low flowing Interceptor’s tail in three very significant ways: it was relatively short and tall, it had “hips” instead of smooth slab sides, and of course it had the first of the iconic fins, modest as they were, yet.
There’s even a GM Proving Grounds film clip of the Interceptor in the company of a 1946 Cadillac, a production 1948 Cadillac, and a 1948 Hudson, which was the only really bold design of the post-war era. The Hudson reflected the design direction that Cadillac had obviously been contemplating, but had rejected. And this film was apparently a way to assess that decision, in hindsight.
It’s all-too obvious that the ’48 Cadillac was just the big brother by one year to the 1949 A-Bodies, as they share much of their basic design. GM had clearly established its new post-war design language, and it was to be a success; new and fresh, but not too challenging. Cadillac and the other C/B body cars received some substantial refreshes in 1950 and 1952, but the A Bodies were built with only minimal changes right through 1952. The Chevrolets got a succession of new grilles and some trim adjustments, but were otherwise remarkably unchanged. Was it a more enduring look than the competition?
The first new post-war cars in America were the Kaiser and Frazer, which arrived in May of 1946 as early 1947 models. “Dutch” Darrin had designed the original concept and models for these cars, featuring the latest in the sleek, smooth-sided “pontoon” look, but his designs were modified (to his great displeasure), and the resulting production cars had some rather odd proportions. It certainly was new, but probably a bit too smooth and bland for most Americans’ taste, at least after a year or two.
The 1947 Studebaker followed shortly, with more character lines, including rear hips, to break up what could otherwise have also been a very slab-sided car.
Hudson’s dramatic 1948 “Step Down” was perhaps the most adventuresome of all of the new post-war cars, and reflects more closely the direction that GM had considered but rejected. The Hudson’s design ended up looking old within just a few years, and because it was mostly unitized, would have been very difficult and expensive to change, leading directly to the brand’s demise. But in 1948 it was quite the sensation.
The 1949 Nash Airflyte took a similar direction as the Hudson, going even one step further by enclosing the front wheels, leading to its being called the “Bathtub Nash”. But it wasn’t quite as low as the Hudson, which gave didn’t help its proportions.
So far, all of these cars we’ve looked at generally were priced above the Big Low-Price Three, so let’s examine what Ford and Plymouth came up with in 1949.
The Ford is a bit of a mixed bag. It has a lot of merit, but there are iffy aspects, like the awkward rain channel running across the C Pillar on the four door sedan, shared with the two-door sedan, which had a bigger rear side window. Now something like that would never have gotten by Harley Earl. The Ford was a rush job, as very late in the game for planning their new 1949 lines, it was decided that what had been planned for the Ford was too big, and it was kicked up to become the ’49 Mercury. Outside stylists were offered the chance to compete with the in-house teams for a new design, and former GM and Loewy designer Richard Caleal’s proposal won.
One could say that it’s a better 1947 Kaiser, as it too is an exponent of the slab-sided pontoon look. It was certainly a welcome change for Ford, and it sold well. But it didn’t seem to age all that well, and by 1952, Ford had a new car to replace it.
Over at Chrysler there were no apparent anxieties about how low and sleek their new ’49s should be (1949 Plymouth above). Chrysler president K.T. Keller was very clear on the matter: they should be tall! And with a short tail. Tall enough for a tall man to wear a fedora and still have plenty of room. “Cars should accommodate people rather than the far-out ideas of designers,” Keller said. “We build cars to sit in, not to pee over.”
America seemed to agree with GM’s version of the new post-war look, even if it did hark back to the pre-war era with its rear “fenders”. It avoided the slab-sided look, which simply didn’t hold one’s attention for very long. And its shape, proportions and detailing were all more complex than the competition. As ubiquitous as these were, there was no corresponding fatigue. That is a hallmark of excellent design.
And if the notchback style wasn’t quite your thing, Chevrolet also offered the fastback Fleetline series, available in two and four door sedans through 1951, and only as a two-door in 1952. Chevrolet was hedging their bets by offering two distinct versions of their cars, unlike Ford and Plymouth, although it was hardly necessary. As it turned out, the fastback’s best days were over, and its share was in decline.
Either way, Chevrolet buyers voted with their wallets versus the competition.
Ford and Chevrolet both got huge boosts in 1949 with their new cars; Plymouth didn’t. Ford actually beat Chevy that year, but that was mostly because the Fords got out of the gate earlier. That ended up biting Ford, as the ’49s had numerous quality and assembly issues, which Ford had to scramble to fix for 1950. 1952 sales were of course impacted across the board by the Korean War. Chevrolet had a banner year in 1950, hitting almost 1.5 million units, a phenomenal number and a record that would stand until 1955, when it sold 1.7 million cars.
Chevrolet sold some 4.5 million of this generation of cars over its four year production run, built in ten plants across the country. The profits generated must have been staggering. These were golden years for GM and its stockholders; life was still relatively simple, in this time of just three body shells over five divisions. Things would soon get a whole lot more complicated.
Chevrolet was of course famous for its OHV sixes, which changed the game in 1929 by offering “a six for the price of a four”. Henry Ford soon upped the ante with his V8 in 1932, but Chevy stayed with its proven formula until it augmented it with another game-changer, its brilliant 1955 OHV V8. The Low-Priced Three differentiated themselves with their engines as well as their styling, as Ford played up its flat head V8 (a flathead six also joined the lineup in 1941), and of course Plymouth was solidly wedded to its venerable flathead sixes, which dated back to 1933.
Chevy’s six dated back to 1937. This one is the 216.5 CID version, as used in the standard transmission models. With a 6.6:1 compression ratio, it was rated at 92 gross hp @3400 rpm, and 85 net hp @3300 rpm. With its standard 4.11:1 rear axle ratio, it was geared on the low side, as was generally the custom back then. A car had to be able to get going on the steepest hills with a full load, even if it only had some 170 (net) ft.lbs. of torque between 1000-2000 rpm. And overdrive was not an option, thanks to the Chevy’s torque tube rear end/drive shaft. 60 mph had the engine spinning at 3060 rpm. Peak engine speed was 4200 rpm.
Needless to say, Chevrolet played up its experience with OHV engines and their intrinsic advantages, such as more efficient porting and superior cooling, since the ports didn’t have to share block space with the water jackets. The Chevy six made about the same hp most years as the Ford V8; the reason the Fords were faster (until 1949) was simply because they weighed a couple of hundred pounds less, in part due to their primitive suspensions.
As can be seen in the cutaway and from this photo, these Chevy sixes had splayed valves. As such, they rather look a bit like the “porcupine” valves of the Chevy big-block V8 engines.
But since these are not cross-flow heads, it seems a bit odd to angle the exhaust valves away from the direction of the port. The cylinder-head portion of the combustion chamber surrounds only the exhaust valve; the intake valve is flush with the face of the head. Combustion chamber science was hardly mature, but it was this design that led to it being called the Chevy “Blue Flame” six, as a blue-colored flame connotes one with the most complete combustion.
Chevrolet tried to put a positive spin on its four-way lubrication system, which involved metered pressure to the valve train, vapor spray to the cylinder walls, a pressure stream aimed at special “dippers” on the connecting rods, and direct pressure to the main and camshaft bearings. Full pressure lubrication is considered optimum, and Chevrolet eventually modified the larger 235 CID version to full pressure lubrication in 1954.
I’ve heard some folks malign these engines because of the lack of a full-pressure lubrication system to the rod bearings, and refer to them as “babbitt pounders” (babbitt is a white metal alloy used in plain bearings). Oddly enough, it’s something I’ve only encountered in recent years on this site, as I was always under the impression that these engines were about as tough as it got.
Millions of these sixes were built with this lubrication system for almost twenty years, and they were used in military vehicles and medium and large trucks that were run full-out, all day long. If a Chevy “babbitt pounder” truck can haul maximum allowable loads like logs out of the forest or a semi trailer across the country, they couldn’t have been all that bad, as Chevrolet truck sales were very strong during this period. And when and if the rod bearings wore down enough to become audible, dropping the oil pan allowed one to readily remove shims from the connecting rods to compensate for wear.
This one has the optional oil filter. Chevrolet quality was generally at a high point during this era. It had been building throughout the late 20s and 30s, but Henry Ford’s legendary obsession with the finest quality steel and other materials made it hard to top a Ford during those decades. But by the 40’s that was mostly a moot point.
In 1946, Nicholas Dreystadt, a thirty-year GM employee and previously the General Manager at Cadillac, took the helm at Chevrolet. Dreystadt started out in the industry as an apprentice at Mercedes-Benz, and made quality a top priority. The new 1949 cars were the beneficiaries of his focus on quality, and these cars were arguably the best-built Chevrolets ever.
It’s strictly anecdotal, but in Iowa during my first time there in 1960-1965, lots of farmers and other folks still drove these, including university student families. And when I moved back there in 1971, one could still find these old Chevy farmer’s cars (and pickups) running still, which made great cheap wheels for us kids. And perhaps oddly, they were generally not rusty, or at least not seriously so. Part of that might have been that salt maybe wasn’t used so much back then, especially on rural gravel roads.
Meanwhile, Fords of that particular era were decidedly scarcer, and folks rather avoided them as cheap used transportation. The issues with the new 1949s might have put folks off. But they seemingly didn’t last as long, or maybe there were just a lot more Chevys sold in that part of the world.
Admittedly, the Plymouths and Dodges were the best finds of these old timers back then; everyone knew they were built like the tanks they looked like. But they weren’t easy to come by; their owners knew what they had.
There were two important additions to the Chevy line in 1950 that probably help account for that record-breaking 1.5 million sold that year. The Bel Air hardtop was the first in the low-price field, and almost perfectly mirrored the Cadillac’s new hardtop.
The other sensation of 1950 was the Powerglide (“PG”), the first fully-automatic transmission in the low-price field. In a way, the word “automatic transmission” is a bit of a misnomer, as it suggests that gears were changed automatically. They weren’t: the Powerglide, in its original format, was a one-speed transmission with a wide-range torque converter and a manually selectable Low gear for steep hills or those seeking a faster getaway. Starting in 1953, the PG did start out in Low and shifted automatically into Drive, for brisker starts.
Yes, these early PG-equipped cars were like their Buick Dynaflow cousins in conveying a sense of being in a powerboat rather than in a car, with the engine speed barely increasing as the car oozed forward. But it was a great convenience, at a time when new consumer appliances were all about the convenience. Folks were tired of washing their clothes in a tub, heating their bath water on the stove, and shifting their own balky gears and using a clutch. The fully automatic operation of these rightfully-named slushboxes was worth the minor trade-offs. And who was in a big hurry in 1950 anyway?
In order to offset the PG’s tendency towards sloth, the larger 235 CID version of the six, which had been a truck-only engine previously, was made standard. It was a whole power train unique to the PG-equipped cars: the 235 six made 105 gross/98 net hp, had a commensurate bump in torque, and even sported hydraulic valve lifters. The rear axle ratio dropped to 3.55:1, which offset some of the fuel economy loss of the bigger engine and PG. It made for more relaxed cruising; 60 mph now had the engine turning only 2640 rpm.
Among other engineering features, Chevrolet claimed to have the strongest and stiffest frame as well as the largest brakes (11″ x 2″) in its price class. Suspension was by the usual SLA (short-arm, long arm) coil-sprung control arms at the front, and leaf springs at the rear, with the previously-mentioned torque tube, meaning a solid connection of the drive shaft and rear axle, with torque reactions taken up against the only universal joint just behind the transmission.
The interior packaging on these cars was one of the high points, as they were very roomy given their reasonable 115″ wheelbase and measuring a few inches less than 200 in overall length, thanks to their 65″ height.
Seats are tall, and even with the front seat all the way back, rear leg room measures over 41″. If you’re of a certain age (or older), slipping into the back (or front) seat of one of these will evoke a flood of memories. The enveloping shape, the natural fabrics, the smells, the feeling of being well ensconced in a comfortable and roomy cabin, where the captain never lights the “Please fasten seatbelts” sign, and one isn’t confined by them or consoles and individual seats. It’s like sitting on comfortable sofas that wend their way gently through space.
These cars were designed for a time when families were large, and sedans were the designated hauler. There was a three-row station wagon, but it was expensive and wagons were just not very common yet as typical family cars. So no matter how many kids there were, they all fit, one way or another.
Like about a dozen Niedermeyers and Payrs did in 1959, when we all piled into the Olds 88 version of the same A-Body for a confirmation outing in Innsbruck (I’m in front). Maybe that’s one of the reasons I’m so fond of these cars. In the 1950s in Europe, these GM cars of this vintage were considered the finest cars in the world, and were luxury cars conveying high prestige. Riding in this hired black Olds sedan was the equivalent of a hired S Class or Rolls-Royce today.
The big steering wheel was designed for a time before power steering (or air bags). Its ratio (19:1) was actually faster than later Chevrolets, thanks to the large diameter rim which afforded plenty of leverage, with four turns, lock to lock. The gearshift also was designed for actual use, not just for style, and the large, smooth knob adds a nice tactile touch to the experience of wending one’s way through the three forward gears, synchronized on the two upper ones.
And since Dad felt flush enough to buy a nicely-trimmed DeLuxe, why not splurge on the tube AM radio too? And what was the first song that came on, on the way home from the dealer?
Probably Leroy Anderson’s Pop Orchestra’s “Blue Tango”, which spent 38 weeks on or near the top of the charts. Rock music was still some years away, and the blues that inspired it was hardly mainstream in 1952.
So what about this particular baby-blue sedan that I found sitting in front of a classic California bungalow in the tiny and bucolic village of Pescadero, a mile or so inland from the Pacific and just on the other side of the Santa Cruz Mountains from Silicon Valley? Its co-owner Debbie appeared on the front porch, and was happy to have me shoot, and tell me a bit about the Chevy, which has been in a friend’s family since new, and recently has joined a ’55 Chevy in the garage in back. Her husband Frank later e-mailed me some more pictures, and filled me in on the story:
So the ‘52 was given to us by our friend Connie. Her grandparents bought it new in Long Beach, CA. It was built in Los Angeles. It’s a Deluxe, with a radio but no heater. It was a daily driver, turned over to her father at some point and driven until 1986. Parked at the family home in Long Beach until acquired.
We picked it up in July 2014, and aired up the bias ply tires. We got it to fire but it wouldn’t run. We trailered it back to Pescadero, CA.
New fuel tank, carb rebuild, fuel lines flushed and filter added. Complete brake service including, wheel/master cylinders, lines, shoes, drums, hardware, seals. Tires, a few suspension parts, tune up, hoses, belt, generator rebuild, wiper motor service. A few trim pieces replaced, and used bumpers acquired that are in better shape than what was on the car.
Since owned driven several thousand miles, entered in local car shows. And I/we try to drive it at least 2-3 times a month. It’s not fast or nimble but it is very fun to drive! Love the whistle of a 6 cylinder.
Me too. These old Chevy sixes do emit a distinctive tone, a happy combination of gentle valve train ticking, the intake sighing, and the murmuring spent blue flames of its exhaust. It’s a most familiar one, too, given how common they were for decades. Yes, I fell in love with this blue car, and would have happily listened to its six purring away smoothly for the long drive up the coast back to Oregon with me. But it’s already found a good home here in Pescadero.
So I’ll have to use my imagination as I slip behind the wheel. Or the memories, from years ago, which are still as fresh as the spring grass coming up in the meadow across the lane.
The sun may have been setting on this four year old design in 1952, but it’s been basking in the afterglow ever since.
More Chevrolet history:
CC 1946 Chevrolet Stylemaster – Marinated and Seasoned Leftovers Jason Shafer
Powerglide: A GM’s Greatest Hit Or Deadly Sin? PN
CC 1949 Chevrolet Fleetline: Your Choice Of Fastback Or Notchback PN
CC 1954 Chevrolet: See The USA, In Your Chevrolet L. Jones
CC 1955 Chevrolet: The iCar PN
CC 1958 Impala – A Ride To Remember J. Shafer
CC 1959 Chevrolet: The Original Art Car PN
CC 1965 Impala SS: The peak Chevrolet Experience; The Peak Big American Car Experience PN
Another fantastic piece. Never heard of the Interceptor. It’s certainly advanced-looking in a Tatra sort of way, but I prefer the post 48 GMs. They helped establish a proportioning ‘golden mean’ that made US sedans the definitive expression of the form until the early 1970s (with the brief exception of the finny 55-60 period). Great article, great pics. Where else am I going to get a read like this?
The Interceptor is a new one on me, too. And a very, very pleasant surprise.
I’ve often wondered where car design would have gone had the original fleetline, streamlined styling actually made it out of the early clay stages and hit the dealer showroom. Unfortunately, the conservatism of the American public (and GM management) ensured we got (in my eyes) the lesser design. And if the public prefers a gently rounded box over real streamlining, then advancing(?) toward broughams is most likely inevitable.
An aside of the radicalness of the Hudson: That was actually the most conservative line of thought that came out of WWII from them. At one point (1944? – I’m remembering a Special Interest Autos article from 40 years ago), the planned post-war Hudson would have been 7/8ths the size of the eventual 1948 model, with about the same interior space, a square four engine (like the Ariel motorcycle, four cylinders on two crankshafts mounted in a square configuration), and gull wing doors. And styling not unlike those 1946 GM clays or the Interceptor.
The idea was dropped when costing showed that Hudson could build a much larger, more conventional car for the same money. And being America, size always wins out.
Thanks, Paul. An excellent read with my morning coffee before I head to work.
Just imagine what if Chevrolet introduced the OHV V8 more early during the 1949-52 gen. The hotrodders did some aftermarkets upgrades like a V8 swap. Same with the 1953-54 models.
Hot Rod magazine did an article about the 1949-52 and 1953-54 where they grouped them as the 1949-54 Chevys
http://www.hotrod.com/cars/featured/0909sr-the-1949-54-chevrolet/ along with various aftermarkets upgrades.
Or, what would have happened if they had really pushed for performance out of the 6? Bigger displacement, overhead cams, more compression, etc., etc., etc. were all pretty feasible in the late 40s early 50s. I think a lot of people hot rodded the 6 and got a bunch of performance. Imaging what GM could have done.
1917 Chevrolet had a V8 how much earlier was it needed, there were over 60 V8 cars available before Henry Ford invented his version.
Chevrolet was not yet part of GM in 1917. It was also a lot more expensive than a Ford.
I have been re-reading Alfred Sloan’s book and was surprised to find that Chevrolet technically owned GM for several years. Durant, who lost control of GM in 1915, used his new venture, the Chevrolet Motor Co. to purchase GM shares until he had enough to regain control of GM. In 1918 all Chevy shares were traded for GM ones, and Chevy became a GM division. Chevy-owned GM shares were then divided among GM shareholders.
Durant lost control of GM in 1910. He then got into business with Chevrolet (person), taking over Chevrolet (company) and then used chevy to regain control of GM around 1916.
I never head of that song, the blue tango until I played it thats the music my dad listened to in the car I guess I’m giving away my age. kids today can’t fathom wating for the tube radio to warm up before you listen to music
Which is why I giggle every time some 30’s or 40’s period movie (made in the last thirty years or so) has a character turn on the radio, and it broadcasts immediately. You had to wait a good 45-60 seconds before the tubes warmed up.
…and that nice,warm hum right before the audio starts!
There are audiophiles who insist that tube (UK: valve) amplifiers have superior sound quality. I’m thankful my ears are not so discriminating.
Supposedly, Russia is the place to go for vacuum tubes, because of their lag in semiconductor development (which I assume has become less of an issue over time). However, I just found there’s still an American source for them, too.
There’s quite a market for old tube-driven stereo/hi-fi units for that very reason. And then, of course there are the guitar amps, which have to be one of the very few consumer items where you can still buy a brand-new unit with tubes from the factory.
(That reminds me, it’s about time to replace the tubes in mine, a ’96 Peavey Classic 30…)
Not unlike waiting for a modern TV to get going after you turn it on. Way different technology, same result! Is that progress? 😉
What a great read to start my day. Very calming photography too, the shape of the car, the low light. Very nice work.
Kudos to the owner for preserving this great car.
I have had a long love affair with the 52 Chevy that began with the one I used to spend hours playing in as a kid. An aunt and uncle had owned it for eons and he was still driving it to work as a school principal as late as 1969 or 70. That one was rusty indeed. Uncle Bill parked it in the road to keep it from turning his new driveway orange.
I rode in it once and was amazed at how smooth and quiet that ancient six was. And at age 10, it was the first time I had any idea that my father knew how to drive a stick. Just imagine. 🙂
One quibble: Studebaker also offered an automatic transmission in a low priced car in 1950, and that one had 3 gears and a lockup torque converter. (The Champion was within $100 of the cheapest Ford or Chevy.) However, it was not available until a few months into the model year, so Chevy could probably make an honest claim to being first.
I need to come back to your larger point on postwar styling. The Cadillac Interceptor is really interesting, because it seems to follow neither of the two prevailing postwar styling themes of Bathtub and Box.
The Ford was quite angular and closest to what would become the 3 box sedan. But for awhile, everyone thought the bathtub was the future. You call the Hudson the most radical, I think it’s the 49 Nash Airflyte. Packard followed these guys. Kaiser is kind of hard to pin down, as it has both elements of Bathtub and Box to it.
The GM designs threaded this needle perfectly. They were not so squared off and slab sided as the Kaiser and the Ford, and their softened curves stayed away from the Bathtub look. GM seems to have taken the same road that Studebaker did with its 1947 model, but refined it so much more. The Stude looks a little funny from some angles, but the 49-52 Chevy looked perfect no matter how you looked at it. We don’t often enough consider just how right the styling was (and remains) on this car.
As I laid my head down on the pillow last night, one of my last thoughts was “why did you not include the Nash?” I really need to include it this morning, as there’s no excuse for leaving it out.
This generation of Chevrolet is a convincing “baby” version of the 1948-49 Cadillacs. But the new-for-1950 B- and C-bodies were a step backward from their predecessors, in my opinion. Aside from the split windshield, the Chevrolet still managed to look up-to-date even when parked next to its bigger corporate brothers.
The greenhouse from the Cadillac Intercepter showed up almost intact on the 1950 C body four window sedan (except for the wrapped windshield.) I agree, I always found the 1950 sedan greenhouse with its vertical C pillar a bad change from the beautiful 1948-49 Cadillac/Roadmaster/Ninety Eight. The six window greenhouse was so much better looking.
You nailed it JPC. Those 48+ GMS really hit the sweet spot. Though I do appreciate the avant garde, the conventionality of these shapes was just right.
Amazing article Paul.
IMHO late 40’s to early 50’s was the top of the top of American car style, and these were probably the most beautiful Chevys ever. I think they aged much better than most late 50’s to late 70’s cars.
I’m personally a huge fan of the Fleetline models.
Wonderful paean to a seminal model from GM’s halcyon years, Thanks! Truly, The Ubiquitous Chevrolet for generations, many memories with and of them for multitudes of folks. Wish Chevrolet could hit on that magic combination now……
Great article about simply wonderful cars ~ you had to drive them to understand fully .
The 216 engine was called ‘ Babbit Pounder ‘ and was so by any Mechanic .
The only thing that killed them was speed ~ when new we had very few freeways so they ran and ran and ran and….
This pictured car has a DRY air filter ~ the lower part is all chambers to silence the intake honk .
-Nate
I stand corrected. How about “babbitt abuser”?
=8-) .
That would be the dolts who didn’t like them and so treated them like rented mules .
As you correctly said : they’re *very* hard ti kill .
In about 1967 in New Hampshire there was a green ’52 two door sedan , I forget whom , prolly a hippie teacher cut a medium size hole in the roof and laboriously put in stained glass with lead ~ it was really nice when driving , the sun light filtering down in various colors…
It has the 235 and powerglide , sadly it failed to start one cold January morning and that was that~ it was abandoned and sat there for a couple years before being towed to that lower , swampy field every Farm has , too soggy to grow anything in , perfect for dumping old cars and trucks .
I’d love one of these now as they’re dead simple to maintain ~ ~ a buddy @ my shop 30 years ago had a ’51 pickup with a rod knock , he knew *just* how to drive it with minimal RPM’s and used it that way for decades….
They have laminated Mylar shim now , makes it easier to keep the wobbly old rods properly adjusted .
-Nate
Thank you Paul for another informative and evocative article. I remember these Chevys well; my grandfather had a black ’50 sedan that he kept until late 1963.
Great write-up and a great little car. I believe that this was one of the best looking four-doors of the period… except for the later 4-door hardtops. I want an early 50’s 4-door Chevy for riding the kid (or kids later on) around on weekends after I’m done doing so with my Belvedere. I guess I like reliving the vintage family man from the nuclear age. It would be nice to find an original-ish car with the six and manual transmission.
I especially like the green Chevy with the bumper mounted motorcycle/dirt bike carrier. I’m trying to find a set for my Belvedere so I won’t need to drive the pickup every time I want to ride. These carriers pop up on Craigslist or eBay every once in awhile but quickly disappear. I would love to see a picture of a classic car hauling an old dirt bike but I can’t seem to find one.
#bestof2016 candidate.
+1
Me and my parents with our 1949 Chevy Deluxe 2 dr sedan on Nov. 13, 1949.
I have a dozen or more photos of me with the car. Some time in the early ’50s (before 1954), on a trip to see my Grandmother in East Texas during a cold winter, the engine froze and the block cracked. I remember my Dad stopping to get water out of a ditch on the side of the 2 land hwy to put in the radiator. One of my earliest memories. My parents traded it in a 1953 Ford 4 dr sedan (demonstrator) equipped with the rare Coronado Deck Lid Kit.
The first powerglide was very similar to the early Dynaflow with a 5 element torque converter (2 stage impeller, 2 stage stator) with the basic difference that the powerglide used somewhat cheaper turbines. When Buick went to the twin turbine design, Chevrolet decided to use a simple torque converter with the low range gear now an automatic first gear. Buick’s management wanted a shiftless transmission, while Chevy wanted a cheaper transmission and a single upshift was not seen as a bad thing.
Love your work – this was wonderful!
I’d like to add that while it was the beginning of a new era, the need of car buyers differed greatly from any time before or since. After struggling through the Great Depression with whatever they could drive, then World War II with its destruction and loss, the American auto market was huge and everyone needed a new car. Everyone, from blue collar working men to bank presidents.
If you designed a car as specific as the Hudson, you aren’t meeting the needs of this huge new market. I love the Hudson and love the streamlined cars, but probably 80% of the new car market didn’t need a car like that.
Auto manufacturers needed a car that fit into the lives of returning soldiers and their booming families. GM built a car that could meet the majority of this new car market. Ford did an amazing job considering their death bed experience, and Chrysler fell into a good portion of this market as if by accident. All the new cars sold, even stodgy Plymouths, helping auto manufacturers to survive long enough to fix their products.
Manufacturers who produced a hot-shot, one-off product couldn’t make it after the Korean War. Hudson, Kaiser, Tucker, Willys, Nash and Packard, didn’t read the giant need of this giant market and walled themselves off from it with designs that couldn’t be altered to remain viable in it. They had great designs, but they failed to really capitalize on the market’s potential by offering products that met the needs of a majority of buyers.
If we look at what worked in Europe, we see this even clearer. America might have won those wars, but that didn’t mean that everyone won economically. Just as a Beetle was a design that almost any family could get and live with, American manufacturers needed something similar. Fancy is nice in a market like this, but what all Americans needed after 1948 was dependable and inexpensive wheels. GM’s designs met those needs. Then they dressed them up as higher priced makes and models for greater profits.
Returning soldiers also had a need for housing and those who could get financed for a new house got one. What did those houses look like? They weren’t big. Like the car market, the housing market did best for those looking for affordability as well as new. The new houses booming in suburbia weren’t the housing equivalents of Packard, Hudson, Kaiser, or Nash – they were the housing equivalents of GM, Ford and Chrysler.
We’ve never had another auto market like that one. It was vast and it was amazing. The automobile for it needed to meet those vast needs. GM hit that best and won.
Ahh! That brings back memories! In 1964 I got my driver’s license and my Dad bought me a black ( the first of many of that color) ’51 Chevy Deluxe 4 door with the Powerglide. It had a Jasper rebuilt engine in it and was the only car I had for probably a decade that didn’t use any oil. It had a little rust but the paint buffed out nicely. It had belonged to a farmer as Paul stated many had and was a trade in at the local Chevy dealer. The spare tire had a lot of chicken droppings on it, so I figure they used it as a truck, too. After I had it a week I had my first date in it. The girl had a black outfit on and as she plopped down on the front seat, a cloud of dust arose around her. Luckily, she was a good sport. I put on new seat covers the next week. I had that car for a year and had lots of fun with it. Your first car is always special. The only reason we traded it back to the Chevy dealer for a ’55 Ford was that the Powerglide was making funny noises. Otherwise it was a great car. The oldest of 4 kids, I was never really spoiled, but made to work for what I wanted. Therefore, I was shocked when my Dad bought that car for me. Upon later reflection, I think he did it to save my life. I think he was afraid of what would happen if I was to use his Oldsmobile. He was remembering how he treated Grandpa’s ’40 Ford.
To come full circle, a couple of years ago, a cousin of my sister’s husband found, in a bunch of old car titles he had acquired, the one for the ’51. The Chevy dealer had wholesaled it and it had evidently been junked later without ever changing the title. My Sis is a few years younger than me and didn’t remember the car. Later she found two pictures of me and her standing in front of the car. I have them and the title framed in my man cave.
Dad had a ’54 BelAir very same color as the first photograph. Mom, Dad, and six kids crammed inside with me riding on mom’s lap.
I distinctly remember the strap (above photo of back seat) across the back of the front seat. Dad would tell me to “hold on” if I was in the back by myself as he whipped the car around a corner.
Every thing was manual: steering, brakes, transmission, windows, ash tray. Yet the old man “never” stalled the engine while smoking a cigar, using manual hand signals, and shifting gears with six screaming kids aboard.
Nobody has mentioned how Slow & Sluggish the early PowerGlides were?
And how dismal their gas mileage was?
Even with the added horsepower, given to make up for the power zapping PowerGlide, they were still ice wagon/pigs.
The sound of a PG Chevvy, trying to climb a steep hill, reminded one of a car with a badly slipping/worn out clutch.
A same year V8 Ford, especally if equipped with the overdrive unit, would run off and leave a PG Chevvy and better it on gas mileage.
As I pointed out above, the first Powerglide was basically a Dynaflow. It would not use low gear unless it was selected manually. Even the Buick Special with a straight eight was not fast in Drive.
Mine did pretty good on gas for the time. It also did not run all that bad. Of course I was just glad to have a car. That ‘Glide made me learn to hate them, which I still do. Following that car I had the ’55 Ford which was a V8 automatic. It felt like some kind of muscle car after driving the Chevy for a year. It had some kind of slack in the flex plate or something, because if you took off with your foot in it, the tires would always bark when it shifted.
Yep, the Chevy and Ford were two different animals. I never was one to do a lot of jackrabbit starts, but I was also a 17 year old kid when I got the Ford and had about that much sense. My disdain for the Powerglide probably comes from it causing me to have to sell an otherwise good car that I really liked.
I was also glad to have automatics in my first two cars as I didn’t learn to drive a stick shift until after I got my license. That happened one day when my Dad told me to take our beater pickup to the dump with a load of junk. I told him that I couldn’t drive a stick. His reply was ” Well, then, you should be an expert by the time you get back”.
Since then I have developed a real love for shifting myself.
Apples to oranges; an utterly irrelevant comparison. The point is that some folks were very eager to give up shifting. Or needed to.And Ford didn’t even offer that as an option then. Not everyone had full-throttle performance as their priority in an automobile.
We had a Mennonite cleaning lady in Iowa City, who had one short leg, perhaps from polio. She bought one of these early automatic cars, and it changed her life.
True, Ford took ONE extra year longer, until 1951, to have an automatic transmission.
That extra year of waiting gave a far superior automatic transmission, the THREE speed Ford-O-Matic. (You had to start off in “low” and manually shift to high to get all 3 speeds; otherwise it would start in second gear and manually shift to high).
This Ford/Borg Warner automatic was adapted for use in many cars in the 1950’s on up.
These Chevrolets were the Toyota Camrys of their day, in that they were very competent, all-around vehicles. A competitor might best Chevrolet in one area, but the total package – along with stellar build quality – was what sold people on the Chevrolet.
During the pre-interstate era, most driving was done around town or on two-lane roads where you could count on getting stuck behind tractor trailers or even some old jalopy from the 1930s for a large portion of your trip. If you hit could 50 mph for a sustained stretch of driving, you were lucky. In that driving environment, jackrabbit acceleration isn’t a major priority.
Good analogy (Chevvy/Camry), Geeber.
I found my 2011 Camry a superior quality control, well built car, a bland but capable Daily Driver.
I sold it at the first of the year, enjoyed it while I had it, but don’t miss it at all today.
I’ll bet a bunch of these were nicknamed “Old Reliable” or something similar
Plus, at that time, nobody had really come to agreement on what a modern automatic should act like. Dynaflow, Powerglide, Hydra-Matic, Studebaker’s 1950-55 Automatic Drive, Packard’s Ultramatic, and Ford’s Ford/Merc-O-Matic were all really, really different from one another in concept, design and operation. Plus there was the variety of Fluid Drive semi-autos over at Chrysler. The automatic transmission would not really be standardized until the THM replaced the older designs at GM in the second half of the 1960s.
JP: I’ve always read that Mopar’s 3 speed TorqueFlite automatic was the industry’s “Referrnce Standard” long before GM’s TurboHydraMatic appeared?
Ford kind of copied it for the 1958 FX/MX Cruise-O-Matic, but GM fought back with several versions of the PG, Dynaflow and HydraMatic before joining the rest of the industry with the Torqueflite-like THM in 1964-66.
Growing up in the 1960s/70s, I assumed that all automatics were three-speed with torque converters. I was surprised to find out in retrospect how many variations there were in earlier years.
The only variation I was aware of was the controls, like the pushbuttons in our 1959 Dodge station wagon.
The key similarity between TorqueFlite and Cruise-O-Matic (and Turbo Hydra-Matic) was the Simpson gearset, which both Chrysler and Ford (and later GM and Daimler-Benz) used under license from Howard Simpson. The three transmissions are quite a bit different in mechanical layout; the “Simpson gearset” refers to the design of the actual planetary gears.
Even GM was all over the place during this period. I’m currently still in the process of revamping my 2010 article on GM’s various other early automatics, which are remarkably diverse.
Yes, but remember, back then, Ford couldn’t even design an A/T by themselves.
Great article too,and I thank you for it.
Great article Paul. And I agree, the tone of that stovebolt 6 is rather intoxicating, much like a flathead Ford V8. Another intoxicating engine was the Buick 215 aluminum V8. No wonder the Brits tucked that ball tightly under their arm, and ran like hell with it. A true gem of an engine. They could not have engineered a engine like that if they tried. Hillman Imp anyone?
And I think Ford may have had a harder time reverting back to passenger car production. Between building aircraft engines, B-17s, and Jeeps, I’m thinking their plate was rather full. But I could be wrong, first time for everything 🙂
Ford was actually ahead in the immediate postwar period mostly because GM had a lengthy UAW strike in late 1945.
Ford 2nd-sourced B-24s at Willow Run. B-17 production was farmed out to Lockheed-Vega & Douglas. GM’s Eastern Aircraft division built Wildcats & Avengers so Grumman could focus on Hellcats.
GM did plenty of war production too. I think all US carmakers would have faced the same transition issues from wartime to civilian production.
I can’t see a Chevy of this era without thinking of the album cover for Late for the Sky by Jackson Browne. It’s a riff on a panting by the impressionist painter Magritte.
The Magritte painting:
Aha! I have that album and love it, but I was scratching my head on the Magritte reference.
Thank you for an excellent and informative article. I have been a fan of these Chevrolets for many years. My first exposure was as a youngster riding with a friend and his parents in their ’52. I disposed of an unwanted bologna sandwich by stuffing it through a rust hole in the floorboard. My later experiences were more positive. A friend had a ’50 “field car”, followed by a ’53 sedan for the road. We spent many happy times in those rides. I was also fortunate enough to have a ’54 business coupe and ’53 wagon in my younger years (as transportation!). As you note, they were comfortable and reliable, and also had great low speed torque. There were also certain quirks (column shift linkage that jammed, sloppy steering, aftermarket oil line to the head). All were three speeds, since we feared Powerglide’s impact on “performance” and economy.
Great find and a great write-up! Pescadero is a cool little spot–hope you had the chance to go to Duarte’s when you were there. Their olallieberry pie is amazing.
We go there every time we’re down in Half Moon Bay, which is every February. It’s a genuine curbside classic!
The pie is good, but no better than Stephanie’s. 🙂
My father’s first car was a ’49 Chevy Deluxe two door sedan. He picked up the car around 1956. It was black, featured fender skirts and was in very good condition. He did eventually have the engine rebuilt – for $50.00! In a testament to the ubiquitous nature of these cars in the American Midwest, my father bought it in Des Moines, IA, not far from where Paul eventually lived. The car served him well until January 1960 when he had to report for duty for his stint in the Army.
I’ve seen pictures of his car, but I can’t seem to locate one now. He was very proud of it and still speaks fondly of it.
Really great write up on the progression of post WWII styling at GM. The addition of “Blue Tango” was great! It set the mood for reading the remainder of the article!
The Interceptor is fascinating – it reminds me of an oversized Panhard.
When I was in high school in a Vancouver suburb during the mid 1970s, there was a guy who drove an immaculate black two-door Fleetline – he was said to have bought it from a “little old lady”. Beautiful car, but I suspect he thrashed the engine to death in short order.
I know that the Chevrolet 235 Blue Flame (aka Stovebolt) inline six was produced into 1962, when it was replaced by a new generation of inline sixes that displaced 230,250 and 292 cubic inches. I know the 250 was last used in 1979 model cars and 1984 model trucks/vans. Also, the 292 was used in UPS vans for many years.
How much slower and how much of a gas mileage penalty was the PowerGlide when compared to the 3 speed manual transmission?
A bunch, particularly starting in Drive, although it’s hard to quantify exactly how much Powerglide itself was responsible because automatic cars were heavier, had a higher numerical axle ratio, and used the bigger engine.
In 1950 my parents traded their 32 Chev in on a new four door fastback Chevy. I assume that they liked it as in 52 they traded that for a new 52 four door Chevy. It was Ford products after that until 64. Then it was back to a full size Chevy.
Was there ever a better name for a car than FLEETLINE AEROSEDAN
and they looked pretty good too!
Agree, LDS.
The four door Fleetline was the most elegant looking of all the body styles for these Chevvies.
From some angles it rather resembles a Rolls-Royce.
To me, the Interceptor looks more like a Tucker than anything else. It makes me wonder, had the Tucker gone into mass production and sold well, would GM have moved its styling in that direction.
It did preview the wraparound windshield — but, oddly, with a center divider. Were the glass manufacturers not yet geared up to produce a one piece windshield with all those curves?
Pretty much. Harley Earl later went to fairly elaborate lengths to get GM’s glass supplier to be able to do the one-piece wraparound for 1953.
Paul’s description very much fits my experience. Our neighbor and cousin Bob had a two door Fleetline Deluxe of 1949-1951 vintage, sort of a dill pickle green, which was the family car well into the late 50’s if not early 60’s. Bob was loathe to let go of a machine if it worked well for him-he had a Farmall F-20 from the ’30’s that he liked to drive around the neighborhood to visit or when we did common tasks. Everyone laughed at him coming up the road at about four miles per hour, but he loved that old Farmall. He must have kept the Chevy as well maintained, as I remember my positive reaction when we would pile into the back seat with the other neighborhood kids when it was his family’s turn to drive us to town for swimming lessons in the summer. I had expected the ride to be crude and ancient, but within its designed operating envelope of about zero to fifty, it accelerated and stopped smoothly and rode well, with just a little more road and exhaust noise-curiously reassuring, at that-than later cars. And the back seat, with all that room and the limited fastback visibility, was the idea place for a long daydream on the relaxing ride back home from town.
If I wasn’t such a Tri-Five guy, I might own one of these.
Of course I’d have to hot rod it with a modern LS engine, overdrive and suspension/brakes. More fun for me to drive, which I would do every chance I had.
But I’d be awfully tempted to maintain the stock appearance down to the wheels, even if I had to go with larger steelies on which to place those original hubcaps.
Fascinating to learn of Dreystadt’s past with Cadillac and before, with Mercedes. Anything I’ve read about these cars invariably points out the Swiss-watch quality.
Can you imagine a GM where everything had been built to a similar high standard of quality on thru the 80’s and 90’s? I don’t think THAT GM would have gone bankrupt.
This is one series that IMO became more attractive with each new year. Those ’52 grill “teeth” are the topper for me. Make mine a Fleetline, if you don’t mind.
A ’53 or ’53 Chevy is the first car I remember riding in as a child with Mom. In the early ’60’s I still remember seeing far more of these cars still on the road then any other make. A company makes an adapter for a 5 speed S-10 transmission for the 216 and 235 engine. Just this change alone would make for a much improved cruiser for a trip down the remains and memories of highway 66.
Another great piece of automotive history from Paul.
To me the 2 door fastback is by far the best looking of the bunch.
Magnificent article Paul, one of the best on the site with the thorough details of the car’s background, competitors and lasting impact.
These cars were sold in Australia alongside the “little brother” Holden that was similar in a lot of ways (unitary construction being a fundamental difference!), particularly the FJ facelift from 1953 with its more similar grille. Once the production rate of the Holden ramped up it would have taken the majority of sales, eventually comprising half of all cars sold in Australia in the latter 1950s.
These fastbacks are one of the best-looking cars of the era, but like chas108 I would be more inclined for some mechanical updates.
There are still quite a few of the Chevys around, including utes.
Terrific piece. Wow. Thanks. Had a neighbor while growing up in the 50’s and 60’s who commuted 25 miles E from Los Angeles in his ‘Black Beauty’ a 1951 two-door 3 on the tree 6-Cyl slope back Chevy. Faded black paint enough to see its original elegance but he kept it in Swiss watch mechanical condition. It was beautiful. I left for college and he went through a divorce so lost track of it and him.
I appreciate the personal memories which definitely added an extra kick in your step during the composition of the article.
That GM had the stunningly right designs shows not only the caliber of the people involved with the designs but the astonishing effort to sift through their thought processes to determine the final design. Through that era GM made few mistakes and enjoyed unprecedented success.
My father did not come around to GM until a 1966 Olds with which he and our entire family were delighted and astonished. From that time on he drove GM until he died.
Paul, splendid job! This is your doctorate….
I wonder if similar articles of praise and misty eyed love will be written in about 50 years about a Toyota Camry?
The more I think about it the more I’ve come to believe that this Chevy was the Camry of it’s time period.
Another wonderful piece, on a car that I had really overlooked until now. Chevys of this era were never commonly seen by the time I came around, and within the custom and classic worlds, are overshadowed by the tri-fives, jukebox late 50’s cars, and even the ’49 Ford. But it is indeed a clean, balanced design, and exactly right for the demands of its day.
It still sounds odd to hear of the quality of a GM product in such a positive light, though!
Chris ;
If ever you get the chance to drive one , you’ll understand immediately .
I used to work on the local Mexican’s Low Riders , they always keep the InLine 6 Banger and are always amazed at how peppy these cars are when sharply tuned .
When greased and fitted with decent gas charged shocks they handle and ride far better than you’d imagine too .
I keep reading this article and them going off to look at used Chevies OnLine…..
I gotta be strong , no more old cars until I finish all the old ones in my back yard .
-Nate
My Grandfather had a 51 Chevy. It had the factory tach like the one in the photo.
It read fuel economy, good, fair, poor.
Supposedly it had a Chrysler front bumper on it. From what I was told you cold do swaps like that back then.
We used to write our names in the headliner with our fingers it was so old and faded.
This gen Chevy was superior to the competition and an early example of Chevy always hitting the sweet spot, with the right car at the right time. However, while the Chevy may have been the best, the ’49 Ford was the most significant. Ford was in dire straights when 28 year old HFII assumed control from his senile grandfather in 1945. He and the whiz kids bet the company on this model and its sales success saved the company.
I bought a 1951 Bel air HT at the big swap meet in Jefferson, WI about 1985.
It had the original 235 cu engine with Power Glide. Cream color top with a green metallic bottom. The paint was a little faded, the interior had been re-done at one time using original style/pattern cloth. I took it to my local Macco shop in Lombard, IL and had it re-painted same color combo, it came out really good. No wet sanding of buffing was required. As time went on I picked up a 1954 Chev. Trans and Torque converter with a vacuum modulator that would allow the trans to shift from low to high automatically unlike the original power glides up until 1954, the factory trans cross member was riveted in and had to be drilled out. I mounted a split manifold bought for $35. at a swap meet and had the local Mienike shop bend a set of dual pipes and ad a nice set of throaty Mufflers. I also had them mount a set of large bright chrome tips, prob. 4″ by 12″ length. It sounded great with the new system. Not long after that I mounted a set of 57 Caddy hub caps, and bought four 1952 SS side trim pcs. from a salvage yard to install. “I liked the look”
Also purchased a set of 1952 grille teeth to mount on the center grille bar .
Oh, I bought a set of triple head Lakes pipes and mounted them with some home made brackets. I’m sure memory has failed me on all I did to that car, I have always been a fan of custom cars. Most car people thought it was a customized 1952 model.
Later I got into street rods like most of my cruise night buddies in that area..
Nice article. Always enjoy your colorful way with the words.
Before I was born, my dad bought a new 1953 Chevrolet 2-door sedan with Powerglide transmission when stationed in Okinawa. It was dark blue with an ivory color top.
My mother recalls it was a nice car until my dad, armed with a Chevrolet Speed Manual, Hot Rod and Car Craft magazines, tried to soup it up and customize it. He tore down the engine, got it back together with a lot of help and put on two one-barrel carburators and Mallory dual point distributor to get a more pep out of the engine. (I later found a spare Mallory distributor along with other speed items and notes that he kept for whatever reasons). Then he took off all the chrome side trim to get that “customized” look but couldn’t patch up the holes. But his wildest idea (according to my mother) was to make a long-nosed roadster out of it by chopping the roof, repositioning the windshield and extending the hood and cowling to where the back seat was. How he was going to do this, I have no idea….and neither did he for he gave up the idea, much to my mother’s relief.
After those “modifications”, the car never really ran or looked right and looked far older that it really was. He owned the Chevrolet for only five years, tried to sell it but nobody would buy it and he ended up selling it to a junkyard before we transferred to Panama
After my dad retired in 1968, he bought a GMC pickup with a 292 inline six and four-speed manual transmission. I recall him once saying that the truck’s inline 6 was very similar to his old 1953 Chevrolet inline 6 and he had a gleam in his eye to soup up that engine. My mother noticed the gleam and put a squash to that idea, reminding him of the results with the ’53 Chevrolet. She also squashed similar ideas I had years later when I discovered my dad’s stash of 1953-54 Hot Rod and Car Craft magazines and the Chevrolet Speed manual, which I still have. Wish I still had the truck though.
A few years ago I saw a unrestored but clean stock 1953 Chevrolet four door Bel-Aire for sale and toyed with the idea of buying it until the owner stated his asking price of $15,000. I thought it was too much and walked away.
When I was in the Boy Scouts in the sixties Mr. Hayden had a 57 Bel Air 4 door
That was his new car! His old car was a 51 or 52 Fleetline coupe
Tell me he didn’t have good taste in cars!
I don’t know how I missed this earlier, but a 1952 Chevy DeLuxe 2 door sedan was my very first car.
I bought “the bomb” from a friend’s father in August, 1968 for $75.00. Light green, 216 six, 3 on the tree and optional or aftermarket turn signals mounted on the steering column left side. The rubber cam was pretty well shot, so I had to release the stalk manually.
The engine ran incredibly smooth. No oil filter, oil bath air cleaner, rusted out to death. We did our best to fix some of the rust, but realized it was impossible to save.
I cracked the heater core hose attachment points because I haven’t learned that you never yank the hoses, you gently slice them and peel them off. No money to fix, so I froze for a while!
As the car had no radio, I wanted tunes, and had recently bought a portable am/fm radio that used 4 batteries – 6 volts – just like the car. So kit-bashing an external speaker jack and installing a speaker that we had laying around in the speaker grille, mounting an antenna and tying it in to the radio, and placing the radio in the glove box in which it fit perfectly, viola! I had music. Not very loud music, but music, nevertheless!
One more thing: I had to replace the side engine cover gasket, and that was a real pain – especially when we removed the distributor, but couldn’t remember how to re-install it properly! Well, after learning what TDC was and how to move the crank to the correct position (after a long phone call from our family mechanic that evening), we got it installed properly and adjusted correctly!
I learned much from the brief three months I owned that car, and am thankful for that! I then bought a 1961 Bel Air 2 door sedan, which I have written about before.
This was a fabulous article, Paul, and brought back amazing memories! Thank you very much!
This past summer I was at an auction where I was very much tempted by a ’51 Chevy sedan delivery which had been given a very mild restomod. So mild that it retained its original steering wheel, column and nonpower steering box, and original nonpower brakes and original pedals. I really, really wanted it — until I climbed into the driver’s seat. The driving position was unspeakably bad. The seats were some sort of later buckets but I don’t think that was the issue. The huge steering wheel is way too close. That I somewhat expected, but I didn’t expect the pedals to be even closer. The transition between gas and brake involves pulling your foot way back and up in an odd way. And when I adjusted the seat so the steering wheel was not actually touching my chest, I found I could not reach any controls on the dash. Perhaps it doesn’t matter if the radio is in a different zip code, but it seems to me one ought to be able to turn on the lights or wipers while driving .I guess back in the day you just put up with all this? In any event, I now have a much greater appreciation for why people drop in a Monte Carlo front end, power steering and tilt column.
My Dad had a ’50 Chevy Bel Air with Powerglide, mint green with a black top. He had to sell it to go to the Korean “conflict.” He and my Mom always remembered it. Years later in the late 1970s he found another, same year, body style, and color combo. He bought it and restored it. We lost my Dad a few years ago. But…my 83-year-old Mom still drives that car! I was lucky to be a kid when he restored it, and I am lucky today to get to drive that car sometimes. I don’t plan to let that car leave the family. I always thought it was a pretty great car, but this article underscores exactly why. Thanks for a great article.
“Chevrolet had a banner year in 1950, hitting almost 1.5 million units, a phenomenal number and a record that would stand until 1955, when it sold 1.7 million cars.”
I’ve commented in the past that there are a surprising number of discrepancies and errors in Chevrolet production totals over the years. Given Chevrolet’s historic prominence in the U.S. auto industry, you would think that the question “How many did they make?” would be easy to answer. It’s amazing how often it isn’t, and 1950 is one of the biggest whoppers. Most of Paul’s statement above is true, but the phrase “hitting almost 1.5 million units” isn’t quite right. I believe that the correct figure is actually 1,348,490.
The discrepancy can be traced to production figures for two specific models, the Deluxe Fleetline 4-door sedan and the Deluxe Styleline station wagon. If you check different sources, you’ll find that there are two different figures floating around for these two models. In the case of the Deluxe Fleetline 4-door sedan, the discrepancy is small. Some sources show production as 124,187, while others show it as 124,287 (a difference of 100 units). Most of the discrepancy lies in the figures for the Deluxe Styleline station wagon. Some sources show production as 16,995, while others show it as 166,995.
If you add up production figures for each 1950 Chevrolet model, using the higher of the two figures for the Deluxe Fleetline 4-door sedan and the Deluxe Styleline station wagon, you will get a total of 1,498,590. That’s how the figures appear in the Standard Catalog of American Cars, and that total appears on the Wikipedia page “U.S. Automobile Production Figures”. (I’m not sure what the Encyclopedia of American Cars has; I don’t have my copy handy at the moment.) If you do the same exercise using the lower of the two figures for the Deluxe Fleetline 4-door sedan and the Deluxe Styleline station wagon, you will get a total of 1,348,490. I believe that figure is actually the correct one.
Why do I believe that? For most model years between 1931 and 1957, the Standard Catalog quotes an overall Chevrolet model year production figure in the footnotes for the section covering each year. For most years, these figures are model year production total for all vehicles built off of the standard Chevrolet passenger car body, including vehicles classified as commercial vehicles that aren’t normally included in sources covering “cars” (e.g., sedan deliveries and commercial chassis). It is apparent that these figures were not simply calculated by adding up the production total for each individual model. They couldn’t be, since the Standard Catalog of American Cars doesn’t cover commercial vehicles (trucks and other commercial vehicles are covered in a separate companion volume). There are also cases where there are clear errors in some of the production totals for individual models that appear in the Standard Catalog, and these errors are not carried over into the overall total. The overall model year production totals in the footnotes must have been taken as is from some other source. In most cases where the total yielded by adding up the production total for each individual model doesn’t match the overall production total in the footnotes, an examination of other sources reveals that there are discrepancies between sources in the production totals for certain models. In almost every case, if you try different combinations of these numbers, you will find that there is one set of numbers that adds up correctly to the overall model year production total in the footnotes.
That the numbers in the footnotes seem to have been taken independently from another source (they weren’t simply calculated from the other numbers that appear in the Standard Catalog), and that there is almost always a set of numbers that adds up correctly to the numbers in the footnotes, makes me think the numbers in the footnotes are likely highly reliable. For 1950, the figure in the footnotes is 1,371,535. If we subtract sedan deliveries (23,045) to boil this down to passenger cars only, the total is 1,348,490. If you add up the figures for each individual model, and try different combinations for the two models for which discrepancies exist, you will find that using the lower of the two totals (124,817 and 16,995) adds up to exactly 1,348,490.
“These cars were designed for a time when families were large, and sedans were the designated hauler. There was a three-row station wagon, but it was expensive and wagons were just not very common yet as typical family cars. So no matter how many kids there were, they all fit, one way or another.”
Another reason why I think the lower figures are right is that it seems hard to believe that the higher figure for station wagons (166,995) is right, because it would be much, much higher than any other year around this time.
There is some logic to the notion that wagon sales could have spiked in 1950, then dropped off for the next few years. The steel-bodied four-door wagon style, which had been introduced by Chevrolet and Pontiac late in the 1949 model year, was still a GM exclusive for 1950, and the postwar buyer’s market was at its peak. Korean war restrictions then held production and sales down over the next few years. But the contrast between the supposed 166K in 1950 and the figures for subsequent years just seems too great. Chevrolet wagon production was just 23K in 1951 and 12K in 1952. In 1953, with wartime restrictions easing up and the wagon lineup expanded from one to three models (from the time the steel-bodied wagon was introduced up through 1952, the only wagon available was a deluxe-trimmed eight-passenger version), it jumped to 48K, then 56K in 1954. Against that backdrop, 166K wagons in 1950 seems hard to believe. 16K makes a lot more sense.
Your analysis and logic is highly compelling, as usual. I quite agree: there’s no way Chevy sold 166k of the deluxe wagon in 1950. Wagons, simply weren’t theta popular then. Plymouth, whose wagon was the cheapest and very popular, sold 34k of them in 1950. Ford sold 22k wagons that year.
FWIW, my own memory tells me that Plymouth wagons of that era were substantially more common than either the Chevy or Ford.
I accept your revised number as being the only logical and correct one.
And I still wish you’d create a spreadsheet with what are your best call as to actual passenger car sales from the whole era! 🙂
“If you add up production figures for each 1950 Chevrolet model, using the higher of the two figures for the Deluxe Fleetline 4-door sedan and the Deluxe Styleline station wagon, you will get a total of 1,498,590. That’s how the figures appear in the Standard Catalog of American Cars, and that total appears on the Wikipedia page “U.S. Automobile Production Figures”. (I’m not sure what the Encyclopedia of American Cars has; I don’t have my copy handy at the moment.) ”
The Encyclopedia of American Cars has the same numbers as the other sources referenced above (the higher of the two figures for the Deluxe Fleetline 4-door sedan and the Deluxe Styleline station wagon).
“And I still wish you’d create a spreadsheet with what are your best call as to actual passenger car sales from the whole era!”
I started on this when we initially talked about it (back in, I think, early 2015) – my wife even bought me a copy of the Encyclopedia of American cars, which I didn’t have, to use as an additional reference – but as the saying goes, Life Got In The Way. I started with Chevrolet and never managed to even finish that one brand. In hindsight, starting with Chevrolet may not have been the best move, as I continue to be amazed as how many discrepancies and inconsistencies exist in Chevrolet production data – I sincerely hope that all manufacturers are not like this – and I really got bogged down in trying to resolve those.
“A car had to be able to get going on the steepest hills with a full load, even if it only had some 170 (net) ft.lbs. of torque between 1000-2000 rpm. And overdrive was not an option, thanks to the Chevy’s torque tube rear end/drive shaft. 60 mph had the engine spinning at 3060 rpm. Peak engine speed was 4200 rpm.”
I’m a bit puzzled by the mention of overdrive, or the lack of its availability. Nash/Rambler had offered overdrive for years, and they were (in)famous for their torque-tube driveshafts, Panhard rods, and coil springs/shocks locating the live rear axle. My dad’s 1965 Classic 550 4DR sedan with a 232 cu.in. OHV six and three-speed on the column had overdrive with the above suspension and live axle.
What was so different about Chevy’s design, that overdrive couldn’t be offered?
Nothing really ~
The Torque Tube only meant is would be more expen$ive and take more labor to install .
.
The Ruckstell Company made Torque Tube over drive units for Chevy light duty trucks and sold them under the name ” Truckstell ” ~ I’ve only ever seen a few and got cheated out of buying one for my ’49 Chevy 3100 Series pickup truck .
.
I’m sure others here will have lots of good info on these .
.
-Nate
Nate beat me to it.
You’re right, there’s no intrinsic limitation to offering overdrive on a torque tube rear end, except for the added expense. Or at least I assume so. Maybe Chevy just didn’t think it would sell well enough. But they offered it in 1955, when they went to a Hotchkiss style rear end.
Very few love and understand these old 6 bangers like I do .
.
Wonderful cars (and trucks !) able to take incredible beatings *if* you understand them and know how to operate them within design parameters .
.
-Nate
Thank you so much for your wonderful article! These cars were all around the sweetest sounding cars ever in my view. Remember when Dinah Shore said so in the song? “See The U.S.A. In Your Chevrolet”. Ticking OHV, mellow exhaust note, whining gears. When I was a kid in the 1950’s , we lived on a street with a fairly steep grade which required drivers to wring out 2nd gear going up the hill. That’s the way a car should sound! Sitting In the back seat was even more pleasant. Back then everyone old enough to drive in my family had one of those Chevy’s (my uncle Zoltan worked at the plant in Tarrytown) and I thought all cars had a gas tank whistle!. A few years later, I became a service station attendant and a few were still around – that’s when I learned to play tunes filling up those old Chevy tanks. Saw one at a car meet last September and the owner didn’t realize his car had this feature. Apparently, they tend to get clogged up with mud and debris. If you are lucky to have one of these and they all had them in those years, be sure to get yours working.
The video of the ’48 Caddy, ’46 Caddy, ’48 Hudson and the Interceptor shows the ’48 was already done and in production (or at least full production trim) by then. It was a complete car, tooled up for production. Meanwhile, the Interceptor was a one-off runner.
And from this, I conclude the ’48 and the Interceptor weren’t in competition for production. The Interceptor was a dream car at that point. The ’48 (and the ’48 Hudson) were fully realized production cars.
I’m betting the Interceptor was actually in competition for the next big redo – the ’50 Cadillac. And I bet that because the ’48 and ’49 sold so well it was a no-brainer for GM to go conservative for the ’50 and just update the ’48 design rather than going a whole new direction with the Interceptor.
Articles like this are why we love Curbside Classic.
Grandpa was a life member of a small town volunteer fire department that his father-in-law helped found back in ’16. In addition to the blue light he installed on the front bumper, the painted elements of the grille on his ’52 DeLuxe were neatly redone in bright red. Noticed the pinstriped wheels on that base black ’49 Fleetline. I think these all came standard with striped wheels during these years. Anyone out there know the details? Plenty of little things to appeal to all the senses on these. My godmother worked at the local Chevrolet/Olds store at the time. Uncle Zoltan worked at North Tarrytown. My father worked there for a time after he came home from the war. Also, I remember some of these having a red winged hood ornament. Part of a dealer installed dress up package?
I’ve never understood the long-standing obsession of car designers with glass roofs. Obviously, none of them flew planes in the South Pacific during the War.
Until I was almost 8, my dad drove his dad’s ’51 Chevy with PG to work, so I seldom rode in it. Now I know why he was excited about our new ’68 Electra’s 9 sec 0-60 when he traded it in. He’d had ’54 and ’57 Oldsmobiles before, and Mom drove our ’63 Impala wagon with a big V8 and dealer A/C, so the old Chevy must have been a total slug. Whenever he came back from months at sea, he drove like a maniac for several weeks, according to Mom.