Although its shape was a shorter version of the classic streamliners of the early ’30s like the Tatra, its proportions were balanced. That wasn’t the case with the VW, which was designed well before long three-box sedans had become the norm. Ok this Austin A30 is a somewhat extreme example, but the problem with small cars was always that as the length was reduced, the proportions became increasingly less attractive. Clearly, the key stylistic goal for GM was to absolutely avoid this. Let’s briefly consider what made the Corvair’s design and styling so unique and influential. But the reaction in Europe was almost the polar opposite: the Corvair instigated the biggest design revolution of the modern era, one whose effects are still with us today. And its influence on the pony cars and sporty coupes was huge. Meanwhile, the 1964 Mustang, Ford’s response to the Monza, was largely the design antithesis of the Corvair, and we all know how Americans reacted to that. The Corvair had no real lasting influence on American car styling. And undoubtedly, its clean lines were attractive to many American import car buyers, which explains why it sold so well to that contingent. Its very low height suggested a sporty car, even though the initial 1960 sedan had no real sporting aspirations that would come a bit later, in the Monza coupe. But its stylistic design didn’t exactly set Americans agog the “flying wing” roof had been seen across the 1959 GM line, and the rest of it was perhaps a bit too bland and aseptic for so many Americans weaned on chrome, fins, and long front ends with bold grilles. In the US, the Corvair was unprecedented for its rear-engine, the first American mass-production car to adopt a configuration common in Europe since the 1930s and even earlier. Updated and expanded ) The Corvair was a revolutionary car, but in quite different ways on each side of the Atlantic (or Pacific).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |