The book "Chrysler" book review

Has anyone read or have the book Chrysler by Vincent Curcio, I would recommend it for any W. P. Chrysler fans. The book certainly does reinforce the phrase "a picture equals a thousand words" as the writer gives voluminous hard to imagine descriptions. They built three floors of the Chrysler Building in the same amount of time it took me to read the descriptions of its' features.

If some one has the book and can refer to it without a bother I would like for someone else to read page 549 and tell me if a few of the sentences describing the Airflow make any sense. I've reread them a few times and it's Greek to me.

I was liking Vince but now he seems to be getting down on the Airflow a bit, I'm still reading it with 550 of 669 pages down and I do recommend it.

Jay

I read page 549 and don't see the problem. It is a little mixed up but I understand what he is driving at ( although I don't agree with him). What part don't you get?

Rusty, checking the front of the book I don't think I'm allowed to reproduce anything but,

just below half page is a sentence starting with the word Furthermore and includes "and stringy ridges lined fender edges" now that there is hard for me to picture, or imagine.

I'll have another beer and keep reading, I am enjoying the book.

Jay

Seriously, are you afraid the police will arrest you and put you in jail if you quote a few lines from a book?

To put your mind at ease I read the page at this site. The hell with them, let them go to jail.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=dt0uwGwuxPgC&pg=PA518&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

That passage does not make much sense to me either. I think he is referring to the raised ridge around the edge of the front fenders. This kind of thing was common on cars at the time. See the 32 Ford and other cars from the early 30s and notice how the body is outlined with a raised ridge. This stiffened the panel, added a decorative touch, and made the car look less boxy.

He seems to be criticizing the 1934 Airflow because it was not built like a 1940 car. You don't see this criticism of other 1934 cars because they do not look like 1940 cars. If you took the 34 Airflow body and added bulbous fenders it would look like other makers' 1940 models. Compare the silhouette of the Airflow to the typical 1934 car, then to the typical 1940 car and you will see what I mean.

The construction of the Airflow was typical of 1934 in some ways, more advanced in others. The all steel body and integrated chassis/body structure were innovative. So were the waterfall grille and headlights moulded to the body. The fabric insert in the roof, and the cycle style fenders were typical of the early 30s. They look old fashioned because the rest of the car is so modern.

Airflow was also the first mass produced car developed in the wind tunnel. Its shape was far more aerodynamic than anything on the market at the time. The designers went as far as they could without compromising interior room and other practical considerations. So, the shape was less than the engineers' ideal but still better than anybody else's car.

Notice that he compares the 1934 Airflow to the 1938 - 41 Cadillac. He doesn't dare compare the 34 Airflow and the 34 Cadillac. If he did the Cadillac would look like a horseless carriage with its wood framed body, clunky chassis and boxy, cramped, unstreamlined bodywork. It was the Airflow that forced luxury car makers to improve or go out of business. The mass produced Airflow had more interior room, comfortable ride, smoothness, silence, and speed than the much more expensive custom built luxury cars of the time. That is why the 1938 Cadillac resembles the 1934 Airflow more than a 34 Cadillac.

Cadillac did manage to make a few improvements when they copied the Airflow, it would be surprising if they did not, when they had 4 or 5 years to do it.

He also highlights the difference in design philosophy between Chrysler and GM. Chrysler was motivated by engineering and bringing the public genuine improvements. GM's philosophy was "the hell with aerodynamics". Give the public something that looks the part but doesn't do a damn thing and they will be dumb enough to buy it.

He also compliments GM on bringing out a streamlined look (not genuine streamlined performance) with an all steel body in 1938. Chrysler had genuine streamlining and an all steel body in 1934. I guess he thinks they copied it off GM, 4 years before GM invented it.

If this page is a fair sample the author does not know much about cars and can't write worth a hoot. I bet you don't have any trouble understanding my stuff. I do not claim to be a professional author but I'm better than him.

He quotes Frenchman Jean Andreau that changing the body shape does not improve streamlining but changing the fenders running boards and headlights does. He was wrong. Chrysler proved it in their wind tunnel tests. They took the typical 1928 body shape and put it in the wind tunnel backwards and it had less drag than it did forwards. Chrysler actually built a car in 1929 with the body on backwards and tested it on the roads and on the test track to prove without doubt that this was correct.

If something works better back to front, it is a sign there is something the matter with it.

They went on to design the best low drag body they could, and still have it practical. The designers wanted to taper the body in from the sides and from the top. This would have resulted in a rear seat that held only 2 passengers, and they would have had to sit lower than the front seat passengers to get enough head room. Management vetoed this design as impractical. The designers would have liked to extend the tail out another 4 or 5 feet and use a curved windshield but ran into the same objection.

Other companies fooled around with adding streamlined fenders and headlights to the typical boxy bodies of the time. Only Chrysler did the wind tunnel tests and found out what actually worked, compared to what looked pretty in the advertisements. Or what a Lotus designer called "aerodramatics".

This is why the Airflow represents a quantum leap ahead in car design and why it was copied by car makers all over the world. Compare the silhouette of the 1934 - 37 Airflow to any other 1934 car, then to the same makers 1938 car, and you will see they all copied the Airflow body with chubbier fenders and different grille.

He misunderstands the findings of Wunibald Kamm and Reinhard Koenig-Faschenfeld.

They found out that a Zeppelin like shape had the least drag but that it was not practical. The perfect streamlined shape, should have a rounded front and taper at an angle of 10 degrees toward the back.

This resulted in a long pointed tail. Quite impractical for a car to be driven in traffic, and for ordinary use.

The usual compromise was to taper the body at a sharper angle. They found out that it was better to taper the body at 10 degrees, then chop it off at the back. This caused more drag than the Zeppelin shape but less than the more sharply tapered shape.

The typical early 30s box shape was hopeless.

If you look at the newest 2014 model small sedans, you will see they follow the Kamm theory of the slow taper and the quick chop. The Airflow had a similar shape only less abrupt. The GM torpedo body was the shape that didn't work.

There are may other mistakes, like the myth that the Airflow was not successful. You should know that Walter Chrysler asked his engineering team for something sensational for Chrysler's 10th anniversary. He wanted to set the automotive world on its ear as he had with the first Chrysler.

They pulled out all the stops and gave him the most advanced car in the industry. Chrysler knew it was too avant-garde for a mass market car, and that it would be expensive to build.

So he brought out 2 lines of cars. The conventional Airstream Chrysler and the super deluxe Airflow, at a premium price. The cheaper conventional model outsold the Airflow which was only to be expected. But the Airflow did create a sensation, and was quickly copied by every car maker.

They not only copied it, it scared them so bad they had to put the knock on it before it made them look like bums. He mentions GM's phony ad campaign "proving" all steel bodies were no good, at the same time they were tooling up to build them. He does not mention the whisper campaign that the Airflow was no good, that nobody wanted it because it was ugly, and similar nonsense. But the whisper campaign was more effective than the ad campaign. Many people today believe the Airflow was a failure when it was a commercial success and a technical success. Which is just as well, since every car made after it was more or less copied off the Airflow.

It is amusing to see rival companies say that the Airflow was no good, and in the next breath describe their new cars as an improvement on the Airflow.

If the Airflow was no good, why are they taking it as a model for their own cars? Over and over again I have seen the same theme: "the Airflow was no good, look how much better our copy of it is". I have heard this from the designer of the Lincoln Zephyr as well as the quotes from GM.

I also find it amusing that he dismisses the Airflow streamlining as ineffective on one page, then lists the speed and economy records it set on the next, without noticing the contradiction.

"The streamlining is no good"

"But it set speed records and economy records, using the same engine as conventional models. If this was not due to the low drag body design, what was it?"

"Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"

He says after the Airflow, Chrysler would never again let engineers determine the looks of their cars. This was totally wrong. Ray Dietrich did design the bodies but then he handed the drawings over to engineering who interpreted them as they saw fit. If you compare Dietrich's clay models and drawings to the production cars you will see there is a subtle difference. The original designs are better looking, although it is impossible to put your finger on the difference. They look the same, then again they don't.

Chrysler products would have been better looking of Dietrich had more say, but he didn't. Walter Chrysler himself could not override his engineering team. And when Chrysler died, Dietrich was fired at once.

So bottom line the book is rubbish, just like the Dennis Adler "Chrysler" from 2000 (ISBN 0-7603-0695-8)?

That other book clearly illustrate a non-Mopar enthusiastic author that doesn't know the brand, I just had to stop reading due to all the incorrect statements therein. But the price is fair and the pictures glossy so you can always flip though its non-representative selection of Mopars.

I wouldn't say the book was rubbish. It repeats a lot of old misinformation but it repeats a lot of good information too. The author does not seem to have done any original research at all, just copied from other books.

I think the book could be considered a history of early automobile manufacturers, If what is written here is accurate. The book goes much deeper than just Walter Chrysler's life and accomplishments. I would reserve the rating of rubbish as to one's existing knowledgeable of our automobile's history or how valuable their time is.

The winter we are having, I have time, and has me searching the "books for sale" websites. I've been sitting with my Mom, (born 89 1/2 years ago) and reading, so far two books on Carl Fisher, Bill Vukovich, Raymond Parks, Rex White, A Tree Grows In Brooklyn, and now Chrysler.

Last winter this time a straight-eight Chrysler was being assembled in the shop, the last look I had at the road to my shop was depressing, Admiral Byrd would find it daunting, I might get up that hill by April.

Still Snowing,

Jay