James B.

I see that you offered to take some photos of 1936 Pierce Arrow frames nearly 7 years ago but do not see them posted here? I would be interested in seeing them myself. thanks.

Day late and a dollar short but yes, your 1950 Rambler is Champagne Ivory. I have seen other cars with the same color. I have attached the Dupont color chart which gives a formula for mixing the color to the left of the chip with that name. The chip color looks off but is just from fade and photo variance.

Can someone supply some background and pictures or illustrations of the 1922 Nash rubber engine mounts used on the 4-cyl model 41 series - said to be the first used on an automobile? Where and how they were used on the engine? Thank You.

To me, a true unibody is where all support beams are totally integrated with one another as opposed being built in sections or using or needing any added support beams to beef it up. In other words, the first modern type unibody. Not a unitized body welded to a platform. Not a unitized body with an exterior frame welded on (aka Lincoln Zephyr). Not a unitized body with added support (beefing) beams (aka Nash 600). That said, where does the Citroen TA fall in? Or Rambler (which to me still has exterior beefing framework like Nash but has unibody integrated front clip), or even 1960 Corvair, Falcon, or Chrysler products? Maybe a British make with a true unibody? I will allow what some may call semi-unibody where there are subframes for motor and front suspension attached to the unibody even though a true unibody would be like that of the 1958-1960 Lincoln and Thunderbirds. Seeking the first true form... maybe of each type? Thanks again for your comments and those other can add to this. Jim

Bumping this back up with no responses... but, from what I have found since this post is that the Augusta is yet another unitized "unit-built body on frame" car where there are exterior frame elements (side rails, x bracing, etc...) welded under the body so is not a truly integrated unibody. Can anyone validate this?

I was running across excerpts stating that the 1933-1936 Lancia Augusta was the first true unibody built car. But upon further investigation and looking at photographs, this is just another "unitized" or "unit-body and frame" construction with welded on frame members under the car like the Airflow and Zephyr. It still leaves the Citroen as an or the earliest contender for modern semi-unibody (semi meaning it has a subframe for the engine)? And wonder if Rambler would be the first true fully unitized body car with full cage with roof? Any more input on this question? Thanks! Jim

Re: Lancia Augusta 1933-1936 Can someone please explain how the Augusta is considered a full unibody (monocoque) built automobile from what I have read so far? I have only seen examples where the body is off a platform frame and also see a lightened cruciform brace under the car. No bracing should be seen if it is a true unibody but integrated within the body structure - unless it was for special use? If this is actually a true unibody car, it would predate the Citroen TA by a year. Thanks! Jim

I saw this car in vintage journals but since there is no body, only a motorized wooden board so doubt it can be considered unitized.

Here is a half page ad for the 1905 Autocar showing "Finger-Reach Control" including gear-shift, and all other functions on the column. I am sure it was a juggling act for these early cars and so not very popular then.

mrpushbutton... I like your analogy but it doesn't quite fit with this situation. Yes, if it was "one for all or all for one". But in the world of scientific invention breakthroughs, there can only be "one" first. It is like 'who" invented the first petrol powered vehicle? (The word Automobile did not show up until later). Some say it is Siegfried Marcus, who was working with gas powered engines in the 1860s. That he created a crude powered cart in 1864 and a more refined vehicle in 1875 (one source has an actual date of March 9, 1879). Some now say 1888 due to a engine delivery date and is still dubious. But, since he was Jewish, Nazi Germany destroyed records and we only have scraps of information to go on...other than an order dated 1940 by the German Ministry of Propaganda to have Marcus' name stricken as the inventor of the Automobile and put Gottlieb Daimler and Carl Benz 1889 version in his place... which is what many use to this day. But even the 1889 motor car was a one-off so, is it the "first" since it was not mass produced? Even that could be debated since the 1889 Panhard - Levassor company was created solely for automobile manufacturing, the Benz Motorwagon. Or the 1890 Peugeot who made 4 cars that year and 65 more in 1891. Or when Oldsmobile, in 1901, sold 425 cars and 2,100 cars in 1902 citing the first mass produced and sold car? Any ideas on that aspect a well? Jim

Packard did file a patent in 1901 and on 1902 cars but was a H shift on the floor. 1905 Autocar used it as did Pierce Arrow about the same time until two-fork selective transmissions came into use. 1918 Apperson had a shift on top of the column instead of the floor as the "Pre-Selecting Mechanical Gear-Shift." I also know that in 1938, it was being used the first time as a $10.00 option named 'Safety Gear Shift Control' on GM cars. Were you thinking different?

Just wanted to add. After some more research, it looks like there is a difference between the early use of the term unit-body and unibody. Unit-Body apparently meant just the "body" being unitized and placed on a frame or platform. If I am reading it correctly, H. Jay Hays, who also built the 1917 Ruler Frameless, was basically calling the design Unit-Body meaning that the body was built as a whole from steel rather than in pieces using a wooden frame. The Ruler had a "platform" chassis in which was attached to the body by a ball-and-socket on a front body brace and by the rear spring attachments in the rear. This sounds similar to the British Lanchester design. The Vauxhall is still a contender though. As for an American entry, this brings in the Cord 810 as a early possibility then the Nash 600. Suggestions? Thanks! Jim

Ivan, you are always well versed in automotive history and it looks like in your signature that you own one of these wonderful cars, a real piece of history (Lambda). With the other examples I mentioned, how do you believe they fall in place compared to the Lambda? You should know better having an insight with a real car as reference. Do you have a link for the 1918 patent? I find the US version patent # 1694546 applied 1922 in Italy and issued in 1928. Thanks! Jim

The problem with Wikipedia.. since this an open source where anyone can write and edit, the information on it is only as accurate as John Q. Public who wrote it. Not that I am discounting the Lambda but I would like to know how these other earlier models fall into place within the scheme of things? What makes them either unitary or not so they can be dismissed? 1901-1905 Lanchester (I believe this is more semi-unitary since part of the body can be removed from the frame) 1903 Vauxhall (many authors consider this as the first attempt using solid plates and like the Lambda, had shipbuilding cues being designed by a marine engineer) 1913 Lagonda (it is said this was more of an attempt to lighten the car for taxes rather than design - more monocoque) 1917 Ruler (has a engine subframe attached to the body)

The 1903 Vauxhall looks like it had a tub-like construction not unlike the Lancia. I read that the Lambda design was inspired by ship hulls or a flat bottom boat so in a sense is a tub (bathtub may have been a bit general). Some newer cars used carbon fiber or fiberglass tubs, like the newer Aston Martin Lagonda's of the 1970s.

Thanks Ivan (I will get back to you about the Lambda) and Grog with the aerocar. Aircraft design is considered monocoque and some auto manufacturers had coined their body designs the same. In fact, the 1913-1919 Lagonda 11.1 used a riveted monocoque body. And, the 1903 Vauxhall had some sort of the same using heavy plate monocoque design but just now looking into it. Would it predate the Lambda as official 'unibody' designs?

Another possible is the 1907 Adams-Farwell model 8A Gentleman's Speed Roadster. It too was to have been unibody with a front subframe but no examples exist today and have not run across a photo of it. Only a handful were built.

Thanks 41 Su8 I knew of this one as well but it is also considered unitized and one author stated that it is "not quite" a unit body. That it is basically a bathtub with cutouts - with 2mm thick side panels rather than body framework to lighten the weight. Even so, a contender but think there has to be other earlier examples prior to 1923, like the 1917 Ruler, since it was being experimented with then? The Ruler did have a metal framework body.

I am sure that this question has been bounced around more than once but possibly not quite this way? I am wondering what was the 'first' true unibody automobile both in America and worldwide? I see mentions of various "frameless" cars dating as far back as 1904 but they are basically center backbone tube designs not unlike Tatra. There is also a 1917 mention of a car built by a company called the Ruler Motor Car Company (an offshoot of Hayes) which had a type of front subframe attached to the unitized body via a ball joint setup. Cars like the Nash 600, Lincoln Zephyr, and Chrysler Airflow are "unitized" and not true unibody because, as they advertise, are "unit body and frame" construction and have full exposed perimeter frames, some welded to the body and some not truly integrated into the body. The Citroen Traction Avant could be a first contender so could the Cord 810 as the American entry unless there are other more obscure offerings, even one off, which I am seeking? Any ideas? Jim

Looks like a Monday morning hangover assembly

I am with you Craig, if it is original then there should be no problems. I am looking now to see if it did exist. I see a color that may be it for the 1928 Chevrolet called Como Green. The Art Deco Ruxton paint stripes was also standard an were the result of Joseph Urban, a movie and play set designer. For those who can't make up their mind what color to paint....

Oh WOW, thanks again Craig!!!! I have a lot of reading to do Barry, did you say that the Ruxton body was channeled 3 or 4 inches down around the frame in the restore pages (and elsewhere)? If so, didn't that reduce the interior headroom the same amount in an era when men wore hats and needed that headroom to drive with them on? Jim

Joseph "Led" V. Ledwinka worked for Budd at the time as their experimental engineer. The story goes that Muller, after a couple years working for Budd, approached Budd with the idea of designing a FWD car. He was given the green light but before finishing the car, was sent to Europe on assignment in 1928. While he was gone, Led had started his own version FWD but he had no technical knowledge on how to design the transmission. When Muller returned in 1931 to the states, he finished off both and so there are two versions but it was Ledwinka's version that was selected as the template for the Citroen TA. Muller's version was pitched to the other car companies by shyster Andrews and was what would become the Ruxton. Development engineer Col. Earl James Wilson Ragsdale, worked with Muller on the project while Childe Harold Wills assisted with the transaxle, and Joseph "Led" V. Ledwinka worked on the Muller body as well.

This should be a simple question to answer. We know who made the body, We know who made the engine and transmission. Who made the frame for this? Was it Budd built as well or a frame manufacturer like A.O. Smith? Jim

Thanks Craig for the magazine page with the Ruxton article. I wonder if John Donlan is still around? The article is interesting but of course does not answer the burning question about the shared (altered) stamping dies I knew about the Hupp version and there were photos of it posted somewhere on this board I ran across. There is also the Muller and Ledwinka version and photos of both have been circulated.