(EXPANDED FROM 7/20/2018)
A few years ago Hemmings published a for-sale ad about a 1966 Duesenberg prototype designed by Virgil Exner (Stohl, 2017). The car shared major styling themes with another one Exner subsequently designed — the Stutz Blackhawk. The latter was produced from 1971 to 1987 (Wikipedia, 2021).
Both cars showcased Exner’s vision of a “neo-classic” design: A long hood dominated by a 1920’s-style radiator grille, unusually thick and almost vertical C-pillars, and a tapered rear end. However, the two cars differed substantially in their excessiveness. All of which raises the question: Which one looked better?
The Duesenberg’s design came about after Exner was fired from Chrysler in 1961 and he formed a consulting firm. Together with his son, Virgil Exner Jr., a handful of illustrations were made of modern interpretations of classic cars. After Esquire magazine published four of their sketches in 1963, the Exner was contracted by a newly revived Duesenberg Corporation to develop a production model (Stohl, 2017).
The prototype that emerged in 1966 had an Imperial driveline and chassis. In classic Exner fashion, the so-called Model D was given an exceptionally long 137.5-inch wheelbase and weighed almost 6,000 pounds. The hood was 20 inches longer than a Cadillac’s (Dunne, 1966).
Duesenberg went in opposite direction from Big Three
The Duesenberg may have been a behemoth, but in at least some ways it was understated for an Exner design. The headlights were discreetly hidden, and a slab-sided character line was decidedly clean for a mid-60s American car. The rear had an unusually tapered look which made it look look surprisingly lithe for such a huge car. Exner also came up with some interesting stylistic nuances, such as dual-ribbed bumpers with lights sandwiched between the top and bottom ribs.
Out of respect for copyright, to see Duesenberg photos go to Stroll (2007) and Vaughan (2014).
The Duesenberg’s most flamboyant touch was wheel openings that flared out well behind the tires. Although this was presumably done in homage to the tapered fenders of the 1930s, the resulting look harkened more to a 1957-58 Cadillac. A decade later, General Motors’ William Mitchell revived the idea in the 1977 Pontiac Phantom show car (go here for further discussion).
The Duesenberg was arguably more interesting than the rather boxy and bland American luxury cars of the mid-60s. By that point both Cadillac and Imperial were mimicking the 1961-65 Lincoln’s rather austere rendition of the brougham look. Even so, the Duesenberg came across as awkward and unfinished.
Perhaps the biggest villains were the exaggerated wheel openings, which clashed with the otherwise restrained side styling. The front and rear could also have used more development.
Also see ‘1963 Cadillac: The car that mainstreamed the brougham look‘
A big part of the problem in front was that the Riviera-like jutting fenders weren’t integrated very well with the upright radiator grille. Meanwhile, the rear bumper looked tacked on and mounted too high. That undercut what could have been a rear-end design which rivaled the timeless beauty of the first-generation Jaguar XJ.
Did the Duesenberg influence the Continental Mark III?
The Duesenberg was never put into production, but Exner’s biographer Peter Grist wrote that it had a lasting influence on American car design:
“Henry Ford II was one of the visitors to the Exner studio and adored it, so it was no surprise when the Continental Mk III arrived in 1969 looking very much like a 1966 Duesenberg, but it wasn’t just Ford. Ex’s neo-classic look came to dominate Detroit in the seventies, with almost every full-sized car featuring a long hood/short deck and sporting formal grilles, .opera windows, trunk straps, landau bars and sculpted fenders, including Cadillac’s Eldorado and Chrysler’s Imperial.” (2007, p. 147)
Ate Up With Motor (2012) argued that the Mark III was approved for production before Henry Ford II saw the Duesenberg. However, his underling Lee Iacocca could have been inspired by the Esquire sketches and Ford suitably impressed with the idea of giving Lincoln a more broughamy version of the Thunderbird.
Exner gets another crack at the neo-classical look
Exner got another chance to perfect his neo-classical look when he teamed up with financier James O’Donnell to create a new luxury car that revived the Stutz brand name. This time Exner went whole hog. The resulting Blackhawk was bestowed with free-standing headlamps, side-mounted exhaust pipes, a spare tire on the trunk lid, and a sweepspear character line that could be accentuated by two-tone paint (Wikipedia, 2021).
Also see ‘What’s the most excessive American car design of all time?’
Perhaps the most important decision was to use the mid-sized Pontiac Grand Prix chassis. This gave the Stutz much better proportions than the super-sized Duesenberg. Although the Blackhawk had a busier look, it was also more cohesive.
The original “Blackhawk I” had a split windshield and frames around the door glass. Only 25 were produced in 1971. The car proved unprofitable so in 1972 it began to use more parts from General Motors’ mid-sized cars such as their windshield (CarrozzieriItaliani.com, 2022). The pictured car is a revised 1972 model.
Blackhawk was more contrived than the Duesenberg
Unfortunately, Exner did not carry over the Duesenberg’s nicely-proportioned backlight; the Stutz’s C-pillar was too upright. Meanwhile, the rear end was oddly shaped and the tacked-on side exhaust pipes and exposed spare tire looked overdone. The general vibe was that of a kit car for those who had more money than good taste.
Also see ‘Did Wayne Kady screw up the 1974-76 Buick Riviera?’
With some cleaning up, the 1971-87 Blackhawk could have been a vastly superior design to the 1966 Duesenberg. Instead, I find each of these cars problematic, albeit in different ways.
That said, both cars would appear to have helped to spur the neo-classical era of American car design in the 1960s and 1970s. For that we should feel blessed. Right?
NOTES:
This is an expanded version of a story originally posted July 20, 2018.
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Ate Up With Motor; 2012. Commentator in “Design History: Virgil Exner’s 1963 Stutz Revival – The Drawing (And Toy Cars) That Launched The Whole Neo-Classic-Brougham Era.” Curbside Classic. Posted 1:21 p.m., May 24.
- CarrozzieriItaliani.com; 2022. “Stutz Blackhawk I.” Accessed Aug. 10.
- Dunne, Jim; 1966. “Duesenberg: Back from the romantic past.” Popular Mechanics. Published Jan.: pp. 112-
- Grist, Peter; 2007. Virgil Exner, Visioneer. Veloce Publishing, Dorchester, England.
- Strohl, Daniel; 2007. “SIA Flashback — 1966 Duesenberg.” Posted October 7; accessed July 20, 2018.
- ——; 2017. “One-off Exner-designed Duesenberg Model D revival prototype comes up for sale.” Hemmings. Posted Oct. 17.
- Vaughan, Daniel; 2014. “1966 Duesenberg Model D.” Conceptcarz. Posted April.
- Wikipedia; 2021. “Stutz Blackhawk.” Last edited Aug. 30.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- wildaboutcarsonline.com (Automotive History Preservation Society): Lincoln Continental Mark III (1970)
- oldcaradvertising.com: Lincoln (1966)
- oldcarbrochures.org: Cadillac (1966); Imperial (1961, 1966); Pontiac Grand Prix (1973)
The Stutz screamed “Pimpmobile”.
It could be interesting to see what if Exner had gone with the revival of Jordan instead of Stutz or having the Stutz borrowing more details from the Jordan like the front end. Here some photos of the Renwal toys of the Duesenberg, Stutz, Jordan and Packard revivals. http://www.madle.org/evival.htm
I think, in retrospect, or hindsight, or the rearview mirror, you can’t really “reinterpret” cars of the classic era in contemporary form. I can see how both the Stutz and the Duesy cars were influential to the era of squared-off/upright rooflines and radiator-style grills but it’s highly debatable whether this influence resulted in any memorable or timeless car designs.
So true. The neo-classical look sold a lot of cars in the 1960s and 1970s, but I can’t point to a single design that withstands the test of time from a purely aesthetic standpoint. I have a personal fondness for the 1969-71 Continental Mark III but see that as a guilty pleasure; the 1967-70 Eldorado strikes me as a more creative and better-crafted design.
In retrospect, it is too bad that Exner, Sr. is not around to tour the Auburn-Cord-Duesenberg Museum, in Auburn, Indiana. If one took the best elements of those cars, yet blended them in a finished package, these re-interpretations might be better than either the Duesenberg or the Stutz. Look at the elegant Bentley Continental: A great fresh timeless design that is in the tradition of the Bentley Continental R of the 1950s. (I W.O. !)
That’s a really good point about the Bentley. A lovely car.
The Stutz shown is a 72 model, the 71 has a more integrated design with a split windshield, narrower grill, no C pillar windows and a shorter tail design, almost exactly like the two prototypes produced in 1969.
April, thank you for the clarification. I have added a paragraph to better explain the car’s evolution. I also added the end date of the car’s production in the headline to clarify that it was not referring specifically to the pictured car, which I had already noted in a caption was a 1972 model.