Dean’s Garage has a new post that displays a variety of Virgil Exner’s concept cars (Exner, 2022). The design I am most drawn to is the 1955-56 DeSoto Flight Sweep I and II. These are arguably the most commercially viable of the concepts shown. Indeed, at least from the outside, the two cars — a convertible (Flight Sweep I) and coupe (II) — look almost production ready. That raises an intriguing question: How might this pair of DeSotos have sold if they had reached market?
Out of respect for copyright, you will have to go here or here to see images of the Flight Sweep
If the Flight Sweep had gone into production around 1956-57, it could have become the highest-volume sporty car then in production. A potentially big advantage the DeSoto might have had over the two-seater Thunderbird and Chevrolet Corvette was that it fit four passengers, which presumably would have broadened its market appeal.
The Flight Sweep should have also sold better than the Studebaker Hawk. This was partly because the car’s body would have been much newer than the Hawk’s. Nor did it help that in 1956 the Hawk received a facelift that had an awkward, tacked-on quality whereas the DeSoto offered a relatively clean and well integrated look.
Also see ‘1955 Studebaker President hardtop hints at a road not taken’
The Flight Sweep might have also had an advantage if it had come out with both a fixed-roof coupe and a convertible. Studebaker did not offer a convertible, and neither the T-Bird nor the Corvette had fixed-roof models.
Was the Flight Sweep a response to Studebaker?
The Flight Sweep’s dimensions were similar to Studebaker’s low-slung coupes, which in 1956 were renamed the Hawk. The DeSoto was roughly 207 inches long, 70 inches wide and with a wheelbase of 120 inches (Car Styling 2.0, 2022). The car’s height was almost three inches lower than the Hawk, which gave it a more squat greenhouse. Meanwhile, the Flight Sweep’s sides had less of a teardrop shape, but a dramatically sloping trunk may have resulted in luggage capacity that was just as meager as the Hawk’s.
Also see ‘1958-76 Thunderbird: The rise and fall of the Ford that shook up GM’
The Flight Sweep’s most interesting technical innovation was the use of curved side glass. Interestingly, that’s not very obvious from photographs of the coupe. A more prominent feature was a two-piece trunk lid with the spare tire mounted on the lower lid. Inside, the car was ahead of its domestic competition by offering bucket seats and a center console (Car Styling 2.0, 2022).
The Flight Sweep did not look as stunning as, say, the 1953 Chrysler D’Elegance (Strohl, 2017). However, it was arguably one of Exner’s better designs of the 1950s. The DeSoto had all of the requisite mid-50s gimmicks, such as two-tone paint, tail fins and a wrap-around windshield. Yet the car was admirably understated for that time period. Most notably, the fascia had a subtle interpretation of a radiator grille that was exceptionally well done.
Could the Flight Sweep have been successful?
It makes sense that Chrysler did not produce the Flight Sweep given its focus on dramatically redesigning the automaker’s entire lineup for 1957. That said, I suspect that the proposed DeSoto could have enjoyed a decent measure of success even if it sold only half as well as the Thunderbird did once it switched to a four-seater.
As you can see from the graph below, in 1958 the Thunderbird hit almost 38,000 units, which was a bit higher than the 1955 Studebaker coupes. By 1960 the T-Bird’s output reached almost 93,000 units.
Chrysler’s bean counters may not have considered the Flight Sweep worth the investment if it sold only around 40,000 units per year. However, the car’s relatively weak economies of scale could have been fixed if the Flight Sweep had eventually switched to a stretched version of the Valiant’s compact platform. That could have also solidified the proposed DeSoto’s niche as a smaller, lighter and more road-worthy alternative to the increasingly bloated T-Bird.
I would go as far as to suggest that the Flight Sweep could have been a better financial bet than giving the Imperial its own body in 1957. I have argued here that the Imperial was a dead end, at least as a direct competitor to Cadillac and Lincoln.
NOTES:
Captions in Exner Jr.’s story (2022) labels the concept cars Flite Sweeps. However, Exner’s biographer Peter Grist (2007) called them Flight Sweeps — and a photograph shows the latter spelling.
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Car Styling 2.0; 2022. “1955 Chrysler Flight Sweep II (Ghia).” Accessed May 22.
- Exner, Virgil Jr.; 2022. “Influential Designs by Virgil Exner.” Dean’s Garage. Posted May 20.
- Grist, Peter; 2007. Virgil Exner, Visioneer. Veloce Publishing, Dorchester, England.
- Strohl, Daniel; 2017. “Virgil Exner actually didn’t mind that the Karmann Ghia directly copied his 1953 Chrysler D’Elegance.” Hemmings. Posted Nov. 10.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- oldcarbrochures.org: Chrysler 300 (1957); Chrysler Falcon (1955); Ford Thunderbird (1958); Imperial (1957)
I don’t know what K.T. Keller would have thought or done in 1954 when the decisions were being made about the Imperial, but I think that the Imperial as a separate make and body structure was fueled by L. L. “Tex” Colbert. Given the 1957 Chryslers, I do not understand why slightly altered sheet metal could not have been fashioned into an Imperial similar to what was unveiled for 1957. In retrospect, Chrysler bit off more than it could chew by rushing out its 1957 models in the fall of 1956.
Steve, your idea is very thought-provoking! My favorite Ex design of the Fifties is the clean and curvaceous ’54 Plymouth Belmont. The ’55 Flight Sweep is, to my eye, on the other end of the spectrum and I am not a big fan. But that aside, the idea of doing something with DeSoto is an intriguing one.
When the newest Blazer crossover first came together around 2014 the program came to a fork in the road. One thought was to do a standard type of vehicle that slotted peacefully between Equinox and Traverse. The other was to do an SUV with a Corvette/Camaro attitude. A big team meeting was held to get all the disciplines educated on program fundamentals (engineering, marketing, design, manufacturing, consumer insights, business case) and aligned on program direction. The peaceful SUV camp pointed out that lots of buyers in the segment liked the Ford Edge’s design, to which the Studio Director replied: “Yeah, Ford Edge buyers.” His designers then proceeded to show renderings of what they had in mind, and the Blazer team never looked back.
And so we get to DeSoto. What direction should it have gone? What attitude should it adopt? How could it have stood out in the marketplace and generated decent sales and profit? The company only had so much money.
The idea of scuttling Imperial’s unique, innovative body would have been demurring in the face of Cadillac, but a stand-alone Imperial was just as problematic given that Cadillac profitability was driven in part, by body sharing. A solution would have been to reserve Imperial’s 6-window sedan for Chrysler, making for a particularly nice New Yorker and also offered in lower trims. Imperial’s taillight rings could have been omitted and the ’57 Imperial grill with single lamps could have been used for Chrysler only, while Imperial used its ’58 grill and quad lamps. Maybe the sedan’s roof could have been used for the 2-door hardtop too. A Chrysler convertible could have been offered but no big loss if it hadn’t, Imperial’s version picking up some of those sales.
With Imperial’s scale issue now sorted out, and Chrysler taken care of, the question of what to do with DeSoto would need addressed. Tooling a unique coupe body might have been possible but some sharing with Plymouth/Dodge would have helped, perhaps by using a common 2-door roof or maybe the front fenders and/or hood of one of the brands.
A 70 inch wide DeSoto personal coupe seems too narrow, particularly compared to the 77 inch wide ’58 Thunderbird. Either the ’57 Plymouth/Dodge’s 78.2 inch width would need to be used, or those cars would need to be narrowed a few inches (which wouldn’t necessarily have been a bad thing). I think a big differentiator for DeSoto would have been its interior, being a 4-pass car with center consoles.
Here’s another thought: do a sport sedan based largely on the Plymouth or Dodge 4-door hardtop and with toned down styling aft of the rear doors. Interior would be of high quality and seating in 4 and 5-pass configuration only. Sporty suspension. See image work-up (Old Car Brochures, AACA Forum).
https://content.invisioncic.com/r277599/monthly_2022_05/1607784519_1957PlymouthvsDeSotoProposal.jpg.720e79b6b83897148013a06dfd1a9f28.jpg
Here’s the walk from Imperial to Chrysler 4-door and 2-door sedans (Yazejian, Yetter/Allpar, AACA Forum).
https://content.invisioncic.com/r277599/monthly_2022_05/1059043424_1957Imperial4DplusNewYorkers.jpg.cb487919cff451146172194ff9259f7f.jpg
The hardtop version of the 4-door would be doable given that Imperial had a 4-door hardtop that used the same doors and glass envelope. The only oddity would have been the fixed rear quarter windows, unless they could have been made to roll down too.
A hardtop version of the 2-door might have been possible given that Ford this year had a similar roof shape and was able to get its rear quarter windows to roll down. If not possible on the Imperial with this roofline, a chrome trim piece covering a widened C-pillar could have been added to shrink the quarter window sufficiently to allow them to articulate down.
I removed the toilet seat on the Chryslers, the idea being that only Imperial would come with it this year and as standard equipment. I also made more fulsome the front fender’s forward edge to align it with the bumper similar to how the rear quarters align with the rear bumper. This could have been the standard fender stamping, the Imperial getting an additional trimming operation to create its familiar appearance.
Overall, the Chrysler would be more conservative and in pillared form, more robust, while the Imperial would be more artistic and distinctive. There would have definitely been cannibalization of Imperial but Chrysler sales would have driven much higher overall program sales given its much lower base price.
Had the company focused on launching only these suggested Chryslers and Imperials in 1957, and waited until 1958 to launch the suggested Plymouth/Dodge/DeSotos, I wonder if quality for the ’57s could have been raised to a very high level despite the compressed timing. Doing so would not only have been good for the company, it would have helped Imperial’s financials because it could have continued to roll down the same line as the Chryslers, its the only significant body difference being that it alone got the Southampton roofs while Chrysler alone got the standard roof.
Have added a fourth car with an example of a C-pillar that would have allowed quarter windows to articulate down. Not sure about the aesthetics but it worked for FoMoCo.
https://content.invisioncic.com/r277599/monthly_2022_05/253522719_1957Imperial4DplusNewYorkersinclHT.jpg.1ac398b6c5d613d42c6a432e5d63edd0.jpg
The last 2-door hardtop in this line-up works best, imho. C-pillar inspired by ’56 Lincoln hardtop.
https://content.invisioncic.com/r277599/monthly_2022_05/1175159863_1957Imperial4DplusNewYorkersinclHTv2.jpg.c9edc37d8a7c160e738c874b4127e708.jpg
Paul, you’ve been quite busy! Thank you for taking the time to explore some design scenarios. Getting the rear windows to roll down looks like a challenge — and back in those days people seemed to expect them to do so. What if the entire C-pillar was moved forward a bit?
Having fun with brochure image (Imperial Club, AACA Forum).
https://content.invisioncic.com/r277599/monthly_2022_05/1576502493_1957ChryslerNewYorkerBrochure.jpg.95a6167d09dc840864c4ddd0e9c5184b.jpg
Now with all mention of Imperial removed…
https://content.invisioncic.com/r277599/monthly_2022_05/1469491694_1957ChryslerNewYorkerBrochure.jpg.3600f02790183d303b63119a4196519e.jpg
Do you mean relative to the backlight, or backlight moved forward with it, or leading edge of C-pillar moved forward as shown in last image? These things always come down to cost and appearance, and I have made things too complicated. All that was needed was the leading edge moved forward as in last image, but now with the C-pillar made a part of roof stamping. Perhaps this is how the roof could have been tooled, and a trim operation could have created the thinner sedan C-pillar. It does appear that the Southampton roofs’ forward portions probably came from the sedan. Harder to tell is whether the Southampton’s 2 and 4-door backlights are the same. They look very similar and appear to have the same rake, but the C-pillar trailing edge is slightly different between the two.
https://content.invisioncic.com/r277599/monthly_2022_05/1399784005_1957Imperial4DSedanredirectedtoChrysler.jpg.0a68db991595d5ff9fef4f3467b13063.jpg
I did some photo comparing and it appears that the 4-door Imperial’s door inners may be a share with Chrysler/DeSoto and maybe even Dodge/Plymouth. Wonder if interior width was the same too. One would need to look at a Dealer Data Book to compare front/rear shoulder and hip room. Is firewall also identical? My guess is that it is, and it appears that axle-dash (BOFFA in GM-speak) is common for Chrysler/DeSoto and Imperial, while Dodge/Plymouth is 4 inches shorter. Chrysler F/R track is 61.2/60.0 and tires are 9 X 14 while Imperial is 61.9/62.4 and 9.5 X 14, wider tire of which would account for the wider front track and suggesting that front suspension is common. Imperial’s significantly wider rear track suggests a change to the rear wheel hub and/or suspension.
One negative to my suggested Chrysler/Imperial shared program is that sales of the Imperial 6-window sedan were OK but not great and its price was the same as the Southampton hardtop. Chrysler would have needed to offer a pillar-less version of the 6-window car and figure out how to carefully de-content all cars to create Windsor/Saratoga/New Yorker models that were not too much more expensive than the previous year.
So there it is, Steve. An alternative ’57 strategy that satisfies that portion of the market that prefers dinosaurs – and does so with quality, and a ’58 strategy that maintains sanity in the lower priced market by maintaining some semblance of mid-size physical dimensions, and repositions DeSoto as sort of a modern Hudson Hornet. Am now thinking that DeSoto could have offered a 5-pass 4D hardtop and a 4-pass 2D hardtop and convertible, all sharing sharing Plymouth/Dodge bodies and styled as earlier suggested. The only disconnect would have been that DeSoto would need a 1957 body based on the ’55-57 Plymouth/Dodge. Perhaps this could have been it first year offering what would become its trademark bucket seat/center console front compartment.
Paul, during that era the whole back of the greenhouse would either be moved forward a few inches on a two-door hardtop or the rake of the backlight would be sharper than on four-door models.
Of course, it’s cheaper to keep the same roofline, but that leads to a trade off. You could do more of a coupe-sedan like the 1964-66 Imperial, where the roofline looks better on two-door rather than four-door models. Or you could do the opposite, which generally reduces the stylishness of the two door. Examples of the latter include the 1958-60 Lincoln.
Regarding the firewall, it looks a little different between the Imperial and Chrysler. The former had more of an upward arc at the base of the windshield whereas the latter was flatter. I don’t know how much the addition of curved side glass would have changed the Imperial’s inner-door panels relative to the Chrysler’s, but at least some modification would have been needed, no?
I understand what you are saying about the roof. The Imperial’s roof was somewhat of an outlier in this regard, quite racy compared to the stiffer, taller look of the rest of the ’57 sedans. That’s why they were able to use it for all three roofs, in whole or in part.
Here’s a 4-Pass DeSoto hardtop borrowing strictly from the ’57 parts bin to give the longest hood and shortest deck possible, and rear styling somewhat similar to Flight Sweep. It uses Plymouth’s 4-inch shorter floorpan-to-rear axle and DeSoto/Chrysler’s 4 inch longer axle-dash, for a 122 inch wheelbase. Front fender edges are moved forward at bottom to increase perceived hood length. (Old CAr Brochures, AACA Forum).
https://content.invisioncic.com/r277599/monthly_2022_05/1329897200_1957DeSotoFlightSweep122WB.jpg.e6913ae2202fa46e0d92e4e2b77ef01e.jpg
Steve, I’d like to make one additional argument in favor of a body-share DeSoto Flight Sweep rather than your bespoke car. The ’58 T-Bird program pulled Lincoln in because the new platform’s high investment and Wixom assembly plant needed scale. Lincoln’s planners didn’t want to do this and one can easily envision late 50s/early 60s Lincolns using Park Lane’s body and for the ’60, even its rear design. A decade later Lincoln was back on the large Ford/Mercury platform and in ’72 the T-Bird and Mark IV were on the new mid-sized Torino/Montego platform. Committing such a financial outlay for a DeSoto coupe and convertible program likely smaller in volume than T-Bird, not shared with any other car, and requiring elimination of Imperial’s new body, would likely not have been in the company’s best financial interest, nor in the car-buying public’s interest.
The phrase “bean counters” is popular outside the car companies but inside, they are simply referred to as Finance and serve just as important a role as all the other functions, and many of them are “car people” too.
Your advocacy of a 4-passenger sporty DeSoto is, I think, a wonderful idea especially given what we know was DeSoto’s fate and because of the rise in popularity of personal coupes. In fact, that market might have been DeSoto’s only safe harbor.
Had DeSoto’s planners approached Chrysler’s leadership with a proposal that explained how under its existing plan, the brand was going to get squeezed in price by Dodge and Chrysler, and had they instead offered a strategy where DeSoto would focus only on performance-oriented personal coupes and convertibles, and went as far as asking that Fury, D-500 and C-300 be dropped so that only DeSoto would sell such cars, and would go all-in by investing in a front center console and possibly a rear console depending on market research results, then DeSoto would have had a new lease on life. But… the program had to be a platform and body share with the other brands for the financials to work. The good news for DeSoto was that none of the other brands wanted long hood/short deck proportions, Plymouth using short/short, Dodge short/long and Chrysler long/long.
Here’s an updated image with refinements and new ad copy. The side trim would be unique to DeSoto given that Fury would be out.
https://content.invisioncic.com/r277599/monthly_2022_05/519220504_1958DeSotoFlightSweep4-PassengerCoupe122WB.jpg.0f5db5fdd36b922a012ebb023284d093.jpg
Paul, if we all agreed on everything our conversations would get boring, no? I think that elevating the Imperial to brand status and giving it a distinct body was one of the biggest mistakes Chrysler made in the 1950s. A big reason why is that it undercut the automaker’s economies of scale. Thus, I get your point about the Flight Sweep.
In the long run the Flight Sweep would have needed to share a platform with another Chrysler. I personally prefer the compact platform because it would have allowed Chrysler to offer a clear alternative to the Thunderbird — in both size and price.
I agree with you on the Imperial issue, Steve. That’s why I suggested the idea of Chrysler using the body too. With pricing now beginning in the mid to high $3000’s in Windsor trim, decent scale could have been achieved and the program’s potential to help the company would have been fully realized. The “four brands on one body shell, one brand on the other” strategy never made sense. Three on one, two on the other would have been much more balanced. And attempting a ’57 launch of only the Chrysler/Imperial cars would have allowed the launch team to focus on a far shorter list of issues that needed chased down.
Seems Valiant would have needed a longer axle-dash to deliver an appearance similar to Mustang. The car that really caught my eye was the ’62 Plymouth/Dodge downsized program, the proportions on the 2-door being near optimal for a personal coupe. A De Soto version could have produced something very special had it been styled right, and 1962 would have been a still early date to enter the market.
I’ve always thought it was a shame that the first Adventurer show car – which had four seats – was never produced. Supposedly there was a push to have the corporation produce it, but the board determined that there wasn’t sufficient money. That Adventurer was (and still is) a beautiful car.
Yeah, that was a lovely design. The exterior pictures I have found so far makes the Adventurer look more like a 2+2 than a full four-place car along the lines of a Loewy coupe. That could have limited its appeal some, although it certainly would have been a more versatile car than a two-place Thunderbird or Corvette.
De Soto could had been the sister company of the Imperial platform, not Chrysler, as farbas full size is concerned. A 4 door Adventurer could had been the car of the Imperial platform
Small detour; like Hudson Italia 4 door, the Mopar could had seen the future of the sporty sedans (eg Thunderbird 4 door, Passat CC, Mercedes CLS, the first generation Lexus ES sporty frame less door sedan)
I also like the idea of De Soto had been the AMG brand of the Mopar group
Even more, the compact personal coupe could be cost effective by sharing the platform with Plymouth/ Dodge
Quite a jump from Tom McCahill’s comment on a ’51 DeSoto that it was “As solid as the rock of Gibraltar – and just as fast”.
It’s intriguing but yhou’re using late 20th-21st century thinking for the mid-50s. I will say since IIRC De Soto did not have any stand alone dealerships it might work.
Ceteris paribus doesn’t exist out of the laboratory. So, the counterfactual discussion is only for teaching us.
We can’t assess the management of these companies with what ifs, as at the same time it’s not a reason to award unsuccessful managers into the auto hall of fame or give them praise, as the site has already many times showed
Thanks for replying