“Because the wrap-around windshield has proven so popular Plymouth felt it necessary to incorporate this idea. Unfortunately, theirs just doesn’t look like a wrap-around from the outside. They’ve been extremely subtle about it — which pleased the test staff but may not please all customers. The reason is simple: The ‘A’ posts still manage to retain their traditionally pleasing rearward slant. To the conservative motorist, at least, this has always signified grace and speed.
But from the inside the test staff found it to be a true wrap-around. Visibility is excellent. Texans should find this windshield tremendous for it will open new vistas of ‘wide open spaces.’ City dwellers too will be pleased for much of the distortion found in early wrap-arounds has been eliminated. Buildings, when seen through the edges, still have a slight tendency to ‘lean’ but the entire panorama is much better than with previous types.”
— Motor Life (1954)
Motor Life hinted at the dangers of not slavishly following the styling trends of the largest U.S. automakers — and particularly General Motors. The 1955 Chrysler lineup did not adopt the vertical “dog-leg” windshield pioneered by GM and quickly copied by virtually everyone else.
Instead, Chrysler used an approach more similar to the 1948-54 Hudson, which offered panoramic visibility without two limitations of the dog leg.
Motor Life mentioned one limitation: The complex curves of a dog leg could result in visual distortions. A more insidious problem was that the elbow shape of a dog leg’s A-pillar was potentially not as strong as a more traditional shape.
RE:SOURCES
- Motor Life; 1954. “1955 Plymouth road test.” December issue: pp. 28-31, 54. Posted on autohistorypreservationsociety.org.
ADVERTISEMENTS & BROCHURES:
- oldcarbrochures.org: Plymouth (1955)
l always thot that the ’55/’56 Chrysler greenhouse had a look of strength to it.
Studebaker demonstrated that slavish following of trends in an unfortunate and perhaps “frantic” restyling of their dash and windshield on the urging of the sales department. And it was right in the middle of the model year (1955)! The wrap-around glass with a vertical A-pillar appeared, AND for good measure, so did a new dashboard which certainly looked like a cheaper imitation of a ’55 Buick!! l doubt that it sold many (any?) more cars. Richard Langworth’s “Studebaker the – Postwar Years” book suggested (rightly, l think) that the sales picture would have been a little brighter if they had offered a spring price discount instead.
l also agree with the thot that the safety of a car designed with a vertical or rear-slanting A-pillar has a disadvantage in a frontal collision. Sorry to always refer to Studebaker, but in a photo of a ’53/’54 Studebaker (with traditional A-pillar) doing a 40mph barrier crash, the cowl and passenger compartment very possibly stood up well! The famous and much-different and more recent small-offset frontal crash test of a ’59 Chevy and a ’99(?) Malibu showed that the A-pillar in the ’59 model was of little help.
Chrysler’s sales materials to their dealers touted their 1955-1956 windshields as offering increased visibility with minimal distortion. Ford’s and G.M.’s 1954-1958 windshields had more optical distortion. I am not certain if any divisional managers or executive committees ever broached the distortion issues to the stylists. The 1955-1956 Plymouth’s were well-styled cars, in my opinion.