(EXPANDED FROM 8/16/2021)
Did Virgil Exner have any involvement with the 1953-54 Plymouth’s design? Automotive historians have tended to either dance around that question or offer varying — or even contradictory — information.
As a case in point, Richard Langworth and Jan Norbye wrote that Exner “wielded more authority over Chrysler Corporation design for 1953 than he had before” (1985, p. 149). Although the authors described the major styling changes made to 1953 models, they didn’t say what Exner contributed.
Biographer says Exner was involved in 1953-54 models
Meanwhile, Exner biographer Peter Grist stated that with his “promotion to Director of Styling in 1953, he had an opportunity to add something to the already engineered models for 1953 and 1954. Most of his effort went into the Dodge and Plymouth models. One-piece front screens and three-piece wraparound rear screens gave an airier, lighter feel to the cars, and integrated rear fenders gave a more modern look” (Grist, 2007; p. 75).
A similar narrative was offered by Richard Langworth, Chris Poole and the auto editors of Consumer Guide. They stated:
Plymouth needed styling help in the worst way by 1953. Compared to Chevy and Ford, which had become far prettier with their first postwar redesigns of 1949 — and thus more popular — Plymouth still looked like your grandmother’s car, and sales had been withering. But Virgil Exner had come aboard as Chrysler’s styling chief, and the ’53 corporate line was the first to reflect his influence.” (1989, p. 262)
This sounds plausible. However, if Grist and Langworth are correct that Exner’s involvement with production models didn’t occur until after he was elevated from chief of the Advanced Styling Studio, wouldn’t that have been too late to impact the 1953 Plymouths? They were unveiled November 20, 1952 (Gunnell, 2002)?
Other historians offer somewhat different takes
Aaron Severson (2013) presented a different timeline: Exner was hired by Chrysler to create the Advanced Styling Studio in 1949. In that role he had “no direct involvement with Chrysler’s production cars” until early 1952, when Exner was asked to review the design studies for the 1955 Plymouth.
Also see ‘Six myths about the misunderstood 1953-54 Plymouth’
After harshly criticizing the proposals, Exner was given the power to restyle the automaker’s entire 1955 line. Designs for Chrysler, Imperial and DeSoto were approved in late November of 1952; Plymouth and Dodge were approved the following May. “By then, Exner had been promoted to director of design,” Severson stated.
Meanwhile, Michael Lamm and Dave Holls used phrasing that can be read as holding the door open for Exner to have had some involvement in production models prior to restyling the 1955s: “Exner’s small, separate staff had relatively little to do even with the 1953-54 models.”
Lamm and Holls then paraphrased Exner’s son, Virgil Exner Jr. who said that his father was asked to review the proposed 1955 designs in “late 1952.” When Exner said that they “won’t do,” he was given 18 months to redesign them. It was at this point that Exner was elevated to corporate director of styling (1996; p. 165).
Did Exner start work on 1955 models in late-1952?
Grist offered a different timeline for Exner’s promotion. Exner didn’t become the director until October 1953, after Chrysler President Lester “Tex” Colbert could see his progress on the 1955 models. The position was newly created for Exner, who was “aged just 44” (2007; p. 72).
That lines up with Exner’s Wikipedia (2014) entry, which stated that he was born September 25, 1909. Grist’s timeline for the completion of the 1955 redesign was the same as Lamm and Holls’ — 18 months. He added that production was slated to begin in July 1954, which means Exner would have begun work in late 1952 (2007; p. 69).
The above timeline is in sync with that of Charles K. Hyde’s (2003) history of Chrysler. His scholarly research appears to have drawn from an admirably broad range of sources.
In a comment below, Geeber sketched a scenario offered by author Jerry Flint, who claimed that Exner was shown the initial 1955 facelifts in the spring of 1953 when it was obvious that sales were collapsing. A problem with that timing is that Plymouth sales were reportedly strong until July, when Ford began its sales blitz to beat Chevrolet in sales (Redcap, 2024). At that point Exner would have had only a year to complete the redesign.
Since we’re talking about Exner, one other point of contention is who specifically assigned him to redesign the 1955 models. Grist (2007), paraphrasing Exner Jr., stated that Keller did. In contrast, Hyde noted that “according to Vance Johnson, Chrysler president Lester L. Colbert, not Keller, ordered the redesign” (2003, p. 173).
Severson (2013) wrote that Keller asked Exner to review the proposed facelifts for 1955. When Exner offered heavy criticism, Keller and Colbert together decided to give him the responsibility to come up with a more substantial redesign.
So which timeline sounds most accurate?
I can only guess without doing my own digging into primary sources. Enough historians have mentioned Exner involvement with the 1953 models that it would seem plausible. However, it would presumably have occurred earlier than typically stated — and well before Exner was promoted.
Also see ‘1955-56 Chryslers: ‘Forward Look’ wasn’t as successful as sometimes assumed’
As far as who assigned Exner to redesign the 1955 models, basic logic would suggest that Keller would have eventually weighed in even if Colbert was the initial champion of the idea.
Of course, this isn’t an exhaustive review of the literature. Nor is the intent to nitpick. Instead, my goal is to show how difficult it can be to document some pretty basic historical facts.
NOTES:
This story was originally posted Dec. 5, 2014 and expanded on Nov. 1, 2019; Aug. 16, 2021; and Feb. 7, 2024.
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Grist, Peter; 2007. Virgil Exner, Visioneer. Veloce Publishing, Dorchester, England.
- Gunnell, John; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised Fourth Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Hyde, Charles K.; 2003. Riding The Roller Coaster: A History of the Chrysler Corporation. Wayne State University Press, Detroit, MI.
- Lamm, Michael and Dave Holls; 1996. A Century of Automotive Style: 100 Years of American Car Design. Lamm-Morada Publishing Co.
- Langworth, Richard M. and Jan P. Norbye; 1985. The Complete History of Chrysler Corporation 1924-1985. Publications International, Skokie, IL.
- Langworth, Richard, Chris Poole and the auto editors of Consumer Guide; 1989. Great American Automobiles of the 50s. Publications International, Lincolnwood, IL.
- Redcap, Curtis; 2024. “Insider’s History of Chrysler and Plymouth: Part 1, 1946-1953.” Allpar. Accessed Feb. 7.
- Severson, Aaron; 2013. “Looking Forward: Chrysler’s Early Fifties Transformation, Part 1.” Ate Up With Motor. Posted Jan. 29.
- Wikipedia; 2014. “Virgil Exner.” Accessed Nov. 15.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- oldcaradvertising.com: Chevrolet (1952); Chrysler Corp. (1955); Plymouth (1953, 1954)
- oldcarbrochures.org: Ford (1952); Plymouth (1952)
The key question is what is meant by “involvement” in the design of the 1953 Plymouth. Are we talking about redesigned sheet metal, or some changes to ornamentation?
Regarding the one-piece windshield – would a last-minute change of that sort be possible? I would imagine changing the windshield would involve changing the cowl, A-pillars and even the roof. The cowl is one of the most expensive parts of the car to change after the design has been “locked in” (this is why the low-volume Imperial retained the 1957-style windshield until the 1967 model year, even though it made the car look dated).
It doesn’t help that the 1953-54 models are not remembered as either aesthetic or commercial successes. If they had been, we’d be facing the opposite situation – people would be tripping over each other to claim credit for them.
The late Jerry Flint, in his 1976 book The Dream Machine: The Golden Age of American Automobiles 1945-65, offers yet another scenario. He claims that, when it was “obvious” that the 1953 line was “failing,” Exner was shown the proposed 1955 models, which were just a facelift. (This would have been around the spring of 1953, as Flint claims that Chrysler instituted price cuts about six months after the 1953 line had debuted to “spur sales”).
Exner replied that there wasn’t anything that could be done with the basic design, but that Chrysler needed to put a “whole new skin on it.” He mentions nothing about Exner being involved with any production models prior to this. Exner was put in charge of designing the 1955 models, and thus began the crash program to get them to market by the fall of 1954.
Right — “involvement” could have been as simple as offering feedback on some sketches. And it does make sense that the curved windshield would have needed to be locked in early.
I would question some of Jerry Flint’s details. Spring of 1953 sounds a little late for Exner to begin the 1955 program if it did indeed take 18 months to complete, as some have suggested. I would also question that it was “obvious” that the 1953 line was failing when annual output was actually quite good. Yes, the market began to shift during that model year; to me the key question is when. Based on what I’ve read to date, that would appear to be after Ford began ramping up its price war against Chevrolet later in the model year (go here for further discussion).
IIRC Studebaker switched from slanted A pillars to a vertical A pillar with a dogleg windshield midway through the 1955 model year?.
The book by Richard M. Langworth not cited, “Chrysler and Imperial: The Classic Postwar Years.” (Osceola, Wis.: Motorbooks International, 1993 second edition, 1976 first edition.) stated that Virgil Exner, Sr.’s role at Chrysler was limited: “Exner had been named director of Chrysler Styling by Colbert and Keller in late 1952, but his influence on the 1953-54 cars was limited because of corporate lead times. “Dad had gotten involved a little bit in 1954 ornamentation,” said Virgil Exner, Jr., “though the basic sheet metal was already set. I can remember him doing some of the details–the 1954 taillight and some of the side ornamentation and a bit of the grill, back in 1952. But the Hundred Million Dollar Look for 1955 was all new , and was inspired by one of Dad’s specials — the (1952) Imperial Parade Phaeton.” (Page 103)
Langworth stated that between 1949 and 1952, Henry King (Page 64) (reporting to the Engineering Department vice president, James C. Zeder) was responsible for Chrysler’s production styling, after which King, Bud Gitshlag and others (Mac’s Motor City Garage, 07/19/2019), were responsible for the 1955 Plymouth and Maury Baldwin for the 1955 Dodge, with Exner’s input, of course.
I’m wondering why the corporation’s styling department could not have been given a green light to revise the 1954 Plymouths with a sharp crease in the lower rear fender just above the wheel well, frenched or slightly coved headlamps and/or bolder taillamps (as examples), none of which would have required Exner’s input. Sounds like pure laziness, although I’m sure dollars and cents were more likely at stake, given that bringing the 1955 models to fruition was hugely expensive. Still, if the basic 1953 body shell were originally planned for a 3-year styling cycle, imagine what that would have done to Plymouth sales for 1955.