The Stout Scarab didn’t just anticipate the modern minivan

(EXPANDED FROM JUNE 2, 2023)

Histories about the Stout Scarab tend to emphasize that it was the first production minivan (Peek, 2021; Wikipedia, 2023). However, this innovative 1930s car strikes me as also being the granddaddy of the 1960s camper van because of the versatility of its interior configurations, which include a folding table and movable seats (Patton, 2008).

Scarab interior rear
Interior of a 1936 Stout Scarab at the Portland Art Museum exhibit, “The Shape of Speed,” displayed in 2018.

Even that comparison isn’t quite right because the Scarab was a testbed for advanced engineering ideas more in line with modern sports cars than vans, which have largely been treated as utilitarian products by major automakers.

1936 Stout Scarab
1936 Stout Scarab at Stahls Automotive Collection (Michael Barera).

For example, the Scarab displayed an exceptional amount of attention to aerodynamics even by today’s standards. In addition, the car had four-wheel independent suspension and a unit-body space frame that was initially made out of aluminum. That resulted in the Scarab weighing under 3,000 pounds even though it had a rather long, 135-inch wheelbase (Peek, 2021; Wikipedia, 2023).

Imagine, if you will, how Chrysler’s first minivan might have looked if its designers had paid a similar level of attention to aerodynamics, such as through a more teardrop-shaped rear end.

1984 Dodge Caravan

1984 Dodge Caravan cutaway
Chrysler’s minivan was widely declared a revolutionary design, yet its basic shape was an evolutionary interpretation of the traditional, boxy van that prioritized cargo capacity over Scarab-style aerodynamics (Old Car Brochures).

Was Walker’s car of the future informed by the Scarab?

In the comment thread of our story about George Walker’s envisioned car of the future, Chicago Frank suggested that it was a lot like a Scarab (go here).

Popular Mechanics November 1940 cover

Whether consciously or not, Walker took most of the Scarab’s features and added some new ones such as a plastic body and bubble-like windows.

The main way that Walker “mainstreamed” the Scarab’s design was to give it a more traditional front end. He argued that a rear-engined car needed to have “some semblance of a hood” or the driver “would feel as though he were exposed to all sorts of dangers” (1940, p. 120A).

A postwar version of the Scarab essentially followed Walker’s advice. A prototype dubbed the Project Y included more traditional two-box styling with the passenger compartment moved farther behind the front wheels. This car, which was never produced, also sported a fiberglass body, a radically rounded windshield, enclosed wheels and an air suspension.

1946 Stout Scarab
Stout’s so-called Project Y car was developed for Graham-Paige in 1946 (Joanna Poe).

Walker had argued that his envisioned car of the future could have been built in 1941 (1940, p. 120A). However, Stout’s experience with the Scarab suggested otherwise. Only nine cars were reportedly produced between 1934-39.

Scarab rear quarter

Scarab rear window

One barrier to better sales was the car’s high price. Even after the aluminum body was switched to steel, prices started at $5,000 (Peek, 2021). That put the Scarab well into the luxury-car class during a time period when sales were weak at that price point.

It also didn’t help that initial Scarab sales were by invitation only and the production target was 100 cars per year (Ernst, 2013). Indeed, an early ad emphasized that the car offered “individuality” over “standardization” and “fine craftsmanship” over “mass production” (Peek, 2021). These were basically hand-built cars.

1936 Stout Scarab

Stout designs a more sophisticated car after WWII

After World War II, Joe Frazer, who then headed Graham-Paige Motors Corporation, contracted with Stout to develop the Project Y car, which was intended to be a successor to the Scarab.

Richard Langworth (1975) reported that Stout’s design was not chosen for production by Graham because it was judged too far ahead of its time. It didn’t help that the car was projected to have cost a whopping $10,000.

Langworth quoted Graham executive Hickman Price as saying that, in retrospect, he was “sort of intrigued with what it might have meant to the industry at that time” if the car had been built (1975, p. 18).

Popular Science July 1946 Stout Project Y
Stout’s Project Y had a passenger compartment large enough to fit a removable card table. The back seat folded into a full-sized double bed that was six-feet long. Click on image to enlarge (Popular Science, 1946).

The Project Y car’s most advanced features may have uncut its viability, such as a laminated fiberglass body developed with Owen-Corning (Hacker, 2011). The body was reportedly so strong that it didn’t need a frame — and you could “smash the rear deck with a sledge and not make a dent” (Popular Science, 1946).

Also see ‘The 1949 Kaiser-Frazer’s new body styles showed the limits to innovation’

If Stout’s prototype had been decontented enough to make it affordable, could this pioneering vehicle have developed at least a modest market akin to the postwar Jeep? Or was a variation on a minivan too far ahead of its time — at least with a rear engine?

NOTES:

This story was originally posted on June 2, 2023 and expanded on Dec. 23, 2024.

Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.


RE:SOURCES

Kaiser-Frazer: The Last Onslaught on Detroit

ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:

PHOTOGRAPHY:

  • Banner photograph a circa 1936 Stout Scarab taken by Jim Evans.
  • 1936 Stout Scarab photographed by Michael Barera at the Stahls Automotive Collection.
  • 1946 Stout Scarab photographed by Joanna Poe at the Gilmore Car Museum in Hickory Corners.
  • All of the listed photos are from Wikipedia and reproduced through the Creative Commons. They have been lightly edited to reduce background shadows.

1 Comment

  1. This is the third article recently where in passing a car company goes to a design house looking for some sort of update and getting something completely impractical or beyond the client’s resources. And these outfits get paid for this?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*