When the Chrysler Airflow appeared in 1934, it was so controversial that enthusiasts are still talking about it today. However, a few of the stories aren’t quite accurate.
When the Chrysler Airflow was officially introduced in January of 1934, it was quite a shock to the American car-buying public. The Airflow’s radical styling was designed to reduce aerodynamic drag rather than to please the eye. And the packaging seemed outlandish as well, with the engine shoved far forward in the chassis and the passengers nestled within the wheelbase. But while the engineering may have been unfamiliar, it was totally sound. (Watch the 1934 Chrysler engineering film, Fashioned for Function, here.) It’s hardly surprising that such an unconventional car would generate a considerable buzz around it, and the buzz persists to this day. The Airflow has become the stuff of myths and legends, and here are a few of them.
Numerous illustrations like the one above were produced by Chrysler to show the reinforced-steel body construction, in which metal stampings replaced the traditional hardwood braces used in car bodies since the industry began. (Even in the early ’30s, wooden inner body components were still commonplace.) Chrysler claimed that this new construction was 40 percent stronger than conventional car bodies, and of that there is little doubt. However, the illustrations suggest that the Airflow employed unit body/frame construction or even a space frame, which is not really the case.
The illustration below (from the Airflow body service manual) provides a more realistic view of the body construction. It’s the typical body-on-frame construction as used by the Detroit automakers for decades (and still used on pickups). And the Airflow body shown below was also attached to a separate and conventional ladder-type chassis frame in the same way, using 14 to 20 bolts depending on body style.
So no, the Airflow wasn’t unit construction in any real or modern sense. Jan Norbye, in his 1984 book, Car Design Structure and Architecture, wrote that Chrysler engineering guru Carl Breer originally wanted to weld the body assembly to the ladder frame, but production line problems arose so threaded fasteners were substituted. (There were numerous manufacturing problems that damaged both production volume and the car’s reputation.) The 1936 Lincoln Zephyr was of similar partial-unit construction, but with the body welded to the chassis. (See our feature on the ’36 Zephyr here.) Some Chrysler materials stated that the Airflow body was of unit construction, a more technically precise description.
The illustration above also debunks another popular Airflow myth, that the body was a pioneer of all-steel construction. Almost, but not quite. Like virtually all closed cars up to that point, the original Airflow used a composite wood-and-fabric roof insert. This curious anachronism was more or less forced on the automakers until the steel companies developed rolling mills that could produce sheet of sufficient width to cover an entire roof stamping. (See our feature on GM’s all-steel Turret Top here.)
While the Chrysler Airflow (and its De Soto counterpart) was an impressive engineering achievement, it was a massive failure in the showrooms. Car buyers just couldn’t warm themselves to the aerodynamic styling and unfamiliar proportions. This has led to the idea, repeated endlessly through the years, that the Airflow was “too far ahead of its time” to be a sales success, which isn’t really true. It’s more of a legend. Look at the Airflow and try to think of any year between 1934 and 1984 in which the car’s unusual styling would have been embraced by car buyers. The Airflow was the right car at the wrong time, but the right time would never come.
Interesting, lots of food for thought. Chrysler didn’t adopt real unit construction until decades later.
Say what you want about Chrysler innovation, good, bad, or ugly, they have captivated our imagination time after time to reach that elusive bar of form and function.
I’ve learned something today – thank you. I always wondered why cars without sunroofs, especially cheap cars, still had a wood / fabric insert in the roof and know I know why. I thought it was just a style thing. Some cheap (Ford) cars carried on in to the early 1960s with this arrangement.
More factually the reason fabric roof inserts carried on into the 1930’s was that the motoring media had convinced the public that an all metal roof would be noisy and make drumming sounds. Nothing to do with steel rolling mills…they were already making large 4’x8′ 18 and 20 gauge sheet metal panels for use in stamping other large body parts, like the backs and sides of tudor bodys and floor pans, also for the use by sheet metal shops , they bought sheet metal in large panels so they could cut smaller sizes for stoves, cabinets , stove pipes, metal doors etc.
It might have been GM who first came up with 1/8 thick cardboard like acoustic deadening insulation, pasted onto the inside of body panels., therefore enabling them to offer the first all steel “turret” roof on an automobile., thus ensuring a quite vehicle for the buyer.
That is all news to me. I will assume that you are not older than 110 so that you learned this info first hand. Do you have any sources?
Hi; I’ve been around for quite awhile, so over the years, through reading old auto journals,meeting and learning from individuals such as a Frank Caton who worked at Smith Bros. auto body builders in Toronto in the 30’s, it is very apparent how and why the auto industry dealt with the fabric/steel roof question, and why GM was probably the first to make a breakthrough in developing a steel roof which didn’t produce the supposed problems impeding its’ introduction.. Again, large size steel panels were available from the rolling mills prior to 1930, easily predating the GM introduction of a steel auto roof.
Car roofs were also switching from the early flat design to the more rounded compound curve type which would eliminate the drumming effect.
Which Ford cars had that feature? I know of none.
Ford of Britain’s Popular which until 1959 was a decontented version of the Anglia from the early postwar years, and used a body design (and roof pressing, and fixed fabric insert) developed for the 1937 model.
Actually Chrysler didn’t have unibody construction in their cars until 1960 except for the Imperial for some reason. Ford’s Lincoln Zephyr that came out in 1936 was a success even though it also had radical for the times styling. The next year 1937 was the Airflows last even though the styling was toned down in its last year especially.
The Airflow’s styling was well-accepted in it’s day, it’s waterfall-deco styling was completely in vogue; it was build quality problems caused by a rush to get the car in production, in time for the 1933 Chicago World’s fair, that really killed the car.
The Airflow was like a lot of new designs, love them or hate them, didn’t seem to be a middle ground. I’ve always liked them, but without the fender skirts, not a fan of those. I saw some pics of a two door done up as a street rod, it was really a nice looking car.