GTP Cool Wall: 1934-1937 Chrysler Airflow

  • Thread starter Thread starter White & Nerdy
  • 91 comments
  • 8,590 views

1934-1937 Chrysler Airflow

  • Total voters
    109
  • Poll closed .
Cano
To... people. Try and compare this thing to anything made in 1934. This wasn't part of the art decó movement of Europe that everyone seems to be refering to when replying, because by 1934 it barely existed! The airflow was never meant to be an "art decó" car, it was meant to be an aerodynamically efficient car. And remember, this isn't a coachbuilt car, it's a freaking Chrysler that came from the Chrysler factory looking like this. just the fact that Chrysler dared to produce a car that looked like this so early in the 30s, aimed NOT at the rich and wealthy (that's what Imperial was for, and none of them looked this striking) but at people in general, is enough to make this thing subzero.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Also, this car was pretty tough:

 
Cano
To... people. Try and compare this thing to anything made in 1934.
Click to expand...
800px-Coys_vintage_car_501593_fh000035.jpg
 
Yeah, I'm fully aware of those as it's my favorite period of automotivedom. Even so, the euro (french) aeromovement of the 30s didn't take full flight until about 1936, and most of the cars with striking bodies were usually coachbuilt with the exception of mostly Bugatti.

Then again, we're talking about Delage/Delahaye/Duesenberg/Bugatti/Talbot/Hispano Suiza/even Mercedes against a freaking egg-shapped Chrysler that cost what the wire wheels in the other cars cost at the time, and that didn't have aesthetic intentions (I'm aware of Talbot's and Delage's efforts in racing with aerodynamic bodies and such) as most of the coachbuilt cars refered here.
 
Cano
Yeah, I'm fully aware of those as it's my favorite period of automotivedom. Even so, the euro (french) aeromovement of the 30s didn't take full flight until about 1936, and most of the cars with striking bodies were usually coachbuilt with the exception of mostly Bugatti.

Then again, we're talking about Delage/Delahaye/Duesenberg/Bugatti/Talbot/Hispano Suiza/even Mercedes against a freaking egg-shapped Chrysler that cost what the wire wheels in the other cars cost at the time, and that didn't have aesthetic intentions (I'm aware of Talbot's and Delage's efforts in racing with aerodynamic bodies and such) as most of the coachbuilt cars refered here.
Click to expand...

It is rather like comparing a Bugatti Veyron to a Dodge Dart or something.
 
To put it in more context, the Airflow's competitors mostly looked like this:

1934_Ford_Model_40_730_De_Luxe_Fordor_Sedan_DCT893.jpg


1934-Chevrolet-Standard-DC-Coach.jpg


And even from inside, the 1934 Plymouth:
jb20010505b.jpeg


These are all the basic sedan offerings from the big three, and these cars were the Airflow's competition in price and trim levels and stuff. The Airflow was a daring car to say the least.
 
Sub-Zero back then and I'd say just Cool now...but THE QUIRKYNESS FACTOR IS OFF THE CHARTS!
 
Cano
These are all the basic sedan offerings from the big three, and these cars were the Airflow's competition in price and trim levels and stuff. The Airflow was a daring car to say the least.
Click to expand...

And I still say they look better than the Chrysler, which is very (but not seriously) uncool. Being daring, or ahead of its time, or aerodynamically superior to its peers has absolutely nothing to do with how cool a car is...something that seems to be completely overlooked around here where everyone tries to quantify coolness with equations. Cool isn't something you can get from an equation; a car is either some level of cool, or it isn't. Certain aspects of a car may be cool and reflect their coolness onto the car, but that's on a case by case basis, and the cut and dried, 1+1=2 attempts of people around here to decide if a car is cool or not are just ridiculous.
 
The grill looks a little bit... weird... just a little bit.

But it's a Chrysler, a 30's Chrysler...

So: SubZero
 
skynyrd
Being daring, or ahead of its time, or aerodynamically superior to its peers has absolutely nothing to do with how cool a car is
Click to expand...

You read it here folks. None of these factors have anything to do with a car's coolness. Remember this next time you vote on a car, least you're, er, you know, wrong or something.
 
Cano
You read it here folks. None of these factors have anything to do with a car's coolness. Remember this next time you vote on a car, least you're, er, you know, wrong or something.
Click to expand...

Your opinions are all wrong and you should feel bad. Or something.

Just tired of seeing ridiculous reasons for voting a car cool or uncool, is all.

skynyrd: Telling people how it is since 2001 ;)
 
Sub-zero on looks alone.

But it's also for the innovations brought forth in things like aerodynamics, unibody construction, and realizing the benefits of proper weight distribution which greatly improved handling, ride comfort, and safety. Sadly, that same innovation led to it being a failure, but I think being just too far ahead of it's time adds to the cool factor.
 
Famine
800px-Coys_vintage_car_501593_fh000035.jpg
Click to expand...
Cano
To put it in more context, the Airflow's competitors mostly looked like this:

1934_Ford_Model_40_730_De_Luxe_Fordor_Sedan_DCT893.jpg


1934-Chevrolet-Standard-DC-Coach.jpg


And even from inside, the 1934 Plymouth:
jb20010505b.jpeg


These are all the basic sedan offerings from the big three, and these cars were the Airflow's competition in price and trim levels and stuff. The Airflow was a daring car to say the least.
Click to expand...

I like all of these more than the car in question.
I voted a solid uncool.
The looks just don't do it for me.
 
Scrapes an SZ from me, forward-thinking design and looks that have stood the test of time very well. I can actually understand how it might have looked vulgar to some at the time though. Love that style of grille with the thin strakes (I think there was a Rolls with similar styling, with wire over the lights too?). And whilst it does have echoes of the "art deco" coachbuilt likes of Talbot-Lago, Delahaye etc. as Cano says, that's more by accident than design. Actually Cano did it get extra props for the split windscreen, or is that just a bonus? :)
 
Cano
To... people. Try and compare this thing to anything made in 1934. This wasn't part of the art decó movement of Europe that everyone seems to be refering to when replying, because by 1934 it barely existed! The airflow was never meant to be an "art decó" car, it was meant to be an aerodynamically efficient car.
Click to expand...

The car just screams Streamlined to me, which is something i associate with being Art deco, hence my inaccurate assertion. My bad.
 
This thread is a good example of why this car can't be sub zero.

"Yes, but you see compared to the cars of it's time this car was really forward thinking and special. Here let me show you some pictures of it on my smartphone, just give it some time to load."

Still gets a cool because whitewall tires.
 
Sub-zero, Art Nouveau styling (not Art Deco) is always cool. Actually pretty much anything from the 30's and 40's is cool because it was a time before car design started lacking for the next several decades.
 
Sub-Zero. Forget the low power, its an old car! :bowdown:
 
Zenith
This thread is a good example of why this car can't be sub zero.

"Yes, but you see compared to the cars of it's time this car was really forward thinking and special. Here let me show you some pictures of it on my smartphone, just give it some time to load."

Still gets a cool because whitewall tires.
Click to expand...

I guess your logic evades me. It's all about context. Similarly, many movie buffs will cite Citizen Kane as a classic movie, it doesn't matter that it's in B&W and not 1080p. No one is giving its age as some sort of excuse, and those who think it's lacking in power are so missing the point, and I daresay a true love of the history of automobiles. Benchmarks are amorphous and the bar is always raising, but that doesn't render everything that came before as somehow redundant or lacking.
 
Anything from the 30's will get a Sub Zero from me.
 
Zenith
This thread is a good example of why this car can't be sub zero.

"Yes, but you see compared to the cars of it's time this car was really forward thinking and special. Here let me show you some pictures of it on my smartphone, just give it some time to load."

Still gets a cool because whitewall tires.
Click to expand...

Nooooo :0 the car is sub zzzzzero because for the average people it's still a cool old weird car (see @homeforsummer 's post in the previous page) without needing any explanation, and for the people in the know it's all of what has been discussed in the thread so far, which is cool too. So two cools for different types of people. Come on, surrender to it and it's wide whites.
 
Back when cars had style to them. Sub zero.
 
ATTN: Everyone who is now talking about the car's low power: That line in the OP was a joke, intended to poke fun at GTP's use of specific output as a factor in coolness.
 
White & Nerdy
That line in the OP was a joke, intended to poke fun at GTP's use of specific output as a factor in coolness.
Click to expand...
Are you still conflating the opinions of individuals with those of the entire forum, or do you mean this as more of a colloquial plural noun?
 
White & Nerdy
ATTN: Everyone who is now talking about the car's low power: That line in the OP was a joke, intended to poke fun at GTP's use of specific output as a factor in coolness.
Click to expand...
Well sorry no one picked up on it because it's something you'd typically say.
 
Except exactly the opposite.

@Wolfe colloquial plural noun, though it does seem like a lot of GTP'ers seem to consider specific output an important factor in coolness, even though most people have no idea which cars have high or low HP/L.
 
@Cano and @Tyger

The point of my post was that having to explain why the car is cool is uncool.
 
Back