While the Chrysler Airflow (and its De Soto counterpart) was an impressive engineering achievement, it was a massive failure in the showrooms.

(See our feature on GM’s all-steel Turret Top here.) 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. Like virtually all closed cars up to that point, the original Airflow used a composite wood-and-fabric roof insert.

The illustration above also debunks another popular Airflow myth, that the body was a pioneer of all-steel construction.

(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. (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. 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. So no, the Airflow wasn’t unit construction in any real or modern sense. 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. It’s the typical body-on-frame construction as used by the Detroit automakers for decades (and still used on pickups). The illustration below (from the Airflow body service manual) provides a more realistic view of the body construction. However, the illustrations suggest that the Airflow employed unit body/frame construction or even a space frame, which is not really the case. (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. 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. The Airflow has become the stuff of myths and legends, and here are a few of them. (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. But while the engineering may have been unfamiliar, it was totally sound. And the packaging seemed outlandish as well, with the engine shoved far forward in the chassis and the passengers nestled within the wheelbase. The Airflow’s radical styling was designed to reduce aerodynamic drag rather than to please the eye. When the Chrysler Airflow was officially introduced in January of 1934, it was quite a shock to the American car-buying public. However, a few of the stories aren’t quite accurate. When the Chrysler Airflow appeared in 1934, it was so controversial that enthusiasts are still talking about it today.

Major bowes chrysler airflow imperial