Slant (pronounced slant or slahnt)
(1) A surface, structure, line etc at a slope or in an oblique direction.
(2) In (US) football, an offensive play in which the
ball-carrier runs toward the line of scrimmage at an angle (known also as the “slant-in”,
a pass pattern in which a receiver cuts diagonally across the middle of the
field).
(3) In prosody, as “slant rhyme”, a synonym for the “half
rhyme”, “near rhyme” & “quasi-rhyme” (a form of imperfect rhyme in which
the final (coda) consonants of stressed syllables (and, in modern English
poetry, any following syllables to the end of the words) are identical in
sound, but the vowels of the stressed syllables are not.
(4) In typography, a synonym of slash ( / ⟩, particularly in its use to set off pronunciations from
other text (not used in IT where the distinctions are between the forward-slash
(/) and the back-slash (\) which nerds call respectively the slash and the
slosh.
(5) In biology, a sloping surface in a culture medium.
(6) In hydro-carbon extraction, as “slant drilling”, a
technique in which the drilling is undertaken at an oblique angle rather than
the traditional vertical orientation.
(7) In extractive mining, as type of run in which a
heading is driven diagonally between the dip and strike of a coal seam.
(8) In informal use, a glance or look.
(9) To veer or angle away from a given level or line,
especially from a horizontal; slope (in to incline, to lean).
(10) Figuratively, to have or be influenced by a
subjective point of view, bias, personal feeling or inclination etc (often as
“slant towards”, “slanted view” etc); a mental leaning, bias, or distortion (“feminist
slant”, “MAGA slant”, “liberal slant”, “business slant” etc).
(11) To cause to slope.
(12) Figuratively, to distort information by rendering it
unfaithfully or incompletely, especially in order to reflect a particular
viewpoint (more generously sometimes described as “spin” or “massaged”). The concept is known also as “angle journalism”
(the particular mood or vein in which something is written, edited, or
published). In Scots English, the
meaning “to lie or exaggerate” captures the flavor. When used to describe the composing, editing,
or publishing of something to attract the interest of a specific sub-group (a
“slanted” story), “slanted towards” is necessarily pejorative if used only to
suggest something optimized to appeal to a certain market segment or
demographic (ie it’s more like “aimed at” or “intended for”).
(13) In slang, as “slant eye” (a racial slur now listed
as disparaging & offensive), a reference to people from the Far East
(applied historically mostly to the Chinese & Japanese), based on the shape
of the eyes. The variants included “slit
eye”, “slitty-eyed” & “slopehead”, all equally offensive and now
proscribed.
(14) In painting (art) a pan with a sloped bottom used
for holding paintbrushes; a depression on a palette with a sloping bottom for
holding and mixing watercolors; a palette or similar container with slants or
sloping depressions.
(15) In US regional slang, a sarcastic remark; shade, an
indirect mocking insult (archaic).
(16) In US slang, an opportunity, particularly to go
somewhere (now rare).
(17) In historic Australian colonial slang, a crime
committed for the purpose of being apprehended and transported to a major
settlement.
Circa 1480s: From the Middle English –slonte or -slonte, both aphetic (in phonetics, linguistics & prosody, “of,
relating to, or formed by aphesis” (the loss of the initial unstressed vowel of
a word)) variants of aslant, thought to be of Scandinavian origin. The other influence was probably the earlier dialectical slent,
from the Old Norse or another North Germanic source and cognate with the Old
Norse slent, the Swedish slinta (to slip) and the Norwegian slenta (to fall on the side), from the Proto-Germanic
slintaną (which, in turn, was
probably in some way linked with aslant.
Slant & slanting are nouns, verbs & adjectives, slanted is a
verb & adjective, slantish is an adjective, slantwise is an adjective &
adverb and slantingly & slantly are adverbs; the noun plural is
slants. The pleasing adjective slantendicular is listed by some as non-standard and
presumably is proscribed in geometry and mathematics because it's an oxymoron;
it’s a portmanteau word, the construct being slant + (perp)endicular. It may be useful however in commerce or
engineering where it might be used to describe something like a tool with a
shaft which at some point assumes an oblique or skewed angle. So it’s there to be used and slantindicular should be applied to
stuff which is neither wholly nor fully slanted and in architecture, such
structures are numerous. In commerce, it
could be used as a noun.
The noun slant by the 1650s was used to mean “an oblique
direction or plane” and began in geography & civil engineering (of landforms, notably
ski-slopes), developed from the verb or its adjective. The now familiar (in the Fox News sense) meaning
“way of regarding something, a mental bias” dates from 1905 while the derogatory
slang sense of “a person of Asian appearance” came into use some time in the 1940s,
a direct descendent from the earlier "slant-eyes", documented since 1929. The verb slant is documented since the 1520s
in the sense of “obliquely to strike (against something)”, an alteration the
late thirteenth century slenten (slip
sideways), the origin of which is murky but etymologists have concluded it came
(via a Scandinavian source (noting the Swedish slinta (to slip)) and the Norwegian slenta (to fall on one side), from the Proto-Germanic slintanan. The intransitive sense of “to slope, to lie
obliquely” was in use by the 1690s, while the transitive sense of “to give a
sloping direction to” had emerged by the early nineteenth century. As early as the late fifteenth century forms
were in use as an adverb, the adjectival use attested from the 1610s. The technical use in literary theory as “poetic
slant rhyme” was first used in the mid 1920s (assonance or consonance) although
such lines had appeared for centuries, used sometimes deliberately as a device,
sometimes not. In the following stanza
by English poet Peter Redgrove (The Archaeologist, published in Dr Faust's
Sea-Spiral Spirit (1972)), the second and third lines contain a form of slant
rhyme while the first and fourth have pure rhymes:
So I take one of those thin plates
And fit it to a knuckled other,
Carefully, for it trembles on the
edge of powder,
Restore the jaw and find the fangs
their mates.
While it’s unlikely volumes of the poetry of Emily Dickinson (1830–1886) sit upon the bookshelves of those members of the Fox News audience who have bookshelves, they likely would concur with her words: “Tell the truth but tell it slant.” “Slanted reporting” has become something which in recent years has attracted much attention (and much hand-wringing by the usual suspects) as an increasingly polarization of positions has been alleged to be a feature of political discourse in the West. There is little doubt the effect (as reported) is obvious but there’s some debate about both the mechanics and the implications of the phenomenon. As long ago as 2018, a study found that although the tenor and volume of things on X (formerly known as Twitter) was found to be increasingly toxic and surging, the number of active users engaged in these political polemics was found to be tiny and their effect was distorted by (1) the huge number of tweets they tended to post, (2) the propensity of their fellow-travelers to re-tweet and (3) the use of bots which were more prolific still. If anything, recent voting patterns suggest it would seem the views of the general population appear to be trending away from the extremes towards the more centralist positions offered by independents or small-parties, something most obvious in Australia where compulsory voting exists. Outfits like Fox News offer a slanted take on just about everything (and promote country & western music which truly is inexcusable) but this is something which has been identifiable in the news media as long as it’s existed and their blatant bias is hardly subversive or threatening, simply because it is so blatant. What was most interesting in what emerged from the recent defamation suit filed by Dominion Voting Systems against Fox News suggested the network’s stance on things was motivated more by the financial imperative than ideological purity. Intriguingly, what some analysts concluded was that if the universe shifted and the Fox News audience transformed into a bunch of seed-eating hippies, there would follow Fox’s editorial position, the slant being towards the advertising revenue rather than a particular world view. Of course, there are some slants which are unalterable and dictated by ideological purity but with commercial media, it’s likely sometimes cause is confused with effect.
Founded in 1913 by Sidney (1859–1947) & Beatrice Webb (1858–1943) with patronage from George Bernard Shaw (GBS; 1856-1950) and other worthies from the socialist Fabian Society. Its circulation was at its highest during the high-water mark of British socialism under Harold Wilson (1916–1995; UK prime minister 1964-1970 & 1974-1976) but, now with print and digital editions in the common manner, it has survived and while unashamedly left-wing (the editorial boards preferring terms like “progressive” & “liberal”), it also has an emphasis on culture and literature, a mix similar to The Spectator (right) and The Economist (centre-right). Unlike the Spectator which picks up readers from across the spectrum because the often punchy writing attracts (as well as those who read it on the basis of "know thy enemy"), the published surveys suggest The New Statesman's readership tends to be from the left.
The Leaning Tower of Pisa (left) and Lindsay Lohan in The Parent Trap (1998) in front of London’s perpendicular Big Ben (1859) (right). The architect’s original name for the latter was a typically succinct “Clock Tower”, chosen because it housed the “Great Bell of the Great Clock of Westminster” but it was in 2012 renamed “Elizabeth Tower”, marking the Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth II (1926-2022; Queen of the UK and other places, 1952-2022), something little noted by Londoners or those beyond who continue to prefer the nickname “Big Ben” although strictly speaking that’s a reference only to the “Great Bell” a 13.5 ton (13.7 tonne) casting in bell metal (a bronze which is an alloy of about 77% copper & 23% tin). The origin of the nickname is contested but there are no romantic tales, all the possible inspirations being worthy white men as was the Victorian way.
Although in Italy alone there are seven leaning towers (three
of which stand (ie lean) in Venice), it’s the torre di Pisa
(Tower of Pisa) which is by far the best-known and a frequent Instagram prop. Built between 1173-1372, the structure in the
Piazza del Duomo (Pisa’s Cathedral Square) is the campanile (the freestanding bell tower) of the adjacent Pisa
Cathedral and the famous lean of some 4o (actually somewhat less
than its greatest extent after more than a century of compensating engineering
works) was apparent even during construction, the cause the softness of the
sub-surface. That geological feature has
however contributed to the tower’s survival, the “rubber-like” sponginess below
acting to absorb movement and despite a number of severe earthquakes in the
region over the centuries, the tower remains.
It is of course known as the leaning
tower than a sloping, oblique or slanted
tower, probably because of the conventions of use which evolved in English.
The words “sloping”, “oblique”, “slanted”, & “leaning” all describe something not vertical or horizontal there tend to be nuances which dictate the choice of which to use. Sloping generally is used of something which inclines or declines at a gentle or continuous angle, the implication being of a gradual or smooth transition from elevation to another, such as the way a hillside rises gradually rises to its summit. Oblique is mostly a matter of specific angles and is thus common is mathematics, geometry and engineering. Again, it’s a reference to something neither parallel nor perpendicular to a baseline but it tends to be restricted to something which can be defined with an exact measurement; in geometric or technical use, an oblique line or angle is one neither 90o nor perfectly horizontal. Slanted describes something positioned at a diagonal, often used to imply a more noticeable or sharp angle but also is widely used figuratively, metaphorically and in idiomatic phrases. Leaning refers to something tilted or positioned at an angle due to external pressure, the object in an unstable position and in need of support. The implication carried is that something which “slants” is designed thus to do while something which “leans” does so because of some design flaw or unexpected external force being applied so it’s the leaning and not the sloping tower of Pisa, even though the structure has assumed quite a slope.
Slanting Engines
On a slant: Diagram of the mounting of the M194 straight-six engine in the Le Mans winning Mercedes-Benz 300 SL (W194) canted at a 40o slant (left); the Mercedes-Benz M196 straight-eight engine schematic (centre) and installed in a 1954 W196R "Streamliner" at a 53o slant (right). The two large donut-like objects at the front are the inboard, finned brake drums; at the time, the engineers maintained disk brakes were "not yet ready for use".
There are “slant” engines and they exist in three
configurations. The first is simply a
conventional in-line engine (straight-six, straight-eight etc) which, when
installed in a vehicle, is fitted with the block canted to the left or right,
the objective being a lower hood line which means a better aerodynamic
outcome. A classic example was the
Mercedes-Benz W196R Formula One racing car (1954-1955) in which the
straight-eight was canted to the right at a 53o angle, the technique
carried over when the same structure was used to produce the W196S (1955) used
to contest the World Sports Car Championship.
Rather opportunistically, the W196S was dubbed the 300 SLR (one of which in 2022 became the world's most expensive used car, selling at a private auction for US$142 million) as a form of
cross promotion with the 300 SL (W198, 1954-1956) Gullwing then in production,
even though the two types shared little more than nuts, bolts and a
resemblance. The 300 SL did however also
have its straight-six engine sitting at a slant, this time canted at a 50o
angle and although the factory never published an estimate of the reduction in
drag, it’s long been presumed to be “at least several percent”. Another advantage of the configuration was it
made possible the use of “long-tube” runners for the induction system, taking
advantage of the properties of fluid dynamics to permit them to be tuned either
for mid-range torque or top-end power.
The concept used math which had been worked out in the nineteenth
century and had often been used in competition but it wasn’t until 1959 when
Chrysler in the US released their picturesque induction castings that the
system, imaginatively named the “Sonoramic”, reached a wider audience.
The “true”
slant engines were those with a slanted block atop an otherwise conventional arrangement
of components, the best known of which was Chrysler’s long-serving “Slant Six”,
produced in displacements of 170 cubic inch (2.8 litre, 1959-1969), 198 cubic
inch (3.2 litre, 1970-1974) and 225 cubic inch (3.7 litre, 1960-2000). The block of the Slant Six was canted to the
right at a 30o and like Mercedes-Benz, Chrysler took advantage of
the space created to the left to produce some wide induction runners, the most
extravagant those used by the special Hyper Pack option package which used a
four barrel carburetor, enabling the engine to produce power which made it
competitive with many V8 powered machines.
Although the name “Slant Six” became famous, it was only in the
mid-sixties it caught on, Plymouth originally calling the thing a 30-D (a
reference to the a 30o slant), hardly very catchy and something to
which only engineers would relate and Slant Six was soon preferred although the
aficionados really like “tower of power” and the engine even today still has a devoted following.
Chrysler didn’t restrict the Sonoramics to the big-block V8s, using it also on the short-lived (1960-1962) Hyper Pak performance option for the both 170 cubic inch (2.8 litre, 1959-1969) and 225 cubic inch (3.7 litre, 1987-2000) versions of the Slant Six, the engineers taking advantage of the space afforded by the canted block to permit the curvaceous intake runners nearly to fill the engine bay. The Hyper Pak wasn't seen in showrooms but was available as an over-the-counter kit (literally a cardboard box containing all necessary parts) from Dodge & Plymouth spare parts departments and its life was limited because it became a victim of its own success. Although less suitable for street use because it turned the mild-mannered straight-six into something at its best at full throttle, in the race events for which it was eligible it proved unbeatable, dominating the competition for two years, compelling the sanctioning body cancel the series.
Manifold porn: The Slant Six's angle meant there was much space available to the left and a range of intake manifolds followed, some of which remain available to this day. Using variations of the sonoramic tuning, manifolds were produced for single, two & four barrel carburetors and between 1965-1968, Chrysler's Argentine operation produced the Slant Six in a version with twin single barrel carburetors. The use of the properties of fluid dynamics to gain power or torque as desired quickly was adopted by the industry as an engineering orthodoxy.
Some myths seem to have become attached to the Hyper-Pak. What seems to be true is the original kit, sold in 1960 for the 170 engines used in competition, was a genuine homologation exercise and as well as the intake manifold & Carter AFB four barrel carburetor, it included all the internal parts such as the high-compression pistons, the high-lift camshaft and the valve train components needed to support the consequently higher engine speeds. Because the competition rules allowed modifications to the exhaust system, on the track the cars ran tubular steel headers which fed an open exhaust, terminating in the racers' preferred “dump pipe”. After the requisite number of “complete” kits were sold, thus fulfilling the homologation demands, the kits were reconfigured and included only the “bolt-on” parts such as the induction system and a camshaft which, while more aggressive than the standard unit, wasn’t as radical as the one used on the track but could be used in conjunction with the standard valve train and Chrysler’s TorqueFlite automatic, thus expanding the Hyper-Pak’s appeal.
At the same time, the availability was extended to the larger 225 which between 1961-1963 was also available with an aluminum block, thus becoming one of the small number of engines configured with the combination of an aluminum block with a cast-iron head. US manufacturers were at the time aware the trend was for cars to continue getting bigger so they were interested in ways to reduce weight. However, despite saving some 70 lbs (32 KG), Chrysler’s aluminum block was, like General Motors’ (GM) 215 cubic inch (3.5 litre) V8, short-lived (though the V8 after being sold to Rover enjoyed a long, lucrative and prolific second life, not finally laid to rest until 2006) for not only were teething troubles encountered with the still novel method of construction, the accountants made clear using cast iron was always going to be cheaper so the industry just accepted weight gain and whenever required, increased displacement to compensate, an approach which persisted until the first oil shock of the early 1970s.
Until 1973, both the Challenger & the corporation's companion E-Body pony car (the Plymouth Barracuda (1969-1974)) was available with the Slant Six (198 & 225) although the fitment rate was under 10%, unlike the early pony cars (Ford Mustang, Chevrolet Camaro and the early Barracudas) where the six-cylinder versions would at times be close to 40% of production. Many of the surviving Slant Six Challengers & Barracudas have been "re-purposed" as clones of the more desirable versions with potent small or big-block V8s. Because of the rarity, exceptional examples of slant-six E-body cars do trade in a niche in the collector market.
Although it was the longer lived 225 version which gained the Slant Six its stellar reputation for durability and the ease with which additional power could be extracted, there's always been a following for the short-stroke 170 because of its European-like willingness to rev, the characteristics of the over-square engine (unique among the slant-six's three displacements (170-198-225)) unusually lively for a US straight-six. Despite some aspects of the specification being modest (there were only four main bearings although they were the beefy units used in the 426 cubic inch Street Hemi V8), for much of its life it used a tough forged steel crankshaft and high-speed tolerant solid valve lifters; it proved a famously robust engine and one remarkably tolerant of neglect. Despite that, after the Hyper Pak affair, Chrysler in the US showed little interest in any performance potential, knowing the US preference for V8s, something which doomed also Pontiac's short-lived single overhead camshaft (SOHC) straight-six (1966-1969). A version of the 225 with a two-barrel carburetor (rated at 160 horsepower, an increase of 15 over the standard unit) was offered in some non-North American markets where V8 sales were not dominant and it proved very popular in South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and Central & South America but only when tighter US emission regulations forced its adoption did a 225 with a two barrel carburetor appear in the home market though there it was installed to restore the power losses suffered after the emission control plumbing was added rather than seek gains.
Making a straight-eight or V8 by combining two in-line fours has been done a few times and many have been successful (although Triumph managed to create a truly horrid one for the otherwise lovely Stag). Less common is making a four from an eight but that’s what Pontiac did when they conjured their 194.5 cubic inch (3.2 litre) four by using one bank of their 389 cubic inch (6.4 litre) Trophy V8 and it was (just about) literally cut in half, meaning the cylinders were canted to the right by 45o (the V8 obviously in a conventional 90o configuration). To emphasize the family connection with the highly regarded Pontiac Trophy V8, the smaller offspring was called the Trophy 4 (although it was at time also dubbed the Indy 4 or Indianapolis 4 which even at the time sounded ambitious). It did work and the economic advantages for the manufacturer (use of common components and the same assembly line) were compelling but the limitations inherent in a four-cylinder of such a large displacement were apparent in the rough-running and wear on critical parts and it was available only between 1961-1963 and used in a single model, the compact (in US terms) Tempest.
The Pontiac V8 which provided the bones for the Trophy 4 was unusual compared with the US industry's post-war practice in that although its displacement ranged between 265-455 cubic inches (4.3-7.5 litres), only one block was used whereas others would produce several, the most common distinction being the "big block" and "small block", terms which were not always indicative of relative internal capacity but were literal in terms of external dimensions. Ford muddied the waters a bit when one "big block" was continued in production after another (even bigger) "big block" was released and this had led some to prefer the opportunistically coined "mid block" but that's always been too nerdy for most who continue to prefer the well-understood small-big distinction. All Oldsmobile's post-war V8s also shared the one basic block but the division followed the usual practice of using a "tall deck" version (ie one with metal added to the casting to permit a longer stroke) for the larger displacement iterations whereas Pontiac chose to use a unique "short deck" casting for some in the last days before General Motors (GM) extended the intra-divisional sharing of engines, something which doomed the Pontiac V8. The fact that the external dimensions of the Pontiac V8s were almost all identical, regardless of displacement intrigued some who saw a simple, cheap path to power, replacing a 326 cubic inch (5.3 litre) V8 with a 455 cubic inch version a remarkably simple process. However, as some soon found out, just because it fitted under the hood didn't mean other components would tolerate the increase in power and torque, something which applied especially to some of Pontiac's novel (and short-lived) engineering in the early 1960s such as the flexible driveshaft (the so-called "rope-drive") or the rear-mounted transaxle; quickly, things would break.
Bigger even than the Pontiac Trophy 4, large displacement four cylinder engines were once common although some were exceptional. Fiat in 1910 built two of their S76s to contest the world LSR (land speed record) and they were an hefty 28.4 litres (1730 cubic inch), the “Beast of Turin” using its then impressive 290 horsepower (216 kW) to attain a one-way speed of 132.27 mph (213 km/h) but, because it was not possible for the team to make the “return run” (ie in the opposite direction) within the stipulated one hour, the LSR remained with the Blitzen Benz which in 1909 had set a mark of 125.94 mph (202.65 km/h). On land, never again would anyone build a four with the capacity to match the Beasts of Turin but units with displacements approaching 5.0 litres (305 cubic inch) were not uncommon during the inter-war years. However, the technology of the internal combustion engine (ICE) greatly advanced during World War II (1939-1945) and one consequence of that was engine speeds rose and less displacement was required for a specific output, both factors which conspired to make the big fours unfashionable. They did however make a comeback in the 1970s when the clever trick of “balance shafts” enabled the inherently chronic second order harmonic vibrations to be “dampened out” and Porsche between 1991-1995 produced a 3.0 litre (183 cubic inch) range which used the technique. The balance shaft was invented early in the twentieth century by English engineer Frederick Lanchester (1868–1946) but it was Mitsubishi which in the 1970s patented their “Silent Shaft” system and although Porsche developed their own version, they worked out the Japanese design was superior so used that instead, paying Mitsubishi a small royalty (under US$10) for each one installed. A balance shaft uses two counterweights (looking something like small hockey pucks with the shaft running through them), set some 1½ inches (40 mm) apart and turns at twice the engine-speed. With one shaft mounted high on one side of the engine and the other low on the opposite side, the pair counter-rotates, balancing the large reciprocating mass. In that, the balance shafts can be thought of as a variation of a crankshaft's harmonic balancer.
Headlights on a slant
The one-off, 1938 Jaguar SS100 fixed head coupé (FHC) “Grey Lady” which demonstrates the traditional placement when four lights were used.
Headlights at a slant (mounted diagonally and known also as "canted") have also been a thing. The inclination designers for decades felt to use a diagonal arrangement for headlights began innocently enough in the pre-war years when it emulated the usual practice of placing a pair of driving lamps or for lights inboard of the main headlamps and lower down, mounted typically on the bumper bar or its supporting brackets. Most headlamps until the late 1930s were in separate housings, as were the auxiliary devices and even cars which integrated them into the coachwork adopted the same geometry. This was due in part to the evolutionary nature of automobile styling which has often tried to avoid the “shock of the new” and in part to regulations, especially those which applied in the US.
Jaguar S-Type (1963-1968, left), Vanden Plas Princess R (1964-1968, centre) and Volvo 164 (1968-1975, right).
Although most would regard the technique which essentially integrated the driving lamps/fog lamps into the coachwork as just a variation on the diagonal theme, professional designers insist not; they say this is just wrapping enveloping bodywork around an existing device. Also, the professionals prefer the term “canted headlamps” because “diagonal” has a more precise definition in mathematics.
Rover 3.5 Coupé (P5B 1967-1973, left) and Packard Coupe (1958) (right)
While the US manufacturers usually re-tooled in 1957-1958 after regulations had been changed to allow quad head-lamps, the British were often fiscally challenged and needed to continue to use existing sheet metal. A design like the Vanden Plas Princess R (and the companion Wolseley 6/99 & 6/110 (1959-1968)) has sufficient space to allow the diagonal placement but the Rover P5 (1958-1967) with its wider grill precluded the approach so the expedient solution was to go vertical. Although obviously just “bolted on”, such was the appeal of the P5B it just added to the charm. It could have been much worse because less charming was the 1958 Packard Coupe, produced by Studebaker-Packard, the company an ultimately doomed marriage of corporate convenience which seemed at the time a good idea but proved anything but. Studebaker-Packard lacked the funds to re-tool to take advantage of the rules allowing four head-lamps but without the feature their cars would have looked even more hopelessly outdated than they anyway did so cheap fibreglass “pods” were produced which looked as “tacked on” as they were. They were the last Packards made and Studebaker’s demise followed within a decade.
1963 Zunder
The Zunder ("spark" in German) was produced in Argentina between 1960-1963 and used the power-train from the Porsche 356. The body was fashioned in fibreglass and was one of the many interesting products of the post war industry in Brazil and Argentina, the history of which is much neglected. By the standards of time, it was well-built but as a niche product, was never able to achieve the critical mass necessary to ensure the company’s survival and production ceased in 1963 after some 200 had been built.
Buick Electra 225 (First generation 1959–1960, left) and (Lincoln) Continental Mark III (1958-1960, right). The Buick adopted horizontal headlamps in 1960.
In the late 1950s, most US manufacturers did have cash to spend and the industry spirit at the time was never to do in moderation what could be done in excess although by comparison with the Lincoln, the Buick verged on the restrained. Tellingly, the Buick sold well while the Continental was such a disaster Ford considered sending Lincoln to join Edsel on the corporate scrapheap and the nameplate was saved only because it was possible at low cost to re-purpose a prototype Ford Thunderbird as the new Continental. Rarely has any replacement been such a transformation and the 1961 Continental would influence the design of full-sized American cars for twenty years. It used horizontally mounted head-lamps.
1961 Chrysler 300 G.
Chrysler’s “Letter Series 300” (1955-1965) coupes and convertibles were the brightest glint in the golden age in which Detroit’s power race was played out in the big cars, an era which would be ended by the introduction of the intermediates and pony cars in the 1960s. The 300G (1961) was visually little changed from the previous year’s 300F but the simple change to diagonal headlamps was transformative. There were those who didn’t like the look but generally it was well received and as a first impression, the feeling might have been Chrysler had mastered the motif in a way the Continental Mark III proved Ford just didn’t get it.
1961 DeSoto Adventurer (left), 1962 Dodge Dart (centre) and 1963 Dodge Polara (right).
However, Chrysler’s designers in the early 1960s may have decided they liked diagonal headlamps which was good but seemingly they liked them so much they though the buyers should be offered as many permutations of the idea as could be made to work on a production line. What’s remarkable is not that the public didn’t take to the approach but that it took the corporation so long to admit the mistake and try something more conventional. Just to hedge their bets, while Dodge, Plymouth and DeSoto all had headlamps mounted at an obvious degree of cant, on the Chryslers the effect was so subtle one really needed to hold a spirit level to the front end to confirm there was an slant, albeit one imperceptible to the naked eye. The one division which never were the diagonal way was the Imperial but it’s headlamp treatment was more bizarre still.
1961 DeSoto styling proposal (September 1958) for the 1961 range.
For DeSoto, things could have looked worse even than they did, some of the implementations of the diagonal motif which went as far as clay models or actual metal prototypes so bizarre one wonders what external influences were being studied (or inhaled). As it turned out, 1961 would be the end of the line for DeSoto, a nameplate which had been successful as recently as the mid 1950s. Its demise was little to do with diagonal head-lamps (though they didn’t help) but a product of Chrysler’s other divisions expanding their ranges up and down, encroaching on a market segment DeSoto once found so lucrative. The phenomenon was a harbinger of the eventual fate of marques like Mercury, Pontiac, Oldsmobile and Plymouth.
Retractable headlights: 1972 Ferrari 356 GTC/4 (top left), 1968 Lamborghini Isoero (top right), 1967 Maserati Ghibli Spyder (bottom left) and 1970 Plymouth Superbird (bottom right).
Although sometimes the diagonal placement of headlights was a deliberate choice by the stylist, it could be something dictated by the body's shape and this was the case when quad units were used in conjunction with retractable housings. On most cars the diagonal motif appeared with the outboard lights mounted noticeably higher than those inboard but, because of the slope, when retractable lights were used the inner lights could sit higher, the visual effect sometimes exaggerated because the angle the housing (following the horizontal nose-line) assume when erected made the inboard lights seem higher still. It was a product of shape and not something inherent to the “pop-up” retractable technique: The 1969 Dodge Daytona and 1970 Plymouth Superbird (both homologation exercises for use on the NASCAR (National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing) ovals & tracks) both had their four headlights aligned in the horizontal.
1964 Bentley S3 “Chinese-eye” two-door saloon by Mulliner, Park Ward (MPW). MPW was in 1961 created as the in-house coach-building division of Rolls-Royce by merging Park Ward (a subsidiary since 1939) and H. J. Mulliner (a subsidiary since 1959). In 1991 the operation was shut down but the Mulliner name endures as Bentley’s “personal commissioning division” which offers services ranging from high-priced bling to bespoke coach-built bodies.
Bentley’s Continental “sports saloon” was in 1952 introduced on the R-Type chassis, the line continued (with some sacrifice in individuality) with the S-Type generation of six-cylinder cars in 1955. When the S2 was released in 1959, the external appearance was little changed although under the bonnet (hood) there was the new 6¼ litre V8 which faithfully would serve for some six decades until 2020 when the last was fitted to a Bentley Mulsanne although by then, there were few parts able to be interchanged with those in the original run. With the debut of the V8, it was no longer possible to purchase a Bentley with a manual transmission and, unlike some of the S3 range, all the Continentals had coach-built bodies from H J Mulliner, James Young or Park Ward. The Mulliner (and later MPW) cars featured slanting nacelles for the quad headlights and quickly these gained the sobriquet “Chinese eye” which, surprisingly, seems to have survived the linguistic treadmill and the term still is used by the trade servicing the collector community.
Clockwise from top left: Fiat 8V (1952-1954), Gordon-Keeble GK-1 (1961-1967), Jensen C-V8 (1962-1966) and Triumph Vitesse convertible (1962-1971).
Perhaps surprisingly, the French majors were never much enamored, presumably because Citroën and Renault didn’t like to be thought imitative and Peugeot was too conservative. Some of the Europeans did dabble with the idea, embracing it as an expression of modernity although the then radical treatment of the head-lamps sometimes struck a discordant note when the look was grafted onto something where the rest of the platform was so obviously from one or two generations past. Fiat’s exquisite 8Vs didn’t all get the diagonal look but those which did remain the most memorable of the few of the breed built. An unqualified aesthetic success was the Gordon-Keeble built to aviation standards and powered by a Chevrolet V8 in Corvette tune. It deserved to succeed but floundered as much of the British industry did in the era because of a lack of capitalization and an accounting operation which didn’t match the quality of the engineering. More commercially successful was the Jensen C-V8 but while the distinctive front end now makes it much prized by collectors, at the time it was less admired and its very presence served only to emphasize how antiquated the rest of the styling had become. For its replacement, Jensen tuned to an Italian styling house and the Interceptor, introduced in 1966 and remembered for the vast expanse of rear glass, is now thought a classic of the era. The one which sold best was the Triumph Vitesse, one of a number of variations built on the robust and versatile separate chassis of the Herald (1959-1971) including the Spitfire and GT6. Although not exactly the BMW M3 of its day, the six-cylinder engines did provide effortless performance and the Vitesse’s front end actually lived on in India (though without the torquey straight-sixes) to enjoy an "Indian summer" but curiously, the inner headlights weren’t fitted.
Gilding the lily: The Lancia Fulvia coupé (1965-1976) before & after.
The lovely, delicate lines of the Lancia Fulvia were perfect and really couldn’t be improved. The unfortunate facelift with the canted lights was no improvement.
