AUTOMOTIVE HISTORY REVIEW AUTUMN 2015 ISSUE NUMBER 56 THE SOCIETY OF AUTOMOTIVE HISTORIANS, INC. An Affiliate of the American Historical Association Letters of productivity and product quality were comparatively low at most German plants; manufacturers struggled with short- The General vs. the Beetle ages of raw materials eventually well into the early 1950s. As a matter of fact, volumes of sales and production seemed I read with pleasure Peter Engelhard’s fine article, “Making to be at best limited to prewar levels during the first half of Room for Beetle: Volkswagen’s Impact on the German Mo- that decade. This and other concerns may have contributed tor Industry” in AHR No. 54. Its careful analysis of social to a certain reluctance among the big two US manufacturers conditions and market forces in Germany during the postwar to expand their capacities again in early postwar Germany. period helps to explain the dynamic growth of the industry. Post-war strategies of GM and Ford for Western However, I believe there is an additional factor that set the Germany need more careful analysis from automotive his- stage for Volkswagen success—the policies and actions of torians. This, however, I consider to be a different piece of General Motors Corporation—and that this story should be work to be done, complementing the ideas I tried to bring included to obtain a full understanding of events. forward in the aforementioned article on Volkswagen. When General Motors purchased Adam Opel AG in 1929, it acquired the leading German producer with a The Gordon Bennett Race modern plant based on American practice. On the eve of the Second World War its small Kadett was Germany’s most [Regarding the abstract of the paper on the 1903 Gordon popular car and the company had a large export trade driven Bennett Race (AHR No. 55, page 41)], Britain did not “re- by government financial subsidies. Nevertheless, under the fuse to host” the 1903 race and Ireland did not “agree to host impact of German financial controls and later by the removal it.” Any student...will have read the definitive The Gordon of its manufacturing plant to Russia as war reparations, GM Bennett Races by Lord Montagu of Beaulieu where it states lost its entire investment. When the question came up of re- that road racing was illegal in Great Britain and Ireland, but assuming control, the GM directors declined to take up their the passing of the Light Locomotives (Ireland) Bill, intro- prewar position. Only in 1948 and under the strong advice duced by the then-Lord Montagu to the British Parliament, of Chairman Sloan was it agreed to begin again but with received Royal Assent on 27th March 1903, allowing the the condition that the corporation not advance or in any way race to take place in Ireland. As most people are aware the guarantee the advance of any additional funds. 26 counties of what is now the Republic of Ireland did not Opel’s postwar program was entirely focused on the obtain self-governing status until 1922. The Tourist Trophy medium price car. The popular-price field was abandoned to road races were run in Ulster during the 1930s for the same Volkswagen and a few smaller builders. Not until 1962 did reason. Opel re-enter the lists, giving VW a fifteen-year head start The race did in fact do considerable good for the building for world markets. Surely GM had the resources; economy of that part of Ireland and also for the other venues they were at that time creating an industry from scratch in for the supporting events. Australia. Of course, it is not possible to guess how well Opel might have done faced with the new competitor. This Graham Skillen, Templecombe, Somerset, U.K. seems to have been a failure of vision rare for this admired corporation, one that is perhaps still hampering them today. The editor responds: Arthur Jones, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Thank you for pointing out this apparent and important mis- conception. In the telling and retelling of history, sometimes Peter Engelhard responds: important facts get lost or are shaded, depending on who is doing the telling. I thank Arthur Jones for his remarks on my article about Volkswagen’s impact on the German motor industry. He From the Editor highlights the policies and actions of General Motors Cor- poration and how they relate to understanding the Volkswa- Readers will have noticed that this issue is horribly late. Al- gen’s postwar success. The fact that major parts of GM’s though this phenomenon is far from unusual in volunteer or- Opel plant at Rüsselsheim were lost due to Russian repa- ganizations, the enormity of the tardiness in this instance is ration claims is mentioned in the article. Hence, a potential difficult to excuse. direct rival model to the Volkswagen was not available in In looking to the future, it is hard to see a dramatic postwar Germany. The absence of the Opel Kadett has been improvement on my part. To paraphrase Carole King, it’s too taken care of by my analysis of the “Abandoned Car Sales late, baby now, it’s too late, though we really did try to make Potential.” it...and I just can’t fake it, oh, no, no. I have enjoyed editing Nevertheless Arthur Jones is right that further work both SAH Journal, some years ago, and two stints with AHR, needs to be done to fathom GM’s strategy for Germany im- but it’s time for me to go. The Publications Committee and mediately after World War II; presumably the same exercise the Board will announce the appointment of a new, inspired may be done for the case of Ford. There are pieces of evi- editor, perhaps before you read this. Thank you all for your dence that Allied authorities saw no future for the German y e a r s o f h e l p w i t h t h i s v i t a l p i e c e o f t h e S A H “ p u z z l e . ” motor industry at all at that time. Reasons for this assumption Kit Foster were manifold: Domestic purchasing power was poor; levels Automotive History Review (ISSN 1056-2729) is a periodic publication of the Society of Automotive Historians, Inc. Kit Foster, Editor AUTOMOTIVE HISTORY Officers President........................Andrew Beckman Vice President.....................Edward Garten REVIEW Secretary...............................Robert R. Ebert AUTUMN 2015 ISSUE NUMBER 56 Treasurer.............................Rubén L. Verdés Board of Directors CONTENTS Terms ending October 2016 Matthew Short Letters John A. Hull From the Editor...........................................Inside front cover Robert G. Barr Terms ending October 2017 John A. Marino Function or Form? H. Donald Capps A Design Comparison of the Ferrari GTO Louis F. Fourie and the Shelby Daytona Coupe............................................4 John Heitmann ex-officio By Alan Yankolonis and Dr. Frederick Simeone Terms ending October 2018 Carla R. Lesh Taxation and Tribulations Robert Casey The Origins and Consequences Vince Wright of the British Horsepower Tax................................14 Publications Committee By Anders Ditlev Clausager Thomas S. Jakups, chair Patricia E. Chappell They Had Faith in America Kit Foster Norman de Vaux, E.J. Hall Louis F. Fourie and the De Vaux Automobile...............................................28 Steve Wilson By Ric Dias Rubén L. Verdés Donald J. Keefe Front Cover: Separated at birth? Ferrari 250 GTO and Shelby Day- © 2015 tona Coupe from the Simeone Foundation Automotive Museum show The Society of Automotive Historians, Inc. remarkable similarities. Andrew M. Taylor photo. All rights reserved. Correspondence in con- junction with Automotive History Review should be directed to: Back cover: Tax Relief: This Freestone & Webb-bodied Rolls-Royce Silver Wraith, first registered on 9th June 1948, was taxed at £10, the Editor same as a 918 cc Morris Minor. Wikimedia. 1102 Long Cove Road, Gales Ferry, CT 06335-1812 USA email: [email protected] Back Issues of Automotive History Review Further information about the Society may be obtained by writing to The Society of Au- SAH offers sets of remaining issues of AHR for $145.00 postpaid tomotive Historians, Inc., c/o Cornerstone in USA. Issues available are numbers 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16. Registration, Ltd., P. O. Box 1715, Maple 23. 29. 30, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, Grove, MN 55311 - 6715 USA or online at 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54 and 55, plus the Index to Issues 1-43. www.autohistory.org. Single copies are $10.00 each, postpaid. Inquire for international shipping. Checks in US $, MasterCard, Visa, Amex. Order from Printed in USA by Copy Cats, New London, SAH, 1102 Long Cove Road, Gales Ferry, CT 06335-1812 USA. Connecticut Function or Form? A Design Comparison of the Ferrari GTO and the Shelby Daytona Coupe By Alan Yankolonis and Dr. Frederick Simeone Introduction reliability and already met the FIA’s production require- ments. Ferrari believed he could convince the FIA that his “Carroll Shelby’s Cobras win the World Sports Car Cham- completely-revised (new) aerodynamically superior body pionship, beating Ferrari.” You’ve probably read or heard would satisfy the rules. It did not. Contrary to his belief, a this statement many times and read much information as to “complete new body” was not allowed under the then-cur- how a group of “California hot-rodders” took on the famed rent rules, so Ferrari went to FIA’s contest board and made a Italian racing empire and beat them at their own game. A special application, requesting an exception for a new body half century after the Daytona Cobra Coupe’s historic win it and was promptly turned down.