Grand Theft Auto, and Gone in Sixty Seconds: Auto Theft during the 1920s and 1930s

Gone in Sixty Seconds: Joyriders and Criminals

Hi folks -- one sabbatical project this fall will be expanding on work on the history of auto theft that was done last year and contained in my book "The Automobile and American Life" that I heartily recommend you buy. While at the National Archives last week I acquired plenty of new material to work with on this topic, although I will have to make at least one more trip back to DC to look at files at the FBI and also again at the National Archives. One of the most notorius of auto theives from the 1920s to the 1950s had a large file I examined, and I will exapnd on his story shortly. Here is what has been written so far on the topic, which you cannot find in any another book or published article.

With Ford’s “democratization” of the automobile and an explosion in the number of vehicles came an epidemic of automobile theft. Machines produced in mass quantities made easy prey for “joy-riders” and professional criminals. Moreover, the automobile was valuable, mobile, and its parts were interchangeable. Lucrative domestic and international markets for stolen automobiles and stolen parts yielded high profits. Interchangeable parts also gave thieves the opportunity to quickly reconstruct and disguise stolen automobiles. As evinced by thieves’ ability to alter serial numbers, duplicate registration papers, switch radiators, and replace entire engine blocks, a nascent uniformity welcomed theft. Moreover, thieves sought out and stole the most ubiquitous automobile; popular, mid-priced models were most likely to be stolen, along with the easy to steal Model T. As early as 1910 joyriding and automobile theft were problems for the automobilist. Major concerns centered on the unauthorized use of an owner’s vehicle by a chauffeur or a parking attendant. To that end a number of devices were marketed, from a gear shift lever lock to recorders that kept tabs on when a vehicle was actually being driven.

Until the introduction of the electric self-starter in 1912, automobiles employed a battery/magneto switch along with a crank. The automobilist turned the switch to B (battery), got outside the car, cranked the engine, and then once it started, moved the lever to M (magneto) and adjusted the carburetor. On early Ford Model T’s, the battery/magneto switch had a brass lever key, but there were only two types, with either a round or square shank. Later, in 1919, Ford offered an optional lockable electric starter, but only used twenty-four key patterns. To make things easy for the thief, each pattern was stamped with a code on both the key and the starter plate. Would-be joy-riders needed only a little luck to drive off with any unguarded Model T.

Unlike other stolen goods, the automobile enabled its own escape. As one author observed in 1919:

Not only is the motor vehicle a particularly valuable piece of property . . . but it furnishes at the same time an almost ideal getaway . . . With the automobile there is no planning to be done. With a thousand divergent roads open to him and a vehicle possessing almost unlimited speed, escape is practically automatic.

A New York Police official commented in 1916 that, “the automobile is a very easy thing to steal and a hard thing to find.” As early as 1915, 401 automobiles were stolen in New York and only 338 were recovered. By 1920, it was estimated that one-tenth of cars manufactured annually were eventually stolen. Astonishingly, perhaps, in 1925 it was estimated that 200,000 to 250,000 cars were stolen annually. Table 2 provides theft data for major American cities:

Table 2. Automobile Thefts in Major American Cities, 1922-1925

City	Year
	1922	1923	1924	1925
New York	7,107	7,959	10,064	11,895
Chicago	3,636	2,334	4,946	7,587
Detroit	3,194	4,428	7,187	11,750
Los Angeles	4,802	4,218	7,326	8,392
San Francisco	1,960	2,154	3,257	3,746
Dayton	249	313	366	485

Source: Automotive Industries, 56 (February 19, 1927), 283.

Further, the automobile created new opportunities for criminals and confronted legal authorities with a myriad of problems. One author noted that, “as automobile thefts increase burglaries and robberies increase.” The automobile itself was stolen, but the automobile also played a central role in kidnapping, rum running, larceny, burglary, traffic crimes, robberies, and the deadly accidents of the “lawless years.” The Baltimore Criminal Justice Commission reported that

In August, 1922, one of Baltimore’s well known and highly respected citizens was held up, robbed of $7000 and brutally murdered in broad daylight on the busy thoroughfares of the city. The bandits perpetrating this carefully planned crime escaped in a high powered car bearing stolen license plates.

In 1924, Arch Mandel of the Dayton Research Association observed, “The motor vehicle has ushered in a new era of crime and police problems, and apparently a new type of offender.” “To cope with this problem” Mandel wrote, “police departments have been obliged to detail special squads and to establish special bureaus for recovering stolen automobiles . . . this has added to the cost of operating police departments.” Consequently, the increase in mobility was matched with a growth in government. The cost of police work in cities with populations over 30,000 rose steadily from approximately $38 million in 1903 to $184.5 million in 1927. Automobile theft added new categories of crimes, and as a piece of technology became a central part of burglary and housebreaking. In Philadelphia, 8,896 people were arrested for assault and battery by the automobile. In response, police began to patrol with the automobile. In 1922, Chicago police complained that their worn-out “tin lizzies” should be scrapped; they could not catch the high powered hold-up car that traveled at sixty miles an hour. Even with the growth of government and the advent of patrolling, police forces were out-maneuvered by mobile criminals. Contrary to the iconic Prohibition image of police forces smashing barrels of alcohol, municipal police forces may have dealt with automobiles on a more regular basis.

Automobile theft was most acute in Detroit and Los Angeles. “Naturally Detroit is peculiarly liable to this trouble because it has such a large floating population of men trained in mechanical expertise in the various factories.” It stood to reason that Ford’s workers stole Ford’s Cars. In Detroit, in 1928, a total of 11,259 cars were stolen. The same year in Los Angeles 10,813 automobiles were stolen. By the 1920s, Los Angeles had the most automobiles per resident in the United States. Historian Scott Bottles pointed out, “By 1925, every other Angelino owned an automobile as opposed to the rest of the country where there was only one car for every six people.” Angelinos had more opportunities to steal cars. Baltimore, New York City, Rochester, Buffalo, Cleveland, Omaha, St. Louis, and many other cities also experienced major problems related to automobile theft. In an article published in Country Life, Alexander Johnson revealed the problem was not just endemic to urban America: “We who live in the country are not quite as subject as our urban brethren to this abominable outrage, but automobile stealing is carried on even in the rural districts.”

The cost of police work in state governments also rose from approximately $98 million in 1915 to $117 million in 1927. To combat auto theft, state governments created license, registration, title, and statistical bureaus and urged the federal government to become involved. E. Austin Baughman, Commissioner of Motor Vehicles of Maryland, cited 1919 as “the climax of an epidemic of car stealing” with 922 cars stolen, 709 recovered, and 213 missing. Baughman urged the country to adopt a Title Law which would assure all motor vehicles could be identified and located through the name and address of the owner on record. The bureau helped Maryland to gather statistics:

. . . one can in a comparatively short time find anything from how many 1912 Cadillacs are still in existence in this state, to how many more Fords were stolen than Chevrolets in 1923 or 1922; and from how many six- and seven-ton trucks are still in use in Maryland and to what percentage of cars stolen in 1923 are still missing.

In 1920, Massachusetts developed a similar program under the used-car department of the Department of Public Works. States that did not pass title laws were a nationwide liability and became alleged “dumping grounds” by neighboring states.

The inter-state nature of automobile theft demanded federal intervention. The automobile nullified state boundaries and contributed to the nationalization of crime fighting. Arch Mandel wrote in 1924 that, “State lines have been eliminated by the automobile” and the “detection of criminals is becoming more and more a nation-wide task.”

In 1919, Congress passed the National Motor Vehicle Theft Act, which received the appellation of its sponsor, Senator Leonidus Dyer. The Dyer Act promulgated that thieves receive fines of $5,000 and 10 years in prison, or both. The American Automobile Association lobbied congress to pass the Dyer Act. Consequently, between 1922-1933 auto thefts were the most prominent federal prosecution of interstate commerce.

During the first two decades of the twentieth century, of auto theft was blamed on the owner negligence. A 1916 insurance company pamphlet entitled “Emergency Instructions,” warned owners that “when dining in a public restaurant the driver of the car should be seated in such a position that he can observe his car.” Basic instructions also warned to “not leave your car unprotected on the street or any place at any time.” However, in 1922 many automobile owners left keys in their unlocked cars. An article in Popular Mechanics Magazine observed, “Approximately seventy-five percent of all the cars that were not stolen were not locked at all.” One author chastised drivers for leaving automobiles unattended for an hour or more. Beyond common-sense precautions, automobile owners were advised to take preventive measures to stop early car thieves. Owners were advised to lock their doors or “garage” their automobiles. In his 1917 article “Automobile Thefts,” John Brennan proposed one countermeasure: “If owners would only take steps to put private identification marks on their cars, the problem of automobile thievery would be a simple one to solve.” It was suggested that the owner bore holes into the underside of the running boards, scratch their name somewhere secret, or tape an identification card inside the upholstery. A 1926 article in Popular Mechanics passed on to readers one motorist’s intricate plan of fake coils and pseudo ignition connections. Other articles proposed that owners disconnect the magneto. In any case, the prevailing attitude of the day was that automobile theft was usually the owner’s fault. In 1929, E. L. Rickards, manager of the Automobile Protective and Information Bureau in Chicago, stated: “A man or woman who leaves his car unlocked and unattended is committing an offense against society.”

Thieves were recognized as frauds, joy-riders, professionals, and gangs. They stole a range of models, but mostly low-priced Chevrolets, Plymouths, Chryslers, and Fords. Furthermore, automobiles were most likely to be stolen in business or entertainment districts, where individuals parked the same models in the same place. Often a thief caught red-handed simply claimed that they had hopped into the wrong car. When interrogated by a judge, one thief explained why he was in the wrong Ford: “Because both cars are Fords, and all Fords look alike, not only to me but to their owners.” Charges were dropped. Despite preferences to steal commonplace vehicles, elite and unusual automobiles were not exempt from the threat of theft. Expensive cars were stolen, disassembled and repainted.

Early automobile thefts were performed by owners who would, “steal their own car.” To collect on insurance, owners would strip the car of accessories and move it to an out of the way location. The owner would work with a thief: . . . the owner is in partnership with the thief. An auto, for instance, that is insured for $2,000 is reported by the owner as having been stolen. The machine is worth $1,500. So the owner, collecting his theft insurance, makes a clean profit of $500.

Owners in debt often defrauded insurance companies as well: “an automobile owner, after using his insured car for nine or ten months, discovers that its market value is 40 percent lower than when first purchased; also the cost of maintaining the machine, oil, gasoline, tires, repairs, etc., is considerably in excess of the figure on which his first maintenance costs were based.”

Quite different in terms of criminal intent were the activities of the so-called joy-rider. Joy-riders stole for thrills. In 1917, Secretary to the Detroit Chief of Police, George A. Walters estimated that 90 percent of Detroit’s auto thefts were performed by joy-riders. Joy-riders were often groups of young men in pursuit of fun, and had a “taste for motoring.” One author argued that joy-riders (in all cases male) had a sexual motivation, “Some young fellow with sporty tendencies and a slim pocketbook wants to make a hit with some charming member of the opposite sex . . . he thinks an automobile would help him in the pursuit of her affections.” After a joy-ride, automobiles were often found damaged and out of gas. Historian David Wolcott has noted that in Los Angeles, “Boys approached auto theft with a surprisingly casual attitude – they often just took vehicles that they found unattended, drove them around for an evening and abandoned them when they were done – but the LAPD treated auto theft very seriously.” In the early period of automobility, authorities considered “joy-riding” a serious societal problem. Joy-riding was an action of a delinquent. Joy-riding was so serious that young boys were prosecuted under the Dyer Act of 1919. The federal government did not draw a distinction between joy-riding and professional auto theft until 1930. Congressmen Dyer called for the repeal of his own law, and to convince the U.S. House of Representatives of the need for repeal, he read a letter from the superintendent of a penitentiary:

Of the 450 Federal Boys in the National Training School here in Washington, nearly 200 are violators of the Dyer Act, with the ages distributed as follows: Two boys 12 years of age, 6 boys 13 years of age, 19 boys 14 years of age, 31 boys of 15 years of age, 64 boys 16 years of age, 48 boys 17 years of age, 19 boys of 18 years of age, 1 boy 19 years of age, and 1 boy 22 years of age.

Due to the capricious nature of theft for a joy-ride, policemen and journalists surmised that it could be easily prevented: “It is against this class of thief that the various types of automobile-locking devices and hidden puzzles are effective . . . since the joy-rider does more than half the stealing it follows that car-locks are more than 50 percent effective in protecting a car.” However, more elaborate means would be necessary to stop the professional thief.

Writers who addressed auto theft from 1915 to 1938 admitted that the professional thief could not be stopped. Professional thieves employed an array of tactics to steal automobiles. Often chauffeurs, mechanics, and garage men became thieves. Even though locks supposedly prevented theft by joy-riders, thieves would simply cut padlocks and chains with bolt-cutters. Often this was not necessary, since keys to early Fords were easy to obtain. In 1917, Edward C. Crossman described the naïve Ford owner:

Ford owners take out the switch key on the coil box and go strutting off as if they’d [sic] locked the car in the safe deposit box. The first half-baked auto mechanic who needs a Ford can slip in another key and depart via the jitney route without paying his fair.

Crossman’s solution was to lock a heavy metal band around the front wheel of the automobile. In a May 1929 article “Tricks of the Auto Thief,” Popular Mechanics described the array of tactics open to the automobile thief. Thieves stole accessories, unlocked and started cars with duplicate keys, “jumped” the ignition by placing a wire across the ignition coil to the spark plugs, ripped-off car dealerships, and towed cars away. “Some thieves make a specialty of buying wrecked or burned cars as junk . . . they receive a bill of sale, salvage parts which they place on stolen cars, and so disguise the finished automobile as a legitimate car for which they have the bill of sale.” One method called “kissing them away” involved an individual breaking into a car, and being unable to start the ignition, a “confederate,” would push the stolen car with his car from behind. The car would be moved into a garage or alley and promptly dismantled. Thieves used interchangeable parts to confuse authorities. In 1925, Joe Newell, head of the automobile theft bureau in Des Moines, Iowa, stated, “the greatest transformation that takes place in the stolen machine is in the clever doctoring of motor serial numbers . . . this is the first thing a thief does to a car.” Automobiles were branded with a serial number that corresponded to a factory record, but thieves used several tactics to change the numbers. The “doctoring” of numbers involved filing down numbers and branding a new numbers into the car, or changing single numbers. In a detailed article entitled “Stolen Automobile Investigation,” William J. Davis noted, “It is possible for a thief to restamp a 4 over a 1; an 8 over a 3 where the 3 is a round top 3; a 5 over a 3; to change a 6 to an 8, or a 9 to an 8, or an 0 to an 8.”

Apparently the joy-riding problem declined in the 1930s, but organized gangs emerged as a more serious threat to steal automobiles and, in the process, vex authorities. In Popular Science Monthy, Edward Teale noted:

. . . the automobile stealing racket in the United States has mounted to a $50,000,000-a-year business. During the first six months of 1932, 36,000 machines disappeared in seventy-two American cities alone. In New York City, $2,000,000 worth of cars was reported stolen in 1931.

Gangs developed sophisticated automobile theft operations from the expert driver to expert mechanic. Gangs even developed their own vernacular. A stolen car was a “kinky,” or a “hot short.” The “clouter” actually stole the car and the “wheeler” drove it to the “dog house.” The thieves were concerned with stealing the popular, mid-priced, widely-used makes. Gangs often specialized in a certain make or model. One New York gang “scrambled” the stolen automobiles: “a number of machines of the same make and model are stolen at the same time . . . wheels are switched, transmissions shifted, bodies’ changed, and engines transferred from one car to another.”

At other times, gangs would use the “mother system.” Under this system, thieves stole a certain make, had a fake bill of sale made, and changed all of the serial numbers to be identical to the bill of sale. Ultimately, four or five of the same car, with the same serial numbers and bills of sale would exist. In 1936, J. Edgar Hoover penned an article about gangster and international car thief named Gabriel Vigorito (a.k.a. Bla-Bla Blackman), who had amassed a $1 million fortune from automobile theft. “The “hot car” depots of a dozen states dealt in his goods . . . In Persia, Russia, Germany, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, and even China, the American car business included many automobiles stolen from the streets of Brooklyn.” Authorities convicted Bla-Bla to ten years in prison. Historically, the point is poignant: the automobile trumped not only state lines, but national lines. The rise of an industrial and global industry also rose with a global theft ring. In 1936, the Roosevelt Administration entered a treaty with Mexico for “the recovery and return of stolen or embezzled motor vehicles, trailers, airplanes or the component parts of any of them.” The treaty prompted a convention with Mexico in 1937 to address the stolen automobile problem.

To control rampant automobile crimes, authorities developed scientific means to fight crime. As early as 1919, a system of fingerprints to identify automobile owners was proposed. Throughout the 1920s, law enforcement of automobile theft remained ineffective. By 1934, police developed sophisticated means to monitor a more mobile public. In 1936 it was urged that “every city join the nation-wide network of inter-city radio-telegraph service provided for by the Federal Communications Commission.” Police developed processes using chemicals and torches to identify fake serial numbers. Los Angeles police department officers departed the station for their shift with a list of stolen automobiles printed the night before. Developments in communication aided police officers. “Chattering teletype machines and short-wave radio messages outdistance the fleetest car, while police encircle a fleeing criminal in an effort to make escape impossible.” Radio communication made auto theft difficult. By 1934, “auto thieves found their racket a losing one.” In response to mobile crime, Governments at all levels grew more sophisticated. Insurance companies also grew more sophisticated: “In Chicago, a central salvage bureau, maintained by insurance companies is being established in an effort to wipe out a 10,000,000-a-year racket in stolen parts.” Automobile manufacturers invested in a “pick-proof” lock. From 1933 to 1936, insurance companies and the government destroyed the market for stolen automobiles and stolen parts. In 1934 Popular Science Monthly reported, “figures compiled by the National Automobile Underwriters Association show that eighty-six percent of the cars stolen in 1930 were recovered while in 1931 eighty-two percent were recovered and eighty-nine percent in 1932.”

A definitive study of car theft during the Interwar years remains to be written. What the above paragraphs suggest is that the automobile placed unprecedented challenges before local, state, and federal government agencies, and in response the responsibilities and scale of government changed as a consequence. Indeed, the law itself changed, and that included the area of tort law during the 1920s, as sorting out negligence as a consequence of automobile accidents also posed new problems that demanded innovative structural solutions.

1960s and 1970s Electric Car Bibliography

While serious scholarship has been done on the early history of electric vehicles in America -- see, for example, books by Gijs Mom and David Krisch -- the critical period of the 1960s and 1970s related to the electric car, technological developments, and government support, remains uncharted territory. Even before Oil Shocks I and II, serious scientific and engineering work was being done on the electric car using new battery technologies, motors, and electrical controllers, and yet this work was put on a shelf after the early 1980s. But now the GM Volt is nearing introduction, and great claims are made for it as cutting edge technology. Will the Volt be accepted by consumers? What will the government do to artificially raise gasoline prices so that electric cars will be attractive to the marketplace? Is the Volt going to be merely a flash in the pan? What will cars of the future look like?

I have assembled a working bibliography on the electric car and its history during the 1960s and 1970s, and want to share it with you. Perhaps you are interested in this topic, or perhaps you want to follow up on some or all of the sources.


Appelt, Suzanne. Electric Vehicles, a Bibliography, 1928 -1966. Portland, Oregon: Bonneville Power Administration, 1966.

Bates, Bradford, Ed. Electric Vehicles: A Decade of Transition. Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers, 1992.

Beggs, S.D. The Demand for Electric Automobiles. Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research Institute, 1981.

Butterworth, W.E. Dave White & the Electric Wonder Car. New York: Four Winds Press, 1974.

Bureau of Transport Economics. Electric Cars. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1974.

Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. The Electric Vehicle – An Alternative to the Gasoline-Powered Car. NP: n.p., 1975?

Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Act, Public Law 94-413 Demonstration Program Objective
and Schedule. Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Advanced Energy Technologies and Energy Conservation Research, Development and Demonstration. 95th Congress, First Session, July 12, 1977. Washington: GPO, 1978.

Electric Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration act of 1975.
Hearings Before the Special Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Commerce, United States Senate, 94th Congress, First Session, on S. 1632 and H.R. 880. Washington: GPO, 1976.

Electric Vehicles: Cumulative Index of EVC Symposia papers, 1969-1980. Washington, DC: Electric Vehicle Council, 1980.

Electric Vehicle Research, Development and Demonstration Act of 1975. Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Energy Research, Development and Demonstration of the Committee on Science and Technology U.S. House of Representatives. 94th Congress first session on H.R. 5470, June 3, 4, 5, 6, 1975. Washington: GPO, 1975.

Fogelberg, Hans. The Electric Car Controversy: A Social-Constructionivist Interpretation of the California Zero-Emission Mandate. Gothenburg, Sweden: Chalmers University of Technology, 1998.

Greene, James E. An Experimental Evaluation of the Mars II Electric Automobile. Buffalo, NY: Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory, 1969.

Hackleman, Michael A. Electric Vehicles: Design and Build Your Own. Culver City, CA: Earthmind, 1977.


Hartman, A.W. Controllers for Electric Cars. New York: Society of Automotive Engineers, 1969.

Hamilton, William. Electric Automobiles: Energy, Environmental, and Economic Prospects for the Future. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1980.

Hamilton, W.F. The Impact of Future Use of Electric Cars in the St. Louis and Philadelphia Regions. Springfield, Virginia: United States Energy Research & Development Administration, 1976.

Hamilton, W. F. Impact of Future Use of Electric Cars in the Los Angeles Region: Executive Summary and Technical Report. Ann Arbor, MI: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974.

Hoffman, George A. Automobiles – Today and Tomorrow. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1962.

Hoffman, George A. The Electric Automobile – An Example of Vehicle Systems Design. Los Angeles, CA: Institute of Government and Public Affairs, 1965.

Jones, Clyde R. Convert Your Compact Car to Electric. Northbrook, IL: Domus, 1981.

Lucas, Ted, and Fred Riess. How to Convert to an Electric Car. New York: Crown, 1980.

McKee, Robert S., Boris Borisoff, Frank Lawn, and James F. Norberg. Sundancer: A Test Bed Electric Vehicle. New York: Society of Automotive Engineers, 1972.

Shacket, Sheldon. The Complete Book of Electric Vehicles. Chicago: Domus, 1981.

Shipps, Paul R. Electric Mini-Cars for Urban Driving. San Diego, CA: 3E Vehicles, 1977.

U.S. Department of Energy. Opportunity and Risk Assessment of the Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development and Demonstration Act of 1976. Washington: GPO, 1978.

U.S. Department of Energy. Vehicle & Hybrid Program. The Second Annual Report to Congress for Fiscal year 1978. Washington: GPO, 1978.

Wakefield, Ernest H. The Consumer’s Electric Car. Ann Arbor, MI: Ann Arbor Science, 1977.

The Auto Radio

Sound systems are one of the most important aspects of today's automobile experience. Yet how many folks know about the history of auto radio, and the rather long and continuous number of improvements that took place since the first radios were installed in automobiles beginning around 1930? What follows is the early history of the auto radio -- a more recent account of the 8 track will follow.

One technology that offered to transform the car into a home-like environment was the radio. Surprisingly, perhaps, there is not one scholarly essay that explores how two dynamic technologies were brought together beginning in the 1920s.Early on, the main technological bottleneck centered on multiple battery power supplies that were compatible with existing tube grid and filament voltage requirements. In 1929, based on the work of William Lear, the Galvin Manufacturing Corporation introduced the first successful car radio, the Motorola Model 5T71.
In November 1929 and in the wake of financial failure, Paul Galvin, the owner of a Chicago radio manufacturing company that made nine tube “private label” sets, decided to make an automobile radio. The first Galvin manufacturing Company radios left something to be desired in terms of convenience and performance. One of the first – credited to Hank Saunders -- although it is likely that Galvin and associate Bill Lear helped design it – was mounted in the rumble seat of a Model A Ford. An Atwater-Kent chassis, it was shielded in the rumble seat from electrical interference caused by the electrical system. Inside the body of the car was a large “B” battery. The antenna was an ingenious modification, employing chicken wire. The chicken wire was normally used on the top of an automobile roof to support a covering of fabric; steel tops were still not commonplace in American automobiles until the mid- 1930s. Isolated from metal body parts, and held in place with laced butchers twine, this chicken wire antenna was connected to the radio by two leads. One early problem was simply the sheer size of the three key components of the early automobile radio – the batteries, the radio itself with its large vacuum tubes and capacitors and resistors, and the loud speaker. The Galvin Radio was introduced at the Radio Manufacturer’s Association of America annual convention in 1930, and a few dealers became interested after seeing demonstrations of Galvin’s crude prototype.
A critical problem that had to be solved was that of tuning and volume control, normally placed on the steering column, and that was solved by the use of flexible, bi-directional shafts. And after a few hundred radios were installed, the notion of hearing radio broadcasts while driving was accepted by consumers. After several early failures, Galvin’s persistence in creating the Motorola radio would make him rich.
A year later, other manufacturers entered the fray; for example, the Crosley Corporation introduced its first car radio, the “Roamio.” In 1932 Mallory and other manufacturers produced several new power supplies, and four years later Ford was the first to install a radio tailor-made for the dashboard. It was claimed that among other advantages, the radio in a car would ensure that one could listen to favorite shows without missing them. “When it’s a quarter before Amos ‘n’ Andy or Lowell Thomas and you’re in the ol’ bus, far, far, from home and radio, is it a tragedy? Or you can tune in right where you are?” Thus the home was again extended to the car. This was also one theme among several that was employed in advertising. For example, a 1934 Philco auto radio ad asserted, “Enjoy Philco in your car . . . as you do at Home! You wouldn’t be without a radio at home – why be without one in your car? Just as a PHILCO brings you the finest radio entertainment in the comfort of your living room, a PHILCO Auto Radio gives you the most enjoyable radio reception in your car."

Contrary to other technologies discussed above that stressed the safety angle, in 1939 psychologist Edward Suchman argued that listening to the radio distracted the driver from the road. Suchman’s applied psychological study was a response to a long-standing criticism of the radio in cars, for when introduced in 1930 several states refused to register vehicles with radios, although apparently this was never enforced.

Automobile History at the National Archives, College Park, MD

Hi Folks -- I spent much of last week working on research projects at the National Archives located in College Park, MD. The fruit of this work will appear on this blog from time to time, as I review the materials I have acquired and begin to interpret it.

First, I looked at and scanned numerous photographs that are in Record Group 306, Records of the U.S. Information Agency. Many of these photographs were New York Times Paris or Berlin Offices -photos taken during the 1930 and 1940s. What I discovered were hundreds of photos on Grand Prix Racing during the golden age of the 1930s and the post-WWII 1940s. Great material if you are interested in that topic. I also used a number of textual sources while visiting the archives.

A major Collection on autos (38 big boxes!) is related to Federal Trade Commission Investigations from the early days of the automobile industry in America to about WWII. These documents include lots of material that one might use in writing business history. There are many, many financial statements, audit reports, tax statements, etc. I wasn't really interested in those documents, but every once and while I could find a gem related to car culture stuck in those boxes. It is Record Group 122, and certainly worth a good review if you are working on the History of General Motors or Chrysler.

I also looked at another collection in RG 151.3 of real value. Namely, there was an office in the Department of Commerce (Automotive Trade Commissioner) between 1929 and 1933 that was involved in matters related to exporting automobiles to Europe. Consequently, it sent agents to Europe to gather as much information as possible about the American industry there, and perhaps just as important, the automobile industries in England, France (very strong material here) and Germany. If you are interested in the European industry before WWII, you must look at these reports, which are numerous and fill four boxes. Everything is there that you might want to know about French marques and the attitude of the Europeans towards American manufacturers and their cars during this time.

More on the archives in the future, especially related to my work on the history of automobile theft during the 1920s and 1930s.

1964 Buick Riviera -- An Auto-Biography

Hi folks,

This week has been a busy one, as I am working on auto history research at the College Park, MD, National Archives. On Wednesday evening, however, I took a break and visited my old friend S.W. "Bill" Leslie, a professor at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore. Bill has taught auto history from time to time, and is well-known for his book, Boss Kettering (Columbia, 1983). Bill reminisced after dinner about his favorite car and the experience he had with it as a young man, fresh out of high school in 1971 -- a blue 1964 Buick Riviera. It was during the summer of 1971 that Bill went to Europe with his grandfather, a WWI veteran who thought that aviation technology had been in decline since 1918. Accordingly, they took a boat across the Atlantic, and the pair also took along grandpa's 1964 Buick Riviera, which was unloaded at Naples. Contrary to one might think about anti-foreign feelings concerning American cars, Bill and his grandfather encountered admiration where ever they went during their European trip. It was almost like two men from Mars had landed in a small rural Italian village! The big Riviera held its own while on the Autobahn, only being flashed to move over a few times by faster cars. In the small towns and villages, however, its large size left no room for anything else.

The 1963-65 production Riviera was unique, It had a cruciform frame similar to the standard Buick frame, but shorter and narrower, with a 2.0 in (51 mm) narrower track. Its 117 in. wheelbase and overall length of 208 in were 6.0 inches and 7.7 in (200 mm) shorter, respectively, than Buick LeSabre., but slightly longer than a contemporary Thunderbird. At 4,190 pounds, it was about 200 pounds lighter than either. It shared the standard 401 or 425 cubic inch Buick V-8s, and the Twin Turbine automatic transmission. Brakes were Buick's standard "Al-Fin" drums.
Inside, the Riviera featured a four-place cabin with front bucket seats separated by a center console with floor shifter and storage compartment that was built into the instrument panel, and bucket-style seats in the rear. Upholstery choices included all-vinyl, cloth and vinyl, or optional leather. Popular extra-cost options included a tilt steering wheel, cruise control, power windows, power seats, air conditioning, AM/FM radio, and wire wheel covers.
The Riviera was introduced in October, 1962, with a base price of $4,333, although typical delivered prices with options ran upwards of $5,000. It was an all-around performer, capable of 0–60 mph in 8 seconds, and a standing quarter mile in about 16 seconds. In 1964 the stylized “R” emblem was introduced, a trademark that would continue throughout the remainder of Riviera's 36-year production run. Under the hood, the 401 was dropped in favor of the 425 cu in with 340 hp. A 'Super Wildcat' version rated at 360 hp was an option, with dual Carter AFB four-barrel carburetors.
Between 1963 and 1965, 112,244 were sold. All in all, the Riviera was extremely well-received and considered a great success, giving the Thunderbird its first real competition. A styling tour de force, it is a collectible classic today.

Bill loved that car, and later, after his grandfather died, he owned it for a time. Of all of his cars, it seems that is the one he would most like to own again in 2009.

British Transportation Museum Car Day, Dayton, Ohio, August 1, 2009

A dash from a 1959 Jaguar XK-150S
My favorite MG -- a MG TF-1500


The Engine from a Morgan
Saturday, August 1, was a big day for British car lovers. Dayton is perhaps an unlikely place for this -- but unlikely occurrences are very much a part of contemporary life. Thus, a huge number of British cars converged on Eastwood Lake Metropark. Sponsored by the British Transportation Museum, also a highly unlikely institution to be located in Dayton, this event was a decided success. The weather was great, swelling the turnout that included vendors and parts swappers. And the cars were luscious.
If you are interested in reading about the history of the British auto industry, send me an email and I will reply with a reading list. Two observations: first, the popularity of these cars is in large part due to the sensual nature of driving cars with no tops and that sound and smell like the cars of yesterday, not today. These cars were in no way appliances. They were to be experienced, maintained, loved, cajoled, whipped, and more. Not anything like a modern Japanese car that runs forever without much more than routine maintenance. Secondly, one wonders if a future generation will experience an American car day, in the case that our industry will ultimately be displaced by the Chinese and who knows others who are cursed or blessed with abundant supplies of cheap and docile labor. I doubt I'll ever see this, but I worry that my daughter and son-in-law might

Kirby's 1965 427 Ford Shelby Cobra

As I have previously mentioned, the Friday night cruise-in in Kettering is remarkable not only for the number of cars, but also for the diversity of vehicles-- hot rods, classics, tuners, pick-ups, motorcycles and the occasional foreign cars. For some time I have noticed a fellow member and tennis player at Five Seasons Sports Club who sometimes arrived in a Bentley. On my way to the cruise-in yesterday I noticed that this same person -- Kirby -- was behind me on I-675, this time in a Cobra! We talked, and I discovered that Kirby, has quite a stable of cars. Perhaps we will get more of them on the blog in the weeks ahead.

During the early 1960s British manufacturer AC Cars produced a small volume, two-seater AC Ace, powered by a Bristol engine that had been designed before WWII. This beautiful car featured a hand built body with a steel tube frame, and aluminum body panels. Bristol decided in 1961 to cease production of its engine, based on a BMW design, and instead to use Chrysler V-8 engines.

In September 1961, Carroll Shelby asked AC whether or not AC could build him a car modified to accept a V8 engine. AC agreed, provided a suitable engine could be found. He first went to Chevrolet to see if they would provide him with engines, but was rejected. Ford however, wanted a car that could compete with the Corvette and they happened to have a brand new thin-wall small-block engine which could be used in this endeavor. It was a 260 cubic inch V-8, tuned for high performance. In January 1962 mechanics at AC Cars installed a 221 cubic inch V- 8 Ford engine into prototype chassis CSX0001. After testing and modification, the engine and transmission were removed and the chassis was air-freighted to Shelby 2 February 1962. His team fitted it with an engine and transmission in less than eight hours and began road-testing.

Production followed without a hitch, since AC had already made most of the modifications needed for the small-block V8, including extensive modifications to the AC Ace's front end. The most important modification was the fitting of a stronger rear differential to handle the increased engine power. A Salisbury 4HU unit with inboard disc brakes was chosen to reduce unsprung weight. It was the same unit used on the Jaguar XKE. On the production version, the inboard brakes were moved outboard to reduce cost. The only modification of the front end of the first Cobra from that of the AC Ace, was the steering box, which had to be moved outward to clear the wider V8 motor.

The first 75 Cobra Mark Is featured a 260 engine. The remaining 51 Mark I models were powered by a larger version of the Windsor Ford engine, the 289. In late 1962 Alan Turner, AC's chief engineer completed a major design change of the car's front end and was able to fit it with rack and pinion steering. The new car entered production in early 1963 and was designated Mark II. The steering rack was borrowed from the MGB while the new steering column came from the VW Beetle. About 528 Mark II Cobras were produced.

By 1963 the small block Cobra was losing its supremacy in racing. Shelby tried fitting a larger 390 cubic inch Ford engine, but it proved to be a failure. Ken Miles drove and raced this version of the Mark II and pronounced the car was virtually undrivable, naming it "The Turd." Consequently, a new chassis was developed and designated Mark III.

The new car was designed in cooperation with Ford. A new chassis was built using 4" main chassis tubes (up from 3") and a coil suspension all around. The new car also had wide fenders and a larger radiator opening. It was powered by the "side oiler" Ford 427. Rated at 425 bhp, this car had a top speed of 163 mph (262 km/h) in the standard model and 485 bhp, and a top speed of 180 mph (290 km/h) in the competition model. Cobra Mark III production began on 1 January 1965; two prototypes had been sent to the United States in October 1964. Cars were sent to the US as unpainted rolling chassis, and they were finished in Shelby's workshop. Although an impressive automobile, the car was a financial failure and did not sell well. In fact to save cost, most AC Cobra 427's were actually fitted with Ford's 428 in³ (7.0 L) engine, a long stroke, smaller bore, lower cost engine, intended for road use rather than racing. Approximately 300 Mark III cars were sent to Shelby between1965 and 1966, including the competition version.. Unfortunately,

The MK III missed homologation for the 1965 racing season and was not raced by the Shelby team. However, it was raced successfully by many privateers and went on to win races all the way into the 70's. Interestingly, 31 unsold competition cars were detuned and made road worthy and called S/C for semi-competition. Today, these are the rarest and the most valuable models and can sell for in excess of 1.5 million dollars.

Although successful in racing, the AC Cobra was a financial failure, and it was discontinued in 1967.

The Cobra made an immediate impact on the American music scene with a hit that made it to #$ on the pop-charts in 1964:

HEY, LITTLE COBRA

(written by Carol Conner)

The Rip-Chords - 1964

Hey, Little Cobra, don't you know 

you're gonna to shut 'em down

I took my Cobra down to the track, 

hitched to the back of my Cadillac,

Everyone was there just a waiting for me

There were plenty of Stingrays and XKEs,

Spring little Cobra getting ready to strike

Spring Little Cobra with all your might

Spring little Cobra getting ready to strike

Spring Little Cobra with all your might

Hey, Little Cobra, don't you know

you are going to shut them down

When the flag went down, you could hear rubber burn,

The Stingray pulled me going into the turn

I hung a big shift, and I got into high,

When I when I flew by the Stingray, I waved bye bye. 

Spring little Cobra getting ready to strike

Spring Little Cobra with all your might

Spring little Cobra getting ready to strike

Spring Little Cobra with all your might

Hey, Little Cobra, Don't you know

you are going to shut 'em down

Around the turn into the straight away

I was blowing off everything that got in my way,

Stingrays and Jags were so far behind

I took my Cobra out of gear and let it coast to the line.

Spring little Cobra getting ready to strike

Spring Little Cobra with all your might

Spring little Cobra getting ready to strike

Spring Little Cobra with all your might

Hey, Little Cobra, Don't you know

you are going to shut 'em down

Shut'em down, shut'em down, shut'em down...