If General Motors hadn’t cancelled its revolutionary small car, the 1947 Chevrolet Cadet, it’s possible that the American auto industry could have taken an entirely different path.
The Chevrolet Cadet is a fascinating and important story, but if not for Karl Ludvigsen, much of it might well be lost today. The preeminent auto writer and historian researched and recorded the story of GM’s stillborn postwar small car for an article in the Jan-Feb 1974 issue of Special Interest Autos, and like most every writer since, we’ve extensively borrowed from it here.
On May 15, 1945, just one week after the Allied Forces declared victory in Europe in World War II, General Motors president Charles Wilson (“Engine Charlie”) announced the development of a revolutionary Chevrolet small car, with production slated for 1947. Nobody really knew what the postwar U.S. economy would be like, but many at GM believed that conditions would be right for a small, cheap car to sell for $1,000 or less. Others at GM weren’t so sure, including chairman Alfred P. Sloan, but the ambitious program was approved.
While noted GM designer Ned Nickles (above) was responsible for the styling, the engineering effort was led by Earle S. MacPherson (1891-1960). A remarkably advanced design, the Light Car project, soon to be named the Chevrolet Cadet, was like no other GM product of its time, with a number of innovations.
Illustration by Russell von Sauers and Special Interest Autos
With a wheelbase of just 108 inches, eight inches shorter than a 1942 Chevrolet, the Cadet was designed to a target weight of 2,200 lbs. Strictly a four-seater, its cabin was a mere 48 inches wide. To save space and weight, the wheels were 12 inches in diameter, while suspension was independent on all four corners to provide a decent ride. The novel chassis layout devised by MacPherson integrated the spring and shock absorber and eliminated the need for an upper control arm. Years later, this setup would become known as the MacPherson strut.
The strut suspension wasn’t the only unusual feature. To create a flatter passenger floor and improve legroom, the six-cylinder OHV engine (132.6 CID, 64.5 hp) was angled downward several inches and the three-speed manual transmission was relocated under the front seat. Fore and aft torque tubes transmitted the power to the rear drive axle. While the components are entirely different, the approach brings to mind another GM product some years later, the so-called “rope-drive” 1961 Pontiac Tempest (see our feature here).
According to Ludvigsen, six running prototypes were built, including some with a conventional rear live axle to reduce costs. Meanwhile, plans were laid for two plants in suburban Cleveland that would employ 10,000 workers. But in September of 1946, Wilson announced that the program had been suspended due to materials shortages, and in May of 1947 it was cancelled for good. At the time, consumers were clamoring for all the conventional, full-sized cars GM could produce, and it made no sense to divert precious materials and manpower to a small car with unknown sales potential and a meager profit margin.
The Motor City’s carmakers wouldn’t get serious about small cars again for another decade. With his pet project stalled out, MacPherson was recruited by production chief and former GM executive Harold T. Youngren to move to Ford, where he eventually became chief engineer. His MacPherson strut suspension (below) was soon adopted by Ford for its small cars in Europe, and since then has been used on millions of cars produced around the world.
It used as many parts as a conventional full-size car, so would have cost as much to produce. And then as now, Americans buy cars by the pound.
To quote Henry Ford II: Small cars, small profits.
I once read a reason for the Cadet’s failure to launch, but it might be one of those stories that belongs with the “garden party story” that was spread about the downsized ‘62 Plymouths and Dodges.
Supposedly – in addition to the Cadet being about the same cost to produce as a regular Chevrolet, and all automakers being unable to build enough conventionally-sized cars to meet the pent up post-war demand – there were objections from Cadillac, due to the Cadet being superior to the Caddy in terms of handling, ride quality, and other aspects of performance.
The story seems doubtful to me, because Cadillac possessed a few things the Cadet would have lacked, namely size, build and materials quality, and perhaps most importantly, status and prestige.
The prototypes must have seemed cramped and toy-like on first impression. Comparison with Crosley can’t have been helpful.
It reminds me of a fat Saab 92.
Actually the car was produced reluctantly in Australia as the Holden the first car totally built in that country. It fulfilled a commitment to the Government. Contrary to expectations it was wildly successful. My father was sent to manage it.
I see that they even made a ‘ute’ out of it. I’m glad they got some use out of this design study. The Holden version looks a lot like a period DeSoto up front, whereas the later FJ has more Chevrolet influence.
Given how the post-war small car market went, Chevy was probably right to cancel the Cadet. The Rambler was the most successful yet didn’t do well enough to save Nash. Nor were the Metropolitan, Henry-J, or Crosley big sellers. Renault, VW, Fiat, Volvo, etc. didn’t really catch on until 1957 or so, and GM would never have stuck with it that long.
I’ve always thought that the Corvair was the right response to the import car craze. The Falcon & Valiant were too large and conventional. But history shows I am wrong and that they were what Americans wanted from Detroit.
That first post-war Holden was after an earlier, larger GM experimental, the 195-Y-15.
Exactly, the Holden was based on a slightly larger and MUCH more conventional car than the Cadet.
Likewise, Ford had a compact-car project whose plans were packed off to France to become the Vedette, to less success than the Holden – too small for postwar America and just right for Australia was too big and thirsty for France.
Wow! To think that a “pod car” was envisioned that far back, is rather frightening! The late 40’s Chevy Fleetline fastbacks were pretty cool compared to this pill bug!
Did Ned Nickles go later to the Nash styling department?
Looks like they threw a Nash and a Packard into a blender and the result was the Cadet body.
Seriously, if they could have produced it and sold a few, depending on the price, it may have been a success in the “car starved” period after the war –
basic transportation like the Crosley sold – but it would have been a gamble that at the time, with materials still in short supply, it seems was wisely decided against. Who knows?
I’d like to think the styling was essentially a placeholder and would be further refined if it had been greenlit. Opening up the wheelarches would’ve gone a long way just by itself.