Porsche’s iconic 356 was first built in 1948, with much of its engine, transmission and most of its running gear sourced from the VW Beetle. But with its tuned engine, lower center of gravity and aerodynamic resistance as well as its unique and stiffer unitized body construction, the 356 proved just how advanced and effective Ferdinand Porsche’s Beetle was, even ten years on.
There may well have been a handful of Porsches imported to the US prior to 1952, but that’s the year it arrived properly, thanks to Max Hoffman. And it instantly created a sensation among those in the know; the 356 was something altogether different. Its superb solidity, quality, fully-independent suspension, light steering, efficiency, handling and performance (104 mph), despite its modest 1488 cc engine and 65 hp (DIN net) simply had no precedent. Road & Track waxed eloquently, and said “this is the car of tomorrow”. Well, compared to what Detroit was building in 1952, that’s hardly hyperbole.
R&T points out that all during the war, magazines kept predicting that the cars of the post war era would be radically new streamliners, along the lines of the ill-fated Tucker, with rear engines or FWD, fully-independent suspensions, and other advanced technologies. Well, that didn’t exactly happen; even the “all new” post war cars were anything but radical or new. And here comes the Porsche, with its highly aerodynamic body and all the other elements we’ve already pointed out. The result was a sports/touring car that yielded superb performance for the times, with an observed top speed of 107 mph, effortless cruising at 75-80, 27-35 mpg, and an exemplary ride over all surfaces.
Dr. Porsche’s short stroke VW engine design, amplified in the Porsche, gave a sensation of gliding at 70 mph, as the engine’s piston speeds were barely half of what might be a typical maximum. What a contrast to the noisy, rough, overworked, easily-overheated small-bore, long-stroke British roadsters that had come to define sports cars at the time.
The 356 was also available in 1100 and 1300 cc versions; the 1500 was the top dog at the time, equivalent to the “S” versions in years to come. That included chrome-bore alloy cylinders and the very expensive but highly efficient Hirth roller-bearing crankshaft. The little air cooled boxer tucked in tight against the rear axle, minimizing the rear weight (46/54 F/R weight ratio) bias substantially, . “the car manifested none of the ‘dangerous’ handling characteristics so often attributed to rear-engined cars…the Porsche seems to behave perfectly on the road”.
The exceptionally light and quick (2.2 turns lock-to-lock) steering was a revelation, requiring a much lighter touch than the testers were used to.
The interior accommodations were superior too, with comfortable reclining bucket seats and high quality materials “marvelous on long trips“. The transmission was still a non-synchromesh type “but quite simple to operate“. Porsche’s superb syncromesh transmission would soon take care of that one issue.
Americans quickly embraced the 356 along with its poorer older sibling, the Beetle, and both would find phenomenal success in the US. Here’s where it started, and with lots of good reasons.
More CC reading:
Curbside Classic: 1958 Porsche 356A – My Automotive Soul Mate
It could be interesting to compare it with that old Motor Trend article from the Octorber 1956 issue when they tested the Citroen DS who was labelled as the car that’s 5 years ahead.
No wonder Porsche became what it is.
This thing bears no resemblance to the heavy plonkers of even the best of Detroit, nor to the stiff-sprung but hoppy and flexy stuff sports from England. It really must have felt like a new sensation, and to their credit, C&D conveys that very well.
Like any novel development in any field, every element contains the shock of the new (including the unmentioned styling, which surely can’t be called pretty). And to be fair, a good deal of what’s central to it did not come to be mainstream (torsion bars, rear engine, air-cooling). And clearly C&D are a bit gushing – a non-synchro box is still just that, and not cutting edge in ’52, sportscar or not. And they don’t mention the great vice, my old friend the swing axles, and the resultant sometimes-vicious oversteer, which another US test from this period (and I think to be found somewhere on this site), most definitely mentions.
But what it did foreshadow was aero, and perhaps even more importantly, the idea of a fully-integrated design. And I’ll posit the cheeky idea that it wasn’t until that paradigm for the modern mass-consumer car, the NSU Ro80 of ’67, that such fully integrated thinking appeared again.
I would really like to drive a non-syncro gearbox for the experience. I love shifting, and not having syncro would add to the challenge and presumed pleasure. I love having the non-syncro first gear in my old Ford truck slide in effortlessly at a stop sign if I don’t stop all the way. That’s without using the clutch, as the freewheeling on the overdrive acts as a clutch, on the other end of it. At just the right speed, you can just feel the gears slide together perfectly. Very satisfying.
Crash boxes are fun to drive, either you learn to have a sharp ear for the RPM’s and Happy Feet to double-clutch noiselessly or you’ll grind it to junk in short order .
-Nate
My daily vehicle doesn’t look like a Porsche. I’ve never had a vehicle that was like a Porsche. Can I still live in the future that was predicted in 1951?
In many ways, that old Porsche is still “the future” – right along with Argentina and Brazil.
You drive a Panther, right? So you’re still driving a BOF, solid rear axle car with updated 1940s technology. Seems like you rather like living in the past. 🙂
The comment in the CD article about seating three, plus the dark green of the photo car, reminded me that the mother of my best friend in elementary school drove a green 356. Newer than this, of course, though in hindsight I’m not sure if it was a B or a C. We spent a lot of time in the back seats of that car. Needless to say, even in California and as common as 356’es were, it still was unusual in the 1960’s for a woman, a single mom, to drive a Porsche as her only car. It was a lot more fun when she drove than when we went with my mom in the family Volvo wagon.
Anyone have an idea what an original suvivor of one of these is going for in today’s market? I’m going to guess it’s in the stratosphere.
I wonder how much of an impact the original 356 might have had on Ed Cole and the development and introduction of the 1953 Corvette. Fascinating that the Corvette versus Porsche debate has endured to this day.
Even for the most ardent Porsche-hater, that first 356 is a pretty damn cool car.
Impact on the ’53 Corvette? Zero, obviously. Now if you had said “Corvair”, the answer obviously would be different.
Rudiger ;
Some years ago my survivor ’63 356B Coupe was still in VGC with new brakes and tires and the original Blaupunkt AM/FM/SW radio played well, I’d taken the rusty fuel tank out to have it de rusted, welded up and lined, some one who knew the car said he’d give $35,000 as it sat .
Mijho said ‘, no way pops, it’s _your_ old car !” .
I only paid $7,000 for it when I bought it long ago .
-Nate
You got a pretty good deal. 356s in good condition are into the six figures today.
The VW was able to cruise at it’s maximum speed, it’s not surprising that the Porsche can do the same at higher speeds. The low fuel consumption is very admirable, and all vehicles in post War Europe needed to be as fuel efficient as possible. The Porsche, though a true sports car, was a minimalist vehicle, something that the US hadn’t embraced since the Model T.
I used to hate the styling of these old Porsches, but now I appreciate the simplicity. I was checking out a 70’s or ’80’s 911 at a local show, and was reminded that it had a small backseat, something that made these practical for a person with young children.
I grew up in the ’60’s and my favorites were always big domestic cars. The most efficient and basic car that I ever owned was my ’90 Honda Civic SI. It was also one of my favorites, and a bit more practical than my early Datsun Zs.
I never really understood Porches, maybe it’s because they felt to me like a “fast VW”, perhaps it was the air-cooling that bothered me, but they always seemed loud, cramped, and fragile to me – but I’m starting to appreciate them more.
I love the 356 – especially the early ones, but $4200 in 1952 was Cadillac money for a tiny car with none of the luxuries that were then ‘big news’ such as power steering, automatic transmission, power brakes, power windows and seats, torquey OHV V-8s that were increasing in HP every year, and factory A/C just around the corner. Its easy to see why a lot more Americans decided they would rather have a Buick or Lincoln convertible as their “sports car” rather than one of these little toys.
You’re rather missing the point. This didn’t compete against a Cadillac or Buick anymore than a Porsche 911 does today. It’s a high performance, high quality sports car; then and now. And Porsche struggled to keep up with demand for them for decades to come.
Obviously more Americans went for the big fat domestic sedans. Talk about comparing apples to oranges.
In its survey of 1954 Cadillac owners, Popular Mechanics noted that a high percentage of Cadillac drivers owned two cars (a big deal back then) – including what it called “sports models.”
It would not be surprising if these Porsches shared garage space with a new Cadillac or Buick Roadmaster.
I had a ’62 Normal when I lived in Eugene in the ’60s.
Given its light weight, your expectations of “tinny” and “noisy” were immediately quashed by the SOLID door closing and the hushed interior due to superior materials and sound deadening. Completely out of character for its size.
Its efficiency and economy were amazing. I thought nothing of driving to Portland for the evening after dinner. It just droned along flat out.
It attracted a lot of attention. I am what you might call the opposite of a Yuppie. I have mostly owned cargo vans ever since. So, this was a bit disconcerting, and one reason why I eventually sold it to a friend for not one penny more than I paid for it.
You had to have driven these early 356’s to fully grasp how great and fun they were .
I should have bought that bent window Continental Coupe for $3,000 but waited a bit too long and had to settle for a really clean two owner 1963 356B Coupe, it was good but I discovered the 1967 912 (same engine) was a better driver .
My son is destroying my old ’63 by leaving it uncovered in his back yard where it’s full of rain water =8-( .
-Nate
R&T said “During the war . . . most of the world’s economy was geared to Martian needs.” Martian? Really? Did Orson Welles have something to do with that?
(Martial, maybe?)
I wondered that myself. Perhaps alluding to Mars being the god of war? Or as you suggest, a typo for Martial.
The car of tomorrow was in many ways an antique in 1952. I guess car magazines haven’t changed as much as one might think. Just look at the latest neo-classic Porsche ‘911.’ It has adopted most of the technologies that partisans celebrated the 356 for not having, from plain bearings and water cooling to a front suspension that gains camber and a rear suspension that seeks to control it through its travel. The average new Porsche has more in common with a 1952 Chrysler than it does with a 1952 Porsche.
Brilliant observation, as usual.
The thing I get hung up on is the 64HP. I was under the impression the early ones had much less than that. I’ve heard, first from a gearhead cousin in the early 70’s, but other places since, that the 50’s 356’s were derisively referred to as, 40 horsepower and $4,000. I assumed it was 40 something HP, but 64 out of a ’52, 1500? That was a lot for the era. The 25HP Beetles, which were if anything, above average in performance for a modest European car of the era, were more the norm. Top speed of just over 100 for the little 1500 Porsche? Maybe not spectacular, but very good.
Perhaps even more impressive is that it was even produced, is in the early 50’s, Germany was profoundly in recovery from WWII. I had a visit to Germany in ’67 and was shocked at how recent the war was, while there were many new, modern buildings, there were also many, many bombed out buildings, often right next door. Growing up in the US WWII was the stuff of history books, an event before my birth. In ’52 I can’t imagine there were any more than a few of the modern buildings with rubble everywhere. That a small modest, but premium, sports car was even produced is amazing.
The original 356 1100 had 40hp. In 1951 the 1300 and 1500 were introduced, with higher outputs.
The German economy came roaring back from 1949 on. I’m quite surprised at what you seem to have seen in 1967. In Austria, whose economy came back slower than Germany’s, there were still some bombed out buildings when I left there in 1959, but quite few. When I went back in 1967? Zero. I don’t know where you were, but I have a hard time imagining “many, many bombed out buildings”.
The reality is that Germany’s economy roared back faster than the UK’s did. It boomed all through the 50s and 60s.
Mercedes was building race cars and the 300SL in 1952. Porsche was well on its way by then.
West Germany had a lot of help to recover from WW2, while the UK was busy repaying loans to Uncle Sam.
Berlin mostly. West Berlin. I was in Frankfurt also, but only for a day or so and it didn’t really make an impression on me. My Dad who was living in England at the time must have had a rental car, he seemed to know his way around pretty well and I saw much of the city.
Cars mostly seemed humble, except for plenty of MBs. Overall it was an odd mix of new and old with much of the old destroyed, but not yet torn down or rebuilt.
That explains it. West Berlin was very isolated from the rest of Western Germany, and its economy was stunted as a result. I can well imagine it took longer to rebuild it. And of course it was more heavily bombed than most cities.
It is worth to compare this Porsche with Tatra 600 around the same time, but it was a 4-door saloon. I saw few running around In Peking streets in early 1970s. They were imported for government usage in early 1950s
The built up crankshaft is interesting to me. Roller bearings were used in some aircraft engines, but so were plain bearings. I am guessing that that the choice was driven by bearing rather than by a desire for lighter connecting rods. The VW didn’t have roller bearings, so Porsche clearly made different choices for different situations. Next question is, did Honda drink from Porsche’s cup? All the Honda motorcycle engines up to the 750cc four cylinder were roller and ball bearing equipped with built up cranks. All the other Japanese manufacturers building two strokes did the same, so perhaps that is the explanation. English motorcycles also had built up cranks, but since they didn’t have center bearings, the choice was more of not doing anything more than needed.