Reading Pat Foster’s history of the Metropolitan again. At one time Pininfarina developed a ‘wagon’ version of the Met which looked both practical and cute:
Sort of a Nomadette.
In reality this was just a proper coupe with a usable back seat. In a tiny car like the Metro, the two-box plan is the only way to fit in a full passenger compartment. There’s not enough length for a three-box sedan.
The Crosley was about the same size and had the same problem:
The wagon had enough headroom and legroom for back passengers, plus more luggage space when the seat was folded.
New thought: Austin made the Metro for Nash. At the same time, Austin was developing and making the Mini for its own purposes. The Mini solved the back seat problem the same way, with a two-box plan, though it didn’t pretend to be a wagon.
The Mini and Metro used the same engine. The Mini mounted it crosswise with front wheel drive, which allowed more height for the rear seat.
Why didn’t Nash mix the two? Mount the Mini’s drivetrain and suspension in the Metro ‘wagon’, allowing more height for the rear compartment?
= = = = =
Seeing the Crosley again leads to a more realistic Ynot thought. Crosley was an appliance company making cars as a sideline. It had no history of automotive design and no proper auto-body tooling. Nash had a long and deep history, and plenty of design and manufacturing resources. Crosley was able to design and tool a wagon version of its minicar from the original coupe. The wagon turned out to be a major success, selling more than the Big Three wagons until Plymouth answered with the all-steel ’49 Suburban. Nash had already paid Pininfarina to design the Metro wagon. Why didn’t they go ahead with it?
Polistra's Mill 