“Oh, he was powerful. God, I admired [him]. He just knocked the tar out of anybody. He’d get it fixed. If he couldn’t, he’d call New York and say, ‘Fix these…[.]’ Then, I inherited some of that.
I believe this, and I still do: I think what’s wrong with the G.M. [products], the new ones I see coming out, it’s hard to tailor a dwarf, so you’re going to have these cars that aren’t exotic. But, there should be style leaders. There should be prestige cars, like the Eldorados, Toronados, Rivieras — there’s not gonna be — the new ones are vanilla. I didn’t go to the proving ground [last] Monday because I didn’t want to blow my top, and I’d seen them, and I said, ‘I’m busy. I can’t go.’ It’s not my way of life.
Now, a good friend of Earl’s and Sloan’s, I don’t know whether you know him or not, he’s Fred Cody. I was at a party a couple of weeks ago over here, and Murphy was there, and all the G.M. people, and he turned to a group we were talking to and said, ‘Now, Harley Earl turned this all over to you, didn’t he?’ I said, ‘Yeah.’ ‘Who did you turn it over to? Who is he?’ Irv [Rybicki] has been in seven years, and nobody knows him. He won’t speak up, and they’re just taking it away from him. You’ve got to fight for what you want.
I had a general manager once that wanted to put, I won’t name him, but he wanted to put a grille in the Toronado, and I wanted it like a Cord, you know. I said, ‘Look, I don’t tell you how to make your car, or run your plant, [but] keep your damn nose out of design. I’m helping you. You don’t go to your tailor and tell him how to make your suit.’ I said, ‘You have no business in design.’ I said, ‘That suit you’ve got on, my wife’s got better linoleum on our kitchen floor than that God damn suit you’re wearing.’ Right in front of his whole people.”
— William L. Mitchell (1985)
RE:SOURCES
- Mitchell, William; 1985. “The Reminiscences of William L. Mitchell.” Automobile in American Life and Society. Oral interviews conducted in August.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES
- oldcaradvertising.com: Oldsmobile Toronado (1971)
Also see ‘1963-65 Buick Riviera shows GM’s struggle with personal coupes
Mitchell did not want Ribycki to be his successor. Had wanted Jordan, had recommended to the board that it be Jordan. Howard Kerl got his last revenge upon Mitchell (and to a lesser personal attack on Chuck) by making it Irv instead.
Kerl got exactly what he wanted, a dutiful guy that would not be another Earl or Mitchell. Unfortunately, that was not what the corporation actually needed.
Mitchell gave specific instructions that Ribycki was not to be invited to his funeral. A pointed indication of how he viewed his successor’s accomplishments with his former fiefdom.
Mitchell’s infamous dwarf comment ignores the fact that many “small” cars were beautifully styled by expert designers around the world during his heyday. Mitchell’s words reflect the “my way or the highway” attitude typical of Detroit groupthink. Mitchell liked big, bold and brassy designs with lots of surface jewelery but those were his tastes, not everyone elses (full disclosure, I love the 1971-72 Riviera). The legacy of Mitchell’s talent speaks for itself and better, in this instance, than his words.
I saw a Vega hatchback at a car show recently and it reminded me of just how well designed the exterior was. One should also look at the Chevrolet Monza 2+2 and the formal roofed Town Coupe to see some quality design. The second generation Corvair is an outstanding design. All of these were by GM’s Detroit design staff and under Bill Mitchell’s direction.
Glad you brought the Vega, Monza and Corvair up, Jeff. These cars get short shrift for their styling for all the reasons we know too well, but my question would be, did Mitchell consider them poorly-tailored dwarfs from his own studios? Or did he just choose to ignore that GM had other talent that could make a small car look great? The 2nd gen Corvair coupes are highly underrated, IMO, for their timeless styling. I would also add that the first gen Seville was a “small” standout during the Mitchell era. Unfortunately, the second gen Seville was much more in line with Mitchell’s tastes yet not nearly as ground-breaking and fresh as the original.
Never consider that Mitchell and his organization would even consider giving short shrift to a design; NEVER. GM Design did their best with what they could do and would argue as hard as possible attempting to get their way.
GM Design had the best design talent in the US during that time. There is a strong argument that they also had the best clay modelers too. It was only later with the proliferation of all the Calfornia design studios and the decline of GM under Mitchell’s successor that GM Design no longer was the undisputed repository of the best.
I do want to give a partial explanation of what Mitchell in part meant with the “dwarf” comment. The smaller sized car has less ability to resolve complex surfacing. There is not enough distance in length or cross section. An old style of the 60’s Buick “W” plan view nose is not going to fit either.
The first gen Seville is a wonderful design and was done under Mitchell. But, he had wanted the hump back of the 2nd gen even then. I never have gotten a good explanation how the1st gen came to be its shape with Mitchell not getting his way. I am glad he lost that battle as the 1st generation Seville is the superior design and the 2nd gen walked away from the targeted conquest of the European buyers.
My short shrift comment was directed at those who continue to disparage the Vega, Monza and Corvair for reasons other than styling, which in turn has largely negated a lot of respect for those designs. The Vega was an especially sharp looking car in hatch and Kammback body styles, more balanced IMO than the Monza, which had quite small, though era-appropriate, wheels and longer overhangs. Nevertheless, I remember thinking the Monza was a styling sensation when it was introduced. It was a sexy retort to the Mustang II which was more a collection of themes than a cohesive design.
Thank you for clarifying that surface development is an important aspect of car design. Indeed, it’s what made some of GM’s best full-size cars look as great as they did and is why GM was once the undisputed industry style-leader.
The Mustang II a case of two different designs being mashed together in the doors. A softer design language for the front of the car and a hard edge design for the back. Then a “C” scoop tossed in for good measure. Take a look at the door skin sometime to realize just how contorted the design is.
The one item I would put forward with the Monza is that if only the single rectangular headlights had been available when it was done instead of the duals, it would have been a better look.
Jeff, are you aware of any design proposals for a 2nd generation Monza?
No, I am not aware of those. Were they ever published in Style Auto? Was the 2nd generation done in Jerry Palmer’s studio (he had Corvette, Camaro, Monza).
Jerry was who Jordan wanted as his successor. He NEVER wanted anyone else and only begrudgingly was forced to present an alternative choice, Wayne.
That’s unfortunate as there had to have been some development of future models going on prior to the Monza’s launch. I sent a suggestion to Steve that the Monza would be a good subject for future posts so perhaps we’ll get to read more about this interesting car in the near future.
Jerry Palmer is still around (studio head at that time, later to be #2 to Wayne Cherry) as well as Kip Wasenko (I believe he was assistant studio chief to Jerry at the time). Both, last I knew, live in Michigan.