The Volkswagen Scirocco’s styling was greeted with considerable acclaim when it came to the United States in 1975. For example, Road & Track called the pronounced wedge shape “exciting to look at” and displayed “crisp and clean styling details” (Niedermeyer, 2022; p. 34, 36).
That sounds about right. The Scirocco was also a much trendier take on a small 2+2 coupe than its predecessor, the positively ancient Karmann-Ghia. Indeed, I am hard pressed to point to another new 1970s design that so heavily departed from the basic look of its predecessor.
This may very well have been inevitable when Volkswagen brought in Giorgetto Giugiaro’s firm, Ital Design. By the mid-70s his designs had become so prominent that they went a long way toward defining the “Italian look.” At that point Giugiaro was fixated with angular shapes. Not surprisingly, with the Scirocco he took it to the extreme.
Giugiaro flushed down the toilet VW’s design legacy
The problem with the Scirocco was that you could mistake it for another brand if you didn’t notice the VW emblem plastered onto the car’s grille. The same could be said of two other Volkwagens Giugiaro designed in the 1970s, the Golf and Passat (in the U.S. they were called the Rabbit and Dasher, respectively). All of these cars were clean and modern but had zero styling continuity with the past.
One could reasonably argue that any designer was going to have that problem because previous-generation VWs were so old — and had air-cooled, rear engines.
As a case in point, the Karman-Ghia was introduced in 1955, so in keeping with the times it had heavily rounded contours. And while the front of the car did include miniature grilles, they hardly dominated the fascia like those required of front-engined, water-cooled cars.
Despite the challenges of designing a modern, front-engined Volkswagen, one would have to be a pretty unimaginative designer to not come up with at least a few ways to carry forward key styling cues from the German automaker’s past. If Porsche could do so why not VW?
Also see ‘If you ran VW in 1959 how would you prepare for Detroit’s compacts?’
Maintaining at least a vestige of the “VW look” would seem to have been particularly important given that the automaker had built a remarkably strong base of support in the U.S. with some of the auto industry’s oldest designs. Just as importantly, for more than a decade VW marketing had militantly rejected planned obsolescence.
How could a ‘VW look’ have been carried over?
Answering that question is hard to do without illustrations, but we can itemize some basic elements. Perhaps the most important thing would have been a more expressive and organic shape.
The easiest part of the Scirocco to fix would have been the fascia, which had all of the sportiness of a refrigerator door. How about at least a more V-shaped front with a swept back grille? Like, something more aerodynamic and — not so coincidentally — sporty?
The Scirocco’s strongly angular shape was the antithesis of the Karmann-Ghia — and previous VWs in general. That said, designers didn’t have to go retro to throw in a few more curves.
Scirocco wasn’t a direct successor to Karmann-Ghia
To be fair, we should acknowledge that the Scirocco was not merely an updating of the 2+2 concept used by its predecessor. This new VW was solely designed to be a hatchback, whereas the Karmann-Ghia sported the longer deck of a traditional coupe that could easily be made into a convertible.
Another difference between the two cars was that the Scirocco had a much lower cowl. This resulted in the car looking taller than the Karmann-Ghia even though it was actually a half-inch shorter.
The sedan vibe of the Scirocco’s relatively tall greenhouse was accentuated by the use of sheetmetal frames around the door windows. In contrast, the Karmann-Ghia’s windows were frameless.
The Scirocco could have looked more conventionally sporty if it had a longer deck, a more close-coupled C-pillar, and pillarless door glass. This would have made the car somewhat heavier and reduced rear-seat headroom. However, if you’re going to make a sporty coupe, why not go all the way? Someone who wanted a more utilitarian car could have opted for a Golf.
Why didn’t the Scirocco get a convertible?
The above scenario would have made a convertible possible, albeit with a somewhat different deck shape. Unlike a convertible, a coupe would presumably have had at least a semi-fastback roofline to allow for a standard or optional hatchback.
Also see ‘Road & Track once predicted a Karmann Ghia-based VW sedan’
I assume that VW gave the Golf rather than the Scirocco a convertible because it was expected to sell better. Even so, the early Golf convertible strikes me as being particularly ugly with its ultra-short deck, tall greenhouse and ungainly roll bar. Shouldn’t a convertible . . . look good?
All of this isn’t to suggest that I think the Scirocco was a bad design. Quite the contrary — it would have been terrific on a Fiat. You know, an Italian car. But on a VW? Bad idea.
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Gunnell, John; 2004. Standard Catalog of Volkswagen, 1946-2004. KP Books, Iola, WI.
- Niedermeyer, Paul; 2022. “Vintage Review: 1975 VW Scirocco – ‘A Truly Remarkable New Small GT.'”’ Curbside Classic. Posted November 11.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- wildaboutcarsonline.com (Automotive History Preservation Society): Ford Mustang (1979, 1983) Volkswagen Karmann-Ghia (1964)
I was pretty smitten by the Scirocco back in the day but its price was high given that it was a shrunken Rabbit, and its quality was down the Rabbit hole. The flat-faced front seemed to go with the car’s angular shape and the quad headlights helped set it apart from Rabbit.
VW could have taken a completely different path with Scirocco that in retrospect, might have been better for both the car and brand. This would have been to proceed with its initial idea of bringing to market the replacement for the Karmann Ghia that became the Porsche 924. Wiki gets into the history a bit but this video does a more detailed job.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qLwd44C4iU
I think a Porsche 924 could have sold alongside it, getting a hotter engine, rear spoiler and the familiar wrapped backlight, whereas Scirocco could have gotten a smaller backlight in addition to its VW badge up front. (AACA)
https://content.invisioncic.com/r277599/monthly_2023_01/1995930920_1977VWScirocco.jpg.6cc21b6d00614e8dcf415037d5e21d92.jpg
VW would have needed to bring the cost-to-build down, perhaps by higher sales with the addition of its version. As it was, the 1977 Porsche 924 cost almost twice as much as the 1977 VW Scirocco. If VW could have cut that gap in half for its Scirocco version, its new car could have grabbed some of those Boomers as they morphed into Yuppies, with the car selling through the Eighties and seeing continual technical refinement.
With the introduction of the Dasher and Rabbit, and the writing on the wall for the Beetle, it was clear VW was moving away from their ubiquitous steel pan with an air cooled boxer out back. Such a revolutionary change toward the present in terms of platform architecture may have called for a new look in styling in the minds of those in Wolfsburg.
Giugiaro was the wunderkind of Bertone and now on his own. His designs were distinctive and modern. VW now wanted to be modern rather than cheeky and quaint. However, Giugiaro’s distinctive designs more often than not were self referential…they looked like a Giugiaro , not necessarily a particular automaker’s existing offerings. Giugiaro’s Lotus Esprit bore no resemblance to anything Lotus had produced previously. In fact, the Esprit greatly influenced the look of Lotus’ subsequent offerings for the next 20 years. Giugiaro’s work on other marques all had a family resemblance: crisp angular lines, seemingly folded flat planes, simple often flush details. Even the BMW M1, DeLorean DMC-10, and Maserati Merak had stylistic kinship….even the lowly Isuzu Domino/Impulse had some of that DNA. If VW wanted a complete change, this was a way to do it.
I personally like the look of Giugiaro’s designs of this era. At times, the cars looked like abstractions of the brands they represented, sometimes they just looked like a Giugiaro, and all was good.
Your logic is quite solid. I can see why some (and perhaps even most) automotive observers have assumed that this direction was the best one for VW. Even so, I think something really important was lost that VW never got back. And I think this reflects a certain industry groupthink about how styling should be the tail that wags the dog when it comes to the development of a modern automobile.
It would have been fine if Giugiaro had designed the lineup for any other small car manufacturer of the time. To my eyes he has been one of the best designers of the last 70 years. The problem with VW was that it gave up ALL of its brand DNA in favor of Giugiaro’s. That strikes me as an automaker who lost its confidence. Which was too bad given that VW had developed an unprecedented reputation for cars designed with a “form follows function” philosophy. That was its calling card — built up with remarkably consistent advertising — yet VW threw it away very quickly. I don’t think that VW sales collapsed in the U.S. just because of reliability issues — it was also because its cars started to look a whole lot like everybody else’s.
I suspect that a more brand-conscious design strategy akin to that of Mercedes-Benz or Porsche would have better fit VW’s needs. And at that point in his career, I don’t sense that Giugiaro understood branding enough to be the guy to do that. As you say, his basic look had an unmistakable Ital Design vibe.
VW was in disarray as they went to the Polo and Golf. They knew that their rear engine layout with an air cooled motor was totally obsolete. Their decision to go to a completely new architecture at the forefront of the modern solution was correct.
Design did not drive this, it was the platform of a compact front drive with maximum space efficiency. Even in cross section the new platform meant maximum interior width for the exterior dimension. VW moved to the front of the market with the best contemporary solution while others took far longer to get there.
The idea of “brand-conscious design” for VW was exactly what they were avoiding as they were making a new future. As for the Scirocco it too was making that full break to find the future. At introduction it was a stunning design that was admired by the design community.
Maximizing space does not require a pillbox on wheels. There would have been plenty of ways to give the Golf and Passat more of an organic look while maintaining roominess (space efficiencies arguably mattered less with the Scirocco, so more stylistic latitude could have been taken). At any rate, paying more attention to aerodynamics would have been a forward-thinking strategy in the mid-70s.
Beyond that, if ditching a “brand-conscious design” was such a winning formula for VW, why did sales subsequently tank in the U.S.? If you blame it purely on reliability issues, note that other brands haven’t been terribly good in that regard yet have still maintained their popularity due to the strength of their branding. And that’s exactly what VW threw away in a really short amount of time.
I am not arguing that the Scirocco’s design was bad — it’s a little austere in front, but otherwise I personally like it. I’m merely suggesting that it should have been used on a more appropriate brand, such as Fiat.
The Golf, Polo and Scirocco were all part of the new VW. The Beetle had for years been well past its sell by date. Using Giugiaro/Ital Design for the design of the new future of VW was a brilliant stroke as he brought a new aesthetic for the high-volume mainstream car market. Ital Design had been doing exotic cars with this aesthetic but the VWs were some of his earliest mainstream cars to make it to production.
The Karmann Ghia had become irrelevant, just like the Bettle had. The Scirocco was completely in line with the new look that represented VW’s future. It even had a more usable back seat.
The use of framed glass may be a result of the limited offset from the body side. Ital Design was able to achieve, for that time, a near flush effect with roll up windows but it required the framing as part of the mechanism.
Jeff, let’s compare a Porsche 356 and a 912. The latter is considerably more modern yet pretty much anyone can recognize it as a Porsche. I would argue that this is what VW needed.
Steve, the Porsche comparison would be better served by comparing the 912 to the 928. VWs problem was even worse as it was dealing with a near 40 year old platform with an obsolete engine/drivetrain layout. A new platform needed a totally new look. During the Beetle’s heyday, the competition was Big 3 captive imports that weren’t particularly modern, and the Renault Dauphine. If you want to see something modern (for the 70s) look at the VW 411. It had the VW DNA but sold about 29k per year in the US. Competition now came from all over the world and VW need a visual as well as an engineering break with the past.
The trouble with having this conversation with words rather than illustrations is that it can be hard to convey stylistic nuance. The comparison between the 356 and 912 isn’t about stylistic specifics, but rather how it’s quite possible to carry over basic DNA even when a new body has been dramatically updated.
For example, the Scirocco didn’t require a flat front end; it would have been very much in keeping with a VW to come up with a fascia that was more contoured and aerodynamic. By the same token, the side styling could have integrated some gentle curves instead of using starkly flat surfaces. The roof and windshield could have had a bit more arc. The window cutouts on the C-pillar could have been more curved. I’m not talking about a full-scale retro look like the “new” Beetle.
These are not radical ideas. As the 1980s progressed, we began to see a shift away from angular styling to a more organic approach. VW would have arguably benefitted by leading the parade because it was more aligned with the brand’s past than the Ital Design treatment.
I agree that when it first came out, the angular and space-efficient Golf/Rabbit was a striking vehicle to behold. As an 11 year old delivering newspapers the light blue one that I first saw driving through our neighborhood was an event to remember, because I had heard that VW had come out with a new car but I hadn’t see it. This was before it’s reliability issues surfaced and negative connotations developed. It seemed like a worthy successor to the Beetle and I remember thinking that it would be around for decades in its original form because that was how VW did things.
But looking back, I agree with Steve that the angular look was a fad and that VW lost something in the years and decades that followed. It still doesn’t make what I envision to be a natural VW.
One of the reasons that I like the Beetle and Porsche 924 is because their rounded forms communicated a high quality car. Had VW used the 924 platform as basis for a taller car, and brought the price way down, it might have been a worthy successor to the Beetle. Like the Porsche it would have offered a new proportion and drivetrain, now front engine with rear transaxle. My photo alteration is “sketchy” as the new generation would say, and is only meant to assess basic proportions. Headlights would have been hidden and handling would have been its calling card. For this car I like the Scirocco name rather than Golf and Rabbit, and there would be no sporty VW companion, this car being plenty sporty while also being fairly practical. (AACA)
https://content.invisioncic.com/r277599/monthly_2023_01/1838645050_Porsche924andVW.png.0b750b1a73c7f3fdcd2f57163e032e63.png
One thing to remember is that VW wasn’t just focused on the North American market. These cars had to sell in Europe, too.
Unlike Americans, Europeans were not buying Beetles because they were cute, or a statement of rebellion against the local auto industry. They were sold on their merits and expected to compete with offerings from Opel/Vauxhall, Ford, Fiat, Renault and Peugeot. It’s therefore not surprising that VW’s vehicles had reached their “sell-by date” in Europe before they did in the U.S. and Canada.
VW no doubt felt the need to make a complete break with the past in Europe…the styling had to announce to all that the Dasher/Passat, Polo, Rabbit/Golf and Scirocco were “not your father’s Volkswagens.” VW had to make this clean break, as the offerings from Fiat and Renault, in particular, had made the VW offerings obsolete. VW management also had to know that Ford was gearing up to introduce the all-new subcompact that would be known as the Fiesta. (The Fiesta would debut as a 1976 model.)
The Fiesta was a big expense for Ford, and it was one model, so one can only imagine how much VW was spending to revamp its entire line-up, from top to bottom. This wholesale change could literally make or break the company, and most likely strained the company’s finances. Even if had wanted to make changes to the models sold over here to preserve the company’s styling heritage, I wonder if it could have afforded to do so. What changes it did make were geared to meeting U.S. safety and emissions standards.
As for the effect that the teething issues and other reliability problems had on VW’s sales – remember that superior reliability had been a big selling point of VWs in the 1950s and 1960s. They were simple cars that had been in production for years, and didn’t feature such things as power steering, power brakes, air conditioning, etc. VW’s direct competitors from Europe weren’t known for reliability.
We often forget that the Japanese first wiped out the European economy cars in the U.S. By 1990, VW was only one left.
The comparison with the Fox-based 1979 Mustang is also interesting. At the time, it was viewed as a complete break with the past in terms of styling. I remember being surprised when I saw the first photos of the new car.
The only real Mustang styling cues were the long-hood/short deck look, and the segmented taillights. It sold well enough to carry the nameplate through the 1980s and early 1990s, when Ford debuted the revamped model that did feature Mustang styling cues.
I remember when the Fox-body Mustang debuted in 1978. Like the Scirocco, it was such a departure from the M2 that it seemed like it came from another planet. At the time I was in love with Bruno Sacco’s contemporary Mercedes styling, but especially the SL/SLC coupes. What struck me most about the Mustang was the two door coupe, it had similar proportions to the SL/SLC (as much as the Fairmont body structure would allow) combined with the faux vents behind the rear windows mimicked the SC I wanted so very badly at that time.
I loved the uncluttered design of the Fox body coupes and was so happy that the basic styling lasted until I was able to purchase my then-dream car, a 1986 Mercury Capri 5.0L Sport Coupe (I know, slightly different car with some fussy details. I grew up in a Mercury family…). In 1987 Ford restyled the Mustang into some weird aerodynamic thing with a Taurus clone grille that never looked right. But the 1994 restyle with the obvious Mustang heritage styling cues, caused me to get off the Mustang train. At least recent models have toned down the “1964” somewhat. I think we finally made it back to 1970. I wonder if we’ll make it to 1979…
I admire the story of the evolution of the Volkswagen from the KdF / Beetle to the 411 / 412 and the Karman-Ghia. The Karman-Ghia was inspired by Virgil Exner’s early 1950s concept cars, and I remember marveling over the craftsmanship of these cars in the Hohlt VW dealer showroom on the southside of Indianapolis in the mid-1960s. But the Beetle, even with the bigger engine and suspension modifications was not an interstate highway cruiser.
The Rabbit / Dasher / Scirocco were efficient and far superior cars. I have a friend who has several Rabbits, Karman-built Cabriolets and Scirrocos in varying states of disrepair, which he restores to showroom condition. Amazingly, the drivetrains in all of them are in good shape for rebuilding. VW built a tough car; but the Indiana / upper Midwest method of treating snow and ice in the 1970s and 1980s put the sheet metal in the floors, rockers and fenders / rear quarter panels in jeopardy regardless of the manufacturer.
I think the Scirocco was a master stroke of design and execution for VW. I wish my late wife had bought a Scirocco instead of the rear-drive Toyota Celica she settled on instead. The Celica’s engine self-destructed at 57,000-miles at 55-m.p.h. on I-65. I think the Scirocco’s engine, torque-steer or not, would have held up better.
I would tend to agree with others that VW needed to re-vamp their image after decades of pushing a 1930’s architecture and styling cues far beyond their “sell-by” date. In the late 1960’s my father tried living with a VW Fastback as a family car after having a series of American sedans. The car left him cold and we went back to Ford products within a year of purchasing the VW. I think many other folks had the same epiphany, the cuteness, the quaintness and possibly the counter-cultural thing would only take the cars so far. The FWD revolution was coming and once the other giants started selling them they knew the dear old Käfer was doomed.
In certain ways, the comparison of the FWD Scirocco to the RWD Mustang is not the best; I think it fair to compare the Scirocco to the contemporary (US) Chrysler L-body coupes, the Omni 024 and the Horizon TC3. The Fox-body Mustang was a larger car, and the dash to axle ratio was different, IMO resulting in a more relaxed set of proportions. The Omnirizon (the colloquial term for the L-bodies) coupes share a similar dash to axle ratio as the Scirocco, along with equally angular styling and are closer in size. In addition, like the Scirocco, they were based on a FWD hatchback platform which maximized space utilization.
There had been a cavalcade of show cars from the late 1960’s through the 1970’s that were angular in nature, I have to imagine it was on the minds of designers and stylists during that time. I don’t know enough about the genesis of the L-body coupes to know if Highland Park came up with the styling on their own or if they had some assistance from Chrysler Europe. However, I think that Chrysler did a good job of capturing the essence of the styling trend and applying it to a Scirocco (and other coupes) competitor. It wouldn’t be long after the release of the Omnirizon coupes that Chrysler would follow VW’s lead and revamp their entire line-up also.
The Omni/Horizon used multiple modified Golf/Rabbits as test vehicles in the development.
The 024/TC3 were designed in-house in Highland Park. One of the designers was Stewart Reed.
Yes, all the designers were fully aware of the “folded paper” look and embraced it. Done well it did some stunning cars. Done poorly and it lacked finess.
Thanks for your reply, Jeff. I thought you might know who did the work on the 024/TC3.
George, the comparison with the Mustang wasn’t about size or whether the car was front-wheel drive — it was about the angularity of the styling . . . and how despite all of the Mustang’s flat surfaces, it still had a more contoured fascia than the Scirocco. Most importantly, the Mustang — like the Scirocco — was a sporty coupe. A longer, more stylish snout was more typical of that genre than with an economy sedan like the Omni.
Note that even though the Omni was designed to be more utilitarian than the Scirocco, its front end was swept back rather than flat and vertical. I would suggest that the latter approach was an evolutionary dead end — particularly for a sporty coupe — in an era when aerodynamics would become more important.
Steve, I can’t tell from your response if you’re referencing the Omni sedan or the Omni (first Omni 024, then Charger) hatchback/coupe. I’ve added a link to a picture of the car I’m referencing in my post, so we’re all on the same page.
https://www.favcars.com/dodge-omni-024-sport-package-l-body-1979-82-photos-319737
George, I was making reference to the Omni sedan but my basic point still holds. My comparison was about angular lines, and at least to my eyes the Mustang has more straight lines and fairly flat surfaces than the 024. The Mustang also has a taller fascia, so it shows that you can have a more swept-back and contoured look even under those circumstances.
All that said, back in the day I was much less of a fan of the 024 than the Scirocco. The front had a sportier treatment but otherwise it lacked the finesse of the Scirocco.
Well, it can be argued that Volkswagen’s first-generation FWD cars had more NSU & DKW DNA than “old” VW’s. Stylistically, they were also more in line with Claus Luthe’s NSU Ro80 and VW K70. Actually, the Scirocco’s flat fascia is markedly similar to the K70’s version with quad round headlights:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/alessio3373/14707495587
At the time, VW already had a lot of design legacy that was not tied to its rear-engined cars. In fact, after the lackluster sales of the Type 3 and the market failure of the Type 4 VW probably just wanted to bury the past, not drag on with it. Geeber has already posted a great comment on this topic.
Also, the Karmann-Ghia was, in essence, not a VW, but a custom-bodied car on VW’s chassis built by a third party, which was sold via VW dealers mostly out of convenience; so I don’t see much value in keeping its stylistic DNA in a brand new VW product.
All that said, personally I much prefer the more rounded look of the Type 4, especially the “shark nose” 412. Perhaps keeping at least some styling cues from the “old” VW would not be such a bad thing after all.