The June 1967 issue of Popular Mechanics may have been published only a few months prior to the beginning of the 1968 model year for U.S. cars, but it had a few amusingly wrong predictions.
For example, Bob Irvin reported that:
- The Chevrolet Impala two-door hardtop would receive a “fastback roofline even more pronounced than the present model” and a Corvette “with an amidships engine may appear as a ’68 1/2 entry” (1967, p. 61).
- Dodge’s full-sized cars would “appear with extensive sheetmetal changes.” However, the Dodge Charger would “look pretty much as it does now” but come with a standard “340-hp V8” (1967, p. 182).
- The Ford Galaxie’s headlights would “be vertical” (1967, p. 61). In addition, the caption of a spy photo of what turned out to be a Mercury Monterey two-door fastback suggested that it could instead be a new Thunderbird-based personal coupe referred to as the “Mark X” (1967, p. 62).
How could Popular Mechanics be so wrong?
The buff magazines could get their predictions wrong for a number of reasons, as we have previously discussed about a Popular Science sneak preview of 1967 models (go here).
In theory, timing could be a problem. Today the Internet allows almost real-time posting of automotive reporting, but back then months could pass between when a story was finalized and when a magazine was printed and distributed. During that time period an automaker could potentially make some changes.
Even so, spring of 1967 would have been pretty late in a 1968 car’s development to make a major change, such as new sheetmetal. Thus, it doesn’t sound plausible to me that Ford would have decided on a last-minute switch from vertical to horizontal headlights for its 1968 Galaxie.
It could be that Irwin simply heard wrong or talked to someone who was not as in the know as they proclaimed. However, it is also possible that automaker media flacks purposely fed the reporter bad information, perhaps to throw off competitors. Or that an insider wanted to boost the prospects of a proposed car by giving it some media buzz. Here I’m thinking about the mid-engined Corvette.
Some predictions defied common sense
Frankly, some of the predictions sound pretty ignorant for a reporter who supposedly had a working knowledge of the U.S. automobile industry.
For example, had Irwin not observed how General Motors had a pattern of redesigning the two-door hardtops of its big cars when they were reskinned every two years? Why then would the Impala get an expensive sheetmetal redo after only one year?
Also see ‘Successful automotive journalists need to master these two rules’
By the same token, why would Irwin think that the Charger would be little changed when he reported that the Coronet would feature “new sheetmetal front and back” (1967, p. 182)? From 1966-67 both cars shared the same sheetmetal from the B-pillar forward. Did it make sense to him that the Charger — then Dodge’s halo model — would receive fewer changes than the brand’s more utilitarian family cars?
Whatever the reasons, some of the automotive reporters back then weren’t very good. And perhaps they weren’t supposed to be.
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Irwin, Bob; 1967. “’68 Cars: How new will they be?” Popular Mechanics. June issue: pp. 59-61, 182.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES
- oldcarbrochures.org: Buick (1968); Chevrolet (1968); Dodge Charger (1967); Oldsmobile (1968); Pontiac (1968)
For the big extensive change at the full-size Dodge, I guess they spotted a prototype of the upcoming 1969 model.