Motor Trend had an intriguing article in its December 1960 issue: former designers supposedly gave their “frank opinions of what is right and wrong with all of the 1961 cars” (1960, p. 29). Let’s walk through some of their takes.
The magazine’s editors explained that this article largely consisted of quotes from three unnamed designers who were “men of training and experienced in the studios of the major car makers. Each man independently commented on the styling of the cars” (1960, p. 29).
Comments could sometimes be edgy — but not too edgy
The comments were often either anodyne or wallowed in stylistic jargon, but once in a while they could be refreshingly subversive. For example, one designer stated that the new full-sized Chevrolet was “more complicated and ornate than is necessary or desirable. Imagine a Chevrolet as simple and direct as the Corvair, with all the usefulness of larger size” (1960, p. 29).
The Corvair was trumpeted as “still the best looking of the compacts.” However, one designer argued that the “coupe upper sits rather awkwardly on the rear deck, but one soon gets used to it” (1960, p. 30).
To which I would respond that 63 years later I still haven’t gotten used to the Corvair two-door coupe’s hunchback proportions.
Or consider one designer’s take on the Corvette. He argued that the 1961 model was “proof for the old adage, ‘Too many cooks spoil the broth.’ Almost every detail in the design is good. However, there are two problems: there are too many such good details, an they have no relationship to each other” (1960, p. 30).
That sounds about right. The 1961 model’s new rear end would not look cohesive with the rest of the car until a 1963 restyling — which retained the basic shape of the rear but added the iconic “Sting Ray” design in the front and sides.
Designers rightly singled out the Lincoln Continental
The 1961 model year was marked by a utilitarian trend in styling. This partly reflected the introduction of a second wave of compacts. Just as importantly, big cars from both General Motors and Ford were trimmed in size and they were given more understated styling. That often included shaving off tail fins.
Even so, I wouldn’t point to 1961 as all that noteworthy when it came to styling. The only new design which really stands out to me is the Lincoln Continental. All of the designers recognized the importance of this car, which hints at its outsized impact. One designer described the Continental as a “fresh breeze out of the smog of overpowering scallopinis and fin variations” (1960, p. 32).
Another designer said that the “Lincoln shows that all the razza-mataz of current styling tricks is not necessary. What’s wrong with plain, simple shapes that look like cars rather than aerodynamic or ballistic” (1960, p. 32)?
None of the other new designs received such uniform praise as the Continental. For example, the full-sized Pontiac was called the best of GM’s big cars by one designer but another said its styling bordered on excessive.
By the same token, the Pontiac Tempest was described by one designer as the best of GM’s new Y-body compacts but another dismissed it as “rather unsophisticated and conventional” (1960, p. 33). You mean because the Tempest shared too many body parts with its corporate siblings?
What did the designers say about the disasters?
Cars that I consider to be the biggest stylistic disasters were criticized, albeit not as harshly I would have. This leads me to wonder: To what degree was ginger criticism informed by worries about an advertiser backlash versus a reflection of how it can take time for negative viewpoints of a car to form and harden?
Also see ‘Chrysler brand looked the least weird of automaker’s 1961 line’
For example, near the top of my Ugliest Cars of 1961 list is the DeSoto, with its ghastly grille. The worst thing that one designer could say was that it “appears as if the front end and the rear were done in different studios and then put together.” However, this designer did rightly conclude, “Whatever happened to those clean and fresh lines DeSoto had in 1958” (1960, p. 30)?
Along the same lines, the full-sized Plymouth’s shark-nose grille was tersely described as “overdone.” How about to the point where it scared children?
By the same token, the Imperial was summed up as a “set of interesting and sometimes pleasing details have been forced on a car that should look expensive, but somehow does not — probably too much corporate ‘look'” (1960, p. 33).
I am not seeing the Imperial’s “pleasing details.” Instead, with the luxury of hindsight I have judged it to be the most excessive American car design of all time (go here).
Meanwhile, the front end of the Rambler Ambassador was mildly criticized as “distinctive without being distinguished.” How about downright ugly?
Then the Rambler American was described as a “clean and simple” design only marred by an “unfortunate choice of grille texture” (1960, p. 34). The grille strikes me as unobjectionable whereas the overly boxy — and ill-fitting — sheetmetal gave off the amateurish vibe of an Eastern bloc car (go here).
One car that did receive its rightful share of criticism was the facelifted Studebaker Lark. One designer concluded, “Instead of correcting faults — tail lights and sculptured section under the fins — Studebaker has erred in trying to facelift the car by raising the side trim” (1960, 34).
Motor Trend gingerly addressed emergent issues
The early-60s were well before the advent of federal regulations, but even car-buff magazines would occasionally talk about safety issues.
As a case in point, one designer noted that the compact Buick Special’s front fender edges “look to be highly vulnerable” and “not a little intimidating to pedestrians” (1960, p. 28).
One curious aspect of the article package was that it included a sidebar which summarized feedback from a panel of women (1960, p. 39). Those surveyed were not designers, but rather a mix of housewives, students and career women. Here’s what they said about the Lincoln Continental:
Nothing should be changed. I’ll take six. Really clean. Too plain. Looks bottom heavy. Elegant looking. Looks too much like a boat. (Among the women, two liked the car very much and three didn’t like it at all.)
How useful was such a summary? The range of opinions strikes me as reasonably reflective of how the marketplace appeared to react to the Continental, which didn’t end up selling all that well. So in a way the women’s take proved to be more accurate than that of the designers (go here for further discussion).
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Motor Trend; 1960. “A Criticism of 1961 Styling.” December issue: pp. 29-39.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- oldcarbrochures.org: Chevrolet (1961); Chevrolet Corvair (1961); Chevrolet Corvette (1961); DeSoto (1961); Imperial (1961); Lincoln (1961); Plymouth (1961); Pontiac (1961); Pontiac Tempest (1961); Rambler Ambassador (1961); Rambler American (1961); Studebaker (1961)
Thanks Steve- I enjoyed that! I value most designer’s honest opinions – much more than the opinions of the “rest of us”. They tend to remember and admire the ’53 Studebaker Coupes, which seem to be “forgotten” by the blockheads who make online lists of the most beautiful cars of the 1950’s.
Odd that a designer mentioned “fins” on a ’61 Lark. Maybe l’m “blind”, but l don’t see any! And if by “sculptured section” he means the faired section of the quarter panel in front of the tail lights, just look at the Buick Specials in your illustration having the same thing – only more exaggerated.
The 61 redesign made the Lark look boxier, no mean feat. For some reason that Rambler convertible reminds me of an Amphicar. Of course the article will look for strong opinions, it does illustrate the love-hate attitude toward the Lincoln design. This is crucial in sales. A car like this will usually be sold to a couple. If one partner has strong negative feelings that will nix a sale, no matter how positive the other partner. Same with the Imperial. Even the ad illustrations make it look cartoonish. I don’t care for the skegs on the 61 Caddy, however it was the most inoffensive of the three.
First, it would be interesting to know who these car designers surveyed were. Some may have far better value to their opinions than others. MoTrend being in SoCal makes one wonder if they got them from the local area that it was only long ago that they were active in car design. It is also possible that the group could have included some current designers that were called “ex” to further hide them.
The comment about MoTrend being careful with their criticisms would be in keeping with Bob Petersen. I knew the entire staff later on and can report that ad revenue and keeping all those manufacturers happy was a directive from the top that caused more than one editor’s demise.
1961 was an interesting time in US automotive. 1959/1960 was the last of the most outrageous Detroit designs. 1961 really was the transition year that saw a significant pull back on the prior flamboyance yet not everyone was convinced where “next” was. [Remember being told that Chrysler had a meeting of designers trying to consider what was after tail fins and did not have a good answer so they kept theirs longer.] It also saw the change of 3 VPs of Design – Mitchell had taken over from Earl in 1958 (with the 1959/60 already set) at GM, Bordinat succeeded Walker at Ford in 1961 (after a serious 3 way fight over who would become the VP), Chrysler replaced Exner with Elwood Engel (the top loser in the political battle at Ford), and over at Rambler/AMC Dick Teague ascended.
Although the Continental is and will remain an iconic design I can look at it and see that the slab side really was too plain. I think that could have been corrected with a surface change in the rocker panel area to reduce the visual height yet retain the simplicity. As this was an Engel design from his time at Ford, he corrected this with his Imperial design where he had the rocker panel area relief.
The best style first: The Elwood Engle designed 1961 Continental and more rounded “Rocketbird”. Then the two G.M. B-bodies: The full-size 1961 Chevrolet and 1961 Pontiacs. Frankly, Ford rescued the oversize 1960 full-size cars with the 1961 Ford and Mercury. Chrysler on the other hand continued in its long trek in Bizzaro World until 1964. While the 1962 Ramblers were cleaner, I still remember people calling Edmund E. Anderson’s 1961 American “The Ordinance Wagen”! No wonder the “aliens” in “Third Rock from the Sun” loved the car !
I read somewhere that in 1959 or early 1960, Virgil Exner, Sr. was asking the question referenced above: “What’s next ?” His alleged answer was the design under-pinning the aborted 1962 “S” full-size cars, the closest of which that were translated into the 1963-1964 Chryslers as slightly modified by Engel.
With regards to the Corvair, the 1955 Biscayne concept inspired its rear styling and the upper belt line, while the Mitchell Q-Corvette inspired the 1961 “Rip Kirby”-driven (in the comics) Corvette. My sense about the 1960 Corvair was that the four-door sedans were designed first, then the two-door coupes. The illustration emphasizes and, I think, exaggerates the rear deck. The 1965 restyle appears to be more in proportion. My only disappointment with the 1961 full-size Chevys is that the front grille is not stainless but extruded aluminum. By the way, the best-looking of the Y-bodies was the F-85, in my opinion.