For its September 1973 issue, Motor Trend published a pro/con feature asking whether “romantic” styling was dead. In other words, did new considerations such as safety and pollution laws as well as more emphasis on the functional aspects of automobiles lead to a “styling crisis”?
Even more pointedly, Motor Trend (1973) asked: “Will our new cars ever again be considered classics by future generations?”
After acknowledging that styling is subjective, Motor Trend hinted at its own biases: “For pure visuals, wasn’t the first Thunderbird more attractive than the current T-Bird? And how about the first Corvette, the flowing sporty ones, and the current crop? For style, compare the gull-wing Mercedes sport car and the current 450 SLC. How about the Rolls Royce of the mid-Fifties and today’s Rolls? What happened to the more romantic car styles?” (1973, original italics)
With those preliminaries out of the way, Motor Trend interviewed General Motors design head Bill Mitchell. As a counterpoint, the magazine included an essay from Karl Wilfert, who led Mercedes-Benz’s passenger-car body development.
,_front_right.jpg)
Mitchell and Mercedes design chief sharply differ
Mitchell argued that “romantic styling will always be alive in automobile design.” Although he acknowledged that American cars were once decorated with “fins and garbage,” the original Buick Riviera was pointed to as an early example of a cleaner look. Yet the 1974 Chevrolet Monte Carlo and Pontiac Grand Prix were also singled out as “not only good looking cars but will be classics.”
Mitchell insisted that styling excellence required the design chief to report directly to top management rather than being housed in the engineering department, as was the position at Mercedes-Benz.
“You read some of their ads,” Mitchell said. “The design doesn’t even count. Now to me, the Mercedes has been known for years for engineering . . . but if a designer could write his own ticket, my god, what a car you’d see” (1973, p. 113).
Also see ‘Mercedes-Benz W123: Back when form really did follow function’
Wilfert did not directly respond to Mitchell’s comments, but in his essay he emphasized that a “beautiful body configuration has lost its raison d’etre as soon as its design takes preference over its safety” (1973, p. 113).
The Mercedes-Benz 450 SE was pointed to by Wilfert as an example of a car that integrated form with function. “Every detail of the bodywork, from the profile of the windscreen pillars and the taillight lenses, which were designed in a wind tunnel, to the accurately calculated, deformable instrument panel, have been constructed so that they fulfill their function as near perfectly as possible” (1973, p. 113).
Whereas Mitchell emphasized the importance of giving designers autonomy over engineering, Wilfert questioned whether “the presence of the stylist, in the true sense of the word, is justified in our firm or whether it would be better to employ engineers who had a feeling for design” (1973, p. 113).
Which design approach has withstood the test of time?
Mitchell was sort-of right that “romantic styling will always be alive in automobile design.” The shift to sport-utility vehicles illustrates how automotive shapes may have become more practical over the last half century, but flashy styling is as dominant as ever.
Where Mitchell went wrong was predicting that the second-generation Monte Carlo would become a classic. Even if one disregards its remarkably inefficient packaging, the car’s over-the-top styling epitomizes the excesses of the brougham era (go here for further discussion).
Meanwhile, Wilfert was arguably sort-of right that designers would need to work more closely with engineers in the years ahead in order to improve the safety and efficiency of the automobile.
Also see ‘Yes, but WHY do today’s automobiles look so similar?’
Even so, recent Mercedes products have arguably placed considerably more emphasis on styling than during the 1970s. Not so coincidentally, its cars have looked increasingly indistinguishable from international competition.
I think it telling that there is no modern equivalent to a Monte Carlo here in the United States. But on the other hand, none of the legacy automakers still emphasize function over form with the militance of Mercedes-Benz during the 1970s. So in a way Mitchell lost the battle but won the war.
That said, today’s dominant type of expressive styling doesn’t strike me as “romantic” so much as it is aggressive (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; 1973. “Pro & Con Forum: Is Romantic Styling Dead?” September issue: pp. 86-87, 113.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- oldcarbrochures.org: Chevrolet Monte Carlo (1974)
PHOTOGRAPHY:
- 1977 Mercedes-Benz 450SLC photo by Mr. Choppers via Wikipedia Creative Commons 3.0. Image was slightly lightened.
I believe it was a posturing move by Mercedes that their person to respond was not a designer. MB had a design staff.
I question if MB’s claims of function in the design were so true. Some of the items like the ribbed tail lights and the ribbed lower body side could easily be far more hype of claimed “engineering justification” than actual functionality.
Bill Mitchell was not always right with his aesthetic preferences, but they were pretty few instances. Going back to Harley Earl, GM Styling/Design had a group of their own engineering so that they could win battles with the production engineering monolith that would say no.
Mr. Kennedy: I must respectfully disagree. If one studies the evolutionary path of Mercedes-Benz vehicles from the 1950s into the early 1990s, most often the end result was a product featured harmony in design, styling, engineering and build quality. Were the M-B cars perfect ? No. but they were much better than the slop coming out of Detroit, Toldeo and Kenosha, sad to say. For example, take the thinking behind the 1952-1958 M-B Gullwings starting with the W-194, the Hobel and the W-196. The car was built around the chassis and the 3.0-litre mechanical fuel-injection straight-six. Then the engineers figured out how to create the 190SL and 300SL roadsters.
I never read or heard about issues with handling swing-axle rear suspensions in M-B cars, but then I am guessing that the M-B engineering was superior to what was available in other cars. The thinking on the 1970s M-B taillights was questioned by testers in both “Road & Track” and “Car & Driver”, who found that the ribbed taillights were relatively “self-cleaning”. My boss at Fairbanks Broadcasting and later John Blair Broadcasting was a self-made millionaire who owned exotic and luxury cars including Ferraris, Lamborginis, Lincolns, Cadillacs, Jaguars and other cars…but in the late 1970s and 1980s, his daily driver was a four-door Mercedes-Benz 3.0-litre sedan that was perfect for his commute and weekday tooling around town (Indianapolis, then Dallas-Fort Worth)…quiet, trouble-free luxury.
While I realize the price differential between a Monte Carlo and a Mercedes-Benz 300 sedan, I would argue that very few post-war Detroit-Iron cars achieve legendary design status: 196os-era Pontiac coupes and convertibles; the 1963-1967 Buick Riviera, the 1955-1966 Ford Thunderbird, the 1961-1969 Lincolns, the 1955-1965 Chrysler 300s and a few other Bill Mitchell-designed cars. Perhaps other than the post-1956 Corvettes which had the input from Zora Arkus-Duntov, Bob Rodger’s 1960 Chrysler 300F 413-ram-induction combined Exner’s high style with the new unit-body and superior handling, that while not on the level of a 300 SL, was a supercar that few could match.
As William L. Mitchell (1912-1988) neared retirement (1977), his influence over the collective mindset of The Fourteenth Floor and New York City financial guys was diminishing to the point where he was consistently overruled about design philosophy and platform size, even when Mitchell was eventually proven right. While I am certain that there were disagreements between divisional managers and engineers as well as board members, M-B engineers and designers (at least in the 1950s through the early 1980s) had to be a more cohesive group of thinkers pulling in the same direction as opposed to the bigger manufacturing entities at G.M., Ford, Chrysler and A.M.C.
Ribbed taillights had a functional raison d’etre: they kept dust off the lenses. Lincoln first used them on their Carrera Panamericana race cars, to keep the lenses clear. MB’s ribbed lower body side would achieve a similar goal, keeping road grime from spreading over more of the lower body surface.