(EXPANDED FROM 1/23/2023)
This post’s comment thread has received a burst of new attention, so I thought it would be worth expanding upon my original argument. I wrote this article in response to debates about the Volkswagen Scirocco’s styling (go here).
Indie Auto’s histories have been informed by two design biases:
- Most automakers — particularly in the U.S. — tended to undervalue stylistic continuity in the postwar era.
- I personally prefer more “organic” styling over the exceptionally boxy cars that came out of the late-1970s and early-80s.
My harshest criticisms have been leveled at designs that violated both of these pet peeves. That is, when an automaker threw away a brand’s design continuity in favor of generic boxiness.
This design sensibility is heavily grounded in what might be described as a German postwar aesthetic, as embodied in the likes of Mercedes-Benz. If you are drawn more toward an American approach I can see why you would find my perspective to be quaint — or even downright wrongheaded.
High-status brands had the strongest styling continuity
While it’s true that car design occasionally needs to take a big leap forward, that arguably never requires giving up all of the basic styling cues that define a brand.
Please note that I am not advocating for “retro” design, which has tended to be a dead end. Instead, what I’m talking about is being able to look at a succession of models and quickly tell that they are all from the same brand.
Design continuity does not mean rehashing obsolete styling cues into perpetuity. As a case in point, the Porsche 911 was substantially changed from its predecessor, the 356. Those changes were partly grounded in functional improvements but also included important stylistic advancements. That gave the 911 a modern appearance while still looking unmistakably like a Porsche.
I don’t think it is an accident that the brands which have had the greatest recognizability are also those that have focused an unusual level of attention on design continuity. I would put in this category Mercedes-Benz, Porsche, BMW, Land Rover and Cadillac in its heyday.
Of course, these are all fairly high-priced brands. One might argue that vehicles in this class are a different animal than those which are more popularly priced.
To a degree that’s true, but it’s also arguably irrelevant to my point: The highest-status cars in the world have tended to display the strongest brand legacy. This was particularly true in the postwar era, before globalization began to blur national automotive identities.
Design continuity could coexist with annual changes
American automakers paid much less attention to design continuity than their European (and particularly German) counterparts, but you can clearly see how this philosophy worked with Cadillac.
Once a basic postwar look was established in 1949 there was a remarkable degree of continuity throughout the postwar period. This was despite Cadillac models often receiving yearly design changes.
That brings up an important point: Cadillac showed how styling continuity was not incompatible with annual model changes.
Styling continuity was most important for indie brands
I have also argued that the smaller the automaker, the more important it has been to maintain its “brand DNA” (such as with American Motors, Packard and Saab). Postwar independents simply did not possess the economies of scale to keep up with the Big Three’s increasingly rapid styling changes.
So instead of trying to be stylistically trendy, smaller carmakers could have had more success selling what was “old.” Here I’m talking about qualities such as superior engineering, better workmanship, greater reliability and a more enjoyable dealer experience. For such a car, carried-over styling functions as a familiar face rather than a dated fashion statement.
Also see ‘Should VW’s design chief fear civilization’s end?’
Volkswagen understood this best among the postwar automakers with operations in the United States. The original Beetle was the antithesis of Detroit fare because it completely deemphasized styling in favor of practical qualities. A dogged commitment to “form follows function” was so unusual in the 1960s that it gave VW an exceptional level of cachet for an economy brand.
I can see why car designers — both then and now — could disparage VW’s approach because it deprioritized their handiwork. However, if we want the auto industry to offer a healthy diversity of products, shouldn’t we support the idea that styling need not be the dominant focus of every automaker?
Excessively boxy shapes undercut design quality
The late-70s and early-80s were arguably one of the low points in U.S. car design because boxiness predominated. This trend had been building since the early-60s but reached a peak with designs such as the 1978 Ford Fairmont and the 1981 Chrysler K-cars. As those examples suggest, Ford and Chrysler were the most dedicated disciples of the straight-edge ruler.
A practical problem with extreme boxiness was that it was less aerodynamic at a time when increasing fuel economy had become a priority. But even if you are only concerned about aesthetics, I would argue that a sharply angular design was usually less appealing than one that had some curves.
Also see ‘Four ways Lee Iacocca contributed to the decline of Ford and Chrysler’
Part of the problem is that slab surfaces reflect light in less interesting ways than more complex contours. In addition, vehicles with curves tend to look faster than bricks on wheels.
The boxy designs of that era also tended to go hand in hand with increasingly generic styling. For example, almost everyone tried to apply the brougham look to their cars. Even Chrysler’s low-priced K-cars were given upright C-pillars, “opera” windows and radiator grilles.
To make matters worse, Chrysler invested so little in differentiating its Plymouth and Dodge K-cars that brand DNA was pretty thoroughly destroyed.
Too many boxy designs ran away from past styling
I find it striking how often U.S. automakers got rid of widely-recognized styling cues when they adopted angular styling. For example, the 1979 Ford Mustang ditched the more “animalistic” contours of early models in favor of a rather generic boxiness.
If you look closely enough you can see a some subtle design continuity, such as a front fenders shaved off at an angle as well as vertically ribbed taillights. However, the overall vibe was remarkably generic.
Much the same could be said about the 1980 Chrysler Cordoba. All of the lovely soft curves of the first-generation models were thrown away in favor of an almost brutalistic angularity. To make matters worse, the overall design was breathtakingly anonymous. You would be excused for needing to look at the car’s logo to determine its brand.
Given the iconic status of the Mustang and Cordoba for their brands, why treat their design legacies with so little respect?
U.S. small cars could look too much like imports
One could reasonably argue that subcompact front-wheel-drive cars should have had more stylistic flexibility than their larger siblings with carry-over nameplates. But even if you buy that, I question the wisdom of completely abandoning a brand’s most important design cues.
A good example of this practice was Chrysler’s sporty coupe variant of the Plymouth Horizon/Dodge Omni. I can see why they gave their sedan models an anonymous European look, but they arguably had more latitude with the coupe. Yet the resulting design could have been sold at K-Mart as a generic brand.
How could it be that that Chrysler — an automaker with an enviable legacy as a producer of sporty coupes — would run so far away from its past? Did management lose its self confidence because of declining sales, particularly at the hands of imports?
If you make your car look like a weak imitation of an import, why wouldn’t many buyers just go with a foreign car due to their reputation for higher quality?
I should add that there were a few deviations from generic angularity, such as GM’s pony cars — at least until they were redesigned in 1981. The pendulum would eventually swing back to more organic and distinctive shapes, but what an unfortunate detour.
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Auto editors of Consumer Guide; 1993, 2006. Encyclopedia of American Cars. Publications International, Lincolnwood, IL.
- Flammang, James M.; 1992. Standard Catalog of Imported Cars, 1946-1990. First Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Flammang, James M. and Ron Kowalke; 1999. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1976-1999. Third Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Gunnell, John; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised 4th Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- autohistorypreservationsociety.org: BMW (1984); Mercedes-Benz (1979)
- oldcarbrochures.org: Cadillac (1975, 1978); Chrysler Cordoba (1975, 1980); Dodge Charger (1971); Dodge Omni 024 (1979); Ford Fairmont (1978); Ford Mustang (1968, 1979); Plymouth Reliant (1982)
Such a strong belief in brand design cues has its failings. The Mustang II slobbered on those cues which resulted in a bad design. Retro design was always going to be a dead end since the recycling of the old ends up in a stale continuous loop. The 1970 1/2 Camaro and Firebird were ground breaking designs yet owed nothing to their predecessor 1st generation – a move in the correct direction. The 1976 Seville took Cadillac in a proper direction that was new ground for the brand (too bad the 2nd generation failed to keep that restrained design).
Another end of the “brand identity” trap is to take a fundamentally good design then graft the brand identity nose onto it. It becomes a forced solution to placate some marketing wonk who only thinks they understand design.
As for the complaints against aerodynamic thoughts on the folded paper design idiom of the late 1970s and into the 1980s, understand that wind tunnel testing was going on and the Cd numbers were coming down during this period. Minor surface changes and where cut lines are placed can make notable changes that may not be that noticeable.
As for the K car and the Ford Fairmont, don’t blame the design idiom for being the reason those cars came off poorly. They lacked subtlety in their design execution for some unknown reason.
On the comment about the 2nd generation Cordoba lacking the design cues from the 1st generation – the 2nd generation was driven by Hal Sperlich to be as close to a then current Continental Mark V as he could get it. But, do look at the nose to see how the parking lights are handled in a way that does pick up on the separate lights from the first generation but updated to the new rectangular look versus the round look. That was a Doug Wilson design, if I remember correctly.
I agree with a fair amount with what you’ve written. Just to be clear, I think that styling continuity is a different animal than the retro movement. And I’d agree with you that the latter was a dead end. Indeed, it could get silly, e.g., the “new” Beetle that sort-of looked like the original but had none of its substantive qualities. As discussed further here, it was a cheap styling exercise in vapid nostalgia.
I am also not arguing for styling continuity in a check-the-box way. Car design is like any art — some of the best works violate basic rules in some way. For example, the 1968 Dodge Charger’s wedge shape was a meaningful departure from the previous models, but it worked pretty well. And there was at least some styling continuity in the front end (go here for further discussion).
As you suggest, grafting traditional design elements onto a design can be problematic. Of course execution is important! The flip side is that the engineers, product planners and marketing people can sometimes have useful insights that designers may resist for the wrong reasons. The whole point of good styling shouldn’t be to win awards from one’s design colleagues, but to sell cars that people want.
You seem to argue that the Mustang II suffered from too much styling continuity. To my eyes, the main link with the past was the vestigial side scoop; I didn’t think this treatment was all that bad. What I didn’t like most about the car was a strikingly generic front end and taillights that were entirely too big. The bumpers were also rather bulky looking compared to the Camaro’s more subtle approach.
By the same token, I mentioned in my essay that sometimes design needs to take the great leap forward. The 1970 1/2 Camaro/Firebird is a reasonable example of that (although I think they made them too big; go here for further discussion). The 1976 Seville? Sort of, but I personally never liked the extremely upright C-pillar.
The late 1970s was the era of downsizing in the United States and Canada. After decades of each successive redesign making the car in question longer, lower and wider, the reverse now had to happen.
By the early 1970s, U.S. designs, with few exceptions, were not very space efficient. My family had a 1976 Oldsmobile Delta 88 Royale four-door hardtop, and I remember thinking even then that it wasn’t particularly roomy inside, given the massive exterior dimensions. (The trunk wasn’t very big, either.)
The back seat wasn’t overly spacious, and ease of entry and exit weren’t that great, thanks to the low roofline and tumblehome of the greenhouse and body sides. My parents traded it for a 1982 Delta 88 Royale four-door sedan, and it was far superior in terms of roominess, comfort and ease of entry and exit. Trunk space was better, too.
Cars had to become more efficient in their use of space as they became smaller, and one way to achieve that was to make them taller and boxier. GM, in my opinion, did a very good job of maintaining brand identity of different models as it downsized the A-, B-, C- and E-bodies. The cars looked fresh, but maintained continuity with previous designs. GM didn’t drop the ball in that regard until the 1980s.
As for the Chrysler K-car and the Ford Fairmont – they may not have carried forward an abundance of visual cues, but their overall theme was in line with past models. We saw the Chrysler K-car as a continuation of the “boxy” look that had proven so popular with the Dart/Valiant. The Dart and Valiant sedans and two-door hardtops weren’t very stylish, but they were very roomy and practical for their era. Even more importantly, their sales held up even as AMC, GM and Ford restyled their compacts with newer, sleeker designs. The Aspen/Volare and Diplomat/LeBaron continued with an updated version of that look, and by the mid-1970s, Chrysler was, for once, in synch with current styling trends. The Reliant and Aries applied that that look to a smaller, front-wheel-drive compact.
The Fairmont recalled the Falcons and Fairlanes of the early 1960s. Not the most stylish cars, but they were roomy (for their size) and easy to handle. Even the simple front ensembles of the Fairmont recalled those predecessors.
The downsized Ford that initially didn’t do that well was the 1979 LTD, which abandoned its predecessor’s styling cues in favor of a design that looked as though the stylists had simply placed the drawings of a 1977 Oldsmobile Delta 88 in the Xerox machine.
Ironically, the 1980 Ford Thunderbird and Mercury Cougar XR-7 were massive flops, and a big reason was because the attempt to transfer styling cues from the very successful 1977-79 generation to the smaller Fox platform resulted in ugly, awkward cars.
So there were risks in either approach.
The Panthers were completed in early 1976, I don’t see how that would be the case
In a speech about the arts a U.S. President once quoted the poet Archibald MacLeish: “Of poets, there is nothing worse for our trade than to be in style.”
This can sometimes be the case in the auto industry too, when armies of lemmings amass and march in lock-step. There wasn’t any technical imperative to go four-square, nor did it spell certain doom. Toyota was all-in through most of the Eighties and its reputation and market share only increased.
But then there was Honda, which likely never saw a straight edge on its body. Its quality together with its smooth appearance arguably put it in the category of baby Mercedes. Through the years its has done what Steve has suggested: stay within its legacy theme. Only recently have I seen product which gave me pause. Last week in fact, when we went to the Honda dealer to get a flat tire replaced. A salesman showed me the new CR-V and HR-V and I concluded that both have taken a turn for the worse, copying the competition with bizarreness up front. It is nothing more than pandering to the market, and it will catch up Honda if they continue it.
Personally, I find the squared Fords and Chryslers, and some GM cars of the late Seventies and Eighties boring and cheap looking. Too boxy for their own good, though some of the problem had to do with simple design details. Compare the Aspen to the Monteverdi Sierra, whose body differed only in the front, rear and hood. Its bumpers might have been Euro-spec but even if they had been more protruding U.S. spec bumpers the integrated design would have looked better than Dodge’s large chrome bumpers hung on like an unwanted but necessary appendage.
Overall, I think Steve’s point is fair one. I do like the variety of designs that America produced through the years, if only to enjoy the few stand-outs. Maybe they could have kept the annual changes minimal but made broad changes, if the situation demanded it, with all-new models. The 1960 Chrysler’s front appearance for example, was a keeper that should have remained at least through ’62, but Chrysler replaced it with a lesser design. The body however, needed to go, and the four-square ’65s was not a bad play. Then again, neither was fuselage.
But then there was Honda, which likely never saw a straight edge on its body.
Honda Civic Wagon 1984-87 – you are wrong.
I have differing reactions to the two examples offered.
As far as the Fairmont goes, I remember thinking as a 9 year old when it was first published in the buff books that it looked very fresh and clean and was the most Euro looking sedan Detroit had offered. Some of the details that struck me were the way the outside mirrors were faired into the door frames, the quarter light plus six light greenhouse (similar to the C2 Audi and Opel Omega A), and the lower body scallop (something Pininfarina had popularized).
Did the appeal of the design hold up over time? No. But I think that is largely down to some styling traits characteristic of Ford USA. The front wheels are too far back, something I think Ford often did to keep down the cost of crashworthiness; there is not enough taper towards the front and rear in plan view, which had already been a Ford thing for decades; and too many of them were sold with vinyl roofs, wire wheelcovers and such, which end up fighting the overall clean design.
I don’t agree that it was bad. It could have been better. In an alternate reality, Ford might have put Gene Bordinat out to pasture earlier and made Uwe Bahnsen global design chief, in which case it might have looked like the Australian Falcon XD, a very fine design indeed. But even on its own terms, it’s a far better effort than what Japan had to offer in this relative size in the late ’70s. Consider the Toyota Cressida and Datsun 810. They were a hot mess.
The Aires/Reliant is a different story. It’s bad styling. But to be fair to the designers, I rather think this is down to Chrysler’s engineering led culture. The package they determined would be almost impossible to style well. It had to have the six passenger interior room of conventional US intermediate size yet be less than 15 feet long so that a stipulated number could be optimally shipped by rail. Given that package there wasn’t much the designers could have done to make it appealing. What they did do seems like an effort to make a smaller scale 1977 GM B Body, which may not have been a terrible direction given the praise that design received. And to be totally fair, the first year of the K cars has a better look because of the fixed rear windows and smaller quarter lights.
Overall, I think that the K car program is more the problem than anything. What Chrysler should have done instead is adapt the engineering of the Talbot Solara, including Roy Axe’s styling, as it had done with the Horizon. That would have given it a true import fighter rather than a shrink-wrapped Satellite/Coronet. Domestic engineering could then have focussed on developing a larger package more competitive with the GM A bodies.
This analysis, while interesting in its detail and thoroughness, omits one major factor: The vision and leadership of Lee Iacocca. Ford vehicles from 1973 until the regime change of Phil Caldwell-Don Petersen were largely boxy, especially the full-size cars. Ford’s big hit was the 1975 Granada / Monarch.
As Robert Lacey’s excellent book “Ford, The Men and The Machines” noted that in the mid-1970s Iacocca and his product planners faced a crossroads: Should the smaller cars for the U.S. follow the route taken by Ford of Britain and Europe with front-wheel-drive, or should they continue with front-engine, rear-drive cars ? Iacocca and his team picked the template for the Fairmont / Zephyr. While the investment in the Fox and Panther platforms allowed Ford to spinoff many good cars including the 1979 Mustang and the 1983 Thunderbird and served Ford into the 21st century, the initial designs utilizing these platforms were boxes on wheels.
Then Iacocca and a few Ford engineers and designers move over to rescue Chrysler. The Simca-based Omnizon was already in production, but for the 1981 K-cars, simplicity is the best, so more boxes on wheels. Chrysler stylists eventually rounded the corners of the sheet metal of the K-car-derived successors by the late 1980s, but why spend money on complex, compound curve sheet metal dies ?
The K Car Designs were finalized in 1977 for 36 month turnaround on engineering and released in September 1980, so you would be wrong. Iacocca wasn’t there…
The idea of styling continuity, while certainly a worthwhile aim, presupposes that you have styling worth continuing! 🙂
GM’s big cars certainly needed a bulk-ectomy. Overhang reduction for a start, thin down those doors, flatten the gratuitous side contours to lose some bulk, and maybe a bit of narrowing; how much space do six people really need? Sit them a bit more upright for comfort while you’re about it. Mission accomplished.
Then there were those colonnade intermediates with their odd fender bulges and overdone side contours – they were something of a styling dead end. Likewise, they needed a top and tail, flatten those flabby sides and – oops! Someone slapped a goofy roof on the prestige models.
I think GM’s downsizing of the intermediates overdid things. Not in the sense of size, but style. I can understand them going for the sheer look to emphasize the efficiency of the new designs, but in doing so they threw away or minimised some ‘brand cues’ they would have done better to retain. Not only did all the brands look too similar, but they wound up with cars that I always thought looked like they were shaped with a cheese cutter – just too square to look ‘right’. And often they looked depressingly similar.
Then there were tha X-cars, the A-cars. Ultrabox. The downsized big cars lost their distinctive coupe rooflines in favour of a one-size-suits-none generic box.
From being something of an industry style leader, GM seemed to lose direction during this period, and become mired in a morass of boxiness. Boxy cars in your choice of size.
Seems an increasing number of people didn’t want boxes…..
GM lost design direction and distinctiveness for 2 reasons. 1. Bill Mitchell hit mandatory retirement age. The 1977s were done under his direction. Instead of GM approving Mitchell’s choice for his successor (Chuck Jordan) they went with Irv Ribycki as the VP Design. 2. With Ribycki in charge Design’s inclination to fight for design was reduced and the corporate power structure for far more commonality won. This was reflected in fewer unique sheetmetal toolings and the notable standardization of roofs. While Ford and Chrysler were limited in their quantity of brands applying the sameness across 5 brands was a problem.
Since the first post WWII cars came out pretty much everyone was pushing longer lower wider. So, you are looking as a whole generation of stylists doing long low and wide, which granted after 1960 got difficult as cars couldn’t get much bigger. So, they try various tweaks to get the look. Then, they are told to downsize. It is only natural that they would pull tricks to retain the look, and the executives who pushed long low and wide would approve it.
Sorry – but I completely disagree.
I remember. Those Fox body cars were rebellious. The Omnirizon was rebellious. The K-Car was rebellious. They rebelled against the horrible 1970 designs of overwrought, bloated curvy barges with park bench bumpers. They were shocking designs that stripped away the past. A past filled with failures. When the Fairmont appeared, it was a shot across the bow of auto designs – a challenge. The Ford Fox bodies were lightness and efficiency in auto design. If you wanted brougham barges, the 1980s told you that the future wasn’t brougham. Never mistake simplicity as a lack of creativity.
I would not argue that the cars as concept were going in the right direction. My problem with the Fairmont was that it lacked subtlety in execution of the design.
The Omni/Horizon was ChryCo’s iteration of a VW Rabbit. In fact there were development cars that were modified Rabbits. Not a bad design for its time.
As for the K car – a package that went in the correct direction but a woeful execution of the design that lacked all subtlety. That may be able to be traced to who Iacocca installed as the new VP Design.
To understand the battering ram bumpers one needs to more clearly understand the then regulations that had to be met. Effectively it required bumpers to comprise the area of 16″-20″ off the ground for the front and rear. In addition to the straight on test for the front (5 mph) and the rear (2.5 mph) there were diagonal requirements too. And the amount of damage allowed was basically the rubber trim strip that might be on the bumper.
As there were lines of cars that were not set for model revision for several years these were the ones most affected. They were not designed with the requirement in mind so many of them had band aid solutions.
As new designs were developed in the studios a solution that worked was to use a soft nose. With this the apparent bumper zone could be different than where the real 16″-20″ was. The peak point was moved up to where the body design looked right while compliance was maintained. The Cordoba/Mirada is an example of this.
You keep bringing Iacocca up, yet are not cognizant of the fact that the K Cars were already done of December 1977 and saw no styling changes upon Iacocca’s 1978 arrival, outside of model additions for 1982 model year and beyond.
It had to be ready for production in the summer of 1980 and that meant 2.5 years of assembly tooling prep. The T115 minivan final design was even locked down by 1980, before January 1984 launch. Iacocca presided over design of later iterations, not the ’81 model year.
Cars are not designed that fast in any respect. Today’s V8 powered pickups and turbo 4 sedans, still take some 3 years from final design to release. 2029-30 models are in the studio now. The original throwback Chrysler 300C was finalized in 2000, despite being a 2005 model.
I was in the Chrysler studios in the summer of 1977. There were 2 exterior studios (what Chrysler called wings) and I was primarily in the larger car and truck wing where the Cordoba/Mirada were well along, the full size 1979 “turd” and the Dodge pick-up was all the way in the back getting a new instrument panel.
The other wing was small cars and international. The Omni and Horizon coupes were well along. The Omni and Horizon sedans were finished. I do not remember seeing the K car clays.
Hal Sperlich was the “big man on campus” at the time. He rode roughshod over the VP Design Dick Macadam. Sperlich loved the Lincoln Mark V which is the reason the Cordoba is a smaller interpretation of it. The Dodge pick-up got an instrument panel that was an interpretation of the then Thunderbird because of him too.
When Iacocca came in he threw out Macadam (a well respected design leader) so he could bring over Don Delarossa (a Bordinat drinking buddy). A step down in talent.
As for the T115, this was not in development. I remember a discussion with another designer about GM and Ford having already done proposals on the “van that fit inside a regular home garage”.
J: Were in the small car studio?