Our discussion about the Volkswagen Scirocco (go here) got me to thinking about my car design biases. Two of them heavily influence how I write about automotive history:
- Perhaps my most important assumption is that 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-70s 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.
High-status brands had 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.
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 Porsche, Mercedes-Benz, Land Rover and Cadillac in its heyday.
Also see ‘Mercedes-Benz W123: Back when form really did follow function’
Of course, these are all luxury brands. One might point out that a high-priced car is 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.
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 would function 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 a remarkable level of cachet for an economy brand.
I can see why car designers — both back then and now — could be dismissive of this approach because it effectively demotes them to a subservient status under engineers. However, if we want the auto industry to offer a healthy diversity of products, shouldn’t we support the idea that styling should not be the dominant focus of every automaker?
Unduly boxy shapes undercut car 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 rounded contours. In addition, vehicles with curves tend to look faster than bricks on wheels.
The boxy designs of that era tended to go hand in hand with perpetuating the increasingly tired brougham look. So even the plebeian Chrysler K-cars were given upright C-pillars and radiator grilles.
Too many boxy designs ran away from past styling
In retrospect, it’s striking how often U.S. automakers ran away from the past when they adopted angular styling. For example, the only visual cue that the 1979 Ford Mustang had in common with previous generations was the logo. Much the same could be said of the 1980 Chrysler Cordoba. Given the popularity of these nameplates, why would their automakers treat their design legacy with so little respect?
Also see ‘Ford did better than Chrysler in differentiating its 1970s mid-sized coupes’
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?
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or anote to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Auto editors ofConsumer Guide; 1993, 2006.Encyclopedia of American Cars.Publications International, Lincolnwood, IL.
- Flammang, James M.; 1992.Standard Catalog of ImportedCars, 1946-1990.FirstEd. 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:
- wildaboutcarsonline.com(Automotive History Preservation Society): BMW (1984); Mercedes-Benz (1979)
- oldcarbrochures.org: Dodge Omni 024 (1979); Ford Fairmont (1978); Plymouth Reliant (1982)
