...I deamed the 1959 Nash Metropolitan as the ugliest car of all time, the first time I saw it I had just had a great breakfast and laughed so hard I had a visit from my breakfast...
It really is a close call. For example, I can't think of ANY 1959 Chrysler product that looks any better than its 1958 counterpart. In fact, some of the '58 Mopars, like the DeSoto Firesweep, Dodge, and Plymouth, came off looking better than the '57's. Rare for a facelift!
With Fords, I think the '58 Ford looks better, but the '59 Mercury and Edsel look better. The Lincoln is a toss-up though.
For GM, I think the only real offenders for 1958 were Olds and Buick. Chevy, Pontiac, and Cadillac escaped major damage. For '59, my only picks would be the Pontiac or Olds. The Caddy and Chevy were just too grotesque, and the Buick just too strange
well after perusing the list of ugly cars a thought came to me that everyone should do a search on some of the iron that came from Australia. Talk about ugly!
Oh, you mean some of those botched-up Holdens? Well, at least in Australia, cars have an excuse for a bit of homeliness, since they take a beating in many parts of the country.
I have no problem at all with utilitarian and practical ugliness (like a Land Rover), but gratuitous ugliness is hard to take. It costs just as much money and talent to make an ugly car as a reasonably attractive one.
...if you've ever seen any episodes of "Leave It to Beaver" at the end when the credits are rolling a 1959 DeSoto passes Wally and the Beav as they're walking to the house. Also, Mr. Cleaver drove several vintage Mopar products. In the first season, he drove a 1957 Ford Custom 300, but in later seasons he drove a 1960 Plymouth and a 1963 Plymouth. He may have even had a 1959 Plymouth, or was that Mr. Rutherford? Lumpy drove a 1940 Ford convertible. They said it was purple, but the show was in B&W so you had to take their word for it. Wally later had a beat-looking 1953 Chevrolet convertible. I'm not sure what Eddie's car was. It looked like a white 1940s Dodge sedan with the doors tied closed.
...yeah, I've probably seen that '59 DeSoto a million times! I'll be the first to admit I'm an old-tv junkie. I think "Leave it to Beaver" ran from 1957-62, so they probably gave Mr. Cleaver a new car every year. I remember the '57 Ford (which I always thought was ugly with those bug-eyed headlights), but I don't remember a '58 model. I do recall a '59 Plymouth, but don't remember a '60 or '61. For the final season, they had a '62 Plymouth, I beleive. You can see it in the opening credits, with the jazzy music, as the family piles into the car and backs down the driveway.
Seems to me like the ending credit scene with the '59 DeSoto held on for a lot longer than one season though...maybe they used it until the final season, when they went with the "jazzy" music? I don't remember Eddie Haskell's car, except for one episode where he quit high school and got a full-time job as a mechanic. He pulled up in a brand new '61 (I think) Dodge. I remember Wally hollering at him to get it back to the garage before they realized it was missing.
As for Austrailian cars, I think some of 'em are kinda cool. When we got the Duster and Demon for '70, the Aussies got a different body style, that was still a true hardtop. Here are some links... http://www.valiant.org/valguys.jpg and http://www.valiant.org/jplittle.jpg . Sorry they're not the best quality. I'll agree though, some of 'em were pretty hideous, in a cool sort of way ;-)
...but I saw Mr. Cleaver drive home today in a '61 Plymouth. Hideous! If ya ask me, he shoulda gone down to the local DeSoto dealer...I'm sure they would've been ready to deal on the end-of-the-line '61's. Not nearly as ugly either (to me at least, I'm sure many would disagree ;-) But then I guess it wouldn't make sense for Chrysler to showcase a defunct (or soon to be defunct) car on a tv show!
the Ford Aerstar commercials in the 80's where they compare the front of the van to the Space Shuttle? The shuttle was still fairly new back then, and a radical departure from previous spacecraft, and Ford was trying to push the Aerostar's "high-tech" styling, both with the name and the advertising. Of course, today it just looks like a shoebox on wheels. I wouldn't call it ugly, but not pretty either. Just lame.
...I remember the jingle, too. It was set to the tune of 5th Dimensions "Age of Aqaurius". Next time you hear that song on the radio, just mentally insert the word "Aerostar" for "Aquarius" (or however ya spell it!)
...but for some reason, I still like it. Y'know how some cars just fall into the "so ugly it's cool" category? I never cared too much for the '54 Buicks in general though. The body styles themselves were very attractive, but I just didn't like the way the headlight assemblies were styled...just kinda gave the car a "dopey" look. The '55-56's were nice looking cars, though.
The 1961 Plymouth - and 1961 Dodge, DeSoto and Imperial, for that matter - are definitely ugly, but they fall into the "what on earth were they thinking?" category. There was a clean, white 1961 Plymouth Fury convertible for sale at Fall Carlise ($21,000). As I looked at it, I couldn't believe that a major manufacturer would release a design like that for the mainstream market. Even the Pontiac Aztek, another "what were they thinking?" design, is aimed at a small segment of the market. If I'd been a Plymouth dealer in 1960, I'd have turned in my franchise on the spot after Chrysler unveiled the 1961 Plymouth!
At least the 1961 Plymouth, Dodge, DeSoto and Imperial are "interesting-ugly" designs, as opposed to merely "boring-ugly" (many 1980s and early 1990s GM models fall into this category).
...Chrysler really seemed to run the gamut in terms of ugliness. I think the worst were the Plymouth and Imperial lines. That Plymouth was just ugly all over, and I can't think of any redeeming qualities. The Imperial was just too weird, with its awkward fins, freestanding headlights, and strange looking rooflines. Dodge wasn't too bad, actually. Kinda conservative up front, but just weird with those reverse-slant fins and sunk-in taillights that I've heard referred to as "ingrown toenails".
The '61 Chrysler actually isn't that bad. I'm not too crazy about the slanty headlights, but overall, at least it has a sleek, integrated look about it. It looks like styling was handled by one committee instead of 3 or 4 disjointed ones, such as the Imperial and Plymouth. And the '61 DeSoto is virtually identical, except for the "double-stacked" grille theme. Kinda ugly, but an ugliness that makes it look menacing and agressive, as opposed to just dopey like how some cars today are!
I always thought the '61 Chrysler/DeSoto facelift was a bit strange though. The '60's were clean and modern looking, and if they'd shaved off the tailfins and taken some wrap out of the windshield, they still would've looked modern by '65! But then the '61's, especially when viewed from the side, didn't look any more modern than the '57's.
Grbeck, if you were a Plymouth dealer back then...well, if you had any sense of decency, you would've turned in that franchise as soon as they unveiled the '59 models!! ;-)
At least to me, the '57 Mopars look so much more modern than any other American sedans that year. The overall shape, especially the roofline, is at least one styling cycle ahead of GM and Ford. Of course, people go nuts over '57 Chevies, not '57 Plymouths, so I guess that says something. It's Exner's handling of details that's either boring (Plymouth) or over the top--but in a nice way, Andre ;-).
I suspect that Exner retired another of your favorites designers, Harley Earl, if GM's '58s were an all-out Earl-led response to the Forward Look.
I understand Exner had a serious heart attack in '56 and I've wondered what effect that may have had on his subsequent creativity. Obviously when he finished the '57s he'd shot his bolt.
...I like to compare it to Elvis. There was the young, cool, hip Elvis, and the old, bloated, sequinned Elvis scarfing down peanut butter sandwiches. To me there's "good" Exner which extends up through 1958. From '59 onward, well, let's just say I smell peanut butter!
I'll agree (interesting Elvis analogy, maybe an SAE paper in it) except that the '59s used the same shells. It just points up Exner's real weaknesses: grilles, taillights, stuff like that.
Also, '59 was the year GM caught up. Not everyone will agree with that, just like not everyone likes '59 Chevies, but given the aesthetic standards of the time GM's styling was competitive again.
Speaking of '57s, I wonder how much of the Chevy's huge appeal comes from its performance image, which of course comes from the small block, and how much comes from its styling. I like '57s too but they look a little like the box the Plymouth came in.
Andre: Actually, I like the 1959 Plymouth. For that matter, with the exception of that year's Dodge, to my eyes the styling of Chrysler Corp.'s 1959 models isn't too bad. Plymouth, DeSoto, Chrysler and Imperial are superior to their Ford and GM competitors, with the exception of the 1959 Pontiac. The 1959 Ford is just too boxy, while the Chevrolet looks bloated. I never thought things got really funky at Chrysler Corp. until the 1960 model year, when the Plymouth featured even bigger tail fins and weird "cat's eye" front fenders with odd two-toning. The Dodge Polara and Matador and Dodge Dart weren't much better.
Regarding Virgil Exner, he still had some good ideas after his 1957 triumph. In 1996 Collectible Automobile featured an article on what the 1962 Plymouth would have looked like if it had debuted as Virgil Exner originally intended. That year's Plymouth and Dodge were supposed to be regular full-size cars with radical new styling. Several of the features - big, deeply drawn windshields, sharply curved side windows and an uninterrupted transition between sheet metal and side windows - wouldn't show up on American cars for several years. The article featured several photos of styling prototypes. The greenhouse of the four-door hardtop bears a striking resemblance to the four-door hardtops introduced in the 1971 model year by GM in its lower level full-size lines (Chevrolet Impala/Caprice, Pontiac Catalina/Bonneville, Olds 88, Buick LeSabre). The roofline of the Plymouth Fury hardtop coupe looks very similar to that of the 1965-66 Chevrolet Impala. Unfortunately, Exner lost control of the process when Chrysler decided its full-size Plymouth and Dodge should be downsized to compete with smaller full-size Chevrolets that never materialized. The Plymouths and Dodges that ultimately debuted for the 1962 model year were not what he intended.
In many cases Exner was the victim of corporate chaos. Chrysler was in serious trouble from 1958-62, with management problems that make today's struggles look like child's play. There was a real struggle between styling and engineering, while the corporation made some product decisions that in retrospect seem incredibly stupid. Originally, the Valiant wasn't even badged as a Plymouth, which changed when Chrysler realized it needed Valiant sales totals to keep Plymouth in the sales race. It was during this period that Chrysler sealed Plymouth's ultimate fate by inexplicably giving Dodge dealers the Dart, a full-size model that competed directly with its corporate sibling! Looking through some old literature, I remember seeing a comparison chart where Dodge urged prospective buyers to compare the Dart to "Car C," "Car F," and "Car P"! Between the bizarre styling and competition from Dodge, I'm amazed that Plymouth didn't fall off the sales charts in the early 1960s!
Well, okay, maybe old Verge did design something tasteful and timeless, I just haven't stumbled on it yet. Let's just say IMO there is a big difference between trend and good design.
Look what he did to a Bugatti:
He did win awards and stuff, though, so somebody liked his work.
Here are some of his other design ideas. What do you all think?
Speedshift, even though the '59 Mopars used the same shell, it seems that sometimes, the best way to look at pictures of them is with your thumb over the front of the car! I think it's really only the Plymouth and Dodge that bother me that year. The Plymouth's eggcrate grille and the way the top of the fender dips between the headlights just looks to garish (a word that, somehow, only gets applied to '50's cars!), and Dodge just kind of over-did it with the "eyebrow" thing! The Chrysler's not too bad, except for a front-end that's just too blunt compared to the '57-58 models, which just looked slicker. I think the DeSoto is actually pretty good looking, although I'd still take a '57 or '58 model. I used to belong to the National DeSoto Club years ago, and I remember in their club roster, there were more '59's listed than '57's or '58's. I forget the exact figure, but I know there were something like 117,500 '57's built, versus only about 49,000 '58's and 46,000 '59's. But I think there were more '59's in the roster than '57-58 combined! I wonder if Mopar quality had improved enough by '59 to give them a better survival rate? I can't see why people would desire the '59 over the '57 or '58 based on its style!
As for '57, I have a few theories on why people prefer Chevies nowadays. For one thing, there's just the Chevy name, which has more brand equity than Plymouth. I'm sure that if in '57, the Chevy looked like the Plymouth and vice versa, then "forward look" Chevies would be all the rage today! As it was though, in '57, Chevy and Ford outsold Plymouth by a 2-1 margin. Still, I look at the Plymouth as a success, because it was more like a 3-1 margin in 1956! Chevy actually lost sales for '57. I'm not sure if Ford went down or up, but I know it beat Chevy for the model year. But still, Plymouth surged ahead in a big way for '57.
Then there's the matter of the size of these cars. A '57 Chevy is about the size of a modern Ford Taurus, while a '57 Plymouth is closer to a Park Avenue in size. That might've been to the Plymouth's advantage in 1957, when longer-lower-wider was all the rage, but by the mid-60's it was just a big old car with tailfins that nobody wanted. My mother paid about $75.00 for one in 1965, and she really didn't want it, either! The Chevy though, while looking outdated in '57, was suddenly cool because it didn't have all those excesses that typified the '50's. The Chevy was also a few hundred lb lighter than the Plymouth, so that probably made it appeal a lot more to the hot-rodders. Usually when people hot-rod a Plymouth, they go all the way with a 440 or something, but with a Chevy usually a smallblock will do.
As for styling, I think the only thing wrong with the '57 Plymouth is the fake-me-out quad headlight setup using the turn signals, and the stone shield under the bumper that looks like it belongs on a modern Jeep. They fixed both of those little transgressions for '58 though.
I'd agree that by '59, GM had caught up with Chrysler in styling. I don't think that they're necessarily any better looking, but they certainly were more modern looking. Chrysler had made a big step in '57 with transforming its cars into low-slung, modern vehicles, but GM did that one step further for '59. Cars like the '59 Pontiac and Oldsmobile would've still looked modern a few years into the '60's.
Grbeck, it sounds like Exner had some interesting ideas for what could have been in the '60's. I've never seen any pics though, but from what you described it sounds like I need to start looking for some back issues of Collectible Automobile! I do remember reading that Exner referred to the botch-jobs that did premiere for '62 as the "plucked chickens!" I read that the planned '62 DeSoto was supposed to be really attractive. As it turns out, I think the best looking Mopar for '62 was the Dodge Custom 880, which was basically a '61 Polara front clip mated to a '62 de-finned Newport. Dull and conservative, but innoffensive!
looks like Exner turned a Bugatti into a '69 Grand Prix on an acid trip! Most of those cars pictured in that link look like they took on a lot of early Valiant and '62-63 "downsized" Mopar styling cues.
I know nothing about styling and have no taste, but Exner's basic shapes mostly work for me. The problem with his styling exercises is that they have the same overwrought detailing as his production designs. "Less is more" was never a part of Exner's styling vocabulary.
My father owned a '59 Plymouth two-door wagon in the early '60s that I'm sure he got cheap, judging by where he bought it: a small used-car lot that was just a clearing in the piney woods of Florida. Great camping car.
My parents bought a '57 Saratoga in Detroit in 1958. Not that '57 Mopars rusted quickly, but this one already had rust in the rockers.
but that Exner stuff in the link that shifty posted is pretty awful. Boring too -- they all look the same.
I remember as a kid in third grade, I always walked by a '56 Imperial on the way home from school every day. The goofy little upright taillights kind of fascinated me, but they just looked kind of tacked on, and the car sure didn't ring my bell the way the 56 Lincoln Premiere hardtop coupe did. However, the 58 was much smoother and better integrated than either the Lincoln or Caddy. 58 was a transistion year, and transition models often look awkward because the manufacturers introduce elements they feel may too radical for their consumers -- you often end up with a pickles-and-ice-cream treatment.
Virgil Exner has always impressed me as similar to George Barris. I preferred Big Daddy Roth, because while he was invariably over the top, his designs were fresh, and seemed motivated more by a love for speed than chrome.
Mr. Shiftright: The 1955 Chrysler 300, 1956 300B and 1957 300 C strike me as tasteful and timeless.
I'm always amused when people pan American styling of the 1950s and 1960s. (In the next breath, European design is usually held up as the example of what car styling should be.) I work part-time at the Carlisle Car Shows, and Europeans and Japanese can't get enough of those big American cars from the 1950s and 1960s. They snap up clean examples - even four door sedans - as fast as they can!
I remember a Volvo ad from 1968. It featured the 1957 Chevrolet, Ford and Plymouth, with a headline that read, "The cars of 1957, where are they now?" Well, 33 years later, the 1957 Chevrolet, Ford and Plymouth hardtops (sedans and coupes) and convertibles are collectible automobiles. (For that matter, 1968 full-size Chevrolet, Ford and Plymouth hardtop coupes and convertibles don't fare too badly in the collector car market.) I don't see too many people rushing to restore 1960s Volvos - or any of the other sober European sedans that were held up as examples of what automobiles should be.
Andre1969: The issue of Collectible Automobile was December 1996. You have to look carefully in the background of the photos to see all of the different proposed body styles.
Regarding the popularity of 1957 Plymouths versus 1957 Chevrolets, I think part of it may have to do with the lousy build quality and rust resistance of the Plymouth (all of that year's Mopars). Many people who bought them quickly regretted it. The Chevrolet, meanwhile, was on the third year of that basic body, and had its bugs pretty much worked out. Plus, Chevrolet V-8s were better than their Plymouth (or Ford) counterparts.
You will always find some thing tasteful amidst the tasteless and vice-versa.
Also, people buy Elvis on Velvet paintings but that doesn't make them good art critics.
Yep, a '55 Chrysler is reasonably tasteful for a 50s American car. So is a '55 Chevy, and a '53 Studebaker Starlight coupe. Problem is it goes downhill from there.
Certainly I wasn't implying that European designers are all good. Some of them penned hideous cars.
A car is not only a metal sculpture, it is a working machine. So, to me, any excess weight, useless fin or non functioning scoop is bad design. Add to that bad proportion and chaotic trim and you've got a real mess. You'd think some of these guys would have learned something in design school.
"A car is not only a metal sculpture, it is a working machine. So, to me, any excess weight, useless fin or non functioning scoop is bad design."
I disagree -- if that were the basis of great design, all the car manufacturers would let their computers and wind tunnels design the things and leave it at that. The 80s were populated with many featureless cars with low CDs and low emotional content. Remember, a car's shape can be extremely efficient without being either beautiful or emotionally compelling (the Lexus LS430 comes immediately to mind).
Fact is, the sweeping fenders of the 30s and 40s were neither aerodynamic nor efficient -- for instance, they made poor use of the car's width in terms of passenger space -- but the cars of that era are the ones designers most hearken to when they're trying to inject something beautiful and fresh into their designs.
Historically, European designers were just as fascinated with wings and fins as were Americans, but seldom did them as well (Mercedes being a prime example). And many of the specials created for European car shows were and are undeniably weird. But that is their purpose -- to stretch the envelope to the point of absurdity if necessary.
i think Cadillac got it right when they based their latest marketing campaign on the combination of art and science. Now if they can just live up to it, they should be just fine!
I don't see how anyone could conceive of fat, bloated cars brimming with non-functional objects and gee-gaws glued on it having anything to do with good, solid, talented design. All that is is "kitsch", from the school of Lava lamps and Smurf dolls. Even the lowly Model T paid homage to weight and functionality. True, some 30s cars were aerodynamically naive, but timelessly beautiful (Cord), while others were just 1930s blobs (pick one of many). Tail fins are just pop culture kitsch, that's all. Sort of the fun, frivolous end of what one might call design, in the broadest sense. But it's certainly not design at its most educated and enlightened.
Fact is, people buy these cars today because they are so vulgar and outrageous. They aren't held up as examples of good design, but rather as examples of bad design. If tail-finned cars were musicians, they'd be Liberace, not Beethoven.
that I did not intend. My reply was to your rather absolutist comment that ANY extraneous body feature is inherently bad design -- and it's not. As for American cars of the 50s, your opinion is as valid as any of ours -- and vice versa.
Yeah I thought of George Barris too. The exercises are more pop culture than timeless styling but then most car design is.
I still think Exner's '57s were equal to or better than competing models. The Chevy-Pontiac shell dates to 1955 and looks it, especially the sedans. The Chevy is still sharp but the Pontiac looks like a recycled Buick. I happen to like the '57 Buick and Olds but for a new design they're surprisingly evolutionary, not the big step forward that the '54s were.
Same with the Fords, first-year designs that are okay but nothing like the '49, '52 (which I think is underrated) and '55.
I think one's opinion of bad design is based on one's exposure to good design. I wouldn't say that one opinion is as good a s another--this pays no respect to informed opinion--but I would concede that there is a relative range of how good or bad something is. One extraneous or capricious item does not ruin a design by any means, but my point was that Exner didn't know when to stop. There is a saying that it takes two people to design a car well...one to do the drawings and one to hold the baseball bat to stop the other from drawing when he's really done.
Cars are working machines, but they are also personal statements - not only about the hopes, aspirations and secret desires of the people buying them, but also the dreams and desires of the society that produces them. That is why cars are special and much more than mere working machines. Good design also addresses those needs and hidden desires. If cars were merely working machines, we wouldn't trade them in long before they wear out. (I love it when my parents - who lived through the Depression and World War II - justify a new car by saying that they "need" one. They really WANT one; the present car always still has plenty of miles left in it!) How many people buy a new washing machine or refrigerator before the old one dies? For that matter, how many posters on this board can name the brand of their major kitchen appliances without checking? Even little kids know what kind of car their parents drive (and more often than not, how it fits into the vehicular pecking order). For that matter, is there a website similar to Edmunds.com where people debate the merits of Kenmore versus Whirlpool dishwashers?
Yes, functionality is important, but if that is the main criteria of good design, savvy collectors would be snapping up 1960 Ford Falcons or 1960s Volvos and leaving the Mustangs to rust. (Who really needs all that hood combined with a cramped back seat and a tiny trunk?) It can't be because of superior performance or handling; old cars are restored primarily because modern-day collectors like their style. No one drives them much once they are restored. When I went to Hershey this fall, there was an entire section of the show field devoted solely to lovingly restored 1964-1966 Mustangs. No Volvos that I could see, and only a few Falcons.
For that matter, if function were the primary goal of good design, the best selling new vehicles would probably be minivans (for families) and economical two-seaters (for commuting to and from work). Instead, the two best selling vehicles are huge, gas-guzzling pickup trucks whose beds mostly transport air. I would argue that today's passenger vehicles are TOO functional in their style - which is why collectors eagerly scoop up outrageous 1950s dreamboats or new vehicle buyers purchase hulking, equally outrageous SUVs and pickups. The automobile is about much more than getting from Point A to Point B.
I remember the old saying, "Any engineer worth his salt can design a water pump for a Rolls Royce. It takes a genius to design one for a Chevrolet." Well, any stylist worth his or her degree can design a simple, functional and attractive car or truck. It takes a genius to figure out what buyers REALLY want and give it to them in an attractive, cost-effective package. That is an important part of good design. The American automobile industry doesn't need someone preaching function in the design office, it needs another Bill Mitchell or Harley Earl.
As for shifty's comment that "I think one's opinion of bad design is based on one's exposure to good design," let's at least agree that those of us who frequent this board have relatively equal exposure to design, both good and bad -- that is, unless shifty (to whom I presume he's referring) is privy to makes and models so obscure that their pictures are not to be found in classifieed ads or encyclopedias.
It is human nature to assume that own's one opinion is inherently valid, while those of others are valid only insofar as they agree with ours. Allow me to say: "Poppycock." (I'd say something else, but it probably wouldn't make it thru spellcheck.)
Fact is, some very prominent and respected Italian design houses were fascinated with the florid excesses of 50s American styling -- Pininfarina and Ghia, to name two -- and while not all were shining examples of automotive art, the high points were really breathtaking. Their beauty is reflected in their market worth today, here and across the planet. and American styling of the 50s was hardly the first attempt at creating something really outrageously flamboyant. The Bugatti Atlantic coupe and the works of Figoni-Fallaschi spring to mind as some of the most wonderfully goofball shapes ever to grace the roads. I'd love two in my garage, to keep my 59 Cadillac company.
Let's face it -- not everybody likes dark beer or beef liver. That doesn't mean that they aren't any good -- it's just a matter of taste,and sometimes it takes awhile to develop the necessary palette. Try it, shifty -- you just may like it! =O)
I wouldn't say that one opinion is as good a s another--this pays no respect to informed opinion--but I would concede that there is a relative range of how good or bad something is. One extraneous or capricious item does not ruin a design by any means, but my point was that Exner didn't know when to stop. There is a saying that it takes two people to design a car well...one to do the drawings and one to hold the baseball bat to stop the other from drawing when he's really done.
I mistakenly included shifty's final paragraph in my post. But his point about Exner is well taken, and I salute shifty for his intelligence for having the same opinion as I do!
I think history will bear out a good number of my ideas of good design, but this is going to take time, so be patient!
The reason I cite history is that over time, the greatness of a design is more clearly seen--as it often is with politicians, actors or even events. Nobody thought too much of either Getttyburg or Abraham Lincoln in 1863.
Already you can see the lack of interest in boxy cars from the 20s, the postwar cars of the 1940s (unless they were European carry-overs from 1939) and many of the vulgar cars of the 50s (1958 especially). And many 70s and 80s cars nobody much wanted in the first place.
History will judge bad design for what it was...a quickly passing trend pandering to questionable tastes.
Good design is timeless and appreciated by many generations, and MOST important, recognized by people who aren't even remotely interested in cars.
Motorheads can like just about anything, but your average disinterested person needs a powerful and beautiful design statement to respond to.
Good design is certainly not just funcionality. Volvos of the 1970s are very uninspired cars, you're right. But the form should follow the function and complement it. You see a scoop on a Ferrari, and it's cooling brakes or something, and it looks great, too. It's not a bird's nest.
I agree with many, though not all, of your assessments of tasteless design -- nonfunctional hood scoops being way at the top of the list. But the sweep of history includes ALL of humankind, not just motorheads, as you noted, and the population's continuing fascination with such cars as the 57 Chevy -- which I NEVER liked, even as a kid when it first came out -- serves to demonstrate that taste and design are far from absolutes, no matter how hard we try to define them. On the other hand, I still love the lines of the 57 DeSoto -- certainly a marginal taste, judging from the comments elsewhere on this board.
Fact is, our fascination with art is subconscious, and almost impossbile to define. Were it not so, all art could be reduced to formulae, and would cease to be art. A great deal of what passes for art nowadays -- and sells for an insane amount of money -- is just foolishness to me, and I have made my living in art and design since before graduating from high school.
I believe that life is for enjoying, in all its variety, and I try not to ignore the beauty in ordinary things. That, to my mind, is what art is all about -- the celebration of the beauty in everything, including the most commonplace. That is not to ignore the beauty in the truly exceptional -- but as a former advertising executive, I find myself extremely resistant to brand marketing. That is why I resist your premise that something's collectibility legitimizes your opinion of its worth. Worth can be defined as market value, in which the most important component is what people are willing to pay for it; or it can be defined as personal value, in which the most important component is how much enjoyment you derive from it. Of the two definitions, I prefer the latter, because my enjoyment is not based on exterior factors, such as its future worth to someone else.
However, it would make me wonder if no one, for instance, had any notion to save a certain car, and if all of them rotted away----well, the public has spoken, hasn't it? Of if the Blue Book value stays at $350 for the next 50 years. That tells me that this is not an object of beauty. It has been scorned, neglected, forgotten, junked, tossed. Surely the designer has failed!
Sure, we can take the Zen view that all concepts are essentially empty, and that nothing is beautiful or ugly in its true nature. But RELATIVELY speaking, they are beautiful or ugly, to us, in our minds, in our tastes, in our checkbooks. We make these judgements all the time.
Everything is relative. (A little cornball metaphysical humor fer ya)....
Everyone is different -- there are those who like buying things that other people admire and recognize as valuable, and others who enjoy the delicious feeling of having discovered buried treasure. The knowledge that you have found something wonderful that no one else knows about, like a secret surfing spot, or a really wonderful liquor that you can buy for next to nothing.
I've noticed for quite some time that when I come across a really neat old car in rough but restorable shape sitting in someone's side yard, my heart just pounds with anticipation; whereas if I see the same kind of car, only beautifully restored, I glance at it appreciatively and move on.
At first I thought it was due purely to my semi-conscious desire to buy the car for a song and restore it myself -- partially true, and an impulse that I've indulged repeatedly. But it goes beyond that. There's a purity in a slightly ratty, unrestored sports car that speaks volumes about its owner's experiences, the history and soul of the car. That's why unrestored cars can actually command more points than a perfectly restored one. In my crowd, trailer queens are greeted with derision. They may be beautiful, but most of my friends simply do not respect someone who wipes the fly footprints off their car every time they park the thing.
My friend and I, who have organized Toyota's associate car show for 9 years now, have always taken great pains not to reward the egos of employees who simply want to show up with their latest 100-point acquisition or glamormobile. We limit the number of Toyotas allowed in the show, and there are a number of other criteria that expand the field while barring the shiny but mundane. One year a guy showed up with his new Mustang Cobra, even though we had asked him not to bring it. He was barred from the show for the next two years. On the other hand, the guy who drove his Facel Vega with a really terrible paint job to work every day, and the guy who managed to register a Trabant for daily use (how is anyone's guess) were more than welcome.
What's really intersting about all of this is that my friend is a concours judge in exellent standing (you probably know him, shifty -- email me and I'll give you his name). But a snob he is not. He just loves cars, as I do. And if I can find something I truly love, while the rest of the world doesn't, so much the better -- I have it all to myself!
Comments
Way too much of that plastic cladding crap for the industrial look that seems to be sweeping the new trucks lately.
And did I mention that it's ugly?
Tony
With Fords, I think the '58 Ford looks better, but the '59 Mercury and Edsel look better. The Lincoln is a toss-up though.
For GM, I think the only real offenders for 1958 were Olds and Buick. Chevy, Pontiac, and Cadillac escaped major damage. For '59, my only picks would be the Pontiac or Olds. The Caddy and Chevy were just too grotesque, and the Buick just too strange
I have no problem at all with utilitarian and practical ugliness (like a Land Rover), but gratuitous ugliness is hard to take. It costs just as much money and talent to make an ugly car as a reasonably attractive one.
Seems to me like the ending credit scene with the '59 DeSoto held on for a lot longer than one season though...maybe they used it until the final season, when they went with the "jazzy" music? I don't remember Eddie Haskell's car, except for one episode where he quit high school and got a full-time job as a mechanic. He pulled up in a brand new '61 (I think) Dodge. I remember Wally hollering at him to get it back to the garage before they realized it was missing.
As for Austrailian cars, I think some of 'em are kinda cool. When we got the Duster and Demon for '70, the Aussies got a different body style, that was still a true hardtop. Here are some links... http://www.valiant.org/valguys.jpg and http://www.valiant.org/jplittle.jpg . Sorry they're not the best quality. I'll agree though, some of 'em were pretty hideous, in a cool sort of way ;-)
2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])
1. Triumph TR7
2. Lotus Europa
3. Saab Sonett
4. VW Thing
5. VW 411/412
6. '77-'82 Porsche 924
7. Fiat Strada
8. Lancia Scorpion
9. Maserati Shamal
10. Lamborghini Silhouette
11. Renault Fuego
12. Peugeot 604
13. '64-'70 Chevy Van
14. '75-'80 Olds Starfire
15. '74-'76 Ford Elite
16. '79-'80 Dodge Magnum
17. Any Ford Aerostar
Sorry, that was just funny. post 713
http://www.buicks.net/years/54.shtml
At least the 1961 Plymouth, Dodge, DeSoto and Imperial are "interesting-ugly" designs, as opposed to merely "boring-ugly" (many 1980s and early 1990s GM models fall into this category).
The '61 Chrysler actually isn't that bad. I'm not too crazy about the slanty headlights, but overall, at least it has a sleek, integrated look about it. It looks like styling was handled by one committee instead of 3 or 4 disjointed ones, such as the Imperial and Plymouth. And the '61 DeSoto is virtually identical, except for the "double-stacked" grille theme. Kinda ugly, but an ugliness that makes it look menacing and agressive, as opposed to just dopey like how some cars today are!
I always thought the '61 Chrysler/DeSoto facelift was a bit strange though. The '60's were clean and modern looking, and if they'd shaved off the tailfins and taken some wrap out of the windshield, they still would've looked modern by '65! But then the '61's, especially when viewed from the side, didn't look any more modern than the '57's.
Grbeck, if you were a Plymouth dealer back then...well, if you had any sense of decency, you would've turned in that franchise as soon as they unveiled the '59 models!! ;-)
At least to me, the '57 Mopars look so much more modern than any other American sedans that year. The overall shape, especially the roofline, is at least one styling cycle ahead of GM and Ford. Of course, people go nuts over '57 Chevies, not '57 Plymouths, so I guess that says something. It's Exner's handling of details that's either boring (Plymouth) or over the top--but in a nice way, Andre ;-).
I suspect that Exner retired another of your favorites designers, Harley Earl, if GM's '58s were an all-out Earl-led response to the Forward Look.
I understand Exner had a serious heart attack in '56 and I've wondered what effect that may have had on his subsequent creativity. Obviously when he finished the '57s he'd shot his bolt.
Also, '59 was the year GM caught up. Not everyone will agree with that, just like not everyone likes '59 Chevies, but given the aesthetic standards of the time GM's styling was competitive again.
Speaking of '57s, I wonder how much of the Chevy's huge appeal comes from its performance image, which of course comes from the small block, and how much comes from its styling. I like '57s too but they look a little like the box the Plymouth came in.
Regarding Virgil Exner, he still had some good ideas after his 1957 triumph. In 1996 Collectible Automobile featured an article on what the 1962 Plymouth would have looked like if it had debuted as Virgil Exner originally intended. That year's Plymouth and Dodge were supposed to be regular full-size cars with radical new styling. Several of the features - big, deeply drawn windshields, sharply curved side windows and an uninterrupted transition between sheet metal and side windows - wouldn't show up on American cars for several years. The article featured several photos of styling prototypes. The greenhouse of the four-door hardtop bears a striking resemblance to the four-door hardtops introduced in the 1971 model year by GM in its lower level full-size lines (Chevrolet Impala/Caprice, Pontiac Catalina/Bonneville, Olds 88, Buick LeSabre). The roofline of the Plymouth Fury hardtop coupe looks very similar to that of the 1965-66 Chevrolet Impala. Unfortunately, Exner lost control of the process when Chrysler decided its full-size Plymouth and Dodge should be downsized to compete with smaller full-size Chevrolets that never materialized. The Plymouths and Dodges that ultimately debuted for the 1962 model year were not what he intended.
In many cases Exner was the victim of corporate chaos. Chrysler was in serious trouble from 1958-62, with management problems that make today's struggles look like child's play. There was a real struggle between styling and engineering, while the corporation made some product decisions that in retrospect seem incredibly stupid. Originally, the Valiant wasn't even badged as a Plymouth, which changed when Chrysler realized it needed Valiant sales totals to keep Plymouth in the sales race. It was during this period that Chrysler sealed Plymouth's ultimate fate by inexplicably giving Dodge dealers the Dart, a full-size model that competed directly with its corporate sibling! Looking through some old literature, I remember seeing a comparison chart where Dodge urged prospective buyers to compare the Dart to "Car C," "Car F," and "Car P"! Between the bizarre styling and competition from Dodge, I'm amazed that Plymouth didn't fall off the sales charts in the early 1960s!
Look what he did to a Bugatti:
He did win awards and stuff, though, so somebody liked his work.
Here are some of his other design ideas. What do you all think?
http://members.fortunecity.com/stutzblackhawk/evival.htm
As for '57, I have a few theories on why people prefer Chevies nowadays. For one thing, there's just the Chevy name, which has more brand equity than Plymouth. I'm sure that if in '57, the Chevy looked like the Plymouth and vice versa, then "forward look" Chevies would be all the rage today! As it was though, in '57, Chevy and Ford outsold Plymouth by a 2-1 margin. Still, I look at the Plymouth as a success, because it was more like a 3-1 margin in 1956! Chevy actually lost sales for '57. I'm not sure if Ford went down or up, but I know it beat Chevy for the model year. But still, Plymouth surged ahead in a big way for '57.
Then there's the matter of the size of these cars. A '57 Chevy is about the size of a modern Ford Taurus, while a '57 Plymouth is closer to a Park Avenue in size. That might've been to the Plymouth's advantage in 1957, when longer-lower-wider was all the rage, but by the mid-60's it was just a big old car with tailfins that nobody wanted. My mother paid about $75.00 for one in 1965, and she really didn't want it, either! The Chevy though, while looking outdated in '57, was suddenly cool because it didn't have all those excesses that typified the '50's. The Chevy was also a few hundred lb lighter than the Plymouth, so that probably made it appeal a lot more to the hot-rodders. Usually when people hot-rod a Plymouth, they go all the way with a 440 or something, but with a Chevy usually a smallblock will do.
As for styling, I think the only thing wrong with the '57 Plymouth is the fake-me-out quad headlight setup using the turn signals, and the stone shield under the bumper that looks like it belongs on a modern Jeep. They fixed both of those little transgressions for '58 though.
I'd agree that by '59, GM had caught up with Chrysler in styling. I don't think that they're necessarily any better looking, but they certainly were more modern looking. Chrysler had made a big step in '57 with transforming its cars into low-slung, modern vehicles, but GM did that one step further for '59. Cars like the '59 Pontiac and Oldsmobile would've still looked modern a few years into the '60's.
Grbeck, it sounds like Exner had some interesting ideas for what could have been in the '60's. I've never seen any pics though, but from what you described it sounds like I need to start looking for some back issues of Collectible Automobile! I do remember reading that Exner referred to the botch-jobs that did premiere for '62 as the "plucked chickens!" I read that the planned '62 DeSoto was supposed to be really attractive. As it turns out, I think the best looking Mopar for '62 was the Dodge Custom 880, which was basically a '61 Polara front clip mated to a '62 de-finned Newport. Dull and conservative, but innoffensive!
My father owned a '59 Plymouth two-door wagon in the early '60s that I'm sure he got cheap, judging by where he bought it: a small used-car lot that was just a clearing in the piney woods of Florida. Great camping car.
My parents bought a '57 Saratoga in Detroit in 1958. Not that '57 Mopars rusted quickly, but this one already had rust in the rockers.
I remember as a kid in third grade, I always walked by a '56 Imperial on the way home from school every day. The goofy little upright taillights kind of fascinated me, but they just looked kind of tacked on, and the car sure didn't ring my bell the way the 56 Lincoln Premiere hardtop coupe did. However, the 58 was much smoother and better integrated than either the Lincoln or Caddy. 58 was a transistion year, and transition models often look awkward because the manufacturers introduce elements they feel may too radical for their consumers -- you often end up with a pickles-and-ice-cream treatment.
Virgil Exner has always impressed me as similar to George Barris. I preferred Big Daddy Roth, because while he was invariably over the top, his designs were fresh, and seemed motivated more by a love for speed than chrome.
I'm always amused when people pan American styling of the 1950s and 1960s. (In the next breath, European design is usually held up as the example of what car styling should be.) I work part-time at the Carlisle Car Shows, and Europeans and Japanese can't get enough of those big American cars from the 1950s and 1960s. They snap up clean examples - even four door sedans - as fast as they can!
I remember a Volvo ad from 1968. It featured the 1957 Chevrolet, Ford and Plymouth, with a headline that read, "The cars of 1957, where are they now?" Well, 33 years later, the 1957 Chevrolet, Ford and Plymouth hardtops (sedans and coupes) and convertibles are collectible automobiles. (For that matter, 1968 full-size Chevrolet, Ford and Plymouth hardtop coupes and convertibles don't fare too badly in the collector car market.) I don't see too many people rushing to restore 1960s Volvos - or any of the other sober European sedans that were held up as examples of what automobiles should be.
Andre1969: The issue of Collectible Automobile was December 1996. You have to look carefully in the background of the photos to see all of the different proposed body styles.
Regarding the popularity of 1957 Plymouths versus 1957 Chevrolets, I think part of it may have to do with the lousy build quality and rust resistance of the Plymouth (all of that year's Mopars). Many people who bought them quickly regretted it. The Chevrolet, meanwhile, was on the third year of that basic body, and had its bugs pretty much worked out. Plus, Chevrolet V-8s were better than their Plymouth (or Ford) counterparts.
Also, people buy Elvis on Velvet paintings but that doesn't make them good art critics.
Yep, a '55 Chrysler is reasonably tasteful for a 50s American car. So is a '55 Chevy, and a '53 Studebaker Starlight coupe. Problem is it goes downhill from there.
Certainly I wasn't implying that European designers are all good. Some of them penned hideous cars.
A car is not only a metal sculpture, it is a working machine. So, to me, any excess weight, useless fin or non functioning scoop is bad design. Add to that bad proportion and chaotic trim and you've got a real mess. You'd think some of these guys would have learned something in design school.
I disagree -- if that were the basis of great design, all the car manufacturers would let their computers and wind tunnels design the things and leave it at that. The 80s were populated with many featureless cars with low CDs and low emotional content. Remember, a car's shape can be extremely efficient without being either beautiful or emotionally compelling (the Lexus LS430 comes immediately to mind).
Fact is, the sweeping fenders of the 30s and 40s were neither aerodynamic nor efficient -- for instance, they made poor use of the car's width in terms of passenger space -- but the cars of that era are the ones designers most hearken to when they're trying to inject something beautiful and fresh into their designs.
Historically, European designers were just as fascinated with wings and fins as were Americans, but seldom did them as well (Mercedes being a prime example). And many of the specials created for European car shows were and are undeniably weird. But that is their purpose -- to stretch the envelope to the point of absurdity if necessary.
i think Cadillac got it right when they based their latest marketing campaign on the combination of art and science. Now if they can just live up to it, they should be just fine!
Fact is, people buy these cars today because they are so vulgar and outrageous. They aren't held up as examples of good design, but rather as examples of bad design. If tail-finned cars were musicians, they'd be Liberace, not Beethoven.
I still think Exner's '57s were equal to or better than competing models. The Chevy-Pontiac shell dates to 1955 and looks it, especially the sedans. The Chevy is still sharp but the Pontiac looks like a recycled Buick. I happen to like the '57 Buick and Olds but for a new design they're surprisingly evolutionary, not the big step forward that the '54s were.
Same with the Fords, first-year designs that are okay but nothing like the '49, '52 (which I think is underrated) and '55.
Yes, functionality is important, but if that is the main criteria of good design, savvy collectors would be snapping up 1960 Ford Falcons or 1960s Volvos and leaving the Mustangs to rust. (Who really needs all that hood combined with a cramped back seat and a tiny trunk?) It can't be because of superior performance or handling; old cars are restored primarily because modern-day collectors like their style. No one drives them much once they are restored. When I went to Hershey this fall, there was an entire section of the show field devoted solely to lovingly restored 1964-1966 Mustangs. No Volvos that I could see, and only a few Falcons.
For that matter, if function were the primary goal of good design, the best selling new vehicles would probably be minivans (for families) and economical two-seaters (for commuting to and from work). Instead, the two best selling vehicles are huge, gas-guzzling pickup trucks whose beds mostly transport air. I would argue that today's passenger vehicles are TOO functional in their style - which is why collectors eagerly scoop up outrageous 1950s dreamboats or new vehicle buyers purchase hulking, equally outrageous SUVs and pickups. The automobile is about much more than getting from Point A to Point B.
I remember the old saying, "Any engineer worth his salt can design a water pump for a Rolls Royce. It takes a genius to design one for a Chevrolet." Well, any stylist worth his or her degree can design a simple, functional and attractive car or truck. It takes a genius to figure out what buyers REALLY want and give it to them in an attractive, cost-effective package. That is an important part of good design. The American automobile industry doesn't need someone preaching function in the design office, it needs another Bill Mitchell or Harley Earl.
It is human nature to assume that own's one opinion is inherently valid, while those of others are valid only insofar as they agree with ours. Allow me to say: "Poppycock." (I'd say something else, but it probably wouldn't make it thru spellcheck.)
Fact is, some very prominent and respected Italian design houses were fascinated with the florid excesses of 50s American styling -- Pininfarina and Ghia, to name two -- and while not all were shining examples of automotive art, the high points were really breathtaking. Their beauty is reflected in their market worth today, here and across the planet. and American styling of the 50s was hardly the first attempt at creating something really outrageously flamboyant. The Bugatti Atlantic coupe and the works of Figoni-Fallaschi spring to mind as some of the most wonderfully goofball shapes ever to grace the roads. I'd love two in my garage, to keep my 59 Cadillac company.
Let's face it -- not everybody likes dark beer or beef liver. That doesn't mean that they aren't any good -- it's just a matter of taste,and sometimes it takes awhile to develop the necessary palette. Try it, shifty -- you just may like it! =O)
I wouldn't say that one opinion is as good a s another--this pays no respect to informed opinion--but I would concede that there is a relative range of how good or bad something is. One extraneous or capricious item does not ruin a design by any means, but my point was that Exner didn't know when to stop. There is a saying that it takes two people to design a car well...one to do the drawings and one to hold the baseball bat to stop the other from drawing when he's really done.
The reason I cite history is that over time, the greatness of a design is more clearly seen--as it often is with politicians, actors or even events.
Nobody thought too much of either Getttyburg or Abraham Lincoln in 1863.
Already you can see the lack of interest in boxy cars from the 20s, the postwar cars of the 1940s (unless they were European carry-overs from 1939) and many of the vulgar cars of the 50s (1958 especially). And many 70s and 80s cars nobody much wanted in the first place.
History will judge bad design for what it was...a quickly passing trend pandering to questionable tastes.
Good design is timeless and appreciated by many generations, and MOST important, recognized by people who aren't even remotely interested in cars.
Motorheads can like just about anything, but your average disinterested person needs a powerful and beautiful design statement to respond to.
Good design is certainly not just funcionality. Volvos of the 1970s are very uninspired cars, you're right. But the form should follow the function and complement it. You see a scoop on a Ferrari, and it's cooling brakes or something, and it looks great, too. It's not a bird's nest.
Fact is, our fascination with art is subconscious, and almost impossbile to define. Were it not so, all art could be reduced to formulae, and would cease to be art. A great deal of what passes for art nowadays -- and sells for an insane amount of money -- is just foolishness to me, and I have made my living in art and design since before graduating from high school.
I believe that life is for enjoying, in all its variety, and I try not to ignore the beauty in ordinary things. That, to my mind, is what art is all about -- the celebration of the beauty in everything, including the most commonplace. That is not to ignore the beauty in the truly exceptional -- but as a former advertising executive, I find myself extremely resistant to brand marketing. That is why I resist your premise that something's collectibility legitimizes your opinion of its worth. Worth can be defined as market value, in which the most important component is what people are willing to pay for it; or it can be defined as personal value, in which the most important component is how much enjoyment you derive from it. Of the two definitions, I prefer the latter, because my enjoyment is not based on exterior factors, such as its future worth to someone else.
However, it would make me wonder if no one, for instance, had any notion to save a certain car, and if all of them rotted away----well, the public has spoken, hasn't it? Of if the Blue Book value stays at $350 for the next 50 years. That tells me that this is not an object of beauty. It has been scorned, neglected, forgotten, junked, tossed. Surely the designer has failed!
Sure, we can take the Zen view that all concepts are essentially empty, and that nothing is beautiful or ugly in its true nature. But RELATIVELY speaking, they are beautiful or ugly, to us, in our minds, in our tastes, in our checkbooks. We make these judgements all the time.
Everyone is different -- there are those who like buying things that other people admire and recognize as valuable, and others who enjoy the delicious feeling of having discovered buried treasure. The knowledge that you have found something wonderful that no one else knows about, like a secret surfing spot, or a really wonderful liquor that you can buy for next to nothing.
I've noticed for quite some time that when I come across a really neat old car in rough but restorable shape sitting in someone's side yard, my heart just pounds with anticipation; whereas if I see the same kind of car, only beautifully restored, I glance at it appreciatively and move on.
At first I thought it was due purely to my semi-conscious desire to buy the car for a song and restore it myself -- partially true, and an impulse that I've indulged repeatedly. But it goes beyond that. There's a purity in a slightly ratty, unrestored sports car that speaks volumes about its owner's experiences, the history and soul of the car. That's why unrestored cars can actually command more points than a perfectly restored one. In my crowd, trailer queens are greeted with derision. They may be beautiful, but most of my friends simply do not respect someone who wipes the fly footprints off their car every time they park the thing.
My friend and I, who have organized Toyota's associate car show for 9 years now, have always taken great pains not to reward the egos of employees who simply want to show up with their latest 100-point acquisition or glamormobile. We limit the number of Toyotas allowed in the show, and there are a number of other criteria that expand the field while barring the shiny but mundane. One year a guy showed up with his new Mustang Cobra, even though we had asked him not to bring it. He was barred from the show for the next two years. On the other hand, the guy who drove his Facel Vega with a really terrible paint job to work every day, and the guy who managed to register a Trabant for daily use (how is anyone's guess) were more than welcome.
What's really intersting about all of this is that my friend is a concours judge in exellent standing (you probably know him, shifty -- email me and I'll give you his name). But a snob he is not. He just loves cars, as I do. And if I can find something I truly love, while the rest of the world doesn't, so much the better -- I have it all to myself!