rapidtrans
Senior Member
Yes. The front end group would determine materials. Dad worked with all the aluminum, plastics, rubber etc vendors for the proper material to get the look desired.
Formal Styling
- Thread starter PeugFra
- Start date
commando1
Old Man with a Hat
Any memorable thoughts when involved with the 74 Imp. I remember an article that said it was rushed through at the last minute and they never could get the front bumper stamped correctly.
Combining your information with Godshall's, I imagine a workflow like this for the design process:
1. Packaging Studio: determination of the hard points and basic dimensions;
2. Large Car Studio: styling of the overall appearance;
3. Front End Group (and other similar groups): material research and technical realisation of the design.
In connection with the Fury design the names of Don Hood, Bob Smart and John Mezits are mentioned. Then Neil Walling for the wagons. Have you ever heard of them?
brougham brummel
Well-Known Member
Truth be known. i loved the pre-74 LTD,s when they had cool turbine hubcaps and more shaping. I loved the 70 and 71 T-birds with the beak grille and lovely slope tail end with the cool rear tail lights.And the Mercury Marauder from 1970 to 71.the Mercury Marquis looked ok and Landau 2 doors with full trim packages with a 460.Their might have been some ghia packages with leather and having the cool dish like sport wheels was critical.Some of the gm cars were pretty good but i have to say the c-bodies overall get the style large car nod by a nose in my book.Fuselage to Formal was 2 great eras.B.B
rapidtrans
Senior Member
Yeah, Ford and Chevy also had their high points. I like a nice LTD or Galaxie too. My uncle and grandpa had some nice Impalas over the years. Living in a part of town full of auto engineers and execs neighbors often compared their company cars. Styling being subjective, one thing they all agreed on, mopars had the most comfortable seats. Whether an A body bucket, Belvedere bench or an Imperial pillow top lazyboy!
In H.S. a girlfriend’s Dad had a ‘71 T bird home one night we went out. He told her nobody was to open the hood. That boat moved!
In H.S. a girlfriend’s Dad had a ‘71 T bird home one night we went out. He told her nobody was to open the hood. That boat moved!
I, too, liked the "beak Birds", from when they were new. One thing that tended to turn me off to them was that there was not a lot you could do to them to make them faster, with the Cord-Corporate 2" exhaust systems. But the other thing was that there were NONE on the used car lots, a few years past new! I'd see them on the road, but none for sale otherwise. So when the 1970 DH43N appeared at the local Chrysler dealer, I jumped on it. It was going to be my transition into a '76 Cordoba, but the Cordoba never did happen.
I liked the mid-late '70s LTDs for their simple elegance, which Ford seemed to be good at. Butr compared to similar GM cars, when you start looking and comparing them, you soon find that the GM body likes have a larger radius, as the Ford and Chrysler metal radius is much tighter and well-defined (especially on the '67-'68 C-bodies).
But, by observation, Ford had the best quality sheet metal. You could sight down the side and each door skin's edge was flat, whereas the GM and Chryslers had a little bulge where the skin wrapped around the door shell. But that was something Ford had done well since the 1965 Big Cars were new.
Still, lots of neat designs back then!
CBODY67
I liked the mid-late '70s LTDs for their simple elegance, which Ford seemed to be good at. Butr compared to similar GM cars, when you start looking and comparing them, you soon find that the GM body likes have a larger radius, as the Ford and Chrysler metal radius is much tighter and well-defined (especially on the '67-'68 C-bodies).
But, by observation, Ford had the best quality sheet metal. You could sight down the side and each door skin's edge was flat, whereas the GM and Chryslers had a little bulge where the skin wrapped around the door shell. But that was something Ford had done well since the 1965 Big Cars were new.
Still, lots of neat designs back then!
CBODY67
rapidtrans
Senior Member
Chrysler did have an issue with quarter panels on slab side Chryslers. Most notably the early 67 models with that deep side contour where the rear skirts met. The early stampings were so wavy at the wheel cut-out they stopped produce black and dark blue cars till they got it fixed.
6PKRTSE
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2010
- Messages
- 363
- Reaction score
- 433
I have had people call my 74' New Yorker a Mercury Marquis or a Ford LTD before. I don't see it. Similar yes of that era but different enough to know the differences.
commando1
Old Man with a Hat
Nice Lincoln.
Especially with the hidden headlights...I'm sure all Formal owners can say that we've been there!
I don't know how many times people said "Nice Impala" about my Imperial. Can't people read?
I often get 'Nice Lincoln!' or something to that effect. I suppose the hidden headlights and black paint makes it look like a Continental to people.
6PKRTSE
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2010
- Messages
- 363
- Reaction score
- 433
Oh yeah, Lincoln is another one it gets called.
GM's Bill Mitchell once said that when it was time to design a new generation of B-bodies, they would start off with the lowest brand in the price hierarchy, because they couldn't afford to get the volume leader wrong. What if at Chrysler there was a similar approach? I've got a hunch that the way the tail lights are set in the body is an indication.
Plymouth:
Dodge:
Doesn't the Dodge solution look a bit clumsy? (Sorry, Dodge owners.) With Plymouth the upper side of the bezels is flush with the edge of the trunk, but with Dodge two more panels are needed to fill the gap, because the lights are set lower and are not as wide. The fuel filler door now also sticks out as another separate panel, whereas with the Plymouth it neatly falls into place within the overall design.
So could it be that the Plymouth design was the basis for the Dodge design?
Update: A second glance shows that the Dodge fuel filler door is not as wide as with Plymouth. That's probably because otherwise the DODGE badge would have been lost on that wide space. So some sort of gap inevitably had to be made up for to the left and right of that door. The extra panels have a dual function, making the best out of an awkward situation.
Plymouth:
Dodge:
Doesn't the Dodge solution look a bit clumsy? (Sorry, Dodge owners.) With Plymouth the upper side of the bezels is flush with the edge of the trunk, but with Dodge two more panels are needed to fill the gap, because the lights are set lower and are not as wide. The fuel filler door now also sticks out as another separate panel, whereas with the Plymouth it neatly falls into place within the overall design.
So could it be that the Plymouth design was the basis for the Dodge design?
Update: A second glance shows that the Dodge fuel filler door is not as wide as with Plymouth. That's probably because otherwise the DODGE badge would have been lost on that wide space. So some sort of gap inevitably had to be made up for to the left and right of that door. The extra panels have a dual function, making the best out of an awkward situation.
Last edited:
Keith926
Member
I don't have experience with 70s Fords but to compare a Chryco product of the time to a GM, my biggest problem with the Gm is it is a big car with a small as or smaller interior as a 77 up GM, I like all of the big boats regardless of brand but as big as 71-76 Impalas are, the interiors are cramped when compared to a Chrysler of the same age, the 71-73 GMs were styled better to hide the difference between body and interior width, the 74-76 was quite evident the way the doors tapered down at the bottom, beside the width issue the rear leg room was cramped too, the 77 up GMs had more room than the 71-76, hands down in my opinion fuselage, formals, and 67 up Imperials trump any GM of the same time for comfort
Good you mentioned that! The 1971 GM B-bodies were very "fuselage", although GM didn't use that word in advertising and interviews as much as did Chrysler. Apparently the GM sides were still more curved than our Fusies, when you say that they had less inside width. But the 1971 GM belt line was lower and that made for a completely different look.
For the 1977 GM B-bodies Bill Mitchell could not permit himself this wasteful approach to inside width anymore. He had to straighten the sides out. So although he previously trumpeted about his love for tumblehome, curved side glass and body turn up (taken together that's called "fuselage"), with the introduction of the 1977 cars he explained how wrong this all had been. The result of straightening things out he called the "sheer look".
Engel's Formals were the best of both worlds in standard-size car design. He brought down the belt line, reduced tumblehome and increased glass surface, allowing for a more airy, outward-oriented passenger cabin. Some body turn up is still there. Increased glass surface was an advertising point with the 1971 GM cars as well. In a 1974 ad PPG Industries called the industry-wide drive for more glass surface the "greenhouse look", but that term didn't stick.
The more formal greenhouse look Engel achieved announced Mitchell's sheer look. The most formal of them all are the Chrysler four-door sedans, because of the roof line, another styling cue that would become a big hit:
For the 1977 GM B-bodies Bill Mitchell could not permit himself this wasteful approach to inside width anymore. He had to straighten the sides out. So although he previously trumpeted about his love for tumblehome, curved side glass and body turn up (taken together that's called "fuselage"), with the introduction of the 1977 cars he explained how wrong this all had been. The result of straightening things out he called the "sheer look".
Engel's Formals were the best of both worlds in standard-size car design. He brought down the belt line, reduced tumblehome and increased glass surface, allowing for a more airy, outward-oriented passenger cabin. Some body turn up is still there. Increased glass surface was an advertising point with the 1971 GM cars as well. In a 1974 ad PPG Industries called the industry-wide drive for more glass surface the "greenhouse look", but that term didn't stick.
The more formal greenhouse look Engel achieved announced Mitchell's sheer look. The most formal of them all are the Chrysler four-door sedans, because of the roof line, another styling cue that would become a big hit:
Last edited:
Keith926
Member
I agree The styling of 74 up C Body roof lines are much sleeker than similar Ford or GM offerings at that time, some of the others had some pretty crude looking designs, I'd choose something like a 76 Gran Fury or a 77 Royal Monaco if I had my choice of a Formal Chrysler right now
77 up GM are a great car, I have had a few, have a 77 Olds 88 and 80 Buick Electra drivers, had a couple 79 up Fords and a 5th Ave, by the 80s I think the GM was the best overall, an overdrive tranny in the last M bodies would have been cool
To look back as far as the 60s in full size car design, GM was X frame, then the flimsy perimeter frame, 71-76 better frame designs but somewhat awkward styling of roof line and bulky bumper integration compared to Mopar, not completely fluent in Ford but full frame up to mid 60s then unibody with shock towers and other weirdness up to 79, some less formal appearance design cues than GM and Mopar, Chrysler had the basic platform for a big car figured out by the early 60s, didn't have to massively redesign until cars had to get smaller, can't beat the ride of torsion bar suspension
In current times it is hard to get replacement coil springs that give a predictable ride height, put a set of cargo wagon coils in the back of your 81 Caprice sedan and it sits lower than the old springs you took out, the new springs you put in the front sets the height like you mount a snow plow, if you want to mess with it after that you're cutting coils, making spacers, plumbing air shocks, on the flip side if you are running a torsion bar Chrysler with all the original springs you can set the front end with a bolt and the rear with an extra leaf, just like that, lol
77 up GM are a great car, I have had a few, have a 77 Olds 88 and 80 Buick Electra drivers, had a couple 79 up Fords and a 5th Ave, by the 80s I think the GM was the best overall, an overdrive tranny in the last M bodies would have been cool
To look back as far as the 60s in full size car design, GM was X frame, then the flimsy perimeter frame, 71-76 better frame designs but somewhat awkward styling of roof line and bulky bumper integration compared to Mopar, not completely fluent in Ford but full frame up to mid 60s then unibody with shock towers and other weirdness up to 79, some less formal appearance design cues than GM and Mopar, Chrysler had the basic platform for a big car figured out by the early 60s, didn't have to massively redesign until cars had to get smaller, can't beat the ride of torsion bar suspension
In current times it is hard to get replacement coil springs that give a predictable ride height, put a set of cargo wagon coils in the back of your 81 Caprice sedan and it sits lower than the old springs you took out, the new springs you put in the front sets the height like you mount a snow plow, if you want to mess with it after that you're cutting coils, making spacers, plumbing air shocks, on the flip side if you are running a torsion bar Chrysler with all the original springs you can set the front end with a bolt and the rear with an extra leaf, just like that, lol
Because the posts from the period August, 28 - September, 9 are still in digital Nirvana, I repeat the post with the promo video on 1974 Monaco and Fury vs. Impala and Galaxie:
The part on exterior dimensions says that Monaco/Fury are shorter overall, yet with a longer wheelbase than competitors. True, but we're talking about fractions of inches here:
Length w/o Bumper Guards
1974 Fury 219.9 in
1974 Monaco 222.0 in
1974 Galaxie 222.5 in
1974 Impala 222.7 in
Wheelbase
1974 Monaco/Fury 122.0 in
1974 Impala 121.5 in
1974 Galaxie 500 121.0 in
And according to the specs the C's lost some wheelbase over the years.
Monaco/Fury 1974-77 Wheelbase:
1974 122.0 in
1975 121.5 in
1976 121.5 in
1977 121.4 in
Just a change on paper or did the wheelbase really shrink? Anyway, it makes the posited advantage over competition less convincing.
Yet, the nosediving Galaxie is a very funny thing!
The part on exterior dimensions says that Monaco/Fury are shorter overall, yet with a longer wheelbase than competitors. True, but we're talking about fractions of inches here:
Length w/o Bumper Guards
1974 Fury 219.9 in
1974 Monaco 222.0 in
1974 Galaxie 222.5 in
1974 Impala 222.7 in
Wheelbase
1974 Monaco/Fury 122.0 in
1974 Impala 121.5 in
1974 Galaxie 500 121.0 in
And according to the specs the C's lost some wheelbase over the years.
Monaco/Fury 1974-77 Wheelbase:
1974 122.0 in
1975 121.5 in
1976 121.5 in
1977 121.4 in
Just a change on paper or did the wheelbase really shrink? Anyway, it makes the posited advantage over competition less convincing.
Yet, the nosediving Galaxie is a very funny thing!
MOST of the body lengths, at that point in time, were due to the manner in which the OEMs designed their impact absorbing safety bumper systems. Some of those lengths could vary, too, with the addition of deletion of the vinyl/rubber impact strips, too, and/or the ridges which surrounded these strips, too. Can't forget the strips on the bumper guards, either.
The wheelbase differences in the same formal platform are interesting! To verify them, you'd need to also get into the FSMs and check the length dimensions of the rear leaf springs, which might be easier to change rather than hard sheetmetal in the platforms. THEN, such minor differences might be "measuring-related" than anything else.
There is also another little trick, used on the mid-60s B-body Dodges and Plymouths. Same platform and underbody, but the Coronet had a 1" longer wheelbase than the lower-level Plymouth. Same rear springs. How'd they do it? With a 1" "spacer" to mount the front spring eye's bracket to. Clean, easy, and inexpensive, while still remaining the longer wheelbase of the higher-level carline.
On the C-body side of things, there were some years when the wheelbase was stated to be 123.5 and the next year it was 124". Same cars, just one model year apart. What changed? "Rounding error", it seems. Rounded up to 124" for marketing purposes, as some claimed. Which is not that unusual in engine sizing. So that one OEM's engine size is not the same as a rival's engine size. Like the Pontiac 301 not measuring that different from a Ford 302, for example, as the Pontiac was a 4.9L and the Ford was a 5.0L. As I recall, there are a few others like that back then.
In ANY advertising situations, "more is better" and equals "superiority" of sorts. Not unlike in the 1990s when GM was touting their 4-cyl engines as being better than Hondas, in the GM literature. A 2.4L vs a 2.3L, "Advantage Oldsmobile". 3 more horsepower from the same smaller engine, "Advantage Honda". 1 more EPA MPG, "Advantage Oldsmobile". You get the picture. There were no measures of refinement, though. But when the WOT performance was considered, it was not "Advantage Oldsmobile", though. The ONLY way to determine what was really happening would have been to put the two engines in front of the SAME driveaxle/gearing in a common body with the same tire sizes. Then see what happened.
About a decade ago, some Mustang owners proved just how their minds worked. Seems that Ford was advertising that their 5.0L V-8s were actually producing about 7 horsepower less, so these owners filed suit against Ford for "false advertising". The factory documents were produced and the owners won the litigation. For what real gain? Bragging rights more than anything else, it seems to me. But also tends to prove just how much "5.0L owners" (the real ones) have a mindset that they have the fastest vehicles on the road AND will prove it when challenged, even covertly challenged (as I did a few times, even with my anemic '80 Chrysler Newport!). All it took was to just leave a red light before them! As soon as they realized that somebody was in front of them, their rpms would come up and away they'd go, having been caught off-guard. Such great fun that was!
And then there was the time I did a higher-speed challenge with my then 234K mile '77
Camaro 305. Just a slight cam upgrade (210 @ .050"/.440" lift) and a 600cfm 4160, but with the stock exhaust manifolds and the dual-outlet OEM Z-28 exhaust and 15" Z-28 steel wheels AND a 2.56 PTrac. I had covertly shadowed him in traffic, a "paper tag new" '87 Mustang GT. When we got to the top of a hill, I knew what was on the other side and there was not a vehicle ahead of us. At that time, he was in front and I was behind him in the center lane. At 70mph (55mph speed limit back then), he made his move and I followed, flooring the accel pedal for a downshift to 2nd, followed by a manual shift to 2nd, as the normal upshift speed was 75mph. Shifted to 3rd at 100mph. He suddenly backed-out of the throttle at 110mph. He had not gained an inch on me and my aged look-alike Z/28 Type LT. I eased on by him, not desiring to back out of the throttle that quickly. He did NOT smile and wage, like a good competitor might, but stared straight ahead gripping the steering wheel. I smiled and laughed. After I'd slowed down to legal speeds, he eased past me. Still looking straight ahead. I smiled and let him go on to whatever else he was doing.
Obviously, the truckers on their CB radios were talking about this deal. Maybe even some friendly bets? Don't care. Just proved how good an older, cast iron exhaust manifolded SBC might act against a higher-tech new Mustang 5.0L GT. I was satisfied. Obviouisly, though, I would have had no chance against him at the drag strip, so I took the race to speed ranges where I had some possibilities. Was I positioned to draft him only, not having enough more power to pass? Wouldn't that have been embarassing to him, getting passed under WOT? Have to choose your fights . . . and he probably thought he was racing a 350, rather than a mere 305, too. hehe Fun while it lasted, me not knowing the 234K 305 would even hold together for that kind of a deal. As it later went on to rack-up 600+ miles before we replaced it with the same engine specs, just in a SBC 355.
Sorry for the diversion. Just wanted to indicate how much some people tend to be worried about "little things" which really amount to even smaller things when they get to the rear wheels. That 7 horsepower at the flywheel, reduced by about 20% at the rear wheels, would need to be measured in fractions of a second at the drag strip . . . where driver technique, chassis set-up, and tire choice could over-shadow any results to prove their point, by observation.
Again, sorry for the diversion. Enjoy SAFELY!
CBODY67
The wheelbase differences in the same formal platform are interesting! To verify them, you'd need to also get into the FSMs and check the length dimensions of the rear leaf springs, which might be easier to change rather than hard sheetmetal in the platforms. THEN, such minor differences might be "measuring-related" than anything else.
There is also another little trick, used on the mid-60s B-body Dodges and Plymouths. Same platform and underbody, but the Coronet had a 1" longer wheelbase than the lower-level Plymouth. Same rear springs. How'd they do it? With a 1" "spacer" to mount the front spring eye's bracket to. Clean, easy, and inexpensive, while still remaining the longer wheelbase of the higher-level carline.
On the C-body side of things, there were some years when the wheelbase was stated to be 123.5 and the next year it was 124". Same cars, just one model year apart. What changed? "Rounding error", it seems. Rounded up to 124" for marketing purposes, as some claimed. Which is not that unusual in engine sizing. So that one OEM's engine size is not the same as a rival's engine size. Like the Pontiac 301 not measuring that different from a Ford 302, for example, as the Pontiac was a 4.9L and the Ford was a 5.0L. As I recall, there are a few others like that back then.
In ANY advertising situations, "more is better" and equals "superiority" of sorts. Not unlike in the 1990s when GM was touting their 4-cyl engines as being better than Hondas, in the GM literature. A 2.4L vs a 2.3L, "Advantage Oldsmobile". 3 more horsepower from the same smaller engine, "Advantage Honda". 1 more EPA MPG, "Advantage Oldsmobile". You get the picture. There were no measures of refinement, though. But when the WOT performance was considered, it was not "Advantage Oldsmobile", though. The ONLY way to determine what was really happening would have been to put the two engines in front of the SAME driveaxle/gearing in a common body with the same tire sizes. Then see what happened.
About a decade ago, some Mustang owners proved just how their minds worked. Seems that Ford was advertising that their 5.0L V-8s were actually producing about 7 horsepower less, so these owners filed suit against Ford for "false advertising". The factory documents were produced and the owners won the litigation. For what real gain? Bragging rights more than anything else, it seems to me. But also tends to prove just how much "5.0L owners" (the real ones) have a mindset that they have the fastest vehicles on the road AND will prove it when challenged, even covertly challenged (as I did a few times, even with my anemic '80 Chrysler Newport!). All it took was to just leave a red light before them! As soon as they realized that somebody was in front of them, their rpms would come up and away they'd go, having been caught off-guard. Such great fun that was!
And then there was the time I did a higher-speed challenge with my then 234K mile '77
Camaro 305. Just a slight cam upgrade (210 @ .050"/.440" lift) and a 600cfm 4160, but with the stock exhaust manifolds and the dual-outlet OEM Z-28 exhaust and 15" Z-28 steel wheels AND a 2.56 PTrac. I had covertly shadowed him in traffic, a "paper tag new" '87 Mustang GT. When we got to the top of a hill, I knew what was on the other side and there was not a vehicle ahead of us. At that time, he was in front and I was behind him in the center lane. At 70mph (55mph speed limit back then), he made his move and I followed, flooring the accel pedal for a downshift to 2nd, followed by a manual shift to 2nd, as the normal upshift speed was 75mph. Shifted to 3rd at 100mph. He suddenly backed-out of the throttle at 110mph. He had not gained an inch on me and my aged look-alike Z/28 Type LT. I eased on by him, not desiring to back out of the throttle that quickly. He did NOT smile and wage, like a good competitor might, but stared straight ahead gripping the steering wheel. I smiled and laughed. After I'd slowed down to legal speeds, he eased past me. Still looking straight ahead. I smiled and let him go on to whatever else he was doing.
Obviously, the truckers on their CB radios were talking about this deal. Maybe even some friendly bets? Don't care. Just proved how good an older, cast iron exhaust manifolded SBC might act against a higher-tech new Mustang 5.0L GT. I was satisfied. Obviouisly, though, I would have had no chance against him at the drag strip, so I took the race to speed ranges where I had some possibilities. Was I positioned to draft him only, not having enough more power to pass? Wouldn't that have been embarassing to him, getting passed under WOT? Have to choose your fights . . . and he probably thought he was racing a 350, rather than a mere 305, too. hehe Fun while it lasted, me not knowing the 234K 305 would even hold together for that kind of a deal. As it later went on to rack-up 600+ miles before we replaced it with the same engine specs, just in a SBC 355.
Sorry for the diversion. Just wanted to indicate how much some people tend to be worried about "little things" which really amount to even smaller things when they get to the rear wheels. That 7 horsepower at the flywheel, reduced by about 20% at the rear wheels, would need to be measured in fractions of a second at the drag strip . . . where driver technique, chassis set-up, and tire choice could over-shadow any results to prove their point, by observation.
Again, sorry for the diversion. Enjoy SAFELY!
CBODY67
The longer-wheel-base-yet-shorter-overall mantra seems more directed at the Fusies in comparison with the new-for-1974 C-bodies. It was a fixture in the press release and countered the public's complaint that Detroit full-size cars had really grown too large. "Yes, we hear you!"
When the Formals were on the drawing board, there was already some concern about the security of USA crude oil supplies from overseas. It was probably time for a more trim body style anyway, though. To me, as good as the Fuselage cars might have been, the Formals seemed to be a return to the prior "Slab" styling/design orientation of more open interiors and more glass area, but still with the trademark Chrysler roominess, utility, and easier underhood access for repairs and such.
Enjoy!
CBODY67
Enjoy!
CBODY67
Similar threads
