Interesting 1970 Magazine Article

[polara71]

200 cars, they were here and gone while no one was looking

 

[commando1]

No dealer would want that in his inventory. Bet they dispersed them as donations to Voc-Ed schools, movie & TV cars, and stuff like that.

 

[saforwardlook]

I still have an ax to grind with the man..... I personally hated the article

I found my copy of Collectible Automobile of April 2008 and finally sat down and read through it this evening, as I had intended to do many years ago, but my job seemed to preclude me doing much of anything outside of work. I found the article pathetic at best, with Godshall being apologetic over the Dodge fuselage designs that he found way out of step with "progress" and "leadership" at Pontiac and trailing Pontiac every step of the way in the 1969 - 1973 period apparently. Now I can agree that Pontiac did lead the way in design of large cars with some cars like the 1964-66 Pontiac Gran Prix and Bonnevilles for example since they started to use more swooping and curvy body sides compared to the slab side designs of the period by Chrysler:

But as 330dTA noted, the fuselage designs were influenced by the Pontiacs through at most 1967 since that is when the clay models of the fuselage cars surfaced (no pun intended!), not Pontiac's later designs.

But Godshall seems to lament that Chrysler could not keep up with the progress and leadership in design he felt was evidenced by the Pontiacs of the 1969-72 period when Chrysler was apparently turning out bland and boring fuselage designs that everyone hated and wouldn't buy he claims. I personally find his personal view insulting at best, as the beaky Pontiac front ends only got worse (to me they were just styling gimmicks that differentiated the various model lines at GM) and I personally at least never liked very much body sides that had to have a large fender skirt over the rear wheel to make the styling flow as in the later Pontiacs in general. To me, adding overly large skirts make a car look heavy in the back and therefore ungainly to my eyes. Here are some of the Pontiac designs of that period:

Personally, I didn't like any of them and they seemed to be going downhill and uglified from the earlier 1964-66 designs that were fresher. This to me is not design leadership, it is just churning out more of the same but watered down versions of the earlier Pontiacs, with increasingly uglier front beaks.

In my personal view, Elwood Engle was the premier sylist of the 1960- 1973 period along with Bill Mitchell who was principally responsible for the 66-67 Buick Riveras (he had more ups and downs over his long career at GM though IMO). And Chrysler had Elwood Engle from 1963 until 1973 when he retired. When at Ford, he was responsible for the incredible 1961-63 Lincoln Continental, which I thought was a truly elegant, graceful, clean and just a beautiful luxury car design. It shocked me when I first saw it.

And he was responsible for the slabside cars at Chrysler from 1965-68 which may not have been quite as innovative as the Pontiacs and some Buicks of the time, such as the 1966 Buick Rivera that I like so much:

But the slab side cars were still well executed generally and clean, good looking designs. My favorite Chrysler model of that period was the 1965 Chrysler 300L:

But nearly all of the slabsides were overall much more beautiful than any of the later Pontiacs 1968-72, at least to my eyes.

But where Elwood Engle's genius shined best I felt was in the fuselage C bodies. Whereas Godshall seems to think they were dated and not contempary designs, I feel just that way about the large Pontiacs of the 1969-73 period. The Pontiac themes by then were overused and with too many gimmicks such as the prominent beaks.

Rather, the fuselage cars were an ascention of what was started by GM in the mid 60s and taken to much more beautiful heights under the styling leadership of Elwood Engle, to wit:

By the way, I really like the way Dodge implemented that graceful quarter with a large rear wheel opening. What a beautiful balance and proportion............

So I stongly agree with Polara71 (Dave), as I find this article just one guy's opinion of his view of beauty. But he should not be citing his opinion as fact and a universal truism in a well-respected publication like Collectible Automobile. While he is entitled to his own opinion, I personally feel he is just simply full of ****. And I don't talk like that very often. Why was he even in the Dodge styling studio if he was so disgruntled (but yet he could recognize the timeless beauty of the 1968-70 Chargers!)? He should have just gone over to GM and joined the boring crowd after 1968 where he would have been well-received and put down his writing pen as well.

 

[polara71]

And Regarding facts ? It's been many years since I read the article as I recall I do believe many facts were incorrect

 

[GregG48203]

Bet they dispersed them

I think it's also possible that the manufacturer bought them back and destroyed them, as eventually became the practice for prototypes.

 

[330dTA]

And Regarding facts ? It's been many years since I read the article as I recall I do believe many facts were incorrect

Incorrect? Are you referring to the Dodge article, the Imp article, or the Chrysler article? - Dave Cummins explicitly wrote to me the Chrysler article to be pretty accurate. He was Chief Designer at the time. Working under Dick Macadam, who headed Chrysler Studio (and reported to Engel, who was absent most of the time). - Godshall instead was working in the Dodge Studio, so I assume he would have a pretty good hunch of the sentiments among line designers there and then. They were a small group of artists, a couple of handful of people, only. One of them was Bill Waynlie. We have all seen his beautiful '66 rendering for a '69 Dodge.

 

[rapidtrans]

I'm assuming these would be 3-on -the-trees.
Could that trans even be mistakenly mounted to a 440?

 

[commando1]

I'm assuming these would be 3-on -the-trees.
Could that trans even be mistakenly mounted to a 440?

Yes. In 69, a 383 BB 3 spd manual was available from the factory. Optional on Dodge (318 3 spd standard equipment) and standard equipment on Newport. No problem.

 

[330dTA]

Good point. The expression "standard transmission" may or may not refer to 3-on-a tree. A New Yorker with a "standard" A727 & manual brakes & manual steering (pun inteded) would have been akward enough. - I think this one single word may be an issue where the reporter (Arthur M. Louis) of this Fortune magazine article didn't necessarily 100% understand what had happened. He probably just wrote down notes. - We would need verification on this issue from someone who was there, 47 years ago.

 

[1970cat]

it's a matter of opinion, but while i'm not in love with the pontiacs of this era, i can appreciate them. they were meant to be a tribute to the cars of the 30s. pointed nose like the radiators of of the 30s, high fenders too. all while having to maintain a modern image and keep the split grille theme that lasted decades. i have a 70 catalina convertible tucked away as a future project, thus my handle.
personally, i don't care for the rivieras except the 64-65. the rest look nose heavy and bloated. not much on slabs, no real styling to them in my opinion. i don't like the loop bumpers either, except the split 70 b bodies. i think the fusies are sleek and the cleanest styling wise followed by the formals which are a little over top , but were a sign of the times.

 

[Rwc]

I think its fair to say that the full sized cars of the late 60's and early 70's were being built for the close to 40 and over market of that day. the Pontiac's did give a tip of the hat to the cars those people would remember from their childhoods.
I also don't believe that same era were wanting a standard transmission, especially on the column. that was viewed as pretty low tech and falling behind. If they were going to invest in a new car they wanted new styling, comfort, low noise from outside and hoped it would last for 75,000 miles without huge problems.
My father, and Uncles that were of that generation just wanted to get 3-4 years out of it and get rid of it before the miles were so high no body would look at it. seems like 60- 70,000 miles was the threshold for that. after that the front end, shocks exhaust and drive line were all on borrowed time.

 

[saforwardlook]

Incorrect? Are you referring to the Dodge article, the Imp article, or the Chrysler article? - Dave Cummins explicitly wrote to me the Chrysler article to be pretty accurate. He was Chief Designer at the time. Working under Dick Macadam, who headed Chrysler Studio (and reported to Engel, who was absent most of the time). - Godshall instead was working in the Dodge Studio, so I assume he would have a pretty good hunch of the sentiments among line designers there and then. They were a small group of artists, a couple of handful of people, only. One of them was Bill Waynlie. We have all seen his beautiful '66 rendering for a '69 Dodge.

I don't have a copy of the Chrysler or Imperial articles, so could you briefly summarize the sentiment going on in the Chrysler and Imperial studios at the time according to Godshall? Did Godshall ever do anything noteworthy in the Dodge studio? He pointed out that his friend Ric Carrel had done the design of the remarkable 1972-3 Monaco front ends and explained how he pushed relentlessly against engineering influences that could have messed it up during production feasibility review and the bean counters. Ric ultimately fought hard enough to keep his original front end design in tact. Did Godshall mention anything in other articles of projects he was successful in promoting?

Godshall also mentions that Engle was not around that much, but having rotated through 8 different assignments during my training in the Institute before going permanent, I saw first hand how the styling chiefs were in never ending meetings with engineering to get all the details of their styling intent carried out into production. I am sure Engle had a very difficult and time consuming job, but I also see the way the fuselage cars came out - and they reflect Engle's design genius very well IMO. So while he didn't spend a lot of time in the studios BSing, I am confident he knew what was going on and kept things on track design wise.

The bottom line for me is that I feel the fuselage cars looked way better than the Pontiacs of that time interval, so how was Chrysler following Pontiac's leadership, which was the premise and title of his whole writeup? And if others in the studios were as disgruntled as Godshall at their directives, how in the world did the cars come out so stunningly? Night and day to me compared to the Pontiacs of those years, which I felt were just ugly and clumsy looking. So something seems amiss, and that is all I can say.

 

[polara71]

Incorrect? Are you referring to the Dodge article, the Imp article, or the Chrysler article? - Dave Cummins explicitly wrote to me the Chrysler article to be pretty accurate. He was Chief Designer at the time. Working under Dick Macadam, who headed Chrysler Studio (and reported to Engel, who was absent most of the time). - Godshall instead was working in the Dodge Studio, so I assume he would have a pretty good hunch of the sentiments among line designers there and then. They were a small group of artists, a couple of handful of people, only. One of them was Bill Waynlie. We have all seen his beautiful '66 rendering for a '69 Dodge.

The dodge article. If you've been following the thread you'd read my comments and Fratzogs comments about it.

Facts in the Dodge article were weak and arguably wrong. ..flat wrong

 

[fc7_plumcrazy]

Steve I rarely see you so emotional.
Sounds like you would want to throw Godshall dead in a c-body trunk

I guess most of us prefer Fuselage C-Bodys over Pontiacs.
Otherwise we would be on the wrong board.

Thinking about it there aren't many 68-73 Pontiacs out here in germany.
I am glad the Fuselage design is appreciated over here for sure.

Carsten

 

[polara71]

Steve I rarely see you so emotional.
Sounds like you would want to throw Godshall dead in a c-body trunk

I guess most of us prefer Fuselage C-Bodys over Pontiacs.
Otherwise we would be on the wrong board.

Thinking about it there aren't many 68-73 Pontiacs out here in germany.
I am glad the Fuselage design is appreciated over here for sure.

Carsten

Not many around here either

 

[Mr C]

Engel designed the Formals as well. A Magnum Opus if there ever was one.

 

[Dobalovr]

Reading this article was very interesting to me. Watching the company go through the throws of popularity only to have it snatched away by reckless management hubris. It seems history repeats itself and those that learn nothing from it are doomed to repeat it. Going from the early 90's success of the LH platform and T300 truck into that hellish union with Daimler then back into the LX platform which gave us hope and then the new Ram JGC and Wrangler became the stars and car development disappeared as history repeats and FCA misread the market and voila the Dart died an undignified death. I have serious concerns for my manufacturer and I hope there is a champion out there who can see what our customers want to buy from our company and produce them. A JGC is not a Mercedes (thank God) but FCA thinks it is and is targeting that market when our competition is making SUV's for the masses. Chrysler's natural competition used to be Ford/GM I dont know when MB BMW Toyota became the focus but I don't like it. Build a car to compete with the Focus. Build a SUV to compete with the Tahoe/Explorer Quit thinking the Wrangler is the new Hummer. They got the truck right I just wish they would get the rest of the lineup in tune with the market.

Oh and Bill the JGC will kick the ML's *** in almost every category but the funny thing is there is plenty of MB designed systems in the JGC leftover from Daimler including the air ride so you are kinda driving a MB already lol

 

[saforwardlook]

Steve I rarely see you so emotional.
Sounds like you would want to throw Godshall dead in a c-body trunk

I guess most of us prefer Fuselage C-Bodys over Pontiacs.
Otherwise we would be on the wrong board.

Thinking about it there aren't many 68-73 Pontiacs out here in germany.
I am glad the Fuselage design is appreciated over here for sure.

Carsten

I realize that this all took place some 47 years ago, so who really cares anymore? And since Godshall was writing the article in Collectible Automobile in 2008 some 38 years after the fact, he had plenty of opportunity to spin things to fit his perceptions of reality the way he would have liked them to be to fit his ego. So I will just move on.

Honestly, the article just irked me because it made no sense. I was just wondering how Godshall spun the attitudes in the Chrysler/Imperial studios as well at that long ago time and maybe 330dTA will be willing to inform us since he has access to all the articles? If all the designers, including those in the Dodge studio, really didn't like what they produced, then how did the Chryslers and Imperials, Dodges and Plymouths come out to look so stunning? My question is just that simple. And Godshall's account of history doesn't cut it with me for that reason. And to have the premise of his article be that Chrysler was trying to copy Pontiac's lead is just ridiculous from what Pontiac put into production in the same years as the fuselage cars. And I would like to know if Godshall ever achieved anything noteworthy or anything he did made it into production like his friend Ric achieved with the 72-3 Dodge front ends? Or was he just disgruntled because maybe Exner didn't respond positively to his work, and now Godshall is spinning a new reality to exonerate himself in history?

 

[Carmine]

The fuselage cars appealed to me when I was a child and checked the book "70 Years of Chrysler" out of the public library. None of my family members owned fuselages... I think that was basically timing, because they owned slabs and then early formal models.

But what impressed me (as an 8 year old) was the clean, unbroken look. They remind me of Danish-Modern furniture. They look purposeful... if Forward look cars look like fighter-jets, Fuselage cars look like 747s (and I mean that in a flattering manner, not just that 747s are huge). BTW, I include '71-'72 B bodies in this flattery. When I think of an optomisitic American timeline, the fuselage cars are a logical evolution of the 50s. If that timeline had not ended, I think we would have continued on to cars resembling the concept 70x and the Cordoba de Oro in the 1980s.

Instead we took a brief detour to 15th Century Spain for some reason... and although that period doesn't really make sense in terms of a linear timeline, I still like the cars!

The R-bodies were quite transitional, one foot in the past, and another in a very different "metric" future.

What came afterwards was awful (in terms of market, not the cars themselves) Things split into so many directions. In one corner you've got an body 5th Ave, destined to be the older end of the WWII generations last car, in another you have an H-body LeBaron GTS chasing yuppies.

But what really "won" was the appliance car, which had no image... Often no name, just some alphanumeric code. BTW, this wasn't just a trend in autos. It came over everything from housing to appliances to electronics. Do you choose a refrigerator color anymore? A cabinet style for a TV? Houses are about interiors... 2/3s of the exterior usually looks like a garage door. I think it's all a trend to de-humanize humans, but I obviously digress.

 

[moparjoe2012]

I guess there really is no accounting for taste on the part of the public at large. The first time I took notice of a '69 300 eleven years ago I was utterly smitten. I knew I had to have one, and I finally got mine in 2010. My number one daily driver since 1979 is still my '69 Dart Swinger 340, but really, every time I lay eyes on my 300 the words just come out, "Hello Beautiful."