Once in a while a work of automotive history is smacked down by a critic who sanctimoniously points to alleged inaccuracies. Sometimes these kind of critiques are on target (if unduly indignant). However, at other times they can fall flat when suffering from their own factual problems.
Robert Ness’s (2017) comment in Curbside Classic illustrates the latter genre. He described Laurence Jones’s (2021) story on the 1962 Plymouth as “poorly informed,” replete with too much “Exner myth” and “bashing.” To back up his defense of Exner, Ness trotted out some fairly common talking points — but with an interesting twist.
Ness (2017) argued that Exner could not be blamed for the 1962 Plymouth because he was forced to shrink a full-sized design that looked much better. He stated that “Exner was in poor health back then and his associates created the downsized 1962s.” Ness implied that the 1963 reskinned models looked at least somewhat better because Exner’s “health improved.”
Was Exner’s ill health a key factor in 1962-63 styling?
Perhaps Ness has access to inside information, but my sense of the literature is that Exner’s health was not a major factor in how the 1962-63 models looked. For example, Exner’s biographer Peter Grist wrote that the designer’s family worried about how hard he worked on the 1962 models despite his fragile health (2007, pp. 124-125).
Exner apologists tend to blame a lack of time as the reason why the Plymouth’s styling looks like a last-minute nip and tuck of the big-car proposal that management had killed at the 11th hour (Katz, 1995; Godshall, 1992). They
Management instead called for the Plymouth and Dodge to be downsized. I haven’t seen adequately discussed how the engineering department found the time for a pretty ambitious rethinking of the car’s mechanicals when the design team couldn’t do the same (go here for further discussion).
Perhaps Exner didn’t have the physical energy — and the motivation — to significantly redo a design that he had put so much effort into. That must have been a letdown, particularly when bean counters took away curved side glass, which was crucial to making the fuselage-like styling work well.
Meanwhile, the main driver of the restyled 1963 models would appear to have been Chrysler’s new president, Lynn Townsend. He reportedly pressed for much more substantial sheetmetal changes than had initially been considered by design staff (Katz, 1995; Godshall, 1992).
Would the aborted big cars have done any better?
Styling is subjective, so Ness (2017) is entitled to his opinion that Exner’s proposed 1962 full-sized Plymouth Super Sport two-door hardtop “was a much better design” than the car actually produced. This seems to be a fairly popular opinion among former Chrysler designers (Godshall, 1996).
Also see ‘1962-64 Plymouth: The odd case of prescience interruptus’
My sense is that while the big Plymouth had an inoffensive design, it might have experienced a short shelf life because the rest of the industry was gravitating toward more angular and coke-bottle shapes.
More importantly, the proposed redesigns for the full-sized Dodge, Chrysler and Imperial were more offbeat than the cars ultimately produced. If you didn’t like the shrunken 1962 Dodge, you may have liked even less the full-sized version.
Ness appears to partly excuse Exner’s excesses by suggesting that many auto executives do not possess a “good eye” for styling. That’s a useful point. For example, we have discussed how George Romney let through some real whoppers, particularly in his early days as head of American Motors (go here). By the same token, Chrysler’s management bore ultimate responsibility for the increasingly bizarre designs the automaker produced in the late-50s and early-60s.
This is why it makes sense that Exner got fired. Townsend clearly wanted a head designer whose sensibility was more “commercial” than avant garde. A top executive is a busy person, so why should they have to constantly worry about reining in their design department?
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Godshall, Jeffrey I; 1992. “1962-64 Dodge: ‘The New Lean Breed.’” Collectible Automobile. Published October; accessed August 16, 2019.
- ——–; 1996. “Opportunity Knocked: The Super Sport Plymouth Could Have Made for 1962.” Collectible Automobile. Published December; accessed August 16, 2019.
- Grist, Peter; 2007. Virgil Exner, Visioneer. Veloce Publishing, Dorchester, England.
- Jones, Laurence; 2021. “Curbside Classic: 1962 Plymouth Fury – If You Think This Is Bad…” Curbside Classic. Posted April 11; accessed March 11, 2021.
- Katz, John; 1995. “1962-64 Plymouth: Pivotal, Panic-Driven Mopars.” Collectible Automobile. Published April, pp. 57-69.
- Ness, Robert; 2017. Commentator in “Curbside Classic: 1962 Plymouth Fury – If You Think This Is Bad…” Curbside Classic. Posted 9:35 a.m., April 10; accessed March 11, 2021.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- oldcaradvertising.com: Plymouth (1962)
- oldcarbrochures.org: Plymouth (1962)
Now the 1961 Plymouth was one of the most bizarre design to ever grace 4 wheels (IMHO). In period I thought the 1962 Plymouth looked OK, not too weird and no fins. Yes, Virgil was a little out of control in the late ’50’s and GM and Ford cleaned their clock as a result.