For its September 1975 issue, Popular Mechanics’ Detroit Editor Robert Lund asked executives from each of the Big Four U.S. automakers to predict what cars would be like in the decade ahead.
Lund started off by linking government regulation of the auto industry with George Orwell’s dystopian novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four (Wikipedia, 2023). Lund wrote that Orwell “said Big Brother, alias big government, will call the shots for everybody and everything from conception to the coffin. In that respect, 1984 has already arrived for the auto industry” (1975, p. 49).
Fortunately, Lund assured us, “Detroit doesn’t agree with this vision of a regimented, drab, everything-the-same society in the ’80s. Automobiles then, car builders promise, will be exciting and imaginative. As dramatically different as a ’70 car parked alongside an overdesigned, overchromed gunboat of 1950” (1975, p. 49).
‘Revolutionary’ new designs were promised by 1979
Lund predicted that the biggest changes “will come between now and ’78-79. By ’79 the revolution will be over and there will be no vast changes in the outward skin, size and weight.” Most cars — and all small ones — would have front-wheel drive (1975, p. 49).
If that sounds impressive, Lund cautioned that product cycles would be longer. For example, “American Motors says it doesn’t anticipate a major change in the Pacer body for 9 or 10 years” (1975, p. 49).
Also see ‘Bigger didn’t prove to be better for General Motors in late-70s and 80s’
Speaking of the Pacer, which was originally to be powered by a Wankel, American Motors had still not given up on that engine by mid-1975. Lund wrote that management thought the Wankel “may be ready by the ’80s.”
A Chrysler spokesperson dismissed this idea, arguing that the Wankel “wasn’t anywhere clean enough for use in a car at this stage of its development.” Both Chrysler and GM pointed to the prospects of diesel engines whereas “Ford favors the Stirling and gas turbine” (1975, pp. 49-51, 112).
Lund’s article made a number of other predictions
Perhaps the most intriguing prediction in Lund’s story was that bad old government might soon dictate that cars have “seats permanently fixed to the floor in one position,” with the steering wheel and foot pedals adjusting to the driver’s size (1975, p. 49).
It’s unclear from the article who was pushing for digital instrumentation, which Lund promised would be easier to read and give more information. Meanwhile, cars would have more glass, albeit not as much as the recently-introduced Pacer.
Also see ‘U.S. cars often suffered from weak styling continuity and boxy shapes in 1970-80s’
The automotive executives Lund interviewed all insisted that even though U.S. cars would shrink, they would not take on a “homogenized” world-car look.
Typical of comments was Ford spokesperson Harold C. MacDonald, who stated that “cars will be closer together on dimensions — the compact look, fewer frills, less overhang front and rear. But having seen the products we are working on for ’78 and ’79, I can tell you they will be very distinctive cars” (1975, p. 49).
Lund’s article was sort-of on target and sort-of not
Lund got right that Detroit planned a massive downsizing of its fleet. However, predictions of when this would happen were off by a year or so. Most of the new front-wheel-drive, smaller cars were not introduced until 1980-82.
In addition, a goodly chunk of specific predictions did not pan out. Fixed front seats never took hold, digital instrumentation didn’t get much traction in the 1980s, and alternatives to gasoline engines proved to be marginal to the lineups of American automakers.
Also see ‘Lower! Longer! Wider! fixation of US automakers left opening for imports’
Indeed, even a specific prediction — that the Pacer’s body would be in production as long as 1984 — was overly optimistic by four years. This illustrates how the Pacer’s unorthodox packaging was out of step with the market’s direction (go here for further discussion).
Ironically, the Pacer ended up bombing even though it anticipated styling trends that were popularized by the likes of the 1983 Ford Thunderbird, such as a more aerodynamic shape and airplane-style doors.
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Auto editors of Consumer Guide; 2006. Encyclopedia of American Cars. Publications International; Lincolnwood, Ill.
- Automobile Catalog; 2023. “Search automobile-catalog.” Accessed March 16.
- Flammang, James M. and Ron Kowalke; 1999. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1976-1999. Third Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Lund, Robert; 1975. “Cars of the 1980s: What they will be like.” Popular Mechanics. September issue: pp. 49-51, 112, 116.
- Wikipedia; 2023. “Nineteen Eighty-Four.” Page last modified March 14.
BROCHURES:
- oldcarbrochures.org: Buick (1980); Chevrolet (1975-83); Dodge (1981); Ford (1983); Oldsmobile (1981)
The 80s were a mixed bag. The still cool Ford aerobird and hoards of generic 4 door sedans that were a pox on society. The revolutionary Chrysler Mini van was on its way too. But damn all those soul sucking GM 80s sedans. Forbes had it right on the magazine cover. Look where we are at now with all these White generic transport pods all over the place. (Manufacturers bragging about cup holders and back up cams.) Can I have a 90 Saab 900 and just call it good and enjoy driving again ?
I object to putting the Aries/Reliant with the Buick X body. There may be general similarities but the GM is so, so much better execution of design. The K cars looked “underbaked” because they had no finesse in their surfacing and in the detailing. One saw everything there was to see with the K cars at the first look.
Only the members of Congress and Presidents Carter and Reagan would have approved of the Reliant / Aries as it looks exactly what government bean-counters and inspector-generals would have approved. I doubt if extra styling details would have gone over well with taxpayer loan-guarantees !