We’ve had an interesting discussion in a comment thread about Ford Motor Company styling in the 1970s (go here), so I wanted bring some additional information and ideas to the table. This will be a fairly quick story, but my hope is that it will help to move the conversation along.
I would invite your consideration of the idea that Ford’s passenger-car styling went downhill during the 1970s. This was quite the fall from the 1960s, when the automaker arguably experienced something of a golden era. Cars ranging from the 1961-63 Lincoln Continental and 1965-69 Ford Mustang to the 1965-68 Ford Country Squire and 1969-70 Mercury Marquis arguably had an outsized influence on the direction of design trends in the American auto industry.
Even some cars that were considered less successful, such as the 1967-69 Ford Thunderbird four-door sedan, displayed an unusual level of creativity for that time period.
Ford ran out of better ideas in the 1970s
The automaker’s slogan, “Ford has a better idea,” fit reasonably well with its attempts at styling leadership in the 1960s. The same couldn’t be arguably said for most of the automaker’s designs in the second half of the 1970s.
For example, by 1977 almost every passenger car was bestowed with a remarkably generic “brougham” look, replete with a radiator grille and boxy styling that often lacked the sophistication of competing cars from General Motors.
The relative lack of creativity in Ford styling was exacerbated by cost cutting. The biggest victim was Mercury. In the late-60s the brand had finally started to gain traction partly because its entire lineup was given more distinctive sheetmetal than in past years.
This was exemplified by the Mercury Cougar, which shared a body with the Mustang but presented an admirably different persona. Alas, over the next decade Mercury’s lineup became increasingly dominated by cars that were only thinly disguised Fords.
As a case in point, by 1977 the Cougar — upsized to an intermediate personal coupe — shared most of its sheetmetal with a Ford LTD II coupe. While that may have pleased the bean counters, it severely undercut the once iconic Mercury nameplate’s brand equity.
At least the Cougar looked okay. The same couldn’t be said for the Bobcat, Mercury’s version of the Ford Pinto. As you can see from the banner image, slapping a generic radiator grille on a subcompact economy car looked silly.
Who was responsible for Ford’s design decline?
One school of thought is that Ford’s head of design, Eugene Bordinat Jr., was afraid of displaying styling leadership. Another school of thought is that Ford’s higher-level management — including President Lee Iacocca — adopted a play-it-safe attitude.
I’m inclined to give Iacocca the lion’s share of the blame. For one thing, the buck stops at the top — and Iacocca was president of Ford from late-1970 to mid-1978 (Wikipedia, 2024). He also would have had more control over basic decisions such as how much was spent on product differentiation.
Also see ‘Ford did better than Chrysler in differentiating its 1970s mid-sized coupes’
Jim and Cheryl Farrell reported that Bordinat “claimed he learned from Iacocca how to change the looks of a car with very little sheetmetal change, something called ‘thrifting,’ which saved Ford huge amounts of money” (2014, p. 82).
This is one example of how Bordinat accommodated Iacocca’s design sensibilities — going as far as creating a “do not like” list of things to avoid when preparing design proposals (Farrell, 2014, p. 82).
Why did Iacocca stick with Bordinat?
Another reason why I would cut Bordinat some slack for Ford’s styling decline of the 1970s is that he headed the automaker’s design department from 1961 through 1980 (Farrell, 2014). That means he was in charge when most of Ford’s best-styled cars of the 1960s had been developed.
That said, one could reasonably argue that Bordinat’s design instincts fell behind the times. He was reportedly demoted in 1980 by Phillip Caldwell partly because Ford’s recently hired new president favored an “aero” look more than Bordinat (Farrell, 2014).
Also see ‘1974-76 Elite shows how Ford was late to the party with mid-sized personal coupes’
Iacocca could have replaced Bordinat years before but appeared to see him as a kindred spirit. Is it a coincidence that once Iacocca moved over to Chrysler that the automaker clung to the brougham look the longest of the Big Three automakers?
Even if one argues that Bordinat stayed in a leadership role too long, that wasn’t unusual for design heads. For example, we have discussed the decline of GM’s William Mitchell (go here) and Chrysler’s Virgil Exner (go here). Automotive styling is such a fad-oriented profession that even the most talented designer can lose their golden touch.
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Farrell, Jim an Cheryl; 2014. “Eugene Bordinat Jr.: Durable Design Executive.” Collectible Automobile. October issue: pp. 76-83.
- Wikipedia; 2024. “Lee Iacocca.” Page last edited April 16.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- oldcarbrochures.org: Ford Fairmont (1980); Ford LTD (1977); Ford LTD II (1977); Ford Mustang (1979); Mercury Bobcat (1976); Mercury Cougar (1968, 1977); Mercury Marquis (1977)
Notice how the last Chrysler cars influenced by Iacocca – the 1988 C body Dynasty/New Yorker and the long wheelbase Fifth Avenue/Imperial – were a step backwards from the earlier and sportier 1985 LeBaron GTS/Lancer and 1987 LeBaron coupe which were also K car derivatives. I don’t think Iacocca had progressive tastes in styling, at least after 1970. I’m sure Iacocca and perhaps Henry Ford II deserve the blame for 1970’s Ford styling.
The LH cars were the company’s temporary salvation, but they were a change in direction that was necessary while Iacocca was flying around in his Gulfstream. Robert J. Eaton, François J. Castaing and Bob Lutz brought about the efforts to get new platforms into the company, while getting Iacocca into retirement. Otherwise, Chrysler would have circled the drain in the mid-1990s with K-car derivatives.hh
The blame starts at the top. Iacocca was mired in the past and new ideas just weren’t coming through late in his reign. The Duce eventually had enough and Iacocca took his dated styling ideas to Chrysler and he, Frank Sinatra, and Ricardo worked their Vegas magic on outdated and poor quality Chrysler rides upholstered with Corinthian imitation leather.
We could wonder what if Ford had chosen one of George Walker’s proteges; Joe Oros or Elmwood Engel as head of styling instead of Bordinat?
This is an interesting “what if”. George Walker made the deal happen for Engel to replace Exner at Chrysler after Bordinat was selected as the new VP. Unfortunately because of the Chrysler situation he stepped into and the corporate aversion to risk, his early work was a recycling of Ford themes.
Joe Oros did stay with Ford.
I consider the 1961 Ford work some of their best designs. But wonder if some of this extra creativity was a result of various people all trying to prove that they werethe most worthy to be Walker’s successor.
Now that brings another “what if” scenario, what if Joe Oros have gone to Chrysler instead of Engel? Would Joe Oros face a different music?
If I remember correctly some of the assorted stories of all this, Oros was offered that he could go with Engel to Chrysler but turned it down.
Oros had already lost his chance to become the VP at Ford. It was all Walker’s doing to find a landing spot for Engel after Bordinat got the job. Walker had no problem doing this although he continued to have a deal in retirement that should have precluded this.
This gives an interesting assortment of interviews of various design people. http://www.autolife.umd.umich.edu/Oral_histories.htm
The best choice would have been to bring in Uwe Bahnsen from Europe. Unlike Bordinat, he always moved with the times. But whether he could have navigated the politics of the glass house, who knows?
I would argue that all of Detroit’s styling went downhill in the 1970s. There aren’t many GM designs, for example, from the 1970s that I would rate as superior to their 1960s counterparts. Same with Chrysler and AMC.
Nor can this be blamed entirely on the bumper standards.
Ford suffered the most, in my opinion, because Iacocca tried to turn every model into a version of the Continental Mark III and IV. Ford also did the worst job of integrating the 5-mph bumpers into the basic design – at least until the 1978 Fairmont and 1979 Mustang debuted.
Given Iacocca’s management style – which didn’t brook much dissent – Bordinat no doubt played along for job security. It’s noteworthy that Bordinat wasn’t demoted until after Iacocca was fired.
I would disagree about the Fairmont and the Fox-based Mustang. After several years of the “Brougham Look,” they were a breath of fresh air at the time – particularly from Ford. They look best without the two-tone paint and vinyl roofs that infest so many cars of that era, but the Fairmont four-door sedans and wagons have held up better than most late 1970s compacts – certainly better than the Granada and Aspen/Volare.
A number of points:
– Bordinat was part of the group that Iacocca lined up to push Bunkie Knudsen out.
– IF Bunkie had of had his way Chuck Jordan would have been the head of Design. He tried hard to get him to come over. Shinoda did come over for Knudsen but it was at a studio designer level which abruptly ended when Knudsen was gone.
– Bordinat was not particularly well thought of by the other Detroit design leaders.
– The 1979 was created as a crash program by Jack Telnack immediately upon his return from Ford of Europe. This happened because Bordinat’s proposal was viewed so poorly. [During this time Ford of Europe’s Design operations were held in high regard, unlike Ford in Dearborn.]
– Go to Dean’s Garage to see what Bordinat wanted for the Mark IV to grasp how compromised his design sense was. The Mark IV that was produced was done by an ex-GM designer and was approved for production by Knudsen; much to the consternation of both Bordinat and Iacocca.
– The Ford philosophy on “thrifting” was that a nose and tail cap with some extra bodyside trim was all that was needed for differentiation. They believed that the public would not recognize that this was the same car underneath. Steve correctly points out how this saved tooling money but at what cost to the brand’s identity.
– Even HFII has been quoted as saying how Bordinat was a butt-kissing politician that was always showing how he could keep his department budget down.
– Bordinat was an alcoholic for which his after lunch abilities were highly compromised.
– The regular drinking buddy of Bordinat was Delarossa who Iacocca brought over to Chrysler to be the VP Design. Is it any wonder that most of the K Cars lacked design sensitivity? The LH series happened after Tom Gale became the head of Design and Bob Lutz was around to champion design.
– As for the comments on the late years of Bill Mitchell at GM, there were a few misses but then look at the entire 1976 Seville, 1977 downsized B & C bodies, 1979 Eldo. Even his last years turned out some great designs while one would be hard pressed to find such success with Bodinat’s last years.