William Mitchell was vice president of design at General Motors from December 1958 through July 1977 (Wikipedia, 2025). I have previously raised the question of whether he stayed in his position too long (go here). To give you a more granular sense of what I mean, let’s grade GM’s major new and redesigned cars of the 1970s.
To put some boundaries around this discussion I am confining grades to mass-produced passenger cars rather than trucks or concept cars (and ignoring facelifts and reskinnings). While I have offered my subjective opinion about the aesthetic appeal of Mitchell’s designs, I am more concerned about the longer-term importance of these designs on GM and the U.S. auto industry.
Before proceeding I should emphasize that Mitchell did not have the sole responsibility for any of these designs, both in terms of aesthetics as well as each car’s specifications. Other GM executives such as division managers, product planners and engineers played a role in each car’s development.
Even so, Mitchell clearly had certain design sensibilities, such as an antipathy toward smaller cars. So as you consider the cars discussed below, ponder how someone with more international design experience such as a Chuck Jordan might have approached them if Mitchell had stepped down in 1967 rather than 1977.
1970 1/2 Chevrolet Camaro/Pontiac Firebird
Grade: B
GM’s second-generation pony cars were arguably the most aesthetically appealing Mitchell designs of the 1970s. They had a clean, almost European look that contrasted with the chunkiness of the Ford Motor Company’ pony cars and the rather derivative designs from Chrysler.
The main problem with these cars was their size. As discussed further here, they got too big and heavy — and that became normalized to the point where they stayed pretty much the same size until they were discontinued at the end of 2002.
1971 large personal coupes
Grade: D
The second-generation large personal coupes arguably represented the first major design failure during Mitchell’s tenure. The Buick Riviera’s boat tail was the biggest mistake. The basic shape might have made sense as a 2+2 GT coupe using GM’s pony car platform (go here), but it didn’t work as a large personal coupe.
Meanwhile, the Cadillac Eldorado shifted from being one of the cleanest of the 1960s large personal coupes to becoming one of the most overdone. I grant you that Mitchell may have been put at a disadvantage because he was reportedly forced to switch the Eldorado to GM’s big-car platform, but that didn’t necessitate such a gimmicky design (go here for further discussion).
The Oldsmobile Toronado was the least objectionable of the three, but its previous design DNA was completely thrown away. Perhaps this was done under pressure from the division, but I think that there were artful ways of making the Toronado more conventional without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
1971 large family cars
Grade: C+
GM’s new-for-1971 full-sized cars displayed considerably more styling sophistication than their Big Three competition. They were much cleaner and more inventive than either Ford’s blocky attempt at the brougham look or Chrysler’s ill-proportioned “fuselage” styling.
So on one level these cars illustrated GM’s design superiority in the early 1970s. However, the cars also grew too large even before federally mandated bumpers were required. In addition, the wagon — with its clamshell tailgate — epitomized GM’s bias toward swoopy styling over space efficiency.
1971 Chevrolet Vega
Grade: B
The Chevrolet Vega may have been problematic from an engineering and manufacturing standpoint, but it also displayed GM’s strong design sensibility. It was a nice looking line of cars.
That said, the Vega also displayed the limitations of American design. The car was given a low, sporty look rather than the more space-efficient packaging of a European GM subcompact. As a result, the basic design did not lend itself to a four-door sedan or wagon. GM didn’t seem to think that Americans wanted a small family car. As we discuss further here, some foreign automakers disagreed.
1973 mid-sized family cars and personal coupes
Grade: C
The 1973 redesign of GM’s mid-sized car lineup continued to show GM’s superiority in design sophistication compared to Ford’s and Chrysler’s. However, these cars became meaningfully larger and more baroque in their aesthetics.
The Chevrolet Monte Carlo was arguably the most over the top in its styling, but the Pontiac LeMans and Buick Century were also busy and gimmicky. Only the Oldsmobile Cutlass had a more understated design (go here for further discussion).
1975 subcompact sporty coupes
Grade: B
For 1975 GM introduced sporty and luxury coupes based on the subcompact Chevrolet Vega’s platform. The cars — a fastback and a notchback — were admirably clean compared to the Ford Mustang II’s busy and ponderous styling.
Unfortunately, GM’s bean counters partly spoiled the fun by insisting that three divisions receive virtually identical versions of the basic design. The Chevrolet Monza was joined by the Buick Skyhawk and Oldsmobile Starfire.
1976 Cadillac Seville
Grade: B-
The new compact Cadillac was exceptionally clean for a 1970s GM car but was undercut by an overly upright C-pillar. And, unfortunately, that design gimmick would be endlessly copied over the next decade or so.
I also wonder whether the first-generation Seville ended up being too plain. The usual Cadillac gingerbread may not have been appropriate for a car that was attempting to keep people from switching to a Mercedes-Benz, but aside from the greenhouse this car had a remarkably generic look.
1977 large family cars
Grade: B
The downsized big GM lineup were arguably Mitchell’s most successful designs of the 1970s if you consider space efficiency to be an important factor. These were workmanly designs that sold well, but they had a number of weaknesses.
One problem was was too much sheetmetal sharing, which made it harder to give each division a distinctive product. That decision may have been made by the bean counters rather than Mitchell, but it represented an important shift for the automaker that would prove increasingly problematic in the years ahead.
Another weakness was that two-door models no longer had frameless door glass, which undercut the point of such a body style — to look good. Again, this may have been decided by bean counters or engineers (to save weight) rather than Mitchell.
1978 mid-sized family cars and personal coupes
Grade: C
The downsized mid-sized models were not as well received as the big cars. This was partly because of cost cutting such as rear windows in four-door models not rolling down. However, this was also not GM’s finest hour when it came to design aesthetics.
Arguably the biggest mistake was to give the Buick Century and Oldsmobile Cutlass an ill-proportioned fastback body style. To make matters worse, a hatchback option was not available. In addition, GM’s premium brands were deprived of notchback sedans rather than the lower-priced and sportier Chevrolet and Pontiac.
The mid-sized personal coupes were the star of the show sales-wise, and they were okay designs. However, a reskinning in 1981 would prove to be more successful in giving the Pontiac Grand Prix better proportions (go here for further discussion).
Would a younger leader have adapted more quickly?
Of course, we can only wildly speculate with the luxury of hindsight about whether a younger design head would have helped GM better navigate the 1970s. However, I suspect that someone with strong international experience might have more effectively responded to a rising tide of imports.
Given the complexity of GM’s management structure and culture, that might have shown up in only incremental shifts, such as slightly less baroque styling with a greater emphasis on packaging efficiency. However, anything would have helped GM avoid the jarring shifts it made in the late-70s and early-80s.
For example, might GM have started to offer earlier at least a few smaller cars with the more international design flavor of, say, the above-shown 1978 Holden Commodore, which shared a platform with the German Opel Rekord E?
That’s my quick take — what’s yours?
NOTES:
Product specifications and production figures came from the auto editors of Consumer Guide (2006), Gunnell (2002) and Langworth and Norbye (1986).
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.
- Gunnell, John; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised 4th Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Langworth, Richard M. and Jan P. Norbye; 1986. The Complete History of General Motors 1908-1986. Publications International, Skokie, IL.
- Wikipedia; 2025. “Bill Mitchell (automobile designer).” Page last modified on Jan. 12.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- oldcaradvertising.com: Cadillac Seville (1986)
- oldcarbrochures.org: Buick Century (1978); Buick Skyhawk (1975); Cadillac Eldorado (1971); Chevrolet Caprice (1977); Chevrolet Monte Carlo (1973); Chevrolet Vega (1971); Australian Holden Commodore (1978); Oldsmobile (1971); Oldsmobile Starfire (1975); Pontiac Firebird (1971); Pontiac Grand Am (1973)
You left out the 1975 X Bodies and the 1979 E Bodies.
On the whole I would say that the Vega, the H Bodies and the X Bodies were all pretty good American interpretations of transatlantic styling themes so long as one stayed away from vinyl roofs and other broughamy gingerbread. They’re not too far off the themes that Opel was pursuing.
On the other side of things, the ’73 Monte Carlo and ’79 Eldorado are works of art so long as you can accept them on their own terms. They’re terribly tacky to contemporary sensibilities, sure. But the sculpturing and proportions are sublime. Jerry Hirshberg’s ’71 Buick full sizers are also in there.
BTW, I don’t think there was much sheetmetal sharing on the 1977 B Bodies. The Pontiac shared outer door skins with the Chevrolet and the Buick shared outer door skins with the Oldsmobile, but other than that I don’t think anything was shared other than the roofs, and that was Fisher body policy going back to the 1930s.
At the top of the story I stated that I was not going to address facelifts. In that category I would include the various changes made during the 1970s to GM’s rear-wheel-drive compact platform, whose last major redesign was in 1968. That says a lot about how unseriously GM took the compact market.
I suppose that I could have included the 1979 E-bodies, but they came out after Mitchell retired and so could have plausibly been tinkered with by his successor. And if they weren’t? I was too weary to write about the bustlebacked Seville. Sigh.
Only the 1977 big Cadillac had entirely unique sheetmetal. That strikes me as a major change for GM because it meant that the other divisions could no longer give their cars exclusive design cues such as Buick’s sweepspear. Thus began the downward slide toward badge engineering that undercut the whole rationale for fielding five passenger-car brands in the United States.
Styling is ultimately subjective, so if you wish to call the 1973 Monte Carlo a work of art, so be it. I subscribe to Paul Niedermeyer’s (2014) assessment. He said the car’s styling was “downright bizarre, like the victim of a botched breast and hip augmentation.”
Why was the 1979 Eldorado so great? To my eyes it was a competent design, but it was also fairly generic — and the overly vertical C-pillar had become cliched by that point. In addition, the Eldorado looked too similar to the Toronado.
The 1975 X Bodies were not a face-lift.
The outer front doors on the four-door sedan appear to be carried over and the windshield may have also been (although the top of it may have been raised a bit). The 1975 four-door sedan was 0.4 taller than the 1974 model and it doesn’t look like the ground clearance was increased. Overall passenger room increased somewhat but not front headroom.
Below are images of a 1975, 1973 and a 1968 model. The most apparent difference in the front doors is the elimination of vent wings.
If you think that’s not true — that the front-door sheetmetal was changed in 1975 — my question is why would GM go through the trouble of a full reskinning yet not appreciably change the side styling? Remember, they presumably knew that both Ford and Chrysler were coming out with new-generation compacts in 1975-76.
Hello everyone
My assessment broadly coincides with yours with regards to the 1970s designs from GM, but I would like to add another nuance from the perspective of a person from the EU:
GM in the 1930s to the mid 1960s generally dictated the current styling ethos, obliging in a way the other automakers to chase after GM. From the birth of the Ford LTD onwards, it appears to me that GM instead began to mimick the competition in an ever more Broughamy direction, with upright rooflines and boxiness in spades. This happened even though GM managed to produce the 1967-68 B-body semi-fastbacks, the 66-70 Toronado and the 68-72 A-Body intermediate coupes.
The problem I find is that instead of doubling down on swoopiness and inefficient – but different and attractive! – packaging, GM styling seemingly put one foot in two shoes (swoopy and Brougham) with the result that despite GM’s massive market share, in the end Brougham and upright prevaled, and I’d dare to say this drop added to the sea that led to the 1980s decline of GM and the US auto industry in general.
Proof is that the Taurus sold well partly because it defied Brougham boxiness.
The best of the 73 A bodies was the Pontiac Grand AM yet the Cutlass is the one cited as best. The original version of this series of Cutlass had a very strange surface in the lower front door. That was cleaned up later in an update. The Grand Am gets a solid B while the rest of the B bodies are a C-.
The Monte Carlo is a D and potentially a D-. But, the marketplace loved it. I have told the story of the studio manager doing the next generation Monte having running arguments with Chevy management over to make a nice clean design versus more baroque- Chevy kept bringing up how that baroque sold so well.
Camaro and Firebird. Unequivocally they are a A and under consideration for an A+. Of note is that the sheet metal, except roof, is unique between the two.
Seville, another A. Steve has an issue with the stiff vertical C pillar. I have no problem with it at all and understand it as a period correct design choice.
Vega is a B+. I disagree with the contention that the lack of a 4-door was a problem. Also, the complaint against the swoopy roof has forgotten about the more upright roof version. That upright roof version was inspired by the Fiat 124 coupe. Yet, it was killed in sales by the swoopy hatchback. And, yes there was the wagon version of the Vega.
The 1979 Eldo and 1980 were definitely Mitchell creations. I hate the humpback Seville but appreciate the quality of the surfacing which is a testament to GM Design’s clay modelers. The Seville is a D and an F for its repudiation of the Euro approach of the first generation Seville. The Eldo was perfect for its time and in that consideration is a B+.
The 71 full size are deserving of a C-, at best. Fat and flabby.
I would say that Mitchell redeemed himself with the Seville and 1977 full size.
I will also pick a bone over how some keep bringing up Mitchell’s comment about small car design, tailoring a dwarf, but he actually did some outstanding small car designs.
As for Ciro’s contention that GM was following Ford on design during this time – never, ever under Mitchell. As Chuck Jordan told me GM Design looked forward and knew where it was going. Ford followed GM.
Jeff, you summed it up nicely. I’ll add my own viewpoint soon.
I am seeing some politically themed ideas presented on this site. I agree that the current situation needs public awareness, but I think that moving in this direction will result in negative consequences for this site. Let’s keep those topics on other websites.
For what it’s worth, I give the early second gen Monte Carlo an A. I like gingerbread.
Jose, my undergraduate training was in journalism, and even though I eventually drifted into other realms, my professional identity is still heavily grounded in that field’s basic principles. Those include writing about what is newsworthy rather than what is most popular. Right now the biggest issue facing the auto industry is the rise of trade wars largely sparked by the Trump administration.
It is an interesting question as to what constitutes “negative consequences” for Indie Auto. I do this as a volunteer. I don’t see that changing, partly due to auto history appearing to be most popular with a generation that is getting up there in age. That’s partly why it makes sense to cover more current events. And since other car-buff sites tend to avoid politics, there would seem to be a niche that could be filled (and one that I have background in).
I named this Indie Auto to emphasize that I’m trying to offer something different. And I do so recognizing that this website will always be a small fry compared to the more infotainment-focused car-buff media.
That said, this website is structured like a magazine — there’s a variety of content, so you can find plenty to read if you want to avoid politics. My own attitude about publications that I read — or even subscribe to — is that I don’t expect to always agree with them. Indeed, it can be helpful to learn new perspectives that I have not been exposed to in my information bubble.
Of course, in our increasingly polarized society, some folks could have a very different attitude. They may gravitate toward the media outlets which best align with their biases. That’s a free society — and a free press — in action.
I knew a guy that had a Jaguar centered blog. Back before the 2016 election he ran a Get out the Vote video, released by the Democratic Party. After that, he was targeted mercilessly by trolls. It got so bad he turned his blog into an invitation only type of viewing. Maybe you have better filters and protections, I hope that you do. I am very concerned about the current situation in our country, but I think it’s best to keep the politics out. I will not express my opinions on an automotive website. Keep up the good work, there’s always something interesting to read on this site.
I get what you’re saying. I have observed how other auto media have avoided politics — and can understand why. For one thing, that’s not a good way to make that cash register ring, particularly when you depend on maximizing page views. That’s why Indie Auto doesn’t.
For better or worse, for richer or poorer, I feel like I have a journalistic responsibility to address political issues that are relevant to the automobile. And I do take seriously the idea of offering an independent perspective. So while this is a journal of opinion, it will never be a mouthpiece for a particular party. My hope is that people who donate to Indie Auto do so not because they always agree with me but because I try hard to offer a thoughtful take that they might not find elsewhere.
With respect to your questions above on the 1975 X Bodies, I believe GM had started work in the early ’70s on the front wheel drive project that got released in 1980, so it would make sense to recycle the platform for another 4 years. But they recycled the Vega platform with the H bodies as well. The question is whether the skin was new, and I would say it was as new as the H Body.
Overall, the ’75 design reads as fresh and new to me because of the greenhouse, which by then was becoming the most important styling element. There’s more than a hint of Opel Commodore B in the ’75 Nova sedan, something entirely lacking in the ’73-’74.
Welp, the changes made to the 1974 Vega strike me as being a classic example of a facelift. The side sheetmetal appears to have been mostly carried over and the fascia and bumper were redone. Then, in back the trunk lid’s center dip was shaved off and a new deck panel housed revised taillights (and, of course, the bumper was beefier).
If you were arguing that the 1975 GM compacts were competently done facelifts, I would agree with that. They gave the cars a more European look — although they were a far cry from an Opel due to the classic American body proportions, such as the overly long wheelbase ahead of the cowl. Most importantly, they still looked like a rehash compared to the 1975 Granada/Monarch or the 1976 Volare/Aspen.
Think about it this way: By 1975 the Nova was in its eighth year of production — and would struggle on another four years. I’m hard pressed to name another high-volume, postwar passenger car from the Big Three that was kept in production that long with so few changes. Sales clearly suffered, particularly compared to Ford’s compacts (go here for further discussion).
The decision to not give GM’s compacts at least a full reskinning in 1975 was likely made by the bean counters rather than Mitchell. So he arguably did the best that he could with what he had. And it was certainly a more successful effort than, say, the 1974 AMC Matador. But, at least in my book, if you carry over side sheetmetal then it is a facelift and not a full reskinning.
Beyond all that, GM’s lineup of compacts epitomized the fundamental problem of trying to sell a badge-engineered car under four different brand names. I suppose you could give Mitchell points for giving each brand’s offerings a modicum of individuality, but the fairly weak sales of all but the Nova illustrated how the public wasn’t fooled. The decision to give the compacts so little variation likely wasn’t made by Mitchell, but the flip side of that is his design sensibility was more apparent with the major redesign of the 1971 big cars and the 1973 intermediates.