Popular Mechanics got many things wrong about 1968 cars but one thing right

(EXPANDED FROM 1/18/2023)

The June 1967 issue of Popular Mechanics was published only a few months prior to the beginning of the 1968 model year for U.S.-built cars. Even so, an article by Bob Irwin got many things wrong — but still managed to get one thing automakers presumably considered right. Let’s start by talking about the bad predictions.

For example, Irwin reported that the Chevrolet Impala two-door hardtop would receive a “fastback roofline even more pronounced than the present model.” Meanwhile, a Corvette “with an amidships engine may appear as a ’68 1/2 entry.” Over at Pontiac, an OHC V8 was a “distinct possibility” (1967, p. 61).

At the Chrysler Corporation, Dodge’s full-sized cars would “appear with extensive sheetmetal changes” and the Coronet “will feature new sheet metal front and back.” However, the Dodge Charger would “look pretty much as it does now” but come with a standard “340-hp V8” (1967, p. 182).

The Ford Motor Company also got its share of bad predictions. Irwin wrote that the Ford Galaxie’s headlights would “be vertical” (1967, p. 61). In addition, the caption of a spy photo of a Mercury Monterey two-door fastback stated that it could be a new Thunderbird-based personal coupe called the “Mark X.” Ford would also come out with a 285-cubic-inch engine (1967, p. 62).

How could Popular Mechanics be so wrong?

The buff magazines could get their predictions wrong for a number of reasons, as we have previously discussed about a Popular Science sneak preview of 1967 models (go here).

In theory, timing could be a problem. Today the Internet allows almost real-time posting of automotive reporting. However, back then months could pass between when a story was finalized and when a magazine was printed and distributed. During that time period an automaker could potentially make some changes.

Even so, the spring of 1967 would have been pretty late in a 1968 car’s development to make a major change, such as new sheetmetal. Thus, it doesn’t sound plausible to me that Ford would have decided on a last-minute switch from vertical to horizontal headlights for its 1968 Galaxie.

It could be that Irwin simply heard wrong or talked to someone who was not as in the know as they proclaimed. It is also possible that automaker media flacks purposely fed the reporter bad information, perhaps to throw off competitors. Or perhaps an insider wanted to boost the prospects of a proposed car by giving it some media buzz. Here I’m thinking about the mid-engined Corvette.

Some predictions defied common sense

Those are the reasons I can come up with that give the writer the benefit of the doubt. However, at least some of Irwin’s predictions sound pretty ignorant for a reporter who supposedly had a working knowledge of the U.S. auto industry.

For example, had Irwin not observed how General Motors displayed a pattern of redesigning the two-door hardtops of its big cars when they were reskinned every two years? Why then would the Impala get an expensive sheetmetal redo after only one year?

By the same token, why would Irwin think that the Charger would be little changed when he reported that the Coronet would feature “new sheetmetal front and back” (1967, p. 182)? In 1966-67 both cars shared the same sheetmetal from the B-pillar forward. Did it make sense to him that the Charger — then Dodge’s halo model — would receive fewer changes than the brand’s more utilitarian family cars?

About that one thing Popular Mechanics got right

To be fair, the magazine predicted a variety of things that proved to be true. However, I would guess that the one thing that all of the U.S. automakers would have wanted Popular Mechanics to get right was their spin on new regulations imposed by the federal government.

Irwin went into a fair amount of detail about the new requirements — and even itemized their costs. As a case in point, a pollution-control device was expected to cost $20 while seat and shoulder belts would add $25 to $30 to a car’s price tag.

“The government wants two shoulder belts in each car,” wrote Irwin. “Six-passenger cars will also require two additional lap-type belts to go with the four now in cars. Add ’em up. With two pieces of webbing per belt, the average car will have 16 straps. Buyers may revolt when they see all that spaghetti and the auto companies admit that they’re worried.” This may “force manufacturers to install inertia reels” (1967, p. 60). Irwin might have added: “kicking and screaming.”

Irwin concluded by recommending against expecting “too much in the way of change for 1968.” A big reason why was that “the specter of more and more government regulation of the industry haunts many Detroit executive suites.” If the feds don’t “demand what the automakers may consider the impossible,” readers could look forward to “big changes in 1969” (1967, p. 182).

That didn’t happen — but because of redesign cycles rather than the feds. Despite being wrong again, Irwin presumably reported what automakers wanted the public to think. Talk about losing one’s journalistic dignity.

NOTES:

This article was originally posted on January 18, 2023 and updated on October 1, 2025. Product specifications from the auto editors of Consumer Guide (2006), Flory (2004) and Gunnell (2002).

Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.

---

RE:SOURCES

• Auto editors of Consumer Guide; 2002. Encyclopedia of American Cars. Publications International, Lincolnwood, Ill.
• Flory, J. “Kelly” Jr.; 2004. American Cars, 1960-1972. McFarland & Co., Inc.
• Gunnell, John; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised 4th Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
• Irwin, Bob; 1967. “’68 Cars: How new will they be?” Popular Mechanics. June issue: pp. 59-61, 182.

ADVERTISING & BROCHURES

• oldcarbrochures.org: Buick (1968); Chevrolet (1968); Dodge Charger (1967); Oldsmobile (1968); Oldsmobile Cutlass (1968); Plymouth (1967); Plymouth Satellite (1967, 1968); Pontiac (1968)