(UPDATED FROM 10/30/2023)
Popular Science had a mixed record in making predictions about the auto industry during the postwar period. We have already discussed the magazine’s misfires in 1967 and 1970. Now let’s take a look at Detroit Editor Jim Dunne’s predictions for the first half of 1972 that didn’t pan out.
For starters, in the January issue he stated that for 1973 both AMC and General Motors would introduce compact hatchbacks. The AMC Hornet would get the new body style, as would GM’s X-body (then offered as a Chevrolet Nova and Pontiac Ventura II). These models “will eventually replace the sporty compacts completely in the GM and AM lineup” (Dunne, 1972a; p. 48). Although the Hornet hatchback indirectly replaced the slow-selling Javelin in 1975, the Chevrolet Camaro and Pontiac Firebird soldiered on.
Dunne also predicted that a new Wankel-powered AMC, code named the Amigo, would have front-wheel drive and be offered as a wagon, sporty coupe and four-door sedan. The car would be “as roomy as many larger cars” but “will replace AM’s Gremlin” (1972a; p. 48). That proved to be sort-of true. The car eventually introduced — the rear-wheel-drive and conventionally powered Pacer — was a somewhat bigger and fancier version of the Gremlin.
GM body was designed to be produced for 10 years
Dunne reported that supplier companies would get a reprieve from GM after taking a “severe financial beating” because automakers were lengthening the span of car bodies. GM “is telling its surviving suppliers to hang on for a few more months” because it has a “new body style for all of its car divisions. This is the rumored 10-year body that GM is said to be proposing for its Wankel-powered cars.” Of course, the “catch is that with the 10-year cycle in the offing supplies will find even more lean years in the future” (Dunne, 1972a; p. 48).
In the February 1972 Popular Science issue Dunne added that GM was “expected to build most of its Wankel-powered cars with front-wheel drive. Those cars will show up in the next three years” (1972b, p. 52).
Then, in the March 1972 issue the lead headline of Dunne’s Detroit Report shouted, “There’s just no stopping that wonder — the Wankel.” GM President Ed Cole “has put all his prestige and enthusiasm behind the project” and is developing “new car concepts to make full use of its compact size.” Mass production of the Wankel may even be “fully automated” (1972c, p. 56).
Dunne relentlessly beat the drum for the Wankel
In the April 1972 issue Dunne stated that GM’s Wankel engine — which was slated for debut in late 1973 — could “cause a revolution in the nation’s oil business” (1972d, p. 16).
GM planned to use “a much simpler oil formula” that could “eventually be combined with the automatic-transmission fluid in one common system.” GM was also “weighing the merits of extra-long intervals between oil changes — perhaps as long as 50,000 miles” (1972d, p. 16).
The Wankel-powered, front-wheel-drive cars would have another big innovation — inboard brakes instead of those mounted in the hubs of front wheels. Dunne noted that this would be “the first time such a design has been used on U.S. cars in modern history.” The reason for the change is that they cost less because the calipers “can be built right into the differential case instead of being made separately” (1972f, p. 10).
Of course, none of that happened. GM did not come out with a Wankel and a compact front-wheel-drive platform was years away.
Mercury Cougar to be downsized along with Mustang
Dunne reported in May 1972 that — contrary to previous reports — the 1974 Mustang would be built on the Pinto platform (rather than the Maverick’s) and would have a “similar package” as the German-made Ford Capri. The only body style would be a hatchback, with a convertible and fastback dropped. “A slightly more luxurious version” would be offered as the Mercury Cougar (1972e, p. 76). Dunne did not comment on what would happen to the popular Capri.
NOTES:
This story was originally posted on Oct. 30, 2023 and updated on Nov. 19, 2025.
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Dunne, Jim; 1972. “Detroit Report. . .” Popular Science. Jan. issue: p. 48.
- ——; 1972b. “Detroit Report. . .” Popular Science. Feb. issue: p. 52.
- ——; 1972c. “Detroit Report. . .” Popular Science. March issue: p. 56.
- ——; 1972d. “Detroit Report. . .” Popular Science. April issue: p. 16.
- ——; 1972e. “Detroit Report. . .” Popular Science. May issue: p. 76.
- ——; 1972f. “Detroit Report. . .” Popular Science. July issue: p. 10.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- oldcarbrochures.org: AMC Pacer (1976); Chevrolet Camaro (1974); Mercury Cougar (1974)
The lead photo of the Camaro should at least be a 72 or 73, not the 74 with the battering ram bumpers.
There is no good excuse why in 1972 every 1973 prediction should not be accurate. Every important piece of the following model year is completely fixed.
Popular Science loved to tout the future even if is was “pie in the sky”. So giving column inches to these “not ready for prime time” ideas is not unusual for them.
The rotary motor had a lot of promise until other realities sank in. GM had spent huge to get royalty free rights and for their internal development. I do expect that one of the considerations is that it could deliver a manufacturing cost savings. I guess it made sense that GM was talking it up until the decision to kill the program. GM had planned for the Chevy Monza to have this motor and AMC was to use it for the Pacer.
Dunne said that the X-body hatchbacks “will eventually replace” the Camaro and Firebird. Since the hatchbacks were introduced in 1973, that strikes me as at least somewhere around the 1974-75 model year. I chose 1974 because that’s where I found a better-quality image.
You get a pass on the Camaro picture. It’s not a big deal.
I rather suspect that Jim Dunne was fed a lot of information by GM official/semi-official channels. Some was accurate and some was intential misdirection. It would not be surprising if there were/had been various alternative plans looked at as part of product and platform planning. They could feed something that had been looked at while knowing that it was already a dead topic.
As for the F body Camaro and Firebird one can see that a product run of 1970 to 1981 was particularly long; probably unexpectedly long. During some of these years GM financials were not as good as they wanted and that would alter development plans. This certainly happened with the Corvette. Did it happen with the F body too? The full downsizing of the full size for 1977, the downsizing of the A bodies for 1978 and the fwd X bodies in 1980 were all “bread and butter” lines with high volumes that would have peiority funding and allocation of resources.
I don’t know if that count, but Chevrolet/GMC pick-up trucks including the Blazer/Jimmy was redesigned for 1973 and got the same body until the 1987 model year (1991 for the Blazer/Jimmy and Suburban and the Chevy Van/GMC Vandura got a product run until 1995.
Easily could be more cases of deferred program. In these cases it might be they continued to hold their own in the market instead of the Camaro and Corvette being non core programs.
Three Items that Jim Dunne could not have completely known in 1972 and early 1973:
1.) Except for Mazda, the Wankel was a complete bust.
2.) Unless Jim Dunne was a member of the C.I.A. or some other intelligence agency, he had absolutely precious little knowledge of the planning and execution of the Six-Day War and the subsequent Arab Oil Embargo, which changed every domestic automakers’ plans. After all, it caught the Nixon Administration and Congress off guard in 1973 !
3.) The 1958-1964 Frederic Donner centralization of G.M. assembly plants reached its goal of replacing Fisher Body with consolidated G.M.A.D. assembly plants. The next part of the plan was to create modular vehicles (via platforms) that would encompass compacts, intermediates, full-size and Cadillacs, but the 1973-1974 gasoline shortages got in the way.
I think G.M. President Ed Cole with mandatory retirement looming was the source for Dunne’s predictions. Cole was not going to be G.M.’s next chairman, so he had nothing to lose by touting his own horn about the Wankel and front-wheel-drive cars.
I drove a Wankel Rotosonic MAzda in 1972. IT was smooth peppy quiet – all that. But that was in a car barely weighing 2000 pounds. How would in do in the average American car ?
Gm shouldve not have gone so all abord on the rotary – I believe that Ed Cole’s son was the main booster here. There were such cars on the road – to test them further.
Interestingly Ford Motor early on nixed the idea of the rotary in a Ford car. Ford rejected aluminum engines , turbines also.
The fuel economy of the Wankel spelled the end. A shockingly short career for an engine that so many put thier hopes in. The AMC Pacer – an early victim.
Although not imported into the US, do not forget that NSU had the rotary powered RO80. One would expect that this was evaluated as part of GM’s own development program, especially since it was a decidedly larger car than what Mazda was currently doing.
The rotary in an average car didn’t go very well. Mazda actually sold a full size family sedan called the Roadpacer, based on the Holden Premier.