(EXPANDED FROM 12/18/2020)
Indie Auto’s internet connection is finally working, so let’s take another look at William Mitchell’s swan song, the 1977 Pontiac Phantom. I must admit to feeling ambivalent about this concept car. Although it strikes me as one of the best-executed examples of the neoclassical look, the car’s dated qualities raise the question: Did Mitchell overstay his welcome as head of design for General Motors?
I was hesitant to ask that question when I wrote the original version of this story in 2020 because Mitchell is so highly regarded by postwar American car designers. You can see that reflected in the comment thread. Who am I to critique him when my car design experience reached no further than filling sketchbooks when I was in high school?
As such, my musings may be best viewed through the lens of corporate strategy rather than design (although I will talk about the latter, with the understanding that styling is inevitably subjective . . . and everyone thinks they are an expert).
.jpg)
Phantom is an exemplar of the neoclassical look
The Phantom reminds me of some of the sketches I made as a teenager during the mid-70s. At that point I liked curvaceous interpretations of the neoclassical look. My designs tended to include a tapered front and rear end, and a V-shaped hood line that arched from the base of the greenhouse. Then, as now, my favorite part of the Phantom is the fascia, which offers a modern interpretation of the streamlined designs of the late-1930s.
The Phantom was also one of the last disciples of “fuselage” styling. The side windows and lower fenders appear to curve even more sharply inward from a center crease than on the second-generation Pontiac Firebird.
Also see ‘Retired designers ponder a once and future Pontiac GTO’
My least-favorite part of the Phantom is its fastback shape. It strikes me as needing either more inward tapering in the tail or a gentle S-curve. I am also not a big fan of the exaggerated wheel cutouts, which have a contrived quality.
Those nitpicks aside, Mitchell deserves credit for championing a relatively understated design during a period when the neoclassical look tended to be overwrought. If I had ended up going into car design as a career, I would have felt like I was in hog heaven if I could have landed on this project’s design team.
Phantom showcased an obsolete design approach
All that said, the Phantom also displayed how Mitchell was a product of a bygone era. His design sensibility was out of step with the need for smaller cars that were both more efficient and practical. For one thing, the Phantom was built on the mid-sized Pontiac Grand Prix chassis despite being a two seater (Wikipedia, 2022).
Even if one views this car as a styling exercise divorced from reality, I still think it would have looked better if it had been smaller. GM’s F-body, which was used for its pony cars, could have offered better proportions for a fastback coupe.
Also see ‘Insider’s look at car design steers clear of Detroit’s fall’
By the same token, the Phantom could have been more visually interesting as a 2+2 rather than a two seater. That might have also given the concept enough plausibility to be considered for production — with all of the design compromises that would have entailed.
For example, one version of the Phantom had ribbed bumpers (Smith, 2020). This suggests that 5-mph bumpers might have looked less massive with dual chrome strips over otherwise body-colored bumpers.
So did William Mitchell stay at GM too long?
My short answer: yes. Mitchell was arguably at the peak of his design powers in the mid-60s, but by the early-70s he was losing his touch. As a case in point, the 1971-73 Buick Riviera was a flop and the second-generation Cadillac Eldorado was outsold by a Lincoln. In addition, the 1975 Cadillac Seville’s styling was not as good as commonly suggested. All of these cars hinted at how Mitchell’s design taste was growing out of sync with a changing market.
According to John Z. DeLorean, Mitchell opposed his proposal to downsize GM’s mid-sized cars because it would take “the corporation into a more utilitarian design and away from the longer, lower and sleeker look” (Wright, 1979; p. 182).
While DeLorean may not be the most trustworthy source, his story aligns with Mitchell’s lament that “(d)esigning a small car is like tailoring a suit for a dwarf” (Lamm and Holls, 1996, pp. 184-185).
The Phantom epitomized Mitchell’s penchant for big, bold rolling sculpture. Personality politics aside, is it any wonder why GM management ignored the Phantom, as Karl Smith has documented (2020)? For all of its good qualities, the car was a stylistic dead end.
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Lamm, Michael and Dave Holls; 1996. A Century of Automotive Style: 100 Years of American Car Design. Lamm-Morada Publishing Co.
- Smith, Karl; 2020. “Mitchell’s 1977 Pontiac Phantom.” Dean’s Garage. Posted October 29; accessed December 16.
- Wikipedia; 2022. “Pontiac Phantom.” Page last edited Aug. 26.
- Wright, J. Patrick; 1979. On A Clear Day You Can See General Motors. Wright Enterprises, Grosse Pointe, MI.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- autohistorypreservationsociety.org: Pontiac Firebird (1977)
- oldcarbrochures.org: Pontiac Grand Prix (1978, 1982)
PHOTOGRAPHY:
- 1977 Pontiac Phantom: Photos (here and here) by John Lloyd via Wikipedia Creative Commons 2.0. Images edited to lighten dark colors.
.jpg){kind=link}
In the Motor Trend article, it stated that this car was designed by Mitchell as a going away gift to GM. This is 1976-77. So many of the design cues reference production models of the early 70’s, the ’71 Buick Riviera, and the rear end and front prow of the ’73 Pontiac Le Mans, Even the Phantom Corsair. The usual process is for concept cars to preview future design, not reflect past design. It makes me wonder if the car had actually been designed earlier. The sheer look of the mid to late ’70s was better demonstrated by the ’75 Seville,’77 Deville, and other downsized full size cars. The F cars still had a similar curvaceous shape but they were from the late 1960s. The Phantom, if produced, would have looked totally out of step with the times.
I agree. And, as I talked about in the story, at that point in time I was still quite taken by organic shapes that evoked the classics. Car design in the late-70s and early-1980s was terribly boring to me because it seemed like everybody threw away their french curves.
One irony is that eventually the auto industry did come back to these kind of shapes. The Chrysler Atlantic concept car is a particularly interesting example. A totally impractical design, but it had some really interesting lines.
I wonder if Bill Mitchell would have been inspired by Virgil Exner’s Stutz revival car to create the Phantom?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stutz_Blackhawk
And speaking of Stutz, I saw this old drawing from 2004 showing a more modern Stutz drawing from Virgil Exnerr Jr nad we could wonder if it might have been a little bit inspired from the Pontiac Phantom as well. https://www.madle.org/exjstutz2004.htm
The Phantom had no intentions of any form of production. It was to be Bill Mitchell’s personal car in retirement. It only needed to satisfy a single person.
It was not made into a functional car because Howard Kerl killed the project in an FU to someone he had butted heads with for years. A spiteful act against someone that had delivered spectacular results for GM for decades.
Did Mitchell stay too long as VP Design? By the time he retired he had the 1st Gen Seville and the downsized full-size lineup to take credit for. These were all hugely successful and showed that Mitchell was capable of changing with the times.
Did Willian Mitchel Mitchell stay too long? That’s one of those questions where the answer changes depending on whether you’re standing in the design studio… or in the warranty department with a stack of recall notices and a headache.
Let’s talk about Bill Mitchell the way the clay modelers probably did: half reverence, half “Lord help us, he’s in a mood again.”
Mitchell didn’t just design cars. He imposed them. Long hoods like runway tarmacs, razor creases you could shave with, proportions that looked like they were carved out of a block of ambition. The man gave General Motors its swagger in the ’60s and early ’70s. Corvette Sting Ray, Riviera boat tails, the whole “park it and stare at it” philosophy. He understood something Detroit sometimes forgets: people don’t fall in love with spreadsheets.
But here’s where the timing question gets interesting.
By the mid-1970s, the world started shifting under GM’s feet like West Texas caliche after a hard rain. Oil crisis. Emissions regulations. Downsizing. Suddenly, the future wasn’t about presence… it was about efficiency, packaging, and restraint. Words that probably made Mitchell reach for a cigarette and a sharper pencil.
And Mitchell? He wasn’t built for restraint.
He liked excess the way Fort Stockton likes gossip—freely and without apology. Big forms, dramatic gestures, visual muscle. Even when GM needed to pivot, his instincts kept pulling things back toward scale and drama. There’s a reason some late-era GM cars under his watch felt like they were trying to diet while still ordering dessert.
So did he stay too long?
From a purely strategic standpoint… yeah, probably a little.
By the time he retired in 1977, GM needed a different kind of design leadership. Someone who could translate new constraints into fresh ideas instead of trying to outmuscle them. The next era demanded packaging brilliance, aerodynamics, and a willingness to rethink what “luxury” and “performance” even meant.
Mitchell was still playing first-chair trumpet in a band that had quietly switched to acoustic.
But—and this matters—he didn’t overstay in a way that tarnished his legacy.
He left just before things really got awkward.
He didn’t have to own the full weight of the malaise-era compromises. He didn’t have to explain why cars were shrinking, losing horsepower, and gaining vinyl roofs like it was some kind of national requirement. He stepped off the stage while the spotlight still loved him.
So here’s the clean read:
He stayed long enough to define an era… and left just before the next one would’ve forced him to become someone he wasn’t.
He can be forgiven for the boat tail Riviera’s missteps and applauded for its boldness. He can be forgiven for the boat-tail Riviera’s missteps and applauded for its boldness. It wasn’t his fault they didn’t build it on the mid-sized platform he intended. He was outplayed by Lincoln’s Continental Mark Series. A fake spare tire hump on the back and a Rolls-Royce grille up front turned out to be exactly what America was craving. And while the Seville wasn’t perfect, it was damn good. Turning a humble Chevrolet Nova into the most expensive Cadillac in the showroom—and watching them fly out the door—is not a bad way to finish a career.
If he’d left earlier, GM might have adapted faster to the ‘70s realities. If he’d stayed longer, his legend might’ve taken a few dents.
Instead, he exits like a man who designed his own ending—bold, a little dramatic, and timed just well enough that nobody argues with it too loudly.
Kind of like parking a split-window Corvette at sunset and walking away without looking back.
Do you really think that putting the 1971 Riviera on a mid-sized platform would have saved the boat-tailed styling? I suspect that it would not have been much more aesthetically appealing than a Matador coupe. Fastbacks just don’t look very good once they grow beyond compact size.
The Seville sold okay but it was hardly stellar — particularly for a brand that had gotten used to utterly decimating the competition. And if we’re going to use sales as our primary criterion of success, then should we consider the Escalade a win as well? I don’t. Whatever short-term gains Cadillac made were washed away by the long-term damage to the brand’s integrity.
One other consideration is that Mitchell could have retired earlier but, by GM policy, couldn’t have waited longer. So he was only partly able to design his own ending.
All that said, I agree that if his goal was to manage his legacy, his timing was decent. Alas, not so much for GM.
I like the broad concept of this design but none of it looks good to me. Granted, I’mnot familiar with the car and the angle of the pictures are less than ideal for absorbing the entire design.
I absolutely hate the pointy front end and rectangular lights. The V of the hood is okay but I could do without the similar arrow-shaped vents. Is the prow raised like a Pontiac Grand Am? I like it on the Grand Am but don’t like the way the point is resolved here.
The back is better but not the “lights under glass”. I think the pointy tail concept works better on the Corvettes of that era. I’d prefer if the tail ended with a more vertical panel. I can’t judge the side profile at all but I think I’d like most of it. I’m okay with the size as a two-seater but it would have to be a Cadillac if intended for production.