Recently a retired Ford designer stopped by to offer a response to our story, “How 1960s car design reflected the good old (boy) days.”
“I started my career at Ford styling in 1960. Retired in 1998. I have lots and lots of true stories about the real world at the Ford styling studios. So much baloney has been written that just wasn’t true. Being surrounded every day in a working environment with the most talented creative people on earth I viewed as a gift. Ford styling!”
Indie Auto is interested in hearing the stories of those who have worked in the industry – including designers. However, one caveat is that we are not a fanboy website. Instead, our focus is on analyzing why the U.S. auto industry experienced one of the biggest industrial collapses of the 20th Century. Doing so requires going beyond slapping each other’s backs and only talking about the good times. All too often that’s what other auto history websites do.
The retired designer did not state what, if anything, he found to be “baloney” in our story. However, he also didn’t address the point of the piece, which was that Ford’s inability to respond to a rising tide of imports may have been at least partly the result of a lack of diversity in its design studios. That lack of diversity was reflected in a promotional film produced by the automaker in what appears to be the late-60s.
Why did Ford go into decline with all that talent?
The designer lauded his colleagues as “the most talented creative people on earth.” That raises the question: Why did Ford see its U.S. and Canada production fall from almost 3.5 million in 1968 to under 2.26 million in 1982 (The Henry Ford, 2026)?
It’s true that after that point Ford saw substantial sales gains, arguably at least partly because of successful designs such as the aerodynamic 1983 Ford Thunderbird and the 1986 Taurus. However, the focus of our series of stories was the late-60s to early-80s.
Also see ‘Ford design in the 1970s was a real step down from the previous decade’
Should we give Ford a free pass on questionable designs such as the 1970, 1972 and 1980 Thunderbird? What about the 1977 Lincoln Versailles? Or even the 1971 Ford Pinto?
Those strike me as questions that reasonable people can debate. And whatever our views about those and other Ford cars and trucks during that time period, that doesn’t mean we need to think less of individual designers.
Designers gave management what they wanted
A popular dictum in organizational studies is that if you put good people in bad systems that the outcome is likely to be bad. This is because it is very difficult for even the most talented individuals to perform miracles on their own.
In addition, the attitude of top management can matter a great deal. As David Halberstam (1986) has written, Henry Ford II and Lee Iacocca tilted toward big, broughamy cars. And that’s what head designer Eugene Bordinet gave them (Yates, 1983).
This is why I think it is entirely appropriate to criticize Ford during this time period without in any way belittling the caliber of rank-and-file designers in its American studios. After all, under the direction of John Telnack they did stellar work in the 1980s (go here for further discussion).
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, IL.
- Gunnell, John; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised 4th Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Halberstam, David; 1986. The Reckoning. William Morrow & Co., New York, NY.
- The Henry Ford; 2026. “Research Guide: Ford Motor Company Production Statistics.” Accessed Aug. 14.
- Yates, Brock; 1983. The Decline and Fall of the American Automobile Industry. Empire Books, New York, NY.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- fordheritagevault.com: Ford Thunderbird (1972, 1980); Lincoln Versailles (1977)
Be the first to comment