Did Elwood Engel design these cars too??

Scoopy G

Active Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2019
Messages
478
Reaction score
509
Location
Tampa
I had a bit of a revelation the other night, when I realized the similarities between the '64-'66 T-birds, and the '65 New Yorkers.

Obviously since Elwood Engel was with Ford up until 1963?, and given that new car models take a few years to get from the drawing board to production, is it possible that Engel designed those T-Birds?

64 t bird.jpg


65 nyer.jpg
 
But wait....Engel was with Ford in 1961 when he and his team came out with the '61 Lincoln. That was Engel's huge breakthrough. But Ford passed him by around '62, so that's when Elwood moved over to Chrysler. Virgil was still with Chrysler in '61/'62, and rumor has it that Virgil knew he was getting the boot at Chrysler, so , left them with the hideous designs for the '62 Mopar lineup. Right?
 
Virgil Exner was still at Chrysler in 1961 - 1963 but in a reduced capacity due to having had a heart attack and needing time to recover. In those years, his team at Chrysler had little input/direction from him due to his condition so the studios had an abnormal amount of free reign and came up with some weird models that made it through the process without much oversight. I did not get the impression that Virgil "got the boot" as much as he realized he needed to take better care of himself going forward and retired. I believe from what I read that Engle gradually worked his way into Chrysler starting in November, 1961 where Lynn Townsend, who became chairman in 1961, liked his styling efforts at Ford and so he pushed to get Engle on board as part of Townsend's efforts to improve the company. So there was an extended transition of "out with the old and in with the new".

I believe it is indeed possible that Engle did have influence on the 1964 Thunderbird since it had to be well into development by late 1961-early 1962 as the cues from it were also prominent on some of the slabsides. Elwood Engle was passed over at Ford in favor of Eugene Bordinat in 1961 and that had to have factored into his decision to join Chrysler where Townsend appreciated him more.

Personally I am pleased things worked out this way as when Engle left Chrysler finally in 1974 where I believe his fuselage cars were his finest achievement. I personally do not believe Ford had any real standout cars from 1961 - 1974 so to my eyes, they were the big loser. GM however, did have some of their best models in the mid - late 1960s such as the Buick Riveras and other models that had to have influenced Engle as well.
 
The sides aside, the 1964 Thunderbird headlamp region seems to me not so much Engel-like, who preferred the encounter of clearly defined rectangles. Actually, on the 1964 Thunderbird the visual emphasis is drawn away from the the corners toward the center, not unlike what Exner did on the 1961 Plymouth (Belvedere shown):

1961PlymouthBelvedere.jpg
 
Elwood had a lot of designs up his sleeve that he kept from ford and applied them to Chrysler when he was hired.
fourlinks_Engel_900.jpg
 
We all know he designed the Turbine car which does look similar to a T bird.
He designed the iconic 61 Lincoln Continental.
I read somewhere that the lincoln design updates he took with him when he left Phord.
The design updates turned out to be the 1965 C bodies!!
 
But where is Engel when it comes to the Formals? Those are generally not mentioned for their outstanding design and Engel doesn't get any particular credit for it. At least, very little is said about it.

This leaves me scratching my head a bit, because to me the Formals do very well in enacting his design approach of "filling the box to the corners". They are straightened-out Fusies.
 
I think John Herlitz designed the third gen. Barracuda. John E. Herlitz - Wikipedia

Thanks for that clarification, as I was sure Herlitz was responsible for the 1971 Plymouth Road Runners but wasn't aware he also was responsible for the 1970 Cudas. Maybe he learned from Engle.

My impression when working at Chrysler during those years in the engineering division, was the directive came down from above that Chrysler had to change over to the Formal design because that was where the other Detroit manufacturers were headed by 1974 - the next big design trend. For me though, I had no love of the boxy designs and the quality of the cars was really poor in an effort to save money to avoid bankruptcy. Customers were really complaining about poor drivability of the lean burn systems fiasco and the frequent returns to the dealerships due to poor quality and the California Air Resources Board forced a recall of all vehicles equipped with 318 cu. in. engines in 1977 because they could not complete the Federal emission tests due to multiple pass outs during the cold starts on the Federal Emission Test Procedure. They were also deemed unsafe to drive as released and and a recall was forced. In driving many of the other vehicles with lean burn, they fared only a little bit better and they were certainly not good either.

This was a time when Chrysler was caught flat footed and had no idea how to use the catalytic converters that were introduced in 1975 across the board for most all manufacturers to reduce emissions. GM knew how to calibrate their engines because they helped invent the catalytic converters and they knew from the start just how to use them. Their cars drove perfectly while both Chrysler and Ford were struggling in those years. I did competitive evaluations of the Ford and GM cars in those years and was amazed how well the GM cars drove.
 
My impression when working at Chrysler during those years in the engineering division, was the directive came down from above that Chrysler had to change over to the Formal design because that was where the other Detroit manufacturers were headed by 1974 - the next big design trend.

What counts as the first-to-market formal full-size? The newly-designed 1974 C-bodies or the updated 1973 Chevrolet and Ford? The Chevy kept its fuselage sides right up to the end, just like the Ford did with its coke bottle sides.
 
GM seemed to be caught flat-footed (again, as in '57) by Chrysler's Fuselage Cars. Took them to '71 to get fully caught-up. Chevy had their loop bumpered '69 Caprices and copied Pontiac with their vinyl body side moldings. GM also "motivated" the first use of 3M AlumaLead body filler for the lower rear corners of their rear window, too.

It seemed to be that Chrysler and Ford would carve out a niche market, then GM would have their "answer" ready two years later and take it over, back then. On the engineering front, GM would usually wait until after Chrysler or Ford got their "Industry First" splash over with, during which they'd take the item and design every last cent out of it, then mass produce it as "catching up" and nobody really seemed to notice. As compared with the later '50s when GM would chunk $M at "new tech" or "updated tech" and it didn't sell . . . as people were really more interested in chrome, colors, and soft seats or the latest horsepower engines . . . as that "tech" was hidden somewhere with only a nameplate announcing it.

In the DeLorean book on GM, it was stated that GM was usually the last OEM to approve their next-model-year designs/vehicles, as Chrysler and Ford already had theirs' approved and at the stamping facilities, in process. GM came in, hurriedly, and then paid more and got poorer stampings of sheet metal and such, yet still seemed to have better fit-finish than Chrysler did.

Nex time you can put, say, a '67 Chrysler up next to a similar '67-'68 Buick LeSabre, notice how all of the Buick's front fender body line radii are smoother and wider, whereas the Chrysler's are tight and small by comparison. AND, it doesn't stop there! All of the Chrysler's instrument panel a/c vents move r/l, up and down, but the center one in the Buick only goes up and down. LOTS of ways that GM cut corners on costs back then and nobody seemed to notice!

Just some thoughts,
CBODY67
 
Last edited:
Interesting article at www.indieauto.org/2021/04/09/1969-71-chrysler-fixing-a-promising-idea-gone-bad/

In the middle 1960s, it seemed that when a Chrysler product was "good", it was good and when it was not, it was really bad, by observation. What made the difference? HOW the car was ORDERED by the dealer. For example, many felt that Chryslers were "tinny" and noisy, but if the dealer ordered the factory undercoat and hood pad (or those two items came in an option package or upscale model), things were better and quieter. The local dealer ordered his cars pretty much one way, with some exceptions on particular models. Almost everything was a "Basic Group" option package car, which got most of the desired items in it from the start. Add the "Light Group" and a few other things. Made for a "nicely-equipped" car at a good price, by observation. Most C-bodies had the 383 2bbl V-8, although many Fury IIIs had the 318 2bbl.

By comparison, a dealer could also order "line item options" separately. Made the window sticker longer and more impressive, but without the cost savings of the option groups. Usually, when they did that, they could also delete some items (as the undercoat and hood pad), too. I feel that much of the "tinny feel" reputation could have been the result of these things. Why a base car felt really "base" and a VIP or New Yorker would feel really nice, by observation. Or perhaps this was a tool to get the prospect into the nicer car?

It was in the Chryser factory warranty to "tighten bolts and nuts" at the first oil change, too, but I suspect that many didn't get that done. Although I suspect that individual "squeaks and rattles" were addressed as possible? When I came home for the first weekend that my parents had their new 1972 Newport Royal, I drove it and determined that it felt "looser" than the '66 Newport Town Sedan that I had taken to college with me. So, per the advice in a magazine, I waited until it got a few thousand miles on it, and then tightened every nut/bolt/screw I could get to on that car . . . the WHOLE thing. That, by itself, got rid of about 98% of the "noisy" issues.

Serviceability on the Fuselage cars was generally worse than on the Slabs, expecially underhood. That sylish higher fender line did not help anything. It was much more GM-like that I opined that "They must have let some engineers they got from GM to design that car". FWIW But I liked the 4drs a lot. Especially the huge trunk, when compared to the '66 Newport Town Sedan.

Each generation of C-body had their own traits, good and not-so-good, from 1965 to 1978. Just depends on which of the "good" things you like best.

Just some thoughts and observations,
CBODY67
 
Back
Top