The biggest problem was the fact that the sister brands lost their individual identities>>same basic bodies with the same engines. Why buy a Buick when they were essentially the same as a Chevy.
I know I've come across "OldsmoBuick" a number of times over the years. As far as I can tell they're usually referring to the 1983-1986 or thereabouts, full size top of the line 4 door Buicks and Oldsmobiles, I'm like yeah, 🤔 those were nice cars, but those 2 looked practically the same, is what I'm getting from the reference. I was too young in the '80s to get it, but I can see it now, how when they reintroduced the Pontiac Parisienne, the first year or 2 maybe (?) it is very much a Chevy Caprice with a few changes, but '85 & '86 (at least) they went back and started stamping out body panels from the 1981 and older Bonnevilles.
Ford was killing it with the big RWD boxy Lincolns compared to the smaller FWD Cadillacs in the ‘80s. Ford seemed to understand what the market wanted better than GM. They had the swoop, bubbly, aero cars for the Ford/Mercury lineup but kept the traditional big boxy style for Lincoln. Except for the Mark series which offered the most modern tech and aerodynamic design.
Right after I graduated high school in the early 90s, I bought an 87 Ford Crown Victoria LTD police package car from a local municipality. I loved that car. It rode a bit firmer than the civilian car and had one finger power steering. It had rubber floors, cloth front seats, and a rear vinyl seat. The fuel injected 302 V8 had plenty of power and the limited slip rear end helped a ton in wintertime. It looked just like the car from the first "Men in Black" movie after I had it painted black.
I've noticed that even today, the police-issue Explorers still have hub caps, as opposed to wheel covers. They are about the only new vehicles I've seen in the past 20 years with them. They look infinitely better than the silver-painted plastic fake-alloy-rim-look wheel covers they ship with most entry-level vehicles these days.
@@misters2837 my employer had some 85 E350s with the 351W HO. When one that seemed to run pretty well was getting ready to be taken out of service,I tried to get the shop to do an intake/carb swap but not luck.
My friend's dad was working in Chrysler's interior design dept during the late 70s thru 84. He was told that the reason that so many Mopars were being 'squared off' was that it was cheaper to design molds and stamping equipment that made, well, squares and rectangles. He told me that they were 'told' to draw up sketches of various parts 'using a square approach'. If you look at early K's, certainly there isn't much that isn't a square or a box.
This concept is most obviously embodied in GM interiors, where a switch for the power windows, for example, was literally a square, that could technically be placed arbitrarily anywhere at the door card. However, in 90s they've somehow managed to get everything even more plain an boring than squares with those signature bloated shapes in grey plastic. Just a single look at those late 90s GM interiors instantly starts Nirvana or SDRE in your head, and your day seems nothing, but another King Of The Hill episode.
Maybe, but AT THAT TIME, those various K-Car spin offs were not a joke (like they're considered today), they were the saviour of Chrysler and Detroit, which wasn't oiffering much in the way of affordable, small, front wheel drive cars for northern winter drivers to compete with Japan and Germany. I lived in Auburn Hills at that time, and I thought Chrysler was done after the disasterous "lean burn" and Aspen/ Volare's doldrums. The boxy K-Car was distinctly American, and I remember seeing those huge highway signs for Omnis, Horizons, and K-Cars when Detroit was on it heels due to foreign competition and feeling proud that at least one American company was selling a small, affordable, FWD car to compete with Japan. That is why Lee Iacocca is still considered somewhat of a hero in Detroit. The highly successful stately grills for Continentals and Town Cars were largely Iacocca's idea when he was at Ford. The reputation of Taurus/Sable and even Lincoln was almost destroyed by the disastrous 3.8 V6. Not until the all iron Vulcan 3.0 became the dominant engine in the Taurus/Sable and Lincoln dumped the awful 3.8 V6 did Ford/Mercury/Lincoln begin to recover from the 3.8 V6 stench. In a just world, the executives who green lighted the 3.8 V6 Ford engine for installation in production vehicles would be pilloried on live television. They caused the loss of millions of American jobs.
@@DUCKSAREEVILLLLLLLL You're K-car analysis is spot on. Furthermore, at that time, they were considered (and looked) "modern." It seems laughable today, but in the early '80's when practically all other sedans still had RWD, thick chrome bumpers, mirrors bolted to the doors, poor gas mileage, etc... Chrysler K-cars, although boxy, looked fresh & modern with color-keyed plastic bumpers, integrated door mirrors, FWD, decent gas mileage, etc... A few years later, when the convertibles were released, that too was "an event." As a college student, I bought a K-car.....yes, yes, it was boxy & underpowered and was not a "chick-magnet" but NO ONE ever accused me of driving and old (or old looking) car!
Love the porch chats 👍😊thanks Adam I’m such a 1970s Full size car Fan, I’m in the uk and use a vintage 1979 Ford F-150 on the Farm , a very rare truck in the Uk. 🇬🇧🇺🇸👍
You are forgetting the Lee Iacocca factor. Lee was a fan of boxy, which also contributed to Ford design during his tenure, and extended to Chrysler once he arrived.
Yes, the styling of the 1988 Dodge Dynasty and Chrysler New Yorker, to me, are similar to the 1980 Thunderbird and 1981 Granada, which were probably styled before HF II fired Iacocca.
Thank you for mentioning the 1983 Audi 100 / 84 5000. They weren't great mechanically but they were beautiful to look at. The flush side glass was like certain models of Bang & Olufsen audio gear with it's hidden track slides. Just don't look at the leaks from the steering rack.
My uncle bought an 84 5000, and I was so happy about it, lol. All of my other uncles would buy stuff like the Grand Marquis. I just wanted someone in my family to have a car that I could properly drool over.
An excellent analysis of the cars of the '80s, Adam. As one who was there, I can't emphasize what a difference both the '83 Thunderbird/Cougar and '86 Taurus/Sable had on the market. People were just amazed and wowed, which is why they sold so well, I'm sure. P.S. You are looking quite stylish here!
I always liked the Porch Chats. As much as it sounds like a bad idea, the little whiteboard somehow worked. It made for a simple, honest, no-nonsense discussion.
Had an 1985 Tempo and the handling and looks where nothing like I had ever driven before! 2.3 HSC 5 speed. My first experience with FWD. New learning experience! Went from a 1977 Mercury Comet 2 door that I loved with a 200 inline 6 and 3 speed on the tree. When are you going to cover the Comet, Maverick. From what dad told me they saved Ford then. They had the same problems as Chrysler just earlier? They saved Ford like the K car saved Chrysler. Would love your take on all of this! Also had to learn to drive with the Comet and a 1977 Ford LTD. Told me that if i could drive them I would be able to drive anything in the future. I miss both.
In 1986 I worked at Kmart. Still had an AutoCenter. On of the mechanics convinced me I needed to replace the front struts on my SuperBeetle immediately. I had to drive the few miles home to get some cash. He tossed me the keys to his Ford Maverick sedan. He had to come out to show me how the transmission worked as I couldn’t get it out of the parking space. Growing up in a foreign car family: Honda, Renault, VW, BMW, Mercedes, I had never seen such a thing as a 3 on the tree!
I remember GM said that the B & C body restyle of 1980 was designed to make the cars look larger by making the greenhouse smaller front to back via vertical backlights. It got old fast, but now I'm tired of the pinched bean look of 21st century sedans. The first to offer a formal roof again might resuscitate their sedan sales.
Mercedes Benz, with its boxy design and sharp hood ornament, blew up in the US. All the US manufacturers copied the sheer design. Everything got a hood ornament. The 1976 Cadillac Seville was a direct response to Mercedes Benz’s five seat designs.
Adam, I once owned an 87 LSC Lincoln speed density H O V8.Really woke it up with a high flow air intake.Ate Impala SSs for lunch.The guys driving them would always look at me in amazement.True sleeper.Mike the Greek
The boxy designs certainly have a very dated look, of that late 70s and early 80s era of malaise. But I've always felt that it's some of the charm to them, just how "of their time" they were, and how there was zero attempt to make these rectangles on wheels "trendy". Just give it a vinyl top and some hidden headlights! I like the Mark VI but I've never claimed to have much in the way of taste. I can't imagine what it would've been like going into a Lincoln dealer in 1984 and seeing the super square Town Car, next to the new Mark VII (another one of my favorites). Must've been a culture shock. Credit has to be given to Chrysler, though, for giving us the boxiest car of all time- the Dodge Dynasty. They were still pushing that boxy look much later than anyone else, between the Dynasty (introduced 1988) and Dodge Spirit/Plymouth Acclaim (introduced 1989). Sure, Cadillac would still sell you their vintage Brougham through '92, but that was an old design that was still in production. For some reason, Chrysler was still introducing totally new (at least in terms of styling) designs well into the 90s, like the final Imperial you mentioned. I have to admit, though, I do enjoy these late Chrysler anachronisms because of how insanely out of place they must've looked on a new car lot. They certainly made up for it with the super round (and handsome) cab forward designs, and even lead the charge on more aero truck designs with the 93 Ram.
I remember being in a Dodge showroom buying a Daytona in late 1987 and seeing a Dynasty for the first time. Couldn't believe they would come up with something so boxy after the success of the Taurus.
Many people forget that the Ford "Aero" look actually began in Europe with the 1982 Ford Sierra. It was briefly sold as the Merkur XR4TI in the U.S. from 1985-89.
I guess you're right, but as far as the US market was concerned, the Thunderbird was 1983, and Mark VII was 1984, so those were the first ones that buyers over here would see. However, the XR4Ti/Sierra was my favorite of those designs, especially with the biplane spoiler. I think that car still looks cool today.
I think there are four fundamental reasons why design went so boxy in the late 1970s: 1) 5-mph bumpers - at least the less-expensive solutions - were by necessity boxy. This caused a visual clash when applied to the rounded designs of the early 1970s (see: 1974 Ford Pinto, Maverick). 2) Rectangular headlights - they were a simple way to communicate technological advancement, but they also clashed with more rounded designs (see: 1976 Chevy Monte Carlo; 1978 Chrysler Cordoba). 3) The pendulum swing of design - design had evolved in voluptuous, rounded forms from the late 1960s to the early 1970s; design advancement was readily communicated by going to “shear” forms like those GM adopted for 1977. 4) Downsizing - greater efficiency could be had via those “shear” three-box forms. GM probably doubled down on the boxiness after being stung by their failures when trying to introduce angular forms to boxy basic designs (1978 mid-size Oldsmobiles and Buicks; 1980 Seville). More visual clashes! Ford and Chrysler followed GM’s design leadership at the time - a common phenomenon in industrial design. But maybe Ford was a little too slavish about it, which is most evident with the 1980 Mark VI you highlighted, and their 1980 T-Bird and Cougar designs. Having been stung by these missteps, rounded aero design probably seemed like a worthy risk to take.
I remember the double nickle era..... Lived in fear of the very boxy Dodge Diplomat parked in hiding LOL!! 55 MPH national speed limits didn't require any aerodynamics, though some of these boxy cars had surprisingly low drag coefficients.
Thank you Adam. I always enjoy you concise discussions. I have watched your videos since you had less than 5,000 subs and thankfully you have remained true to your informative style and content. Keep up the great work.
GM may have borrowed the Seville’s formal look to upscale their other lineups, but I think they so overdid it that it lost its luster quite quickly. Back in the mid-80s, I inherited a 1985 Pontiac Bonneville as a company car. It had an anemic V-8 that would sometimes not downshift at full throttle and the interior had a plethora of squeaks and rattles. My next company car was an ‘87 Mercury Sable with the V-6. It was incredibly well built, great interior ergonomics, quiet, and decent acceleration when needed.
I was going to mention that too. In a way, Volvo did GM a favor: Having styles like that come from a European marque helped to "legitimize" the squared-off look. And yes, Volvo may have been one of the more staid European automakers up to that point, but the 740/760 marked a big turning point for them, and were a huge hit. Suddenly the Olds 88 (and later Touring Sedan) had something cool to compare itself to. Another thing is that "square" doesn't automatically mean "poor aero". It's counter-intuitive, but when designed properly, a boxy shape can be aerodynamic. The 760 had the same coefficient of drag as a Porsche 928.
@@Johnny_Socko Thanks! The 700-series was almost finished and tested in 1978 but it wasn't ready for launch until 82. So I guess Volvo were somewhat inspired by Cadillac, but that is my guess.
Hi Adam, Great subject matter for this video. Your knowledge for all the different design bureaus as well as the multiplicity of cars of the era is most impressive. I am a product of the 1980's and loved the boxy styling of the full size Ford's and Mercury's of the late 1980's as Ford softened the lines of the Crown Victoria's and Grand Marquis's. I always admired the 1988 to 1991 Grand Marquis body styles as well as the very dependable fuel injected 302 V8 coupled with the four speed overdrive automatic transmission which gave very good highway gas mileage. I was finally able to locate my dream car in January of 2022, that being a 1989 Mercury Grand Marquis LS 50th Anniversary Edition, one of only 250 made with that trim package. I am enjoying the comfortable ride as well as all the compliments I get as I travel around with it. Thanks for the video.
Don't forget around '82/'83 - Volvo launched the 760 GLE soon to be followed by the 740 GL etc, - a look very similar to the '85 Olds 98/Electra/Sedan DeVille - in fact when I lived on the East Coast (NYC metro area) - Volvo became the new status cars of the Upper Middle Class/Affluent. Many Olds/Buick/Cadillac drivers traded in their cars for the Volvo 7-series. Love this channel and your videos...would like to see you cover foreign cars of this era - Mercedes, Jaguars, Audi, BMW - these cars were part of the culture and fabric of the 70s/80s and had an impact on the auto industry.
I think it was also a lot to do with packaging too. Most of the previous generations had a lot of tumblehome and with the great downsizing in effect, and the most efficient way to get the most space out of the smaller packages was to square them off.
Jack Telnack was briefly a neighbor of ours. Our purchases of a '93 Taurus, and later a 2000 Sable were influenced by a couple of conversations I had with him.
One of GM's biggest mistakes was changing the look of the Seville in 1980 to a Louis XV bustle back bordello. Failure snatched from the jaws of victory once again.
I actually liked that design at the time - it became a trend in that segment of luxury cars. Probably this appealed to me because it was an antidote to all the three-even-sized boxes we were being fed by the auto industry.
love listening to your perspective Adam...you're the best...also you're rocking the Pat Riley look very well!! If I had hair that thick...I'd grow it long. Go for it! All the best!
My dad owned a 1982 Lincoln Continental Mark VI Signature Series! And I absolutely loved it. It was a wonderful car. It was quiet and comfortable and incredibly reliable. I wish I owned one now. Boxy suits Lincoln sedans perfectly. The original Seville is also a favorite of mine, although I have never driven one.
I think it's one of the most beautiful styles ever. It's what made me fall in love with American cars as a kid. The very formal look but with very clean lines looks do perfectly balanced. Long, stately hood, long overhang over the rear wheels, formal chrome grille. It all just do stylish. And that style combined with their plush interiors and smooth ride makes them such pleasant cars overall.
I remember at the time thinking the main reason for the late seventies-to-eighties boxiness was the space maximization you mention. As cars were being made smaller and smaller, the three-box shape really did give you the most room inside possible. I also remember that the trend toward boxiness included other early examples besides the 1976 Cadillac Seville. The front end of the 1976 Olds 98 also went super-boxy, angular, and geometric, while the rest of the vehicle stayed about like it had been the previous few years, and that had to have been done for nothing but a style trend, since the interior wasn't affected. Also, I think maybe the ugliest of the boxy cars of the period was the 1980-82 Ford Thunderbird, an awful attempt to overlay seventies gewgaws like landau roofs, opera windows, and thickly padded vinyl trim onto the new downsized boxy shapes.
Clearly I disagree with you on the Thunderbird. I found the '80='82 Thunderbird very attractive. In fact, I bought the Silver Anniversary 1980 edition. I found the 1983 redesign so unattractive that I quit buying Thunderbirds until 1991. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
@@jimlubinski4731You probably also enjoy the styling of the Lincoln Versailles. That car was Lincoln’s version of the Cimmaron. It was just ust a tarted up Granada. The corollary to “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder” is “There is no accounting for taste.” The late ‘70s & ‘80-‘82 Fords were just awful cars in my opinion and experience. Anemic engines, the early AOD transmission that never seemed to know what gear it should be in, clunky styling and sub-par materials. The ‘82 Tbird was a perfect example of the above & it sold only 45k units. The restyled ‘83 sold 121k units, and sales remained above 130k units in all but one of the successive years of this generation Tbird. These cars were a big hit for Ford. The ‘80-‘82 models were not.
@@alantrimble2881 You don't have to insult me. I didn't insult you. I just said that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, that's all. You certainly have your opinion of the Thunderbirds that I like, and quite frankly I never liked the Aerobirds of the early '80's. That's why I went to Pontiac until the '91 Thunderbird. The '80-'82 Thunderbirds came out during recession years when interest rates approached 20%. Not many cars sold well those years. And you know that the 83 and '84 Thunderbirds were the same cars as the '80-82, right down to the dashboard. They were just reskinned. The recession and interest rates were starting to ease a bit by '83 and the aero fad was the latest trend. I do not apologize for what I like and I wouldn't criticize you for liking something different. Neither of us is the final authority. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
My uncle, who worked for g.m. said the designers would get really stoned in the late 70s and square designs were easier to complete when high. He said they would smoke joints like cigarettes and lose track of what was going on,etc.
The last Imperial wasn't handsome. However, I rented dozens of the Fifth Avenue and Imperial variants on business trips back then and loved them for work. Especially in congested cities, the narrower body was a joy.
Well, Adam, boxy design doesn't always mean boring cars- Subaru XT or Mazda 626 look pretty daring even now. The biggest problem was that "superior" way of thinking, typical for 80's America. Btw, Ford's "bubble/sleek" era started with 1982 Sierra, influenced by Geman Probe III concept car. So one must say there is European involvement here too. As for 1982 J-car: not pure American design too, mostly of German origins ( Opel design centre).
My dad, a die-hard GM man since 1960, bought a fully loaded Taurus wagon in 1986. What a revolutionary design that was for Ford. It was so radically different, at the time.
Boxy and plastic. That about describes American mid and full size cars of the 80’s. I didn’t care for them then, and haven’t warmed up to that period of automotive design.
The best car ever imo is an 81 Olds 98, 4 dr, triple burgundy, pillow top velour, diesel engine, light monitors, cornering lamps.....Olds 98 is still square with slightly rounded edges...1980/81 grill is to die for!!! Great video Adam!!!
I really like this format of video. I appreciate the vast knowledge you bring. My first car was a 1988 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme SL 2dr and in 1996 when I purchased it Oldsmobile was still producing almost the same car with some modifications to the lights. I remember people who I worked with even thought it was my parents car. Thankfully the🎉 Oldsmobile never had one problem and drove perfectly
I think GM’s X-bodies started the dreaded, boring, and uninspired styling prevalent in most cars of the 80s. The only one of the boxes that managed to make it look a little classy was Volvo with its 740 in 1983.
I have been listening with interest to each of your videos for about a year and a half now. I happen to own a 1977 Seville, black with a red leather interior, the Olds 350 CI V8, and only 44,000 miles. My friend and I used to ride our Schwinn Stingrays to the local Buick, Cadillac and Oldsmobile dealers each year in September to get the upcoming model brochures. We used to sit in the new cars, take in the new car smells and dream of owing them. I have watched your videos on the car with interest, and though I am a Baby Boomer who grew up on Long Island in the 1970’s, and I also own a ‘65 Wildcat Convertible, but love the cars of the 80s and 90s too. You have piqued my interest in owning a 1986-1990 Electra or 98 Touring Sedan. Keep up the great reviews and porch talks!
You missed the pinnacle of American family car boxiness - the Ford Fairmont. That was to me the ugliest series of cars when compared to what Ford had been offering - and still offered at the time. For my soon-to-be-driving generation what was suddenly the future of car design (flat-sided, flat fronted, flat-backed, three boxy pieces - heck, even the rectangular taillights looked like Lego pieces) was pure punishment, as we grew up with smoothly-sculpted, sleeker cars whose "greenhouses" seemed integrated so well you didn't notice. Despite the "sheer" blandness of their body sides, angular front and rear ends, and clearly evident efficiency in use of materials and space, GM managed to make those downsized full-sized cars intro'd for '77 at least appear unified and solid. (I was no fan of the Seville but it at least looks solid.) In its push to downsize Ford seemed to have a problem with ending up with a flimsier, cheap look, I think, the way the roof pillars of the Fairmont (and the '79 LTD/Marquis) just didn't quite meld into the body, as if all the pieces were separate even after assembly was completed. Was America really wishing for this look to be the future, or believing this look was better than what we had?
There's not much difference between the looks of a K car and a Buick Sky Lark. From there we went to worn-out-bars of soap. A '65 Pontiac is NOT a worn-out-bar of soap.
Id say the vw golf started the boxy car trend. All small cars from japanese and american car makers went super boxy. Dodge omni, chevette, toyotas and hondas and nissans,,, all super boxy copying vw.
I disagree with your take on boxy being due to the Seville's success. I don't know when they began design work on the 77 B bodies but it had to be around 74 and the gas crisis. There was no way they could have known how successful the Seville would be and then be able to pivot in just 1 year. The Seville came in late '75 and the Caprice came in late '76. By the time the Seville was out in good numbers they had to have the Caprice design pretty much finalized. If the Seville had been a flop there'd be no time to redesign the B bodies. So I don't think the Seville success had a lot to do with it because that was the direction they were going at least with the B bodies in 77 and the mid size in 78. Seville was just the first finished example of the new styling. Now maybe the 1980 update and some of the new models like the X car & J car were influenced by the popularity of the Seville but more likely the very high popularity of the 77 Caprice/LeSabre/88/DeVille lines. Seville was not meant to be a car for everybody but the B body lineup had one for everybody - coupe, sedan, wagon, and in the flavors of all 5 GM divisions.
I think GM thought they could continue with radical designs when they introduced the bustle back, but it was a flop. Just like Ford thought that because the first generation Taurus was such a success, they could be just as radical with the second generation, and that turned out to be a flop!
THE BEST GENERAL MOTORS 1992 BUICK SEDANS CENTURY 2007 IMPALA 1998 CHEVROLET LUMINA 1984 MONTE CARLO SS 1993 PONTIAC BONNEVILLE AND TRANS AM PONTIAC 😮😮😮 😮😮
I personally like the Mark 3 &4s not the Mark 5 but I did & still like the slimmer more trimmed down Mark 6 I use to imagine that car being driven by Frank Cannons nephew who served on the LA PD but was more physically fit than his uncle and who would be seen in a gym setting frequently but also liked cooking more healthy dishes than his famous uncle and would cycle around town when not working on a special case but handled high end cases like his Uncle and show up on the scene in a Mark 6 to empress wealthy clients and would retain some of his Uncles mannerisms in a more slimmer athletic physique and the ablity to use judo when necessary and never forget a criminals name or mugshot
The Mark VI seems to be more of an acquired taste. To me, it's a perfect statement in creases and straight lines, counterpointed by the oval opera window and spare tire hump. My uncle said it looked like a Mark V was put in the dryer and shrunk🤷. Panther platform was great on the Mark VI, too.
That 1976 Seville A-pillar, which was more upright than other Cadillacs, caused the car to give off a high-pitched whistle when it was at highway speeds.
The modern fiberglass ones are merely bumper covers for the real safety structure behind, which is far better than the steel from long ago. Safety in fender benders isn't an issue- high speed collisions are the threat.
Hi Adam. Your last few videos casually mentioned fender skirts and skirted fenders. I think a video with your take on this automotive feature would be very interesting. Just like your hidden headlight and cornering lights feature videos, this is a story that must be told. My burning fender skirt question.. . Why the 77 Bonneville was skirted, yet the Cadillacs were not.
I liked the boxy styling. My Mark VI Lincolns are very boxy. I just wish they had a slightly longer wheelbase - hence I have two four doors. I liked the GM cars too. Having said that I also liked Jack Telnack’s work on the aero cars. I have a 79 Mustang Cobra and 86 Mustang GT convertible plus an aero 86 T Bird V8. Plus, I love the Bustle back Sevilles (I have an 83 Elegante). Variety is the spice of life. Another great boxy car - the 81 Imperial. 👍
#3 / X -- Also massively impactful was Lincoln's Completely Slabsided 1961 Continental, as You've so often said here. Personally, I believe that car strongly influenced the 1965 RR Silver Shadow, AND a slew of boxy FIAT sedans, from 1966. And the post 1965 Roller was of course of enormous influence on Lincoln's 1969 Mk.III, their 1970 Continental generation, and again, personally, I think Mulliner Park Ward's 1965 RR Silver Shadow coupe, with its little hip-kink, even earlier influenced Lincoln's second, 1966 reworking of the '61 Continentals. And these Royces were still selling strong in the 1970s, in the U.S. especially, when they also had plenty opportunity to be looked at by GM's Seville designers.
#1 / X -- I'm a Total Car-Nut for 45yrs now - Since age 9 - And love your "porch" sit-down chats - But this one still Would have benefitted A LOT From Editing more photos into it. -- Yes, I know that's also A LOT MORE Work, But I Still think Worth the Return on investment. E.g. the C4 v. C3 Vettes: If the C3 was a Hot babe in a bikini - the C4 was a same hot babe in a fine, killer, pressed pant-suit !
#2 / X -- I Love this Question / Topic, and feel that it deserves a much bigger video, or better yet: a Series ! -- caused by an almost a "perfect storm" of factors, converging in the 1980s - I call it the BauHaus decade in car-design history. Vestigial remains of the old wings/fenders, whether called "Coke-bottle" style or not - were passé, everything got straightened out - U.S, Japan & Europe - Except some rake on the hood and windshields, foraerodynamic reasons. -- In Japan, Kei-cars finally became Real cars, that no longer Sucked as Dailys. One Factor ? - Being Boxy, to max space-utilization ... =>
Dead right about the sensational Seville setting the trend for a decade (or more). I think you left out the RWD G-bodies (Malibu, Bonneville, Regal, Cutlass). A Malibu was almost a dead-ringer for a Seville, only a few years later and not so fancy when you looked in the window. As far as boxy goes, as much as I like the 1st and 2nd generation Sevilles, I've always thought that the small *very* boxy '86 model was very smart, and I lost interest in any of them after the '92 restyle for Gen 4.
Greetings from the big city! (Cincinnati) Oh. I watch all ur videos, of course I do, it's bc you are so normal. Ur use of English, u have a pretty good vocabulary but I wish you wouldn't use 'employ' so much maybe every now & then u could employ the word 'use' har har
Ford had been kicking around a series of aero concept cars since the late 1970s starting with the Probe I concept. You missed another mid-80s Ford aero car, the Merkur XR4Ti, which I thought looked like an aborted bus fetus. Fun story: I owned a first gen Ford Probe. One cold winter day when the car was encrusted in road salt, I went outside to find that someone had used their finger to write "anal" in front of the Probe badge. You stay classy New Jersey.
Easily answered. Cars were being downsized and people demanded the luxury of space. Headroom, shoukder room, hip toom, leg room, and foot room needed to be adequate for people between 4'6" and 6'6", and many cars could accomodate even taller people that thst. They also had to accomidate prople of girth. Now, girthy or tall people drive trucks to get the same space.
79 grand Marquis & Ltd crownvictoria lines were the results of Ford being blackmailed into lead follow or get out of the way GM set the new. Stratagem in 77 with its new full size lineup then in 79 what choice did Ford have then Chrysler dragging up the rear for79 /80/81
Glad to see a new porch chat. A nice porch topic would be the GM-10 bodies. What went wrong? I think the cars themselves were good, but their launch was just abysmal.
You are exactly right about the mark six, they tried to replicate the mark five, and it just did not work, they were not able to get away with it, not sure what would’ve happened if the Mark 7 had come out in 1980? It was really more of an in between time, I love the Mark five and the Mark seven even though they are totally different.
I worked in autobody parts in the 80's and remember the K-car fender was the same for all K-car models. Curb light and trim I think were the only difference.
The Hoffmeister kink Sounds like something that was conjoured up on Hogans Heroes by Colonel Hogan & his undercover operatives in the tunnels & work rooms under the barracks at Stalag 13
I bought a brand new 1985 Z28 305 TPI ... sadly, I traded in my first car, a 1978 Pontiac T/A 400 / 400 TH That Z28 was the worst vehicle I ever owned! 3 motors, 3 transmissions, 3 ecu's (they weren't called that then) all under warranty ... Car caught on fire and burnt to the ground.
With regard to Ford’s aero styles, my recollection is that a big factor in the decision was to increase fuel economy so that they would meet the government’s CAFE requirements.
You are correct about the Chryslers K cars being boxy , and all the junk that went with them, yes, they were kind of cheap, but people ate it up, that’s what they wanted in the moment, people would rather have a tacky pimped out Chrysler than a boring Chevy citation, but that was only for a little while, they serve their purpose of the time, but as people started getting more money, they started becoming more serious about their vehicles, it was a flash in the pan
They. Looked. Sharp. Simple. Soon the jelly bean came not just for aerodynamics, I think it's something to to with safety and a pedestrian falling on the hood instead of the front of a car.
You're correct about how comfortable and plush the interiors of the boxy GM cars were. I was a repo man back in the 80s and had the opportunity to drive quite a few of them. More than any other car brand, it was clearly discernable that GM engineers spent more time and effort on creature comforts and conveniences. A trait which they took over from the 70s Mopars, IMHO.
General motors eent areo with the whale Caprice to copie the Taurus and the unboxed crown Victoria I loved that Seville styling and when the Taurus came out i hated it but it grew on me snd i bought a 95 Taurus GL I do enjoy the porch chat
Adam I am always impressed by your in depth knowledge of the American automobile industry.
💯 agree.
The biggest problem was the fact that the sister brands lost their individual identities>>same basic bodies with the same engines. Why buy a Buick when they were essentially the same as a Chevy.
I know I've come across "OldsmoBuick" a number of times over the years. As far as I can tell they're usually referring to the 1983-1986 or thereabouts, full size top of the line 4 door Buicks and Oldsmobiles, I'm like yeah, 🤔 those were nice cars, but those 2 looked practically the same, is what I'm getting from the reference. I was too young in the '80s to get it, but I can see it now, how when they reintroduced the Pontiac Parisienne, the first year or 2 maybe (?) it is very much a Chevy Caprice with a few changes, but '85 & '86 (at least) they went back and started stamping out body panels from the 1981 and older Bonnevilles.
Ford was killing it with the big RWD boxy Lincolns compared to the smaller FWD Cadillacs in the ‘80s. Ford seemed to understand what the market wanted better than GM. They had the swoop, bubbly, aero cars for the Ford/Mercury lineup but kept the traditional big boxy style for Lincoln. Except for the Mark series which offered the most modern tech and aerodynamic design.
Right after I graduated high school in the early 90s, I bought an 87 Ford Crown Victoria LTD police package car from a local municipality. I loved that car. It rode a bit firmer than the civilian car and had one finger power steering. It had rubber floors, cloth front seats, and a rear vinyl seat. The fuel injected 302 V8 had plenty of power and the limited slip rear end helped a ton in wintertime. It looked just like the car from the first "Men in Black" movie after I had it painted black.
Bring back the Crown Vic!!!
I've noticed that even today, the police-issue Explorers still have hub caps, as opposed to wheel covers. They are about the only new vehicles I've seen in the past 20 years with them. They look infinitely better than the silver-painted plastic fake-alloy-rim-look wheel covers they ship with most entry-level vehicles these days.
I have fond memories of the square body mid 80s LTD Crown Victoria police cars. The ones I drove had the 351Ws.
@@sombra6153 With the Miserable VV carburetor! - I put many 4bbls on them!
@@misters2837 my employer had some 85 E350s with the 351W HO. When one that seemed to run pretty well was getting ready to be taken out of service,I tried to get the shop to do an intake/carb swap but not luck.
My friend's dad was working in Chrysler's interior design dept during the late 70s thru 84. He was told that the reason that so many Mopars were being 'squared off' was that it was cheaper to design molds and stamping equipment that made, well, squares and rectangles. He told me that they were 'told' to draw up sketches of various parts 'using a square approach'. If you look at early K's, certainly there isn't much that isn't a square or a box.
Yep! Engineered with T-squares, yardsticks & right-angles!
This concept is most obviously embodied in GM interiors, where a switch for the power windows, for example, was literally a square, that could technically be placed arbitrarily anywhere at the door card.
However, in 90s they've somehow managed to get everything even more plain an boring than squares with those signature bloated shapes in grey plastic.
Just a single look at those late 90s GM interiors instantly starts Nirvana or SDRE in your head, and your day seems nothing, but another King Of The Hill episode.
@@harlequintheserpent7016 Aptly named the Fisher Price interiors.
Maybe, but AT THAT TIME, those various K-Car spin offs were not a joke (like they're considered today), they were the saviour of Chrysler and Detroit, which wasn't oiffering much in the way of affordable, small, front wheel drive cars for northern winter drivers to compete with Japan and Germany. I lived in Auburn Hills at that time, and I thought Chrysler was done after the disasterous "lean burn" and Aspen/ Volare's doldrums. The boxy K-Car was distinctly American, and I remember seeing those huge highway signs for Omnis, Horizons, and K-Cars when Detroit was on it heels due to foreign competition and feeling proud that at least one American company was selling a small, affordable, FWD car to compete with Japan. That is why Lee Iacocca is still considered somewhat of a hero in Detroit.
The highly successful stately grills for Continentals and Town Cars were largely Iacocca's idea when he was at Ford. The reputation of Taurus/Sable and even Lincoln was almost destroyed by the disastrous 3.8 V6. Not until the all iron Vulcan 3.0 became the dominant engine in the Taurus/Sable and Lincoln dumped the awful 3.8 V6 did Ford/Mercury/Lincoln begin to recover from the 3.8 V6 stench. In a just world, the executives who green lighted the 3.8 V6 Ford engine for installation in production vehicles would be pilloried on live television. They caused the loss of millions of American jobs.
@@DUCKSAREEVILLLLLLLL You're K-car analysis is spot on. Furthermore, at that time, they were considered (and looked) "modern." It seems laughable today, but in the early '80's when practically all other sedans still had RWD, thick chrome bumpers, mirrors bolted to the doors, poor gas mileage, etc... Chrysler K-cars, although boxy, looked fresh & modern with color-keyed plastic bumpers, integrated door mirrors, FWD, decent gas mileage, etc... A few years later, when the convertibles were released, that too was "an event." As a college student, I bought a K-car.....yes, yes, it was boxy & underpowered and was not a "chick-magnet" but NO ONE ever accused me of driving and old (or old looking) car!
Love the porch chats 👍😊thanks Adam I’m such a 1970s Full size car Fan, I’m in the uk and use a vintage 1979 Ford F-150 on the Farm , a very rare truck in the Uk. 🇬🇧🇺🇸👍
That's good to hear😊
You are forgetting the Lee Iacocca factor. Lee was a fan of boxy, which also contributed to Ford design during his tenure, and extended to Chrysler once he arrived.
Yes, the styling of the 1988 Dodge Dynasty and Chrysler New Yorker, to me, are similar to the 1980 Thunderbird and 1981 Granada, which were probably styled before HF II fired Iacocca.
Thank you for mentioning the 1983 Audi 100 / 84 5000. They weren't great mechanically but they were beautiful to look at. The flush side glass was like certain models of Bang & Olufsen audio gear with it's hidden track slides. Just don't look at the leaks from the steering rack.
My uncle bought an 84 5000, and I was so happy about it, lol. All of my other uncles would buy stuff like the Grand Marquis. I just wanted someone in my family to have a car that I could properly drool over.
An excellent analysis of the cars of the '80s, Adam. As one who was there, I can't emphasize what a difference both the '83 Thunderbird/Cougar and '86 Taurus/Sable had on the market. People were just amazed and wowed, which is why they sold so well, I'm sure. P.S. You are looking quite stylish here!
I always liked the Porch Chats. As much as it sounds like a bad idea, the little whiteboard somehow worked. It made for a simple, honest, no-nonsense discussion.
I’ll bring it back
Adam, We have gone 210 comments without a reference to 'It's hip to be square'. 😉
This was a really valuable historical summary, Adam. I agree that the LH Chryslers were a significant improvement.
Had an 1985 Tempo and the handling and looks where nothing like I had ever driven before! 2.3 HSC 5 speed. My first experience with FWD. New learning experience! Went from a 1977 Mercury Comet 2 door that I loved with a 200 inline 6 and 3 speed on the tree. When are you going to cover the Comet, Maverick. From what dad told me they saved Ford then. They had the same problems as Chrysler just earlier? They saved Ford like the K car saved Chrysler. Would love your take on all of this! Also had to learn to drive with the Comet and a 1977 Ford LTD. Told me that if i could drive them I would be able to drive anything in the future. I miss both.
In 1986 I worked at Kmart. Still had an AutoCenter. On of the mechanics convinced me I needed to replace the front struts on my SuperBeetle immediately. I had to drive the few miles home to get some cash. He tossed me the keys to his Ford Maverick sedan. He had to come out to show me how the transmission worked as I couldn’t get it out of the parking space. Growing up in a foreign car family: Honda, Renault, VW, BMW, Mercedes, I had never seen such a thing as a 3 on the tree!
I remember GM said that the B & C body restyle of 1980 was designed to make the cars look larger by making the greenhouse smaller front to back via vertical backlights. It got old fast, but now I'm tired of the pinched bean look of 21st century sedans. The first to offer a formal roof again might resuscitate their sedan sales.
I love the 'Boxy' style of 80s cars. And nothing beats GM velour seats. So comfortable
Adam, I’ve said it before. You speak so well!!!
Mercedes Benz, with its boxy design and sharp hood ornament, blew up in the US. All the US manufacturers copied the sheer design. Everything got a hood ornament. The 1976 Cadillac Seville was a direct response to Mercedes Benz’s five seat designs.
Mercedes design in that period wasn't really boxy at all, in fact it was strikingly round and aerodynamic compared to US cars of the time.
Yea, but originally the first Seville copied the roofline of the Rolls Royce Silver Shadow and yes, the first Seville was a worldwide success! 👍🏼🏁🇺🇸
Adam, I once owned an 87 LSC Lincoln speed density H O V8.Really woke it up with a high flow air intake.Ate Impala SSs for lunch.The guys driving them would always look at me in amazement.True sleeper.Mike the Greek
The boxy designs certainly have a very dated look, of that late 70s and early 80s era of malaise. But I've always felt that it's some of the charm to them, just how "of their time" they were, and how there was zero attempt to make these rectangles on wheels "trendy". Just give it a vinyl top and some hidden headlights! I like the Mark VI but I've never claimed to have much in the way of taste. I can't imagine what it would've been like going into a Lincoln dealer in 1984 and seeing the super square Town Car, next to the new Mark VII (another one of my favorites). Must've been a culture shock.
Credit has to be given to Chrysler, though, for giving us the boxiest car of all time- the Dodge Dynasty. They were still pushing that boxy look much later than anyone else, between the Dynasty (introduced 1988) and Dodge Spirit/Plymouth Acclaim (introduced 1989). Sure, Cadillac would still sell you their vintage Brougham through '92, but that was an old design that was still in production. For some reason, Chrysler was still introducing totally new (at least in terms of styling) designs well into the 90s, like the final Imperial you mentioned. I have to admit, though, I do enjoy these late Chrysler anachronisms because of how insanely out of place they must've looked on a new car lot. They certainly made up for it with the super round (and handsome) cab forward designs, and even lead the charge on more aero truck designs with the 93 Ram.
I remember being in a Dodge showroom buying a Daytona in late 1987 and seeing a Dynasty for the first time. Couldn't believe they would come up with something so boxy after the success of the Taurus.
What's amazing is how quickly the cabin forward went out of style, and IMHO the second generation Inteprid was not nearly as nice!
Boxy wasn't new to Chrysler. Look at their '65 - '67 lineup. Boxy as can be, but I loved them.
Many people forget that the Ford "Aero" look actually began in Europe with the 1982 Ford Sierra. It was briefly sold as the Merkur XR4TI in the U.S. from 1985-89.
It begun in the '60s with the NSU Ro 80 witch was bought by VW and merged into Audi. Ford then copied the Audi designs.
I guess you're right, but as far as the US market was concerned, the Thunderbird was 1983, and Mark VII was 1984, so those were the first ones that buyers over here would see. However, the XR4Ti/Sierra was my favorite of those designs, especially with the biplane spoiler. I think that car still looks cool today.
Adam never ceases to amaze, Incredibly knowledgeable in so many aspects of
automobile trivia.
I think there are four fundamental reasons why design went so boxy in the late 1970s:
1) 5-mph bumpers - at least the less-expensive solutions - were by necessity boxy. This caused a visual clash when applied to the rounded designs of the early 1970s (see: 1974 Ford Pinto, Maverick).
2) Rectangular headlights - they were a simple way to communicate technological advancement, but they also clashed with more rounded designs (see: 1976 Chevy Monte Carlo; 1978 Chrysler Cordoba).
3) The pendulum swing of design - design had evolved in voluptuous, rounded forms from the late 1960s to the early 1970s; design advancement was readily communicated by going to “shear” forms like those GM adopted for 1977.
4) Downsizing - greater efficiency could be had via those “shear” three-box forms.
GM probably doubled down on the boxiness after being stung by their failures when trying to introduce angular forms to boxy basic designs (1978 mid-size Oldsmobiles and Buicks; 1980 Seville). More visual clashes!
Ford and Chrysler followed GM’s design leadership at the time - a common phenomenon in industrial design. But maybe Ford was a little too slavish about it, which is most evident with the 1980 Mark VI you highlighted, and their 1980 T-Bird and Cougar designs. Having been stung by these missteps, rounded aero design probably seemed like a worthy risk to take.
I remember the double nickle era..... Lived in fear of the very boxy Dodge Diplomat parked in hiding LOL!! 55 MPH national speed limits didn't require any aerodynamics, though some of these boxy cars had surprisingly low drag coefficients.
Still love the Sevilles, good to see you back on screen too
Thank you Adam. I always enjoy you concise discussions. I have watched your videos since you had less than 5,000 subs and thankfully you have remained true to your informative style and content. Keep up the great work.
I appreciate that!
GM may have borrowed the Seville’s formal look to upscale their other lineups, but I think they so overdid it that it lost its luster quite quickly. Back in the mid-80s, I inherited a 1985 Pontiac Bonneville as a company car. It had an anemic V-8 that would sometimes not downshift at full throttle and the interior had a plethora of squeaks and rattles. My next company car was an ‘87 Mercury Sable with the V-6. It was incredibly well built, great interior ergonomics, quiet, and decent acceleration when needed.
Now I understand where Volvo found inspiration for the boxy 760/740 series, introduced in 1982.
I was going to mention that too. In a way, Volvo did GM a favor: Having styles like that come from a European marque helped to "legitimize" the squared-off look. And yes, Volvo may have been one of the more staid European automakers up to that point, but the 740/760 marked a big turning point for them, and were a huge hit. Suddenly the Olds 88 (and later Touring Sedan) had something cool to compare itself to.
Another thing is that "square" doesn't automatically mean "poor aero". It's counter-intuitive, but when designed properly, a boxy shape can be aerodynamic. The 760 had the same coefficient of drag as a Porsche 928.
@@Johnny_Socko Thanks! The 700-series was almost finished and tested in 1978 but it wasn't ready for launch until 82. So I guess Volvo were somewhat inspired by Cadillac, but that is my guess.
My man here has total goodfellas vibes . Rocking the sunglasses and slick hair!
Imagine Adam having a ride with Henry Hill, Tommy DeVitto, Jimmy Conway.
I would NOT sit in the front seat with that crew 😂
Fuhgedabouddid
@@No_Use_For_A_Name1981 You will be fine, just don't talk about the Shinebox...
I'd rather look at car photos but whatever turns your crank.
Hi Adam, Great subject matter for this video. Your knowledge for all the different design bureaus as well as the multiplicity of cars of the era is most impressive. I am a product of the 1980's and loved the boxy styling of the full size Ford's and Mercury's of the late 1980's as Ford softened the lines of the Crown Victoria's and Grand Marquis's. I always admired the 1988 to 1991 Grand Marquis body styles as well as the very dependable fuel injected 302 V8 coupled with the four speed overdrive automatic transmission which gave very good highway gas mileage. I was finally able to locate my dream car in January of 2022, that being a 1989 Mercury Grand Marquis LS 50th Anniversary Edition, one of only 250 made with that trim package. I am enjoying the comfortable ride as well as all the compliments I get as I travel around with it. Thanks for the video.
Don't forget around '82/'83 - Volvo launched the 760 GLE soon to be followed by the 740 GL etc, - a look very similar to the '85 Olds 98/Electra/Sedan DeVille - in fact when I lived on the East Coast (NYC metro area) - Volvo became the new status cars of the Upper Middle Class/Affluent. Many Olds/Buick/Cadillac drivers traded in their cars for the Volvo 7-series. Love this channel and your videos...would like to see you cover foreign cars of this era - Mercedes, Jaguars, Audi, BMW - these cars were part of the culture and fabric of the 70s/80s and had an impact on the auto industry.
I think it was also a lot to do with packaging too. Most of the previous generations had a lot of tumblehome and with the great downsizing in effect, and the most efficient way to get the most space out of the smaller packages was to square them off.
Jack Telnack was briefly a neighbor of ours. Our purchases of a '93 Taurus, and later a 2000 Sable were influenced by a couple of conversations I had with him.
Thanks for this one, Adam.. The tyranny of boxiness at GM lasted much too long in my opinion.
Great discussion and history lesson. Thanks!
One of GM's biggest mistakes was changing the look of the Seville in 1980 to a Louis XV bustle back bordello. Failure snatched from the jaws of victory once again.
GM’s biggest mistake was switching Cadillac to FWD. Luxury cars like Mercedes, BMW and even Lincoln were RWD.
GM has a way of taking a Rolex and turning it into a Timex!
Gen.2 *best yr* ('84: 39,997 sold) nearly 4,000 below Gen.1 *worst* ('76: 43,772). Gen.1 *best yr* : '78, 56,985! Gen 2 *worst* : 1982, 19,998. *Best-yr '78 sold 284% more.*
I still think those Louis XV Seville are beautiful. I’ve always liked them. I know that’s not a popular opinion.
I actually liked that design at the time - it became a trend in that segment of luxury cars. Probably this appealed to me because it was an antidote to all the three-even-sized boxes we were being fed by the auto industry.
love listening to your perspective Adam...you're the best...also you're rocking the Pat Riley look very well!! If I had hair that thick...I'd grow it long. Go for it! All the best!
Haha. Wish I could coach that well
My dad owned a 1982 Lincoln Continental Mark VI Signature Series! And I absolutely loved it. It was a wonderful car. It was quiet and comfortable and incredibly reliable. I wish I owned one now. Boxy suits Lincoln sedans perfectly. The original Seville is also a favorite of mine, although I have never driven one.
Ahh yes, the beloved "Cimmarron". Lol! Great porch chat!
I think it's one of the most beautiful styles ever. It's what made me fall in love with American cars as a kid. The very formal look but with very clean lines looks do perfectly balanced. Long, stately hood, long overhang over the rear wheels, formal chrome grille. It all just do stylish. And that style combined with their plush interiors and smooth ride makes them such pleasant cars overall.
I always thought Tom's last-gen Imperials (elongated K-car) were pretty nice looking.
I remember at the time thinking the main reason for the late seventies-to-eighties boxiness was the space maximization you mention. As cars were being made smaller and smaller, the three-box shape really did give you the most room inside possible. I also remember that the trend toward boxiness included other early examples besides the 1976 Cadillac Seville. The front end of the 1976 Olds 98 also went super-boxy, angular, and geometric, while the rest of the vehicle stayed about like it had been the previous few years, and that had to have been done for nothing but a style trend, since the interior wasn't affected. Also, I think maybe the ugliest of the boxy cars of the period was the 1980-82 Ford Thunderbird, an awful attempt to overlay seventies gewgaws like landau roofs, opera windows, and thickly padded vinyl trim onto the new downsized boxy shapes.
Clearly I disagree with you on the Thunderbird. I found the '80='82 Thunderbird very attractive. In fact, I bought the Silver Anniversary 1980 edition. I found the 1983 redesign so unattractive that I quit buying Thunderbirds until 1991. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
@@jimlubinski4731You probably also enjoy the styling of the Lincoln Versailles. That car was Lincoln’s version of the Cimmaron. It was just ust a tarted up Granada.
The corollary to “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder” is “There is no accounting for taste.”
The late ‘70s & ‘80-‘82 Fords were just awful cars in my opinion and experience. Anemic engines, the early AOD transmission that never seemed to know what gear it should be in, clunky styling and sub-par materials. The ‘82 Tbird was a perfect example of the above & it sold only 45k units. The restyled ‘83 sold 121k units, and sales remained above 130k units in all but one of the successive years of this generation Tbird.
These cars were a big hit for Ford. The ‘80-‘82 models were not.
@@alantrimble2881 You don't have to insult me. I didn't insult you. I just said that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, that's all. You certainly have your opinion of the Thunderbirds that I like, and quite frankly I never liked the Aerobirds of the early '80's. That's why I went to Pontiac until the '91 Thunderbird. The '80-'82 Thunderbirds came out during recession years when interest rates approached 20%. Not many cars sold well those years. And you know that the 83 and '84 Thunderbirds were the same cars as the '80-82, right down to the dashboard. They were just reskinned. The recession and interest rates were starting to ease a bit by '83 and the aero fad was the latest trend. I do not apologize for what I like and I wouldn't criticize you for liking something different. Neither of us is the final authority. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
@@jimlubinski4731 I agree with you on the 1983 Thunderbird. To me, it lacked character and was a bit plain.
Ford didn't depart from the boxy look completely. The 1978 Ford Fairmont and it's twin the 1978 Mercury Zephyr were very boxy.
That was before they began to depart from the look
Adam was talking about the 80's. In the 70's some of the Ford's were actually more boxy than GM!
@@lloydandbethbeiler8127 The very boxy Ford Fairmont had the same styling in the 1980, 1981 and 1982 model years.
My uncle, who worked for g.m. said the designers would get really stoned in the late 70s and square designs were easier to complete when high. He said they would smoke joints like cigarettes and lose track of what was going on,etc.
Is this the same uncle who ripped that huge fart?
@@GoodOlRoll he does rip real raunchy ones
Yeah, suuuure. I bet they shared them with the top execs when they walked through GM Design too. 🙄
However the Seville has a great curved hip line from front to back, which really sets it off from the other boxy cars.
The porch chats are very informative. Adam is a great speaker. I can’t get enough of this channel.
I agree Adam is great...cant get enough also
The last Imperial wasn't handsome. However, I rented dozens of the Fifth Avenue and Imperial variants on business trips back then and loved them for work. Especially in congested cities, the narrower body was a joy.
Soooo many Ultra-Drive transmission failures though. I was a fleet manager for Thrifty at PHL back in the day....
Well, Adam, boxy design doesn't always mean boring cars- Subaru XT or Mazda 626 look pretty daring even now. The biggest problem was that "superior" way of thinking, typical for 80's America. Btw, Ford's "bubble/sleek" era started with 1982 Sierra, influenced by Geman Probe III concept car. So one must say there is European involvement here too. As for 1982 J-car: not pure American design too, mostly of German origins ( Opel design centre).
BMW had some nice, but boxy, designs back then.
@@craigbenz4835 do You mean mid-80's 7 series or BMW M1?
@@runoflife87 I don't even know what they were called. The small ones from the late 70's and maybe early 80's.
My dad, a die-hard GM man since 1960, bought a fully loaded Taurus wagon in 1986. What a revolutionary design that was for Ford. It was so radically different, at the time.
Boxy and plastic. That about describes American mid and full size cars of the 80’s. I didn’t care for them then, and haven’t warmed up to that period of automotive design.
The best car ever imo is an 81 Olds 98, 4 dr, triple burgundy, pillow top velour, diesel engine, light monitors, cornering lamps.....Olds 98 is still square with slightly rounded edges...1980/81 grill is to die for!!!
Great video Adam!!!
I really like this format of video. I appreciate the vast knowledge you bring. My first car was a 1988 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme SL 2dr and in 1996 when I purchased it Oldsmobile was still producing almost the same car with some modifications to the lights. I remember people who I worked with even thought it was my parents car. Thankfully the🎉 Oldsmobile never had one problem and drove perfectly
I think GM’s X-bodies started the dreaded, boring, and uninspired styling prevalent in most cars of the 80s. The only one of the boxes that managed to make it look a little classy was Volvo with its 740 in 1983.
I have been listening with interest to each of your videos for about a year and a half now. I happen to own a 1977 Seville, black with a red leather interior, the Olds 350 CI V8, and only 44,000 miles. My friend and I used to ride our Schwinn Stingrays to the local Buick, Cadillac and Oldsmobile dealers each year in September to get the upcoming model brochures. We used to sit in the new cars, take in the new car smells and dream of owing them. I have watched your videos on the car with interest, and though I am a Baby Boomer who grew up on Long Island in the 1970’s, and I also own a ‘65 Wildcat Convertible, but love the cars of the 80s and 90s too. You have piqued my interest in owning a 1986-1990 Electra or 98 Touring Sedan. Keep up the great reviews and porch talks!
Awesome. Let me know when you tire of that Seville!
Looking good and relaxed, Adam. Really enjoy your porch chats!
You missed the pinnacle of American family car boxiness - the Ford Fairmont. That was to me the ugliest series of cars when compared to what Ford had been offering - and still offered at the time. For my soon-to-be-driving generation what was suddenly the future of car design (flat-sided, flat fronted, flat-backed, three boxy pieces - heck, even the rectangular taillights looked like Lego pieces) was pure punishment, as we grew up with smoothly-sculpted, sleeker cars whose "greenhouses" seemed integrated so well you didn't notice. Despite the "sheer" blandness of their body sides, angular front and rear ends, and clearly evident efficiency in use of materials and space, GM managed to make those downsized full-sized cars intro'd for '77 at least appear unified and solid. (I was no fan of the Seville but it at least looks solid.) In its push to downsize Ford seemed to have a problem with ending up with a flimsier, cheap look, I think, the way the roof pillars of the Fairmont (and the '79 LTD/Marquis) just didn't quite meld into the body, as if all the pieces were separate even after assembly was completed. Was America really wishing for this look to be the future, or believing this look was better than what we had?
OMG.....Those 1985/86 GM cars were so damn ugly. CEO Roger Smith was an idiot who eventually bankrupted GM with his horrid decisions.
There's not much difference between the looks of a K car and a Buick Sky Lark. From there we went to worn-out-bars of soap. A '65 Pontiac is NOT a worn-out-bar of soap.
Id say the vw golf started the boxy car trend. All small cars from japanese and american car makers went super boxy. Dodge omni, chevette, toyotas and hondas and nissans,,, all super boxy copying vw.
I disagree with your take on boxy being due to the Seville's success. I don't know when they began design work on the 77 B bodies but it had to be around 74 and the gas crisis. There was no way they could have known how successful the Seville would be and then be able to pivot in just 1 year. The Seville came in late '75 and the Caprice came in late '76. By the time the Seville was out in good numbers they had to have the Caprice design pretty much finalized. If the Seville had been a flop there'd be no time to redesign the B bodies. So I don't think the Seville success had a lot to do with it because that was the direction they were going at least with the B bodies in 77 and the mid size in 78. Seville was just the first finished example of the new styling. Now maybe the 1980 update and some of the new models like the X car & J car were influenced by the popularity of the Seville but more likely the very high popularity of the 77 Caprice/LeSabre/88/DeVille lines. Seville was not meant to be a car for everybody but the B body lineup had one for everybody - coupe, sedan, wagon, and in the flavors of all 5 GM divisions.
I think GM thought they could continue with radical designs when they introduced the bustle back, but it was a flop. Just like Ford thought that because the first generation Taurus was such a success, they could be just as radical with the second generation, and that turned out to be a flop!
GM redesigned all vehicles from 1958 to 1959 in an incredibly short time span due to Chrysler with their 1957 lineup.
It can be done.
THE BEST GENERAL MOTORS 1992 BUICK SEDANS CENTURY 2007 IMPALA 1998 CHEVROLET LUMINA 1984 MONTE CARLO SS 1993 PONTIAC BONNEVILLE AND TRANS AM PONTIAC 😮😮😮 😮😮
I personally like the Mark 3 &4s not the Mark 5 but I did & still like the slimmer more trimmed down Mark 6 I use to imagine that car being driven by Frank Cannons nephew who served on the LA PD but was more physically fit than his uncle and who would be seen in a gym setting frequently but also liked cooking more healthy dishes than his famous uncle and would cycle around town when not working on a special case but handled high end cases like his Uncle and show up on the scene in a
Mark 6 to empress wealthy clients and would retain some of his Uncles mannerisms in a more slimmer athletic physique and the ablity to use judo when necessary and never forget a criminals name or mugshot
Dude, the Mark VI was a beautiful car, probably one of the best looking of the 80s. I think it looks better than the Mark V which looked too long
The Mark VI seems to be more of an acquired taste. To me, it's a perfect statement in creases and straight lines, counterpointed by the oval opera window and spare tire hump. My uncle said it looked like a Mark V was put in the dryer and shrunk🤷. Panther platform was great on the Mark VI, too.
Keep the information coming. I can't get enough.
Spoken like a true designer!
Ha!
"... beloved Cadillac Cimarron"
Dry, very dry.
Satire to the max!
You do a great job with voice over . I watch your videos for the information about the CARS
Liked the 76 Seville. Best NOVA ever. Ha ha ha
That 1976 Seville A-pillar, which was more upright than other Cadillacs, caused the car to give off a high-pitched whistle when it was at highway speeds.
Great video, Adam. I hope you can do some video's about the trio Aero bird, mk7 and Cougar. Especially the Cougar intrigues me 😅
Real steel car bumpers... better for safety than todays fiberglass bumpers that get damaged from the slightest contact.
The modern fiberglass ones are merely bumper covers for the real safety structure behind, which is far better than the steel from long ago. Safety in fender benders isn't an issue- high speed collisions are the threat.
Movie quote from Crazy People ( Dudley Moore ) "Buy Volvos. They're boxy but they're good. "
You could take the same picture around 1940 and have 5 makes looking just as similar.😊
Hi Adam. Your last few videos casually mentioned fender skirts and skirted fenders. I think a video with your take on this automotive feature would be very interesting. Just like your hidden headlight and cornering lights feature videos, this is a story that must be told. My burning fender skirt question.. . Why the 77 Bonneville was skirted, yet the Cadillacs were not.
Fender skirts and hidden head lights are two features I've always despised. I never figured out how they were inflicted on us.
I liked the boxy styling. My Mark VI Lincolns are very boxy. I just wish they had a slightly longer wheelbase - hence I have two four doors. I liked the GM cars too. Having said that I also liked Jack Telnack’s work on the aero cars. I have a 79 Mustang Cobra and 86 Mustang GT convertible plus an aero 86 T Bird V8. Plus, I love the Bustle back Sevilles (I have an 83 Elegante). Variety is the spice of life. Another great boxy car - the 81 Imperial. 👍
#3 / X -- Also massively impactful was Lincoln's Completely Slabsided 1961 Continental, as You've so often said here. Personally, I believe that car strongly influenced the 1965 RR Silver Shadow, AND a slew of boxy FIAT sedans, from 1966. And the post 1965 Roller was of course of enormous influence on Lincoln's 1969 Mk.III, their 1970 Continental generation, and again, personally, I think Mulliner Park Ward's 1965 RR Silver Shadow coupe, with its little hip-kink, even earlier influenced Lincoln's second, 1966 reworking of the '61 Continentals. And these Royces were still selling strong in the 1970s, in the U.S. especially, when they also had plenty opportunity to be looked at by GM's Seville designers.
#1 / X -- I'm a Total Car-Nut for 45yrs now - Since age 9 - And love your "porch" sit-down chats - But this one still Would have benefitted A LOT From Editing more photos into it. -- Yes, I know that's also A LOT MORE Work, But I Still think Worth the Return on investment. E.g. the C4 v. C3 Vettes: If the C3 was a Hot babe in a bikini - the C4 was a same hot babe in a fine, killer, pressed pant-suit !
#2 / X -- I Love this Question / Topic, and feel that it deserves a much bigger video, or better yet: a Series ! -- caused by an almost a "perfect storm" of factors, converging in the 1980s - I call it the BauHaus decade in car-design history. Vestigial remains of the old wings/fenders, whether called "Coke-bottle" style or not - were passé, everything got straightened out - U.S, Japan & Europe - Except some rake on the hood and windshields, foraerodynamic reasons. -- In Japan, Kei-cars finally became Real cars, that no longer Sucked as Dailys. One Factor ? - Being Boxy, to max space-utilization ... =>
Dead right about the sensational Seville setting the trend for a decade (or more). I think you left out the RWD G-bodies (Malibu, Bonneville, Regal, Cutlass). A Malibu was almost a dead-ringer for a Seville, only a few years later and not so fancy when you looked in the window. As far as boxy goes, as much as I like the 1st and 2nd generation Sevilles, I've always thought that the small *very* boxy '86 model was very smart, and I lost interest in any of them after the '92 restyle for Gen 4.
Greetings from the big city! (Cincinnati) Oh. I watch all ur videos, of course I do, it's bc you are so normal. Ur use of English, u have a pretty good vocabulary but I wish you wouldn't use 'employ' so much maybe every now & then u could employ the word 'use' har har
Ford had been kicking around a series of aero concept cars since the late 1970s starting with the Probe I concept. You missed another mid-80s Ford aero car, the Merkur XR4Ti, which I thought looked like an aborted bus fetus. Fun story: I owned a first gen Ford Probe. One cold winter day when the car was encrusted in road salt, I went outside to find that someone had used their finger to write "anal" in front of the Probe badge. You stay classy New Jersey.
Easily answered. Cars were being downsized and people demanded the luxury of space. Headroom, shoukder room, hip toom, leg room, and foot room needed to be adequate for people between 4'6" and 6'6", and many cars could accomodate even taller people that thst. They also had to accomidate prople of girth. Now, girthy or tall people drive trucks to get the same space.
79 grand Marquis & Ltd crownvictoria lines were the results of Ford being blackmailed into lead follow or get out of the way GM set the new. Stratagem in 77 with its new full size lineup then in 79 what choice did Ford have then Chrysler dragging up the rear for79 /80/81
Personally, I'll take the "boxy" design of the 1980s any day over the relatively boring and characterless cars that are being produced today.
I think it's cuz when things are boxed up they're easier to throw away...😮.. cars are all garbage from 74 to 85
Glad to see a new porch chat. A nice porch topic would be the GM-10 bodies. What went wrong?
I think the cars themselves were good, but their launch was just abysmal.
You are exactly right about the mark six, they tried to replicate the mark five, and it just did not work, they were not able to get away with it, not sure what would’ve happened if the Mark 7 had come out in 1980? It was really more of an in between time, I love the Mark five and the Mark seven even though they are totally different.
I worked in autobody parts in the 80's and remember the K-car fender was the same for all K-car models. Curb light and trim I think were the only difference.
The Hoffmeister kink Sounds like something that was conjoured up on Hogans Heroes by Colonel Hogan & his undercover operatives in the tunnels & work rooms under the barracks at Stalag 13
I think that Lincoln MK VII is still a good-looking car today. I don't mind designs with some sharp edges to them, but I'm not a fan of boxy ones.
I bought a brand new 1985 Z28 305 TPI ... sadly, I traded in my first car, a 1978 Pontiac T/A 400 / 400 TH
That Z28 was the worst vehicle I ever owned! 3 motors, 3 transmissions, 3 ecu's (they weren't called that then) all under warranty ... Car caught on fire and burnt to the ground.
Thank you
Professor Adam
I love your class and you're class.
With regard to Ford’s aero styles, my recollection is that a big factor in the decision was to increase fuel economy so that they would meet the government’s CAFE requirements.
I remember when the Ford Taurus was introduced, it really looked like a carbon copy of the Audi 5000
You are correct about the Chryslers K cars being boxy , and all the junk that went with them, yes, they were kind of cheap, but people ate it up, that’s what they wanted in the moment, people would rather have a tacky pimped out Chrysler than a boring Chevy citation, but that was only for a little while, they serve their purpose of the time, but as people started getting more money, they started becoming more serious about their vehicles, it was a flash in the pan
They. Looked. Sharp. Simple. Soon the jelly bean came not just for aerodynamics, I think it's something to to with safety and a pedestrian falling on the hood instead of the front of a car.
You're correct about how comfortable and plush the interiors of the boxy GM cars were. I was a repo man back in the 80s and had the opportunity to drive quite a few of them. More than any other car brand, it was clearly discernable that GM engineers spent more time and effort on creature comforts and conveniences. A trait which they took over from the 70s Mopars, IMHO.
An ordinary person spends his life avoiding tense situations. A repo man spends his life getting into tense situations. 😀
Japanese cars were more boxy. Its like who could outbox who. Box in the competition lol
General motors eent areo with the whale Caprice to copie the Taurus and the unboxed crown Victoria
I loved that Seville styling and when the Taurus came out i hated it but it grew on me snd i bought a 95 Taurus GL
I do enjoy the porch chat
I still think you need to write a book, maybe “The Encyclopedia of American Automobiles” or something like that.
Time 135 The front of the hood , cornering lights , turn signals , headlights hint at a 90's GM front drive with the drooping hood.