(first posted 9/10/2014) There’s been a long-simmering debate here about the respective designs of the all-new downsized Chevy/GM 1977 B-Bodies and Ford’s response-imitation in 1979. It’s time to settle the question once and for all. You say design is subjective; but is it? Saying that it is more than a bit of a cop-out, because it makes it too easy to hide behind. Yes, you’re allowed to prefer Thomas Kinkade’s paintings over Claude Monet’s, but that hardly makes Kinkade’s better.
Perhaps the 1977 Chevrolet isn’t quite a Monet, but it was a largely original and well executed design, some of the last under Bill Mitchell’s direction. It has all the hallmarks of his reign: excellent proportions, and clear lines that manage quite successfully to make it look longer than it is. Undoubtedly that was a key design priority, as Mitchell was not at all happy to have to design shrunken full-size cars, but he made sure they looked good. These were his swan song and his legacy, after all.
There is a cohesive vision behind these cars, and undoubtedly a lot of development of their theme and details went on in the design studios. Given that they were the first downsized big American cars, they had better be right, as GM had literally bet the farm on them. I once read that GM’s downsizing program from 1977-1980 was the greatest industrial investment program in the US since WW2.
One of the best things about them is that they were not designed with big padded vinyl roofs in mind; in fact, they look decidedly better without them. Mitchell was not a Broughamista. Let’s just say that in 1977, my feelings about vinyl roofs were the same as about white shoes, red pants and white belts. Hence my feelings about the Ford when it arrived: old man’s car.
The downsized 1979 Fords were clearly imitations of the GM formula, and as such, they lacked any real inspiration or vision. It’s as if they started with a Chevy and figured out ways to make it look more like a Ford somehow. The Panthers rode on a shorter wheelbase (114″ vs 116″), and it appears those precious two inches were lost by moving the front wheels a bit further back. It’s a bit subtle, but the Chevy has (or certainly conveys) a longer and more elegant nose in profile, with the front wheels further forward, in the classic RWD configuration. The Panther looks like it could have been FWD.
And Ford’s decision to use little 14″ wheels and tires only accentuate its lack of more refined and pleasing proportions. And the particularly tinny and cheap Pep Boys fake wire wheel covers only add insult to that injury. The Chevy’s big 15″ wheels nicely fill its openings; the Ford looks like it’s waiting for a flood (or donks).
The Ford’s B-Pillar is unfortunate too, in that it was clearly designed to work with the tacky opera/coach lamps and a half-vinyl “Landau” roof, even if that didn’t come along the first year. The result is that the steel-top version looks decidedly chunky and, broken up into more boxes. Which the Ford is anyway; decidedly more boxy all the way around.
Let’s jump to the coupe versions. The Panther is actually a Mercury Marquis, but except for a few minor details, it’s the same as the LTD. The difference here is even more stark. Ford was clearly still in deep Brougham consciousness, while Chevrolet was trying to bring a bit of the sportier flair that harked back to the sixties and the golden era of the Impala. The difference is huge.
Let’s take a closer look at the front fenders, wheel wells and wheels. The windshields are in the same respective place, but look how much more dynamic the Chevy front end appears, with its large round wheel opening and decent sized wheels. Even the fake wire wheel covers are much better, for what that’s worth. The Panther’s missing inches in wheelbase are clearly noticeable here; it carries much more of its boxy snout in front of its little wheels. Which conveys the exact opposite of “dynamic”. According to the thesaurus, that would be words like impotent, weak, unexciting, and dull.
The Chevy’s front end design was pretty classic GM of the era, one that of course started with the seminal “sheer-look” 1975 Seville. But it is relatively clean, and does a good job of evoking the Cadillac, Chevy’s perpetual styling big-brother.
The Ford still reflects Lee Iacocca’s endless obsession with the Mercedes grille. And this one is not a particularly good version at that. Whatever; if you like that sort of thing, you probably never got tired of it. I did, right from the get-go.
Lesser LTDs didn’t merit a genuine Mercedes knock-off grille, and had to settle for this rather modest single-headlights version. That was obviously not a good idea, as it went away pretty soon. It just reeks of “fleet car”; or cop car, as the case may be.
But then that’s what these Fords have always come across to me as: the ultimate fleet car. A rather poor knock-off of a handsome automobile, relegated to either fleet use, or dolled up with lots of tacky Brougham heavy make-up in an effort to disguise its intrinsically poorer “bones”. I could go on and on (as I did in my head last night in bed), there’s so many details that make the difference between them rather substantial. But now it’s your turn; which one is the better design?
GM got the upper hand with the ’77 cars, and many of the details of the ’79 Ford were disappointing. In addition to your points about the exterior styling, the inside had goofy door lock placements that required power locks to make sense of, the flipping horn was on the end of the turn signal stalk, and the base car details were just not very nice. Add that Ford’s power trains for ’79 were clearly behind the ’79 GM offerings, and you had a product launch that nearly died when OPEC II struck a short time later.
Ford eventually got the upper hand through inertia and incremental improvements. GM doubled down on brougham with the 1980 update, and final box Caprice Brougham LS models were pretty tacky. The rest of the GM B and C lines went astray in their own ways, and a great start finished with a whimper for the basic ’77 concept.
That broughamy MGM coupe could be as late as the ’87 final year for the coupe. It features the cleaned up style details that I think came in ’83, and I’m almost certain 15 inch wheels had become standard. I had an ’87 MGM LS sedan and 14 inch just doesn’t sound right.
By ’87 the Chevy was the car going through confusing evolutionary details.
Yup the 15″ wheels quickly became an option and then standard.
.
I’m a GM loyalist, but at the risk of being a heretic, I must say that I like both body styles. Both Ford and GM did a good job designing those cars and I wouldn’t be ashamed to be seen driving either one of them.
On the other side, Ford was more lucky than Chrysler who also launched a downsized full-size Newport/New Yorker and Dodge St.Regis that year but Plymouth only got their R-body version for 1980.
As a Ford guy I have to say that the Chevy is a nicer looking car.
To compliment your art analogy, I think of the Chevy as a Queen Anne table with cabriole legs; just enough curve to give it lift and grace. The Ford as a shaker table with it’s stodgy, straight lines appealing to the don’tcarewhatitlookslikeaslongasitgtsthejobdone crowd.
I’m not enough of a furniture nerd to fully grok your analogy, but I agree that the incorporation of curves into the Chevy design is what makes it work better.
The LTD looks like three tissue boxes glued together. The Chevy has a slight arch to it that extends from the tip to the tail and ties the three boxes together. That slight arch also gives the impression of a crouching animal, ready to pounce. The poor Ford lacks any element to give it that sort of dynamism.
In something I read recently about the ’75 Seville, probably here, a designer made the point that the car isn’t as rectilinear as it first appears to be, which is part of what made the sheer look work when it did. GM went to the sheer look well too many times, but in my book, GM design knocked it out of the park with the ’77 Impala and Caprice, the ’75 Seville and the ’86 H-Body Buicks.
Ford eventually figured it out, though. A lot of people hated the the grill-less ’92 Crown Vic (if I recall correctly sales fell until the grill was restored), but with that redesign, Ford finally gave the car a curving shoulder line to tie the three boxes together. I thought that version worked quite well.
This is a Queen Anne. The curved legs give it “lift,” making it appear lighter or more elegant that a similarly sized, straight-legged, no frills, shaker table. The Alfa Romeo Spider uses the same simple design feature, although to a greater effect.
+1 It’s entasis- the Greeks used it on temples like the Parthenon. The subtle curves give tension to the design. There is hardly a straight line on the Chev.
I like the Ford products more than I did when they were new, but the details just aren’t finessed enough. Look at the way the padded roof/B pillar on the Marquis coupe appears too heavy and is pushing the little front doors forward. This was seen to even worse effect on the upcoming shrunken TBird/Cougar. The whole outlining of the doors and window frames makes the car look upright and choppy, but why do the rear quarter window frames in plain black rubber when you’ve ladled on the chrome everywhere else? And the LTD exterior mirrors are freakishly far back on the doors, what’s with that?
Finally, look at the front end profiles and check the cutline for the Caprice’s front clip and the way it follows the contour of the side marker light, then compare it to the Marquis’ awkward front end. Like I said it’s all in the details.
I think the door mirror placement has something to do with the front side quarter windows on some of the LTDs. The wine red Crown Victoria in the fifth picture from the top has a quarter window on the front doors. The mirror was probably placed far back on the door so it is not obstructed by the frame between the quarter window and the main window on cars with quarter windows.
Better styling? I’ll give the Chevy the edge, altho a mighty small edge. The Chevy comes across as somewhat effeminate, whereas the Panther is all mean and down to business. But really Paul, FWD proportions? Really? And those B pillars look almost EXACTLY the same between the two! I think you’re just hunting for reasons to hate on Box Panthers. I will concede that the early Panthers suffered from tiny wheel syndrome, I put 16″ wheels on my ’91 GMQ and that helped immensely in that regard. As for toughness, Turbo 200 vs. AOD? Soft cam 305’s vs. the rock dependable 302? Hell, I’ll take a VV carb over GM’s fuel-injection-of-the-month BS. And I won’t even mention OptiSpark… Please…
But the B pillars aren’t the same Roger, look at the 4 door profiles. The Caprice’s central pillar tapers ever so slightly as it nears the roof, the LTD’s doesn’t, it manages to actually look awkwardly wider near the roof. And to accentuate their faux pas Ford deisgners highlight it in chrome! As I said, it’s the small details.
A very observant comment.
It’s as if the Ford designers never studied classical/Greek architecture. True straight lines can be the kiss of death.
I agree with that. The side view of the early LTDs gave me the impression of a Greek Key pattern. The sunken-in windows made the roof pillars look more like columns, adding a Parthenon feel and 3-D effect to what should have been window panes. It’s like Ford planned these in response to the Colonnades not the ’77s. They copied the Greeks without learning from them, to your point.
I have a 1982 Grand Marquis sales brochure, with a photo of the trunk showing a lid that does not line up with the opening. So it’s not fair to accuse Ford of using only straight lines.
“Ever so slightly” is what I thought, too, until I enlarged the images on the computer monitor and measured with a ruler. I could not reliably come up with any taper on the Chevrolet. I don’t have an actual car here in the room with me; maybe somebody has access to one and can take a tape measure out to it?
The Ford B-pillar does appear to have been INTENTIONALLY made to look wide, perhaps to give it an appearance of “substance” which the entire car has, as opposed to the Chevrolet’s look of “lightness.”
Mom had a 1982 Oldsmobile Delta 88 and I recall that the B-pillar tapered towards the top. It’s even more apparent when the doors are open.
Yeah Paul’s hate for Ford cars really shines through in the piece and he didn’t let facts get in the way of making his points. One of the worst is that he lies about the wheel base, shorting the Panther by .3″ and to further his point he leaves out the fact that it is also 3.1″ shorter than the B. Despite the fact that the Panther is shorter its better packaging gives it more room in the trunk and back seat. Fact is that they have the same percentage of overhang, within .002% which is what Paul has previously stated was one of the big problems with the Panther. Ford was able to center the wheels in the body where GM was forced to move the front wheels forward to keep using the same oil pans and put the majority of the overhang in the rear in an attempt to gain back some trunk room. Overall it gives it the look that it was left to melt in the sun and it has slumped back.
You calling me a Ford hater? 🙂 I bought the first good-looking Ford built in several decades, the 1983 T-Bird Turbo Coupe. They just needed to get their sinking design ship turned around. And it worked, didn’t it? It’s not like the Panther saved Ford; it sold poorly for many years.
If Paul was really a Ford hater, his work truck would be a ’66 Dodge D-100 🙂
I’ll agree that the Chevy is a bit delicate in its’ detailing where the Ford’s more blunt. IMO the Ford looks better in police black-and-white, the Chevy makes a more elegant personal conveyance with less need to throw the entire options list at it.
Wagons aren’t gotten into here, but I’d say the Ford looks better with wood and the Chevy takes the edge without it.
I gotta get Pauls back here. He gets flack for GM hate, now its box panther hate. Whats wrong with liking what you like and hating what you hate, let the chips fall where they may? Opinions are like @$$holes…we all got em, they all stink. The second someone has an opposing opinion, all of a sudden theyre a ‘hater’. Show me one truly unbiased, 100% objective human being, and I have a whole Brinks truck full of $3 bills….
I’d argue the point on the B being the same. On the Frod it looks like they coppied the Colonnades, with out the radiused corners.
It’s like they wanted to tell the Feds “since we can’t make hardtops any more,
this ugly B pillar is all your fault”
But boy, the 1980 B-body update ruined it in all kinds of ways, proving that the line between brilliant and banal can be very fine, indeed. In my personal opinion the 1977-1979 LeSabre wore the B-B body best, with the raked-back headlight pods and protruding grille looking more interesting than the flat fronts of the other makes. As much as I like that Caprice coupe wrap-around rear window, the LeSabre coupe roof is really sharp and sporty.
I think the full-sized Cadillac got better looking with the changes for 1980 but agree with you on the rest of the B and C bodies. The original LeSabre roofline was sporty and unique and I hated the more formal one that replaced it.
As for Chevy versus Ford I thought the Ford cars looked like a child’s sketch of a boxy sedan. The sunken-in side windows always had me wondering… were they like that because that was as flush as Ford could get them or did the designers think that was a good look?
Yes as usual the Buick is the best of the bunch. The flat fronts are just way to generic. The bent window Chevy coupe roofline isn’t bad looking but I agree that overall the Buick pulls of sporty looking much better by far which of course is surprising since Buick wasn’t known for being sporty.
The front clip is definitely better thought out, with the recessed headlights…but ugh that damn bumper! You have enough runway to get a 747 off the ground! Personally, Im not nearly as smitten with the quarter window and C pillar. This is still a bit formal for my tastes….the Caprice looks like it SHOULD be a pilarless hardtop for all intent and purposes. I guess if I were in charge, Id ape this front end treatment on the Caprice coupe body, and bribe some unscrupulous fed into looking the other way when I did a thin blade bumper up front…
While the ‘77-‘79 full-size GM cars are very similar to the ‘80-up models, it always perplexed me how the latter was considered an “update”. In my mind an update is a new front clip, maybe even a bit of tail end redesign as seen on the later-‘80s Panthers. However, the ‘80-up B-bodies were, while “similar”, completely new designs including the roofs. I’ve never looked closely, but I’ll assume the doors were redefined, too. I assume they all sat on the same chassis when “updated”, but the lines weren’t the same. At all. As others have noted, the “update” was inferior to the ‘77-‘79 design, IMO.
I must confess, I do like the first B-bodie of ‘77 better than the Ford. After 1980? It’s a real toss-up. I’d go with the Ford until the Caprice was fitted with the composite headlights in 1987; I really liked those last few years before the “bubble Chevy” came out. And….I couldn’t stand the “bubble Chevy” mainly due to unfortunate rear quarters and the hubcaps. After a few years, the designers came to their senses and opened up that rear wheel-well and introduced a new hubcap; that changed my opinion of that design 180 degrees. Looked good.
At least for the Cadillac CDV, the doors were different after 1979. (In fact, I think all sheetmetal except hood, fenders, and cowl area changed.) I recall windshield and door glass was the same, quarter and rear was not. (Though probably shared with other GM cars.)
That made finding parts after someone knocked me off the road a serious chore.
The 1977 GM restyle was the last time GM looked brilliant, in it’s re-invention of the B/C cars.
The downsized Fords were not only 2 years late o the party, they always looked “generic car” to me. Those 14″ wheels made it look a bit like it’s feet barely touch the ground.
No question. I’ve always been more of a Ford fan, but the GM design is much more subtle and graceful. The slight lowering of the side windows relative to the hood & trunk lines, together with the slight bow in the belt line, give it a unified look that is both taut and dynamic.
The Ford has a heavy, static, pieced-together-box look by comparison. The square wheel cut-outs and pronounced B-pillar just make it worse. And small wheels on cars this size always look like a victory of the accountants over the designers. Then there are the details.
It’s interesting to see the cars together like this. I generally don’t think too highly of North American car styling after the 1960’s (with a few exceptions of course). But the Chevy shows some real elegance in its overall proportions and shaping.
It would be interesting to speculate on ‘how big is too big’ in car design. I’d say that for some reason really large cars are inherently unattractive – maybe it has something to do with human scale and what cars represent to the human psyche. Mid-70’s cars probably crossed that line. This one made it back just under the wire, although it took a lot of skill to make it work.
The Ford looks like some management shiny-bum sketched out something generically-Fordish on the back of an envelope and said “There’s your new car.” and unfortunately had the clout to totally override styling and get it into production. Absolutely no finesse.
I couldn’t believe it when these came out. Although I was raised as a Ford kid, I was shocked at how generically-rectilinear these were. And heavy-looking. And that B-pillar, what an amateurish mistake, with those sunken-in windows and all that excessive chrome exacerbating the flaw. Seeing the two side-by-side in this article just shows how subtly-professional the Chevy was.
If Ford came with 14 inch wheels in 1979, they were 15s by the time the car in the top comparison picture was made. Which just goes to highlight how grossly oversized the Ford’s wheel openings were.
I will be in the minority here, but I never much liked the 77 Chevy. It was pure, boring vanilla without an interesting line on it. The 2 door was attractive, though.
The Ford would win, but for some really bad goofs. First, the 114 inch wheelbase. Why so short? A little extra length would have helped. A lot. Second, those monster wheel openings needed to be smaller. Finally, that greenhouse was just too busy. I can see how folks would like the Chevy better, but its only because Ford flubbed so many small styling details.
Oh yes – that Ford wire wheelcover design borders on criminal. This was the worst looking fake wire wheelcover EVER.
Sniff…..but, I kinda liked mine. Admittedly, I’d have rather had the turbine wheels.
Sorry, Dave. 🙁 My problem was that the spoke design just looked nothing like any wire wheel I have ever seen. I think Ford brought this basic design out on big Lincolns around 78 or so (before the downsize) and I found them terrible. But they became perennials. My 85 CV had them too.
I think that the contemporary Chrysler 5th Avenues had the most convincing fake wires.
Those 5th Avenue wheel covers, at least on the M-body versions, had a nice, chunky look to them, not unlike the real (Kelsey-Hayes?) ones on the ’55-6 Mopars.
Those Ford “wire” wheel covers were actually a hybrid of wire and flat cap and not very attractive. GM put much nicer fake wire covers on its B- and C-body sedans from this era.
… +1, AND they put them on LINCOLNS too (?!!), just swapping out the center emblem. Heinous. The only appropriate wheels for the Lincolns during this era were the alloy dish and the turbines.
I’m with you on the Chevy. I think it ‘wins’ but based mostly on the math, not its design. I see it as the homeliest of the downsized B and C bodies; a better proportioning of vanilla than the Ford.
Yup the Chevy just looks like a generic car, a melted one at that, while at least Ford tried to put some detailing and interesting lines in it. Of course Paul picks on the 14″ wheels that didn’t last that long as 15″ wheels quickly became an option and then standard. I do agree that the wire wheel covers are some of the worst and do scream parts store cheapies. Now the Turbines on the other hand were classy and modern looking while GM kept the same basic designs from the 60’s.
I had a problem with the 1977 GM B-body in that its down-at-the-ends shape LOOKED like it had been shrunken. The first downsize of the A-body looked even more so…to my eyes at the time, it even looked a bit frumpy.
When the Panther appeared, I thought it hid its downsizing better. It looked like it was MEANT to be that size.
All that paled next to the later inverted-bathtub Caprice. I must admit, when Hertz (at the time featuring Fords) offered me an inverted-bathtub as an upgrade from a midsize, I refused it. “Too ugly.” The agent substituted a Buick Park Avenue instead.
I agree that the droopy ends are what makes the B look like it was left in the drier or out in the sun too long giving it that shrunken or melted look depending on how you look at it. The Ford on the other hand looks like it wasn’t ashamed to say I’m a full-size car.
See c5karl’s post above, it’s that “arch” that gives the Caprice the dynamic edge which is the LTD lacks. It just sits there like a brick on its little wheels. As he says, it wasn’t till the 90s that Ford really aped the B bodies proportions and got it right:
Like most Ford passenger cars in those days, (Wixom-built Lincolns being the exception), the early Panthers had a reputation for horrible quality, while the B-bodies were by late ’70s Detroit standards pretty well-made.
Some friends of our family had a ’79 LTD Landau (the one with the Mercedes grille) that was a constant source of transmission and HVAC trouble from day one.
No question here, the ’77 B-bodies win the design war hand downs. They just look so clean and graceful compared to the ungainly box Panthers with their fussy grilles and baroque chamfered hoods.
What amazed me was how quickly GM fumbled for the turnover with the redesigned B’s of ’91. Whereas an argument can be made that the post-1992 aero-Panthers are aesthetically pleasing cars, the redesigned B’s look bloated and ungainly, ironically suffering from the same ill proportions that plagued the initial Panthers, albeit in a modern idiom.
In ’79, Ford bragged that their wb was ‘smaller’ then Chevy at the time, to show how ‘fuel efficient’ they were. Also that ‘we didn’t have to spend as much’, since they just copied!
Anyway, when the Panthers got the FI 302, then they became better and then lasted longer on the market.
The car was also shorter overall too, so the shorter wheelbase would be expected. Despite the shorter wheelbase and overall length the Ford had similar or more interior room in every dimension except head room where the sitting on the floor seats of the Chevy gave it an advantage.
When the Ford LTD was downsized in 1979, the coupe and the sedan measuring in at 209″ long were only almost a foot longer than the 1975-80 Ford Granada at almost 198″ long. The Gran Torino based LTD II was even larger as the coupe was at 215″ long while the sedan (for an intermediate) at 219″ which in all its intents and purposes was already in the full size category and that’s 10″ longer than the Panther platform based 1979 LTD
The odd thing is for the previous two model years, Ford was bragging about ‘how big’ the LTD still was. “We still make whoppers!”. The sudden about face was fake, but then Gas Crisis II came about just in time.
Well, you know where I stand, with the B-body of course.
Whats interesting is that picture of the 2 tone silver Caprice at the top of the article must be some sort of prototype disco-era photoshop, this vintage B-body never had the seatbelts going into the roof like the 1971-76 big cars did with their shoulder belts, their belts were B-pillar mounted, was that a brochure shot Paul? I’m curious as to where you found it.
The car also has no exterior mirrors, odd.
I think the silver Caprice photo is reversed; look at the c pillar emblem with it’s reversed capitol “c”s. This might explain the missing mirror. I can’t speak to the seat belt issue, though.
I don’t think those wheelcovers made it to production either. The red version looks to have slightly different ones.
Anyone who knows me from posting here will think I am terribly biased and perhaps I am. I have spent an enormous amount of wheel time in both cars and the Chevrolet wins hands down. The Ford just didn’t drive as well. All B Bodies, especially the early ones, went down the road very well for the day. The Fords, on the other hand, felt disconnected from the road, too much body motion, not enough damping and no steering feel. The cars were not as reliable as the B Bodies, either, and the AOD was simply horrid.The proof is in the sales figures, the B Bodies massively outsold the Ford.
I am well known as a Ford over Chevy kind of guy, but I agree. The B body felt solid, better in fact than the one it replaced. The Ford, OTOH, felt thin, cheap and not all that tight. I experienced this firsthand when my father went from his 78 Lincoln to his 80, during a time when I drove quite a few GM B bodies as well. Even into recent years, I have had plenty of wheel time in both.
The only thing the Fords did better was that they felt more nimble, while the GM cars felt heavy. Problem was, that unless the Ford came with some really good tires, shocks and roll bars, that nimble feeling was not really supported by objective measurements. The early aero Panther was a gigantic leap forward in roadability, perhaps because the standard models got those wheel, tire and suspension upgrades. Plus a decent shifting transmission.
Funny but the professional reviews of the time usually give the nod to the Ford for better driving characteristics on an actual road even if they couldn’t beat them on the track, when comparing base suspension to base suspension. Here is just one http://books.google.com/books?id=kY7Uj6pCZ0oC&pg=PA46&lpg=PA46&dq=1979+ford+ltd+vs+chevy+caprice&source=bl&ots=eA7X14pzSz&sig=kuTz2gdXMe8wtjKgzU4Ds-oadVo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=iqIQVOqHJca0yATOzYDACA&ved=0CE0Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=1979%20ford%20ltd%20vs%20chevy%20caprice&f=false of course for what ever reason GM dealers were quick to check the F-41 box, if nothing else to pad their profits.
The F-41 suspension was an incredibly cheap optioo…less than $100 if I recall, hardly something a dealer would check to “pad their profits”….At the time the F-41 just made the B-body even better than the Panther.
Those cheap options are the kind of thing that the dealer adds to make a few extra bucks. Cheap enough that the buyer won’t balk at the price but stills adds to the bottom line. If you do it on all/most of your cars it adds up over the year.
Fords always seemed to have the worst ride/handling combo, not to mention the inferior transmissions and engines.
The ’77 Caprice design was so much better than the Ford, it’s just astounding that the Ford sold as well as it did.
Hmmm.
I think the Chevrolet and the Ford are the worst two to pick for this comparison, but I agree (I think) with JPC that the Chevrolet gets the edge because of its wheelbase, not because of its styling. As I noted in the ’85 CV post yesterday, GM had throughout the 70s more sculpted, curvy cars than Ford. Compare the ’73 98 and Electra to the ’73 Grand Marquis. Sweepspears, fins, and curves vs. billet of steel with windows and wheels. Generally, the downsized B and C bodies continued on that theme, but the Chevrolet seems to me to do so the least, though I suppose it was also the boxiest of the ’71-’76 GMs. The Ford in many ways was just moving the ’78 to a smaller package.
The real place the differences show up is in comparing any of the mid-range GM models with the Marquis. The Pontiac, Olds 88 and 98, Le Sabre, and Electra all have more distinction and character. Add that to the better proportions over the wheelbase and you have hands-down winners. (Not to mention brand-made engines in several sizes).
The downsized Cadillac also would be the clear winner vs. the ’80 Lincoln Continental, but the ’77-’79 versions of both don’t really beg a head to head comparison, essentially being the past and the future co-existing for a time.
Finally, I would say that while the basic GM design retains some advantage due to the longer wheelbase even after ’80, it is not as strong as those cars moved closer to the Ford in looks at that time, and lost some of the distinction between brands of the first run (not to mention everything but the Cadillac mostly moving to the 307 or 305 by ’81).
As a Ford fan, I have to agree with this assessment regarding the downsized GM cars versus their Ford counterparts. GM scored a home run with these cars. These cars were were a big risk, but GM did everything it could to make them a success. And it worked.
Ford’s efforts appeared two years later, and they looked as though Ford was being dragged reluctantly to the downsizing party. Which, given what we now know regarding the tastes of both Henry Ford II and Lee Iacocca, combined with the extreme fiscal conservatism of head finance man Ed Lundy, probably isn’t far from the truth.
At the time, I remember thinking that this car was Ford’s interpretation of the 1977 Oldsmobile Delta 88, down to the sloping edges of the rear quarter panels, the shape of the C pillar and the entire front-end treatment.
GM’s second round of downsizing with its 1978 intermediates didn’t come off quite as well as it did with the full-size cars. Fortunately for GM, Ford REALLY dropped the ball in 1980 with the downsized Thunderbird and Mercury Cougar XR-7, which made the 1979 LTD and Mercury Marquis look like a stroke of genius.
I agree. Bill Mitchell was a master of design.
I was GM fan until mid 80’s, and Ford after.
But the 77 B/C bodies are one of GM’s greatest hits. I had a ’78 Impala as a beater in ’88 and was still solid.
It’s a shame they gave the new B coupe roofline assignment to Stevie Wonder though.
I have owned both, and hands down I prefer the Chevrolet styling. I also like the 1980 restyle although with minimal trim and no vinyl tops. The 1986-90 sedans are very cleanly styled without the excessive trim The 1977-79 Coupes were much nicer than the 1980 though. Of the 1979-91 Panther’s I always thought eh 1988-91 Grand Marquis were the cleanest styled of the bunch.
As for ownership, I always felt the GM B-bodies were a far nicer car to drive, better overall suspension and steering feel, and in the early years better drivetrains (other than the TH200). Ford did do a much better job at updating the Panther vs GM with the B-body.The 302 MPFI was a big improvement that I think edged out GM’s engines until they introduced the TBI engines in 1989. Ford seats seemed a bit better too for comfort over GM’s seats that seemed to have no upgrades from 1977-90.
I tried to keep ownership out of my analysis since it was a design question. Having owned a box Panther Ford (4 years), C-Body Cadillac (6 years), and C-Body Buick (2 years), I’ve always felt the GM’s downsized cars handled better and were more fun to drive…with the exception of anything under 307 power which may well have handled better but couldn’t get up a hill over 45 mph.
The Ford cars felt better to be a passenger in; they rode softer, quieter, and had more comfortable and well finished interiors with the exception of the big Cadillac which is still the best-riding and best appointed post ’77 American* car I’ve ever been in.
However, it’s my understanding that was true of the two companies’ products even before the downsizing. GMs handled better (relatively, of course), Fords rode more softly. The engines were pretty competitive once both brands were downsized, the 302, 305, and 307 were all equally mediocre.
In my mind, the real black mark against the downsized Ford was that AOD, I don’t know anyone who has had a good experience with one, whereas my GM transmissions have been much more solid. Not to be left behind, though, GM soon “caught up” with the THM200.
I agree with you on the 307 comment. Even though only a 10 hp deficit over a 305 4bbl or a 302 MPFI, it felt about 25 hp weaker. I also agree the Ford’s had a softer ride. The TH200 came out before the AOD though. I know the TH700-R4 and TH2004R had bad reputations too but they were far better than the TH200. I never had a transmission fail from either Ford or GM though, but I tend to be easy on them and I am very particular about maintenance.
I owned an impala wagon (77) and a later (85 and 86) box Ford. Actually two lincoln town cars. Either lincoln would win economy or comfort. But if you wanted something tough as a box of nails the 77 Impala with the 350/350 drive train is what that looks like. According to the compression readings it was a V5 and it just kept on chugging. I towed with it. Put air shocks on the back and nothing scared it.
Fashion. What do I know? For me either one is an easy sell.
I’ve only ever ridden in late model Panthers a couple of times. They always felt more cramped on the interior than the B-bodies. Handling didn’t make any impression on me one way or another. I would give Ford the nod for engines, at least from the injected 5.0 on (except of course for the LT1).
I prefer the Caprice sedan styling of ’80 on, especially with the ’86 facelift. I also like the 84-85 LeSabre sedan. For all the other B’s, I prefer the 77-79. Interiors are best in the 84 and later models (digital radio, multifunction stalk, etc).
If I were to pick a ’77-79, I’d probably go with a Lesabre T-Type or Limited coupe, turbo 3.8 or 350/350.
I prefer Fords generally, but I think the Chevrolet wins this bout on points. Not only was it a genuinely attractive design, it successfully shattered the “bigger is better” syndrome for good. Having said that, I’d put my money on the Ford. Why? My family had good experiences with box Panthers, and I just like their bluff styling. Not all cars can carry off that relentlessly square-shouldered look, but I think the Ford/Mercury does.
As a Ford guy I too have to say I like the Chevy much better. When these came out I thought they were the best looking new cars of the ’70’s. When the ’78 Malibu came out I decided that it was my favorite, especially in coupe form. My neighbor had one of those ’79 LTDs and i always thought it looked a little odd. Now , with the discussion of small wheels versus large wheel wells I finally get it. I always thought that they looked top heavy. Of course, when the bathtub Caprice came along things were reversed.
Chevy went from one of the best designs ever to one of the worse. How that thing got through all the committees has always been a mystery to me. Maybe it was the same bunch that OKed the Aztec.
I have always MUCH preferred the style of the Ford over the Chevy for no particular reason that I can recall to the point that I have considered buying the Ford but not even considered looking at the Chevy. I do not have much seat time in either design. Over the last few years reading CC, I am ever so slowly starting to slide over to the Chevy side. Not there yet, but starting to think about how to straddle the fence. Nowadays I’m starting to see the Chevy as a cleaner, less fussy design which may be logical given that it appeared first.
Jim – I agree with this one. Paul’s convinced me towards the Chevy after decades of feeling the Ford was a solid double.
Of the Panthers though, I like the original blocky style. Even the cheap two headlight version….
The Chevy looks better. Way better than the Ford.
I don’t know why we’re even discussing this, it’s self evident.
On the other hand, the two look quite similar from afar and especially to the eyes of people who are not particularly interested in cars or who don’t know much about American cars of that era. To most Europeans (such as myself), all 1970s and 1980s full-sizers (GM, Ford or Mopar) are quintessential examples of what a typical American car looks like.
Somebody wrote that the Chevy looks somewhat effeminate – I respectfully disagree. It’s true that in this article, many pictures are taken from brochures and show two-tone paintjobs and perhaps this has some effect in this direction.
But the Ford is not more manly, it is merely more clumsy looking.
Slap some dark single-tone paint on the Chevy and it sure doesn’t look girly. In flat black, it looks downright menacing (but then again, most cars do in flat black)
I agree. A lot of the styling cues Paul discusses are accentuated by the two-tone paint on the Chevy. Paint both cars in the same solid color and the differences soften or disappear.
For whatever reason, I equate full sizers with patrol cars. As such, I can only compare these cars in police livery.
To my eyes, the Caprice is just a tad more intimidating. Win for Caprice!
Though that 79 or so Caprice in police livery is a fake, until 1986, all police Chevrolet B’s were Impalas, which were a little plainer and more “cop-like”.
Clear win for Chevrolet – for the period and origin, that’s a great looking car, even now, especailly in side profile.
I will go against the trend and say that my favorite b bodies are the 80 up coupes.
The 77-79 GM cars were way better. No comparison. Even the cheapened versions of GM’s full-sized cars from 1980 on were better.
I think the first generation Panthers were nice looking cars, but I think it is clear they took a lot of inspiration from the new-for-’77 GM B’s. The styling of the GM B’s is cleaner and it was a very original look when they debuted, the Ford was busier and was something of a knock-off though a successful one. I remember in ’77 and ’78 a Caprice/Impala with the 350 Small Block/Turbo 350 drivetrain and the F44 suspension package was a highly regarded automobile. The Chevy B’s always handled better than the Ford Panthers and usually performed better as well, particularly when the Fords were equipped with the Motorcraft VV carburetor.
It just now occurs to me how much 1975 Granada there was in the 79 LTD.
Yup there is a ton in the 2dr with the 2 light front end, but then again why not the the Granada was a huge success when it came out which would have been around the time the Panther went to the drawing board.
A little Fairmont in the 2 headlight front end too, at least to me.
I see more of the Fairmont in the early (’79-’81) Panthers than the ’75-’80 Granada. The Granada looks more from the styling school from the ’73-’78 Full-Size cars than the influence it had on the early box Panthers.
This is easy and not easy at the same time.
The GMs were better cars, especially the 1977 Impala bent-window coupe – I really wanted one back then.
I felt the Fords were nicely-chiseled, and the fact that on the sedans, the back glass (here I go again) rolled down more than half-way, AND you could get the optional front vent windows! A win-win in my book.
Alas, we made do with K-Cars – they were just a 5/8 scale Ford – and other used Mopars and an AMC during those years.
I never complained.
Based on these two pictures, the Chev’s more rounded wheel arches are just more pleasing, the cleaner design of B & C post also helped.
Keep in mind that the various GM B-bodies used different wheel arch shapes (at least from 1980 onward). The Chevy’s here is rounded while the Buick’s was more flattened. There were lots of styling differences across the GM divisions in 1977-79 but for the most part, the four-door sedans and wagons all shared the same greenhouse.
I’m not crazy about either one, especially as 4-door sedans. They both have fairly plain boxy styling compared to what they replaced, though I’d give the edge to the Chevy. As for the 2-doors, the Chevy wins easily.
My vote’s for the B-bodies. You’ve pretty much summed-up how I feel about the Panters’ styling.
As I’ve probably made clear before, I do like the Chrysler R-bodies a lot though.
Bless you, Brendan! 🙂 Actually I think the R body was the most attractively proportioned of the 3. Really a nice “average” between the Chevy’s clean but dull lines and the Ford’s angularity.
Wow, I always thought the R bodies had really awkward proportions. Horse races!
I wondered how far down the comments section we’d have to go before someone mentioned an R body!
In terms of styling, I’d actually rate them with or slightly below the GM B bodies, far more attractive to me than the contemporary Panthers. The greenhouse on these cars is the best part of them, nice and light. Compared to the standard 4 door R-body, the standard 4 door Panther looks like a kid’s interpretation of a GM Colonnade sedan.
The R-bodies had a ‘universal’ look to them, you could dress one way down, it looked fine. Dressed way up, they looked every bit the Brougham-era pimptasticness you could ever imagine. These are the ones that look better than the contemporary B bodies.
Realistically, the cars seemed to exhibit a lot of issues, at least according to some folks I knew who owned them back then. A shame more didn’t survive, but I understand why…
Wow, I love the way the Chevy’s wheel openings sweep back behind the wheels instead of curving straight back down. I never really thought about it before, and I was 13 when they came out.
I prefer the Chevy and it could be a Kiwi thing coz I see several B body cars hereabouts but only one Panther and its a later Lincoln stretch not a box.
With the GM downsized cars of 1977, hints of the prior year larger models could be seen in most of the cars. The ’77 Impala had hints of the ’76 model though the only thing the cars had in common was the name Impala. There were no hints of the ’78 LTD with the downsized ’79 models. Ditto for the downsized Chryslers.
Going to disagree there to an extent. They had the same crosshatch grill, the same peaked fenders, and the same stacked three taillights and slanted tail. The roofline is somewhat similar. The mirrors are the same, as are some of the interior parts. The face on the ’78 LTD is a bit more Lincoln-esque, however. But I think Fords still looked like Fords.
Even more than the Fords, there were commonalities between the larger and smaller Grand Marquis; the ’79-’87 model still looked a lot like a shrunken ’73-’79. And of course the ’80 Continental resembled a screwed-up shrinking of the ’79. Ironically the downsized Ford that most resembled its bigger predecessor was the Mark VI coupe mini-me, but its substance was lost in the diet, like a person who takes a weight loss too far, losing the gut but also the shape that made their face attractive.
That is a great point about there being continuity in the GM designs, despite the radical downsizing, but not the Fords. Most people cite how awful the LTD looks in defending their choice of Caprice but that is selling the Chevy design short.
These B-bodies epitomized the brilliant Sheer Look more than any other line, except for the first Seville. Everything that got sheered went on to kick ass. You could even apply it to something as lumpy as a Colonnade coupe and come out with the best selling car in America, that’s how appealing the styling was.
GM could not come up with a worthy encore and when the last of the sheers died so did GM.
The ’77 Impala would definitely be my pick, but color and equipment can really affect these cars looks (the Fords too), It always struck me as such a leap forward from its predecessors. And while the ’80 models were sleeker, in some way, they looked tamer to me, less substantial. I suppose it was the leaner C-pillar.
I always thought the ’79 Fords were awkward, with that too-short wheelbase, and the oddly curving A-pillars. I was just never a fan of these, and still haven’t really come around to them. Perhaps it was too many years of seeing them as NYC taxis, which were unbelievably cramped considering the length.
I always found the sitting positions in these cars completely different. With the Chevrolet Impala/Caprice the dash was high and the seat was low. It felt as if you were sitting on the floor of the car. The Ford sat high, almost too high. Somewhere in between was the perfect car for that market.
You guys with the “sitting on the floor” comments about the Caprice must be talking about the manual seat version. My ’86 Cadillac is technically a C-body but otherwise identical to the B in layout and hip-point. With the 6-way power seats I am able to get plenty high off the floor, with good thigh support to boot. This Cadillac has one of the best seating positions of any car I’ve driven.
Power versus manual seats can make a big difference. On the Mercedes 190E the earlier cars were manual only and had a seat-too-close-to-the-floor feeling. The power seats like on my ’90 2.6 solved that problem.
A Panther with manual seats probably felt just like the Caprice, so make sure you guys are comparing apples with oranges.
I have driven more Caprice’s with power seats than with manual. You are correct the power option did give a little help with lifting you off the floor a little. I think the dash of those cars also contribute to the feeling of sitting so low. I did not experience that feeling in Buicks of that era but did the Oldsmobile, again I believe the dash contributed to the feeling. I am sure seat construction had a lot to do with it too. Domestic seats were/are junk. They may not break away from the floor today in an accident as bad as they did back then but domestic car makers put more thought into cup holders than they do seat constriction.
As for the 190 I never felt I was sitting low in a non power seat in a 190. I got that feeling more in the pre power seat option of the S Class (W116) but found it’s back seat more comfortable than the back seat in my 300SDL.
Having back issues since my teenage years I have always had power seats in my daily driver. Having back problems I have found the higher a seat was from the floor of the vehicle, causing me to bend my knees, the more stress it took off my lower back. I have always found pickups and SUVs comfortable for that reason.
The sitting on the floor feeling can come from both eye level and distance one’s behind is off the floor of the car. This era Impala/Caprice gave me that feeling from both ends:) I never got that feeling in a pickup or SUV.
The B bodies without power seats quite frankly sucked. The seats were much too close to the floor to give a large headroom figure. The split power seats in these cars were massively better than the stock benches, which isn’t saying much. Anybody remember adjusting a bench seat?
The seats in these cars were horrid, the Ford included. The police “buckets” were two slabs of the cheapest foam in the universe that collapsed in no time in taxi use. Without the power seat, your legs were splayed in front of you as you peered over the high cowl. My mom actually liked travelling in the back seat since she thought it was much more comfortable. She was right, too.
For taxi use, we spent a lot of money on interior since the stock materials were so bad in most of the cars, especially the Chevrolets. Interior was also the most expensive thing to do, especially since we did our own fixing.
Looking at brochure photos of the two different cars supports your observation, LeBaron. The drivers in the Fords always appear to be sitting taller and more forward while drivers of the GMs look like they are sitting lower. This has always been my observation from looking at still photos, action shots in movies, and drivers in real life. I doubt the drivers in the Fords all have their seats adjusted higher.
One of my most favorite and least favorite cars of the late 1970s. I thought the Caprice was a fantastic design, and really enjoyed the ones my Pop had as company cars. Chevrolet set the standard at that time for an excellent American sedan. They lost it in later years, and I think Ford was far more successful in evolving the Panther. But the first year Panther? Barf. My grandfather had an awful Baby Blue LTD with the cheap looking fleet special dual headlight front end. It felt chintzy and looked clunky. Simply no comparison.
Chev. But preferably not in two-tone.
I’m with Paul on this one except for the FWD proportions part. I’ve always felt there’s some chicken and the egg going on with that assessment, as if FWD ushered in the long front overhang/short dash to axle look, but really it’s more that the two coincided – Lopping off the area between the dash and wheel was done in the name of space efficiency and whether it was a Panther, a Foxbody, a B/C body or A(G) body all of them got significantly shortened in that area from their predecessors. I just so happened that FWD came about at the same time and, because of the transverse layout, fit right into that footprint.
Very few RWD cars built after 1980 and until very recently(since cars have gotten bigger again) have had “RWD proportions”, save for the BMW and Mercedes Benz anyway.
As for the Panther, it’s worst assets are those square wheel openings and more upright roof. Proportionally I think they’ve got a decent layout and the nearly identical in proportion aero Panthers, in my opinion anyway, look as well proportioned as the ’77 B body (and better than the bathtubs).
I’m old enough to remember when these were introduced in the summer of 1976 and as a fledgling architect was so impressed with the cohesive, elegant design. The one crease that runs as an arc all the way from the leading edge of the front fender to the tail lights is so elegant and accentuated with the two tone color scheme.
GM advertising was brilliant…seeing “THE NEW CHEVROLET” in silhouette in a country or park setting just highlighted the car.
As a future Scirocco owner, the Caprice looked like how Giugiaro would design an American full sized car with the crisp origami lines.
I grew up with a 72 Buick Estate Wagon with a 455 4bbl..My Dad replaced it with a 78 Estate Wagon with the 403 and I believe the THM 400 transmission. The difference between the 72 and the 78 were astounding…The 78 was much quicker, tighter, handled better, rode better and was assembled better.
In every way the GM B-body was a home run…The first Panther wasn’t even close.
As a Buick guy…I found the Caprice the cleanest and most elegant, but I did love the LeSabre sport coupe
A childhood of Buick Estate Wagons. You’ve led a charmed life, my man.
Looking at them in profile, I’m struck by how much more cohesive the Chevrolet looks as a sedan than as a coupe. The bubble-window roofline doesn’t look bad, really, but it bears no relationship to the rest of the body and looks like it was transplanted from some completely different car. We’ve talked before about how cars of the ’60s appear to have been designed as hardtops first with other body styles as afterthoughts, but here, it really looks like the four-door sedan was the clearest realization of the theme.
It takes some effort for me to look at these cars in their original context. Because they survived for so many years and became so ubiquitous as fleet cars, most of my perceptions of them were as boring old cars. The ’77 Impala/Caprice really was an effective piece of design, though. It’s not my thing, but I respect it as a confident and coherent expression of a a concept that knew exactly what it wanted to be.
Easy, Caprice FTW. The coupe does have some vestiges of its ’60s Impala roots. You have to squint real hard to see it, but the influence is there. Its a 2″ drop, nice paint job, some lakes pipes and mag wheels away from looking like a real nice sled. The re-do with the formalized roof completely craptifies the look of the car though. Sedans aren’t my bag, and this is no exception but it does make a smart looking cop car. My dad had at least one of these as a company car. With a trunk loaded down with 700 lbs of tools it was a solidly built highway pounder and a good work car.
The panther definitely has a stodgy, formal look that screams ‘old man’s car’ as some have pointed out. Again, it looks best…er…least bad…in uniform but as per usual, Ford is behind the GM curve when it comes to styling. I cant believe Im actually saying this, but it actually wears the sedan body the best. The coupe just looks contrived. Again, I remember at least 2 box CV’s serving company car duty for my dad. Same workload, same solid reliable results. Like the Chebby, it got the job done without a whimper or a smidgen of excitement or style.
Truth be told, Im pretty neutral on either though as I like my Kool Aid in Mopar flavor. Insert a Diplomat or Gran Fury on the M body and I’d lean towards those but barely…unless an M bodied coupe weaseled its way in!
My first car when I was 19 years old back in early 1985 was a used 1979 Caprice Classic 4 door. Two tone…..Black primary color with silver secondary color on the sides of the car. 305 V-8 with 3 speed auto. I waxed that car once a week and used to get compliments on how shiny it was….When I bought it in early 1985, it had 58,000 miles on it and when I traded it in early 1990, it had 89,000 miles. I traded it in for a 1987 S-10 Blazer with a 2.8 V-6 that could not get out of its own way….the 2.8 engine was gutless…and I traded the S-10 after 2 years up to a Full size K-Blazer with 350 V-8 I should have skipped buying that S-10 and held onto the Caprice a few years longer. I like the Chevy design better than the boxy Ford of that era….but I do not like the 1991-96 aero-Caprices…..The Crown Vics from 1998 and newer with the more formal roofline appeal more to me than the aero Caprices from 1991 and up….When I see one of the box era Ford wagons, the song ‘Holiday road’ pops into my head with Clark Griswold at the wheel of his Wagon Queen Family truckster.
Ive had the misfortune of test driving a shortie ’86 S-10 4×4 pickup with the 2.8 and 5spd. Yea, TOTALLY gutless, and in one of the lightest possible packages. Worst case scenario would be an extracab 4×4 with 2.8/auto. The K-5 sounds like a sweet ride, as Chevys go.
Yep, the K-5 was a 1991 model, the last year of the body style dating back to 1973….It was two tone also…..Black primary with gold secondary….My first three vehicles were all two tone colors
Nah-I think the 1979 Chrysler Newport featured the other day looks better than these 2….
I agree. As far as looks go the St.Regis in 79 in is my favorite looking 4 door of that period. Also thought the 80 Cordoba and Mirada where great looking. I owned a 79 Mercury Marquis Brougham 2 door. Got it new in 1980 for 1000 under invoice. Less than what was being asked for a used 1980 Skylark which I was cross shopping at the time. My Marquis was identical to the one shown in the brochure that year. I always thought as stated above the B’s looked droopy particularly in the rear, even more so with the downsized A’s in 78. That was fixed with the 1980 update. The Marquis and LTD upper models also had the door panels similar to what was found in the C models from GM. My Marquis drove great but did have its malaise era issues.
Chevy B-body all the way in ’77-’79, and I thought the Chevy was the best looking of the bunch, with Oldsmobile the worst with its too-boxy front end.
I agree though that the ’92 Aero Vic was quite nice. My employer had one as a company car, an LX with the handling package, dual exhausts and (woo-hoo!) 210 hp. I really liked the no-grille look; too bad that the old curmudgeons forced Ford to tack on a grille just one year later.
That Crown Vic and (hard to believe) an ’86 MR2 with a 5-speed felt to be the fastest accelerating cars I’ve ever driven. (I haven’t had the experience of driving today’s 300+ hp V6s, let alone cars like the Mustang V8, Corvette, or Hellcat Hemis.)
Cars without grilles just look…incomplete. Aero Panther, Infiniti Q, Honda Civic, Hyundai something, Taurus…just didn’t work for me. Car needs a face.
I think another indicator of the Chevy’s more attractive design is displayed with both car’s final year before going to their more “aero” next gen body styles. The Caprice had aged well, especially with the composite headlights and in a more modest trim level. The police investigator cars were especially sharp. The Crown Vic still looked 70’s-ish.
The last year of this body with the top of the line trim was a very handsome car. I wish I had taken the time to test drive one.
I am going to get flamed, but I love the Broughamed-out look of the late ’80s. I think that is where these large sedans really shone. The last year of the Caprice in high-level LS Brougham guise was the pinnacle of the Caprice run for me, a fitting swan song for the boxy Bs. The pleated seats in either Prima velour or leather would not have been out of place in a Cadillac. And the car finally had modern fuel-injection and transmission.
Well, then…here y’go!
(the box Caprice did not get modern/real fuel injection, though, just throttle-body “injection”. Real (port) injection didn’t come until a few years into the bathtub Caprice run.)
I’d argue that Chevy beat Ford in the TV commercial department as well:
Chevy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33HVRcWYwNs
Ford: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEWnxqv644Y
You are so right…Both the print advertising and TV were spot on. Just the fact that there was so little audio in the Chevy commercial sort of shows how the car speaks for itself.
Yeah, the B-body wins, hands-down. GM really owned design in the first wave of downsizing, at least until the A-bodies. I can only think of the aeroback Century and Cutlass and the Cimmarons as real misses, design wise, and they always came across as more solid and better-finished than their Ford and Chrysler counterparts. Even the derided A-bodies looked cohesive, if too similar. But they really started losing the plot with the next generation, and you have to wonder why.
How about a Panther / R-body match for the Silver Medal?
BTW, looking at the Panther up top, it looks like it’s not only the front wheels that are off center – the rears seem to be oddly pushed forward. It’s like they gave the chassis team and the body team different measurements. Also, wheel-shaped wheel wells almost always work best.
Another observation I notice is that Ford and Chevy flip flopped wheel well opening designs when comparing the downsized models to their predecessors.
The 73-78 Full sized fords had round wheel openings while the 71-76 full size Chevy wheel openings were more rectangular.
The 77 downsized Chevy featured the round wheel openings while the Ford went to rectangular wheel openings…….The round openings seem to work better on the downsized Chevy while the rectangular wheel openings on the downsized Ford seem to make its boxy shape look even more awkward.
Especially when it comes to the 87-90 Caprices they win hands down in the looks department, but I am biased since I have loved Caprices for 10 years. B-Bodies for sale are much easier to find than Panthers for sale that is for sure.
Sad to say, but the B pillar on the Ford looks like it was done in someone’s shed. Easy win for GM.