The future troubles facing Detroit’s carmakers were evident by the start of the ’70s. If there had been signs during the prior decade, by the dawn of the ’70s they couldn’t be denied anymore. So much so that compacts were the talk of the moment, with the release of the Vega and the Pinto. The automotive world was changing, and even Detroit was aware of it; imports had been gaining in sales steadily, safety and pollution regulations were coming into effect, and the industry was turning global. But would Detroit be up to the task?
In September of 1970, Car And Driver’s New Car issue addressed the changing climate; “Detroit is entering the 1971 model year in a mood of cautious pessimism… Small cars seem to be the only sure thing. Those divisions that have them, Ford, Chevrolet, and American Motors are patting themselves on the back.” Performance cars, the industry’s darling during the ’60s, were “now spoken in tones usually reserved for funerals.” Only Chrysler remained fully committed to them, showing the company had developed a curious knack for lousy timing.
While GM and Ford touted their newfound commitment to compacts, the rest of their models didn’t follow that mantra; with some remaining as large as ever, and others increasing in size. In the case of Chevrolet’s Impala, its expansion through the years “accumulated to an astounding total size.” The ’71 model was larger than a Cadillac a few years prior, and showed the car had grown “less by plan than by lack of restraint.” Its cautious evolutionary styling further suggested a “car that continues with very little attention to purpose or concept.”
While the car was indeed new, there were questions regarding how much of a good investment the whole effort was; “This car, which seems never to change significantly, is altogether different than the Impala of a year ago -at a fantastic expense… to do the same job in the same way.” The all-new for ’71 Impala placed “the Detroit small car flourish into perspective – more like a ripple than a wave.”
With Car and Driver being an enthusiast publication, there was little love for the new ’71 Mustang, which had “ballooned another notch closer to an intermediate sedan.” Hanging on to Ford’s racing cachet, the new styling was meant to ape the Mark IV racer. The ’71 ‘Stang had some evolutionary performance improvements, like a revised suspension and variable-ratio steering, though nothing really groundbreaking. The new Mustang was “technically a better car,” but its growth was a detracting factor. The market generally agreed and a reinvention of the model would arrive in ’74.
Mercury’s repurposed Maverick/Comet offers an interesting insight into the brand’s steadily decreasing prestige. At the time, the ‘new’ Comet was considered part of the “revitalization of the Lincoln-Mercury division,” as it needed to boost sales numbers. By that date, Lincoln-Mercury’s wares covered the whole market spectrum, from the premium Continental Mark III to the compact Comet, and the sporty import segment with the Capri. The text seems generally supportive of the Comet, as there was hope such diversification would keep the division alive in the long term.
Thanks to hindsight, we know the new compacts were not the game changers the industry needed. And the “1971’s Big Breed” title was rather fitting regarding Detroit’s new models. In the following decade events outside of anyone’s control did bring some surprises, but as period publications show, much of what the industry was about to face was forewarned; or at least hinted at. That Detroit’s carmakers endured an ordeal in spite of their ample resources and forewarning, speaks more of its insular corporate culture and hubris.
All in all, a remarkably prescient piece. C&D was at the top of their game.
Of note – the almost throwaway line at the end of the Comet preview predicting a Mercury-badged Pinto. As we all know this would come to pass in 1975 with the Bobcat (1974 in Canada), but there is no way that C&D had access to Ford’s product pipeline that far into the future in 1970.
Also prescient: The prediction of increased parts sharing between GM cars, which as we all now now would eventually include V8 engines and even body panels, which would culminate in the famous Fortune magazine cover in the 1980’s showing GM’s indistinguishable FWD full-sized cars.
Also prescient: The prediction of increased parts sharing between GM cars, which as we all now now would eventually include V8 engines and even body panels, which would culminate in the famous Fortune magazine cover in the 1980’s showing GM’s indistinguishable FWD full-sized cars.
Chassis design sharing made a lot of sense. While the old way was to allow each division to have their independent chassis designs, by the 1960s they had all pretty much evolved to the same basic design. No longer were there the Buick’s using their unique rear coil springs and torque tube drives compared to Oldsmobiles with leaf springs and Hotchkiss drives. And gone were the unique chassis designs, like the 1959-64 models with some using a cruciform chassis and others perimeter designs. Things had really come together by 1965 with all divisions using the same basic design. It really made no sense for Oldsmobile to use unique control arms compared to a Chevrolet, when in the end they were fundamentally the same. Ford and Chrysler had been sharing same basic chassis and suspensions prior to GM so it was time for GM to catch up.
As I showed in my article below focusing on Colonnade GM intermediates, once GM did standardize chassis design for its cars, there was still the ability to drastically change the tuning. That article clearly shows that same basic design can be a soft riding poor handling car, to a firm and good riding car. A Buick Century did not ride and handle like a Pontiac Grand Am.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/cc-tech-1973-77-gm-colonnade-chassis-design-corner-carving-through-the-brougham-era/#comment-1643445
This same logic applies to the engines. By this era, all divisions had similar sized engines with similar outputs. Gone were the days of Chevrolets having tiny 6s and Buicks having big 8s. It made no sense for each division to have a 350, 400 or 455(4) engine. While as we know the Oldsmobile 350 engine debacle caused some heat for GM, this was only because customers had been drinking the GM Kool-aid for decades. The reality was that while each 350 had minor advantages and disadvantages and personalty differences, each did the job pretty much the same way. So why have 4 completely different versions with almost no shared parts?
Of course, as pointed out, GM took it too far in the Roger Smith era with virtually all sheet metal being shared. This of course is something that even a person who has little interest in automobiles notices. This was a big mistake that cost GM dearly.
Was there any difference in the frames and suspensions of the GM 1964 A Bodies? That seems to have been the first major step towards chassis consolidation.
Yes, the ’64-’72 A-body chassis was the first major consolidation on chassis design, which made sense with the smaller economy of scale for intermediate sized cars. There were minor chassis component differences during these years (like rear axles) and different chassis lengths were also used for some BOP versions but for the most part they were the same overall design. Parts could be swapped from one brand to another.
Another point on consolidation in 1971 was the E-body Riviera, which started to share chassis components and the body shell with the B/C Body fullsize cars.
The Eldorado and Toronado also were based on the B body.
It took GM until the ’90s to fully flip the ’59-’64 situation for their five car divisions, with similar underpinnings but completely different-looking bodies rather than the reverse. The ’71-’76 big cars had mostly distinct sheetmetal for each marque, but a largely shared greenhouse area; for example the Olds 98 and Buick Electra obviously had the same roof and windows. The early to mid ’90s 98 and Park Avenue though had different side glass (at least on the back door), rear window, door handles, and C pillars. You could tell that they still shared hard points and certain details like the small pieces of glass on the front doors that looked like vent windows but didn’t actually open, but you’d never confuse one for the other. The interiors were also more differentiated than the ’70s or ’80s counterparts were. Bonnevilles, 88s, and LeSabres in those two decades each got different seat trim and dashboards, but the same door panels except for the trim on the upper portion. In the ’90s versions, each brand had entirely different inside door panels with different armrests and switchgear. Some of the smaller GM cars followed this same pattern, like the second-generation N bodies (Grand Am, Achieva, Skylark).
The standardized chassis was a great idea in theory – but they muffed it in 1971 with a terribly loose, floppy structure. Now every large car, from Chevrolet to Cadillac, could boast of a shuddering, quaking body/frame.
True, the 71-76 B/C-bodies were floppy, but I doubt the average Joe buyer cared as much about rigidity as a certain Mopar leaning car enthusiast. 😉 It was probably more the body structure than the chassis itself that lead to the loose feeling. Remember these perimeter frame cars relied on the body for much of its rigidity. But let’s be honest, these cars had many other issues beside a less than tight structure that caused other buyers to stray away. The shared chassis obviously worked well enough for the A-bodies in 60’s, 70’s 80s and the later 1977 downsized B/C Bodies. It also worked quite well for Ford and Mopar intermediate and large cars of the era.
Funny thing about body rigidity…back in 2012 I bought a new Dodge Ram 1500. My uncle went along with me. On the test drive, it was just me and the salesman…despite a center seatbelt, 3 across seating is a myth these days.
Anyway, when we got back, the sales manager asked something like “Didn’t it ride really nice and smooth?” I responded that it actually rode rough. Without missing a beat, my uncle blurted out “That’s because you’re used to a Chevy!”
I do remember Dodge advertising at the time, mentioning how strong and rigid these trucks were. The Chevy I was accustomed to was my Granddad’s old ’85 C-10 Silverado, bought new, and by this time had been in my possession for about a decade. I do remember always hating with that Silverado, how you could see the bed jiggle over bumps and such. But, I guess there’s something to be said for having some flexibility, if I preferred the ride of an ’85 Silverado to a brand new Dodge Ram.
But, maybe GM took it a bit too far with those ’71-76 B/C bodies. The parents of a good friend of mine used to have a ’67 Delmont 88, and a ’76 Delta 88. Both 4-door hardtops. My friend said you could definitely see a lot more flex in the ’76.
I once had a ’69 Bonneville 4-door hardtop. Even though 4-door hardtops aren’t usually known for feeling rock-solid, that one felt pretty sturdy. Very little flex or jiggle, and the doors closed with a nice quality thud. The only area that car seemed to cheap out was the trunk lid. It had a cheap, tinny sound to it when you closed it.
Agree with Tom Halter.
This article is a fine example of why “Car & Driver” was my “go-to” automotive reference source in the 1960’s thru 1990’s.
That line about an upcoming Mercury Pinto is one of those little bits of momentary brilliance that stuck with me when I read the article originally, and has stayed with me in the decades since. In fact, what I really love about line like that is that they’re an excellent reminder that yes, I did read the article when it originally came out.
In the Impala’s defense, standard-sized Fords had gone to a 121″ wheelbase for 1969, and the Fury lineup was bumped up slightly to 120″ that same year. So you could actually argue that Chevy was a bit late to the game, in making their full-sized cars bigger.
I’m surprised the ’71 was only 216.8″ long. I figured they’d be longer than that. But then, a few years later those 5 mph bumpers really swelled up the length of these.
I think my biggest complaint with the ’71-76 B-body (and C-, to a degree) is that for as big as they are on the outside, they’re really not that big inside. Shoulder room is enormous, probably as big as a car ever got, almost pickup truck-like. But, legroom isn’t so generous. And, the trunks weren’t all that big, either. To be fair, legroom’s not so hot in the ’65-70 models, either. I have a ’67 Catalina convertible, and used to have a couple of Dodge Darts, and I swear the Darts had more legroom up front!
The big question is, why? Were there lots of people in the late ’60s complaining their full-size American cars weren’t big enough? I haven’t researched this at all and I was a 5 year old at the time, but I think the answer was clearly ‘no’. That’s why the downsized ’77s (Chevy’s advertising tagline: “Now that’s more like it!”) struck a chord with buyers.
Why bigger? Because they could; it was part of the Detroit mindset: “bigger, glitzier, and more powerful,” as Steve Salmi of the website https://www.indieauto.org/ puts it.
Lots of people were complaining about the creeping bloat, and when my mom was thinking of replacing her ’67 Chevy Bel Air with a 1972 model, we found that the latter was too long to fit in our 1935-era garage.
In the late 1960’s, many buyers were still in the habit of wanting the newest and the best for their money. And in the eyes of many, “best” meant biggest.
By the time GM downsized their B/C bodies for ’77, we were in the wake of an oil embargo and recession, and had to contend with skyrocketing fuel prices and fuel shortages. That was mostly ’74 and ’75. By ’76, sales of bigger cars were starting to rebound somewhat. And, with news of GM downsizing, some people actually rushed out to get the last of the big’uns while they could. In hindsight, GM’s downsized ’77’s were a smash hit, but in the time leading up to that, they were taking a gamble, and probably having some second thoughts, as those big car sales rebounded.
A similar thing happened in ’84-85, when GM did their second-wave downsizing on their big cars. Their timing was horrible on the second go-round though. The cars were downsized TOO much, in a time when the fuel was flowing cheap and easy again, and people were returning to bigger cars.
I wonder how big cars would have ultimately gotten, if it wasn’t for that first oil embargo, and also the government stepping in with fuel economy and emissions standards. I have a feeling that realistically, it wouldn’t have gone on much longer. Most of the size increases over the years had been the low end cars starting to catch up to the high end cars. Despite C&D mentioning a ’71 Impala being about as long as a ’57 Cadillac had been, that’s blowing it out of proportion a bit. The 4-door ’57 Cadillacs were about 216″ long, but the coupes and convertibles were more like 221″. I believe the Lincolns and Imperials were around 224-225″. I think a ’73 Imperial was about as long as a non-limo passenger car ever got, something like 235″. But its length was inflated by those big black rubber blocks the feds let Chrysler pass off as “5 mph bumpers” that year. Taking that extreme out of the equation, I think around 230-231″ was about as big as they got.
Add in that the industry’s response to the original Mustang’s success was “Long-hood-short-deck ALL THE THINGS!” In a 4-door sedan, the only way to do that without compromising rear seat and trunk space is to increase overall length, which they did and (if you read contemporary Popular Mechanics owner surveys) people still complained of smaller trunks and tighter back seats than the pre-Mustang-design era cars they’d had before.
IMO: The last attractive full sized Chevy (and quick, if properly optioned) until the arrival of the downsized 1977 model.
Imo, I love the 1970 model yr of the Big 3 + AMC… In the same way I love the 8ths yrs GM’s ie: 58/68 .. I thought it was cool the b,bodied GM’s Chevelle/Cutlass etc all when rounded body styles… U could tell any car make/model just frm a glance!!!!! Miss those days of beautiful creations!!!
In retrospect, the combination of the Vega and the full sized lineup were absolute proof that General Motors was in trouble. Taking away the clarity of hindsight, back in late 1970 I looked at GM’s full sized cars and my immediate thought was, “What the f***?!?!” Even back then (two years shy of owning my own Vega), I saw something very, very wrong in the GM full sizers.
Especially the station wagons. And it wasn’t just me. I noticed dad kept our 1970 Caprice Estate Wagon until the 1977 models were introduced. We never kept a new car that long, either before or since.
‘71 was where Mustang lost the plot in my opinion. And while derided by many, the Mustang II’s arrival in ‘74, fortuitously timed to fall during Oil Crisis I, kept the nameplate alive until the superior Fox arrived in ‘79.
I enjoyed C/Ds sharp comment about the uglification of the Cougar. Wasn’t that Bunkie Knudsen’s brief influence? Yet in just a couple of years the luxo Cougar was flying off the shelves…
The Mustang II was the right idea but the wrong execution, although strong sales could argue the execution was good enough.
Wow, how long has Patrick Bedard been writing for C/D? I think he still contributes a feature every now and then.
You have to remember that in 1971 the majority of Americans still ascribed to “bigger is better” when selecting a car to buy. “The Greatest Generation”, made up largely of men who fought in the war, were in their mid-40s, probably at the peak of their jobs/careers.
We can, with hindsight, come up with 100 reasons why intermediate-sized cars of the era were just as good, and nearly as spacious inside, as the full-sized cars, but the sales figures don’t lie.
in 1971 the majority of Americans still ascribed to “bigger is better”
All of these many chart posts I’ve done about the decline of big cars and you’re still saying that? In 1970-1971, big cars were down to 33% of the total passenger car market; less if you include light trucks. 33% is hardly a majority. And that percentage was shrinking fast.
The great majority of Americans in 1971 were buying anything but full-size cars.
Yes, right. Sorry.
While you’ve long proven the decline of big cars, back in the day there was still a ‘gut feeling’ attitude towards the “bigger is better” mantra. While not a majority, definitely a loud enough minority. The figures you’ve come up with in the past had to be available to product planners back in the day, yet the manufacturers still produced such behemoths. Obviously, they believed they had a sufficient market to sell to.
Of course they did. At 33%, it was still the biggest single category. And a very profitable one. They obviously kept making these profitable big cars until…they weren’t.
Very well written article; it shows why Car and Driver was the best of the three major buff books in the 1970s and 80s. In September 1970, I had just started college and was very much aware of these new 1971 cars. I had always thought that GM’s large cars were bigger than the preceding generation, but the comparison dimensions shown by C&D between the 1970 and 71 Chevy Impala models show not much difference, in line with what Paul told us a while back in his series on the decline of the big car.
However C&D made a very good point that the length of the full size Chevy had been increasing on average by 0.8 inch annually in the preceding 5 years, so the 1971 model was definitely somewhat bigger (and certainly much more bloated than the Tri-Fives). It would have been interesting to have seen a curb weight comparison between the 1970 and 71 models. One thing that can be said though is that Detroit was still in the bigger is better mindset. “Obvously, this growth business can’t go on or we’ll be driving Fruehauf-sized sedans by the turn of the century.”
BTW, what ever happened to Fruehauf? Their name was so dominant on big rig trailers at the time.
“BTW, what ever happened to Fruehauf? Their name was so dominant on big rig trailers at the time.”
They still exist and have moved back to the USA recently.
I think that, possibly, the Impala’s (and Caprice’s) mission had changed a bit for 1971. It was less of a go-to car for all purposes (the 1973 Chevelle would handle that role), and more of a less-expensive Cadillac. The styling was very Cadillac-like.
The 71 Impala ad looks much like my 72 Caprice Classic, which I bought mainly for size, comfort, and strong front end resemblance to Cadillac (at the time beyond my resources). Long time believer in bigger is always better and OTT excess. My Ultimate LAND YACHT was a 78 Lincoln Town Coupe 🏆. Never should have let it get away. Sad to see what now rules the road, 🤮