(first posted 10/14/2015) I am always fascinated by the design development for car programs. Seeing the options, the decisions made, the struggle to develop a vehicle that meets engineering parameters while retaining marketable styling—it all makes for a great read. When the 1977 Caprice/Impala was unveiled and became a smash hit, Motor Trend did some extensive behind-the-scenes coverage of the design development. So let’s take a peek inside GM’s design studios, circa the mid-1970s.
While this article mostly centered on the design for the full size Chevrolet, it did offer a glimpse into some of the other B-body designs. The bottom image on this page is a concept for Pontiac’s full size sedan. While no B-body 4-door of this generation saw C-pillar windows, the greenhouse concept from this car was used for the downsized A-body LeMans in 1978.
Bill Mitchell was right about the transformational nature of the downsized B-body program. These were excellent forward-looking designs. Unfortunately, he was wrong in predicting that these good looking, well-proportioned designs would set the pace for GM’s styling in the 1980s. If only Chuck Jordan had been named Mitchell’s successor when he retired in 1977, then the prophecy might have come true.
Also as part of their comprehensive 1977 Car of the Year write-up on the Caprice, Motor Trend offered still more behind the scenes coverage of the design development of the downsized Chevrolet full size cars.
Motor Trend also covered the design for chassis components in addition to exterior styling. While the computers being used in the pictures look comical today, at the time they were state-of-the-art, and undoubtedly very expensive. It was an advantage that deep-pocketed GM could easily afford at the time.
It’s always interesting following the thought process. And how the form is refined during the way towards a finished product.
Bill Mitchell always had a keen eye for Pininfarina. And one can see traces from the Rolls-Royce Camargue and the Fiat 130 Coupe in the 1973 clay model Coupe. I don’t think it was an outright cribbing, more a sort of mutual respect for each other and some sort of convergent evolution. Some design aspects will always be more in vogue during certain times. I also think it’s interesting the six-window treatments are very similar to Pininfarinas suggestion for a new Jaguar, what eventually became the XJ40. Though Pininfarinas concept car is from the mid-70’s.
The six-window treatment, of course, ended up on the Malibu a year later. The Malibu also adopted a forward-canted nose, which some of the earlier proposals featured.
I just quickly scanned this post, saw the pictures and immediately thought of this Jag concept, which for some reason always stuck in my mind.
the six window treatment is almost a direct lift and modernization of the 73-77 A-body sedan treatments
this is my 77 Malibu Classic sedan, the rest of the A car sedans all had the same greehouse
That computer actually looks pretty advanced- there’s an image of a frame on it! Pretty advanced for the time. It has always fascinated me how “perfect” those clay models turn out. Real artists!
Back then, 3D computer graphics were usually vector-based monochrome, as the memory required for high-resolution color bitmaps, like we have now, was very costly. I think that’s what you saw in the 1st “Star Wars” movie. The engineer in the photo is probably using a graphics terminal attached to a mainframe which had the horsepower to do the math. The vector-based Tektronix 4014 terminal was very popular, and is still possible to emulate in X Windows on most operating systems.
Evans & Sutherland were innovators in the 3D graphics field during the ’70s, specializing in flight simulators.
I only knew vector graphics from Asteroids, Defender, and Tempest…. well that and oscilliscopes.
Those Atari console classics Asteroids, Battlezone, & Tempest were vector-based but unlike O-scopes, had a digital vector generator updated by a 6502 at high rate.
I miss my Vectrex.
I think Neil was intending to refer to the Atari Star Wars arcade game, which used similar vector graphics like Tempest, allowing for a 3D effect.
The ‘computer’ graphics in the original movie were probably done by animating transparencies.
I think car designers have become are far too reliant on computers for rendering, clay was where it was at as far as aesthetic refinement was concerned, use the computers to make the structure fit the aesthetics, not the other way around.
This is my outsider’s guess: Computer-Aided Design (CAD) tools, along with numerically-controlled (NC) tool & die fabrication, allows much more complex body panels than they would’ve attempted before, allowing blobby styling such as is popular now. But even if they start with clay models, they can always scan its shape, using a sweeping ranging-laser, into the computer.
Boeing used 3D imaging for recent airliners to work out component fit problems without an engineering mockup.
Not really, probably the most complex bodies were built before computers came about by coachbuilders in the 1930’s, things like the Bugatti Type 57 Atlantic or the “round door” Rolls-Royce.
Ironically now they have CNC tools for carving clay models, that do the ‘grunt work’ with humans still doing the final finishing including removing the tool marks left by the machines.
The bodies built by coach builders are bespoken and individually built, which permit the complex design. The result is the lengthy process of hammering and shaping the sheet metal. Not to mention steep price for custom bodies.
However, the idea of mass production in the past was to build as many components by hand in short time and for less cost as Henry Ford proved with Model T. Spending hundreds of hours building and assembling the car might be fine for Rolls-Royce but not for Chevrolet. Hence, finding the compromise in design and assembly.
Today, it is possible to use the computer technology, namely robots and specialised tools, to build far more complex design cheaply and quickly. Take unibody MacBook notebook computer milled from a solid piece of aluminium slate with holes cut by laser.
CAD design really comes a long way in those decades.
It’s much more affordable and user-friendly, and it’s one of the backbones for engineering students.
…Baja SAE?
I don’t know WHY, GM found it a good idea to use the same angular rear end and taillight treatment from the 1975-77 Chevy Monza coupe, to put on the more upscale 1977 Impala/Caprice Classic concept in the top first initial sketches.
Leave it to GM, to rehash designs from the parts bin.
Great, now I’m getting flashbacks of my green 75 Monza Towne Coupe. 🙁
* 1975-77 Monza Coupe tail lights
That’s a later version from ’78-later IIRC; the earlier design had narrower lights without the amber section and fitted with silver trim to fill the gap between the taillights and licence plate on deluxe models. Same basic shape though.
The more unusual design touch they first used on the Monza was that unusual beltline drop right behind the A-pillar, one I alway thought looked strange when it was reused on the ’77 B and C bodies. This design quirk was toned down only on the Cadillac in 1977, but the Cadillac shape spread to the other divisions for the ’80 facelift.
I always liked the version with the smaller side window
That particular setup doesn’t exist from the factory, the opera windows were part of a rear 3/4 vinyl top option. Whoever restored/customized that car likely did a lot of hand finishing to make what might well be a fiberglass insert work without the vinyl cover.
Sarcasmo, I had exactly the same thought as you – the rear three-quarter view on that one rendering looks just like a “big” ’78+ Monza Towne Coupe.
Better pic:
Jaguar XJ12 PF, from 1974.
I see in this car the 1991 Caprice done right!
The fussy styled steel wheels are a pretty jarring contrast to the sleek body lines here.
A good read. My only quibble is the way they claimed that the car would still seat six in comfort. The loss in width was noticeable in these, and it was the middle passenger (front or back) who paid the price. But then, no American sedan was ever really good for six passenger comfort anyway.
I think the main value of the 6-passenger sedan was when you had house guests & needed “overflow” capacity so all could travel together. Here, discomfort for the “middlemen,” usually kids, was a small price to pay.
I found the ’77 to have *much* less usuable space for 3-across seating than the ’76, at least in back where I frequently sat as a kid. The center hump was bigger and the padding over it on the seat cushion was thinner; the doors were much closer to the edge of the seat (shoulder room was down from ’76, one thing they avoided mentioning), the rear wheelwells intruded more, the front edge of the cushion tapered off at the edges more so you could squeeze your legs through the narrower door, the perimeter frame rails intruded more into the footwells, and the outer seatbelt buckles were several inches from the edge of the seatbacks. All these things conspired to make it all but impossible to sit on the last 6 inches on either side of the rear seat, making 3-across seating way more uncomfortable than it was in the pre-downsized models.
Also, the cargo space in the ’77 wagons was much less than the ’76.
My experience with this was moving from a 68 Chrysler Newport to an 84 Olds 98. I had three small kids and could easily attach three child car seats across the Chrysler’s back seat. I could not do that with the Olds, as there was just enough room taken out so that there was not room for a child seat in the middle position. Fortunately, both cars were second cars that were not pressed into kid duty that often.
Having grown up i a family that had a 72 Estate Wagon and then a 78 Estate wagon, I can attest to the fact that although smaller, the 78 was so much more efficient and kept the critical dimensions. A 4x 8 piece of plywood could still fit between the wheel wells and although the 78 was definitely smaller, the wasted space from the clamshell tailgate and the required slope for the retractable tailgate window was downright silly.
The 403 was much quicker than the 455 and the ride, sound isolation and handling was infinitely better……They were truly groundbreaking cars!
I think your last sentence really summarizes the situation.
The number of people that bought these for regular and long distance three across seating was always minimal, and in cases like my family, the years when we had three kids across the back on a long vacation were minimal, and it never happened when we were all fully grown. Admittedly, we did have an old school ’76 LTD in those few years, so we had about as much space as you were going to find.
I get a kick out of the occasional carp I hear on CC about front seats not retaining true three across room when the seats became split designs with fold down armrests. On a few occasions as a very small child, I recall sitting between my dad and grandfather in the middle front of very traditional sofa like benches in full size late ’60s Chevys. There was nothing luxurious about the experience even when I was three feet tall. But, being in front with the guys with still a hell of a treat that I really loved – mom, grandma and my sister could have the rear. These were 2.5 hour road trips so my grandparents could visit their old haunts after they moved to be near us. Grandpa’s Caprice coupe was so much cooler than our Impala sedan that even the disadvantages of the coupe were irrelevant.
We took a 10-12 hour one way trip to Philly one thanksgiving, probably 1975 or so. My father borrowed a partner’s 74 Continental sedan. It was 6 of us: 2 adults, 2 early/mid teens and 2 toddlers. It was a really big car that got awfully small.
One year, we had to go to the Cincinnati airport to pick up Wifey’s parents who came to town for a visit. Of course, our 2 kids had to come along.
6 people plus luggage for a week in our 1990 Plymouth Acclaim! Our daughter sat in the front middle with just the folded-up armrests for a seat back – she was 16! Our son sat in back with grandma & grandpa – he was 18!
Although only a 45 minute drive each way, it was not fun at all, especially up and down I-75 through town.
Ahh… memories.
Certainly the biggest sedans were not intended to carry six adults for any length of time. But a family of six, where the 2 youngest children are not teenagers would fit. I had 5 siblings and were did not get a wagon until I was in high school. Now it would be illegal.
Yes, Jp… The 1977 B bodies had the interior space to seat six, whether in questionable comfort or not(depending on the proportions of said passengers),…
But with all RWD cars, that transmission and driveshaft tunnel tends to rob the middle passengers of leg room and foot placement.
I think the ’58-’60 Lincolns could seat 4 across with ease. Of course you had to really want a Frankencar to get those kinds of dimensions.
I have this MT issue somewhere, it’s fascinating to get an inside glimpse of how the B-bodies were developed. I think the 1977 Chev Caprice is one of the most beautiful full-size cars ever designed, so elegant esp. with two-tone paint and the right wheels.
So interesting to see the progression of the downsized ’77’s!
I wonder why they dropped the 6-window styling (rollover protection? Increased stiffness?). I like it better, and it would have made the rear seat area feel roomier and improved the driver’s outward visibility. I rode in the back of both ’77-later B-bodies and the similarly-sized ’73-’77 Colonnade sedans frequently back in the day, and the large 5th and 6th window in the Colonnades made them feel so much airier than the B’s.
I don’t know for sure, but part of it may have been to create a more upscale look and also to differentiate the cars from the Colonnade sedans, which carried over for ’77. The exterior dimensions of the Colonnade and the new B-body were pretty close.
Jo Istenem Mad Magyar you’re right! About the dimensions.
After all, the ‘73-77 Colonnades and the 77 B-downsized shared, to a large degree, the same underpinnings/frame.
Oy vey…the myth that refuses to die because people refuse to quit repeating it.
(a wheelbase, yes, they shared that.)
Daniel Stern:
I did say “to a large degree”.
But I’m sure I saw documentation somewhere that the A-frame was “modified”(length, width, shape?) to accommodate the new full-size bodies planned for model year 1977 onward.
Even “large degree” is a no-sale. This idea has been comprehensively debunked numerous times here on CC.
Another possible reason why they abandoned the idea of a window in the C-pillar: Noise.
I agree, leaving a proper C-pillar would have allowed them to put a sound pad inside. I discovered such a piece of sound insulation in the rear C-pillars of my 74 Vega back in the day when I was removing some trim.
My own personal opinion is that while eliminating the hardtop made the cars safer, the styling is not so good. I think the sedans are not bad looking, but the B-pillar is very obvious and the frames around the door windows are too pronounced. The Caprice from the 60’s is much nicer looking, but of course not as good in a roll over.
The B-pillar and window frame styling is greatly improved on the 1991 Caprice although the body is not.
When occasionally thinking about how I would have run GM to avoid their follies of the ’80s, I start with the ’78 A body 4 doors and install operating rear door windows.
But, I realized at some point that the very clean 6 window styling was a result of those fixed door windows. There would have to have been a fixed portion to the glass and an extra post to make an operating door window.
We’ve all long assumed that the lack of an operating window was a beancounter move, but I wonder if it was really a styling move to keep the clean 6 window look like we see in these sketches. Installing a trimmed out 6th window with an operating swingout vent in the C pillar had to cost about as much as a proper operating window in a four window car.
Did Mr. Mitchell assume that with ever higher air conditioning take rates that this look was too good to pass up?
The fixed glass was done to increase the usable width of the rear seat. The arm rest area is inside the door.
One fix to the problem of a window that is too large to fit entirely inside the door is to only allow it to roll half way down. GM was an early adopter and claimed that it was a “safety feature”.
I’ve heard that argument. But in actuality it was hard to sit close enough to the door to really use that space. The seats in this era took on more contouring, especially in the case of high-end A bodies like the Cutlass Supreme Brougham. The argument sounds more like a salesman’s quick and dirty selling point when competing against the Fairmont
Besides, GM never did this again, even in the smaller X, J, and FWD A bodies that followed.
GM must have gotten an earful from their customers about the lack of roll-down rear windows, as did Chrysler for the very early K cars with a similar arrangement. I think the tilt-out approach would have worked if the whole pane tipped out and back a little, creating a slot in the front for air to enter and in the back for it to exit; the problem with GM’s design was that it could only exhaust air from the front, so the rear passengers were dependent on the front ones for any real air volume.
The 1981 K cars didn’t take advantage of the fixed glass to provide a recessed armrest in the door panel like the GM cars did, so it was a pure bean-counter move. They did have small pop-out vents in the back portion of the door window.
I have a 2004 Ford Focus and my partner has a 2006 Focus, on both cars the rear windows go down about 2/3 of the way, yet there is no partial fixed pane of glass in the door, just a very small black filler panel in the back corner.
GM did this in the A-bodies to save weight, cost, and create more elbow room. They must have known it would never be popular because the X-body designs would’ve been locked in when they were introduced in fall of ’77 (X bodies debuted 18 months later) and the X-bodies all had roll down rear windows with plenty of elbow and should room in the back seat. Also, several years later the J’s come out and they also had roll-down rear windows. No excuses for GM please!
I don’t even have to weigh in on this topic! Everyone knows how I feel…
Having owned a ’73 and ’82 B body, I can tell you that the highlighted paragraphs are quite accurate.
I had to do a doubletake on this one…..looks very Holdenesque (HQ/HZ)…..
The wheel trims look pretty close to what appeared on the Holden Premiers
Man…if only the coupe could’ve materialized exactly like those drawings! Granted, the influence is definitely there, but as it was drawn, that car would’ve been an instant classic.
It did as the 1978 malibu coupe
As bloated and ugly as the previous generation GM full size cars had become, they had nowhere to go but up. They did a good job.
Fratzog: “go up”
As in, taller?
Great article, thanks for sharing!
The 2 door concept is very nice. Besides the Fiat 130, it reminds me of the Ferrari 365 GT4. This must be a good thing.
I’ve been trying to understand the different American brands. GM seems to be the style leader, while Ford seems to excel at marketing (finding new niches, e.g. Mustang). Still haven’t figured out Chrysler yet.
Chrysler always had the best engineering. They were the first of the big three to have unit body construction. The TorqueFlite was the best automatic transmission. The hemi was the best engine. The torsion bar front suspension gave Chrysler cars the best handling. If anyone could have combined GM’s design, Ford’s niche finding and Chrysler’s engineering they would have had an unbeatable company.
Chrysler designed their cars as if they only cared about the engine and drivetrain, and everything else was less important. When you bought a Chrysler product, you were buying a larger heavier more robust drivetrain and the car around it was usually less equipped, less attractive and less refined…but not always. Some Chrysler products were quite attractive and some were very luxurious.
But that was the old days.
Currently, Chrysler products do not seem to have that design character.
In the late 60s into the 70s, many Chrysler products had bodies about as durable-feeling as if they were made of papier mache.
Thanks for the insight everyone!
I see a lot of ’78 A-body in those Caprice concepts!
If Caprice had been launched that way it might
have really stunned the auto-buying public.
The 1977 Chevrolet full-sized sold like hotcakes. I think they were sufficiently stunned.
A rare but precious insight into the development of one of the most
significant redesigns in GM history! Thanks for finding and posting.
It has been said – on Curbside and on other automotive sites, and
usenet groups, that the 1977 B-Fullsize, while entirely new sheet
metal, electrical, suspension, and seat designs, was simply “slapped
onto” the frame/chassis of the existing A-Midsize.
Nowhere is that step mentioned in this article, so at this point
I believe it might have been done that way, but am awaiting
verification from a GM source or one close to GM.
You don’t need a GM source for the answer. The 116″ wb chassis from Colonnade mid-size sedans was obviously a starting point, and the frame and suspension are quite similar, but not the same. Some suspension parts interchange;others don’t.
Nothing wrong with that, as the Colonnade chassis was new in 1973, and essentially state of the art for its kind. The Colonnades were the best handling cars in their class.
The big change was a totally new body for the B-Bodies, which was much roomier and space efficient than the Colonnades.
There was simply no reason for GM to throw out an excellent frame and suspension design for these new cars; a few modifications was perfectly adequate.
The GM perimeter frame and suspension really had no place further to go to be improved, except perhaps for independent rear suspension. That was not in the cards at the time.
Paul N: “Nothing wrong with that, as the Colonnade chassis was new in 1973, and essentially state of the art for its kind. The Colonnades were the best handling cars in their class.”
I’m not disputing any of those things. It’s just that I’m
adhering to the three most important rules in reporting:
Fact-check, fact-check, and… fact-check. So yes, some
GM documentation would be useful. Otherwise, what’s
been repeated all over the web about “New B-body on
the A-body frame” is as good as Fox “News”. ?
My answer was a distillation of comments left here at numerous posts on these cars over the years. They were written by guys who have worked on these cars extensively. One does not need to be a GM engineer to be able to see that the frames were very similar in their design and construction, with some small differences. Same for the suspension: if certain parts are interchangeable, then they are of course the same. Some suspension parts are; some not. But by looking at them visually, it’s obvious that the basic design is essentially the same.
The point is: I used to make assumptions about this issue. Now that I’ve heard from several sources here who have in-depth experience, I’m passing this on to you in condensed form: the frames and suspensions of these two cars are very similar, but not exactly the same.
Unlike Fox news, I don’t have an agenda in this issue. If you can find a better source, do let us know.
Do you realize that Ford used essentially the same basic frame and suspension design for all of their full size cars (Ford, Mercury, Lincoln) from 1965 (Lincoln from 1970) and mid size cars (1972 on) until they were replaced by the Panther cars?
There’s just not much reason to throw out a frame design and suspension design if it’s been tooled up and does the job.
Interesting articles. The takeaway quote here is : “In design, there is ‘vogue.’ Overnight those other cars are going to look wrong. They’re too long, too heavy, old-fashioned and just plain out of style.” What a statement of confidence.
Of course, the same thing could be said about the Caprice only a few years later.
flowmotion:
And the downside to all of this is that cycles for ground-up
redesign and even refreshes have become overly shortened,
from 8-10 years to only 2-4 years. A waste of resources
if you ask me – in the modern sense.
Once the economy began improving and gas prices leveled off during 1982, sales of the GM B-bodies bounced back strongly, particularly the Chevrolet and Oldsmobile versions.
And while some people don’t care for the 1980 facelift of the B- and C-bodies, I thought that it was an improvement for the Oldsmobile, Buick and Cadillac versions. They still looked fine in the early 1980s. The Oldsmobile Delta 88 and Buick Electra, in particular, were quite handsome.
I like the first photos in the article, really radical redesign,
as well as the very last(page 90). That one shows the
design almost wrapped up – prototype greenhouse on top
of finalized clay body, with launch on the left.
the ’77 Caprice was a beauty, impressive engineering for downsizing the best seller. Too bad, though, that they didn’t use the bolder prototype designs. That’s what put me off of American cars around the end of the 80’s, they looked too much alike and designs weren’t really designs but compromises. The executives at Ford & GM were just going to cocktail parties & expensive vacations while the ship was sinking.
They were mentally exhausted from all the downsizing (car and manufacturing) and FWDing of the previous decade, to say nothing of the pummeling from Japan.
In the background of the second page is a drawing of the 4 door with the production coupe’s creased backlight. Just as well that didn’t make it.
At the end of the last thread about these cars, I said they deflated the vinyl roof era, so I think Mitchell was proved right. I can’t remember seeing any 2 or 4 door Chevies with full vinyl, though nearly all the Cadillacs had at least half.
I may be wrong, but the ’75-6 Seville was GM’s first mainstream, non-stripo car to have framed side glass since the 50’s, and all of these were, yet the 2nd gen Seville was their last frameless 4 door.
Y’sure? Looks to me like a 4-door with a quarter glass behind the rear door.
Sorry, it’s the 3rd page, middle photo. Can’t count today.
Ah, now I see it! Yeah, that’s really not a good look there, but the body and side glass lines are very different to the production design. I still suspect that bent backglass might could’ve looked quite good on the 4-door cars. It would have taken carefully researched and executed design of the C-pillar and quarter glass, but GM had that design skill and talent in house when these cars were developed.
“Today it’s smart to diet: it’s a very important thing in our lives. It’s not smart to be overstuffed and bulbous. If you were a millionaire, you wouldn’t go out and buy a 14 room house. You’d probably have a ranch house and a million dollars in electronic gimmickry in it. It’s just not smart any more to have the biggest.”
Well he certainly missed that prediction by a mile. Just ask the airlines about slim passengers today. As for the millionaire, forget that the billionaire, a 14 room house is A ranch house and consequently nowhere near big enough today. We need both a massive estate and maybe a rocket or two.
Not only that…well, full points and kudos to Bill Mitchell for the Sheer-Look B-bodies, but:
Yes, very good; well done. Who put the puffiness in the previous cars, please?
Excellent, excellent. Who pinched in the previous roofs and created all that excessive tumblehome and useless wasted space, please?
Uh-huh. And who designed many of those too-long, too-heavy cars, please?
Agreed. Whose work was that, please?
Yes, you did, Mr. Mitchell. And I mean “you” collectively and individually.
He deserved his victory lap; the ’77 B-bodies were an exceptionally good design that did indeed set strong and durable trends and all that. But he was directly responsible for a large percentage of those badly flawed previous designs he decries here.
They produced what they thought people wanted, until they realized they’d gone too far.
Now we have 80″ wide SUVs without tumblehome or turn under, but they stick a giant console in the middle, so the 2 seats are as narrow as a compact’s–no manspreading allowed. And everybody’s getting fat ‘cept Mama Cass.
Situation is Such Yours Truly conceived Designed and first drew the images used on the Seville; plus the Downsized full-size rear wheel drive Cadillacs Buicks Oldsmobiles Pontiacs and Chevys produced for 1977 and beyond:; also the 1979-1985 Eldorado Toronado Rivera. What’s amazing is General Motors Developed and produced my designs to reflect in detail the images as originally drawn.