Carmine,
It's good to have you back!
C F wrote:
> Hello again to all...
>
> I recently read a book called "A century of auto design" (or something
>similar). This was an excellent, fact-filled book that I had trouble putting
>down. However, their coverage of post-Exner Chrysler styling was predictably
>brief and dismissive. Even the Exner chapter was a bit light compared to the
>in-depth coverage of the various GM studio heads.
>
> If you can believe it, there was no mention of the ground-breaking (IMHO) '69
>fuselage cars, nor the '70 E-bodies & '71 B-bodies. I suspect it may have been
>because all three were the work of lesser known designers (John Herlitz on the
>E & Bs) rather than actual studio heads. I does appear that Engel wasn't very
>happy at Chrysler and managed from a distance (according to the book). I spoke
>personally to John Herlitz in 1996, and he didn't seem to have any real
>fondness for Engel.
I agree with you about the fuselage cars, and I think it comes down to several
things. First of all, in my opinion, there is a bias against Chrysler
Corporation in the automotive industry, or at least the automotive press, in
general, and second, from what I have read, some people did not get along with
Engel personally.
The article I mentioned suggests how, for example, a somewhat "lesser" designer
can be elevated to a management position based on his "people skills," while a
more talented designer like Engel is forced to leave a company because of his
alleged lack of people skills. So I think what happens is, designs are not
judged on the basis of design alone. They are judged on the basis (partially)
of the popularity of their designer, and the popularity of the company he
worked for.
So you may have had some kick-**s designs, but if you worked at American Motors
(like Bill Teague) you don't get the hype and the glory that someone who worked
at Ford got.
Anyway, it's a theory . . .
Mark M
>
>
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network