(first posted 4/22/2013) Let’s take a look at some advanced styling models for the 1971 Cadillac. The production version was all-new, and somewhat of a departure from previous Cadillacs. Here are some of the various design models that influenced it.
This semi-fastback coupe’s roof line wasn’t used, but it does show other aspects that worked their way into the process.
But not as much as this formal-roof line coupe, which is quite close to the real thing.
Thankfully, this awkward rear bumper and fin treatment didn’t make it. I see that they were trying a symmetrical top-bottom approach back there, but why? It just doesn’t work.
There’s not much question that the ’71 was going to be BIG.
This one also has a variation of that symmetrical rear end, which apparently was under serious consideration. What a battleship!
The top two remind me quite a bit of the sketch done at Chrysler that inspired the 74 Imperial (below).
The third one looks like a cross between an Eldorado and a 72 Caprice.
With the possible exception of the first one, the production 71 Cad was an improvement on all of these. Quality and materials issues aside, it was a very attractive car, especially as a coupe.
They were all smoking the same pipe…especially after Exner & Son penned those retro model kits.
Wow picture number 3 looks more like what ended up on the Chevrolet front end. I cant believe I am saying this but sometimes a Caddy can be too long.
“What a battleship.”
Exactly, in some ways that the perverse attraction.
Man the guns! Batten down the hatches!
(lackey) Their already battened down, Sir.
Well batten ’em down again, we’ll teach those hatches!
The first one says Rivera to me.
I’m not liking the bottom mounted grille on the next couple.
Number 4 doesn’t look all that bad to me and reminds me of early 60’s Caddys.
Riviera was also the first thought I had about photo #1. It’s not bad-looking in the slightest, but replace the Caddy grille with Buick and you might have a more sensible, if less memorable, alternative to the boattail generation.
The first one says warmed-over ’68 Buick LeSabre/Wildcat hardtop coupe.
I’m liking the first clay for some odd reason.
I like the first two clays, too. Very modern considering the ’68-’70 Cadillacs.
What a bunch of ugly cars. Glad we didn’t get them. Agree on 72 impala rear window. Anybody else hate those side scallops as later used on the mid-cycle olds colonades?
Yes, I also hate them, especially on the fake wood wagons.
Some of the egg-crate mini-grilles found there way over to the Olds styling studio for the Toronado, or so it seems.
I think you take those grills and use them instead of the grill in the 3rd pic you really do have a Toronado
I saw these in Collectible Automobile, the oldest concept is the first one, it was dated from 1967, the other 2 are from 68-69. It interesting that the first design study has 0 fins above the deckid.
I love seeing styling concepts like these! It’s an alternate universe of what could have been. It’s funny how, even though styling studios were supposedly kept separate back then between makes (weren’t they?) the models often look like cars from other GM makes. The first mockup was obviously borrowed for the 1970 Riviera, don’t you think? The last mockup reminds me of the 1990s RWD Fleetwood, especially the non-hardtop roofline with door frames curving into the roof. Quite forward-looking!
Except that there was no 1970 Riviera yet, those mock-ups are from 1967. Though there are themes that a designer carries from division to the next, could have been someone from Buicks Advanced Studio was sent over to Cadillac Advanced Studio, some of those Colonade sketches from the other day also had similar themes.
Yeah they are from 67 which is why it makes sense that a lot of those cues were borrowed for, not from the 70 Rivera.
Yeah, that’s what I meant, borrowed FOR the Riviera, so they took this idea and applied it the RIviera for the ’70, which would have been developing around that time (1967).
“There’s not much question that the ’71 was going to be BIG.” This was the age of the Saturn V. They redefined the meaning of BIG.
Yeah, but what were they thinking? When does BIG start edging over the line into diminished returns. How big did they think they were going to get away with?
The thought of downsizing GM’s full size cars started floating around Styling right after the 1971’s came out, way before the gas crisis, many of the styling chiefs saw them on the road and thought they were just too big.
What was the next step after this? 6000lb 21ft Chevrolets and 7000lb 30ft Cadillacs?
2013 Cadillac Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) (AWD) = 7300 lbs.
You do know that GVWR is not the vehicles weight right?
GVWR is not the same as curb weight.
The 4th pic of the rear end almost looks like the back of ’73 DeVilles. Those had tailights divided into two narrow triangles.
Yeah, the first two said Riviera to me too. Now, understanding that clays at this point in development aren’t necessarily supposed to reflect the proportions of the final car, but can be exaggerated to emphasize the important styling cues, the last two look bizarre because of the tiny greenhouse and passenger compartment on the bloated body. I don’t know the actual sizes we’re talking about here, but the proportions look like a Nova passenger compartment with Caddy front and rear clips grafted on.
Some of these hood lengths look like they were dreaming of V-12 or V-16 engines. Cadillac developed some prototype engines earlier in the sixties but the program ended before this time. Hemmings Blog has an SIA Flashback about that with some wild styling studies.
Photos of those engines are here
Those one distributor per bank driven off of the OHC really remind me of the first Lexus V8. I’m also seeing some of the HT4100 in the block design.
I love that last photo, and I like the mirrored fins idea, too, for some reason. You could probably fit an Opel Kadett in the trunk.
Topic for another post:
Styling studies that were much better than the final production vehicle……
Huge cars, but notice how small the doors are. Laughable!
Interesting to see, but this sort of styling is basically brutalist architecture in car form. It’s meant to look heavy, serious, and massive – too much so for my liking.
The upper-lower taillight treatment recalls the skeg fins on ’61-’62 Cadillacs. Interesting that they thought of reviving it, as I can’t think of anywhere else that showed up (the ’60 Olds *sort of* had them but not really.)
And it is interesting to see features that wound up elsewhere at GM…the top model is extremely similar to the ’70 RIviera from the firewall back, the front end of the second model is nearly identical to the ’72 Impala, and the sill creases on the sedan were applied wholesale to the ’73 colonnade Oldsmobiles (the concurrent B- and C-bodies had suggestions of them as well.)
These are so bad they’re almost good. The 1st one has a more Buick feel to it for some reason. Lack of Caddy fins and grille, maybe? Almost human-sized, and interesting detailing, if a little confused in its Caddy cues.
But the two sedans are hideous in so many ways. And the last one is so huge, with such odd proportions. The side treatment found its way onto other GM cars, but on this it makes the pax compartment look even smaller. The epitome of poor space utilization and irrational automotive design.
Early styling studies of whatever the theme tend to be heavy-handed and outlandish. The process is to then evolve the better feature, dismiss the excessive, find a reasonably appealing version to take to production. Mitchell could have spent a bit more time toning down the 1971 lines, but then again, not every design cycle produces consistent masterworks.
The proposed “symmetrical top-bottom approach” looks a bit like the 1973 Deville rear end. With split tail lamps and horizontal bumper, just not as severe.