Joseph Dennis recently posted a CC Capsule on the C4 generation Corvette, which prompted discussions on the relative merits of that car’s design. General Motor’s Design Chief at the time was Irv Rybicki, who presided over the bleakest period ever for GM styling. Whether or not you are a fan of the C4 Corvette, it was arguably one of the better styling jobs to emerge from GM during that dark era. But was it the best?
First, the timing parameters. Rybicki was appointed as the Vice President of Design in August 1977, just the third person to ever hold that title. The first was the legendary Harley Earl, who led GM (and the entire industry) to showcase style as a selling tool.
Earl’s successor was the equally talented Bill Mitchell, whose taste and temperament were outsized, leading to some of the most beautiful mass market cars ever produced.
Chuck Jordan was as brash and gifted as GM’s first two design bosses, and particularly since he had shown real flair with small car styling during his stint with Opel–a critical need in the energy conscious era, he would have been the logical successor to Mitchell for the late 1970s and beyond. In fact, Jordan would ultimately get the top design job in October 1986, but only after it was too late and GM’s design leadership had been squandered.
So what happened in between August 1977 and October 1986, you ask?
General Motors had decided that they no longer wanted a strong willed Design Chief who was ready, willing and able to battle with Finance, Engineering, Manufacturing and divisional General Managers to protect and showcase trendsetting styling. Rather, GM’s top leadership decided that after Earl and Mitchell they didn’t have the stomach for round three with Jordan. So they opted for “go along to get along” Rybicki, who was the consummate corporate player, always “there” at the right time and place, but arguably never really leading anything. When accountants would demand cost cuts, Rybicki apparently nodded “yes.” When Engineering and Manufacturing wanted commonality and easy-to-execute solutions no matter what they looked like, Rybicki seemingly shrugged. When executives decreed that a mere badge could turn a Chevrolet into a Cadillac (Cimmaron), Rybicki was right there.
With all the corporate group think and lowest common denominator designs, were there any styling bright spots during Rybicki’s tenure? Which cars could be counted as the result of his leadership?
Let’s start with the cars that can’t be included. Some of the attractive GM designs of the early 1980s, like the 1980 aero reskins of the B- and C-Body full-sizers, had been underway in the Mitchell era, as this design study from 1974 will attest. The same was arguably true for the 1981 A-Special coupe reskins.
The decently differentiated X-Bodies that launched in the Spring of 1979 were also mostly locked and loaded prior to August 1977.
Ditto the 1979 E-Bodies that arrived in the Fall of 1978.
Even the F-Body Camaro/Firebird for 1982 was apparently mostly a Mitchell-era creation that was simply late to market (it was originally planned for the 1980 model year). This design concept hails from late 1976, and certainly hints at the final design direction that would later appear.
So what does that leave? Well here’s the roster:
The scintillating 1982 J-Cars, one for every U.S. division!
The highly differentiated FWD A-Bodies for 1982. These were so good GM opted to keep certain variants in production with minimal changes for 14 years!
Besides the C4 Corvette, another Rybicki era “sporty car” was the 1984 P-Body Fiero.
The sleek, flowing FWD C-Bodies for 1985.
And their sisters-under-the-skin H-Bodies, that starting arriving for 1986.
The impressive 1985 N-Bodies, all set to redefine “personal luxury” and convince Yuppies to abandon their Hondas and Toyotas.
And who could forget the downsized 1986 E-Bodies? Clearly the luxury flagship coupe of the world’s largest car maker!
Along with the related K-Body ’86 Seville as the flagship sedan aiming right at the heart of those Mercedes 300E prospects….
The ’88 L-Body Corsica/Beretta was essentially round 2 of the N-Body and exclusive for Chevrolet, after someone finally realized that perhaps the vertical backlight “formal look” just *might* have been getting stale after 12 years…
The culmination of the Rybicki era was the GM10 W-Body coupes that launched for 1988. Differentiated skins were back with a vengeance, layered over identical platforms all with the same underwhelming old-school OHV V6.
On the truck front there was the square, clean cut ’82 Chevrolet S-10 and GMC S-15, while 1983 brought their SUV counterparts, the S-10 Blazer and S-15 Jimmy.
Then there was the traditional van made “mini,” the 1985 Chevrolet Astro and GMC Safari clone.
For 1988, the all-important full-size C/K pickup trucks were totally revamped for the first time since 1973.
Hang on, you say, I’m leaving out some great choices, like the 1987 Cadillac Allante. Uh no, that was designed by Pinninfarina.
No, no, no, there was the 1988 Reatta too! Well, that design is credited to Chuck Jordan, developed even before he had been appointed Design Chief for the corporation.
So there you have it. Those are the Rybicki choices (jump in if I’ve missed any, they are all so memorable it is hard to keep track!). For me, the pick as the best of his reign would be the 1988 Pontiac Grand Prix. At least it looked modern and aerodynamic while still retaining Pontiac styling cues. And it looked sufficiently different from its platform mates in the best GM tradition from the company’s styling heyday.
So that’s my pick, what’s yours?
The Beretta; I think it still looked fairly good at the end of it’s run in 1996.
Should the J cars even count, given they’re primarily Opel? Could be why they don’t have a ‘formal’ roofline.
The J cars were styled in Detroit at GM headquarters. Opel used a version of it, as did others, and they undoubtedly had some input, but they did not style the J cars.
Anyway, FWIW, Rybicki was VP of Design for the whole company, not just the US.
Second the Beretta. Also the Typhoon and Syclone if those count. I like the Fiero too but only the notchback design.
Also feel the Beretta is the best of the choices presented
Do the GMT400 full-size pickups not count (introduced for 1988)? Their styling is timeless, IMHO. Plus there is the irony of the GMT400 Escalade becoming the “big Cadillac” a DECADE after the platform’s introduction – just look at the pathetic downsized Cadillacs in showrooms in 1988! Who knew a tarted-up Chevy pickup would ultimately make people look at Cadillacs again?
I’m with MT on this. That generation of pickup was a really strong and timeless design. I’d also throw my hat in for the Buick Le Sabre T-Type coupe that came out in ’88, I think.
I was gonna nominate the Ninety Eight Touring Sedan. Both it and the Lesabre T Type were sporty versions of boring old fart cars. So wrong they were kinda right.
The 1988 C/K pickups were introduced in spring 1987, so they were under Rybicki’s watch. And best of the era, still look modern today.
I am out on a bit of a limb here, speculating, but I’ll bet that the truck designers had a lot more freedom than the car guys… trucks just got signed off on because they weren’t sexy enough for senior management to even care about.
The GMT400s might be classics. But their styling is straight GM corporate sheer-look for the era, essentially Chevy Celebrity themes on a pickup truck. So I doubt there was any push-back from upstairs.
Good catch! I’ve added them above. These were definitely Rybicki’s.
I’m not a fan of trucks generally but there are some designs I find supremely attractive. The ’88 C/K pickups are one of them; the ’97 F-Series trucks are another.
That was a pretty brutal takedown.
To answer the question, I’d say the Fiero and 2 of the 3 H-bodies, the LeSabre and Bonneville, were probably the “best” of the era.
I share your taste, especially the Buick H bodies. They were the last sheer-look cars that pulled off the slab sides. Their stance and proportions make them look substantial, as all Buicks should.
If I absolutely must pick one of these, I would go with the S-10 pickup series and the related Blazer and GMC Jimmy, and I am not much of a truck guy.
My enthusiasm for cars waned during my college years in the early Eighties and did not pick up again until after graduation (too many other distractions). In that time, GM went from producing market leading styling to some truly awful design.
Up until then, I generally liked GM products and my first car was a 1984 Buick Regal, which proved reliable and reasonably attractive, although I always felt as though it was my father’s idea of a great young man’s car. By the middle of that decade however, the combination of ungainly new models and muddled market positioning eliminated whatever appeal GM may have had. I fled to competitor’s showrooms, never to return.
From the choices given, I’ll have to say the Beretta. It’s design wasn’t perfect, and I always felt the headlights could’ve been way more inspired, but at least in its early years it was a contemporary and attractive design. Towards the end of its lengthy production, it became very outdated looking though.
The “H” Body coupes of 1987 through 91. Best shown as the 87 thru 89 LeSabre T-Type coupe. Pictured is me with my 87, here in Scottsdale. The Olsmobile 88 FE Coupe was similar. Pontiac never got a Coupe version of the Bonneville. Mores the pity.
I liked the T-type but that black paint hides a lot of sins. What may be the worst quality of GMs of this era may have been less about the body designs(the look a like aspect was the problem there), and more about the trim and details. The wheel arch trim, side moldings, bright inserts, vestigial bumpers and rubber rub strips were slathered all over them and of poor quality/durability. Same with wheels, awful convex wire wheel covers, and chintzy alloys (T-Type included)
One of my favorites also.
Jason W., your car looks good in that shot, I love big coupes.
Jason, love your T-type; if you’d ever consider selling it, now or in the future, please keep me in mind. scottfettner@hotmail.com
Not listed, but I’d say the highly successful Opel Omega A, introduced in 1986.
Another good catch! Other European designs from the Rybicki era that come to mind are the Opel Senator.
Always found the Senator to be quite attractive, if perhaps a little derivative of the Audi 100 (so was the Taurus, of course).
A little derivative may be an understatement. The more I look at that photo, the more I realize it’s basically a C3 100 with an Opel nose. Even the headrests are the same “open square” design.
Actually, it’s a stretched and upgraded Opel Omega A.
+1
The darling of British Police forces everywhere (Well, would you rather have a Rover 800/Sterling?).
A lot of it also went into the VN Holden Commodore, though they added about 3″ to the width and a bit to the length and wheelbase too.
And the 1984 Opel Kadett.
The ’82 Corsa.
The 1988 Vectra.
Right. At least the Opels from the eighties don’t look, shall we say, nostalgic?
These Opels were among the best of the Rybicki era. They looked clean and modern, and I remember thinking it was a shame that we didn’t get variants of the Vectra, Omega and Senator in the states. Unfortunately by the time we did get the Kadett, via Korea, it seemed old and cheap….
Agreed. To me, though, the Kadett/Astra is the real standout. It looked old but not ancient when it was rolling into Australian Daewoo showrooms in 1995, whereas the 1995 Lada Samara (or whatever they called that POS by then) looked like it was from another century.
All 80s GM European design would be owed to Wayne Cherry more than anyone else, as future GM design leader from 92 to 03 his influences were quite evident
Easy question: none of them. GM styling lost it after the Mitchell era and IMO the B and G Bodys were the last of the great looking GM cars.
Styling-wise, for trucks, I think the S10s and 1988 C/Ks were OK; they were certainly both game changers, but they were nowhere near the styling knockout that was the 1994 Dodge Ram.
X2. Most of those cars look as if they were styled by a 12 year old.
1985-90 Buick Electra and Park Avenue. They wore the C-body tuxedo the best.
That’s one of my two picks too, even though it didn’t quite fill the market segment it was intended to. The exterior was elegant but clean, boxy but not in a Volvo 740/Dodge Dynasty brutalist way, and that shape yielded loads of room inside. The huge glass area provided outward visability that would walk all over any modern car. The seats were plush and the door panels quite nice; only the cheap-looking dash that would have looked at home in a Chrysler K-car wasn’t up to snuff. This is the car GM should have kept in production ad nauseum instead of the Ciera/Century.
My very first car was a 1989 Buick Park Avenue, midnight blue with blue velour interior. It was the nicest car I’d ever been in up to that time (this was in 1995). I see pictures of those year model cars today and still think what a beautifully stunning car it was, and still is.
I would pick the 1982 Chevrolet S-10/GMC S-15 and 1983 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer/GMC S-15 Jimmy.
These are very clean, well-proportioned designs that still look good today. Too bad their quality didn’t match their handsome looks.
Put me down for the Beretta. Yeah, I’m biased as I owned two of them, but, the design was clean and somewhat sporty and it really carried its proportions well. Next would be the C/K pickups and the S10 for a tie. The C/K pickups still look clean and lean compared to today’s Silverado. Chevy was pretty foolish to abandon the original S10 concept as far as size goes. I almost bought an 89 S10 brand new. Instead, I purchased a brand new 89 Cavalier Z24 convertible. In hindsight, I’d have been far better off with the S10, as the Z24 was a good looker with troublesome electrical components from day one. I would later buy a used 86 S10 that gave many miles of trouble free service, and then buy a brand new 98 S10 that did the same.
To me they are the following:
1. Pontiac Fiero (I loved the looks of the car as a kid and still do)
2. The fullsize pickup truck. (these and the 1987 Ford F series looked so modern and still look great today. The Dodge D Series/ Ram, looked like it was still partying in the 1970’s)
3. Chevy Corsica( these have always looked pleasing to me)
4. The S-10/GMC S-15/Blazer/Jimmy
My picks are either the S-10, S-15, or Fiero.
I wasn’t paying much attention to who was in charge of what back then but wow, that’s not a huge styling legacy.
For me it’s a 3 way tie between the ’88 C/K trucks, the S10/S15, and the GM10 Grand Prix. As much of a Ford guy as I am the S10 just looks “right” whereas the first gen Ranger comes of as blocky and clumsy looking.
My favorite car model to pick would be the H body Bonneville, even though is still had push button door latches. Wasn’t trying to look like a Buick/Olds and a big step ahead of the Parisienne.
The only one I can say in good conscience is the Fiero, but even I feel like that’s cheating since the first gen looks like a rolling doorstop and the design only really hit its stride when the GT came in 85 with the much more fitting styling.
GM definitely lost its visual panache after Bill Mitchell left, that’s why I still view the 70s as sort of the last great year for GM designs. Chuck Jordan certainly made some pretty good designs for GM during his tenure (The 92 Seville being a good example), but ultimately his impact came too late and he was there for too little in the Vice President of Design position to make that much of an impact.
+1 on the Fiero. Not great, but given the choices…
The Opels were ok too. Again, not great. Anything Holden-wise?
The VL Calais was an attractive update on the Commodore and is one of the most desirable Aussie cars from that decade. The Nissan-sourced turbocharged inline six also helps though…
Yep, that’s not bad at all. Better than Opel even, though the squinty headlights and grille seem to say Oldsmobile more than Holden. “Oldenmobile?”
I don’t see it on your list, so I don’t know if it counts, but I vote for the 1981-87 Pontiac Grand Prix. I had a beautiful example in black–sharp car–and I think it looked classier than the versions from the other divisions.
It was quiet and luxurious, handled great, and shook terribly on anything but billiard table smooth pavement, where, ironically, it rode like glass. The overlong doors creaked and closed with a tinny sounding slam. Sold it on ebay to someone who towed it home–600 miles away! As nice as these Grand Prixs look, I don’t think I’d buy another.
Except for this, all the other Rybicki cars were a big yawn. Everything the ’50s were NOT.
Note: Car shown is not mine–mine was black and had no vinyl roof.
The 81-87 GP was noted under the “A special” comment in the article. The ’78-’81 A-bodies (Malibu, Le Mans, Cutlass Salon, Century) and related A specials (Monte Carlo, Grand Prix, Cutlass Supreme, Regal) were most definitely products of the Bill Mitchell era, hitting showrooms around the same time Rybicki was given the reins. The ’82-’87 G-bodies, while heavily facelifted under Rybicki’s leadership, were still essentially Mitchell-era. So they were not among the choices for this title.
I pick the Fiero GT.
The C/K full size trucks, absolutely. Everything else…no.
No envelopes pushed, no boundaries tested, no breakthroughs, no acclaim. Seems like Irv served his sentence and nothing more.
Fiero and S10 for me, please. Berlinetta and full-size pickups for a close second.
The Fiero was almost as ‘out there’ as some of GM’s ’60s stuff, at least with regard to component packaging and the “mill and drill” space frame on which the body panels were hung.
Jack Telnack had the 80’s under his belt for the Big 3.
GM was this mishmash of “meh” under Rybicki and Chrysler was laughably behind just trying to survive the decade with as little flair as possible. I can’t even think of a name associated with the K car and its’ derivatives besides chairman Iacocca.
I second both the Beretta and the H-body coupes. The H-body sedans were a nice, clean design too, but the coupes were really attractive.
The Fiero is a great looking car … as long as you don’t get a peek at that dashboard.
I’d also say the trucks were bang on. The early S10 is simple but look “right” somehow. The C/K series are also good lookers.
The J-Body hatchbacks from P-O-B were good looking, even if under the skin they were crap. The ’83 A-bodies looked ok, especially the wagons and the 6000STE (it helped that a lot of the X-Body gremlins were vanquished) The S-10 was timeless, but its a lot harder to mess up a pickup truck. But if you had to summarize an era with a word, this one’s would be “meh.”
I really like the GM10 Cutlass Supreme coupe. The Silverado and S10 were good work.
I was reading and reading and reading waiting for someone to mention the Cutlass Supreme. It has styling that has aged remarkably well. Unfortunately, the rest of the car hasn’t held up so well over the years.
Honorable mention to the Fiero.
Both the S-10 and the 88 Chevy/GMC big trucks were good looking vehicles. Did the Suburban of that generation of truck (that may not have come out until 1990) get finished under Rybicki? If so, that may have been the best looking car to come out during his tenure.
The 2 door H bodies from around 1986 or 7 were also pretty attractive, especially the Buick. But other than that, I got nothin’.
If you’re talking about GMT400 Suburbans, those didn’t come out until 1992.
Although, the more I think about it, I really do find those big C/K trucks an attractive design. They’re probably my favorite looking trucks of that era, and the only one that came close to matching it’s visual appeal was the 94 Ram.
I’ve got three: the C4, the C/K pickups, and the Beretta. Wow…which all, coincidentally, came in Chevrolet form. 🙂
Oh yeah, I forgot the C4, and it was the first thing in the article. That’s definitely in my opinion the best design to come from Rybicki.
And yeah, it is sort of sad that Chevrolet, the mainstream brand, had (more or less) the best designs of the Rybicki era in GM.
I wouldn’t give Rybicki too much credit for the C4. Jerry Palmer penned the first sketch of what would become the C4 in 1977. Jerry Palmer and Dave McClellan combined directly with the Corvette engineering team to bring that one to life. It just happened under Rybicki’s watch.
The Chevy/GMC pickup trucks built for the 1988 model year were my favorites, they looked away ahead of its time compared to the Ford and Dodge pickups.
I look at the era as boring. I just looked askance when I saw the new downsized Cadillacs. PHEW! That to me was not a Cadillac. There was no prestige associated with the marque. On October 4, 2915 (today, 32 years ago), I took delivery of a fully loaded GMC Safari 8-passenger van. It was a tight little truck with an engine that was 3/4 of a 350 V8 with the accessories of a 350, water pump et cetera. I ran it for 318,000 miles at which time it spun a main bearing. Did I like it? You bet I did! It was comfortable with captain’s chairs for me and the wife and room for three children to sit apart from each other/ On vacations, my mother-in-law took “shotgun” as the passenger side second row passenger, supervising the second and third rows. It was a great mini van. But the Rybicki era vehicles are indeed BORING!
You’re right, Rybicki dropped the ball. Some of these designs are awful. And of those that aren’t, they were diluted by the fact they looked so similar across different model lineups. For example, the J and A cars are actually quite handsome and I think have aged well. But considering most of the bodies were the same regardless of which GM showroom you were in, this just played into the view that all GM cars looked the same.
The ’86 LeSabre is a very attractive design, just the right mix of traditional and modern. The Delta 88 was a less successful design, while the Bonneville looks a bit awkward with its attempts to smooth out a still rather boxy shape.
I personally like the W-Body designs but the ’88 Cutlass Supreme is the highlight. If it didn’t have the typical GM flakiness of the time, I think the design would have been seen in a better light. Unfortunately it was dragged down by GM mediocrity but it’s really quite a pretty car, IMO. Later Supremes (and later bodystyles) were nowhere near as resolved.
The Corsica and the ’82-85 Celebrity sedan are also quite handsome designs with pleasing lines. I like the way the rear of the Celebrity bows in.
Honda and Ford were designing better-looking cars at the time but a lot of these GM vehicles weren’t any/much worse than, say, mainstream vehicles from Nissan or Toyota. Obviously there were some exceptions: the E/K bodies were a mix of bland and bizarre (they look so small, and then you see them in the metal!) and the N-Bodies were lumpy, although the Grand Am distinguished itself well enough.
But imagine if Ford had to rebadge its Taurus across 4 or 5 different marques. The design would surely have been diluted and Ford would have rightfully been seen as a lazy stylist with a fleet of lookalike cars.
GM should have done better. And they did under Chuck Jordan – look how much better he differentiated cars visually across brands – but they never should have hired Rybicki for the top role. He had no fight.
Agreed that J & A and others actually were clean and decent looking designs (although the A’s used X doors, and same wb, so not a totally new design). The problem was spreading basically the same design across 5 divisions. If it was only one brand, we’d probably say that the lineup wasn’t bad.
GMT400 trucks by a country mile (sometimes literally).
Of the US market passenger cars, I always liked the J-car particularly in its’ hatchback coupe and wagon forms.
On a pure “soft spot” basis, the Grand Am; as a car modeler who started in the ’80s, if you asked me which car I’m mildly surprised there wasn’t a kit of in the day but would be absolutely shocked to see one tooled up now, I would shout ORIGINAL GRAND AM!!! (and then have to explain I meant N-body, not Colonnade)
Yay, I am a car modeller also. I suspect there are a number of us that hang out here. I never really thought about it, but I am surprised AMT or MPC didn’t do a Grand Am when they came out.
Update; not a Grand Am but Hasegawa just announced this as a 1/24 scale plastic kit.
The Spectrum/I-Mark/Gemini was officially a Giugiaro design (which he long disowned), but the sedan in particular has Rybicki’s touch all over it;
They all totally suck. Perhaps a Cadillac after they extended the rear was not that bad. Like and 89 ? Fleetwood?
GMC SYCLONE and TYPHOON.
One more- nowadays the GM10 Regal coupe actually looks pretty good. But when it came out, my uncle, who worked for a large Buick dealer in Chicago, had a pre-release model in a brilliant metallic red that he let my dad and I drive around in and I just remember how disappointed I was compared to the outgoing RWD G model. Then again, back then I thought the RWD Regal was one of the cooler cars out there. Brougham dies hard, even in the grade school set.
Timeless design? The C/K pickup and the S10 varieties, especially the Blazer which morphed well into a 4 door and was essentially coped by Ford for the Explorer. But I think the best looking of the cars was the Celebrity version of the A Body. To balance that out, there was some truly horrible stuff happening with basic proportions and the blend of lines and curves, which Mitchell (and Jordan) avoided quite well.
The 4 door Blazer and Explorer came out within a few months of each other. They were certainly responses to the 4 door Cherokee and Pathfinder.
What a miserable list. I’ll go with the S-10 Blazer. It was a really clean, well-proportioned design that aged very well and still looked ok at the end of its run. The later, 4-door version was more awkward.
Unlike others, I never liked the Beretta. The greenhouse dipped too low into the beltline so something looked off. The Corsica window line was a bit higher, and it looked much more trim as a result.
It’s hard to decide whether the 2-door Blazer looks better with the standard (and very clean) fixed quarter windows or the optional sliders that played up the resemblance to a Nomad.
One more thought. I remember a comment on here years ago describing Rybicki as “an absolute prince of a guy” who just wasn’t up for the kind of corporate infighting 80s GM was made of. I don’t disagree, but it seems a little harsh to lay the blame for the Eighties solely at his feet. I wonder if even Chuck Jordan could have made it through the decade given the company’s mismanagement. Ed Welburn, I feel, is putting out some really nice stuff these days, and was their younger contemporary, but he also has the benefit of perhaps a slightly less dysfunctional company to report to.
All I am saying, is give Irv a chance.
Irv had his chance. The 80s were GM’s worst decade ever in terms of loss of market share. You can’t re-write history.
GM management back then didn’t want Chuck because they knew he would stand up to them and fight, for dynamic and aggressive design.
GM management has learned the painful lessons of the 80s: let the designers shine. No one is going back to that dysfunctional way of doing things. Everyone knows now design is absolutely critical. Welburn was encouraged to make his designers shine again, and he largely has.
Irv Rybicki agreed to be management’s boy. And the results speak for themselves, although that’s not the only reason. He just wasn’t as dynamic and soulful a design chief as had been his predecessors and as was Jordan. What came out during his tenure is inevitably cool, in the wrong way. Cold is perhaps the better word.
Well said, Paul. The results do speak for themselves.
Rybicki’s tenure at GM reminds me a lot of Henry King’s time as Chrysler’s head of styling. Fred Zeder wasted no time in firing Ray Dietrich after Walter Chrysler had his stroke and Henry King was the guy who did what he could in a styling department totally under the control of engineering. Virgil Exner had described King as a good stylist who was working under an impossible system. Exner created an independent styling department at Chrysler which has endured.
Rybicki went the opposite direction – he started with an independent styling department and ran it much like Henry King was forced to run things at Chrysler during his era. The difference was that King started with a department beholden to Engineering. Rybicki put GM’s in that subservient role voluntarily. Both approved mostly workmanlike designs that at their very best were not much better than average.
That’s a great historical parallel. Seems, looking back now, as a terribly missed opportunity.
The basic design of the ‘88 C/K (GMT 400) trucks was light-years ahead of the Ford and Dodge competition.
But there are days I’m left scratching my head over the instrument panel…what were they thinking? A three piece stereo system, when a fully contained single- or double-DIN system would have worked perfectly well? And the subpanel for the climate controls were both needlessly complex and failure prone.
But other than the dashpad, which developed the characteristic “Mark of Excellence” crack, the interior bits seemed to be made of fairly good materials for that era.
“The basic design of the ‘88 C/K (GMT 400) trucks was light-years ahead of the Ford and Dodge competition.”
And it should have been. Ford’s truck was 8 years old when the Chevy came out and the Dodge went back to 1972! I think that the 88 Chevy/GMC pickup put things back into their rightful order: The Chevy pickup was the looker of the bunch, the Ford was more conservative but attractive in a manly kind of way and the Dodge was like the homely guy who works his behind off. 🙂
Agreed. The Chevy was the only one of the lot that looked like it could do a night on the town with just a wash and vacuum job. The ’87 Ford looked tough and brought some needed improvements, but there’s a good reason Ford nearly lost the crown during that generation. Dad’s ’92 even with the V6 drove pretty well, was comfortable enough inside, and towed just fine.
In retrospect, though, those Chevies rotted out in the frames and developed a dramatic sag where the box meets the cab (Dad’s ’92 is held together with styrofoam insulation and hope despite being relegated to plow truck status 15 years ago and having only 130,000 miles). The Ford frames were good enough to use across the F-Series range with just suspension and engine changes.
Still, I can’t help but look when I see a square-dash Chevy in good shape, especially after they got the composite headlights.
I pick the C4 – especially in convertible form. It’s a timeless beauty – simply one of the best car designs of all time. I also love the Fiero – but only the later style with the fastback look.
I think the GMT-800’s. They were easily the most successful GM design of the 1980’s, and certain versions are already considered special interest. The dash was ‘fixed’ in 1995, but for the most part the basic design went unchanged from 1988 to 1998 (2001 for some 3/4 and 1 ton versions). As BuzzDog stated, the truck was way ahead in form and function compared to the competition when introduced.
I believe Rybicki did the ’65 full size Chevy’s when we was with Chevrolet division. Those were nice looking cars.
I’m kind of late to point out, but groupthink is a term in psychological phenomenon. It’s especially evident in social psychology.
W-bodies. Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme and Pontiac Grand Prix GTP are amazing looking.
My vote goes to the 1982 F-body Camaro/Firebird. I know the article has excluded them saying they were locked in by 1977 but having read numerous books covering the development of the F-bodies I would dispute this. There was enough evolution from 77 onwards to count as a Rybicki product.
I like the w body cars. Especially the oldsmobiles
The C-4 Corvette is the best of the bunch, not just because it is a good-looking car, and seemed to fit the early eighties ethos well, but because it was also instantly recognizable as a Corvette. A lot of the magic of Earl and Mitchell was design continuity. Look at the evolution of the standard Cadillac from ’59 through ’64, and then the clean sheet ’65. The ’65 is loaded with early Mitchell and even some Earl era stuff. It was no accident that the final design tweaks on the ’71-76 B Bodies carried over to the all-new ’77 replacements.
But I’ll take a few things back from Rybicki on the Corvette. The C-4 clearly channeled the C-3, which was pure Mitchel. And, management was probably a bit more excited about the chance to put a stamp on the first new Corvette since 1968 then they were about the N Bodies, etc. So, this one was sort of easy for the design department.
One Rybicki that worked for me was the 1985 Cadillac C Body. The blunder here was that it should have been the gen 3 Seville. It was entirely too small and not imposing enough to be the flagship Cadillac. It’s boxy and very space efficient design made me think of the Volvo 740, but it was still a Cadillac in terms of style. This small Cadillac did find an audience with some of my better paid co-workers at the time, especially our more successful salespeople – and those buyers were women in their 30s and 40s.
All of the trucks and SUVs of his era are fine, the fact that four or five Divisions did not copy them probably helped. The most tragic Rybicki moment for me was the early W Body coupes. As a two-time Cutlass owner, I was already smitten by the ’83 and up Thunderbird and Cougar, and the W Body placed me firmly in the Ford camp. This was also tragic for GM in a sense. I was 24, a fresh college grad, and was soon to be linked to my future wife. We ended up with a Thunderbird in our garage and neither of us has ever been a post Mitchell era GM owner.
I had never considered the idea of the C-Body being a Seville, but it really rather makes sense. The C-Bodies were, in and of themselves, good cars that I think were styled in following with their intended mission. GM just didn’t have a clue what the market was doing by then.
I have to go with the H-Bodies, especially the Bonneville. I think those were amongst the few of Rybicki’s designs that actually captured both the ethos of the era and the “feel” of each brand represented. I spent a fair bit of time which each version-I had an ’89 Bonneville through college, my cousin had an ’88 Delta Eighty-Eight through high school and part of college, and my best friend in the world had a 90 LeSabre through part of college. The Bonneville had enough curve and style to it that it looked the part of “Driving Excitement” (and drove pretty well besides). The Olds looked and felt like your father’s Oldsmobile. The Buick felt like “premium” American motoring.
In fact, I’d go so far as to say the ’87-’91 Bonnevilles were the best-looking thing to come out of GM from roughly 1970 to roughly 2005.
I’ll give second place to the full-sized trucks for ’87. GM was the first to recognize and design some degree of modernity into their trucks, and it’s with good reason GM nearly destroyed Ford’s leadership in the truck market from ’87-’91. I’ve grown to like that version of the F-Series as an adult, but the GMs looked like they could do a night on the town, unlike the Fords.
My God, what a poor array of choices. I’d have to go with the H-Body coupes if pressed to pick one. For some reason the Delta 88 coupe appealed to me, as long as it wasn’t sporting those awful wire wheel covers. I thought it was the most cohesive design of the bunch, and the one that most closely honored the conservative low-key image of its predecessor. I also liked the 98 more than any of the other C-Bodies of that era. Somehow Olds seemed to stay true to their roots styling-wise more than did Buick, and of course Cadillac styling just went straight to hell in a handbasket at this point.
Interesting seeing all the new GM designs of the era in one place. My overall impression is that they are almost all really…OK. With a few exceptions, they are all decent looking cars but none of them are great. They mostly all look like they are trying to do their job without offending anyone (like Rybicki himself, it sounds like).
The lack of differentiation between divisions is something I don’t think can be blamed on Rybicki. How much to spend giving different cars unique designs and sheet metal is a financial decision. Styling works within the limits they are given. GM clearly didn’t want to spend money differentiating the A-bodies, but were willing to put a lot into the W-bodies.
My pick for the best is the 88 truck. I didn’t like them a lot when new, but with time and in the context of the current truck market, I really appreciate their clean design. The original dash may have had it’s functional problems, but I think it looks good. I like it because it is a TRUCK dash. Like the outside, it is very clean, and it’s not trying to look like a passenger car dash. The 95 replacement may work better, but it’s kind of generic and curvy where the outside was angular.
The worst IMO are the 86 Eldorado and Riviera and the Reatta. They all suffer from extremely stubby butts. Totally goofy design for what were supposed to be flagship American cars. The Toronado and Seville had the same stubbiness, but it somehow works better on those cars. The facelifted 1990 Riviera with the extended rear really transformed the car, I think into one of the nicest looking FWD cars of the 80’s and 90’s. The extended rear helped the Eldorado, too, but it was still cheesy looking for a Cadillac.
GM kept the square dash in the medium conventional 5500-7500 series until 2003 when they were replaced by the “cut-down van cab” ones.
The designs were only the tip of the giant iceberg. Every comment states “good design, but…”. The mishmash of cost cutting interiors, half baked, glued on performance/appearance” pieces, abysmal engines and generally middle managed product development concerned only with meeting some corporate target that had nothing to do with creating a good product made a quintessential middle manager head designer the right man for the job. Design at this point really didn’t matter, five watertight compartments were already open to the sea. Eva Braun was an attractive woman, but…
Oh, I think Irv Rybicki gets an unfair bashing here. For one thing, we’re only talking about styling, not quality or engineering or suspensions or engines so:
The J cars were good lookers and came in a variety of body styles. Very handsome.
The W bodies were very good looking, especially the Cutlass Supreme. The Grand Prix has some awkwardness as does the Regal. Yah, the platform was crappy but . . they were good looking.
The A cars took the X and made it much better looking. The X s were a little stunted but the proportions of the A cars were much better. The station wagon had a touch of Audi 5000 before the Taurus appeared.
The Fiero was stunning. Much better styling than any of its competitors, including the CRX, which had almost no styling, the EXP, which had froggy styling, and the MR2, which took angularity a little too far, or the prelude, the 200SX. . etc.
The N cars were quite handsome and the Grand Am’s styling DID win over a lot of Camcord intenders. The quality, of course, was another story.
I don’t know if the ’92?’93 Seville/Eldorado fall into Irv Rybicki’s oversight, but those were stunning cars and showed that Cadillac could make a car without a formal roofline, vinyl roof, or old fashioned styling cues.
Irv Rybicki’s designs were simple, clean, functional, and still better than most of the competition. Do you think the Camry/Accord of the era was better styled than the W body? Or the N? Isn’t a 1986 N body still better styled than a new Civic?
And what does GM make now which is memorable? Cadillac’s arts and sciences styling is noticeable, but hasn’t really won converts. The Malibu and Impala are derivative, I don’t know what a Buick sedan looks like cos they aren’t selling, the Cruze is boring and derivative also. Irv Rybicki’s designs probably aren’t the BEST GM ever produced, but in comparison with the competition, like the Stanza, or what is being produced today, they weren’t as bad except for the E body as you think.
Most Japanese styling was still very derivative and mired in that origami look in the 80s, so it’s a bit unfair to compare(though I still disagree with a few of your references being better, Honda had beautifully designed small cars, they peaked in the 80s). GM design under Bill Mitchell pumped out prettier cars than the Italian design houses occasionally, and in general overall styling was so good and revolutionary that Ford and especially Chrysler would find themselves playing catch up to it more often than not.
Irv Rybicki handed over that style leadership to Ford on a platter, completely inverting decades of being the leader in this area. The Aero look changed the automotive styling forever(for better or worse) and Ford brought it to the masses. And if I’m putting up car vs car the Thunderbird/Cougar/Mark VII made the N, E and W bodies look like cheap toys and the Taurus/ Sable made the A bodies look ancient, and even the fox based LTD prior was still better looking than the As (though I agree, they were handsome wagons). Even the Tempo and Topaz, for as bad as they were mechanically, were good looking designs, at the very least equal to the J cars, but still more forward looking than them.
That doesn’t mean Irv Rybicki was a hack or that I think cars under him were “hideous” but the early half of the 80s were derivative off of themes established by Mitchell in the mid 70s(1982 A bodies were pure sheer look) and the latter half of the 80s were responses to Ford’s Aero designs.
The C/H bodies were beautiful and light looking. Compare with the bathtub Caprice.
the Corsica was simple, clean, and good looking, as was the Beretta. They went on forever it seemed like. Again, better looking than the Tempaz or the modern Cruze or Civic
I would pick the Beretta as well. I also think the 1st generation Grand Am – 1985 – 1987 with the V6 was good choice if you got a good one. My Mom had a 1986 LE V6 coupe and it was nice car and she was fortunate that it was not a total lemon like many were. She had a couple of expensive repair jobs during the warranty period – power steering rack and something else that would have been VERY expensive – cannot remember what at this time. She kept that car from 1986 to 1994 when she traded it on a 1994 Sunbird SE V6 coupe – pretty much the same car in my opinion. She kept the Sunbird until 2008 and the only issue she had was the gas gauge kept working. She said the Sunbird was her best car.
Buick LeSabre, for me. Especially in the 2-door fully loaded edition. Second choice being the Pontiac Grand Prix.
First 2 cars that came to my mind were the C4 Corvette and the GMT400. Seeing the rest of the pictures, I will cast a vote for the S10/S15 twins, the Vectra A and the Kadett.
The trucks are simple and timeless, the C/K having an understated elegance.
The Blazer/Jimmy are also good lookers, and GM did a good job on the 5 door ones making the glass of the rear door and the quarter panel a “single unit”.
C4 Corvette exterior is looking very good to me these days. Has stood the test of time. I think the Astro Cargo van could be built today and its styling still be well received.
Even as a teenager at the time, I always found the best word to describe GM design of the mid 70s through the 80s as ‘sterile’. Safe, and largely uninspired design.
The trucks and SUV’s, fastback Fiero, Beretta and C4 Corvette were all decent looking.