(first posted 3/27/2012) Our early years are called “formative” for a good reason; certain impressions last a lifetime and become a recurring theme. That applies to creative types and designers as well as the rest of us; maybe even more so. In the case of former GM Designer Wayne Kady, his fascination with sloping tails started with….what else? Just about the most beautiful sloping tail ever.
Um; not the one on this Riviera…
It’s hard to overstate the mammoth influence that Jaguar’s 1948 XK-120 had, especially in the US. It was gorgeous, very fast, semi-affordable and had a killer tail end. In Wayne’s generation as kids, it was the object of desire, and spawned a whole industry of fiberglass roadsters, which then led to US production sports cars like the Corvette. But it was utterly out of reach for the average kid.
So Wayne built his own, during high school, in the years 1953 – 1955, with the Jaguar’s tail very much accounted for. Here he is in his custom roadster on the family farm in Central California. This was the golden age of DIY custom cars, and although Wayne’s never got quite finished, it certainly shows his love of a long sloping tail. There’s a detailed account of his roadster here at forgottenfiberglass.
Wayne wanted to be a car designer from an early age, and he never finished the roadster because was accepted to Pasadena’s Art Center on his second try in 1955, shortly after the end of high school. Yes, that’s how it worked back then. Maybe there’s a reason why kids don’t go there straight out of high school anymore; to expose them to more of the world. It may come off sounding a bit critical, but there is a certain parochialism in Kady’s work. Well, it was a different time, and America was in its exceptional period. But Kady’s long career at GM, which ended in 1999, spanned a crucial time of change, when global influences in the automobile industry were ignored at one’s (or GM’s) peril. But we’re getting ahead of ourselves.
Kady started (in 1961) and ended his GM career with Cadillac, but had two stints at Buick in between. His first acknowledged contributions to a production car were the 1965 – 1966 Cadillacs, which are somewhat polarizing for having abandoned the knife-edge styling of their predecessors. And their successors, the 1967s, revived the sharp creases with a vengeance. The ’65 – ’66s stand out, almost anomalies, although they have a certain subdued and understated charm.
image:deansgarage
deansgarage has an article with a few of Kady’s dramatic renderings from the 1966-1967 period. This one is for a DeVille concept, presumably the all-new 1971, given its 1966 date. It certainly evokes some aspects of production Cadillacs from the period.
I don’t know the extent of Kady’s involvement with the ’67, but there are certain similarities with that concept. Of course, the dates on some of these Kady renderings don’t actually jive with their captions. But there’s that ever-present downward sweep at the rear…
image:deansgarage
This one dated 1/27/66 is identified by Kady as “Proposal for the 1967 Eldorado program”. Well, that sure doesn’t make sense in terms of the development cycles. By January of 1966, the ’67 Eldorado was long since wrapped up. But once again, we have another look at a variation of Kady’s beloved slant-back/bustle-back tail.
Here’s another from 1965.
Both of these are predictive of the 1971 Eldorado, the first car Kady is credited with being the lead designer. It’s about as flamboyant, portly and all-American as it gets. And again, a highly polarizing piece of work; love it or…don’t. You needn’t ask which camp I’m in. I’d go as far and say it’s his definitive car, the one that most fully expresses the themes from his exuberant concepts, even though it doesn’t have a bustle-back.
image:deansgarage
This rendering from 1966 is for a Pontiac program, and the rear bumper and taillights look like they survived into production.
There were two finalists for the 1976 Seville design, one of them being this semi-fastback by Kady. This picture is of an earlier concept called LaSalle, dated June 26, 1973, which is a bit after Kady went to Buick. But according to an account of how the Seville came to be, this was originally designed or conceived by Kady before he left, and its themes were then applied later to a Nova-based clay that became one of the two finalists.
Bill Mitchel had just come back from a trip to England, and wanted an alternative version with a vertical rear window, a lá Rolls Royce. It tested much better than the Kady concept at clinics, and became the production Seville. In 1974 Kady had returned to Cadillac, and worked on the final production design.
During Kady’s brief first tenure at Buick, he was responsible for the unfortunate “de-tailing” of the Riviera for 1974. The down swept line at the rear and semi-bustleback trunk were by now Klassic Kady.
image:deansgarage
This V16 by Kady concept is dated 2/28/67; its influence can be seen in a number of his production cars, and is the first to carry this particular variation of the bustle-back trunk, as appeared on the 1980 Seville.
Kady’s tenure at Buick was brief (1972 – 1974) just long enough to do(in) the Riviera. In 1974, Kady was made Chief of Cadillac Exterior Design, a position he held through 1988. In that position, he would presumably have had some influence on the downsized 1977 Cadillacs, although the usual Kady hallmarks are not in evidence. Given the significance of the corporate-wide downsizing, and the communality with the other divisions, perhaps there just wasn’t much scope for “creativity” in the old sense. The V16 concept era came to a screeching halt.
But Kreativity did get another chance with the 1980 Seville, which represents the Kady peak experience. We covered that in our recent CC. It was dramatic, for sure. But it also failed to take into account the rapidly changing taste in luxury cars.
Although Mr. Kady should get an award for being its single greatest inspiration, the 1970’s Superfly era was truly over by 1980; at least with mainstream luxury car buyers.
Sleek aerodynamic designs like the 1980 Mercedes W126,
and the 1983 Audi 100/5000 were the new mold, one that has endured surprisingly long. Some saw and embraced this much faster and sincerely than others.
Like Ford. But then Ford was desperate in the early 1980’s, having flirted with a near-death scenario a few years earlier. The hubris was pounded out of them (at least for a while) and there was no design legacy baggage to hold them back.
Not so at GM. Undoubtedly, the very flawed 1985 Cadillac (CC here) downsizing was dictated in principle from above, but nevertheless, its execution happened under Mr. Kady’s time as Cadillac Design head.
And it only got worse with the 1986 Seville (CC here) and Eldorado . GM design was in a very odd place in this period. Exhibiting the classic symptoms of arrogance and loss of a clear direction, they still refused to acknowledge the changes in the design world that had been brewing for decades literally. These are hardly the examples of design leadership that should have been coming from a maker who really was determined to build the finest luxury cars.
In fact, they’re rather just pathetic; odd proportions, lacking any cues that would suggest they are something special; the ramblings of an enterprise that had lost its rudder in the gales of rapid change that were swirling throughout the automobile industry.
Yes, the 1992 Seville finally acknowledged the new design reality, in a fairly convincing way; albeit a dozen years too late. Where was it in 1980? But Kady had nothing to do with this car, having moved back to Buick 1988. Were these promotions, or shuffling the Design Heads of the Titanic?
Wayne Kady is credited with three Buick designs before he retired in 1999. The first was the 1992 Roadmaster. I know there’s a fair amount of attraction hereabout to any of the last of the big rwd B-bodies, but no one is going to accuse the Roadmaster of being a particularly fine piece of automotive architecture. It was a rather clumsy job of turning the Caprice into a big Buick, and the too-short wheelbase that jarred with the too-tall roof gave proof that Buick hadn’t been willing to spend the extra bucks for a longer wheelbase like in days of old, or like Cadillac did with its other-wise similar Fleetwood.
Kady also takes credit for the 1992 Skylark, another polarizing design if there ever was one. Amusing, I suppose; and different too, but its controversial beak didn’t have legs and was toned down after a few years.
Kady’s final design credits were for the 1997 W-Body Century and Regal. Now that’s hardly a polarizing design; boring, more likely. Where’s the old Wayne Kady V16 bustle-back flamboyance? Of course, there is more than just a hint of a downturn on that Regal’s butt, no? Coincidence? Early impressions are lasting ones…
I still like the 2nd gen Seville, what I don’t I like is the POS 4100 V8.
Well this is a fine kettle of fish you got us into now Paul. I thought some of the commenters were going to come to blows when you started this line of articles. It’s not going to be very pretty I’m afraid. But then, IMO neither were Mr. Kady’s designs.
I’m surprised nobody’s (yet) attacked Paul’s integrity or crowed about how they’re going to stop coming here, as has become en vogue at TTAC since Niedermeyer The Younger went on sabbatical.
It’s embarrassing how utterly incapable some people are of handling criticism over something as ultimately inconsequential as cars from decades ago.
For what it’s worth, compared to the onslaught of unreliable, ill-timed, halfassed, uninspired crap that came out of Cadillac in the ’80s, I didn’t think the 3rd gen Seville was that bad.
Every once in while admid the GM “hate fest” theres some pretty ok stuff to read about.
Not your comment, but keep working on it.
@Buick6
I’ve seen Paul tell people they don’t have to be here a couple of times if they don’t like it. Said in an eloquent fashion but the point was clear.
Having had a conversation with Edward on this subject today confirmed my commitment to having this site look honestly (and critically) at the history of the cars we all love (in one way or another). There are many sites devoted to the adoration of all old cars, and that’s a good thing. But there aren’t many (any?) who are willing to look at both sides of the coin.
As long as they’re not cheap shots, we will call them as we see them.
That doesn’t mean we don’t love the cars themselves, for being themselves as well as just being survivors. I wouldn’t bother to stop and shoot a car if I didn’t love it in one way or another, faults or not. The world would be boring without bustleback Sevilles and such!
But we still need to put them in their proper historical context.
Paul, I completely agree. I am my car’s own worse critic.
Truly, this site is a labor of love (for Paul, and now others) and I think there’s not the drive for clicks on this site as there others. You’ll note, no banner ads here. I’m not saying that’s the motivation for TTAC specifically, but this isn’t the same kind of site.
The critiques are handled with a goodly amount of care. Lots of things here I don’t agree with, but generally, this is a pretty respectful crowd.
For some strange reason, there’s a whole community of people who are so affected by these machines, that we (collectively) start magazines and websites and fan pages to share that enthusiasm.
To my non-car friends, I compare this obsession to bird watching. To the average person, there’s little that the common House Wren has to do with your day, but there are folks who take to watching these little dinosaurs for some intrinsic value that they cannot express.
Paul has managed to put his passion on the web, and we have been invited to join the party.
So, on the whole, Kady was a hack who was great at drawing cars that didn’t have a chance in hell of being made. I would have created crappy drawings at half the price. The end result would have been the same.
He must have had compromising photos of top management.
I’d agree that his sketches and concepts were better than the real cars he was responsible for, but we don’t really know (at least I don’t know) how much power Kady had to push his designs through. He was “head” of styling for various divisions, so one assumes he had lots of power, but I’m not sure. I see a lot of talent in the drawings but the actual production cars are, imo, not much to be proud of. Wonder if his designs were muddled by higher ups?
I have a condition in my legs which makes me feel like I’m perpetually wading through deep water. I get the feeling working for GM design in any capacity throughout Kady’s period of tenure must have been something akin to that.
Paul, I’m noticing a theme with you and many of the cars from 71.
I did not know Kady was in charge of the 97 Buick W bodies or the Roadmeister.
I always figured they were just generic GM re-hash. Just enough to differentiate but not enough to cost any actual money. I have to admit that I liked both, not enough to buy one though.
I can’t really fault Kady for “de-tailng” of the Riv. I don’t think there was much they could do to the original pointy tail to make it meet impact regs at the time.
Could they have done better? I’m not sure, most GM cars had a hard time holding their heads or tails high in that period.
Lord help me, I think I’m coming around on the Bustle Seville..
I think this was one of Kady bustle back 1st gen Seville proposals.
I have some photos of the full size Seville mock ups in Cadillac book that was published at the end of the 70’s, it has a good number of 75 Seville and 79 Eldorado styling studies.
One of the more interesting pics in the book has a complete Seville prototype from late 73 with LaSalle badges all over it. Funny.
I think the Eldorado rendering that you think are misdated are probably advanced styling studies for the next generation Eldorados, I have another book that shows full size clay mock ups of the 71 Eldos dated from 1967 and 68, there was even a suicide door 71 Eldorado clay mock up a la-67-71Thunderbird.
Now that’s one heck of a weird Caddy. Looks like a tarted-up Citroen.
I have the AQ Cadillac book that was updated and reissued in the late ’90s and it has pictures of the fastback ’73 Seville proposal. It clearly inspired the ’80 Seville, but there’s no bustle, just a regular trunk lid. It actually looks rather nice.
Must respectfully disagree on the Roadmaster. I love ’em!
Thats the book.
Replace what looks like Euro style flush headlamps with regular sealed beams and it starts looking a little more normal, the whole cornering lamp and headlight desgin predicts the downsized 77 Cadillacs pretty well.
Before I read your comment and saw this picture, I remembered that a late commentator left a picture of the LaSalle at the Seville CC, and I inserted it into the article. But thanks for these additional shots.
I agree with you about the intent of those renderings; they obviously were targeting MY 1971, both stylistically as well as the timetable. I’m surprised no one at deansgarage pointed that out.
That suicide door ’71 Eldo sedan could have been a revival of the Eldorado Brougham. I’ve always liked the 1971-72 Eldorado, especially the subtly-retro vertical side trim and rear fenders, and the blade taillights. As with so many early seventies designs it lost a lot of its character when adapted to 5 mph crash bumpers.
Little better from the side maybe?
It looks like a cross between the “shopped” fastback 72 from the other day and a Citroen DS.
It’s interesting, and not too bad looking, but I can see how it would have been completely polarizing as a Cadillac, and a Cadillac with a cynical premium to boot. Actually it would have been cool to have sold this as a LaSalle and the released Seville at the same time (they saved enough money on the modified X chassis right, and GM was still flush with cash, right?) and see which one would take off.
Nevertheless it would have flopped like the Aero Back A bodies, but it would be all sorts of nerd cool 35 years later.
I wonder if part of the impetus for going that direction for the second-generation Seville was because the first generation seems to have been a pretty strong influence on the downsized B-bodies — every time I see a ’77-’90 big Chevy, the ‘sheer look’ is readily apparent. GM designers liked to introduce idioms and then go in a different direction once they became ubiquitous, and perhaps that’s what they were hoping with the slantback Seville.
Front end is the 74-76 DeVille/Fleet, isn’t it. Rear looks unfinished, or like an airbag car that needs new parts.
So…was Kady the great GM designer or a guy who just made his way to the top? His V16 design is fantastic, but his production cars weren’t that great. Maybe he was a great designer caught up in the GM bureaucracy.
The side view reminds of the 1977 Pontiac LeMans driven by Sheriff Buford T. Justice in the first, and best, Smokey & The Bandit.
I’d intended to post this in the comments for the 1980 Seville CC, but I just found my copy of “Cadillac: Standard of Excellence” today. It was published in 1980 and contains the following quote:
“Without resorting to ‘throwback’ design details like Virgil Exner’s ugly free-standing headlights (as used on early ’60s Imperials), designer Wayne Cady (sic) has come up with the most distinctive Cadillac since the ’67 Eldorado.”
I still dont like the bustle back that fetish seems to have plagued Kadys career everytime it energed in metal someone shuffled the deck and he got moved. He seems to have grown out of it in the 90s just in time to retire.I wonder if he had a hand in the bulge on the bootlid of late 70s Holden sedans?
That bulge just looked so weird and ugly. I could never understand them going to the expense of tooling up for something so pointless, after the previous nice smooth lid.
If anyone sees a clean 1992-93 Seville with the 4.9 V8, let me know. God those are still stunning cars 20 years later.
There’s a nice one on CL Chicago now. Green and tan, but shipping a car from Il to Ca seems odd..
There’s an 84 Riviera T Type too..
That 92 Seville is anice looking car very Ozzy fairlane around the healights and front side profile but a nice clean design especially compared the horrors from the 80s.
In my local newspaper, well-kept Cadillacs of this era frequently show up in the used car section of the classifieds via estate sales.
I see one regularly at the college I go to, in the light purplish color. I think it is a 4.9, anyway, because I don’t see any “Northstar” badging on it.
I agree with you, Laurence – the 1992-1997 Seville is still a stunning car. It’s among my favorite designs of the 1990s, both within GM and in general.
After the decade of the 80’s formal roofs, the 92-97 Sevilles were head turners. At least for me personally. I can remember seeing those cars when they first were released and thinking I could see myself driving one of them these days…
Hasn’t happened so far, though…
If I find a clean 1992… or non Northstar ’93….. Off to Craigslist I go…
I thought I read in a book that Kady was credited with the last-gen Riviera (1995-99) which would make sense, since it’s a modified boat tail. Can anyone verify?
Update: Buick Studio Chief Bill Porter is given credit for the ’95 Riviera. He would have worked under Kady at the time.
Ah, thanks! You know what, I remembered wrong. Was confusing Bill Porter with Wayne Kady. Maybe Porter was influenced by Kady because I see an influence. Either way. the ’95 Riv is one of the greats as far as styling goes.
It’s worth noting that Porter designed the 1970½ Firebird. If you take a look at a Firebird without a rear spoiler, it has a distinctly slanted tail.
I am very fond of the final ’95-’99 Riviera. I’ve never been keen on the interior, but it looks more legitimately Jaguarish than the XK40.
I am too, and I owned a ’97 for 9 years. I have some problems with the interior, too, but the dash is one of the most creative ever, at least in a car of the last 25 years. It’s a reinterpretation of the ’63 dash, but really its own thing.
It’s not an ergonomic thing, I’ve just been bothered by the dark gauges and vents set into the light-colored panel. It reads to my eye as pock-marked, which is not a happy statement about an otherwise handsome car.
Pock-marked? Wow, I never saw it that way. I just like that it was refreshingly different from the usual pod-in-front-of-steering-wheel look, with that big full-width blade shelf. It would have worked even without the round pods, but I like them. And actually, the whole layout worked pretty well ergonomically, too. The broad dash actually worked to shield us from the hot California sun, yet the car felt open and airy at the same time.
I remember seeing that car at the GM design center in fiberglass mock ups back in the early nineties. It originally had wood trim across the center of the panel wrapping onto the doors with all the instruments, controls, gauges and outlets that wood trim. It looked appropriate to me and felt natural to the design. I felt really let down when the car was released without the wood trim and made the components looked cheap or naked in some way. Granted the trim piece was huge – a real cost hit if it were real wood or even fake wood. Fake wood usually doesn’t look good at that size especially if money is an issue and maybe GM management was afraid it looked old fashioned with wood trim.. Sadly, any or all of those are reasons why I think it was cut out of the program.
Bill Porter was responsible for the 95 Riviera, Park avenue and Le Sabre from that time. He did not work under Kady at that time or any other as best I know. Bill Porter was chief designer of Buick 1 studio and Wayne Kady was Chief of Buick 2 studio at the time the Riviera design was done in Buick 1 by Bill Porters team. I worked in Buick 1 studio as a summer intern while Bill Porter was chief of the main studio and Wayne Kady was in charge of the smaller studio. My observation was that Wayne Kady was from another Era and not with the times – right down to the way he dressed, dark blue blazers with white starched shirts with gold cuff links and dark blue poly pants sharply pressed.
Thanks for confirming what seemed to be the case.
Love ’em or hate ’em, you have to admit that they were distinctive.
Personally, I like the Roadmaster, and the 1997 Regal/Century was an attractive car, the design as a whole made more sense than the 1990-96 version. If they had just used better plastics in the interior they really could have had something.
And, the 1992 Seville is still one of the best looking cars of the 1990’s, period.
The ’74-76 Riviera is actually growing on me more and more. Way too big, but I do like that rear end. In any case, the rear quarter angle on the red car at the top here is its best. At least they tried to keep the rear end interesting when “de-boattailing” it!
I have to give credit where credit is due. I didn’t see this posting yesterday, but as posts go, wow! Well done, Paul.
Some of the commenter’s remarks stands out in my mind, about Kady being some sort of hanger-on or having pix of upper management in compromising positions. FWIW, I seriously doubt that Mr. Kady was a lucky bum, there must have been something there for the guy to directly into the Cadillac studios right after starting at GM. I don’t believe they normally hired very young people into Cadillac studios, at that time I think they did a few years in the lower divisions to prove their mettle.
Another thing I wanted to note also: You can draw anything you want. Getting it to work on an actual production line (or lines) is another matter entirely. I’m something of a fan of automotive or transportation design, but I know that sometimes there is some other such production/engineering/cost limitation. See the Pontiac Aztek concept and production car as a recent example.
With the exception of the 2nd gen Seville, there’s little of Mr. Kady’s work I find objectionable. I don’t know to what degree his other designs got diluted by production or cost concerns. I agree that many of his designs have a common theme with the descending line and some sort of bustle at the rear. But, even working as a graphic designer, I find myself designing things in a certain idiom; you develop an aesthetic ‘comfort zone’, and it can be hard to leave it.
His later design work may have been “clinic-ed” heavily, the later Buick Regal and Century look almost anodyne in a certain manner. But I think they’re well proportioned and have a conservative tone that has aged well. They have aged better than some of the more daring designs from the ’70’s and ’80’s. Although, seeing that 3rd gen Seville again, it’s really not a bad looker. But I was never a big fan of the ‘formal’ roof, it looked too severe.
Thanks again, Paul.
All right Paul. I’ve got to admit I only like one design of Kady’s, and that is unfortunately a fibreglass clone of the XK120. I *knew* the damned rear sloping line seemed familiar, thanks for pointing me to the source. Why, oh why couldn’t Kady have left the bustle out of the bustleback and just blatantly copied the smooth, downward flowing XK120 rear? Even in the Citroen clones, this would have made the design beautiful, with a curvy front to go with it. Alas, I have three words for his other designs featured here: hate. Hate. HATE.
I’ll fondly think he was the single person responsible for GM losing the styling lead to Ford, of all companies (ooh, that MB W126, one of my all-time favourite designs, but Ford!?!!), even though that was probably not the case and other idiots were involved. If his designs were polarising, you now know which pole I’m on. To think that I liked that downswept curve! I’ll thank Jag for that.
If you don’t like the bustleback Seville, blame Mitchell much more than Kady, because while Wayne drew it, the design was inspired by, drawn for, and expected to please Mitchell- and for good or bad, that is how GM Styling ran at that point in time. Mitchell saw this car as his swan song, and perhaps it is.
Thank you for another good one, Paul. I really wish there were more sites like Dean’s Garage. I could sit for hours absorbing the inner workings of the design studios.
I do think these Kady drawings are ugly, and lacking in finesse. The Pontiac is awful, and that V-16 resembles a certain bedroom apparatus. But I don’t care. I just eat this stuff up. It’s just so intriguing, the design proposals and clay models, the evolution of style over the decades, and what might have been. I must find more of this stuff.
I know I am late to the game, but I needed to weigh in on this. I am a devoted fan of Wayne Kady. I think he was a styling genius. I think his renderings are incredible, and as a Cadillac fan, you can’t discount his accomplishments. He had a hand in every Cadillac from 1965 to 1990. The 1971 Eldorado and the 1980 Seville are masterpieces. The 77-79 DeVille and Fleetwood were the only members of that generation other than the Impala/Caprice to preserve their brand identity .Those cars sold well, when this initial downsizing could have been a disaster. The 1980 redesign of the fullsize Cadillacs was so well received that it lasted until 1992. Despite having some of the worst engines ever made from 82-85, the public still bought these cars. I would say it was based on the handsome styling.
Wayne also hit some foul balls, as evidenced by the Cimarron, the 85 DeVille and the 86 Eldo and Seville. These cars were also designed during the worst years of GM and Cadillac leadership. His hands were tied on the awkward proportions and shrunken size, though he did manage to sneak in an inch of width on the 86 E body.
I put my money where my mouth is and own a 1980 Seville. I think it’s the most attractive, distinctive car of that decade. It also drives phenomenally well with the 368 engine. If Cadillac had invested in that engine beyond the 2 years it was available in passenger cars, they would have had some world class machines by the end of the decade.
It’s hard to hate on Wayne Kady without hating on Cadillac of the 60’s and 70’s. If you find those cars “parochial” and see any glimmer of good looks in the pregnant elephant 86 Taurus, then there is no hope for you as a connoisseur of fine luxury cars.
They are very odd designs. ‘Parochial’ is a good term for them. The work of someone who had no design background and was out of touch with current trends in industrial design. Revolutionary modern designs like those espoused by Bauhaus designers, cars such as the Beetle, Fiat 500, Mini had been produced and yet the guy thought this stuff was relevant!? To me it’s Dan Dare meets Liberace meets Superfly!
One of my few new cars ever was a ’92 Buick Skylark GS. 4 doors. Burgundy with silver trim on bottom panels. I always kinda liked the design, and it was a little bit of fresh air after the stale, stale, arrogant, 3 box design of the ’80s that GM embraced. Every car critic seems to zoom in on the “beak” but is it only because it’s named after a bird ? ha ! Anyway, styling was based on the Buick show car, the Bolero, but only t he last years bore strong resemblance. Ol’ Wayne might have been a frustrated ornithologist and it came out in his car design. I won’t even touch his fascination with bustles. Overall the Buick lasted but mostly faded away very, very slowly. In less than 2 years the entire dash panel went kaput, the “sport suspension” went to take a powder and never came back., even the carpets frayed away from door moldings. I could not afford new wheels so my Baby Buggy Buick had to last me … for 12 and 1/2 years … I knew when the radio went it was time for the car to go. Nice donation to the Salvation Army though and a good tax write off. No more Buicks, never, ever again.
Saying that the XK120 was influential in the US seems sort of hurtful considering it was basically a tribute to the 1941 Chrysler Newport.
Very few cars are truly original, and I’m not implying that the XK120 was. But its influence was truly momentous because there was this huge sports car fever at the time, and the Jag became the icon which both fueled the fever and spurred hundreds of imitations.
The ’41 Newport was very advanced, design wise. But it wasn’t the right kind of car at the right time.
The XK120 is also similar-looking to some versions of the late-thirties BMW 328 roadster for one, the style is not unique to the Chrysler.
Paul,
” Were these promotions, or shuffling the Design Heads of the Titanic?”
A good question / description of that era within GM design. They didn’t Fire people back then. Management just moved them “out of the way” or granted them Golden Parachute style retirements when their time came. There were a lot of Chief designers, Assistant Chief Designers and Design Executives for each brand/advanced studios, the President of Design and the Vice President of Design… There were so many studios and executives that it was kind of confusing to know who was in charge of what or if a person still had any responsibilities after move to a new position. At one time in the later Nineties, Jerry Palmer was retitled and given a less than exact job description with no direct reports for his executive design position below Wayne Cherry.
I’m wondering whether an organisational chart would even have been possible?
A drawing much like the radical ’71 Coupe DeVille rendering from 1966, including the hidden headlamps and large lower fog lights, appeared in the July 1970 Motor Trend as part of the cover story ” ’71 New Cars” – and because nearly all the other drawings in the same article (Mustang, Cougar, boattail Riviera, Impala coupe) were fairly accurate, I was quite disappointed that the actual ’71 Cadillac front ends were so staid and vertical by comparison. (Yeah, I still have that issue right here…)
I don’t care much for most of Kady’s designs, but I must say that I like his take on the Riviera. The old boat-tails were a little too much, in my opinion. Kady’s re-style toned it down while still giving the Riviera a unique look.
I liked the boat tail a great deal. But, market acceptance was not the greatest and Federal bumper standards dictated change. I agree that this update is not bad at all. It didn’t excite the market at a time when very large cars were suffering universally, and it looks a bit too much like a LeSabre coupe that cost much less. But, not a bad look that likely struggled against money allotted for it.
Well, it looks like I finally know who to blame for a lot of the ugly stuff that came out of GM over the years. 🙂 Joking, of course – some.
The worst offenders, in looking back though, I think have to be the downsized ones that came out of GM in the late 70s-80s. I understand how they were trying to make them recognizable to their sister cars before the downsizing but all they really did was make them look klutzy, ugly and badly-proportioned in every way. As alluded to in the article – GM could have really used the opportunity as a way to lead the way in taking styling to a whole new direction and level and instead, they blew it.
The only production car pictured that I object to as far as style is the ’86 Seville. Certainly, some of the cars were were wrong for their time or market position, and some suffered from terrible mechanical / engineering woes. But, those issues were forced on the designer by external conditions and management errors beyond the control of the designer.
Terrific write up even if I don’t see perfectly eye to eye with the editorial.
Well, I learned who was responsible for all those blah at best cars GM made back then. At least they were, for the most part, better than the LSD induced stuff Ford cranked out (Or should it be Cracked out?) from about 1971 until 2000. So many of those were just plain bizarre, IMHO, ugly because…well, just ugly.
Like chrisgreencar I’m appreciating the ’74 to ’76 Rivs more. Esepcially after the 75’s tweaking. Did anyone else see the one that was listed on ebay a few months back: black with red interior and stainless steel roof band (factory option?). Looking at all the dealer’s photos I got what Kady was after: the Riv looks like a high powered spedboat with the body sweeping downwards from the bluff grill to the neatly tucked in trunk. And that trunk! So long and low compared to the big butt designs out there today. Only the grille, which looks like something left over from the boattail trying to peek out of the more formal design lets it down.
I actually owned a 76 Riviera with the ss roof band, but mine was white with red vinyl and a red interior (S/R).
I had no idea my old W-body Regal GS was a Kady design, interesting. I like it much better than almost anything else he did that you featured here. However, I do see faint Jaguar influences in it, the way some of the lines flow, especially around the rear 3/4’s. Not XK120, but more recent models I guess.
I find it interesting that you mention the 65-66 Cadillacs as polarizing due to their design. From the perspective of not having been there when they were introduced and then replaced, thus not seeing them in a continuum, they look just fine to me. What I mean is that I’ve obviously been exposed to all of the 60’s Caddy’s, but not in the chronological sequence that someone who was there would have been. Now I’ll have to line up pictures side by side of the various years to see what you mean. I wonder if I can identify the sequence they appeared in just by looking at them or if I will mix them around.
Perhaps “polarizing” is a bit strong. The ’65 Cadillac was clearly heavily influenced by the slab-sided ’61 Continental, and as such, it was a pretty marked turn away from the Caddy design language/heritage that had been building for some time. And the ’67 turned right back to that heritage, with its sharp edges and rear fenders that harked back to the fin era, even if they didn’t stick up very high.
As such, the ’65-’66s are sort of orphans in the evolution of the brand’s design, lacking the edgy-finny-sheer look design language that even the current cars harken back to. The ’65-’66 could look a bit blobby form some angles, but was a handsome car and a well-designed one. It would have made a killer ’65 Imperial!
My experience has been that folks tend to really like it, or not so much so, although as I said, “polarizing” is probably hyperbole.
What I see as the big change in the 65 Cadillac from 64 is that the headlights are arranged vertically instead of horizontally.
You have to read or listen to interviews of Bob Lutz. He gives fascinating insider information in how (terribly) were things done at GM. By the 90s and 2000s, designers had very little say in what the cars from the corporation actually looked like. The were just asked to wrap up a series of parameters dictated by marketing guys, that tried to apply brand differentiation concepts from companies like P&G. Needless to say, ideas to differentiate toothpaste brands didn’t work for cars. I recommend you watch Bob on YouTube, like when he goes to John McElroy’s Autoline
The ’65-’66 Cadillac may have been orphan styles in the ’60s But they obviously influenced the 1980-1992 RWD C and D Cadillacs! Especially the rears!
Hi Wayne,
Doug Kellen has been trying to get hold of you…
He is Illinos right now at 847-833-8531…
I’m his one of his twin daughters…..
He’s in good health, I hope you and the family are too?
Laura “Kellen” Wright
Paul,
I find your articles on automotive history to be a fresh take on things most of the time -and do not always agree. Thank you for your well researched approach. You provide a lot of interesting reading. I think most of what has been written here in the replies about Wayne Kady is a product of simplistic, one-dimensional thinking. As someone who was fortunate enough to work in and around the auto industry in Detroit and its environs for a time – including some exposure to GM Design Staff – I have to say that the knee-jerk opinions of most of the on-line haters posted here makes me laugh. How easy it is to give an opinion on something or someone’s work from 30 or 40 years ago when one has no concept of the environment, business case and other influences of the times. I do not know Mr. Kady, but am very familiar with his work. He was and is a talented man who had to design for some of the toughest times his industry has ever seen. A 1974 Riviera looks much different today than it did in 1974 when it was new – a product of it’s times. The automobile business is a fashion business. We laugh at double breasted suits and exaggerated shoulder pads today – but do we denigrate the talent and character of an Yves St. Laurent who designed them way back when?
Sincerely,
Rick
hello, a lot of yadda yadda, here. i worked sculpting Cadillacs and Buicks with
Wayne Kady. the last seville was designed by Donald Hronek. Passed away.
the Buick Regal was designed by Scott Dolan. Scott is still with us and a very good friend of mine. Actually Peter Maier drew the bustle back that Bill Mitchel chose one day while leaving the Cadillac Studio at Design Staff. If you would like to see a photo of Peter and Donald and George Camp/designer let me know. they are standing beside the Clay model and a dear friend is sculpting the rear deck, now gone. His name, Bob Schmidt.
/Users/nhouvras/Desktop/Nick’s sketches:1950’s/img236.jpg
Hi Nick,
Pete Maier is a good friend of mine. I’d love to see that picture!
One minor correction: The trendsetting Audi 100 aka 5000 to which you refer went on sale in 1983, as a 1984 model.
In the US. But in Europe, it came out in September 1982 as a 1983 model. I’ve corrected the text to reflect that.
Most of the renderings here strike me as impractical and/or silly (or at least not to my taste), but that ’73 LaSalle…holy smokes, it’s the alternate-universe not-ugly ’80 Seville, or an alternate-universe ’77 B-body design. Wow.
A talented designer, but for another era. Nostalgic design influences is not what the domestic makers needed in the 70s and later.
This afternoon, my Wife and I were stopped at a traffic signal when a new Cadillac CT6 pulled up alongside. “Look” I said “That’s the new big Cadillac! It’s a new car not sharing a platform with another division like Buick or Chevy. Cadillac developed a bespoke V8 for this car. What do you think?” My Wife replied, “It just looks like every other new car, it doesn’t even look like a Cadillac!” I answered, “all new cars look alike, if you want a car that looks like a Cadillac, why don’t you let me buy that ’63 Coupe de Ville with the fins!”
It just goes to show what a thankless task car designers have! However, my Wife did like our ’94 Seville and the ’77 CdV that I had when I met her. She also liked my ’66 Riviera and thinks that my Jaguar XJS is beautiful. So she does appreciate some good designs.
I also like the bustle back Seville, it’s about as distinctive as distinctive gets. I also like the Boat tail Riviera. I had a ’71. Talk about distinctive, that was an insane fever dream of a design. How could they have expected to sell that thing to a big chunk of Middle America? The ’74 “Bobtail” design was an improvement, as the first photo of the red car demonstrates. It kind of channels the original design which avoided styling cliches. However, it’s just a bit too big. I have to agree with Carmine that the ’74 was the best of the Bobtails. The front end still had a bit of aggression with forward leaning grille shell and the round quad headlights.
It just goes to show what a thankless task car designers have!
I sympathize with designers where their visions need to filter through so many channels from legislation to corporate beancounters to marketing to customer research to the point any semblance of creativity is blunted and watered down to the point of everything they make end up looking like a 10 year old Infiniti sedan. As a potential customer and fan of car design, it’s hard to be thankful for the output of GM today. I mean for as much legitimate criticism Chris Bangle and co. get it does at least seem like there is some of that old “we designed it, and you’ll buy it” attitude of old GM, and that’s something I feel is sorely lacking in the industry these days. GM didn’t follow trends in mainstream design under Earl or much of Mitchell , they set them.
To a large degree I sympathize with Kady. He may have been in charge of Cadillac during the brand’s darkest period but he was stuck using that corporate stubby body structure, there was no making those things look like an Audi 5000 clone, IF that’s what was needed to save Cadillac, and that’s a big if. I think way too much responsibility for poor or questionable designs are being placed in his lap here, they all could have still been veto’d by Bill Mitchell or Irv Rybicki at the end of the day, he may have incorporated a lot of thematic pet quirks, but it was their job to say “no, that looks ridiculous”.
Really, the 76 Seville concept was a far more progressive design than what Bill Mitchell replaced it with, whose sheer look overstayed it’s welcome through the bulk of the 80s. The production car was attractive I admit, but it shouldn’t have defined Cadillac and by extension GM design the way it did, the Kady design was maybe too soft and droopy but at least it was trying to advance, it looked far more European if that was the goal, and maybe that would have turned off Cadillac traditionalists, but those traditionalists are why younger buyers saw the brand in a negative light, maybe more than the cars themselves.
Not a fan of the Bustle backs, Lincoln does a similar ugly rear end on one of their XYZ cars or CUV/SUV crap. These old design throw backs are a dead end, PT Cruiser, SSR, Aztek, Pacer, you build the weird stuff and you have painted yourself into a corner and what was hot eventually becomes ugh!
I really like the slantback / bustleback design. Would the Infiniti J30 fall into this category? Maybe it was more of a ‘droop-back.’ Regardless, I always thought it looked great (though my friends tended to disagree).
I didn’t know I could have any less respect for Chris Bangle, but it would have been a really short trip from some of those bustle-back treatments to his infamous coffin-lids.
Certain cars have long caught my attention, and not in a good way. Examples include the bustle back Cadillac (Kadyllac?), Buick Skylark, and many other ill-proportioned GM cars of the 1990s. Many of the same cars are mentioned here, so I now know who was involved. It took more than Roger Smith to destroy General Motors.
I can say one with for certain, I am not a fan of Mr. Kady’s designs at all. He seems to be responsible for some of the ones I hate the most.
I don’t see the ’65-’66 Cadillacs as a polarizing design at all. In fact, I see them as the high point of Cadillac styling in the 60s. Interesting, because the appeal to me is the straight fender line that continues through to the rear fenders, which is of course not the typical Kady sloping deck design. In fact, I am partial to all of the ’65-68 Stacked Headlight designs (owned a ’65 Sixty Special, and presently have a ’67 Calais Coupe). Wayne would drive a ’67 convertible to the Cadillac/LaSalle club events in Michigan, so that year may have been one of his favorites. By the way, the best way to show off the ’65-’66 design is with the Sixty Special/Fleetwood Brougham, not the Sedan deVille. The former has a longer wheelbase, and a more formal roof.
Pierre Ollier, who worked in GM styling and was a friend of mine, once mentioned something interesting re the ’65 vs the ’66. This was before his time at GM, but he had heard that Cadillac Division was told by “headquarters” to “reduce the cost” of the ’66s. If you look closely, you will see that the front fender chrome trim that fell in a little groove has disappeared in the ’66. Retaining the groove without the brightmetal looks a little odd. Also, the grille for the ’66 is a bit less complex, as is the “grille” in the back. And probably are some other examples.
Having said this, many people prefer the ’66 over the ’65, viewing it as a cleaner design. Also, I much prefer the interior slabs of walnut in the ’66 Sixty Special/Fleetwood Brougham over the wood in the ’65 Sixty Special.
One other comment: I once asked Mr Kady about the influence of the ’61 Continental over the Cadillacs to follow. He agreed that it was a factor.