Attempting to envision the future is unavoidable for car enthusiasts; we just can’t help ourselves sometimes. Here at Curbside Classic, we usually look to the past, but often our minds wander into the future as well, looking for emerging trends, or attempting to shape our own version of utopia. Car magazines occasionally do the same thing – such as in 1982 when Road & Track asked 5 renowned automotive designers what they thought people would be driving in 2017. Well, the future has arrived – let’s see how the experts fared.
2017 wasn’t an entirely random date for R&T. The article appeared in their 35th anniversary issue (June 1982), and 2017, being 35 years in the future, provided an alluring target. At the time, the US automotive world was emerging from a decade of upheaval – two energy crises, the surge of imports, downsizing, and the emergence of new technologies and new ways of designing cars. With that backdrop, we can see how the panel of 5 auto design experts envisioned 2017:
Long-time Road & Track contributor Werner Bührer was a logical designer for Road & Track to turn to. Bührer furnished R&T with detailed technical and styling analyses for many years, and he was no stranger to the magazine’s readership. A Swiss native who studied industrial design in Germany, Bührer’s expertise was not just limited to cars, but his detailed automotive renderings and design critiques earned him a loyal following.
Bührer postulated that by 2017, vehicles would prioritize fuel economy, small dimensions and easy access. To suit these requirements, he proposed a pod-shaped 3-seat car (the driver sits in the center, flanked by two passengers sitting slightly to his rear). His car has a small engine immediately to the rear of the seats, and interior access is gained by a combined roof/doors panel that is hinged on the front and swings open for easy ingress and egress. The design, he noted, would be suitable for gas, diesel, electric, rotary, hydrogen or other power. Recognizing the need for vehicles beyond a 3-seat pod, Bührer’s vehicle featured a modular design, with the front pod able to be hitched to various “tail adaptors” that would transform the car into a van, pickup, cargo vehicle, etc.
Stewart Reed was, in 1982, a chief designer for Toyota’s Calty Design research studio in California. Prior to joining Toyota, Reed worked for Chrysler Corporation’s advanced design studio, as well as for AMC. He is still involved in automotive design today, leading his own consultancy, Steward Reed Design.
Reed made several predictions about broad economic trends, several of which proved to be prescient. Predictions of fewer automobile manufacturers, a growing reliance on subcontractors, and the emergence of “shared ownership schemes” have all come to fruition in the last 35 years. He also predicted that, despite massive changes to our economy and lifestyles, “individualism and free, personal mobility will still be important parts of our transportation system.”
As for the cars themselves, Mr. Reed suggested that increased urbanization would lead to “compact 3- and 4-wheel cars” suited to high density environments. He foresaw three types of vehicles: 1) Tiny 1- or 2-passenger vehicles like the red example above; 2) Small 1-box, 3-passenger cars like the example at bottom-left; and 3) Larger, 1-box vehicles to serve a variety of transportation needs – these vehicles would maximize interior space, with minimal space devoted to mechanicals; all servicing would be done from underneath.
Mark Stehrenberger was born in Switzerland, attended design school both in his native country and in California, and immigrated to the US in 1964. He opened his own design studio in 1969, which he continues to run today. His half-century of design experience has included everything from cars to clothes to food marketing.
Stehrenberger focused his prognostication on family vehicles, predicting a merging of mobile living room qualities of early 1980s conversion vans with the size and efficiency of European and Japanese vans. Within a few years, the minivan trend took the family vehicle market by storm, followed by SUVs and CUV, so in many respects, Stehrenberger’s prediction ran true (though the velvet lounge chairs and wet bars of conversion vans never migrated downstream). For a power plant, Stehrenberger predicted interchangeable cartridges similar to battery packs that could easily slide in and out of a vehicle, a feature that would obviate engine repairs, and would even enable engine swaps in just a few minutes.
Alex Tremulis was the senior member of R&T’s 2017 design board. At 68 years old in 1982, Tremulis participated in numerous eras of automotive design since he entered the field in 1933. Among other accomplishments, he served as Auburn-Cord-Duesenberg’s chief stylist in 1936-37, designed the 1948 Tucker, and worked for Ford’s advanced studio before starting his own firm in 1962. While at Ford, Tremulis was known as a futurist, and in 1957 designed the X-2000, a bubble-top space-age concept meant to evoke cars at the dawn of the coming millennium.
The space age theme carried through to Tremulis’ Road & Track exercise, with bubble-tops and dorsal fins. Tremulis sought to achieve a “happy marriage between automotive and aircraft technology,” particularly regarding aerodynamics, which he saw as the key to greater efficiency. The “Lone Eagle” was a single-seat 3-wheeler reminiscent of a modern-day enclosed recumbent trike. With an ultra-low drag coefficient of 0.13 and a moped engine, the Lone Eagle could achieve 50 mph and 250 mpg. A larger “Aeronaut” sports car was also envisioned, with Tremulis estimating 90 mpg from a 544-cc Subaru engine, though he expected future advances in continuously variable transmissions and gas turbine engines to increase efficiency even further. Finally, Tremulis designed an 8-passenger, symmetrically-styled “Aero Van” to “replace the station wagon.”
Tremulis passed away in 1991, leaving a long legacy of automotive designs and an even longer legacy of concepts.
Teruo Uchino rounded out R&T’s design panel. One of Japan’s most innovative designers, Uchino designed the Datsun 510, which launched that company’s good fortunes in the US. By 1982, Uchino served as Nissan’s chief designer, and is credited with many popular Nissan cars of the time. Unlike some of the other panel members, Mr. Uchino was not known as a futurist, but rather was credited with having a remarkable penchant for what consumers in the future would actually desire, and his combination of design and marketing skills brought a unique contribution to the 2017 predictions.
Uchino predicted “evolutionary changes,” rather than a revolution of microcars, and predicted the greatest advances would be in electronics and materials. The typical car of 2017 would have a smaller, yet more powerful engine thanks in part to advanced electronics, increased use of lightweight materials, aircraft-inspired aerodynamics, and “automatic control systems” to avoid accidents. Befitting his realistic mindset, Uchino’s design contribution was the least daring example of the bunch, but his design and engineering predictions are the closest to our actual 2017 vehicles.
One wonders how surprised the five design experts would have been to learn that in their target year of 2017, the most popular cars in America wouldn’t be all that different in general execution from their forebears in 1982. Pickup trucks, CUVs and mid-size sedans would dominate the market, alternative powerplants would account for only a small portion of vehicle sales, and commuter pods would be nowhere to be seen.
Of course, the inaccuracy of these designers’ predictions doesn’t reflect poorly on their own expertise, but instead speaks volumes about the unpredictability of the future. Predicting long-term transportation trends (or anything else for that matter), is like guessing the path of a hurricane. Even armed with expert foresight and knowledge, the actual course of events can emerge as a big surprise.
The world changes in unpredictable ways: Who knows what will be considered a curbside classic in 2052?
Reminds me of various “Popular Science”, “Mechanics Illustrated”, “Motor Trend” and “Mechanics Illustrated” covers from the early/mid 1960’s.
I like this example of Jetsons “Googie” mode: http://www.plan59.com/av/av404.htm
Dad here must’ve made good coin working for Mr. Spacely.
Oftentimes people mock vintage predictions of the future. I don’t because no one can devine what the buyers will want. I never thought that the market would go wholesale into the SUV/CUV thing. After all everyone will want coupes (or if a family, a wagon or van). right? (at least I thought so in the ’70s) ??
Regarding future curbside classics, I’m wondering when this shift towards trucks, SUVs ana CUVs will start to manifest itself at “car” shows.
Go to any show, whether it is Hershey or your local Saturday night cruise-in and the vehicles on display are almost exclusively cars. Is an F150 Limited King Ranch Platinum the vehicle that people lust after today and that collectors in the future will seek out?
I personally think people will look back on these vehicles like we look at cars from the 50’s today: Ridiculous and over the top.
You mean, over the top as in awesome and gorgeous? Who thinks of 1950s cars as ridiculous? The have reached American kitsch apotheosis.
I see a lot of older pickup trucks at local car shows, especially hot rod shows. Occaisionally I see some nut with his Aztec. Typhoons show up as well. Not to mention old panel vans. So give them some time you will see them.
I can definitely envision that one day, the most egregious examples of trucks and SUVs will be viewed similarly to how Mercury Turnpike Cruisers and the like are viewed now – as collectible due to their kitsch and nostalgia.
An F150 Limited King Ranch Platinum was recently selling at our local boat show via dealer for roughly $90,000…after 15% taxes, delivery fees, administration charges, tire tax, vehicle prep, destination charges, vehicle permits (higher cost by vehicle weight), a registration fee…and probably more. Who is dropping that kinda dough for a truck? I’m guessing the’re not into car shows…or owning their home.?lol… I mean, I make decent money, but $90,000 for a truck? I just can’t justify why?
I just learned Toyota Canada has a “1794 Edition” of the Tundra. Best I can make out, that was the year of the Jay Treaty.
1794 refers to the year of the founding of the ranch where the Tundra plant in San Antonio now resides.
I’ve said elsewhere and often that raised ride height and dark matte cladding (to disguise floor-to-ceiling height as ground clearance) are the new fake wood paneling. So wait for another look to become the go-to kid hauler aesthetic and wait some more for people to get nostalgic for the CUV look.
I’m still waiting for my flying car, robot butler, and vacation on the moon.
Don’t forget the ubiquitous sexbot predictions. I think the Japanese do have those now, tho…
The 1985 Volvo 480 (Volvo’s first FWD car), that’s what came to my mind when seeing Uchino’s design. Super modern and futuristic, certainly for the Volvo brand in that era.
In 2052 people will still favor vehicles seating 5 to 7 people. I repeat Tuero Uchino’s prediction for the next 35 years. Artificial intelligence and autonomous operation will become more mainstream – like it or not.
Uchino was closest to anything that’s been produced….but he didn’t forsee a 2017 anything so much as he foresaw the 1990 GM “dustbuster” minivans. So his crystal ball saw about 8 years into the future.
One can even say that DKW foresaw the future with its 1949 Schnellaster. FWD, transverse engine, flat floor. And with a flat, sloping front.
Well, I was jumping through the comments to say that Stehrenberger’s preview looked like an early sketch for the Dustbuster vans, and that added to Uchino’s sketch also looking like one, only reinforces the fact that it was GM’s intent to make those vans look futuristic…
Awesomest van ever. My 1990 Transport is unfortunately headed for the crusher in a year of so though.
Besides sports type cars, designer faves have always (maybe until now) been slick simple people mover shapes.
Even in Europe the latest generation of cars has been turning more SUV than MPV. Less practicality, less cubic feet inside, worse visibility…more fashionable.
One of the last:
That’s not even one of the most CUV-ish vans around! Take a look at the new Renaults first. Renault always knew how to make an MPV, and then they eff then up so badly…
Well the lack of protruding front bumpers came true.
Werner Bührer’s contribution looks remarkably like a Bond Bug from the side, though much wider. The angled front wheels might have caused a few sleepless nights in development though!
It’s always very difficult to predict what a particular year’s styling trend will be; it tends to ebb and flow between simpler shapes, complex ones, creases, curves or straights regardless of the long-term trends.
Styling details aside, its a Smart Car or similar subcompact. The adventureous prediction is that America would find appeal in such a vehicle, but it was probably a safe bet that other markets would, in the future.
Nothing from 2017 has the pedestrian spotting visibility any of these renderings do. As it turns out it’s better to have gunslit windows with greek column sized pillars and balky clunky exterior designs to make sure the jay walkers, dilly dalliers, and specially unaware smartphone addicts not let that pesky Darwin end anyone’s fun.
One thing’s for sure though, the future has looked bleak for a long long time it seems.
“It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” Yogi Berra
Its not just vehicle design and marketing thats unpredictable. Who in 1982 would predict that fossil fuels would be as cheap and abundant as they are now, and that US oil production would be at an all time high?
Had they known, they might have rethought their notions of scarcity and efficiency as design driving forces. Availability of cheap fuels, and affordable sophisticated electronics would explain to engineers of the past our current love of 5000lb CUV barges.
One thing that sticks out to me regarding these future insights is how vastly different auto design evolved using the same time frame when this was written. 1947-1982 saw much more drastic changes overall in nearly every aspect compared to 1982-2017. Uchino’s renderings don’t strike me as that far off to today’s Honda Fit; raise the height and add two extra doors and the basic shape is there. It’s got the lightweight ACE body construction and Honda’s LaneWatch system, so I’d say Uchino was pretty much spot-on.
Gee, nobody predicted SUV’s and crossovers.
And if there was a common thread, it was that the Chevrolet Lumina minivan should have been a world beater. Guess the buying public just doesn’t share the vision of auto designers.
1982 was the tail end of the second energy crisis, when everyone thought that the price of oil and gas would keep going up forever. If the same predictions had been made 5 years later, I have no doubt that SUVs would figure into them. Keep in mind that futuristic 4×4 concepts were all the rage in the mid-late 70s.
As Paul mentioned at the end of the second energy crisis everyone was looking for increased economy. Since petro fuel has gone down in price and stayed down, low fuel consumption is not the only criterion for vehicle design and consumer selection. Market forces as well as fuel prices affect what the consumer will choose. During the 2008 and ongoing recession, lot’s of folks had little money to spend on extravagant vehicles. Now with a more stable economy many will have more to spend. And they do.
Living in the affluent SF Bay Area kind of skews the view of what the regular folks (myself included) are driving. I passed a new Bentley sedan yesterday on the freeway and it was only noteworthy because it wasn’t some model of Mercedes Benz or BMW!
Since the fuel economy of every type of vehicle has increased dramatically in the past thirty five years even large trucks and SUVs can make sense as a commuter vehicle.
Another factor is the very long commutes of many people in the Bay Area. The cost of housing has pushed many to well past the outer fringes of the immediate Bay Area into the Central Valley. I work with lots of guys that have anywhere from an hour to a two and a half hour one way commute. They don’t want to spend that time in a tiny “commuter pod” at not at least until they are forced to.
I think that the preference for trucks, SUVs and CUVs is not only because they are trendy, but because they are useful, flexible and easier for people to get in and out of. That becomes even more important as the population ages.
Though sometimes it’s good thing that those futurist designers get it wrong! Anyway Happy New Year!
Happy new year Jose!
I have to say if my job requires a 2 hour commute I have to look into either another job or another place to live. That’s ridiculous.
A “commuter pod” type car doesn’t need to be cramped. It’s a matter of prioritizing front seat space over all else. That includes a spacious feel too, so a designer would be limited in the extent they can follow the high-beltilne-big-console trend. A flat floor with minimal “island” console with a manual transmission and none at all with an automatic is doable, as are big windows far away from the occupants, even in a very small car.
I think Reed was on to something:
I thought of the Elio as well when I saw the 3 wheeler by Stewart Reed.
They all predicted some form of minivan. Minivans appeared just a couple years later. When these guys were writing in 1982, was it known that a minivan was already in the works at Chrysler?
Tremulis’ minivan was a lot like a Toyota Previa or even the earlier generation of Toyota van with the engine laying flat under the floor.
One thing absolutely none of them foresaw was the return to high hoods and blunt front ends dictated by pedestrian-impact research.
Uchino, while accurately predicting the development of autonomous vehicle technology, was still making the assumption that had been prevalent since the 1950’s, that embedding some sort of guidance system in the road would be necessary.
The Smart is probably the car most accurately predicted 35 years ago. No one could have foreseen the increased production of oil and the never ending love of CUVs and $70,000 luxotrucks made possible by that. If we stop being the world’s reserve currency for oil and other commodities, expect that to end quickly.