car design thread

The Detroit car mfg. walked away from the annual style/model change yrs ago. In some cases, decades ago.
Harley Earl has been dead 50 years.

 

Do you mean the Ghia Chryslers?

 

Just checkin'

 

Yes, it is indeed quirky.
Combo Vette/Porsche not for me however.

 

Late-1960s Ford car design film shows US automakers losing it
October 8, 2021 Steve Multimedia 1
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
2013) and Dean’s Garage (Smith, 2013) did not meaningfully deal with the 800-pound gorilla in the room.

For the sake of historical honesty I think we need to acknowledge that gorilla. Doing so doesn’t mean any of the designers in the film should be mocked. After all, the biggest source of the problem was mostly off camera — “Grosse Pointe myopians.” That’s the pejorative term journalist Brock Yates (1983) gave to the executives of Ford and other American automakers because they failed to recognize, let alone adapt to, dramatic changes sweeping through the marketplace.

Becoming an American auto executive was “like entering the priesthood,” an observer told Yates (1983, p. 80):

“‘The farther they advance, the more monastic they become. They simply have no concept of the real world.’ The observer went on to note that the automobiles of industry executives were ‘built to their lifestyles, and they have no comprehension of why people in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Scarsdale, or Fairfield County, Connecticut, want Mercedes, BMW’s, and Hondas instead of Buicks and LeBarons.'”

It is thus not at all surprising that the picture the Ford film unknowingly painted was of an automaker too fixated on excessively large, over-styled and under-engineered cars that did not meet the practical needs of a growing proportion of the buying public.

Styling: The tail that wagged the dog
It makes sense that a film intended to inspire young men (yes, men, as discussed here) to become car designers would emphasize the central importance of styling to the development of an automobile. And, to its credit, the film pointed out how design proposals went through many changes — or are even rejected — because of a range of other considerations.

But at least in the discussion about passenger cars, stylistic flights of fancy were given prevalence over engineering innovations and practical considerations. A case in point is footage about proposals for what would end up becoming the 1970 Thunderbird.

Image Unavailable, Please Login
A 1970 Thunderbird design proposal that was rejected because it was too “conventional.”
The lead designer is shown critiquing a proposal as looking too much like an economy car:

“Our customer, he wants the drama in his automobile and I don’t think we’re catching it here (see above illustration). I think we’re catching it in some of the others — especially this one looks very masculine (below illustration); a man will part with his money for that because he’s different. . . .”

Another designer agreed, arguing that “the Thunderbird should be a real pacesetter, a controversial-looking design, especially on the front end.”

Image Unavailable, Please Login
The sketch in the upper left was lauded for having “real solid Thunderbird stuff.”
The production T-Bird ended up with significant similarities to the sketches shown, most notably with its a pronounced “eagle beak” (Wikipedia, 2013). Ford was clearly trying to compete with General Motors over who could offer the longest hood.

Also see ‘1958-76 Thunderbird: The rise and fall of the Ford that shook up GM’

One could argue that the Thunderbird’s redesign was at least somewhat successful. In 1970 the T-Bird regained its sales leadership in the luxury coupe class from the Buick Riviera even though the latter received a much more complete reskinning. In 1971 production fell substantially but the T-Bird still outsold the Riviera and Olds Toronado despite the GM twins receiving completely new bodies (go here for further discussion).

Image Unavailable, Please Login
The eventual Thunderbird design may have had the most useless bumper of the early-70s (Old Car Brochures).
Nevertheless, the Thunderbird was an evolutionary dead end. As a case in point, it may well be the most egregious example of why the federal government felt compelled to institute bumper crashworthiness standards. The T-Bird’s front design offered ridiculously little protection from even parking-lot dings.

That’s why it struck me as a bit cheeky for Dean’s Garage commentator Allen Omes (2013) to complain about regulations that resulted in “huge bumpers and extra overhang to most everything.”

Also see ‘Hemmings highlights late-70s attack against U.S. bumper regulations’

Perhaps the best all-purpose response comes from Yates. In his classic book, The Decline and Fall of the American Automobile Industry, he concluded:

“All of the government interference could have been avoided if the industry had demonstrated some social responsibility during the 1960s. . . . Bad automobiles came before bad laws. To be sure, federal bureaucrats have since swung the regulation pendulum too far, but that too was an inevitable response to Detroit’s witless excesses” (1983, p. 254).

Whatever happened to practical cars?
It’s important to remember that this was a public relations film. Out of all of Ford’s products, why did they decide to spend quality time on the T-Bird? And why focus on the front end? This is the company that Henry Ford built. More than any other American automaker, Ford for many years was primarily associated with basic, practical transportation. Why was that legacy so underplayed in this film?

Also see ‘1962 Ford: Harbinger of stylish trucks rots in the woods’

Part of the answer may reside in the biggest intended audience, which was presumably middle and high school students. But if that’s the case, why not focus more on “youthful” cars such as the Mustang rather than the Thunderbird? I suspect that was because it best represented the core of Ford’s styling strategy as it entered the 1970s.

Image Unavailable, Please Login
This advanced concept for a Mustang foreshadows the bloated and impractical direction of 1970s Ford design.
That said, toward the end of the film they did show a concept which could plausibly be turned into a Mustang. However, this was presented as an advanced design which paid little attention to the practical aspects of packaging and engineering. It was a stylistic flight of fancy that only served to highlight Ford’s low prioritization of functional innovation.

Not your own man: the politics of ‘Bunkie’s beak’
The film has a certain dissonance. It makes reference to being “your own man” as a car designer yet also notes the importance of working well in teams. The latter is discussed in murky enough terms that you have to draw upon outside information to understand the political subtext.

The Thunderbird discussion does not acknowledge a high-level management feud going on at Ford during this time period. General Motors executive Semon “Bunkie” Knudsen was brought in to assume the presidency of the Ford Motor Company in February of 1968. That set up a rivalry with Lee Iacocca, who headed the Ford Division.

Also see ‘Lee Iacocca got lucky with the 1964-66 Ford Mustang’

According to David Halberstam’s book, The Reckoning, Knudsen and Iacocca fought constantly about styling — and the designers “were caught in the crossfire” (1986, p. 379). Collectible Automobile writers Jim and Cheryl Ferrell state that tensions became so great that design chief Eugene Bordinat “began preparing different clay models for each to see, and neither saw the clay models prepared for the other” (2014, p. 82).

Image Unavailable, Please Login
The 1970-71 Mercury Cyclone was given an odd “gunsight” beak (Old Car Brochures).
Knudsen was a big advocate of front ends with dramatic protrusions. A handful of Ford products thus ended up with beak-like grilles, such as the 1971-72 full-sized Ford, the 1970-71 Mercury Montego/Cyclone and the 1971-73 Mercury Cougar. However, the most dramatic beak of all was grafted onto the 1970-71 T-Bird.

Also see ‘1967-73 Mercury Cougar: A classic goes to hell’

Cobravenom71 (2004), a commentator at Mustangsandmore.com, stated that Knudsen “forced the T-Bird to be a virtual clone of the (1969) Pontiac Grand Prix, with a carbon-copy long pointed beak at the tip of the hood. This became known as ‘Bunkie’s beak.’ This car got zero support from Ford lifers.”

Image Unavailable, Please Login
1969 Pontiac Grand Prix: Mine’s bigger than yours (Old Car Brochures).
The film does not show any beakless design proposals, such as one posted at freewebs.com (2013; scroll down to 1969). The website states that the pictured design was vetoed by Knudsen.

Jim and Cheryl Ferrell go as far as to state that Knudsen “unilaterally changed” the front of the Thunderbird without getting the approval of Ford CEO Henry Ford II (2014, p. 82). If this was indeed the case, I can only assume that this film was released prior to Knudsen’s firing in the fall of 1969. Otherwise, why would Ford trumpet a design that was so controversial within the company?

Also see ‘Honest passion for Bunkie’s beak?’

Ford products largely lost their beaks in subsequent years. Even so, the company became an increasingly aggressive participant in the bigger, glitzier and more powerful arms race. The new-for-1972 Thunderbird may have adopted a bland, broughamy look, but this generation was the largest and heaviest in the history of that nameplate (auto editors of Consumer Guide, 2013).

Part of the problem was the advent of federally-mandated 5-mph bumpers. But even without them, the Thunderbird’s footprint was virtually identical to the full-sized LTD. Ford’s bloated personal coupe was only put on a diet after CAFE fuel economy standards were approved in 1975. Within five years the T-Bird’s weight would fall back to levels last seen when it was still a two-seater in 1955-57.

Image Unavailable, Please Login

Prior to the CAFE standards, it really didn’t matter who was in charge at Ford because the groupthink was so pronounced. In the late-60s and early-70s the Big Four made only token efforts to offer efficient and functionally innovative cars. This void was filled by foreign automakers, whose share of the market soared from under 5 percent of passenger cars and trucks in 1962 to more than 13 percent in 1970 — and then to more than 28 percent in 1987 (Wards Auto, 2017).

Image Unavailable, Please Login
The 1972 Thunderbird was a much more conservative — but bloated — design (Old Car Brochures).
Yates argued that a key factor in the ascendancy of foreign brands was the “suspicion among buyers that Detroit was incapable of building anything but chromed land arks” (1983, p. 115). Ford’s promotional film made little effort to dispel that suspicion among prospective car designers.

Yes, but stylistic creativity was still king!
A goodly number of commentators at Hemmings and Dean’s Garage viewed the film as a nostalgic trip back to the golden days of automotive design.

For example, in a Hemmings comment Jim (2013) noted that this “was back in the days when ascetics (sic) dictated the design. . . . Today they are all styled by wind tunnel drag coefficient, so everything foreign or domestic, looks identical.” The example he gave was the angle of a windshield, which he presumably believed had greater variability back then.

Image Unavailable, Please Login

Sure, aerodynamics now play a much bigger role in a car’s design. But back in the 1960s there were just as many styling constraints. They just happened to be dictated more by the corporate bean counters and catsup oracles than evil government regulators.

Yates argued that Detroit’s design conformity was partially a result of corporate centralization schemes such as shared platforms. “Now, a flawed roofline or a badly raked hood could wreck the sales of not just a single car division, but an entire Corporation” (1983, p. 193).

If you were designing a mid-sized Chevrolet you were stuck with exactly the same windshield used by Pontiac, Buick and Oldsmobile. By the same token, groupthink was strong enough that there usually wasn’t a huge amount of variation between American automakers. The windshield of a 1968 Chevelle didn’t have a much different rake or shape than that of a Ford Fairlane or Plymouth Satellite.

Image Unavailable, Please Login

Image Unavailable, Please Login

Image Unavailable, Please Login
Pictured is a 1968 Chevrolet Chevelle (top), 1969 Ford Fairlane (middle) and 1969 Plymouth Satellite (Old Car Brochures)
Indeed, the overall shapes of late-60s American mid-sized cars could hardly be described as wildly creative. No one deviated from upright front ends with huge grilles and quad headlights. Exterior dimensions of a Chevelle, Fairlane or Satellite four-door sedan were almost identical. General Motors’ introduction of a shortened wheelbase for two-door body styles was arguably the most long-lived design innovation among late-60s intermediates.

Also see ‘U.S. car styling thwarted a space alien invasion in early-70s’

Fear of trying something out of the norm was palpable. This was in contrast with the automotive landscape of Europe, where dramatically different design approaches were being explored in Germany, France, England and Sweden.

Image Unavailable, Please Login

Image Unavailable, Please Login
The design approach of the Saab 96 (top) may as well have come from another planet as that of the Volvo 122S even though they were both from Sweden (Automotive History Preservation Society).
A rich diversity of approaches could even be seen within nations. For example, Swedish automakers Saab and Volvo took sharply divergent paths in the design of their cars (go here for further discussion).

The ‘good old days’ were good in one respect
When it comes to design conformity, the late-60s and early-70s weren’t much different than today — with one exception. National differences in car design have largely disappeared. Here is where I think Jim is on to something: Most contemporary designs — foreign or domestic — look pretty darn similar.

I’d argue that this has more to do with industry consolidation and globalization than safety and environmental regulations. Consider Ford’s global product development system, which has been primarily designed to save money and create a unified global branding. This would have never worked back in the 1960s, when Ford’s American design studios embraced very different principles than its European arm.

Also see ‘What if GM and Ford were broken up in the 1960s?’

A diversity of design approaches could be considered bad if you define corporate efficiency narrowly, but it nevertheless saved the American auto industry from itself. At one point or another each of the Big Three’s European operations gave their Detroit-based arm the expertise needed to develop smaller, more efficient and technically advanced cars.

The most important change needed to happen at the top. Yates argued that Ford didn’t shift away from “long hoods, low rooflines, high noses and gobs of brightwork” until design chief Eugene Bordinet retired in 1980 (1983, p. 177). It took his successor, John Telnack, to make a clean break with the past by championing the 1983 T-Bird, 1984 Tempo and 1986 Taurus.

Image Unavailable, Please Login
The mid-80s T-Bird ditched the boxy brougham look in favor of a more aerodynamic design (Old Car Brochures).
Telnack was understandably skeptical when he was first given the go-ahead to make Fords look more innovative, according to Halberstam (1986, pp. 646-47):

“The Ford shop, Telnack thought, was filled with gifted young men who were as capable as any designers in the world of jumping into the future but whose ideas generally failed to go beyond sketches or, on occasion, clay. Instead, they were forced to imitate the boxy, hard-edged cars of GM, which were neither attractive nor aerodynamically sensible. He liked to recall a remark made by Alex Tremulis — an early innovator at Ford who favored a softer look — who had once asked a conference of designers, ‘When are all of you going to stop this torture of innocent sheet metal?'”

That question comes to mind when viewing the tortured Thunderbird design proposals in this promotional film. As a mental exercise, imagine what that film would have been like if Ford had already transcended Grosse Pointe myopia in the late-60s rather than waiting until its back was against the wall in the early-80s.

NOTES:
This is an expanded version of an article that was originally posted on June 29, 2013 and updated on May 1, 2020. The film does not display a title and release date. However, YouTube labels it The Design Makers — Inside Ford Design. My guess is that the film includes footage from 1968 but was completed in 1969 prior to 1970 model introductions. Production figures for individual nameplates were calculated from Gunnell (2002). Specifications were from the auto editors of Consumer Guide (2006), Automobile Catalog (2021) and Classic Car Database(2021).

 

Lincoln design story from Dean's Garage.
George Walker and the 1964 Lincoln Continental Mark IX
December 31, 2021Leave a commentFord, Jim Farrell
Image Unavailable, Please Login
George Walker and the 1964 Lincoln Continental Mark IX

By Jim and Cheryl Farrell

When George Walker became a consultant to Ford in late 1940s he extracted conditions from Henry Ford II which included Walker’s control of all publicity about Ford design. Walker was also able to keep his lucrative private design business and his interest in another business (Trim Trends) that sold automotive trim parts to multiple manufacturers.

The last condition given Walker was the right to insert two of his employees, Elwood Engel and Joe Oros, into the Ford Design Department. Oros and Engel, although not employees of Ford, were there full-time, and had the right to design and create clay models of their own Ford, Lincoln or Mercury proposals if they didn’t like the designs proposed by Ford designers. That arrangement didn’t work very well and caused even more dissension among Ford designers.

On May 22, 1955, HFII’s solution was to make Walker a Ford vice president and general manager of the Design Department, which Walker promptly renamed the Ford Styling Center. Engel then became Walker’s assistant manager, and in 1956, he named Oros as head of the Ford design studio.

Ford policy mandated that all executives retire at age 65. As Walker approached his 65th birthday in 1961, he was obsessed that Oros or Engel (preferably Engel) succeed him. Gene Bordinat, as head of the Lincoln-Mercury design studio, was Engel’s primary competition to succeed Walker. That meant that Walker was actively trying to undermine Bordinat and build up Engel.

Ben Mills, then head of Lincoln-Mercury Division, didn’t trust Walker. He felt Walker and Engel had pushed through the design of the disastrous 1958 Lincoln without much consideration of its salability. Mills also wanted a smaller Lincoln that displayed obvious continuity with past Lincolns. That directive was made clear to Bordinat who was supposed to be designing the ’61 Lincoln in his studio. Mills also wanted a longer nine-year design cycle for Lincoln.

Walker and Engel both were aware of Mill’s displeasure. Although Engel’s design for the ’61 Lincoln started out as a Thunderbird proposal, it later became a Lincoln proposal. Walker saw it as a feather in Engel’s cap even though his ’61 Lincoln design had no continuity with past Lincolns. Engel’s ’61 Lincoln proposal beat out the one from Bordinat’s studio that had an unfortunate similarity to the 1958-60 Lincoln—which by that time, nearly everyone at Ford disliked. Bordinat followed the rules; Engel didn’t—and Engel’s car won.

All of the above is prologue to what happened after Engel’s winning ’61 Lincoln proposal was moved upstairs into Bordinat’s Lincoln-Mercury studio to be productionized. Although Walker and Engel had lucked out with the winning ’61 Lincoln design, Walker quickly figured out that if Engel was also able to design the next Lincoln Continental, which under the old rules was due for change in 1964, it would go a long way towards Engel‘s appointment as his successor. Walker encouraged Engel to hand pick the best designers available, and to quickly began work on a car they called the 1964 Lincoln Continental Mark IX.

Designers of the Mark IX were Engel, Gale Halderman (manager), Colin Neale, John Orfe, Bill Dayton, and Phil Payne. Although the finished Mark IX looks longer, it is actually shorter than the ’61 Lincoln. When finished, the Mark IX was so well liked by all who saw it that Walker had designer Ray Smith install a small electric motor and steering so it could be actually driven at about 5-mph. The Mark IX was eventually built in fiberglass with four opening doors and a full interior. The special features of the Mark IX were all picked by Engel, including a small opening compartment on the hood to check fluids, a full vinyl roof that extended onto the truck, and a partially-retracting backlight. Everyone at Ford including management thought the Mark IX was a great-looking Lincoln.

Bill Ford was not a fan of George Walker. After the Mark II had been discontinued, Bill Ford became a Ford VP and titular head of Ford design. Walker, who was also a VP and head of the Styling Center, disliked Bill Ford and openly referred to him as “that f—king kid.”

When it came time to choose Walker’s replacement, Engel got caught in a scandal. He double billed for expenses he incurred during an oversight trip to Europe, which disqualified him. Walker then began supporting Oros as his replacement. Walker even told Oros he was a shoe-in, and photos were taken of Walker introducing Oros as his replacement. Meanwhile, Henry Ford II was hospitalized with mononucleosis, and Bordinat took this opportunity to present a slick-looking booklet to Bill Ford explaining why he and not Oros should become head of the Ford Styling Center, and why Bill Ford should control the selection. Bordinat also arranged to meet with Eleanor Ford, the matriarch of the Ford family, who gave her blessing to Bordinat. Bill Ford and Mills then recruited other members of Ford’s board of directors. Bill Ford even gave a fantastic speech to the board supporting Bordinat. After the board selected Bordinat as Walker’s replacement, Bill Ford must have enjoyed coming back to the Styling Center to tell Walker his candidate had lost, and his successor was Bordinat.

When Henry Ford II got out of the hospital, he agreed to keep Walker on the payroll so Walker could exercise Ford stock options that matured only after he turned 65. He also sent Walker and his wife on an all-expense paid trip to say goodbye at Ford plants worldwide. Walker was still bitter, and everywhere he went he badmouthed Bordinat and members of the Ford family, including Bill and Henry Ford II. When word of his badmouthing got back to Dearborn, Henry Ford II recalled Walker and immediately retired him. Designers report that Walker never again set foot in Ford’s renamed Design Center.

In November 1961, Walker was able to engineer Engel’s appointment as the head of Chrysler’s design department. Walker also tried to talk Oros into going to AMC as head of their design department. Bordinat had a talk with Oros. The end result was that he and Oros enjoyed a good working relationship for the rest of their long careers at Ford. After Engel got to Chrysler, he offered Neale, Orfe and Dayton jobs on such advantageous terms they couldn’t say no.

What happened to the Mark IX? Bordinat was obviously NOT fond of the car. Mills was successful in extending Lincoln’s design cycle to nine years, and the Mark IX just faded away. Besides, after Engel went to Chrysler, there was little chance Ford would produce a car Engel designed.

The next Lincoln was the 1966 Continental, which was a well-executed refresh of the ’61 Continental.

If Engel had replaced Walker as head of the Ford Styling Center, would the Mark IX have become the 1964 Lincoln Continental? Who knows. But even a retired George Walker could be very persuasive.

Photos: Ford Design

1964 Continental Mark IX
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Wretched excess, too much is never enough.

 

And for all you aspiring car designers out there:
Automotive Designer


By TACP Staff on July 01, 2021

Image Unavailable, Please Login
Automotive design is a highly specialized field, incorporating various types of engineering, safety, business acumen, and creative talents. The industry is not limited to automobiles but includes all other forms of wheeled-transportation. Auto design involves teamwork; each member contributes from his or her specialized knowledge base. The field is dynamic and ever-changing, offering the designer a high-powered and progressive work environment.


What Is Automotive Design?
Automotive designers design the appearance, the components, and often to the ergonomics of automobiles and other road vehicles, which may include vans, trucks, motorcycles, and buses. The functional development of a vehicle, including the mechanical, electrical, software, electronic, and safety aspects, are usually completed by a team of automotive engineers, whereas the aesthetics and appearance of the vehicle are left in the talented and artistic hands of an automotive designer. Most commonly, automotive designers are industrial designers with an art background and creative sensibility.

The design process will most often begin with a consultation between managers, supervisors, and clients who together identify the various requirements of a design. Meetings are usually followed by a great deal of research regarding costs, production, vehicle use, the timeframe for completion, etc., of the proposed design. Once everything has been sorted out, sketches are drawn, typically using CAD software, and final designs are presented.

The job duties of an automobile designer include drafting layouts of automobile components, including fenders, the hood, the lamps, console, doors, mirrors, and more, the assemblies and systems using prototypes, models, and dozens of sketches. Much of the design process involves collaborating with automobile engineers to ensure all calculations and mathematical formulas are correct and that the final design is not only innovative but meets the needs of the consumer and reflects the image of the company.

Although creative talent and artistic ability are a given is you want to become an automotive designer, there are also a number of other skills that are equally important. For example, they must be effective communicators, as well as have good listening skills. They must be able to work with others, and take criticism. They must handle deadlines, and work well under stress, find innovative solutions to complex issues, and make every effort to keep up with the changing auto industry, as well as any software and technology used in designing. Superior writing and drawing skills are imperative, and a foreign language can be a huge asset in the ever-increasing field of international automotive design.


What Does an Automotive Designer Do?
For the most part, an automobile designer will work with a styling team during the design process for each specific model. The team typically consists of a chief designer, exterior designers, and interior designers. There may also be a trim and color designer involved in the process, as well as a clay model team and digital model team. Sometimes all these roles are fulfilled by one designer, but that is very unusual. Aside from these roles, there will be a studio head, managers, prototype engineers, and others involved in the overall design of each automobile. Sometimes a team can consist of 25 to 40 members.

A designer’s work environment consists of an office or studio. Workspaces will include work tables for sketching, meeting rooms with whiteboards for brainstorming, and computer tables for preparing designs. Sometimes, designers will travel to design centers, testing facilities, client’s workplaces, and manufacturing plants. Most automobile designers work full-time, five days a week, but may be required to work overtime to meet deadlines. Some, but very few, designers work freelance, as it usually takes a team to see the design process from start to finish. If self-employed, you may work evenings or weekends to meet client’s schedules and may spend a good deal of time looking for new projects. In addition, since many automobile factories and manufacturing plants are overseas, designers may often travel abroad to meet with factory personnel during the design process.


Automotive Designer Education & Degree Requirements
Prior to going to college, gaining hands-on experience working with and around cars and other vehicles, and developing a passion for everything that has a motor and runs on two or four wheels is essential. Reading car magazines and enlarging your knowledge about automotive design and industry trends is also key.

Nearly all employers require job candidates to at least hold a bachelor’s degree in industrial design or transportation design, although a degree in automotive design or automotive engineering is ideal. Unfortunately, there are only a few dozen schools worldwide that offer a degree program specific to automotive design, and competition is fierce for a place in one of the programs. Most automobile designers will also have an art background, and specifically sculpting and drawing skills.

Some schools, including some technical schools, have strong ties to the auto industry, so prior to applying to a college or university, check to see if the school you’re most interested in has a program that aligns with your career goals. Common classes include drawing, 3D design, computer-aided design (CAD), design and color theory, model-making, and industrial materials. Most university programs also offer a portfolio class that helps students put together a body of work showcasing their artistic and design abilities, and progress. Some schools also offer internship opportunities for students to gain valuable experience, and some employers will recruit graduates of these programs.

Upon graduation, you may also consider earning your master’s degree in automotive engineering, industrial design, or industrial engineering. An advanced degree can expand your knowledge and skill set, as well as qualify you for higher pay and make you much more competitive employment.


Automotive Designer Salary and Job Outlook
The US Bureau of Labor Statistics does not specifically list salary or job outlook statistics for automobile designers. That said, the BLS does supply information for industrial designers. The median annual salary for industrial designers in May 2017 was just a little more than $65,000. The top ten percent of industrial designers who hold a degree and have years of experience in the field make more than $106,000, and those with no or very little experience make about $37,000.

The job outlook for industrial designers is projected to grow only two percent from 2014 to 2024, which is much slower than average for all career fields. This is due in part to slow employment in the manufacturing sector during the same time period. Those individuals who design precision instruments (as in automobile design), will see continued job growth because of the degree of technical ability and design aptitude. Those individuals who hold a degree, have a strong background in CAD design, and industry knowledge will see the highest job prospects.

The states with the highest employment of industrial designers are Michigan, California, New York, Illinois, and Ohio.


Helpful Organziations, Societies & Agencies

• The American Society of Mechnical Engineers
• Automotive Industry Action Group
• Institution of Mechanical Engineers
• Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)
• United States Council for Automotive Research

 

I thought the same. I know the starting salaries at any large car mfg are greater than the one’s quoted. Executive designer salaries are higher as well.

 

I see stuff like this and just scratch my head in amazement.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

And let's not forget about these beauties.
Image Unavailable, Please Login