Look-alike cars? Whether by design or not, it's an old, familiar story

Ford found itself in an uncomfortable position yet again last week over design.

By now you’re aware of the kerfuffle over the new Lincoln Continental.

Ford is very familiar with this kind of controversy.

Let’s go back to 1960. Check out the grille on Ford’s final Edsel.

It looks like a twin of the one used on the 1959 Bonneville, doesn’t it?

The original 1986 Taurus had some Audi 5000 overtones.

Back in 2005 when Ford launched the Five Hundred sedan, many people noted the similarities between it and several Volkswagen and Audi sedans, especially from the side view. Ford’s chief designer at the time, J Mays, began his career at Volkswagen Group. That may have colored the creative process on the Five Hundred.

When Ford launched the latest version of the Fusion in 2013, it got tattooed with accusations that the car’s trapezoidal grille was ripped off from Aston Martin, a company Ford used to own.

Now comes the Continental dust-up, wherein Lincoln was publicly rapped on the knuckles by a Bentley designer. It seems the rear haunches of the new Lincoln Continental Concept are a little too close in design to those of Bentley’s Flying Spur.

What’s going on here?

Nothing that hasn’t been a regular fixture of the auto industry for decades, designers will tell you.

Remember the 1981 Chrysler Imperial and the 1984 Cadillac Seville with their “bustleback” styling? Well, that style of design is called “razor edge,” and it was popularized by Rolls-Royce in the 1940s. That styling theme was used by many automakers and was even tried on a compact car, the 1949 Triumph Mayflower.

Here’s a 1961 Plymouth with the original “spindle grille.” Compare it with the grille fronting Lexus vehicles today.

I asked some of my designer friends why this happens.

Designers’ work is influenced by government safety regulations, their own nationalities, cultures, interests and influences. But corporate pressures also can steer design.

Retired General Motors designer Kip Wasenko, who in the late 1990s helped develop Cadillac’s Art & Science design language -- and penned many GM vehicles from the 1970s to the early 2000s -- told me: “It is the responsibility of design leadership to ensure a brand’s design, integrity and unique brand character, and to not allow their designers to copy another brand’s designs.”

Could the quest for higher fuel economy, borne out of efficient aerodynamics, be causing automakers to arrive at similar designs?

“There are an infinite number of aerodynamic solutions and that should not be the excuse for ‘look alike’ designs,” Wasenko said. Legendary GM design boss “Bill Mitchell was never guilty of this.”

Peter Davis, chief designer for Tata Technologies, said creativity also should trump government safety regulations. Davis, a former top GM designer, said: “I regard government regulations as just a higher hurdle to jump over.”

But even Ford knows what it is like to have some of its design cues cribbed by another automaker.

Nissan’s new Titan pickup coming this fall borrows so much from the Ford F-150 style guide that Nissan could change the Titan’s name to N-150. You can see the F-150 influence all over the Titan, from the shape of the Titan’s chamfered headlights to the dogleg on the forward edge of the front door windows to the horizontal bars on the grille. So far, Ford has not said much publicly about Nissan pirating the F-150’s design DNA.

Designers tell me that, thanks to new technology in lighting and materials, they have never had more freedom to create new shapes. Designers are among the most creative people you’ll ever meet, and they thrive on original, breakthrough designs. Copying others is not something that ensures a long career in such a competitive industry.

“With intense international competition and the massive costs involved, any risk in radical design deviation is all too rarely considered,” said Dick Nesbitt, a former Ford designer who worked on the Mustang II and many of the automaker’s other vehicles in the 1970s. “Options available to designers today are absolutely superior compared with what was available in the ‘dark ages’ or mid-seventies.”

Massive bumpers, lots of chrome and round sealed beam headlights, he said, had many cars in the 1970s looking alike. But it doesn’t have to be that way today.

It’s okay for a brand’s own classic design cues to evolve. That’s what Cadillac has done on its latest models. If you recall the bladelike taillights on the 1968 El Dorado, then you will see the modern interpretation on the 2015 Escalade.

But I think the toughest assignment in the auto industry is creating a new design language for a brand that resonates with consumers and doesn’t rip off anything that came before.

On that count, the new Continental failed in New York — not just because of its Bentley-esque styling but also the faux Jaguar-Kia grille. And Cadillac succeeds with the CT6 because the car looks great and borrows from nobody.

Nesbitt, author of 50 Years of American Automobile Design: 1930-1980, said: “I envy the many incredible options [designers have] available today, even with the ever-increasing regulations burden.”