Language and word usage change over time. When I was a lad, in this country "car design" pretty much referred to the aesthetic specifics. Function of US cars was often very much secondary to aesthetic appeal, and getting all the greasy bits and passengers to fit under the skin was sometimes more afterthought than not. These were the days when critics of American cars made comments about "tortured sheetmetal", "chrome laden barges", etc.
"Vehicle design" has come to include functionality and fitness for a certain task or market segment, but it's obvious from looking at cars like the Juke and Aztek that form doesn't always follow function when the marketeers get their fingers in the pie. I'm sure they're both reasonably competent "transportation appliances", but I always wonder how many clowns are going to get out whenever I see someone parking one.
The best designs combine exceptional functionality with visual appeal. A Ford GT-40 is stunningly beautiful as kinetic sculpture, but fares rather poorly as daily transportation. Does that make it a poor design? No, not if you have part of the '50s mindset that "design" refers primarily to appearance.
The best of the hot-rod designs are fast, handle well, and look good doing it.
You ask "so how did Norm, Tommy, and all the rest figure out a way to do it and make 'em look good in the process? " Talent and years of experience, plus a willingness to experiment and change things that don't look "right".