U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Automotive
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-13-2011, 02:39 PM
 
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
4,487 posts, read 10,287,839 times
Reputation: 3758

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffdano View Post
The C3 was at best a mediocre sports car. It is my least favorite Corvette generation. I think the C6 is by far the best car, and only the C2 comes close in style.

Large boat luxury cars have never been my thing so even with style, they had no appeal to me. Large two-doors like the Lincoln Mark are especially unappealing to me. These cars can't go around a cloverleaf faster than 30 MPH without taking chunks of rubber off their tires.

Most of the cars on this list do not have intrinsic engineering quality. They have style, but that was what Detroit valued most then.

If I am going back in time for cars with style my list might include:

Triumph TR4/TR6
Jaguar E-type
Datsun 240z
Corvette C2
Mustang (original Fastback) - but remember this was a car for anyone to buy
Datsun Fairlady
Lincoln Continental (suicide doors) - my one exception to the luxury boat cars
I didn't necessarily list cars with performance attributes, I listed cars with style and there is NO denying that these vehicles had STYLE. I don't care about intrinsic quality, the 1980's was a horrid time for the quality of Detroit automobiles.

I would digress that the C3 generation was the worst of Corvettes, that honor would belong to the C4 in my book. Just not a very good looking vehicle in any regard. I miss my C6 terribly and I'm still scouring the area to find a nice, low-mileage 2008-2009 convertible. I love big vehicles but I also love low-slung sports cars.

I just don't find THESE types of vehicles appealing...and can anyone really tell much of a difference between them?


http://3-photos.ebizautos.com/8311/7571050/7571050_3.jpg (broken link)
http://i.ebayimg.com/00/$(KGrHqR,!hIE4528,KeFBOY(u3dDfw~~_4.JPG (broken link)
http://3-photos.ebizautos.com/6773/7560649/7560649_7.jpg (broken link)
http://i.ebayimg.com/00/$(KGrHqYOKk!E5EZLEcrGBOY(9F1Zpg~~_4.JPG (broken link)
http://i.ebayimg.com/00/$(KGrHqF,!iEE5dKZNMKGBO,KSnLjtQ~~_4.JPG (broken link)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-13-2011, 02:51 PM
 
Location: Earth
1,480 posts, read 2,961,293 times
Reputation: 1374
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpeedyAZ View Post
I just don't find THESE types of vehicles appealing...and can anyone really tell much of a difference between them?
Car styling has always been pretty derivative and mostly in line with trends of the times. Those cars are all the cheapest of the cheap - the budget cars. No one buys them for thier looks or performance. Those are the driving appliances. That's not new, though. Look at the budget cars of any era and tell me there's a difference. Look at an '81 Chevette, an '81 Civic, and an '81 Datsun hatchback and tell me there's a difference. This is not a recent phenomenon.



Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2011, 03:41 PM
 
Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, Calif.
18,444 posts, read 16,366,418 times
Reputation: 4587
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpeedyAZ View Post
I just don't find THESE types of vehicles appealing...and can anyone really tell much of a difference between them?
You have provided an excellent example, with those photos, of egg-shaped cars! Especially the 2nd and 4th ones.

On the same subject, there was something interesting in the newsletter of a Cadillac club I belong to.
Regarding a member's 1961 Cadillac Coupe de Ville and his two grandsons aged 13 and 10.

A few quick quotes from the owner:
"During a recent ride in the Coupe de Ville, my 7th grader Matt was in the 'shotgun' seat, busy absorbing all the glass, chrome, size and grandeur of a car that is unlike anything he sees in the pickup line at school."

"He once made this comment: "I really like your old cars, but where did you get this 'car of the future?'" Because of the low-slung look and the fins, he thought it was some kind of futuristic car." [He makes a good point; in many ways, '50s and early '60s cars do look more futuristic than modern blob- and egg-shaped cars!] Gliding along in this long, low, shiny machine that has all the familiar features, but also has 'wings' and looks like it came from outer space to a 13-year-old. Then little brother chimes in: 'Yeah, and it has those unnecessary spikes on the back!'"

The owner concludes: "Two little boys who have only been exposed to the charcoal gray, injection-molded interior of square minivans get a taste of something designed with flair. I hope traveling in my '61 rocket ship plants a seed. Maybe they will be true 'car guys.' They also like the '57 [Cadillac] Eldorado- it's 'unnecessary spikes' [fins] are even more futuristic."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2011, 05:49 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
4,121 posts, read 2,308,270 times
Reputation: 2924
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet View Post
You have provided an excellent example, with those photos, of egg-shaped cars! Especially the 2nd and 4th ones.

On the same subject, there was something interesting in the newsletter of a Cadillac club I belong to.
Regarding a member's 1961 Cadillac Coupe de Ville and his two grandsons aged 13 and 10.

A few quick quotes from the owner:
"During a recent ride in the Coupe de Ville, my 7th grader Matt was in the 'shotgun' seat, busy absorbing all the glass, chrome, size and grandeur of a car that is unlike anything he sees in the pickup line at school."

"He once made this comment: "I really like your old cars, but where did you get this 'car of the future?'" Because of the low-slung look and the fins, he thought it was some kind of futuristic car." [He makes a good point; in many ways, '50s and early '60s cars do look more futuristic than modern blob- and egg-shaped cars!] Gliding along in this long, low, shiny machine that has all the familiar features, but also has 'wings' and looks like it came from outer space to a 13-year-old. Then little brother chimes in: 'Yeah, and it has those unnecessary spikes on the back!'"

The owner concludes: "Two little boys who have only been exposed to the charcoal gray, injection-molded interior of square minivans get a taste of something designed with flair. I hope traveling in my '61 rocket ship plants a seed. Maybe they will be true 'car guys.' They also like the '57 [Cadillac] Eldorado- it's 'unnecessary spikes' [fins] are even more futuristic."
That's a great story, Fleet, and the '61 Cadillac is an excellent example. I wish I had a picture to post of my son's '61 Caddy convertible that he recently sold....one of the most gorgeous cars ever designed.

You have to have lived that era to understand the disappointment with the trends in American cars that have followed. The post above yours says "this is not a recent phenomenon", but what the younger posters don't understand that '81 was recent. It was well after the peak - the greatest era of the American automotive industry - the 50s and 60s.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2011, 06:10 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX
727 posts, read 1,002,274 times
Reputation: 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastern Roamer View Post
Car styling has always been pretty derivative and mostly in line with trends of the times. Those cars are all the cheapest of the cheap - the budget cars. No one buys them for thier looks or performance. Those are the driving appliances. That's not new, though. Look at the budget cars of any era and tell me there's a difference. Look at an '81 Chevette, an '81 Civic, and an '81 Datsun hatchback and tell me there's a difference. This is not a recent phenomenon.
I agree with this. I am an enthusiast and I can barely tell the difference between most muscle cars for the 60's that a lot of guys say have style. To me they all look very similar.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2011, 06:10 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
4,465 posts, read 5,318,529 times
Reputation: 2727
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpeedyAZ View Post
I didn't necessarily list cars with performance attributes, I listed cars with style and there is NO denying that these vehicles had STYLE. I don't care about intrinsic quality, the 1980's was a horrid time for the quality of Detroit automobiles.

I would digress that the C3 generation was the worst of Corvettes, that honor would belong to the C4 in my book. Just not a very good looking vehicle in any regard. I miss my C6 terribly and I'm still scouring the area to find a nice, low-mileage 2008-2009 convertible. I love big vehicles but I also love low-slung sports cars.

I just don't find THESE types of vehicles appealing...and can anyone really tell much of a difference between them?
Dude, your comparing Cadillacs and Corvettes to Corollas and Kias, don't you se how skewed of a comparison that is?

And for the record, yes I can pretty easily tell them apart.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2011, 06:42 PM
 
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
4,487 posts, read 10,287,839 times
Reputation: 3758
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheViking85 View Post
Dude, your comparing Cadillacs and Corvettes to Corollas and Kias, don't you se how skewed of a comparison that is?

And for the record, yes I can pretty easily tell them apart.
I'm not COMPARING anything, I listed vehicles from the late 70's and 80's that we're stylistically superior to modern day vehicles and then I listed modern cars that I find bland and boring. I wasn't comparing the two...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2011, 08:26 PM
 
Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, Calif.
18,444 posts, read 16,366,418 times
Reputation: 4587
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownVic95 View Post
That's a great story, Fleet, and the '61 Cadillac is an excellent example. I wish I had a picture to post of my son's '61 Caddy convertible that he recently sold....one of the most gorgeous cars ever designed.

You have to have lived that era to understand the disappointment with the trends in American cars that have followed. The post above yours says "this is not a recent phenomenon", but what the younger posters don't understand that '81 was recent. It was well after the peak - the greatest era of the American automotive industry - the 50s and 60s.
Yes, I really enjoyed reading that story, CrownVic95.

The person posting photos and comparing those 1980s cars should have gone back further. Take the 1960s, for instance. Even the low-priced compacts did not look the same. A '66 Plymouth Valiant was easy to tell from a '66 Ford Falcon or '66 Chevy II. (And they didn't have blob-styling!)

Regarding '50s cars, check out the non-plastic dash of this '58 Chevy...


And the generous amount of chrome on the inside of the "A" pillar (my '66 Plymouth has that, too) and on the top of the door panels...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2011, 08:51 PM
Status: "COP MURDERERS = DEMORAT'S PEEPS!" (set 1 day ago)
 
Location: Meth capital of the world.
8,602 posts, read 5,942,998 times
Reputation: 4586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merc63 View Post
Should I be impressed by your intentional suffering so you can prove how cheap you are? Thats as bad as those that spend money simply to show off (in fact, it's exactly the same coin: showing off by how little you can spend and still remain breathing). Sorry, not impressed by self flaggelation.

This is a car forum section. We kind of like all kinds of cars here, so proving you don't is kind of a waste of time.
Suffer...........HUH? I do not suffer...........I think it is FUN and Challenging to be a supreme cheapo.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2011, 08:58 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
4,465 posts, read 5,318,529 times
Reputation: 2727
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpeedyAZ View Post
I'm not COMPARING anything, I listed vehicles from the late 70's and 80's that we're stylistically superior to modern day vehicles and then I listed modern cars that I find bland and boring. I wasn't comparing the two...
Ok, would you agree that I could do the same in reverse? I can think of hundreds of car models from the 80's (or any decade, including present) that are ugly or not stylish, I could also find a god number of contemporary cars that would be significantly better looking than those, but where does that leave us? At a tie?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $89,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Automotive
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top