Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Automotive
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Which generation do you prefer?
Old School 83 54.61%
New School 69 45.39%
Voters: 152. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-09-2013, 08:15 AM
 
Location: Lake Grove
2,752 posts, read 2,762,357 times
Reputation: 4494

Advertisements

Yes they are bland. People used to take pride in their cars because they had style. Now they're all the same. They're just mobile appliances now. It's increasingly difficult to tell them apart. They might as well be made by LG.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-09-2013, 08:29 AM
 
Location: it depends
6,369 posts, read 6,412,287 times
Reputation: 6388
Hmmm, let me think....do I want a tuneup every 12,000 miles, or every 100,000 miles? Would I rather mess with points and distributor and carbarators, or not? Is it better to have a vehicle that will start every time no matter how cold it gets, or one that can't be turned over without a jump at 10 below zero?

Sorry, folks, I love to look at the old school cars because they are beautiful or interesting...but if you could take ANY 2013 vehicle back to 1968 it would be the most amazing car on the planet. Old school to see at the car shows, new school to own.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2013, 08:45 AM
 
2,349 posts, read 5,437,818 times
Reputation: 3062
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdAilment View Post
Which generation do you prefer?
Anyways, which generation do you prefer?
Newer, safer, more reliable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2013, 09:31 AM
 
Location: Wappingers Falls, NY
1,618 posts, read 2,626,219 times
Reputation: 1098
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdlife619 View Post
1st pic, I actually like the new 2014 Mazda 3, that is one very rare exception.

2nd pic, ugly as ****, the damn thing looks deformed!

3rd pic, is ugly/bland.

My feelings towards modern vehicles still stand.
Yeah, Mazda's really got something with the new design language.

The Juke, yes, it's ugly. It's mean-ugly. But definitely not bland.

The Focus...well, it's blander, but it's still got character.

Now THESE are bland



(Photos courtesy Autoblog)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2013, 01:12 PM
 
Location: The 719
18,026 posts, read 27,475,785 times
Reputation: 17354
Quote:
Originally Posted by crestliner View Post
Muscle cars never have had 4 doors and never will...sorry
Orly?







Pardon the old carpets and the aged dash and headliner. I'll address these items in the hopefully near future.

Doubt I'd waste much money restoring my newer vehicle. But I do like having a newer vehicle to drive in snowstorms, windstorms, hailstorms and such.



Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2013, 04:42 PM
 
Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, Calif.
24,513 posts, read 33,325,190 times
Reputation: 7623
Quote:
Originally Posted by npaladin2000 View Post
These are bland?

(Photos courtesy of Autoblog)
Those don't appeal to me at all... too strange-looking.

But these definitely appeal to me:












Last edited by Fleet; 07-09-2013 at 05:39 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2013, 05:13 PM
 
Location: Wappingers Falls, NY
1,618 posts, read 2,626,219 times
Reputation: 1098
Some of us don't have all day to hike from the driver's seat to the trunk on those boats.

And people think the wings on Civics and WRXes are obnoxious...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2013, 05:47 PM
 
Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, Calif.
24,513 posts, read 33,325,190 times
Reputation: 7623
Quote:
Originally Posted by npaladin2000 View Post
Some of us don't have all day to hike from the driver's seat to the trunk on those boats.
"Boats?" That '70 Dodge Challenger T/A 340-6 Pack is about the same size as the new Challenger.
And the wheelbase of the '69 Dodge Charger seen in the last photo is 117", a few inches less than the 120" of the new Charger.

What I posted were mid-sized and pony cars. If you think those are "boats," you should see the full-sized cars of that era (though I am sure you have).

Some of us don't like to look at modern cars with hilarious/ugly/soap dish "styling."

Quote:
And people think the wings on Civics and WRXes are obnoxious...
But the wings (stabilizer, actually) and the front nose cone on the '69 Charger Daytona and '70 Plymouth Superbird were there for a purpose... for better aerodynamics and to win NASCAR races! And they certainly blended in with the car better than the ridiculous one seen on foreign cars. Since the rear stabilizer was above the roof on those cars, they were actually functional, unlike those silly ones on the cars you mentioned, which shall remain nameless.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2013, 05:59 PM
 
Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, Calif.
24,513 posts, read 33,325,190 times
Reputation: 7623
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcopolo View Post
Hmmm, let me think....do I want a tuneup every 12,000 miles, or every 100,000 miles? Would I rather mess with points and distributor and carbarators, or not? Is it better to have a vehicle that will start every time no matter how cold it gets, or one that can't be turned over without a jump at 10 below zero?
If I needed a daily driver and a short commute, I would pick a classic car to drive. In fact, my '76 Cadillac Limousine was a daily driver to work for 5 years (4.5 miles one way). It has electronic ignition from the factory, so no points. Spark plugs last a long time... I don't even remember the last time I changed them. Same thing with the carburetor... hasn't needed a rebuilt for a long time. And if it does, no big deal; it doesn't cost much to do that. Before that, I drove my '66 Dart GT V-8 for over 15 years. I was so fun to drive, I kept it a long time. I could have bought a more recent, '80s or '90s car, but I preferred the Dart and its solid reliability.

Quote:
Sorry, folks, I love to look at the old school cars because they are beautiful or interesting...but if you could take ANY 2013 vehicle back to 1968 it would be the most amazing car on the planet. Old school to see at the car shows, new school to own.
If you were to take a 2013 vehicle back to 1968, the first reaction by people would be "Who styled that thing! Yes, they would be impressed with all the electronic and and computerized gadgets (until you told them how much they cost to repair), but they would probably faint at the thought of a $60,000 Cadillac! Not to mention the absence of traditional and true Cadillacs like the Fleetwood Brougham, Deville, Eldorado and the magnificent Fleetwood Seventy-Five 9-passenger sedan and limousine. They would probably say, "Where are the big Cadillacs?" And if you show them an Escalade, they would most likely say, "That's a van, not a car!"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2013, 07:17 PM
 
Location: Wappingers Falls, NY
1,618 posts, read 2,626,219 times
Reputation: 1098
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet View Post
"Boats?" That '70 Dodge Challenger T/A 340-6 Pack is about the same size as the new Challenger.
And the wheelbase of the '69 Dodge Charger seen in the last photo is 117", a few inches less than the 120" of the new Charger.

What I posted were mid-sized and pony cars. If you think those are "boats," you should see the full-sized cars of that era (though I am sure you have).

Some of us don't like to look at modern cars with hilarious/ugly/soap dish "styling."



But the wings (stabilizer, actually) and the front nose cone on the '69 Charger Daytona and '70 Plymouth Superbird were there for a purpose... for better aerodynamics and to win NASCAR races! And they certainly blended in with the car better than the ridiculous one seen on foreign cars. Since the rear stabilizer was above the roof on those cars, they were actually functional, unlike those silly ones on the cars you mentioned, which shall remain nameless.
Mid-sizers of that time were boats. Full sizers were ships and land yachts, depending on the model.

The one good thing you can say about cars from back then is that NASCAR of the time actually used them rather than fake imitation shells on something else. However, they provided little downforce, and probably acted more like rudders. We don't need rudders these days, we have steering and suspension that actually work, and only need something to hold the car down.

You see, these days we want no overhangs, they serve very little purpose except to annoy people when they block the walkway with it. Push the wheels out to the corners and give us more stability.
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 $104,000 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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:22 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top