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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-14-2013, 05:33 PM
 
Location: Arizona, The American Southwest
54,494 posts, read 33,862,309 times
Reputation: 91679

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stratford, Ct. Resident View Post
I was actually tempted to say that the '73 redesign took it from being nice to being ugly.
I tend to agree with you somewhat, the 1973 through 1977 Monte Carlos had the same body as the 1970-1972 model years, but with the larger bumpers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-14-2013, 07:29 PM
 
Location: Mountain Home, ID
1,956 posts, read 3,635,181 times
Reputation: 2434
Couple of classic Chevys.

1958 Bel Air



1959 Bel Air:



Honestly I like the 1957 with the single headlights a bit better, but after '58 it fell out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2013, 09:31 PM
 
528 posts, read 823,460 times
Reputation: 846
Quote:
Originally Posted by theother View Post
2011 Chevy Malibu- GREAT
2012 Chevy Malibu- BARF
Thank You, glad to see I am not alone on this one.
I leased a 2010 which I really liked, when the lease was up the dealer tried to talk me into a 2013. I was having none of that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2013, 06:50 PM
 
Location: Arizona, The American Southwest
54,494 posts, read 33,862,309 times
Reputation: 91679
Quote:
Originally Posted by wade52 View Post
The Camaro in 1969 was a great looking pony car.

The next year, it went to seed.
I agree with you, but they improved the look of that generation of Camaros later in the 1970s. I had a 1979 Camaro Z-28, it didn't have the performance of the Camaro of the previous generation, but it was okay in looks.

I thought they improved the looks somewhat with the early 3rd generation Camaro (1982-1992), but not the performance. That happened around 1987 when they started putting EFI in their V8 engines, and the later models of that generation.

Here's a 1990 IROC-Z, I liked that body style.



the 4th generation (1993-2002) was not the best looking, but it was allright. I like the current 1960s retro generation though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2013, 06:55 PM
 
8,777 posts, read 19,858,935 times
Reputation: 5291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnum Mike View Post
I agree with you, but they improved the look of that generation of Camaros later in the 1970s. I had a 1979 Camaro Z-28, it didn't have the performance of the Camaro of the previous generation, but it was okay in looks.

I thought they improved the looks somewhat with the early 3rd generation Camaro (1982-1992), but not the performance. That happened around 1987 when they started putting EFI in their V8 engines, and the later models of that generation.

Here's a 1990 IROC-Z, I liked that body style.



the 4th generation (1993-2002) was not the best looking, but it was allright. I like the current 1960s retro generation though.


How could i have forgotten that one.

1992 Camaro- Hot
1993 Camaro- Your Geo Storm on steroids has arrived.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2013, 09:05 PM
 
33,387 posts, read 34,832,973 times
Reputation: 20030
you guys keep insulting the mustang ll, but realize that if not for the mustang ll, there would be no mustang today.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2013, 09:56 PM
 
Location: MD's Eastern Shore
3,702 posts, read 4,848,917 times
Reputation: 6385
I was thinking the 58 to 59 chevy as well. IMO the 57 2 door hard top was one of the best looking cars made. The 58 is an attractive car as well. But the 59? What happened? The back half of the car isn't bad looking but the front? They just don't go together. I guess it was the 50's meeting the 60's in that design.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2013, 10:57 PM
 
Location: Arizona, The American Southwest
54,494 posts, read 33,862,309 times
Reputation: 91679
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stratford, Ct. Resident View Post


How could i have forgotten that one.

1992 Camaro- Hot
1993 Camaro- Your Geo Storm on steroids has arrived.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
you guys keep insulting the mustang ll, but realize that if not for the mustang ll, there would be no mustang today.
LOL.. That's true Rbohm, but like SCR said about the 4th generation Camaro being a Geo Storm on Steroids, the Mustang II was a Pinto on Steroids.. LOL..

I hear that Lee Iacocca wasn't happy with the progress of the Mustang in the early 1970s because it got too big, so he had something to do with downsizing it into the Mustang II, which people bought mainly for the name, and the improved gas mileage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2013, 03:34 AM
 
17,614 posts, read 17,656,125 times
Reputation: 25677
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
you guys keep insulting the mustang ll, but realize that if not for the mustang ll, there would be no mustang today.
The Mustang II was ugly. It did need to be downsized. Those in charge saw what was coming. It's not the downsize that was the problem. The problem was the overall physical design. They made matters worse by adding plenty of sticker Cobras on the hood with no performance. Then again, seems every American car maker of that time was slapping stickers on cars to try to increase sales. Another thing that hurt people's perception of the Mustang II was the performance and engine options was on par with GM's cheap Chevy Monza and it's clones with Pontiac, Buick, and Oldsmobile. That means the Mustang II wasn't a Mustang. Mustang was a competitor to the Camaro/Firebird. Ford didn't have a car in that class. What they had was basicly a Ford Focus or a Ford Escort GT, only even cheaper and slower.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2013, 04:06 AM
 
Location: Windsor, Ontario, Canada
11,222 posts, read 16,424,594 times
Reputation: 13536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mach50 View Post
Jeep CJ7 1986

Jeep Wrangler YJ 1987
You know what's funny? I know damned well your only gripe is the rectangle headlights. Otherwise, they are the same.
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
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:31 AM.

© 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