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.
Well, my view is that there is a lot more to fun than fast. It matters little (actually, not at all) to me that any or all of the models you mention run 12s or faster. They're all DOA to me for consideration because I can't stand the sight of any of them. Their late 60s ancestors are the gold standard and the new ones pale in comparison.
But I can well understand you're having a different viewpoint if you are 39 years younger, as your handle suggests. The cars of the late 20s/early 30s were never on my radar.
There is something about the style of the older cars. Many of them were clunky looking but a lot of them had a unique style you just do not see today. I understand how you grow out of the performance" obsession as you continue to grow up. Performance is nice, but it really does not do much for you 90% of the time. You simply cannot use it. However a car that has flair, style pizzazz whatever you want to call it, has it all the time. My son is starting to learn that already. He is an engineering student and may go into performance engineering. However he is moving away form the faster is everything, and more towards interesting mechanisms. Thus a rotary engine or a supercharged 4 interests him just as much as a Boss mustang or a Z06. While he still loves the performance cars, the cars that have something unusual about how they work can be more appealing than pure speed and slalom stats. His dream car? Not a twin engine Bugati, not a Z06, but a 1966 (I think) GTO. He knows it does not perform like its modern equivalent, but realizes there is a lot more to fun than fast. I think he is ahead of his years.
I can see how you have come to realize style can be more important than going very fast. After all, if you go to a track, you are better off driving a track car not a street car, and if you are on the street, a track car is kind of senseless. While I do not agree totally that the bland looks of today's cars outweighs their awesome performance, I can understand your preference. I am not sure if you are older than the rest of us, but your perspective is probably more mature. When it comes to cars, I still have not entirely matured out of boy racer mode. I would even tolerate a WRX as a possibility, at least if I did not need to drive to to work.
The color thing is interesting. Many cars are offered in bright colors. Both Ford and Chrysler have some especially beautiful shades of red and blue right now, but if you go to a parking lot, you see almost entirely Grey, Black, brown, silver, perhaps some white - maybe a speck of color here and there, but sometimes not even that. I think it is more choices than what is offered. I cannot think of any car that is not available in colors, but what you see is mostly drab.
There were some horrible colors in the 1970s. That is when horrid colors like burnt orange were in. I had a metallic copper 1973 Camaro that looked neat in bright sun if it was clean, but the rest of the time it looked like a big turd. And the kinda dirty green that was so popular - blagh. Still it seemed like people chose colors more often than the bleak grey, black and browns of today. Through most of the 1970s and well into the 1980s our family had green after green cars, with some fire engine reds thrown in, except my sister was a rebel and got a Blue Cutlass.
There is something about the style of the older cars. Many of them were clunky looking but a lot of them had a unique style you just do not see today. I understand how you grow out of the performance" obsession as you continue to grow up. Performance is nice, but it really does not do much for you 90% of the time. You simply cannot use it. However a car that has flair, style pizzazz whatever you want to call it, has it all the time. My son is starting to learn that already. He is an engineering student and may go into performance engineering. However he is moving away form the faster is everything, and more towards interesting mechanisms. Thus a rotary engine or a supercharged 4 interests him just as much as a Boss mustang or a Z06. While he still loves the performance cars, the cars that have something unusual about how they work can be more appealing than pure speed and slalom stats. His dream car? Not a twin engine Bugati, not a Z06, but a 1966 (I think) GTO. He knows it does not perform like its modern equivalent, but realizes there is a lot more to fun than fast. I think he is ahead of his years.
I can see how you have come to realize style can be more important than going very fast. After all, if you go to a track, you are better off driving a track car not a street car, and if you are on the street, a track car is kind of senseless. While I do not agree totally that the bland looks of today's cars outweighs their awesome performance, I can understand your preference. I am not sure if you are older than the rest of us, but your perspective is probably more mature. When it comes to cars, I still have not entirely matured out of boy racer mode. I would even tolerate a WRX as a possibility, at least if I did not need to drive to to work.
The color thing is interesting. Many cars are offered in bright colors. Both Ford and Chrysler have some especially beautiful shades of red and blue right now, but if you go to a parking lot, you see almost entirely Grey, Black, brown, silver, perhaps some white - maybe a speck of color here and there, but sometimes not even that. I think it is more choices than what is offered. I cannot think of any car that is not available in colors, but what you see is mostly drab.
There were some horrible colors in the 1970s. That is when horrid colors like burnt orange were in. I had a metallic copper 1973 Camaro that looked neat in bright sun if it was clean, but the rest of the time it looked like a big turd. And the kinda dirty green that was so popular - blagh. Still it seemed like people chose colors more often than the bleak grey, black and browns of today. Through most of the 1970s and well into the 1980s our family had green after green cars, with some fire engine reds thrown in, except my sister was a rebel and got a Blue Cutlass.
Ahhhhhh....your sister is after my heart. I had a blue Cutlass Salon that looked like this.... https://www.google.com/search?q=1977...1KFVk5SrVOM%3A
except that mine didn't have T-Tops or the half vinyl roof. Same color blue. The original owner had just had it repainted and, in that process, had removed the vinyl roof that most (maybe all?) the Salons came with. It looked so much better with the clean roof in that light blue metallic.
Gorgeous car - and the best I've ever owned, at least while the transmission lasted. Sadly, Olds was famous for transmission woes in those years.
I recently bought a '95 Lincoln Town Car to replace my Crown Vic (needed too much work to be worthwhile to restore) and, though it's a nice car, I'd take a mint '77 Cutlass Salon over it in a heartbeat if I could find one priced anywhere near sanity. I still scan the Craigslist ads looking.
I did this for a few years. I had an office in the carriage house. Usually I would just walk, but if I had to carry a whole lot of things I might drive the driveway to avoid multiple trips. However even my driveway has potholes in it.
Still I did drive on public streets at times for entertainment, visiting, trips to the airport. . .
It is amazing to go 40 years without driving on public roads. Could be a Guinness record.
When you get out on our public streets, our potholes look like this....
However I am not sure what year it was. She had it in about 1979, it would have been older because she had no money. She probably paid $500 for it, maybe $1000. It definitely had the more roundy rear end.
We just gave away my daughters 1992 Lincoln Town Car. All the kids loved that car for trips with bunches of friends. When she got a new car, she left it our house until it died. I cannot remembered what went wrong with it, but one big issue was the security system. It was almost impossible to start. We tried to have someone bypass it, but they said it was too complicated and therefore risky. Could end up disabling the car and needing a new wiring harness. It was always hit or miss whether you would be able to get it to start. It also had a hole in the oil pan and replacing the oil pan involved lifting the engine. We reached the point where we would just leave it running except when we were at home. No one was going to steal it. There was something really big wrong with it though. I cannot remember what. Remarkably the air suspension system still worked great. Probably the best riding car we have ever owned. It became one of three cars I traded with a young mechanic guy in exchange for him fixing our old volvo for my son to drive. It was a good idea, except the volvo broke again about a month later.
Last edited by Coldjensens; 10-20-2016 at 03:33 PM..
Miss the 70's cars? You mean the cars like the Olds 98 posted that had a whopping 225HP out of a big block 455. The same cars that you couldn't get across the street on a gallon of gas. The cars that had exhaust that smelled like rotten eggs. Or maybe you mean the cars that the sheetmetal was so thin that you couldn't even lean on the car without doing damage. The same cars that the engine was running so lean that it was half way missing at hiway speeds- they called it running in a wind. Or the engines that kept running after you turned off the key. Miss them? Sure do, and thank God they're gone. They were absolute CRAP! But then 1971 was the first year for the "new" bumpers on cars. They looked like an erector set hit the front end but we were safe.....as long as we didn't go over 5 mph.
GM retired the Oldsmobile division in 2004. What a shame. I think a dynamic management team could have revived the brand and made some money for the company.
If I were in charge, I'd have come out with a revival of their great vehicles of yore. A "98 Classic" that would be similar to the old 98, but maybe slightly shorter wheel base and of course all the modern amenities and safety features. A "Cutlass S Classic" with all the power and fun of the old Cutlass, but more efficient and with all the modern amenities.
They could have done it. The nostalgia market is yuuge among Baby Boomers in their 60s-70s with money to burn. VW proved it with the revived Bug.
I wonder about these automotive companies, with their layers of management that seem more obsessed with spreadsheets and focus groups than making a great car. Paper pushers with no imagination, no love for the great old vehicles.
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.
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.
