Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





50 Years of Ugly Cars --You Be The Judge!

13»

Comments

  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,599
    Yeah, I think the '58 Buicks definitely fall into the ugly but cool category. And I think it pulls off that look a lot better than the Olds, which IMO tends a bit more towards ugly and a bit less towards cool.

    I just looked up the specs in an old brochure, and just learned that the Limited was actually 8" longer than the Roadmaster...227.1" versus 219.1". I guess all that extra length was in the rear deck?

    As for something like a 1958 Edsel, I think they're actually pretty attractive from the side and rear...it's just that front-end, with the jutting headlights, and that horsecollar/toilet seat/sexually suggestive looking central grille theme.
  • fezofezo Posts: 9,195
    That's a great list! I think i agree on all of them.

    Back to the Chevette - they didn't get ugly until you had to ride in one. That was one narrow car! At the time I rode in one I was maybe 130 pounds (at 5'5") - pretty skinny - and I felt cramped as hell. That takes some doing. I was way more comfortable, if not less embarrassed, in a Gremlin.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,599
    Back to the Chevette - they didn't get ugly until you had to ride in one. That was one narrow car! At the time I rode in one I was maybe 130 pounds (at 5'5") - pretty skinny - and I felt cramped as hell. That takes some doing. I was way more comfortable, if not less embarrassed, in a Gremlin.

    I could actually see that. AMC really didn't have the money to do a "proper" compact car, so they simply took the compact Hornet and chopped something like 12" out of the wheelbase, all of it in the back seat area. The result is a car that feels like a compact up front, although the back seat was probably as miserable as any other subcompact of the time.

    Last time I sat in a Gremlin, or Hornet, I just remember the steering wheel being in sort of a bad position for me, and overly large in that mid-60's fashion. And the seat was pretty thinly padded.

    Can't remember the last time I sat in a Chevette, but I'm sure I'd hate it if I had to repeat the experience!
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,371
    '61 Ambassador...how could I have left that one off my list? I'm afraid I disagree on its "cool" factor though!

    http://04snake.com/images/FandRimages/HaroldAnthony_fandr11-crop.jpg
  • MrShift@EdmundsMrShift@Edmunds Posts: 43,693
    edited November 2010
    Young people seem to like the sense of the "ironic" and the grotesque. I often see them buying these cheaper old cars because they are so weird. I surmised that it's all about the urge to be different within the very conformist culture that we live in--by that I mean mass marketing is selling all of us the same things. How else could you explain the enormous automotive aftermarket for customization?

    So yeah, you can't get much weirder than a '61 Ambassador, or buying some other ugly duckling and showing it off---because you'll be one of the few people to have one.

    It's a kind of cheap celebrity, really.

    Some people dress like Elvis. Some try to win the Ugly Dog Contest. It's like that. :P
  • gsemikegsemike Long Island, NYPosts: 1,744
    edited November 2010
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,599
    Yeah, those beak-nosed '70-71 T-birds were pretty grotesque up front. Shame, because I thought the '67-69 models were pretty nice. I never really cared for the big, overblown '72-76 T-bird either. The '72 was kind of ugly, but after that, it just sort of morphed into what looked like an overgrown intermediate Torino. The Mark IV was so much more tasteful looking I thought, and by that time, probably didn't cost a whole lot more than a T-bird, so I'd imagine most buyers just bought it instead.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 32,941
    Speaking of a young people trend, I have noticed hipster types in my area gravitating towards old Darts and Valiants - slant 6 cars. Likely due to low price, durability, and a little funkiness. But it's cool in a way to see the under 30-something crowd wanting plain old cars.
  • Well for one thing they are a lot easier, and far less expensive, to fix than just about any other "old" American car. I mean, a big old 60s Cadillac 4-door for $6000 bucks might seem like a really cool surf car or "art" car to drive to Burning Man or some such, but finding parts, working on those huge yachts, and buying the gas for them is not something many 20-somethings are prepared to do.

    A Dodge Dart you can fix with parts you buy from Home Depot.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 32,941
    I suppose a 71 Valiant is pretty much the automotive equivalent of a fixie bicycle too.
  • xrunner2xrunner2 Posts: 3,062
    OK. I see the photo of the garish, grotesque Buick and I think back to a saying years ago: "It is so FAR OUT that it is IN." With that qualification, the 58 Buick is a very "IN" car. If someone had one in my area and brought it to car shows, everyone would be gawking at it. Teens, twenty-thirty somethings would say, what the heck is that?
  • xrunner2xrunner2 Posts: 3,062
    and just learned that the Limited was actually 8" longer than the Roadmaster...227.1" versus 219.1". I guess all that extra length was in the rear deck?


    Yeah. And that was a very important specification back in the 50's-60's in the Chicago area. The size of the trunk.
  • sdasda Posts: 308
    edited November 2010
    A few come to mind. My sister had a 1973 Subaru 1300 GT. Dreadful looking. The Datsun F-10, B-210 and 1977 240SX none too pretty either.
13»
Sign In or Register to comment.