Howdy, Stranger!

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

I spotted an (insert obscure car name here) classic car today!



  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 44,408
    yes I think '64 Riv is nicer and cleaner. But since everyone mentioned '63, that's what I picked.

    I never like the nose of the Stingray so you know, I don't like unattractive snouts, shovel noses, shark noses, locomotive noses. On the Sting Ray...I dunno...that split bumper messes up the line for some reason. But I like the roofline and the muscular fenders. The car does suggest "power", so its styling fulfills its form.

    The Riv suggests power and speed. The 60 Ford suggests a birthday cake make in prison.


  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,494
    edited March 2013
    I do think the '63 Riv is probably the first GM car with a back seat, that had the long hood/short deck theme, which is a great thing IMHO. I like '60's Pontiacs, but not real long ago I saw a photo of a '62 Pontiac Bonneville, which I've always liked. The rear overhang is almost insane IMHO! I don't know how folks backed out of driveways without hitting bottom!

    That '60 Ford would look nicer with the extra reflectors in the bumpers to mirror the taillights! Come on, those were cool!

    I could enjoy owning a robin's egg blue '60 Galaxie 500 Starliner. I love '61 Starliners, but I don't like Ford's tomato reds in and out of those early '60's years. Get me a subdued color one and I'd be a happy camper.

    I also like '58 Fords. Figures the other Studey guy (jljac) and I would concur on that! I actually like the Fairlane 500 better than the Thunderbird. The wheelbase is too short on the 'bird IMHO and it was pained to resemble a bird outside I think--something I think Ford did up through '63. Still, I'd take a '62 or '63 Sports Roadster! ;)
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 44,408
    Well that's a case in point---that degree of overhand is really dumb styling. This is after all a should behave like one.

    So you have a "three-body trunk" and barely enough room in the back seat for a cat and a cantaloupe.


  • lemkolemko Posts: 15,120
    edited March 2013's no contest!


    The 1961 Chevrolet is drop-dead gorgeous!


    The 1961 Ford is squarish and conservative


    The 1961 Plymouth is .... Aaaagh! Change it, Butthead! Change it!

  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,494
    That '61 SS is indeed drop-dead gorgeous and I love the color too!

    First year for narrow whites on a Chevy.

    As you know, I'd have to get one with 'straight line tuning' radio and no pushbuttons, 'cause I think the buttons that spell "Chevy" is cheesy! ;)

    At Hershey a few years back, there actually was a '61 Impala Sport Coupe (not SS I don't think) that had the non-pushbutton radio! Too bad it also had skirts. ):
  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,508
    edited March 2013
    The wagon was more logical - not so much overbite at the back:


    And cleaner than 50s style on the sides:


    And you still got gun sights on the fenders.

    Speaking of wagons, I remember many years ago, there was a 2 door 1960 Ford Ranch Wagon for sale in BC. Big rarity.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,508

    Is it a 61 Plymouth or a Lexus GS? :shades:
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    No comparison...the sheetmetal above the headlights on that sags in, the grille's too small, the fender placement is all wrong.

    1 tiny detail doesn't make (or break) a design. That's ugly for many reasons.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,508
    Spindle grille, homely eyes, disjointed style - good enough for me. Much more than a tiny detail, even if from an underdog maker who can never be taken to task for what they have wrought.

    Sales seem to be pretty soft, too - probably were for Plymouth as well.
  • berriberri Posts: 4,141
    Shifty, I think what you say about "design" has validity as toward what will likely be considered by most to be "classic" over many years. However, car fans are like music lovers. Music has basic principles and concepts as well, but people have a wide variety of tastes and favorites regardless of whether those principles are followed. Emotion, memories and the like, as well as just personal preferences play into all of it for most I think. Some car people have favorite brands as well, just like some music people are aligned with certain bands or genres. Personally, in both areas I consider myself a bit of a whore possessing sometimes insatiable desires over very broad spectrum!
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,849
    And, Lexus seems to be going for that pinched, "hourglass" grille look across the board.

    One of my old auto encyclopedias ragged on the '61 Plymouth, saying that it spawned a whole generation of bad Japanese sci-fi monsters. I guess that's not the only thing it spawned. :P

    It's funny though, how the Japanese will pick up on some long lost styling motif from days gone by. A few years back, the Honda CR-V had what I called a "1961 DeSoto complex". It had sort of a double-grille effect, where the lower grille slanted up into the headlights, and then an upper grille that jutted out, in a bit of a swollen fashion.

    And, that odd beltline drop-down in the current Honda Odyssey makes me think of the old Dodges from 1957-60, where the fin ended short of the fender. Or the '61 Dodge, with the odd, reverse-slant fins.

    I don't find the Odyssey hideous though, just odd, with that little detail. And, that previous-gen CRV, while it hasn't exactly grown on me, I guess Iv'e gotten used to it.

    As for the '61 Plymouth, I once saw one with '59 Chevy taillights grafted onto it and, believe it or not, it made a world of improvement. I think the biggest issue with the '61 Plymouth isn't the overall shape, but merely the details. The scalloped-out corners are actually kinda neat, but the stuck-on taillights and that hideous front-end are just a mess.

    I think that roofline dates it a bit, too. Even though it was all-new for 1960, unit-bodied, and shared very little with the '57-59 Mopars, It looks to me like they just used the roofline from a '57 Plymouth 4-door hardtop, and put frames around the window glass. Kinda neat though, how they recessed the B-pillar so the window frames overlapped it.

    That roof persisted through 1964 with the Dodge 880. By that time, it was really looking out of date. Chrysler, at least, modified it a bit for their '63-64 Newport/300/New Yorker, so it looked more up to date, although it still used the same wraparound windshield.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    The GS doesn't look homely or disjointed. It merely shares one styling element, a pinched grille.

    That's like saying an attractive model is an troll just because she has one small mole on her face.

    Gimme a break.

    Sales were up 450+ % the first year, they've settled down now that the new ES arrived, but they're still more than double the sales rate 2 years ago. Not exactly soft.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    edited March 2013
    Feb 2011 349 units
    Feb 2013 1108 units

    317% as many sales as the no-spindle predecessor.

    (Edit: my numbers were low, sales last year were up more than 500%)
  • tjc78tjc78 JerseyPosts: 5,025
    In all fairness they had no where to go but up. The GS has never been a huge seller for Lexus. I question it's place in the lineup period.

    1999 Chevy S10 / 2004 Merc Grand Marquis / 2012 Buick LaCrosse

  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Yeah, the old one was conservative and had dull styling, and was basically invisible.

    The new one has done better because it's not. The risks with the styling have undoubtedly worked.

    Let's not forget competitors are spending about $5 grand per vehicle in incentives, prompting even the biggest die-hards to trade in their AMG models. LOL
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,849
    There's a lady at work who has a previous-gen GS hybrid, and I don't think it's too bad looking, in black. The one I really didn't like was the model before that, which had sort of an insectoid look up front, and Daewoo-like proportions, in general.

    One thing I can't stand about any of the GSes though, is the C-pillar. It's too big, and goes too far back beyond the rear axle, to the point the car starts looking like a swollen hatchback.

    What, really, is the point of the GS, anyway? Is it for someone who wants a Lexus interpretation of a 5-series or E-Class? It's RWD at least, so it's probably more fun to drive than the more mass-market ES, which seems to carry the bulk of Lexus volume.

    That '61 Plymouth look doesn't bug me as much on the ES...maybe because it's smoother, toned down a bit, much less bold?
  • berriberri Posts: 4,141
    Heck, do you really think people buy Toyota and Lexus for style? I think it has more to do with reputation, reliability and trade in values than looks.
  • texasestexases Posts: 5,511
    "What, really, is the point of the GS, anyway? Is it for someone who wants a Lexus interpretation of a 5-series or E-Class?"

    Exactily. And from Edmunds long term tester, many of the drivers like the GS more than the latest 5. Which says more about the 5, really...
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Daewoo-like proportions, in general

    Same designer penned the Daewoo Leganza, so not a coincidence.

    We should all keep in mind they dropped the V8 Lexus GS and still sell 3 times as many in a BAD month.

    Anyone here really think Lexus regrets the spindle? Sales are way up, and they're pretty much using the same old 2GR-FSE V6 from ages ago.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Then how do we explain sales 3-5 times greater than the previous model?
Sign In or Register to comment.