Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

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

15635645665685691276

Comments

  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,072
    Nope, the filling pipe doesn't really intrude into the trunk at all, I think there's a little hump, but there seems to be a firewall of sorts between that and the trunk area. But, when filling the car, you can peer down the filler neck and actually see the pool of fuel, which is kind of disturbing compared to a modern car.
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 10,669
    edited March 2013
    Here's what it looks like in a '65 Mustang
    image

    While a ticking fire bomb, the 'drop in' approach sure simplified my replacing the tank in the donut shop parking lot after my brother speared it with a metal post!
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Member Posts: 16,026
    edited March 2013
    On my '63, '64, and '66 Studes, the hose was inside the trunk. Hawks had a side fuel fill with a metal 'firewall' around it in the trunk. Avantis had their filler up high on the car, behind the quarter window, and the filler was covered by soft vinyl inside. I seem to remember that Avanti tanks were pretty far forward of the rear of the car, but not sure.

    There was a separate trunk floor from the top of the gas tank, though. I do remember hearing that about Mustangs, now that andre mentioned it.

    http://studeblogger.blogspot.com/2011/01/nobody-wants-to-smell-your-gas-or.html
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,072
    Oh wow, that's pretty bad. I've never examined one in person to see that.

    In my car, the trunk floor isn't part of the tank, either. But a fintail was one of the safer cars of the era.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    edited March 2013
    All old cars are death traps, each in their own special way :P

    A stock '65 Corvair will stop in about 140 feet from 60-0. That's not much worse than a modern Miata. When John Fitch built his Fitch Corvairs, he easily matched disk brake cars on the track. Of course, he fitted all his conversions with Michelin radials, and that sure didn't hurt!
  • berriberri Member Posts: 10,165
    I think you have to remember though that the Falcon was basically a low priced bottom feeder that tended to be sold on price. I believe the Studebaker price points were more like an Olds F-85. In hindsight, today the 64 update to the Falcon doesn't really look all that great, but back in those days the original Falcon was looking old and tired by then. While GM was stepping into the coke bottle look for 65, Ford was going to a very straight edged formal look. Chrysler was following, probably because Elwood Engel came over from Ford to replace Virgil Exner. So in a way, the 64 Falcon was an intro to the more squarish 65 full sized Ford's and Mopars. I think if you look at 67/68 GM products, they were then also getting a bit more angular again like before the 65's. So taken in the context of the time, maybe the Falcon wasn't all that badly styled and the Futura was an early step into the small, sporty market that was emerging... and honestly, I'm not that big of a Ford fan either, although I've owned a few.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Member Posts: 16,026
    edited March 2013
    The cheapest Lark for '63, the six-cylinder Standard two-door sedan, started at $1,935, although power front disc/rear finned drum brakes cost an additional $97.95, so a base Falcon most likely was less than that. That "Standard" was indeed 'standard'--chrome hub caps and bumpers, but that's about it!

    andre...since you had an '86 Monte Carlo...my parents had an '80 and '84 and I had an '81 and '82--the filler was behind the license plate which was located in a cutout of the decklid--fairly high on the car. Did the filler not enter the trunk on those cars? I can't remember. I'll have to see if I can find a photo online.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    1958-63 was not a high point in styling for American cars by any stretch of the imagination. There were some exceptions, but as an "era", not so good.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,638
    andre...since you had an '86 Monte Carlo...my parents had an '80 and '84 and I had an '81 and '82--the filler was behind the license plate which was located in a cutout of the decklid--fairly high on the car.

    No, the fuel filler didn't enter the trunk at all. There may have been a slight rise in the trunk floor in that area to accommodate it, but it was still below the trunk, and outside of the car.

    On that subject, the fuel filler on my '67 Catalina, '76 LeMans, and '79 New Yorkers, all of which have the filler under the license plate, were also outside of the trunk.

    Now on my '57 DeSoto and the '68 and '69 Darts I had, where the fuel filler was on the left side, there was a metal tube that went through the trunk area, and down into the floor to get to the gas tank. I'm sure the right kind of accident could rip that tube loose and spill some fuel into the trunk, but it would probably be much harder to get gas in the trunk area than a Ford product with one of those drop in gas tanks.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,638
    Back in the 50's and 60's, the styles and trends changed so quickly that, even if you came up with something that looked great, you were obligated to change it after a year or two because everybody else was changing.

    While I think a '60-63 Falcon looks nice, and prefer it to a '64-65, I'm also looking at it through modern eyes, and looking back on it nostalgically. But, if you go back to the trends of the times, the Falcon was probably looking pretty ancient by '63, and it couldn't have gone on another year with that rounded body. The '64 definitely looked more modern, more 60's, while the '63 still seemed like it was trying to shake off the last vestiges of the 50's.

    Similarly, I really like the '66-67 Chevy II/Nova. Probably my favorite of the whole run, from '62-79. But, they couldn't keep that design forever, as the styles kept changing. It would look increasingly old, and uncompetitive as the time went by. But then, you never know. That certainly didn't hurt the Dart and Valiant, which saw some of their best years in the 70's!
  • bhill2bhill2 Member Posts: 2,464
    Now contemplate, if you will, the Corvair. I can't remember where the gas tank exactly was, but the filler was about 6 inches in front of the driver's door so the tank was up there somewhere. It was a potent incentive to not rear-end the car in front of you.

    2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])

  • bhill2bhill2 Member Posts: 2,464
    the Falcon was probably looking pretty ancient by '63, and it couldn't have gone on another year with that rounded body.

    I suspect that they couldn't put a V-8 into the 60-'63 body without major structural reinforcement. The V-8 debuted in the Falcon along with the '64 body.

    2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])

  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,638
    I suspect that they couldn't put a V-8 into the 60-'63 body without major structural reinforcement. The V-8 debuted in the Falcon along with the '64 body

    Hmm, I hadn't thought about that. Was the '64 really that structurally different, though? I thought it was just a facelift? And, I was always under the impression that Ford made their smallblock as small as they did, specifically so it would fit in the compact cars?

    IIRC, a V-8 also wouldn't fit in the engine bay, initially, of the '63-66 era Valiant/Dart. I think they had to modify the engine bay in '64 to accommodate it. The 273 "LA" V-8 wasn't particularly small compared to a Chevy or Ford smallblock, but it was fairly light, at least.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Member Posts: 16,026
    The V8 was introduced in the Falcon line for the '63 model year.

    I was always surprised that until midyear '63, you couldn't even get a V8 in a Rambler Classic, yet an American. In fact, you couldn't even get a Classic or Ambassador hardtop in '63. I do think it's a good basic bodystyle though.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,072
    Saw a Fiat 2000 Spider and a Mercury Topaz this afternoon.
  • bhill2bhill2 Member Posts: 2,464
    The V8 was introduced in the Falcon line for the '63 model year.

    I am not doing well today. When I cast my mind back I remember seeing the V-8 symbol on '63 Sprints. I made the mistake of looking in a brochure in the Old Car Manual Project web site and seeing only sixes offered. The brochure must have been from earlier in the year. Oh well, so goes my theory.

    2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])

  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    jay Leno has a '63 Sprint. You can see it on YouTube. Naturally, internally modified to resemble the Ford Monte Carlo Rally cars.
  • berriberri Member Posts: 10,165
    1958-63 was not a high point in styling for American cars by any stretch of the imagination. There were some exceptions, but as an "era", not so good

    In all fairness, that assessment probably varies based on your perspective and reference points though. It was certainly an era where style changes (planned obsolescence) and customer excitement peaked. Model line changes, or at least noticeable updates meant consumers got curious about those dealer fenced off new car holding areas each fall and the soaped windows before model introductions tended to bring in the buyers. For example, in that relatively short period of time the Ford Thunderbird went from a two-seater to the Squarebird to the Bulletbird to the more formal 64 models in the fall of 63. The Big 3 certainly offered a lot of styling variation as well. A 61 Plymouth looked worlds different from a 61 Chevy or the relatively conservative 61 Ford. Same went for a Chrysler versus a Buick or Mercury. In 60/61 the Big 3 went seriously into compacts, followed shortly thereafter by intermediates whether by design at Ford (Fairlane) or by accident or screw up at Chrysler (downsized Fury and Polara).

    Personally, I liked all the differences and excitement back then. Granted, with that much change going on some of the models came off poorly, but many were quite nice looking as well. Consider a 61 or 62 GM bubble top, a 61/62 Lincoln Continental, or a 63 Riviera for example. The 63 Stingray was a head turner when it came out. Virgil Exner certainly created excitement and attention, albeit at both ends of the bell curve sometimes! I think Bill Mitchell is still one of the best designers in postwar American automobiles. Admittedly, most of the cars during that frame of reference probably didn't match the art and design success of many 57 or 65's and they certainly weren't decades earlier Pierce Arrows, Packards, or Cords - but they were produced and priced where the masses could afford them. I'll bet there are a lot of auto executives that would like to have that era back again!

    But I will give you that someone who lived through that era may well have a different opinion than someone younger looking back at those models. Nostalgia and association can affect attitude, but I'm trying to be objective about it. Ironically, I think some of the younger generation at old car shows are taken in a bit by some of the more extreme designs at old car shows. Observing, it seems like some of them look past a model we old timers might consider a classic, like a 63 Impala, and focus instead on something like a 60 Dodge or 58 Edsel. Maybe its the creative Asian Anime influence! Regardless of individual opinions though, it's fun stuff.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    well sure depends on what you're looking at, which is why I used the word "era" (I think I did anyway).

    There were a handful of nice looking cars but generally the styling was, as you say, very offensive to contemporary eyes---we all knew when to hold our noses in other words, and when to applaud.

    I myself prefer styling that is harmonious. I don't like outrageous "birthday cake" designs---it's a cheap way to get attention and it ages badly.

    I think 58-63 was the Spinal Tap of car design :P
  • berriberri Member Posts: 10,165
    I won't be around, but I sure wonder how today's cars (and trucks!) will be viewed 50 years from now? There is a lot of "Audi" sameness in so many models. Many of them look nice, but can lack differentiation. Actually, in that respect it reminds me a bit of the early 50's, although I think the big difference there is that you could pretty easily tell GM from Ford Motors from Chrysler Motors products in the early 50's, whereas today sometimes the different manufacturers product line ups can look similar to others. Ironically, I have the same attitude toward airliners. I like the old propliners and early jetliners better than a 747 or Airbus. Like cars, the latter are better equipment, but they just lack the panache or something of the past. Sometimes it's just hard to separate the heart from the brain I suppose (the old business school quant head versus poet syndrome)! Looking at the old liveries and uniforms can be as telling on culture and societal changes as looking at old cars and their ads and brochures.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,638
    I think 58-63 was the Spinal Tap of car design

    Maybe if you want to generalize. But, for 1958, I thought Chrysler was a bit late to the ugly party. Their cars were simply mild facelifts of the successful 1957 lineup, and in some cases (Imperial, Dodge, Plymouth), I think were actually an improvement over their '57 counterparts! A '58 Chevy's not a bad looking car, and I don't think a Pontiac or Caddy is, either, although the Caddy was a bit heavy-handed compared to '57. And, I know I'm in the minority here, but I actually prefer the '58 Ford to the '57!

    '59 was the year it all bottomed out, but even here, I think there were some decent looking cars. The Pontiac, Olds, Mercury, Desoto, and Chrysler weren't too bad looking. The Chevy was kinda wild. Ford was heavy-handed, but that T-bird inspired look was really popular. The Plymouth was looking a bit out there, like they didn't know what do do to facelift the '57 body.

    By '60, Ford and GM were starting to tone it down. So were Chrysler and Desoto and Dodge, but I have no idea what they were thinking, with the '60 Plymouth. My theory is they made it look ugly on purpose so people would pay a few extra bucks for a Dodge!

    By '61, GM and Ford were getting downright tasteful, but Chrysler, again late to follow a trend, decided to make 1961 their equivalent of GM's 1959!

    I think GM really hit their stride by '62-63. Fords and Lincolns were attractive for the most part, if conservative in some cases. However, sometimes it seemed like they didn't know what to do with Mercury. Whereas GM could make you see that a Pontiac, Olds, or Buick was a step above a Chevy, often a Mercury just looked, well, different, but not necessarily upscale, from a Ford.

    Chrysler was starting to have the same problem with Dodge and Plymouth, which were starting to become parallels of each other, rather than Dodge being a step up.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Well some people like Elvis paintings done on velvet, or George Kincade, and this is their constitutional right, but there are basic principles to styling that I think should be met by anyone claiming to be a designer.

    Everything on a car should be there for a reason.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,638
    True, but I don't think that everything was utter chaos in 1963 and then in '64 it was suddenly rainbows, lollipops, and unicorn farts.
  • berriberri Member Posts: 10,165
    but there are basic principles to styling that I think should be met by anyone claiming to be a designer.

    In general I don't disagree with that thought, but perhaps we might differ a bit on what those "principles" are. I think you're hitting the meat of the bell curve in that concept. However, like inventors, the truly great and remembered designers are those who can go beyond that box and differentiate (the edges of the bell curve so to speak). Of course that means failures and great successes sometimes. I think Exner hit it in 57 and swung and missed in 61, but he's remembered. Many stylists are not, even if their work was successful. Now Bill Mitchell had far more hits than misses (and he's a favorite of mine), but Harley Earl was a leader in implementing automotive design so he probably gets more recognition in the history books.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Well sure there is "vitality", even if misplaced vitality, but then there is chaos, ugliness, laziness and inattention to function.

    A car is, after all, a CAR---the design should have a basic intelligence. If the back half of the car has no relation to the front half, that is not intelligent. It might be "fun", or "outrageous" or "so bad it's good", but it's not intelligent.

    If just "getting attention" was a sign of talent, god knows who we would call intelligent on TV. :surprise:

    EXAMPLE:

    First, HARMONY:

    image

    Second: CHAOS:

    image
  • stickguystickguy Member Posts: 50,382
    no idea of the trans, but there is one of those at a house just outside my neighborhood. pretty sure that year.

    guy has a number of old cars none of which look all that nice. Some 50s Mopar, a 73ish Barracuda, the t Bird, and a couple others under cheap tarps that I am not sure what they are.

    2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.

  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    A 59 T-Bird with "3 on the tree" is pretty rare.
  • bhill2bhill2 Member Posts: 2,464
    A 59 T-Bird with "3 on the tree" is pretty rare.

    And with overdrive, yet. Actually that would be kind of a kick. Probably gets comparatively good highway mileage (note the use of the term 'comparatively'). I am assuming that it has power steering. Otherwise, dealing with the steering and the stick would be kind of gnarly.

    2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])

  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Hmm...might not have PS--usually a lux car with a stick shift means a 'stripper' .

    That would be bad. :(
  • bhill2bhill2 Member Posts: 2,464
    Yup, and PS was indeed an option.

    2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])

  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Member Posts: 16,026
    I do agree on the '59 Ford...to me it's almost cartoonish.

    I know you don't like Avantis, but I have a factory video of a '64 Avanti passing a base-level '59 Ford on a highway outside of Chicago and the Ford looks like it was much older than five model years older than the Avanti. Different types of cars, I realize.

    That said, there are quite a few '58-63 cars I think are handsome. I do put a big divide between '64 and '65 though as it seems like a lot of mainstream cars were redesigned for '65.
  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    Geeze, two classics immediately come to mind for 1963:

    Buick Riviera
    Corvette Sting Ray
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,638
    To me, a '59 Ford looks a bit like it's stuck in transition, between the late 50's and early 60's. While features such as the wraparound windshield, headlights above the grille, fins, and heavy-handed chromework still give it off as a 50's design, it still looks like they were trying to square it off and tone it down a bit, a hint of things to come in the 60's.

    In contrast, I think of a '59 Chevy as a 60's car that hasn't totally shaken off its 50's excesses yet. And, the fact that the design lasted through 1964, just toned down a bit each year, seems to support that idea.

    Meanwhile, a '59 Plymouth just seems like it's still stuck in the 50's to me. It's like they took what had been modern and futuristic looking in 1957, and decided to out-do that, but unfortunately that wasn't really what the public wanted anymore.

    If I was forced to choose between a '59 Chevy, Ford, or Plymouth, I don't know which way I'd go. I'm not really a fan of any of them, although each one does have a few things I like. I kinda like the formal, upscale look of the Ford, although at the same time, I do find it a bit heavy-handed and fussy from some angles. I like the sleek, lowness of the '59 Chevy, but just not some of the excessive details. And the Plymouth, I like the overall shape, but just don't like the frenched headlights, the garish, two-piece eggcrate grill, or the "toilet seat" fake tire hump on the decklid.

    If I was a new car buyer in '59, I think I'd just try to save up a few more bucks and splurge on a Pontiac, Olds, Mercury, or DeSoto.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Member Posts: 16,026
    If I was forced to choose between a '59 Chevy, Ford, or Plymouth, I don't know which way I'd go.

    I'd just buy one of these instead:

    http://www.flickriver.com/photos/8490341@N04/2064108390/

    If I HAD to buy a '59 Chevy, Ford, or Plymouth, I'd probably buy a non-white, non-red, non-black, factory two-tone '59 Impala Sport Coupe. But I wouldn't be totally happy doing so. ;)
  • tjc78tjc78 Member Posts: 15,817
    Saw one of these beasts last night in a light blue color. I'm pretty sure I've seen it before, there can't be two of them running around south Jersey. I'm not even sure what the proper name is. I think it said Apache on the side, which makes sense.

    image

    2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Ram 1500 Bighorn, Built to Serve

  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Member Posts: 16,026
    That's a '61 Chevy Apache panel truck. The inserts in the 'cats eyes' are different between the '60 and '61.

    I think those are durable trucks but of no great styling integrity. I think everybody else's trucks of that period were better-looking. Just MHO of course.
  • berriberri Member Posts: 10,165
    Looking at Shifty's pix, I think he's a bit of a minimalist in his styling preferences. I doubt he has any Picasso hanging on his walls! I think one of the things that contributes to that 59 Ford view is that often squared off C pillars and long deck lids can look a bit out of balance, particularly in two doors. In the 58-63 time period, I think I liked the 60 Ford the least. It was like two cars. the front part was decent, but the back was odd. It had those goofy, truncated finlets and then the elongated half moon tail lights with inverted images embossed into the fender (which owners frequently filled in with red reflector tape that didn't really enhance it). Throw in that bulbous rear window on the lesser Fairlane models and Wuuf! I think the more squared off C pillar and smaller rear glass on the Galaxie worked better. IIRC Fintail liked the 60 Ford wagon. It was the last Big 3 wagon to still have a two piece tailgate, but it probably worked better on that particular design than a squared off roll down window one piece would have. I suspect back then though that Ford made the decision based on cost rather than aesthetics. I think the wagon looked better than the sedan too, but the Starliner coupe is probably a collector favorite. As for 59's, I'd go Chevy. My favorite Ford for of that era is the 63, although I know some don't like the tail light and rear fender interface. I think the FOMOCO's that had many less than attractive model years during that period is actually Mercury. If a Ford guy puts down a 59/60 Chevy, all the Chevy guy has to do is pull out a pix of a say 60 Merc and say "checkmate"!
  • jljacjljac Member Posts: 649
    I do agree on the '59 Ford...to me it's almost cartoonish.

    I agree. I think that the '59 Ford was the worst looking Ford produced during the 20 years following WWII. A guy on our block had a pink and white hardtop retractable convertible. It was horrible. The trunk looked massive - like a big, white food freezer we had in our basement. From the side it looked like a pick up truck (or El Camino).

    I thought that the 1960 was the best looking Ford of that era and 1958 was second best. Many don't like the 1958 Fords, but I did and still do, especially the hardtop. They seemed to be related to the Thunderbird of the same year. All the other Fords were OK with me, some quite nice, but the '59 s were "da woist."
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 10,669
    "I think I liked the 60 Ford the least. It was like two cars. the front part was decent, but the back was odd."

    I was just about to post how the '60 Ford was one of my favorites of that style-challenged era, with the '61 looking older than the '60 to me...in the eye of the beholder, and all that...
  • berriberri Member Posts: 10,165
    Totally true - car design and preferences is a very emotional matter I think. I don't have sales numbers, but Ford didn't stick with that 60 body design beyond one year (although I believe the chassis went through 64).
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,122
    >I was just about to post how the '60 Ford was one of my favorites of that style-challenged era

    Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I was going to post that I liked the 59 style. The era was about rockets and jets and fins; the '59 had that style. The '58 was a little messed up with strange variations on the headlights and taillights after the '57.

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • omarmanomarman Member Posts: 2,702
    That said, there are quite a few '58-63 cars I think are handsome. I do put a big divide between '64 and '65 though as it seems like a lot of mainstream cars were redesigned for '65.

    I can see where you could divide a lot of Detroit iron between the '64 and '65 model years. It's just that the '58-'63 era was a bigger slice of time with a fuller catalog of dreck. Last week I watched part of "It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World" from 1963. The characters are still fun to watch and the traffic mix can be hard to look at. :shades:

    But I still like the '58 Corvette and the '63 Galaxie so there's no accounting for taste.
    A time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,072
    I like the 60 too, it is odd, but cool in a way. There's something kind of forward look mopar in it to me, especially the Starliner. It is a link to the 60s from the 50s - a little gingerbread, but some clean parts too, and not as sometimes awkward as a 59. I might be biased, as my dad had a cool red and white 60 Country Sedan back in the 90s. It would attract attention even then before the wagon fad took off - when was the last time anyone saw one?
  • berriberri Member Posts: 10,165
    The 59 Ford was actually a pretty good seller and I believe outsold Chevy. Two things probably played. Obviously the 59 Chevy style was controversial and the Plymouth, while not badly done, was getting a bit old. But customers also flocked to the Thunderbird roof lines and interior cues on the new Galaxie. For it's day, it was a bit modern inside. I always felt that the 60 Ford either wasn't completely done, or screwed up by management committee interference or excessive compromise?
  • berriberri Member Posts: 10,165
    Actually, I think the 60 Ford was the best looking of the Big 3 wagons that year, even if a bit unusual. The Chevy had far too many window pieces that didn't seem to quite work right and the Plymouth was getting a bit too extended in the rear to my eyes at least.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    edited March 2013
    Well you can't use sales figures to assign high marks to styling; people have been known to buy, wear, eat or watch the most horrible things.

    I really don't think beauty is in the eyes of the beholder---that suggests that training, the artistic eye, and styling talent are irrelevant. I don't believe they are.

    Most of the 58-63 cars may have some appeal for the big lovable goofs they are, but stylistically they are an utter mess of add-ons, lines smashing into one another, completely unrelated themes, garish adornments---and we (I) haven't even started on how dumb some of the interior design is.

    Many foreign cars were no better, so I'm not beating on one dead horse here.

    I would suggest that some fans of these cars look at them in "real life" and give us a reassessment---photos tend to forgive so many crimes.

    Look at this car---every line in agreement, every shape makes sense, everything stating one bold "idea":

    image
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Member Posts: 16,026
    edited March 2013
    To me, that Riv was much-improved when the fake scoops were removed, and the inboard headlights made hideaway and the taillights moved lower into the rear bumper--all done for '65.

    That said, a '63 or '64 Riviera is not ridiculously priced, and there seem to be a lot of 'em out there still.

    I'm one of those very few that doesn't like a split-window '63 'Vette--too 'Buck Rogers' for me. The '64 you can actually see out of, and it costs less than a '63!
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    "tortured lines" par excellence.

    What are we doing here? Let's have some icing on that cake with layered fins...no wait, I want semi-ovals...no wait...let's put a dip in the rear windshield and a fat lip on the trunk.

    this car looks like it fell off the modeling table and someone pushed the clay back together so they wouldn't get in trouble: :P

    image
Sign In or Register to comment.