The Best Cars From The '50s, '60s, '70s, '80s and '90s

hpmctorque · September 2011

Yeah, I agree with isellhonda. Great list! Heck, I can even take the '58 Buick Roadmaster Limited, but not the '58 Oldsmobiles. I suppose it may be because if any brand could do chrome well, back in the day, it would have had to be Buick.

berri · September 2011

Well the Colonade's were popular sellers. I always thought the 4 door mid 70 GM's had a bit of a European flair. The only thing I really didn't like about those mid 70's was the big triangular window on cheaper lines like a base Malibu.

The latter 60's and early 70's definitiely had an airliner thing going on. You could see it in the original Toronado, and if you look at a late 60's/early 70's Intermediate like say Skylark, and then look at the cockpit area of a B707 or 727 (now 737) there is quite a resemblance. I though the 71/72 Plymouth Sebring was a nice looker too (but I'm a sucker for anything aviation like!). That car not only was inspired in the greenhouse, but also the front end. Put them together, and the slightly more uplifted angled rear window reminded me more of a DC8 and the front end also brought to my mind a bit of that aircraft's visible nacelles.

The problem I think with the Ford's of that era was an overall feel of cheapness inside. I did like the 72 Torino fastback roofline though.

berri · September 2011

Those 1994-1996 Roadmasters were probably the ugliest cars ever produced except for the Aztecs

But they held up like Japanese imports. Many went well over 200K and you could see them many years after their debut as taxicabs.

andre1969 · September 2011

Heck, I can even take the '58 Buick Roadmaster Limited, but not the '58 Oldsmobiles. I suppose it may be because if any brand could do chrome well, back in the day, it would have had to be Buick.

I feel the same way. I think the Buick and Olds are both about the most outlandish cars there were for 1958, but the Buick still comes off as flashy and attention-grabbing. Definitely a car with some presence to it. But in contrast, the Olds, despite all that glitter and tackiness, just seems a bit stodgy, and like it's catering to an older, stuffier clientele.

Interestingly, the '58 Olds was actually fairly popular when new, considering there was a serious recession that year, and an over-crowding in the middle-priced field. So, I guess it must have appealed to somebody! I think the problem with Buick though, is that the '55-56 models were wildly popular, so GM rushed them out as quick as they could, and quality suffered. As word got out, it put a damper on '57 sales and an even bigger one on '58 sales. Chrysler also got a bad reputation for quality control in '57, and I think the '57 Mercury also took a hit, compared to the '56 and earlier models. So, maybe Olds was about the only brand left that HADN'T gotten a bad reputation, so that kept buyers loyal?

mrsixpack · September 2011

50"s would be the Baby Birds (55-57 Tbirds) and the tri-5 Chevys (55-57), 60's would be Galaxies, Impalas and Grand Prix...love the big cars !
70's 80's 90's etc........they all kind of lost the boat in my book....

The only thing I could add is all the Pony cars.........up till computers and fuel mileage BS showed up !

berri · September 2011

The front end of that 58 Olds always made me think it was constipated. The chrome application didn't come off as well as Buick either - seemed a bit abbreviated or awkward or something. I wonder if those 58 Olds sales were because of some promotions? I remember sometimes there would be special versions with options packages at a discount on different cars. I think my favorite of the GM mid pricers for 58 was the lowly Pontiac. I kind of liked its styling lines and its dash.

isellhondas · September 2011

I remember the old time Buick Dealership mechanics would say that the 1957's were, by far, the worst Buicks ever made with the 58's right behind them.

They especially hated the clam shell headlights on the '65 Rivieras. They were quite complex and touchy with little micro switches. Just a minor bump to the front bumper would cause them to malfunction.

berri · September 2011

I never knew why they did that. I didn't think it improved the looks. In fact, I don't think hidden headlights generally improve things.

andre1969 · September 2011

I never knew why they did that. I didn't think it improved the looks. In fact, I don't think hidden headlights generally improve things.

I may be in the minority, but I think the '65 Riviera looked a lot better than the '63-64. The exposed headlights, which were mounted too far inboard for my tastes and seemed to bug out a bit, were the one detail I didn't like about the first two years of Riviera.

I always thought hidden headlights were kinda cool...gave the car a sleeker, more futuristic look. However, there have been times when I'd turn off the ignition to my '79 New Yorker before turning off the lights, which leaves the covers in the open position. I think they do it that way so that you can get to the bulbs to change them. I've had people remark that it looks cool with the headlights exposed like that. And, I'll admit, it does have a neat look to it. Especially with the wasp nest that's up in there! :P

Now, I think pop-up headlights can look pretty awkward. They look good when they're off, but awkward when up (Corvette, '82-ish Firebird, etc). I always thought the '77-79 T-bird looked awkward with the lights exposed, maybe because it just used large, round single lights. Also, it seemed an often occurence, when those cars were common, to see one with one headlight covered, one exposed, so it looked like it was winking at you!

uplanderguy · September 2011

The '65 Riv is my favorite Riv...took the fake scoops off the '63 and '64 and it had a three-speed automatic, and I agree about the inboard headlights not looking all that great. To be honest, I don't really like the front of any '63-65 Riv...the corners have that "Chinese Lantern" look. That said, I love the '65 in profile, from the rear, and the interior is great.

berri · September 2011

Funny story on those pop up hidden headlights. When I was young I had a good friend who had an Opel GT. Now you had to hide the headlights somewhere on that car since there was no level surface plane for them. I always knew when he was visiting because I could hear him pounding on the lights to close them (and he often had to do the same thing to open them). Kind of liked the car though.

berri · September 2011

...the corners have that "Chinese Lantern" look

I didn't mind that look really. Didn't the 67 Chevy kind of do the same thing but on a less pronounced scale?

andre1969 · September 2011

Didn't the 67 Chevy kind of do the same thing but on a less pronounced scale?

Yeah, it did, and to a lot of people, 1967 marked a major change, where Chevrolet was starting to eschew sportiness in favor of wanna-be luxury. Which, in the 1970's, would transform into pimpiness.

On the Riviera, which was a much more upscale car, and designed with a bit of neoclassicism in mind, I think it worked fine. But on the Chevy, it just seemed a bit pretentious. Of the '65-70 models, I think the '67 is actually my least favorite Chevy overall, although I do like its dashboard. And, it's not a case of I think the '67 sucks, or anything like that...I just happen to like the other models better.

With the Riviera, I guess the '63-65 is considered the most collectible, but personally, I prefer the '66-69 models.

rav4man · September 2011

The 67 chevy is your least favorite dude what about the chevy volt that is ugly. Then all those chevy caprices out of the mid 80s sure you wouldn't rather have that 67 chevy. or that chevy chevette then there is that my favorite, the 58 Buick Invicta convertable have you seen one ?

uplanderguy · September 2011

The '63-65 Riv has always been considered 'the most collectible Riv', but other than '65 GS models, remain quite affordable. Check out eBay for them at any given time.

uplanderguy · September 2011

For years I never liked those first Toronados. Always thought they looked way too big for that swoopy styling. In the past couple years I've come to like them more. Always admired the engineering though.

omarman · September 2011

But the Torino was also a fat, heavy car, and NEEDED a V-8! Although I don't think I'd want a GM Colonade with a 6 or small V-8. Maybe a Malibu with a 305 wouldn't be TOO bad?

Curb weight for a 1976 Malibu with a 305 V8? Probably 2 tons.
Curb weight for a 1976 Torino with a 351 V8? Probably 2 tons and an extra 150 pounds!

I grew up in the 70s era which gets re-written and re-made into movies, music and fiction far more often than I would have ever imagined back then. For example, "The Colonades (sic) were...considering the times...a great choice in midsized cars back then. Quality control was pretty good for the era..."

I know that people really liked Smokey and the Bandit, Foreigner, 3.2 beer and GM's 50% market share of the car biz. There will never be another time like that. (Insert sarcastic retort HERE.)

If you weren't there, then you missed some party. And if you were there then we both know that there weren't too many "great choices" taken or even available in the 70s. And no, I'm not picking on GM's fat boy, colonnade lineup as the worst example of that, either. The 70s were, put bluntly, an all-you-can-eat-buffet of bad choices and questionable judgement. And that's the point. Now that the 70s are gone, we should all have a more sober, clearer vision of what can/should be salvaged from that era. I liked a lot of things back then and can't defend any of it!

Please strike GM's Colonnade-style cars from consideration as a "great choice" of anything ever created from raw materials on this planet. Thanks and have a nice day.
Photobucket

uplanderguy · September 2011

The '67 Chevy did have the 'Chinese Lantern' look too, but not as large as the first Rivs. I know it's sacrilege to say that. I will say when you got cornering lights on the Chevy, they were placed in this area, which is clever I think. Andre, I like on the '67 Pontiacs where the cornering lights were if ordered, but do you believe how they did the '68's? Looks like out of a J.C. Whitney catalog!

uplanderguy · September 2011

My sister and her husband bought a new, dark chocolate brown '73 Chevelle Deluxe wagon with six-cylinder and Turbo-Hydramatic! No stoplight races going on with that baby. I did drive it a little at age 16. Funny, starting in mid-year '73 when the front bumper filler was body-color instead of silver on all colors, I liked the '73 Chevelles, even with the big front bumper. I like the glassy greenhouse, and they were quieter and better-riding than the '72's, although that's been lost to history now I think.
In later years, they changed the round taillights for the sake of change. The '75's rear end lights were so sloppily engineered, they looked like a low-rent body shop did the conversion. And I'm a Chevy guy (especially so back then)!

fintail · September 2011

I've always thought the best cars of the 70s were used cars from the 60s. there were painfully few highlights from any maker, and everyone had a share of crap.

andre1969 · September 2011

I've always thought the best cars of the 70s were used cars from the 60s. there were painfully few highlights from any maker, and everyone had a share of crap.

They probably were! The first car I can remember us having was a 1968 Impala 4-door hardtop that Mom drove. My grandparents had bought it new, but in '72 gave it to my Mom in trade for her '66 Catalina convertible, which my Dad had ragged out, and then they used the Catalina as a trade on a new Impala.

I don't remember much about the Impala, but Mom said it was a good car. In '75 she traded it on a new LeMans coupe. The rear-end was starting to go out on it, but that was about it. It wasn't rusting, falling apart, or anything like that. But it was starting to look like an old car, simply because the styles were changing.

In retrospect, I wonder if she would have just been better off getting the rear-end fixed, and keeping the '68 awhile longer? Even though it was a bigger car than the LeMans and had a slightly smaller engine (327 versus a 350), the Impala was probably faster, and I wouldn't be surprised if it got better fuel economy, too!

The LeMans actually wasn't a bad car, although I do remember the distributor failing on it when it was fairly new. Dad wrecked it in 1977, and after it got fixed, it never seemed to run right again.

It's funny, but as much as I love the '76-77 LeMans, I hated that '75 when I was a kid. It's amazing what a difference a facelift can make, although most people, I think, prefer the round-headlight models.

texases · September 2011

I probably missed somebody else posting these, but the gen 1 VW GTI would be my top car for the '80s. Also the HO V8-equipped Mustangs, as crude as they were.

andys120 · September 2011

the gen 1 VW GTI would be my top car for the '80s. Also the HO V8-equipped Mustangs, as crude as they were.

I had both (not at the same time), an '83 (Rabbit)GTI and an'86 Mustang GT 5.0 convertible. Fun cars indeed and certainly among the best of the 80s. :shades:

Sandman6472 · September 2011

My dad had a beautiful blue '63 Riviera that I loved...even though those doors were quite heavy. Was almost as big as the caddy my mom drove. He went on to get a '67 and then a '69 Toronado. Now those were great cars and the front wheel drive was great for when we lived in New York. But my true favorites are the Pontiacs and Buicks from the late '50's...true land yachts but loved the use of the chrome. The best part was that the cars changed every year back then...no 5 to 6 year cycles where the car was tweaked a bit in year 4. Now those were the glory days of Detroit!

It was a great perk for my mom that the business leased her a new caddy every two years...they just about fit in the old garage but boy were they beautiful pieces of metal!

The Sandman :sick: :shades:

fintail · September 2011

I have vague memories of 70s cars in the family...I remember my mother's huge T-Bird vividly, I remember my maternal grandfather had a big pre-downsizing Chrysler and my grandma had an Olds, while my other grandfather had a 70s Ford truck along with a period Chevy conversion van and the other grandmother even had a Pinto for a time (she liked it!), but I don't remember much else. I do remember how poorly the T-Bird aged though, and how all cars then seemed to need the hood to be raised at an unplanned moment from time to time

berri · September 2011

Speaking of 50's big GM cars, I always thought the 55/56 Buick, Olds and Caddy were classic looking vehicles even today. With Pontiac, I lean more toward the 58 and 59. Olds pulled the 59 new look off better than Buick IMO. The 59 Caddy is a car of great debate, but that alone really makes it a milestone vehicle. Personally, there's something about it that symbolizes our growth, strength and optimism as a country back then, so I'll always be a fan.

berri · September 2011

The 70's have a lot of things going against it like rapid run up in demand, inflation and Nixonomics, the initiation of EPA and safety rules, etc. I think I best remember the decade for GM's success in starting the effective downsizing trend. People can bash GM, but cars like the 77 Impala were an outstanding engineering accomplishment and a market success story. It was a milestone car IMO.

uplanderguy · September 2011

cars like the 77 Impala were an outstanding engineering accomplishment and a market success story. It was a milestone car IMO

I've mentioned before how we had a bright red '77 Impala coupe 305 bought new in Nov. '76. We traded in a '74 Impala Sport Coupe and I liked driving the '77 better in every possible way. I was away at college and a hometown buddy told me on the phone, "I saw your Dad driving a new Impala!". I went home for the weekend and shortly after I got home my Dad asked if I could run an errand and take the car. The '77 was in the garage, but I knew about it already!

lemmer · September 2011

My dad had a '76, I think.

The '77s still just seemed like typical land barges to me. By 1977, you could easily buy cars with fuel injection, 4 wheel independent suspension, decent gas mileage, etc. So, how exactly was the Impala breaking new ground?

texases · September 2011

The '77 Impala may not have been a technical breakthrough in any one area, but it proved to buyers that 'downsizing' could be pretty much painless, with better cars, better handling, better mpgs, and just about the same amount of room. So by that measure they were certainly one of the best US cars of the 70s.

The downsized Caprices became very popular, showing up in neighborhoods formerly frequented by Buicks and Caddys.

uplanderguy · September 2011

The '77 GM full-sizes were revolutionary when introduced. One of the first cars to use computers extensively in design. The big question on everybody's mind...will Americans pay as much, or more, for a smaller full-size car? They were about the same size, or slightly shorter, than the same year's 'midsize' models (Chevelle, etc.). They actually had more usable interior space and trunk room than the behemoth '76's before them, but had 600+ pounds trimmed out of them. They got much better MPG with better performance too. One drive and the cars sold themselves...they were whisper-quiet and smooth but not mushy-riding. They were engineered to not have all the boxed-in rust-prone body areas the previous cars had too.

lemmer · September 2011

I guess all that was lost upon me as a seven year old. I wanted a 911 or a Camaro at the time, as I recall.

I still think the '76s look cooler than the '77s.

berri · September 2011

The '77s still just seemed like typical land barges to me. By 1977, you could easily buy cars with fuel injection, 4 wheel independent suspension, decent gas mileage, etc. So, how exactly was the Impala breaking new ground?

...but not really on a large sized car. Space utilization and efficiency were key on it. Also, a 350 actually got pretty good mileage compared to its peers for that period in time.

berri · September 2011

I still think the '76s look cooler than the '77s.

I'd probably go with the 71 sports coupe personally.

uplanderguy · September 2011

I agree with Andre that the '72 Impala had a nicer-looking grille and rear bumper-taillight combo, as well as nicer seat trim, than the '71, IMHO, but I did like the '71's wide rocker trim. The '71's looked nice even without the optional (except Custom Coupe) wheel opening moldings and body side moldings.

isellhondas · September 2011

The best Buicks ever built were the late 40's early 50's with that sweet sounding straight eight.

Those would easilly go 100,000 miles and more at a time most cars were needing overhauls long before that.

bhill2 · September 2011

I still think the '76s look cooler than the '77s.

It just goes to show how tastes vary. I was in my late 20's when the '77s came out, and I thought at the time that the transition from the rounded, bulbous '76s to the crisp, trim '77s was a quantum improvement in looks. But then, I was driving a Volvo, so boxy was familiar to me.

andres3 · September 2011

was a Cadillac! What year did that happen?

hpmctorque · September 2011

Interesting perspective!

hpmctorque · September 2011

Are you sure your sister's six cylinder Chevelle had Turbo-Hydramatic? I thought the only automatic available for the six was Powerglide.

berri · September 2011

I agree with Andre that the '72 Impala had a nicer-looking grille and rear bumper-taillight combo, as well as nicer seat trim, than the '71

I honestly don't know those cars well enough to distinguish, but I was a young Lt. when I saw that 71 and liked it so that's probably my perspective. I actually liked the Grand Prix and Camaro better then, but was more of a Mopar guy (Challenger, Sebring, etc) in those days - but after actually owning one my attitude soon changed!

berri · September 2011

While we're on this topic of 70's cars, I always thought that the GM 350 was one of best volume V8 engines made along with maybe the Mopar 383. I think that Buick, Olds and Chevy all made their own variation of it with slightly different specs. Then in the late 70's or early 80's I believe GM consolidated all 350's to the Chevy version. Does anyone know why they selected the Chevy variant? Best version? Cheapest to produce? Largest production volume facilities?

fintail · September 2011

1982-88. Caddy in the 80s was much much worse than Caddy in the 70s.

bhill2 · September 2011

Are you sure your sister's six cylinder Chevelle had Turbo-Hydramatic? I thought the only automatic available for the six was Powerglide.

You know I would guessed the same thing, but I found a brochure online (at American Car Brochures) that says that the Turbo-Hydramatic was coupled with the six in the Chevelle (the Deluxe was the only Chevelle wagon that came with a six, incidentally).

andre1969 · September 2011

Then in the late 70's or early 80's I believe GM consolidated all 350's to the Chevy version. Does anyone know why they selected the Chevy variant? Best version? Cheapest to produce? Largest production volume facilities?

Ultimately, I think the Chevy 350 stayed around the longest because of trucks, so they got a greater volume there. And performance cars like the Corvette.

Starting in 1977, Pontiac V-8's got banned in California because they couldn't pass the stricter emissions standards. Pontiac 350 and 400 engines were replaced with Olds 350 and 403's there. And the 301 was just flat-out banned in the bigger cars, and replaced with a 305 in the smaller cars.

Same thing might have happened to the Buick V-8, which was down to only a 350 size by 1977, but I'm not sure. By 1978, they were definitely substituting Olds engines for Buicks in California and regions that adopted CA's stricter standards.

I think the Pontiac 350 and 400 went away entirely for 1979, there were enough 400's left over to use in some Trans Ams. In the Catalina/Bonneville though, they substituted a Buick 350 (Olds in CA).

By 1980, the cars the even offered a 350 were thinned out immensely. It was dropped from the Caprice/Impala, with the exception of police cars. Pontiac also dropped its use entirely, except for California full-sized cars, which offered an Olds 350. The Buick LeSabre and Electra still offered a Buick 350 but oddly, according to the EPA at least, the Riviera was now using an Olds 350. And, the Olds 350 was still used in the Delta 88, 98, and Toronado. Some California Cadillacs, like the Eldorado and Seville, used it as well.

Then, for 1981, it was all over. Unless you got the Diesel 350, or a Corvette or Camaro, or Impala police car, the 350s were all gone. Biggest V-8 choices were a Chevy 305 or Olds 307.

Overall, I think the Chevy 350 was the cheapest to build. It wasn't as clean-running as the Olds 350, but still met emissions requirements better than the Pontiac or Buick engines. I've also heard that it's actually the least durable, with the Olds being the best. But, still good enough. The Olds engine used a lot of nickle in its block, which made for a block that was stronger, yet lighter.

andre1969 · September 2011

I wonder how slow a '73-era Colonade wagon would be with a 6-cyl? I've heard that in the sedans and coupes, it could sometimes take 20 seconds to get from 0-60, and CR tested a 1977 Cutlass Supreme sedan with an Olds 260 V-8 (probably no faster than a 6-cyl) and got 0-60 in around 21.6 seconds.

I guess in a lot of "normal" driving, a car like that might not have been too bad. A lot of those weak engines were often okay in normal driving conditions, but the only problem is that when you really needed to stomp it, you didn't get anything more out of them. So, pulling away from a green light, you might not hold up traffic, but if you really needed to stomp on it to merge onto the highway, or pass a slower car, that's where you'd run into problems.

uplanderguy · September 2011

To be honest, I don't remember it being ridiculously slow, but then I was 16 when I drove it. We had a 3-speed Nova at the time, and I drove that Deluxe wagon before I drove the Nova. In Aug. '74 we bought a new Impala Sport Coupe and at that point I drove the Impala and the Deluxe was relegated to the back of my (driving) mind. The Deluxe was traded in on a new '75 Buick Century Special Coupe. I do remember that V6 felt really rough compared even to the Chevy six.

andre1969 · September 2011

I think sometimes, we just get used to faster and faster cars, and end up forgetting just how slow some of those old cars really were. For instance, I remember when I first started driving, I thought my grandmother's '85 LeSabre, with its 307, or Granddad's '85 Silverado with the 305 were pretty fast. Compared to my '80 Malibu with the 229 V-6, they were! And compared to what most of my friends drove at the time, the Malibu was even pretty quick.

But now, I still have that same Silverado, and today it seems slow. Part of it could be due to aging, but I've taken a stopwatch to it, and 0-60 comes up in around 12-13 seconds, which probably isn't too far off the mark from when it was new.

But, over the years, I've also gotten used to faster and faster cars, and as you get used to them, suddenly those faster times seem like no big deal. For instance, most times I've seen quoted for my 2000 Park Ave are around 7.6 seconds, which would make it the fastest car I've ever owned. Yet, when I punch it, it doesn't really feel THAT fast. But then when I get behind the wheel of the Silverado, or any of my other cars, I think man, what a dog. Except for the Catalina. It's pretty quick from a standstill, but out on the highway, when you need to accelerate, it seems a bit sluggish. I guess that's where newer cars, with 4+ speed automatics, really start to show their advantage.

au1994 · September 2011

Gosh yes, we are spoiled now. When I turned 16 I had a Mustang with the 289. No emissions to strangle it and I thought it was crazy fast. It had nice torque and was an automatic so off the line it did provide a bunch of 16 yr olds a nice seat of the pants feel when I took off.

Now a V-6 Accord would absolutely eat its lunch in a drag race.

isellhondas · September 2011

Cadillac reallly killed themselves in the 80's as they struggled to meet emission and MPG standards. they made some lousy cars and made some dumb mistakes. te put underpowered V-6 engines in full sized cars. They took a Chevy Cavalier and turned it into a Cimerron.

Then in 1981 they produced the one year only 4-6-8's. The engines themselves weren't bad but the primitive cylinder switching systems simply didn't work right. The Cadillac mechanics hated them and the "fix" was to snip a wire that caused them to only run in 8 cylinder mode.

Then in 1982, they REALLY outdid themselves with the 4100 engines. These were terrible engines that didn't get better until 1988.

The damage by this time was done. Loyal Cadillac owners left in droves and Cadillac was no longer the "Standard of the World"

The Best Cars From The '50s, '60s, '70s, '80s and '90s

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles