Howdy, Stranger!

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





Howdy, Stranger!

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

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

hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,600
edited September 2011 in General
Considering prices and positioning in the marketplace, which three cars or brands excelled, in your opinion?

My choices for the '50s would be Chevrolet, VW Beetle and Chrysler.

For the '60s Ford (Falcon, Fairlane and Mustang were strong entries in new segments, and the '55-'58 Galaxies and LTDs competed well with Chevy and Mopar), Pontiac (affordable performance) and Lincoln (beginning with the '61, it featured elegant design over glitz).

For the '70s, Toyota, Nissan and Honda were the most significant new entries, squeezing the domestics and VW. The Japanese demonstrated that quality and reliability didn't have to be sacrificed for price in economy cars. It was a new business model, or, maybe, one that the automotive world had forgotten. GM deserves credit for their excellent downsized '77 and '78 models, but I'd still give the trophy to the Japanese for this decade.

In the '80s, BMW and Mercedes as the new standards of the luxury market. In the mid-priced field, Volvo made strong inroads with safety features. Chrysler Corp. deserves credit for reinventing the minivan, but important as this was, if forced to choose I think that the dethroning of Cadillac and Lincoln were more significant events.

For the decade of the '90s, Acura (introduced in the '80s), Lexus and, to a lesser degree, Infiniti, took the wind out of the European luxury brands, by excelling in quality, reliabiliy and value. They also delivered a hard punch to Detroit's most profitable models.
Tagged:
«13

Comments

  • omarmanomarman Posts: 2,639
    50s: 1. Cadillac 2. Ferrari 250 Testa Rossa 3. 1959 Austin Mini
    The standard of the world, the ultimate red head and icon of style, baby.

    60s: 1. GM 2. Jaguar E-type 3. Ford GT40 MkII 4. Honorable mention to Chrysler. Thanks for the Hemis.
    In the market place the General was in command, so much so that the feds were dragging them off to court with anti-trust actions. We should have such worries today. Jaguar E-type. Ultimate love gun in movies, myth and real life? Shag-uar...In racing, Ford beat Ferrari in the 24 Hours of Le Mans when no other domestic could. But racing at home on the drag strip? Mopar put everything else on the trailer.

    '70s: 1. GM 2.Mercedes 3. A distant blip on the radar called Japan.
    Detroit would never find itself building so many cars in the face of so much competition again. But again, it was mostly the GM Show in the market place. GM stuff from that era is still collectible and a few are considered "classic." Early 70s big block muscle cars and Vettes, etc. still bring heavy hammer prices. Even a '74 Trans Am SD455 will draw crazy bids. Later bandit Trans Ams get minor-collectible attention. And Chevy will never sell as many Corvettes as they did in the late 70s.
    The mother of all 70s imports was Mercedes Benz. Priced for the affluent and positioned in the coveted market once seen as Cadillac's gated community, Mercedes showed the Japanese that they had much to learn about taking it to the house.
    Japanese imports from that era were reinventing themselves as they went along and in later decades became bigger, better and more like the nameplates we recognize today. Toyota stretched and reinvented products and market positions better than others. People collect FJ40s and mock the Celica Supras (with plastic hubcaps) from the same 70s era.

    80s: 1. The domestic SUV. 2. Voluntary restraint widgets from Japan imported in staggering numbers regardless. 3. Honorable mention Honda.
    Aside from healthy German brands in the 80s, I remember when Detroit began swallowing up all manner of sick, aging, cash-poor euro marques for reasons I never fully understood. And then the news was official: Japan Inc was a world-beater at entry level, family sedans, and positioned to crack into the luxury market. Domestic news? GM wanted to build Saab, Ford wanted to build Jaguar, and Chrysler want to build Lamborghini...WTF?! Where in the name of William Crapo Durant did Detroit get this kind of cash to burn anyway? The SUV affliction had begun...Honda starts building Accords in Marysville, Ohio.

    90s: Japan.
    If you are what you eat, then...Turns out that rebuilding old, euro luxury marques is not fun and unprofitable at the same time. The era of voluntary restraints was over and "all your (market) base are belonging to us." German brands reformulated their "Old World" image to reflect a "New Order" of hip hop influence. It wasn't and still isn't pretty. But Germans did become very adept at packaging their products in attractive leasing terms. Japan became shockingly accurate in hitting more price/product tiers with bull's eyes. pwnage.
    A time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 52,728
    50s and 60s - GM led in so many ways. The others had some cool products too, but GM did very little wrong for an insanely long time.

    70s Europe slowly enters the luxo class, but GM retains the lead, albeit slipping away, for reliability the Japanese make themselves known.

    Best car of the 80s - MB W126. It enabled Lexus to exist. In drier climates, the Japanese start owning the mass market.

    90s Toyota took over, but lost their soul at the same time.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,600
    Good choices!

    I put Chrysler in the '50s because the first generation hemi was introduced in '51, and by '53 it was used in Chrysler, Imperial, DeSoto and Dodge. Chryslers were also the first to offer power steering. Then there was torsion bar suspensions and push-button automatic transmission controls. As for styling, all Chrysler Corp. cars featured new, advanced styling for '55. Finally, dramatic, all-new styling was introduced for the '57 model year, and Torque-Flyte was also introduced that year. The styling was so striking that it stole the leadership from GM, and prompted GM, mainly, to rush to restyle its cars.

    I think all those reasons trump the introduction of Chrysler's second generation hemi, in the '60s, mighty as it was.

    I agree with you regarding the Mini. It set the standard for configuration efficiency that still stands.
  • wevkwevk Posts: 179
    For the 70s I would add a Datsun 240Z. A stunning demonstration that Japan could produce something besides a cheap tin can.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,482
    Boy that 240Z certainly took a wrong turn real fast. From the poor man's Jaguar XK it became a parody of an Avanti II automatic in a couple of years.

    I'd have to throw in the original Datsun 510 as a remarkable car. It is STILL out there on the race tracks, competing in SCCA, so that tells you something.
  • lemmerlemmer Posts: 2,699
    I had an old Z. I really liked it. It was still a cheap tin cap, but it was reliable, decent looking and fun to drive.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,482
    yeah, Japanese cars of those days were none too sturdily built. But the mechanicals were great. Just keep replacing the body! :P
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,600
    edited September 2011
    "... that 240Z certainly took a wrong turn real fast."

    Yes and no. I know what you're saying, and even agree with you, but there's another side to the Z story. Here's my take on it:

    The Z began going soft and straying from its original roots with the 280s (the 260s didn't run well). However, sales of the third generation, the ZX300 ('84-'89), were the highest ever attained for Datsun/Nissan Zs. While it was no longer true to the spirit of the 240, since it was softened and transformed into more of a cruiser, it was a good cruiser. Comfortable, reliable, well constructed. I've got a '88 2+2 with 190,000 miles that runs great. It'll never be worth more than old car value, even though it's been well maintained, but it's been a low maintenance, nice driver. Kind of like a Japanese 4-passenger Thunderbird. And like the 'Birds, the '55-'57s are the most desireable collectibles, but the '58 and later 4-passengers outsold the 2-seaters by huge margins.

    The all-new '90 300Z was a terrific car for its day. I think it was an attempt to return to the original, sporty roots of the original 240, except that it was no longer low priced.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,600
    How old?
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,482
    Okay, not a "wrong" turn, but a predictably compromising one. Lots of the most mediocre cars in the world sold in big numbers.
  • omarmanomarman Posts: 2,639
    I really liked the '90 300Z and so did Car & Driver. With all the 510 and Z car memories going on, does anyone know what became of Yutaka Katayama?
    A time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing.
  • andys120andys120 Loudon NHPosts: 21,751
    The Fifties- Dominated by Detroit's big iron which in 1950 were thought to be the best cars in the world

    -Cadillac 1949-56, after '56 like many cars they became parodies of themselves.
    -Corvette C1 1955-61, a strong success in arcing and a moderate one in the market.
    -Chevrolet 1955-57, hugely influential particularly for the small block V8
    -Volkswagen Beetle, the basis of the Porsche and Corvair lines and influenced an entire generation of rear-motored Euro cars.
    -Jaguar XK-120, another fabulous motor in a hugely successful sports car.
    -Austin/Morris Mini, the car that popularized small FWD sedans.
    -Mercedes-Benz 300SL, way ahead of it's time but not without it's quirks.

    The Sixties were heavily influenced by European designs even as the Euros were copying American styling themes.

    -Jaguar E-Type, fabulous performance and looks.
    -Corvette C2, the 'Vette comes of age
    -Ferrari 250GT/GTL/GT Lusso/GTE, another fabulous engine on road and track combined with superb styling
    -Ford Mustang, most successful introduction in history, spawned a generation of pony cars.
    -Pontiac GTO, similarly birthed a generation of muscle cars and muscle pony cars.
    --Porsche 911, need I say more.
    -Toyota Corona built the brand on the world's biggest car market
    -Datsun 510, something for everyone and outsold Toyota and Honda in it's day.

    The Seventies were heavily influenced by fuel shortages and produced only a handful of great cars.

    -Mercedes Benz S-Class (W109, W116) the cars that put Daimler-Benz at the top of the automobile pecking order for two decades.

    -Honda Civic CVCC, Honda Accord CVCC, Front-wheel drive comes to America in a big way

    -Porsche 911/930 Turbo, forced induction comes to stay.

    I'll comment on the 80s and 90s later.

    2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93

  • lemmerlemmer Posts: 2,699
    I had a '74 260Z. It was already going downhill because of poorly engineered emissions equipment and huge bumpers.

    I also had a '95 300ZX, one of my favorite cars ever.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonPosts: 20,345
    I have to disagree about 60's Chrysler products. I think GM had it all over them. Probably the worst things about Chryslers were the center plane brakes that never stopped well and were difficult to work on. They had weak front ends and handled horribly compared to other cars.

    To their credit, they built the best transmission in those years. a Torqueflight was hard to break. GM struggled with Roto Hydramatics, Turboglides, Dual Paths and other troublesome transmissions.

    The slant sixes and the small block V-8's were tough and strong.

    Poor workmanship was another sore point. Ford wasn't much better in that department in those years.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonPosts: 20,345
    They only made 260's in 1974 and the shops despised them. The carburators and emission equipment made them very difficult to get running right.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,600
    "...a predictably compromising one."

    Well, yeah, I'd agree that Datsun/Nissan discontinued its hugely successful sports car and replaced it with a near-luxury coupe. In so doing, they sacrificed the value seeking driving enthusiast for a larger niche. This product change yielded higher sales.

    "Lots of the most mediocre cars in the world sold in big numbers."

    That's certainly true. The Renault Dauphine and Chevy Vega are two examples that come immediately to mind.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,600
    I believe Yutaka Katayama is 91 or 92 years old now.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,482
    those were actually *terrible* cars. Mediocre cars are harmless enough, perhaps even reliable...they excel at nothing however.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,600
    edited September 2011
    My ranking and comments regarding Chryslers related to the '50s. Here's what I said in my message #5:

    "I put Chrysler in the '50s because the first generation hemi was introduced in '51, and by '53 it was used in Chrysler, Imperial, DeSoto and Dodge. Chryslers were also the first to offer power steering. Then there was torsion bar suspensions and push-button automatic transmission controls. As for styling, all Chrysler Corp. cars featured new, advanced styling for '55. Finally, dramatic, all-new styling was introduced for the '57 model year, and Torque-Flyte was also introduced that year. The styling was so striking that it stole the leadership from GM, and prompted GM, mainly, to rush to restyle its cars."
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 24,395
    I've always heard that Mopars were some of the best handling big cars around, at least starting with the torsion bar "Forward-look" cars of 1957. Biggest problem with the braking system was that it was overly complicated. That "center-plane" braking, which Mopar marketed as "Total Contact" gave superior braking power, but also required the use of two brake cylinders per wheel up front, and went out of adjustment pretty easily. And the back brake drums were pressed on, so to pull them off you needed a special wheel puller. They wouldn't just slide off like the wheel does.

    Now, as the 50's wore on into the 60's, maybe GM and Ford improved their handling, but I was always under the impression that the torsion bar setup with leaf springs in the back made the Mopars good handling cars. The only thing it couldn't really do very well was give a good luxury car ride. So cars like the New Yorker and Imperial wouldn't give you that nice, cushy ride that a Lincoln, Caddy, Electra, etc could, and if they tried to hard to do it, they sacrificed handling too much, without a big enough gain in ride/cushiness.

    I had a '67 Chrysler Newport for a few months, and also had my '67 Catalina convertible back then. The Catalina was definitely a better riding, performing, and handling car. However, it had also had a lot of work done to it before I bought it, whereas the Newport was pretty original, and I think was still riding on bias-ply tires! So, not the fairest comparison in the world.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,600
    "I've always heard that Mopars were some of the best handling big cars around, at least starting with the torsion bar 'Forward-look' cars of 1957."

    That's absolutely true. No GM or Ford car, except the Corvette, could keep up with the '57-'59 Mopars on curvy roads.

    "Now, as the 50's wore on into the 60's, maybe GM and Ford improved their handling..."

    Eh, if they improved, it was modest, at best.

    "...I was always under the impression that the torsion bar setup with leaf springs in the back made the Mopars good handling cars. The only thing it couldn't really do very well was give a good luxury car ride. So cars like the New Yorker and Imperial wouldn't give you that nice, cushy ride that a Lincoln, Caddy, Electra, etc could..."

    All true.

    "...if they tried to hard to do it, they sacrificed handling too much, without a big enough gain in ride/cushiness."

    Probably accurate. I think Chrysler did soften its torsion bar suspension some in the '60s models.

    By the way, the '60-'62 Valiant was the best handling of the domestic compacts, by a wide margin. In fact, it was the best all-around of the Big 3 by a wide margin. It was dead last in fit and finish, but it was the only one with a 3-speed automatic, and was untouchable in terms of durability.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonPosts: 20,345
    edited September 2011
    OK, I understand.

    I'm not sure which was the firest year for power steering in Chryslers but I know 1952 was the first year for GM.

    I can't think of anything great about torsion bar suspension but it was certainly unique.

    All of the Big Three cars had new, advanced styling for 1955. I will agree that Chrysler took things a step farther in 1957.

    " Suddenly, it's 1960!" Yep, GM had to scramble!

    The push button automatics were, again, unique but not without problems. By 1965 they were used no longer.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonPosts: 20,345
    OK, our memories differ I suppose. Actually, no U.S. car handled very well in the 50's.

    Totally agree on the Valients. Head and shoulders over a Falcon or a Corvair but workmanship did suffer.

    I believe the 1960 Valient was the first cars to have alternators.
  • larsblarsb Posts: 8,204
    edited September 2011
    I'd have to put the late 80s/early 90s Toyota Cressida in this list.

    It had the best velour seat fabric I ever saw on ANY car - thick and plush.

    The driver seat was uber-comfortable, to the point where people were TAKING THE SEAT with them to their next car if they totaled the Cressida.

    It was at it's prime in 1985-1986, selling 87,000+ in the USA, but the nicest version of the car IMEO was the 1989-1992 models.

    image

    I owned ( at different times ) a 1987 and a 1992, and I loved them both. I traded the 1992 for an Infiniti Q45 and that was a HUGE mistake. I should have kept the Cressida.

    Then Lexus came around and there was so much overlap that they decided to kill the Cressida. the Avalon is the "technical" replacement model for the Cressida, but it will never be as "cult-inducing" as the Cressida was.

    RIP, Cressida !!! :cry:
  • fintailfintail Posts: 52,728
    Was RWD and could be ordered with a manual. I am still not sure it was actually a Toyota :shades:
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 13,093
    My old f*rtiness is showing. The photo of that Cressida leaves me completely underwhelmed. I know, I know, it's the driving experience.
  • andres3andres3 Southern CAPosts: 12,329
    Toyota used to make sports cars once upon a time that didn't cost $375,000.
    '15 Audi S4 quattro AWD Prestige, '16 Audi TTS quattro AWD 2.0T, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion AWD 2.0T
  • larsblarsb Posts: 8,204
    The exterior styling was bland, true. But the car caused most of it's owners to fall in love with it, somehow.

    I never met a SAVVY owner who did anything but praise their Cressida.

    Plus, it was quiet and VERY reliable.
  • berriberri Posts: 10,165
    I may well be a minority here, but I'd have to add the 58 squarebird Thunderbird to the 50's. While collectors and enthusiasts may shun it, it did sell better and I think it set the stage for two things in the 60's. First, the personal sport luxury coupes. It may not have really been sporty other than looks, but neither really were subsequent models like the Riviera, Toronado or Eldorado 4 seaters. You can make an argument perhaps that the Chrysler 300 should be given credit, but it wasn't really a separate model line and had pretty low sales volume. The second influence on the 60's I believe was the simpler, more angular style lines it introduced. The Galaxie hopped on those in 59, but GM and then Chrysler both moved that way in the first half of the 60's.

    As for the 60's decade I think you've got to throw in a van like the Econoline.

    In the 70's the decade really popularized midsized or intermediates (e.g. Cutlass passed up Impala), while the 80's was the surge in Japanese models and their move (and buyer acceptance) up the models beyond primarily econoboxes. The 90's - I dunno?
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,600
    "Actually, no U.S. car handled very well in the 50's."

    I think we have to differentiate between steering feel and handling. Chrysler's power steering was extremely light, and provided no feedback. It provided more boost than GM's and Ford's. That amount of boost would be considered aweful today, but Chrysler advertised it as an attribute then. Maybe the idea was that it provided the most contrast to earlier cars without power steering. Chrysler's steering also provided less on-center play than GM's and Ford's, so that particular characteristic was a plus.

    Regarding handling and road holding ability, Chrysler corp. suspensions were noticeably firmed up for '57, so they differed to a degree from the stereotypical domestic ride/handling proposition. As a result Chrysler cars didn't glide over small bumps and road irregularities as smoothly as the typical Detroit iron of the day. Andre described the difference accurately, in my opinion. It's quite possible that the differentiation was due more to suspension tuning and steering design than the torsion bars.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,600
    Chrysler introduced power steering in the '51 model year. It may only have been available on the hemi equipped Chryslers and Imperials that year.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,482
    Actually the torsion bar suspension made those Mopars understeer pretty badly in the turns--and coupled with the pinky-turn steering, you had to know how to steer by punching the gas and whipping the wheel to straighten the car. Once you got the hang of it, it did "handle" okay, in its own dramatic fashion.

    Chrysler introduced the first commercially available power steering on a passenger car in 1951.
  • texasestexases Posts: 9,449
    I can think of 2 benefits to torsion bars - more flexible suspension packaging, with the spring weight low (not that 'low' was important back then), and adjustable ride height. Other than that, a springs a spring, helical spring bend in 'torsion', just like torsion bars.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,600
    A spring is a spring..."

    True, but perception is reality, as they say, and Chrysler's advertising played up the term "torsion bar suspension" to positively differentiate their cars' suspension performance.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,482
    Yeah, that's quite right. No american car of the 60s excelled at "handling" very well--they just had different bad habits, and I think the Chrysler cars were easier to push around in the sense of letting drivers intuitively correct the situation.

    50s/60s Images/Public Perceptions: (or my perception of the perception) :P

    GM -- styling, performance
    Chrysler--"engineering" (a status formerly held by Packard)
    Studebaker/AMC --- thriftiness
    Ford -- value
  • omarmanomarman Posts: 2,639
    True, but perception is reality, as they say..."

    That is very true and it may account for much of the varied choices for the "Best" of anything in life. That's not a bad thing either. :)

    I put Cadillac, Ferrari and the Mini at the top of my list for the 50s because to me they exemplified: "The standard of the world, the ultimate red head and icon of style, baby." For better or worse and richer or poorer, the car biz will never be married to consumers like that again!

    By the 90s a good sampling of Detroit luxury, sports car performance, and mini car efficiency was getting baked into a lot of modern car package across the board. But that successful recipe boiled off a lot of flavor which I like about the old cars. Don't get me wrong, I'm not glossing over the history of industry flops which made consumers frustrated and left stranded on the road side. My own perception is that a "race to sameness" also grinds down the rough edges we used to know as "character" and "choices."

    For an example of "sameness" in this decade, recall the Top Gear Lambo vs Evo episode. When C&D tried this sort of "Ferrari GTO vs Tempest GTO" comparison in 1964, it was a lot of bluff and bluster. But today an econobox engineered with techno-steroids really can produce amazing results...even though you still can't get Ferrari experience out of a Tempest parts bin. Computer chips haven't produced moguls such as Henry Ford or Howard Hughes either.

    No disrespect intended, I wish Steve Jobs all the best of luck with his life. I also hope kids today understand that despite all the imagery of Jobs holding an iphone, Jobs didn't invent the telephone. He invented the way to hold the phone so it doesn't drop your call. :P I guess that could be either a perception or reception thing. Oh well it's lunch time...
    A time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,600
    edited September 2011
    You're right about the near demise of character in today's mainstream cars. Some of that old time character came from lack of refinement, predictability and reliability. However, some manufacturers are trying to inject character in their products with design differentiation. The MINI, Beetle and Fiat 500 come to mind. Toyota has been struggling with this issue with Scions, but hasn't been very successful yet, in my opinion.

    If all cars are reliable, then design becomes a more important differentiator. Could that mean that, in addition to Hyundai, Toyota should also be concerned with brands they didn't worry about, like Fiat?
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,482
    It's just so much harder to DOMINATE in a certain class or type of car than it used to be.

    Back in the 50s, for instance, American luxury was Cadillac. That was it...everyone else was an also-ran, far back in the pack.

    A '55 Ferrari could run rings around a '55 Corvette on a race track

    An Austin Mini Cooper was an absolutely ferocious car for its size and weight.

    In the 60s, you couldn't buy more style and sexiness for chump change as you could in a '65 Mustang.

    In the 80s, you couldn't find a better combination of high speed, handling, braking, build quality, safety and comfort and reliability as in a Benz.

    But NOW, even at $200,000 bucks it's hard to dominate your field.
  • andres3andres3 Southern CAPosts: 12,329
    I would add that in the 90's you couldn't buy anything even in the same ballpark reliability and durability wise as a Honda or Toyota. Simply bulletproof.

    I'd wager a late 80's/early 90's Accord could take a road side bomb head-on in Afghanistan and keep running. ;)
    '15 Audi S4 quattro AWD Prestige, '16 Audi TTS quattro AWD 2.0T, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion AWD 2.0T
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,600
    edited September 2011
    It's sad, as you say, that none of the brands and models you mentioned, nor their competitors, stands out today to the degree that they did in their heyday. I'm not sure why that is, but there has to be a reason for this. The only thing I can think of is that such a large percentage of a car's value today is comprised of generic safety, emissions and convenience features that there isn't enough left to differentiate, to the extent that there used to be, and still deliver value. How do you explain it?
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,600
    I agree with your comments regarding the Squarebird. It's main deficiency, in my opinion, is that it was so heavy. Same was true of the 4-seater T-birds that followed it. Subsequent models only got worse, but this is besides the point you make, which is on target.
  • berriberri Posts: 10,165
    I was a little kid in the Chicago area when the Squarebirds came out. Chicago was and is a big GM market. The 58 T Bird brought a lot of attention, but I remember that the new style derived 59 Galaxie was a big deal. Ford outsold Chevy that year. Part of that was the controversial 59 Chevy styling (although I always liked it), but I think the new style trend of the 59 Ford was also part of it. That Galaxie really seemed to catch on in Chicago. Of course, Ford then stepped on it with the rather bulbous 60.
  • lemkolemko Philadelphia, PAPosts: 15,306
    Early 1950s: Oldsmobile 88, Hudson Hornet, Cadillac.

    Mid 1950s: 1955 Chevrolet, 1955 Ford Thunderbird, first V-8 Corvette, Cadillac.

    Late 1950s: Entire Mopar line-up, 1957-58 Cadillac Eldorado Brougham, 1956-57 Lincoln Mark II.

    Early 1960s: 1961-65 Lincoln Continental, 1963 Corvette Sting Ray, 1963-65 Buick Riviera, 1961-64 Chevrolet Impala SS.

    Mid 1960s: Ford Mustang, Pontiac GTO.

    Late 1960s: Plymouth Road Runner, Ford Fairlane/Torino GT, Dodge Daytona, 1968-72 GM A-Bodies. 1967-70 full-size Chevrolets, 1967 Corvette, Shelby Mustang.

    Early 1970s: Dodge Challenger, Datsun 240Z, 1973 Pontiac Grand Am.

    Mid 1970s: Honda Civic CVCC.

    Late 1970s: 1977-79 GM B and C bodies, Cadillac Seville.

    The 1980s was a pretty terrible decade for cars. About the only one that really stands out above the others was the Mercedes W126. All the others I liked were carry-overs from the late 1970s like the Cadillac Brougham and Chevrolet Caprice.

    1990s: Lexus LS400, Corvette ZR-1, Toyota Supra.
  • lemkolemko Philadelphia, PAPosts: 15,306
    Here's a list of my best from each decade. Some choices others will think are odd:

    1950s:

    1953 Cadillac Eldorado
    1955 Chevrolet Bel-Air
    1957 Chrysler 300-C
    1957-58 Cadillac Eldorado Brougham
    1958 Buick Limited

    1960s:

    1960 Imperial
    1961 Chevrolet Impala SS sport coupe
    1963-65 Buick Riviera
    1965 Lincoln Continental
    1965-69 full-size Chevrolets
    1967-68 Plymouth Fury
    1969 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham

    1970s:

    1970 Chevrolet Impala/Caprice
    1975-79 Cadillac Seville
    1977-79 GM B and C bodies

    1980s:

    1980-84 GM B and C bodies
    1980-89 Chrysler M bodies
    1986-89 RWD Cadillac Brougham
    Mercedes W126

    1990s:

    1994-96 Buick Roadmaster
    1994-96 Cadillac Fleetwood
    1992-99 Cadillac Seville STS
    Lexus LS400
  • berriberri Posts: 10,165
    Agree with the Riv, but curious what made you decide not to include the Toronado?
  • lemkolemko Philadelphia, PAPosts: 15,306
    Oh, I forgot about it! I'd say the 1966-67 Toronado were the purest incarnations. It got pretty baroque by 1970, but not nearly as bad as the Riviera which by then looked like a pimped-out Skylark on steroids.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,482
    Awesome car the '66 Toro, and an outstanding technical achievement for GM--perhaps their last great triumph until the Corvette C5. Well some might say the Buick GNX, but that's more about the dark times in which it was born.
  • berriberri Posts: 10,165
    I think sometimes the stylists are stretched and focus on given areas. I agree that cars like the Riv and Toronado were getting uglied up in the late 60's. I think the designers had put their focus on the growing Intermediate segment back then. I loved the Boeing greenhouse on them, along with the clean lines, but have never really made my mind up about the Colonade era that followed them. I go back and forth on those mid 70's and probably lean toward the Cutlass (maybe because I owned a 76 - although in retrospect I've changed positions and prefer the more sculptured, less squared front end of the original ones).
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 24,395
    edited September 2011
    GM's '73-77 Colonade cars had a tough act to follow with the '68-72 intermediates. But, to be fair, if those '68-72 models had gone on much longer, they would have been saddled with over-sized 5 mph bumpers, lost all their high performance engines, and jettisoned the more desirable body styles such as the hardtop and convertible.

    The Colonades were somewhat doomed because of the era which they were born in, but considering the times, I think they were a great choice in midsized cars back then. Quality control was pretty good for the era, handling was decent, and even though they were smaller than their Ford and Mopar competition, they were still fairly roomy inside for that class of car. I think the Mopars made for better police cars...but a good police car does not always a good civilian car make, and vice versa. The Mopar B-body wagons were also pretty roomy...IIRC, they were the only intermediate to pass the "plywood test", being able to hold a 4x8 sheet flat on the load floor, tailgate fully closed. The Colonade cars were too narrow between the wheel housings in back to do that, and I think only had something like 85" of fore-aft load space.

    I dunno if the Fords really excelled at much of anything back then. They had the bragging right of offering a standard V-8. By '76, I think the Torino used a standard 351, whereas Mopar started with a slant six, then a 318, while GM had 250's and 231's, Olds 260, Chevy 305 in '76, then the 350s. 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?
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonPosts: 20,345
    Excellent list. The 1958 Buick Roadmaster Limited was the most outrageous chrome laden barge ever built in my opinion.

    Those 1994-1996 Roadmasters were probably the ugliest cars ever produced except for the Aztecs.
Sign In or Register to comment.