Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
I spotted an (insert obscure car name here) classic car today! (Archived)
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The article read like a setup for choosing #1, which is way off. Our expectations are higher for super cars, but it's not uglier than an Aztec or even a Juke.
I still like the instrument panels of DeVilles up through '93 (although I like the earlier, analog speedometers).
I think GM lost their way with coupes about this time. They looked like four-doors, with the rear doors filled in! The Coupe deVille for '85, without a vinyl top, got you a virtually square quarter window. The Electra two-doors were similarly dismal IMHO. I think Olds made you get a vinyl top on the two-door Ninety-Eights of that era.
Now that I think about it, I'd have to put the "Hash" at the top (bottom?).
I take that back. I think the Cube is the worst-looking vehicle since the dawn of time. The "Hash" may be the next!
I had to laugh at their description of it looking 'Russian'--I have long said that up until '63 IMHO, Rambler sedans often looked like Eastern bloc products!
DISCLAIMER: I know people who said their '64 Ramblers, anyway, were very good cars.
Really, a car should not look like it was designed in prison. Presumably, these stylists are paid good money for allegedly knowing what they are doing.
So fundamental errors in design shouldn't be tolerated so easily, or forgiven.
Maybe WE shouldn't "know better" but professional designers should.
A car should not look like it was made out of Leggos. :mad:
Remember, these cars are about as big externally as your typical intermediate today, yet they had to fill the shoes of a full-sized car at the time. Now that the Panther is gone, I don't know if there are even any cars left that have that kind of passenger volume. Maybe a long-wheelbase LS, S-class, A8, or 7-series?
Personally, I thought the Olds Ninety Eight and Buick Electra looked better than the DeVille when they went to FWD. The Olds and Buick, seemed to work with the new style better, coming up with something that still looked like and Olds or Buick, but wasn't trying to ape an '84 Electra or Ninety-Eight.
Is the '85 DeVille perfect? Not at all. But, it's not a bad looking car for what it is. Had the dire predictions of their time come true and we were stuck with scarce $3/gal gasoline, those cars would have been the wave of the future.
Other hated cars named there, like the Hyundai Excel, weren't actually "ugly". It was a cheap poorly engineered car, but styling wasn't an issue.
Almost anything from the late 50s crosses the line from ugly to cool/kitsch. 59 Buick? Best use of diagonal styling themes.
ZDX was named, Crosstour should get an honorable mention, along with spindle grille Lexus.
I wonder if he ever got the Antarctic Blue Super Sports Wagon with CB and optional Rallye Fun Pack (I always thought the blue AMC Eagle shown in the gas station scene was supposed to represent the Sports Wagon)
It's funny how other characteristics influence how we think a car "looks".
Look at a Saab 9000 - bigger version of the Excel 5 door, and shouldn't an upscale brand's flagship be held to a higher standard?
Excel did have that kind of awkward rear quarter window, which sets it apart. But when the Excel gained flush lights (87, I think), there were definite design similarities.
Friend of mine in high school had a Mitsu Precis, there's a rarity.
Mitsubishi supplied engines to Hyundai at first. It was until the Alpha engine, in the Elantra, that they started making their own powertrains.
So I guess Mitsubishi got crappy cars in trade for the crappy engines they supplied.
Sounds fair to me.
Following the logic of "more room" why not built a square metal box on wheels?
That is certainly a clean Coupe deVille.
I didn't like the versions with the reduced-size rear window. It was no secret the big hole they filled in to make the 'privacy' rear window!
Again, I did like the three-plane-in-front-of-the-driver instrument panel.
Call me a masochist (or worse), but I think I could actually enjoy a higher-end (Brougham) '78 Cutlass Salon coupe in a dark color with Super Stock wheels (factory). Not seen often then; never seen now. I rode in and drove pretty extensively a new '78 4-door Cutlass Salon Brougham and for its size, it was a very nice car. IMHO, Novas and their ilk felt like a big small car, but that Cutlass felt like a smaller big car.
Not much "design" there, but you do have some advantages - visibility is great all around, and headroom is excellent.
Look at how small the side mirror is compared to the rear glass.
Nowadays, it's the other way around. Tiny glass, huge mirrors and mandatory backup cams since the rear windows are so tiny.
Maybe it's just me. I still rankle whenever I think of how magnificent the Cadillac reputation once was, and how GM utterly destroyed it, perhaps forever. Talk about killing the goose that laid the golden eggs!
From the choice of kings and arab princes and Hollywood's biggest starts, to the butt of jokes, in a mere 20 years.
Sad, really.
Of course my father-in-law only bought them because they were so cheap, used.
Remember the Allante debacle with the guaranteed resale values? IIRC they lost $10k per car.
I remember sometime around 1995, my family had a Corsica rental. It was fairly plush, V6, seemed like a nice enough car. Burgundy on burgundy, as many were back then.
Honestly, though, the handicap they have now is that faded image, as a direct result of the bad times we've been talking about.
All things equal, people will pick a BMW or Benz over a Caddy, by brand reputation alone. Cadillac has to wow people and convert them back.
http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130406/RETAIL/130409917/for- -cadillac-early-signs-of-another-renaissance&cciid=email-autonews-daily#axzz2PuJ- 7PNh5
Timely article. Getting young folks in dealerships is a nice first step.
I actually like the Allante. I know it certainly wasn't the best performer, but it has a nice 80s look.
I know the one to get is the 93, since it has the 4.6L Northstar. The 89-92 probably aren't too bad with the 4.5, but the 87-88 with the 4.1 must be pretty slow.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
Conversion is key. You have to offer more for less - and maybe not go the boredom route of Lexus. Once Caddy has a legitimate big halo sedan, that will help too.
That 4.1 competing with a 560SL, just didn't have much of a chance.
And, the '96 Taurus was an inspired design.... all those ovals.... It was only when they cheaped out a couple years later and started putting in rectangular rear windows, that they ruined it... I really like the wagons from that year..
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
In Europe, the roundy 1995+ Scorpio (Taurus relative) is as reviled as the ovoid Taurus here.
Enough buttons to satisfy even the fetish of a German, but no ergonomics.
And the speedo stuck on 55, of course. By 1987, the continuance of that nonsense should have had legislators being put on one way trips to the gallows and guillotine. Idiocy, the good old days weren't always so good.
Anyway, the article conflates "ugly car" and "bad car" into one concept. Many of those cars are actually quite well-styled. They were just bad cars. Meanwhile, there were only 3 Subarus on that list, all of them early in the brand's lifespan, and I don't think Subaru has ever made a good-looking car, ever. And where are the 1970s "atomic cockroach" Datsuns and the Toyotas of that era - the early Coronas and the '71 Corolla, for example - as well?
Check, please.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
Had the Dauphine engine been rugged enough for U.S. interstates, had a 4-speed plus more power, in that order, it probably would have maintained its sales lead over VW in the U.S. Wouldn't you agree?
Disclaimer: I owned a '85 98 Brougham. It went 155,000 miles before I junkied it, after the third transmission went. By then the steering rack was shot and the car had other needs, but all in all it was a decent car. It was roomy, comfortable, luxurious and got good gas mileage for its day. Performance was also competitive for the time.
The 560SL, as old as it was, was more than a match for the Allante, as new as it was. By 1989 the W107 had been so refined that those 18 years of evolution really made a difference.
I rarely call a car "ugly"---it takes talent to make a car totally ugly---but I like to use the word "incoherent"... I think the reason people diss on certain cars is not because they are demonstrably more 'ugly' that their peers, but rather that the observer can't make any sense out of them.
They think "ugly" but what they mean (I think) is "why was this car built in the first place?"
In my mind, anyway (!), I think they were. I always thought that the Escort was what was being sold against the Cavalier, and that the Tempo was sold against the Corsica and Beretta. Funny I think, that in the late '80's both the Corsica/Beretta and the Tempo had very distinctly different styling between the coupe and sedan versions.
At some point, the Tempo coupe (which was the original version, unlike the sedan) became somewhat of a price-leader for Ford; I remember them being advertised new at very low prices. I can't think of when that would've been though.
Also relevant was that most Americans just didn't know how to drive cars with low torque engines, as they were designed to be driven. Many American drivers who even drove stick shifts tended to lug their engines (for example, they didn't downshift after turning a 90 degree corner of a city street, content to let the high torque of their relatively large displacement engines compensate for their laziness). Since the Beetle had a low stress engine, and low performance to match, it practically forced the driver to downshift, but the Dauphine and most other small European cars weren't as forgiving, because they reached their maximum torque at higher rpms than the Beetle.
Would you agree that the combination of American roads and driving styles were a poor match for the Dauphine, and that this, in addition to poor parts and service, caused it to quickly relinquish its sales lead?
This collection of pictures turned me off as being unrealistic quickly as I started through. When I hit the 1958-60 Thunderbird as ugly and read the blurb, I knew the list of a full of horse manure. The blurbs were written by someone trying to Comedy Central. Not professional. The Thunderbird represented a lot of what people wanted in that period of time. It's odd to make fun of it out of context.
>And where are the 1970s "atomic cockroach" Datsuns and the Toyotas of that era - the early Coronas and the '71 Corolla, for example - as well?
And the lack of the foreign cars shows more problems.
Was the list done by someone under the age of 21 who has no idea of the environment within which some of these cars developed?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
For 1988, the Tempo and Topaz sedans got a revised roofline and rear end. They were less jellybean shaped, and a bit more crisp and angular...almost GM-like. But the coupes stuck it out with the 1984 sheetmetal. Anything that was updated, like the grille and taillights, was just easy-swap stuff that would probably bolt right in to the older coupes.
I had a friend whose parents tended to buy cheap cars and hold onto them for what seemed like forever, even though they were pretty well off financially. In 1982, when I met him in 7th grade, his Mom had a '72 Satellite wagon and his Dad drove an early 70's Comet. I think it was a coupe but can't remember. By 1982 (1983 model year) standards, those things looked positively ancient! I pretty much lost contact with him when we went to different high schools, but ran into his father a few times in the 1990's. By that time, the father was driving a 1988 or newer Tempo sedan, and a pretty cheap one, at that. Just remembering back to the Comet he had, and knowing that Tempo was its replacement, made me associate it with being "cheap".
My stepdad had a 1984 Tempo coupe, a GL model I think. I hated it because I thought it was ugly. And, the one time I drove it, it was horribly slow. Consumer Guide got a 1985 Topaz to do 0-60 in about 15.9 seconds, and I think they were being generous! I think he paid about $10,000 for it. It had an automatic, crank windows, nice stereo. I vaguely remember the seats were fairly nice fabric, and it had carpet on the lower door panels, but the uppers were vinyl. They got it to around 160,000 miles, and then got $600 when they traded for a 1991 Stanza.
As for hierarchy, back in the 1980's at least, I always associated the Cavalier, Tempo, and Aries/Reliant as competitors, while the Escort duked it out with the Chevette (and Spectrum and Toyota Nova) and Omni/Horizon.
In midsized cars, I put the Celebrity up against the 1982 Granada, 1983-86 small LTD, and then the Taurus, while at Chrysler is was more against the likes of the Dodge 600 and Plymouth Caravelle.
As for the Corsica/Beretta, to me they fell in between somewhere...bigger than the Cavalier, smaller than the Celebrity, and not really in direct competition from anything from Ford or Mopar, even though they were certainly cross-shopped.
When you figure though, that the Corsica/Beretta replaced the old Citation, which in turn replaced the Nova, is "should" have competed with the Aries/Reliant, which replaced the old Aspen/Volare, and the Tempo, which replaced the Fairmont, which itself replaced the old Maverick.
Legroom in the back was great, as I recall. Better than the B-body. Maybe even on par with a RWD Electra or Ninety-Eight, or DeVille/Fleetwood.
However, shoulder room was down by a couple inches, and in my opinion, that's what kept the cars from really feeling "full sized" inside.
Thinking about the Celebrity, and then 600/Caravelle it shows you how much better the 86 Taurus was. I have to say though I'd take the 600/Caravelle over and fox body LTD or Celebrity if I was forced to choose.
My Stepdad had an 83 Chrysler E-class. It still drove decent when I started driving in 1994.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
Truth be told, I probably would, as well. One of my relatives had a 1986 or so Dodge 600 sedan. She drove it down from PA to attend my Granddad's funeral back in 1990, and they let me drive it in the funeral procession. Odd thing to remember, I know, and maybe even a bit morbid, as cars should have been the last thing on my mind...but I liked the way it rode and drove, and the interior comfort.
My other grandparents, on my Dad's side of the family, had a 1985 LTD, and when I had my learner's permit I logged a lot of miles practicing driving and parallel parking with it. I actually liked it, because it was easier to park than my Mom's 1980 Malibu coupe. Even though it was a bit longer, it was narrower and had a shorter wheelbase, and felt like it turned tighter. But overall the Malibu felt like a more solid, substantial, roomy car.
I think Chrysler was able to save a lot of money on development costs, with so many cars being on the same K-car platform, and that allowed them to put a bit more effort into the interiors.
My grandparents also had a 1989 Taurus LX, which replaced the LTD, and that sucker made just about everything else on the market seem ancient! And, they traded it for a 1994, so they didn't have it long enough for it to start having problems such as chewed-up transmissions and blown head gaskets, so I have fond memories of it!
I think one shortcoming of the 600/Caravelle was that they never offered a V-6 option, relying instead on turbo 2.2 and 2.5 4-cyl engines. Now, the turbo was plenty quick, and probably still more than a match for anything V-6 powered in its class. But, it required premium fuel, and had the potential for more repair issues. And, if you're used to just tapping the pedal and having power on demand, having to stomp it to get that power out of the turbo takes some getting used to.
Oh, and the 600/Caravelle never got a 4-speed automatic as far as I know, but considering how unreliable those things could be, that might be considered a plus!
If I was looking for a midsized sedan in the mid/late 80's though, I think I would've stuck it out old school, and gone with a Bonneville G with a 305 or Cutlass Supreme with a 307, or a Gran Fury/Diplomat, which had a standard 318 by then. Depending on how late in the 80's though, my only choice might have been the Mopars, as the Bonneville's last year was '86, and the Cutlass Supreme sedan's final year was 1987.
I always thought it a bit odd that Olds held onto the Supreme sedan for so long. Chevy dropped the Malibu after 1983 and Buick dropped the Regal sedan after 1984.
That would have given Olds four different sedans in roughly the same size class for buyers to choose from...Cutlass Ciera, Cutlass Supreme, 88, and 98. Even though two of those were midsize and two were full-size, the Supreme sedan was actually the longest by a slight margin, trunk volume was about the same for all four (around 16 cubic feet), and the reduced shoulder room of the 88/98 meant that none of them were really comfy 6-seaters. And, even though it wasn't all that powerful, the Cutlass Supreme was the only one left with the "prestige" of a V-8.
I wonder if if was that kind of muddling up that ultimately planted the seeds for Oldsmobile's demise. Once upon a time, you went to the dealer, and as you moved up the price ladder, you got a bigger car, bigger interior (one exception being niche products like the Toro/Eldo/Riv or Seville), bigger engine, etc.
But by 1987 the biggest car wasn't the most expensive, and the most expensive didn't have the biggest engine. Further, the most expensive and the cheapest were sharing the same engine...at least, by that time, I think you could still get the 3.8 in a Ciera)
I assumed all your statements were truthful.