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

berri

The side profile of that D'Elegance reminds me a bit of the clays for the original 62 Mopar's before they did the do-over shrinking exercise on them.

berri

I always thought the 61 Pontiac was rather stunning. Simple, but elegant. But in 62 I think that banner got handed over to Oldsmobile.

fintail

61 Pontiac is nice yes. I also like the 62 Starfire with the unique side trim.

andys120

If you think about it, the '61 Pontiac was so much more stylish than the competition that it marks the crossover point for the brand, in a few years it was the car to buy. Even my Dad, who could care less about peformance, succumber to the charm of the wide-track split grill Pontiacs ('64 Catalina 4dr h/t.)

hpmctorque

"Nobody will be looking at these cars in 20+ years and reminiscing about their lovely lines."

It's challenging for me to identify any 2013 sedan (other than a few exotics, maybe) that will cause people to reminisce 20+ years from now. I think this will be looked back on as the era of blandness and relatively minor styling differentiations.

berri

20 years from now looking back, the emphasis may be more on trucks and crossovers...and maybe even strictly conventional drive trains. Another factor though may be that young people are more into technology than cars these days. I wonder if an improved economy may change that down the road?

As for 61's. I think the Pontiac and Impala will both still look clean. In fact, I think today some are actually beginning to appreciate the 61 Impala more than the very popular 63. But yeah, I don't think 61 will ever rank up there with say 57 or 65.

hpmctorque

"I can hardly think of two consecutive model years of the same model that looked more different..."

How about the difference between the '54 and '55 Plymouths?

berri

Heck, 54 - 55 Ford and Chevy too. Then came 57... (well, except for Chevy).

hpmctorque

The '63 Olds Dynamic 88 4-door hardtop managed to improve on the simple, but elegant look, in my opinion.

fintail

There really aren't any cars from 20 years ago that give people warm and fuzzy feelings, either. Even cars like W124s are 80s designs. As design has become more bland and similar overall, I think people just don't care as much. Also explains why spindle grilles and Korean swoopy lines sell. Cars aren't the integral part of memories that they were 50 years ago.

On the obscure car ideal, I saw a substantial rarity today: R63 AMG. I think about 20 of these were sold in the US, I know at least one is in the Seattle area. Well, it could have been a fake, but the badging, wheels, and stance looked right - and who would fake such a boring looking thing?

Also have spotted a Ciera "International Series", early Mustang, maybe 78-79 Celica, slow moving popup headlights Accord (finally starting to age off), and a very nice brown Celebrity Eurosport 2 door - I guess 87-88, definitely not in daily driver condition.

hpmctorque

I used the '54 Plymouth in my example because to my eyes it was smaller and stodgier looking than the Ford, especially, and Chevy of that year.

berri

Olds did pretty well in 62-64. I remember back then some people disagreeing on whether the 63 looks were an improvement or not. But I think in general the Bill Mitchell roof line changes to the GM hardtops classed them up a bit. IIRC the big complaint some had on the 62 was the sort of double front end. Personally, it's a tough call to me either way. I didn't care for the 61 Olds all that much and think Buick stepped ahead looks wise in 65. But I'll give 62 -64 to Olds.

berri

That's a good point on the Plymouth. Personally, I thought the 52-54 Ford was ahead of Chevy and Plymouth, but there are a lot of Chevy fans from that era. I liked the 52 Chevy better than the 53/54.

boomchek

Yeah if we look back to the early to mid 90s, there were some neat cars for their age but nothing spectacular:

All Ferraris from that era apart from the F40 look outdated, are out equipped and are outperformed by most modern sports sedans today.

Late 80s to mid 90s Civic hatchbacks and CRXs might have a cult following for their power to weight ratio, lightness and spectacular fuel economy from a simple design, and they had groundbreaking styling for the era but are nothing special today.

Chryslers also totally revampled their whole lineup with cab forward styling, but they're not looked fondly upon now because most people remember them as horribly depreciating (and trouble prone) cars.

Ford was still riding on the coat tails of its mid 80s Taurus design.

GM's lineup consisted of mostly boxy 80s relics, until mid 90s when most of them got modernized.

The only cool designs from that time might have been the BMW 8 series, the Bugatti EB110, the Dodge Viper as there was nothing like it at that time, the Mazda RX7, Supra, and Nissan 300ZX, the Acura NSX which unfortunately received no updates for a decade afterwards, and from Mercedes I think the SL was a very stylish design for that era and still looks decent today, and the S Class which looked, and still looks like a tank but not "beautiful" by any means.

But that's about it.

hpmctorque

The '49-'52 Chevys looked sleeker than the '53-'54, but, for whatever reason, I prefer the styling of the latter. The saying "tastes are not to be disputed" applies, I guess. Heck, if everyone agreed Edmunds forums wouldn't exist. Just think of the millions of cumulative hours that would free up. Whoops, I'm digressing.

uplanderguy

"I can hardly think of two consecutive model years of the same model that looked more different..."

How about the difference between the '54 and '55 Plymouths?

True, that was a big change.

Same with '52 vs. '53 Studebakers, and '76 GM full-sizes to '77 models.

uplanderguy

The '63 Olds Dynamic 88 4-door hardtop managed to improve on the simple, but elegant look, in my opinion.

I was not a fan of the vertical fins in back.

Could you get a 'Super 88' in a two-door, or was it like a 'Star Chief' over at Pontiac then? I was always intrigued by these rarer, 'better' models of the lower-end bodies.

A friend's parents had a light green '62 Dynamic 88 and I remember the bar of various colors that went above the speedometer when you hit certain speeds.

fintail

The early 90s was a high water mark for Japanese cars - we had the turbo Supras, MR2s, 300ZX, hyper-complex Mitsubishis, NSX, Lexus SC, like you say Civic was at a peak, even Accord and Camry were excellent packages relative to the competition. In terms of design - RX7 and ZX have aged well, they all have cults behind them, but in terms of classics, its tough. Those who do become classic (Supra and maybe RX anyway will get there) will do it for performance more than looks, IMO.

R129 SL did age well, probably because it was made for 150 years. W140 is an interesting piece and probably has more presence than anything else for the money now - but pretty, indeed it isn't. 8er is pretty. Not many US designs from the era have held up well.

andre1969

I went back and looked in my old car book to get the 1961 numbers for the Dart. And damn, did it ever nosedive, compared to 1960, when around 324K were sold...
Chevrolet: 1,129,000
Ford: 791,498
Plymouth: 206,757
Dart: 183,561
Pontiac Catalina: 113,354
Mercury Meteor: 53,122

andre1969

In '53-54, I think Chevy was trying to go for more of a "baby Cadillac" look. They definitely had a heavier look to them. I think they're all good looking, in their own way.

As for the '53-54 Plymouth, I think they suffer mainly from poor proportioning. If anything, they're actually a bit like modern cars, in that they have a large passenger cabin, but not a very long hood or trunk. I don't really care for the 1949-50 Plymouth, as they really look stodgy, but I think the '51-52 aren't too bad looking.

The '52-54 Fords never did much for me, either. Pleasant and modern enough, but a bit boring. They look more modern than a Chevy, but I still think the Chevy looks nicer.

I was amazed though, when I found out that the '55-56 Ford wasn't all-new, but rather a heavy revision of the '52-54. They did a similar thing with the 1960-64 Fords, versus '57-59. New, modern body, but put down over the same frame. Unfortunately, on the '60-64 Ford the result was an extremely shallow trunk, as the bodies got lower to look more modern, but the frame was the same height as '57-59.

bhill2

Could you get a 'Super 88' in a two-door, or was it like a 'Star Chief' over at Pontiac then?

You could get a two-door hardtop. There was also a four-door sedan, but no two-door sedan.

boomchek

Not many US designs from the era have held up well.

No, I can't think of even one off the top of my head other than the Viper and maybe the Prowler, but the Prowler was underpowered with a V6 and Chrysler's auto-stick.

andre1969

sorry to keep rambling here, but out of curiosity I looked in my old car book. Looks like the last year for a low-end big Olds 2-door sedan was the 1961 Dynamic 88. Buick's last was the '63 LeSabre, and Pontiac's was the '68 Catalina.

Looks like Mercury's last was the 1966 Monterrey.

Over at Mopar, the last Chrysler and Desoto 2-door sedans were in 1954. Also, starting in 1955, Dodge limited the 2-door sedan to the Coronet. The Royal/Custom Royal, and the 1960 Polara/Matador, did not offer 2-door sedans either. Only the Dart Seneca and Pioneer did. No 2-door sedans in the Phoenix line.

boomchek

Speaking of low slung Olds coupes, this one is a masterpiece. I've seen these pics floating around for a good part of 5 or 10 years on the net now.

I think this is a Jetstar 88 or whatever the owner called it.

berri

What is that, a 67? I wish we'd get some nicer blue colors on today's cars.

texases

A '55 Nomad resto-mod on the LBJ near DFW airport, and a nice '66 Impala 2-door hardtop in a parking lot at the neighborhood park. Both very good looking, nice restorations.

berri

Traffic let you notice anything on the LBJ? Just kidding!

boomchek

I think so, I'm not familair with old Detroit iron.

I agree with you on the colors. Most of them these days seem bland with a touch of greyness.

texases

"Traffic let you notice anything on the LBJ?"

Well, it was 10 am on a Saturday, and near the airport, so not too bad...the rest of northern LBJ is a battle zone, being rebuilt completely.

kyfdx

Sure looks like a '67.. similar to the new Bonneville coupe that my mother bought new, that year...

pipps2

a rolls royce and a audi r8

ab348

That's a 1965 model. One of their best designs. We had a '66 new, a beautiful blue one in fact. Thing had a 425 in it, literally could pull stumps with it as my dad learned one day as he was clearing some property. Chained one end to the frame, other end to the stump. Scratch one stump.

berri

Now that you mention it, that makes sense. I think the 67 might have moved to the Olds elongated headlights and grill before the eventual split grill image they adopted. Those big old ohv V8's had torque!

uplanderguy

It was at an Ohio Region S.D.C. meet, so I shouldn't be totally surprised, but it was a cold, wet, and snowy-in-some-parts day here today.

The truck was a 'Transtar' (name later used by I-H), was red (of course) and was driven two hours to the meet!

By the '64 model year, that design was dated but I always thought it was a good-looking big truck, with the big vertical-teeth grille in off-white fiberglass.

Smelled like gas when I got within four feet of it though!

uplanderguy

A Bonneville, which is a nice color IMHO and bringing some serious bid attention:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Pontiac-Bonneville-2-DOOR-HARDTOP-BUBBLETOP-389-V- 8-COUPE-AC-1961-ORIGINAL-JADESTONE-GREEN-METALLIC-/400437214114?pt=US_Cars_Truck- s&hash=item5d3beafba2#v4-43

The Bonneville interior is great IMHO and I like the three round taillights on each side, compared to the oval lights of the Catalina and Ventura, but I have a hard time getting past the rear overhang on the longer-wheelbase Bonneville. I think a Catalina/Ventura is better-proportioned.

fintail

Ooh, translucent steering wheel, nice. Love the colors.

hpmctorque

"Looks like Mercury's last was the 1966 Monterrey."

Well, yes and no. The Merc Marquis on the Panther platform was offered in a 2-dorr, at least in some years.

hpmctorque

"Looks like Mercury's last was the 1966 Monterrey."

Well, yes and no. The first generation ('79-'91) Merc Marquis/Grand Marquis on the Panther platform was offered in a 2-door, at least in some years. While it wasn't named Monterrey it was Mercury's full size sedan, albeit downsized.

I'm sure you know this, so maybe I'm misinterpreting your point.

andre1969

Yeah, the '66 had sort of a pinched, beak-like look in the front. As it turns out, only the Delta 88 had the widely-spaced headlights. On the Delmont 88 and the Ninety-Eight, the headlights were spaced more "normally" and IMO at least, looked better. I think the '67 looked good from the sides and rear, but not really the front. One feature I liked though, was the fully open rear wheel well. That helped made the car seem less chunky.

Interestingly, both Olds and Buick started going for that split grille look. I wonder if they did it in response to Pontiac, which was proving to be a really strong seller throughout most of the 60's? Of course, Olds stuck with the split grille, but Buick dropped it after 1970.

andre1969

I'm sure you know this, so maybe I'm misinterpreting your point.

In an earlier post, someone (uplanderguy, I'm thinking) was mentioning about the remaining 2-door sedans in the mid/upper level price ranges (above a Ford, Chevy, Plymouth), which became increasingly rare as the hardtop body styles took over.

But yeah, everybody started going back to pillared designs in the 1970's. But, I think you're right, in that only the Ford Panthers were really more of a 2-door sedan, than a coupe. Mopar never offered a downsized full-size 2-door, as the R-body only came as a sedan. Although, the '80-83 Mirada and Cordoba were about as long as an Impala or Panther, so by some standards they could be considered full-sized! And when GM downsized their big cars for '77, even though hardtops were eliminated, the 2-doors were still more rakish, and a couple inches lower, than their 4-door counterparts.

The Panthers, being a 2-door sedan rather than a coupe, were a bit roomier inside than the 2-door B-bodies. Most of the advantage, IIRC, was in headroom.

uplanderguy

I wasn't aware that the new '77 GM B-bodied coupes were lower than the sedans.

When a teenager, I (like a lot of other kids at the time) about begged my Dad to buy a Monte Carlo in '74. He claimed no headroom and bought an Impala Sport Coupe instead, a nice car.

In '77, I remember him and I looking at new Chevys and the Impalas and Caprices were notably taller than Chevelles and Monte Carlos. Dad only really considered two-doors at that time, but I can't recall for sure if we were comparing a Monte Carlo to an Impala coupe or not.

Funny, when the Monte Carlos were downsized, Dad for the first time had adequate headroom in them. He bought new '80 and '84 models. Both were good cars.

andre1969

I just cracked open my old Consumer Guide used car book, which covers most cars from 1977-86, as long as they were out for two model years or more. The B-body sedans are listed, for the most part, at 56.7" in height. However, the Delta 88 is 56.6", while the '77-81 Catalina/Bonneville is 57.3". For coupes, they show the LeSabre/Delta 88 at 56.0", the Caprice/Impala at the same 56.7" as the sedan, and the '77-81 Pontiacs at a low 54.9".

So, there is some inconsistency in there. I guess I'd have to dig through the old sales brochures to really see. Also, in 1980 when they did that slight aerodynamic re-do, it might have changed some of the dimensions. So I wonder if the Pontiacs, having that big of a disparity, are the '77-79 figures, while the others quoted are '80+?

For comparison, the Panther-based Crown Vic/Grand Marquis were 55.2" tall, whether in coupe or sedan. They always looked taller to me, though, but that could be because they were a bit stubbier and upright than the GM cars. And Chrysler's '79-81 R-body was a low 54.5" in height. I think that gave it the illusion of being even longer and bigger, and heavier than it really was.

As for the midsized cars, the downsized '78+ coupes are listed at 54.5" tall. It doesn't cover the '73-77 models, but corresponding cars from Ford and Mopar are pretty low. A Cordoba/Magnum is only 52.1" tall! The Fury/Monaco were 52.6", while an LTD-II/T-bird was 52.6/53.0" tall. I want to say my '76 Grand LeMans is 52.7" tall, but not positive.

It's been awhile since I've been in one of the downsized cars, as my '86 Monte was totaled back in 1998. With my '76 LeMans, headroom is tight enough that if I wear a baseball cap that happens to sit too high, or have a tall enough hairstyle (no, I don't do bee-hives! :P ), sometimes I can feel it brush the ceiling. Interestingly though, I fit in the back seat without my head touching the ceiling. In some newer cars, such as GM's W-body, I'd have to slouch a bit. And even in the 1991-96 Caprice, my head touched a bit.

Years ago, I remember one of my grandmother's friends complaining about Grandma's '85 LeSabre. She said the passenger seat was too low, and hard to get in and out of. This lady, however, drove a '75 Monte Carlo! I used to think it was a bit odd, that the lower, less efficiently designed coupe would have higher seats than the more upright, modern sedan. However, I do remember that LeSabre's passenger seat was pretty low. It also only had manual fore/aft, although it did have a power recliner. My '76 LeMans does seem like it has some fairly thick, high-off-the-floor seats. Being a solid power bench though, it might not be a fair comparison.

ab348

Pretty car but something about it bothers me. If the mileage is as low as is claimed why did it need a full restoration? More importantly, if the car only had 41,000 miles why (a) did the interior need to be replaced and (b) why did they not replicate it according to the original pattern? This interior is close to the original style but not quite right - originally the center contrasting panel in each seating position was tapered in shape and did not extend all the way to the bottom cushion. There are numerous pics of '61 Bonneville interiors online that show this. A shame - the interior obviously would have cost a significant sum and yet they could not do it correctly? What other corners were cut?

ab348

Headroom in some cars of that era seemed ridiculously tight. I remember sitting in one of those Ford Fairmont Futura coupes in the showroom when they came out and my head touched the headliner. No way could I have driven it. I am 6'1".

andre1969

And often, if headroom was decent, it's because the seats were really low. The Ford and Mopar equivalents to my LeMans seemed like they had a bit better headroom, but the seats seemed much lower. As a result, the dashboards also seemed higher, and visibility out the windshield wasn't quite as good.

jpp75

I'm jealous of people who grew up in an era of good cars. No one in my generation reminisces about a 1976 Ninety Eight or a 1985 Grand Marquis.

imidazol97

>1976 Ninety Eight or a 1985 Grand Marquis.

Or a 1977 Cutlass Supreme coupe.

And then there's my earlier 1967 Mustang, 289 with 3 on the tree...

fintail

A few people here adore old disco era land yachts and Panther cars.

Nobody in my generation pines for a 92 Elantra or 95 Windstall, that's for sure.

uplanderguy

I liked most cars (GM's mostly, anyway) into the late '70's. In the eighties, the only cars I liked a lot were the GM rear-drive mid-sized cars with V8's (Monte Carlos, Regals, etc.). My favorite late '70's cars are the GM B-Bodies. In my opinion, they really did their homework on them.

Just my opinion, but when the packaging of domestics starting apeing (or trying to ape) the foreign brands, is when lethargy set in for me.

andre1969

For me, as long as it was RWD, compact or larger, and offered a V-8, I could find something to like about it. And, there's even some 80's FWD cars I could tolerate, in the right configuration.