My mechanic has another '59 DeSoto wagon right now. He didn't know which series it was though, because the badging was stripped off, but I was able to identify it as a Firesweep, which was the cheaper series, just as the one I posted above is. This one had a dual air conditioning setup in it, which must have been really rare.
He also has a 1960 Dodge Polara station wagon. It's a hardtop wagon, like this one from "The Birds", and has a 383 with a factory cross-ram setup! The DeSoto's pretty ratty and the Polara's even worse, but he intends to fix them both up. He's genius when it comes to body work, so that part won't be a problem for him. I imagine finding all the interior and trim pieces will be, though.
One really odd beast he has is a 1960 Dodge Matador hardtop coupe, that he's going to use as a donor car for a convertible. It has a smallish rear window, and this was the first time I'd really noticed that some of them had a small window, while others had a much taller one. Now the '57-59 DeSotos and Chryslers did that, with the nicer ones sporting a bigger rear window, but I guess I had just never noticed that the '60's did that, too. Anyway, by the time he got this car, it had a 1962 Newport front end clip on it, and a slant six stuffed under the hood, although by the time I saw it, the engine and front clip were taken off. Originally it would have had a 361-2bbl. Must have been an odd looking beast, although the front-end clip bolted right up seamlessly. Neither the '62 Newport nor the '60 Dodge had any creases that carried from the fender to the door, so everything matched up.
Porsche/Jaguar -- ah, swell, a VW chassis/ kit car with, no doubt, a 914 engine in it. Well, for $3,500 somebody might buy it. Just don't show up anywhere near a real classic car show.
'77 Checker Cab -- collectible? Well, yeah, sure, whatever you say man. Glass bottles are also collectible.
93 Alfa Turbo Diesel---how did THAT ever get in the country? A 1.9 liter diesel for a car of that size doesn't sound all that exciting.
Dodge Shag Van -- oh, well, three mechanics have "concurred" that it has 32,000 original miles on it, so it must be true. I mean, what's some tawdy "documents" in the face of a mechanic nodding his head?
I kinda like that "adult toy" Dodge van, from the outside at least. I think the extension off the back is a bit clumsy though. It would look better in a standard length. Or at least if they had stretched the wheelbase too. But when I saw the inside, I almost lost my lunch!
That Dodge van is without a doubt one of the most hideous automotive products I have ever seen. It belongs in a Ripley's Believe It Or Not museum for sure. What a wretched thing it is. Boz
I thought the Porquar was a good deal for $3500, as long as it was well done. For something to take for a ride on Sunday's it would be fun.
I liked the shag van too, even the interior. It is bad taste to the extreme, but appears to be well done bad taste. Asking $15k though, somebody's been smokin' a bit too much ganja while listening to Zeppelin tapes.
I hate to say it, but I kinda like that Stude. What is that, a '57? I like the reverse slant of the C-pillar, and the way the crease of the wheel opening flows forward to the front of the car, kinda like a '57 DeSoto or Chrysler, although the Mopars did it much more cleanly.
Considering that body shell came out for 1953, I think they did a pretty good job updating it to pass off as a 1957 car. I don't think a 1953 Ford, Chevy, or Plymouth could have been "modernized" as successfully.
I'm sure the thing still handled and rode like crap, though!
Anyway, I'm not gonna say I LOVE that Stude, but I don't HATE it, either. I guess I'm sort of in the middle, with "kinda like it". Now part of it is the color...I really like it. Find a vomitinous enough color, and I could probably learn to hate it!
I think the REAL challenge would be to find an AMERICAN car that Andre doesn't like, as he seems rather indifferent (if I may speak for him) to most foreign cars.
We want to find a car he HATES, LOATHES, DESPISES----indifference isn't good enough for this challenge I don't think.
that French thing is pretty horrible. The Matador coupe is pretty bad too, but that color helps negate the ugliness somewhat. One thing that impressed me about these cars is that AMC still saw fit to equip them with roll-down rear windows, something that was becoming very rare on 2-door cars by that time.
Okay, as for that Tornado, I HATE that. What a horrible thing to do to a '57 Plymouth or whatever Forward Look Mopar happens to be hiding under that mess! :mad:
Those early Marlins were pretty bad, sort of like trying to combine a 1966 Charger with a toaster. Can't say I hate it though. I wouldn't want one in my garage, but I still think they're an interesting sort of automotive vulgarity.
Actually the Skylark is my favorite rendition of GM's ill-fated X-car. Now, I hate the fact that GM didn't get the quality control right from the get-go on these cars. Had the quality been there, I think the X-car would have been a respectable little ride. The Skylarks even had pretty nice interiors, IIRC. Some of the cheaper models, like the base-level Citations and Phoenixes were pretty nasty though. And I hated those funky hatchback sedan styles that looked like a big football.
Ahh yes, a Cadillac pickup truck. Yeah, I think I could hate those. Any Cadillac SUV that's based on a Chevy truck/SUV for that matter. I think the Lincoln Navigator was always SOOOO much more tasteful when it comes to these behemoth luxury trucks. I wouldn't want one of those either, but I just think Lincoln went the extra mile with details like the style and the interior.
Although wait, IIRC, the Navigator recently got a pretty nasty restyle with a lot of lattice work on it. Okay, THAT one I hate! :P
Ugh...good little cars, especially with the hot 273-4bbl, but pretty ugly. Especially in that color. It's amazing to think that in one generation they went from that mess to the beautiful '67-69 Barracuda!
Maybe in a nicer color like black, with some cool rally wheels, I could tolerate that early Barracuda, but that particular one, I dunno. Not out and out hate, but a very strong dislike!
I guess I just don't have my mojo working.... He LIKED the 81 Skylark, and he's shaking off the Barracuda's. I guess I'll have to step outside the Geneva Convention rules - Goggles, everyone!
Ah yes, those Godawful '57 Mercurys with the grafted-on quad headlights. I HATE those! That's one car where one little detail changes the car from something that never stirred me one way or another to something I absolutely despise.
The cheaper models with the single headlights (or I'm sure you had to got a Turnpike Cruiser with singles in some states that year), don't really bother me. They're not what I'd call attractive. Just kind of big and boxy, with a bit too much clutter thrown on. But slap those ugly quads on there, and it takes the car to a whole new level.
I also hate the similarly awkward quad setup on the '58 Packards and Studebakers...but I guess I can still sort of excuse the cars as a whole, because they didn't have that much money to put into them by that time. And I guess the did the best they could with what they had. Actually, except for the quad lights, I don't think a '58 Studebaker or Packard is that bad looking. The hardtop models look kinda like little DeSotos and Chryslers.
When I see a Packard Hawk, I want to blind myself.
Actually I was thinking of the "regular" Packards, like this:
Other than those stuck-on headlights, I don't find the car too horrible. At a quick glance, it looks like a pygmy 1958 DeSoto to me, which might be one reason why I'm lenient towards it. If they could have integrated the headlights better, I think it would've been okay.
As for the Packard Hawk, I think that front-end is hideous, but the rest of the car is just a Studebaker Hawk, and I think those are gorgeous. So with the Packard Hawk, I only see one nasty component, the front-end. But with the '57 Mercury, I see a whole lot that I don't like, and then the quad headlights are just the final nail in its coffin.
Strangely enough, Danbury Mint actually has a diecast model of the 1958 Packard Hawk! Why would ANYBODY manufacture a model of one of the most hideous automobiles that every existed? It's probably because they already have the tooling from their model of the 1957 Studebaker Golden Hawk.
Now this is where my head starts to spin like an owl Andre.
You can see the ugliness of that Mercury but you find a '58 Packard-baker not too bad?
I just thought of something, that might provide a little insight into how my little mind works. I can find a car to be ugly, yet still like it. It really takes a lot for me to HATE a car.
I had a 1969 Bonneville 4-door hardtop, in an awful greenish-gold color with a coordinated vinyl interior. It was pretty ugly, and a nasty color, but I still liked it. Mainly I thought it was just ugly up front. From the sides and rear, it looked pretty nice and sleek, I thought. It also had a black vinyl roof, which helped tone down that awful body color.
I also had a 1967 Newport 2-door hardtop that was kinda ugly. It was a very pale yellow, with a black fabric/vinyl interior, and no vinyl on the roof. I didn't really like it, but didn't hate it, either. It was kind of blunt and clumsy looking up front, and I didn't like the way that Barracuda-ish roofline worked on this car. I kinda liked it from the rear, but one thing about the taillights bugged me. They were divided into three sections, in an attempt to give the car a more prestigious look, I guess. But there was only one bulb in there, to illuminate all three sections! Kinda like a 60's Mustang. Now I could tolerate that on a cheap car, but not on something more upscale like a Newport!
I'ts not really a matter of love or hate with me, it's more like an offense against both my personal set of aesthetics and an insult to the entire history of automotive design.
I guess I feel the need to defend talent in auto design and to not give any further energy to designers who are lazy or incompetent.
I suppose this is what a "critic" does, whether it be fashion or movies or whatever.
If there were not some basic principles of design, then there would be no schools of design.
We've all seen the dangers of a lack of basic schooling in design when we view certain houses designed by their owners. (or some kit car designers).
I can live with ugly if the design is unified and appropriate. If it's a good design that I just don't like I can accept that it's just a matter of personal taste.
(De gustibus non est disputandum and all that)
What I hate are the cobbled together assemblies of styles or styles inappropriate to the name or history of the car.
Examples of me wanting to shout "SHAME, SHAME' include:
The Mustang II - the tail and the front end are on different scales of size
The 1992 Pontiac LeMans. - I wouldn't have given a !%$#% if they'd called it anything else, but LE MANS! An insult to both the history of Pontiac and to the historic race ... and don't give me any of that "Index of Performance" bull****
Even Almost worse.... If the original Charger Designer wasn't dead before this was released, I'm sure he considered sucicide after seeing what they'd done to the name.
If what you can see is that bad, the rest is going to be worse. When I see that picture, I see a guy who probably couldn't be bothered to change his oil, let alone his brake fluid, antifreeze, or transmission fluid.
Estimated miles before something fatal and expensive happens with that car - less than 1,000.....
Okay Lokki, now you're coming across some styles that I HATE! Don't even get me started on that LeMans. And like you said, if they'd called it anything else, I probably would have forgotten about that car by now. I'm sorry, but Buford T. Justice didn't chase the Bandit from Texarkanna to Atlanta in one of those things...that's NOT a LeMans! And the LeMans I like is nowhere near the best of them! But heck, that little Korean thing is even an insult to a 1981 LeMans with an Olds Diesel!
The Charger doesn't rile me up as bad, but I still hate it. When it was just an Omni 0-24, I didn't care. But Charger was just a slap in the face. Chrysler had been dragging the Charger name through the dirt a few times before that though. And even the '68-70 Charger could be had with engines as tame as the 225 slant six.
The Mustang II, believe it or not, doesn't rile me up. It's just a cheap little car with some flair, or what passed for it by 1974. So in that sense, I don't see it as that radically different from a 1964.5 1965 in spirit. I mean, a 170 or 200 CID straight six in one of these cars is hardly a barn burner...just a tarted up, cheap little compact with some sporty flair to it.
I just thought of something, that might provide a little insight into how my little mind works. I can find a car to be ugly, yet still like it.
Same here, Andre. For example, I silently echoed Gus' sentiments regarding that '79 Dodge van, and yours as well, in relation to the extended rear end. I have always found those tacked-on rears to look clumsy on older vans. Another example - Honda Ridgeline. Hideously ugly, but I still like them. They are so annoyingly practical that I cannot help but like them. :sick:
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
That thing (what is it by the way?) is absolutely the ugliest automobile I have ever seen, hands down.
Nobody really knows what it is. There was an article about it in Car and Driver I think, or a picture, but it's sorta unknown. Some think it's a rare million dollar one off future concept car from the past, others think that farmer Joe built it from the abandoned wrecks he found by the freeway close to his farm (ok, I made that up).
Another theory states that it came from the future...........
The worst thing about that pile of crap wearing the "Pontiac LeMans" name is that it wasn't even designed for use in the American market - it was designed as an econbox for malaise 1983 European motoring, It spits on the cars of the same name made a mere 20 years earlier.
Comments
He also has a 1960 Dodge Polara station wagon. It's a hardtop wagon, like this one from "The Birds", and has a 383 with a factory cross-ram setup! The DeSoto's pretty ratty and the Polara's even worse, but he intends to fix them both up. He's genius when it comes to body work, so that part won't be a problem for him. I imagine finding all the interior and trim pieces will be, though.
One really odd beast he has is a 1960 Dodge Matador hardtop coupe, that he's going to use as a donor car for a convertible. It has a smallish rear window, and this was the first time I'd really noticed that some of them had a small window, while others had a much taller one. Now the '57-59 DeSotos and Chryslers did that, with the nicer ones sporting a bigger rear window, but I guess I had just never noticed that the '60's did that, too. Anyway, by the time he got this car, it had a 1962 Newport front end clip on it, and a slant six stuffed under the hood, although by the time I saw it, the engine and front clip were taken off. Originally it would have had a 361-2bbl. Must have been an odd looking beast, although the front-end clip bolted right up seamlessly. Neither the '62 Newport nor the '60 Dodge had any creases that carried from the fender to the door, so everything matched up.
http://dallas.craigslist.org/dal/ctd/965773654.html
Surge Checker Cab Coca-Cola contest Prize
"The insurance company saw it as a 1977 junker and not a rare collectable Checker Cab"
http://dallas.craigslist.org/sdf/cto/966840540.html
Diesel Alfa Romeo
http://dallas.craigslist.org/dal/cto/947515871.html
"Has the Maserati Embelem on both sides of the car"
http://dallas.craigslist.org/ndf/cto/962028832.html
Four Cylinder "1955" T Bird
http://dallas.craigslist.org/dal/cto/956665853.html
"Assembled in Canada from parts made in Mexico based on the designs of Japanese engineers, this car says "think globally, act locally".
http://dallas.craigslist.org/dal/cto/931689309.html
I hope these aren't the original seat covers....
http://dallas.craigslist.org/ftw/cto/957349484.html
The Carter years were worse, much worse, than you've been told, children.
http://dallas.craigslist.org/dal/cto/943596289.html
'77 Checker Cab -- collectible? Well, yeah, sure, whatever you say man. Glass bottles are also collectible.
93 Alfa Turbo Diesel---how did THAT ever get in the country? A 1.9 liter diesel for a car of that size doesn't sound all that exciting.
Dodge Shag Van -- oh, well, three mechanics have "concurred" that it has 32,000 original miles on it, so it must be true. I mean, what's some tawdy "documents" in the face of a mechanic nodding his head?
$15,000 bucks? I just can't imagine that.
Those early 00s Maserati coupes and convertibles are getting cheaper by the day.
The van is hilarious.
I liked the shag van too, even the interior. It is bad taste to the extreme, but appears to be well done bad taste. Asking $15k though, somebody's been smokin' a bit too much ganja while listening to Zeppelin tapes.
2016 Audi A7 3.0T S Line, 2021 Subaru WRX
You actually kind of like that van......
Oh my, oh my oh my oh my.....
This is not going to be easy.... :P
Considering that body shell came out for 1953, I think they did a pretty good job updating it to pass off as a 1957 car. I don't think a 1953 Ford, Chevy, or Plymouth could have been "modernized" as successfully.
I'm sure the thing still handled and rode like crap, though!
Anyway, I'm not gonna say I LOVE that Stude, but I don't HATE it, either. I guess I'm sort of in the middle, with "kinda like it". Now part of it is the color...I really like it. Find a vomitinous enough color, and I could probably learn to hate it!
Ze French to ze rescque!!
Did I already say "Dear God" ? How do you say that in French?
2016 Audi A7 3.0T S Line, 2021 Subaru WRX
We want to find a car he HATES, LOATHES, DESPISES----indifference isn't good enough for this challenge I don't think.
Okay, as for that Tornado, I HATE that. What a horrible thing to do to a '57 Plymouth or whatever Forward Look Mopar happens to be hiding under that mess! :mad:
Here is a Buick copy of a K car.... Perhaps that will be shameful enough to induce dislike. Wish it were a worse color though.... maybe that GM Beige.
An ugly Mopar in a nasty color at that! Even being a Formula S won't save this car!
Ha I win this round.
2016 Audi A7 3.0T S Line, 2021 Subaru WRX
I'll still like that 70's van in a VW micro bus kind of way. I could see driving the kids around and giving them the 70's experience.
But the past 6 or 7 posts,those make me want to hurl, especially that French thing. I will leave it up to Andre to defend those.
Although wait, IIRC, the Navigator recently got a pretty nasty restyle with a lot of lattice work on it. Okay, THAT one I hate! :P
Maybe in a nicer color like black, with some cool rally wheels, I could tolerate that early Barracuda, but that particular one, I dunno. Not out and out hate, but a very strong dislike!
The cheaper models with the single headlights (or I'm sure you had to got a Turnpike Cruiser with singles in some states that year), don't really bother me. They're not what I'd call attractive. Just kind of big and boxy, with a bit too much clutter thrown on. But slap those ugly quads on there, and it takes the car to a whole new level.
I also hate the similarly awkward quad setup on the '58 Packards and Studebakers...but I guess I can still sort of excuse the cars as a whole, because they didn't have that much money to put into them by that time. And I guess the did the best they could with what they had. Actually, except for the quad lights, I don't think a '58 Studebaker or Packard is that bad looking. The hardtop models look kinda like little DeSotos and Chryslers.
You can see the ugliness of that Mercury but you find a '58 Packard-baker not too bad?
When I see a Packard Hawk, I want to blind myself.
Actually I was thinking of the "regular" Packards, like this:
Other than those stuck-on headlights, I don't find the car too horrible. At a quick glance, it looks like a pygmy 1958 DeSoto to me, which might be one reason why I'm lenient towards it. If they could have integrated the headlights better, I think it would've been okay.
As for the Packard Hawk, I think that front-end is hideous, but the rest of the car is just a Studebaker Hawk, and I think those are gorgeous. So with the Packard Hawk, I only see one nasty component, the front-end. But with the '57 Mercury, I see a whole lot that I don't like, and then the quad headlights are just the final nail in its coffin.
You can see the ugliness of that Mercury but you find a '58 Packard-baker not too bad?
I just thought of something, that might provide a little insight into how my little mind works. I can find a car to be ugly, yet still like it. It really takes a lot for me to HATE a car.
I had a 1969 Bonneville 4-door hardtop, in an awful greenish-gold color with a coordinated vinyl interior. It was pretty ugly, and a nasty color, but I still liked it. Mainly I thought it was just ugly up front. From the sides and rear, it looked pretty nice and sleek, I thought. It also had a black vinyl roof, which helped tone down that awful body color.
I also had a 1967 Newport 2-door hardtop that was kinda ugly. It was a very pale yellow, with a black fabric/vinyl interior, and no vinyl on the roof. I didn't really like it, but didn't hate it, either. It was kind of blunt and clumsy looking up front, and I didn't like the way that Barracuda-ish roofline worked on this car. I kinda liked it from the rear, but one thing about the taillights bugged me. They were divided into three sections, in an attempt to give the car a more prestigious look, I guess. But there was only one bulb in there, to illuminate all three sections! Kinda like a 60's Mustang. Now I could tolerate that on a cheap car, but not on something more upscale like a Newport!
That thing (what is it by the way?) is absolutely the ugliest automobile I have ever seen, hands down.
Is the puddle underneath the Vega wagon coolant or oil?
Both, mixed, of course! :P
Andre -
You have a VERY interesting mind.....
I guess I feel the need to defend talent in auto design and to not give any further energy to designers who are lazy or incompetent.
I suppose this is what a "critic" does, whether it be fashion or movies or whatever.
If there were not some basic principles of design, then there would be no schools of design.
We've all seen the dangers of a lack of basic schooling in design when we view certain houses designed by their owners. (or some kit car designers).
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/pen/cto/968162026.html
Let's see. New top $800; bodywork as shown $1500--$2000; upholstery $350; tire $75; smog cert $80.
Value of Miata as it sits? About $100.
He sees a "rip" in the driver's seat.
I see the results of a grenade being set off in the interior
He sees a "dent"
I see a smashed fender, possible damaged hood, front strut, and passenger door jamb.
Picky, picky, picky.
(De gustibus non est disputandum and all that)
What I hate are the cobbled together assemblies of styles or styles inappropriate to the name or history of the car.
Examples of me wanting to shout "SHAME, SHAME' include:
The Mustang II - the tail and the front end are on different scales of size
The 1992 Pontiac LeMans. - I wouldn't have given a !%$#% if they'd called it anything else, but LE MANS! An insult to both the history of Pontiac and to the historic race ... and don't give me any of that "Index of Performance" bull****
EvenAlmost worse.... If the original Charger Designer wasn't dead before this was released, I'm sure he considered sucicide after seeing what they'd done to the name.If what you can see is that bad, the rest is going to be worse. When I see that picture, I see a guy who probably couldn't be bothered to change his oil, let alone his brake fluid, antifreeze, or transmission fluid.
Estimated miles before something fatal and expensive happens with that car - less than 1,000.....
The Charger doesn't rile me up as bad, but I still hate it. When it was just an Omni 0-24, I didn't care. But Charger was just a slap in the face. Chrysler had been dragging the Charger name through the dirt a few times before that though. And even the '68-70 Charger could be had with engines as tame as the 225 slant six.
The Mustang II, believe it or not, doesn't rile me up. It's just a cheap little car with some flair, or what passed for it by 1974. So in that sense, I don't see it as that radically different from a
1964.51965 in spirit. I mean, a 170 or 200 CID straight six in one of these cars is hardly a barn burner...just a tarted up, cheap little compact with some sporty flair to it.Same here, Andre. For example, I silently echoed Gus' sentiments regarding that '79 Dodge van, and yours as well, in relation to the extended rear end. I have always found those tacked-on rears to look clumsy on older vans. Another example - Honda Ridgeline. Hideously ugly, but I still like them. They are so annoyingly practical that I cannot help but like them. :sick:
Hey, now, I know you were not referring to me with that comment....
Nobody really knows what it is. There was an article about it in Car and Driver I think, or a picture, but it's sorta unknown. Some think it's a rare million dollar one off future concept car from the past, others think that farmer Joe built it from the abandoned wrecks he found by the freeway close to his farm (ok, I made that up).
Another theory states that it came from the future...........
2016 Audi A7 3.0T S Line, 2021 Subaru WRX