By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
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