... with Chris396! I own a '68 Camaro RS hardtop. Fully restored and what a head turner. I think that the 67-69 Camaro/Firebird's are some of the best designed vehicles to come out of GM in the sixties. I can not say that mine is 'overdone' ... simple yet aggressive with its hidden headlight grill and rear spoiler.
In reading the list of personal favorites, I think it all comes down to what you grew up loving and driving. I love all all classics, but my favorites by far are American musclecars. In particular, MOPAR muscle. '68-'70 Chargers and '70-'74 'Cudas/Challengers. The beauty and raw power these cars could possess is staggering. I don't think musclecars will ever be duplicated nor should they. All the computers in the world cannot duplicate the sound of a Hemi. Rock on!
You are correct sir! I loved the Cuda's and Challengers.I missed out on getting one of the last(decent)'Cuda's in 1974,due to my parents dawdling about coming with me to the dealer(I was 17).I had the cash sitting in my savings acct,and there was a Black 'Cuda 360 Auto,etc sitting in the showroom for a couple of weeks.When my mom finally went with me,it was gone about two hours!Why couln't I have been born 6 months earlier!I coulda just bought it myself! I finally ended up getting a 74 Roadrunner,it was supposed to have a 440,but they made me a GREEN 440 Sattelite Sebring with a white vinyl top!The order was redone,and for some reason,it came with the 360 Hp instead.At least everything else was right.It was silver with red stripes.I loved that car,but I needed a truck,so I traded it in a few years later. It's now restored and running around Las Vegas,a friend has seen it.He knows it was mine,because the rear bumper was discolored for some reason,and when he saw the car the first time,he got the VIN,and it matched.Oh,it has a 440,and a Dana 60 in it now.....Wah!
Speaking of Mopars, that PT Cruiser looks great on the street! I've seen a few now, and they look much better in person. Very sharp. The novelty will wear off, just as it did with the New Beetle, but I think the Cruiser will wear well.
I initially didn't care for the PT from some of the early pictures I saw and thought the car was silly, but have seen a few of them up close in the flesh and I kind of like it now. I would love to see a hot rodded version of the PT. Cool wheels, a pumped up V-6, or dare we wish for....a V-8? Where have all the past wonderful V-8's gone from Chrysler's line up. Bring back the Hemi!! Sox and Martin rule!!
A Pronto Cruiser will be coming out next year I think. It's a sportier coupe version of the PT. The engine compartment is too small to get a v6 or 8 in there but they are thinking of a turbo charged 200 hp v4. They are bringing back the Hemi in something soon but I forgot what the guy said. I'm not much of a car nut and I don't know the language well so I'm in the dark when I hear all this stuff fly by my ears. I was at the Chrysler Proving Grounds a few weeks ago and heard lots of stuff I barely remember now. I do remember the excitement of a lot of guys when they talked about plans for the Hemi. They're getting back into NASCAR and .... I forgot the rest. I just like looking at the curvy cars.
One neat-looking Chrysler product has to be a red with a white roof 1958 Plymouth Belvedere 2-door hartop.
However, I remember reading in a Car & Driver Ten Best issue (1985 - I think) that it was selected (by Car & Driver) as one of the ugliest cars of all time.
Yes, to some extent the idea of beauty is subjective, but let's just say that not too many beholders find it beautiful. Generally, what is considered beautiful in a culture is some thing or person readily agreed upon by the vast majority as beautiful. If you want to get Zen about it, sure, there's a kind of raw beauty in spiders and roadkill,but you know, that's stretching it for most people I think.
I don't know if I want to trust general culture to make up my mind as to what is beautiful or not. For example, most people would probably say a 1957 Chevy is beautiful. But, you would be surprised at how many people don't know what a 1957 Chevy looks like. I have a 1957 DeSoto, and I get people who come up to me and say "that's a cool '57 Chevy!" I guess the big gold letters on the hood and trunk that spell out D-E-S-O-T-O aren't enough of a hint.
I remember when the movie "Christine" came out back in late 1983, I was in 8th grade. I remember hearing some girls talking about wanting to see it, and one girl asked why would you want to see a movie about a car? She replied "a 1957 Chevy is not 'JUST' a car!" I don't know, maybe I was just raised better, but my father taught me how to identify a 1957 Chevy when I was about 5 or 6, I guess.
Again, I'm biased because I own one, but I'd have to say the 1957-58 Mopar lineup has to rate as one of the best looking designs of all time. I've read one book that called the 1957 Plymouth "too tasteful for the masses" while the 1957 Ford had "a touch of vulgarity necessary for a winner".
I've also read criticisms of the 1957 Chryslers and DeSotos for having the 4 headlight setup being called "contrived" and "hastily conceived at the last minute". Truth is, they were designed from the get-go to have either a 2 or 4 headlight setup, unlike, say, a 1957 Mercury Turnpike Cruiser or those 1958 Packards and Studebakers that just had 4 headlights crammed in where 2 headlights should be (and it shows) -Andre
Well, the general culture does decide, at least in terms of value, but ultimately you're right of course...beauty is just a concept of the mind and means nothing but what we all think it does. It's a label. Without "us" things would just be what they are, right?
However, since we do live in a relative world, not an absolute one, let's say that relatively speaking, more people think a '57 Chevy is prettier than a 57 Desoto. I myself don't think either one is particularly beautiful, because I'm the type that doesn't like excess in design. Like a beautiful person with too much make-up. A '57 Desoto is perhaps the Dolly Parton of beauty (I was going to say Tammy Fay Baker but that would have been cruel to you:).
Tail fins sort of kill the idea of beauty for me, since they are superfluous to the design. They don't do anything. I think Virgil Exner should have been discouraged from drawing as a child.
I know for the most part, tailfins were just a styling gimmick, but I read somewhere that Chrysler claimed the fins on their cars (1957-58 at least) were designed to add stability by channeling the wind. The same book said this was mainly marketing hype, but supposedly they helped a little at in the 55-65 mph range. But then the same book (a Consumer Guide book) also said a 1958 DeSoto Firedome could do 0-60 in 7.7 seconds.
BTW, Mr. Shiftright, you really have a way with words and analogies (the Dolly Parton of beauty!) I love it!! (I'd love to hear how you'd refer to some of the late 60's, 70's, and 80's clunkers I've had over the years!)
I remember when I first saw the movie Christine, some nuts were saying it was a '57 Chevy and some said it was a Cadillac eventhough P L Y M O U T H is spelled out on the trunk in one of the scenes.
RE: Virgil Exner being discouraged from drawing.
I know some car manufacturers went to the extremes with regard to fins, however, at least Exner designed vehicles with some sort of "character". The cars back then had style and class not like the cars of today where all the Toyotas and Hondas look the same. However I must say the cars of 2000 are showing some style. This is a far cry from the cars of the eighties.
Hello to everyone, I'm new to this forum. Just want to say to Andre1969, you have one drop dead beautiful car! The 57 DeS line up has to be among the most beautiful of all time. I love the way the fins grow so gracefully out from behind the doors and the slight outward cant of them, looking from the rear,as they roll down and seem to wrap all the way around under the car -frames the whole car so nicely! Years ago, while in high school I began collecting old car literature. The 57 DeS brochure was one of the first I found. The picture on the front cover of that Fireflite in front of that '50's modern style home with the stacked stone front said it all! That WAS the fifties in all its glory! I used to poor over that brochure for an hour or more trying to take in every line of those fabulous cars. Virgil Exner, your a genius!!!!
EOM=end of message. Other variations include NM (no message) and an asterisk. It's commonly used on forums where you have to open a message to read it. If you have said all you said in the title line, it's a polite way to let others know that, before they open up the message and find there's no text.
Remember these are my choices, we are all entitled to our opinion (I'll try to include a Ford if I can)
1967-69 Camaro- My dad was a GM employee and ordered a '67 that he brought home in Sept of 66. I was 9 years old at the the time and remember telling one of my brothers when I first saw it, "Daddy's driving a future car!". He only kept it about 6 months, complained that it "drove like a truck", but his had a 6 cyl, 3 on the tree, manual steering, the only options being radio & heater.
1963-67 Corvettes-Looked great but due to lousy aerodynamics turned into poor airplanes at high speed
1955 Chevy's- clean and mean looking when done up like the 2 lane blacktop/american graffitti car. '56 and '57 too dolled up
1959 Caddies- So ugly they're beautiful
1932 Ford "Duece Coupe"- not the stockers, the hot rods like what Boyd Coddington is doing
67-72 Chevy/GMC Trucks- Especially the Suburbans
68-69 Dodge Chargers- Great looking fastbacks
94-00 Dodge Ram Pickups- Not very practical for what most people use them for, but very tough looking
PT Cruisers- almost too "cute", but I like the retro trend
1930's Cords- Seen one driving around the other day, a true Classic
Michelle Pfiefer- Oops, this just beautiful CARS, right?
Maybe five Daewoos. Aside from chrome, fins, and whitwalls, massive amounts of internal real-estate also impress me (Doesn't exactly make for a good sportscar, but with enough hp you could at least have a realitively fast car)
I spent some time traveling in traffic with an silver Audi TT Coupe yesterday. Four lane boulevard stuff, where my lane of traffic would put me, at different times, ahead, beside, and behind the Audi. I'd seen the briefly before, and seen lots of pictures, but the pictures really don't do this car justice. I think it's really a beauty, and the lines aren't hurt at all by the stubby spoiler on the rear deck.
Yes the Audi TT looks better in person than it does in pictures. I also like the new little spoiler that they put on it. It's one of the few cars that I would consider buying new.
63/64 Studebaker Avanti;out of all of them, after nearly 40 years this car looks as new as any of these tortured creations being built today.#1!!!!! Personal Favorites:67 Mercury Monterey 2 door hardtop 67 Ford Galaxie 2dr. hardtop 67 AMC Ambassador 2 dr. hardtop 65 Lincoln Continental 53 Studebaker Starliner 2dr. 67 Olds Cutlass 2 dr. 62/63 Chevy Nova 2dr. I know these are odd,not obvious picks, but they all have a sheerness of line.Very clean,uncluttered and still look good today. OOPS;forgot one:67 Chrysler 2dr."fastback";really "styled",but elegant. But the one that STILL blows my shorts up the flagpole is the Avanti. There's a 4 door[!] that sneaks out sometimes near where I work. It's gold and probably from the 80's, built by one of the companies that took it over around then.I've seen a mock up in photos taken @ South Bend after Altman took over when Studebaker moved to Canada. Seems they were going to try to redo their mainstream line along the same styling as the 2dr. Avanti.It doesnt look the same with 4 doors!
Just saw my first photo of the 49er and realized it's the car I've always wanted. Always thought the '49 Ford was an exceptionally nice design, especially the roofline, although the 49er's roofline seems to owe more to the late '50s. My father bought a '49 new and tells me it was a miserable car.
Speaking of retro, Shiftright should know that I liked the PT Cruiser until he used his line about "Herman Munster's hearse". Well, at least he saved me $10k over list.
Oh, I was just thinking about that car this morning! I saw a black one and said "Hey, it's a PT Mini-Hearse!".
I like the Stude Starliner, too, and it is a pioneer in design, no doubt about it. But when the title of the topic says "Of All Time", that really cuts down the list of possbilities for me. I share your admiration for the '65 Continental, but I think as a rule most 60s designs are really clunky and don't look very good today (with some exceptions....the "cleaner cars", like the '67 Camaro, are rather nice, although I'd hesitant again to say they were attractive enough to make the "All Time" list. Let's say that in my opinion I think some of the cars on your list would be the "most attractive cars of the 1960s", or at least the most interesting....but if you overlay them against 100 years of automobiles, a '67 Ambassador doesn't look so good IMO.
I remember when the Avantis first came out...they looked great because they were so different! Now they seem a bit pretentious...but again, it was the 60s, when pretension was a design concept that everyone bought into. So we have to judge the cars "in their time" I think, and for the 60s, the Avanti was refreshing.
You are correct. I think I have an affection for the 60,s because those were the cars all around me when i was a little kid. I HAD to qualify my other choices as personal, because I've always been a little quirky about certain designs. When I had my first bike, I pretended it was a 57 DeSoto...With the PUSH BUTTON AUTOMATIC trans!The 67 Ambassador was a favorite,because,for me,it was probably one of the most integrated designs AMC ever produced. Those tail lights are brilliant,and the roofline is just right.Compared to the later ones,and to the 74 Matador 4 door -still the 67 body[!]and the 2 door [new]I can only wonder WHAT Dick Teague was thinking. I would hate to think that the 60's were the last, best ideas of the industry....but then there's the Ford 49.........If that don't build that thing....well, I'll have an old fashioned bang my head on the table southern hissy fit!!! It looks like a REAL CAR. Probably THE most beautiful car I have seen in 20 years. What'll it take to get tham to build it?[Of course you know I'd have to have MINE with a 3 speed manual on the COLUMN!!!]. That is a car I would go into SERIOUS debt for.
I know we look alike, but he's the one drooling on the 49er. No wait, that's me too.
Just to prove we're different, I'll go with the '61 Continental, the one with the T-bird front end, over the '65.
The reason the '67 Camaro looks so Italianesque is because of a little number called the Corvair, '65 variety. One of the unsung heroes of styling, along with the '60 Corvair and, yes, the '49 Ford.
Yes, the 65 Corvair is a lovely, lovely car, and gets my vote for the best looking 4-door hardtop ever designed. A 1960s Corvair looks like the world's fastest bar of soap, I don't find it attractive, with that fat beltline ALA the NSU Prinz.
The 49 Ford looks good because it was the first modern Ford after World War II....it's got clean slab-sides, no bulbous fenders or awkward running boards....definitely a breakthrough for 1949, along with the Studebaker, turtleback Chevy, etc...
I think the new 49 is a breakthrough as well. Love it.Have to agree about the 65 Corvair. My parents had two of them, both Monzas a 65 and a 66. My father always thought that the 4 door was better looking than the 2dr. hardtops they had. so many of the 60's 4 doors weren't better looking than their 2 door counterparts.I have read that this was because the 2 door was traditionally designed first. Of the ones I mentioned,except for the Lincoln,they were all 2 doors.I can't really say the same about the 4 doors;something was lost. Here's one I think would fit:37 [?] Cord Beverly and it's psuedo clones:Graham Hollywood and Huppmobile Skylark. My apologies to you both for screwing up your names.
Yes, the '60 Corvair is a bit odd--how would you like to be 16 and have to park it in a high school parking lot filled with musclecars?-- but I've been surprised by its influence. The Prinz, the first BMW coupe and maybe a few more I can't think of right now. A few designers seemed to really like it. Likewise the '49 Ford. I've seen it, especially the roofline, in a few cars I also can't remember. Very clean and muscular. My father hated his '49, but loved the '53 Stude coupe he bought in '56--also not a car with a great reputation for build quality.
Still after all these years,I think for the money the 69 Z-28 with the RS front end is the cleanest looking ,right sized,most fun to drive car I have come across in my lifetime. But, I wouldn't pay todays fair market value for one.
was a 77 Gran Prix ---white with blue landau roof and factory T-roof. Had air, and all the power options--including buckets center console auto, power windows, door locks, upgraded am-fm pioneer cassette player, factory mags--that car was a looker--I knew it would someday be a classic as it was the last of the big boats--I bot it in July of 77 since I saw that they were downsizing for 78--didnt opt for the larger engine, but it was a smooth running V8--bought it loaded for only $6600--sold it with over 100K on the dial for $2300 in 88--not a bad price for 10 years of use
eeel, I agree with every car on that list except the Intrepid. The front and side are tolerable, but the back end is hideous! The tailights look likt they came from a 1970's disco!
was a LOT more attractive than the later versions, IMO. The same is true of the Pantera. Once you start sticking things all over the car, it destroys the purity of the design.
As for Grand Prixs (note the Americanized "d"), I thought the '69 was the absolute highwater mark -- elegant and brutal at the same time. Had one of those with the SE400 engine (350 hp), and absolutely loved it. A true, steady 140 mph car. Never found out how fast it really would go -- it buried the speedo the few times I tried, although I'm sure at that speed the speedo was a bit optimistic.
Actually, when I squint my eyes, and have a few beers, the back of my Intrepid reminds me a bit of the back of the '68-70 Chargers. The C-pillars have just a hint of flying buttress to them, and the rear has kind of a tucked-in look.
The '68 Charger had 2 round taillights on either side, but the later models had those long taillights that kind of tapered and connected in the middle, kind of like how the Intrepid has that long, skinny reflective piece in the middle on the decklid.
If there's anything I don't like about the newer Intrepids is how they look in the front without a front license plate. Maryland has a back and front plate, so I never noticed it before, but on a recent trip to Texas, I saw a lot of them with nothing up front, and that center spot between the air inlets is just too big and bulky. And it really stands out in lighter colors. The Chrysler Concordes look better without the front plate...at least they remind me of a '55 Chevy. That bulging center spot on the Intrepid makes me think of an Edsel, or those late 60's/early 70's Pontiacs and Fords with the "beaks".
No offence, but, you'd have to drink GALLONS of beer to get an Intrepid to look like a 68-70 Charger. (And I know 68-70 Chargers! Who doesn't know the General Lee?) WHat's this about noticing cars with no front plates in Texas? Texas requires front plates and almost everyone has them. (Unless you drove thru Tennessee or Arkansas on the way down here). I'm of the persuasion that any car is improved without a front plate, but I'm also of the persuasion that one should strive to obey the law (I know, I know, preaching on deaf ears in this crowd), so my car has a front plate. Actually, since the plate bracket is already bolted through my plastic bumper, if Texas ever went to one plate, I'd probably just stick a rebel flag up there ;-)
I drove through the Carolinas, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana to get to Texas, and saw a lot of cars without front plates on the trip. To me, the Intrepids just look kind of naked without the plate and bracket up front.
Trust me, I'd take a '68-70 Charger over an Intrepid, any day. I especially like the "stealth" models from the Dukes of Hazzard, which could change from a '69 to a '70, then back to a '68, then ahead to a '69 again, all in a single police chase!
I remember Motortrend making a comment similar to my Charger/Intrepid comparison back in the 70's. I think they tested a 1978 or so Grand Am, and said, jokingly, that if you squinted your eyes enough, it would look a bit like a '64 GTO. Although no matter how much I squinted, I couldn't get my '80 Malibu to turn into a '64 Chevelle ;-)
Comments
I loved the Cuda's and Challengers.I missed out on
getting one of the last(decent)'Cuda's in 1974,due to my parents dawdling about coming with me to the dealer(I was 17).I had the cash sitting in my savings acct,and there was a Black 'Cuda 360 Auto,etc sitting in the showroom for a couple of weeks.When my mom finally went with me,it was gone about two hours!Why couln't I have been born 6 months earlier!I coulda just bought it myself!
I finally ended up getting a 74 Roadrunner,it was supposed to have a 440,but they made me a GREEN 440 Sattelite Sebring with a white vinyl top!The order was redone,and for some reason,it came with the 360 Hp instead.At least everything else was right.It was silver with red stripes.I loved that car,but I needed a truck,so I traded it in a few years later.
It's now restored and running around Las Vegas,a friend has seen it.He knows it was mine,because the rear bumper was discolored for some reason,and when he saw the car the first time,he got the VIN,and it matched.Oh,it has a 440,and a Dana 60 in it now.....Wah!
However, I remember reading in a Car & Driver Ten Best issue (1985 - I think) that it was selected (by Car & Driver) as one of the ugliest cars of all time.
I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
I remember when the movie "Christine" came out back in late 1983, I was in 8th grade. I remember hearing some girls talking about wanting to see it, and one girl asked why would you want to see a movie about a car? She replied "a 1957 Chevy is not 'JUST' a car!" I don't know, maybe I was just raised better, but my father taught me how to identify a 1957 Chevy when I was about 5 or 6, I guess.
Again, I'm biased because I own one, but I'd have to say the 1957-58 Mopar lineup has to rate as one of the best looking designs of all time. I've read one book that called the 1957 Plymouth "too tasteful for the masses" while the 1957 Ford had "a touch of vulgarity necessary for a winner".
I've also read criticisms of the 1957 Chryslers and DeSotos for having the 4 headlight setup being called "contrived" and "hastily conceived at the last minute". Truth is, they were designed from the get-go to have either a 2 or 4 headlight setup, unlike, say, a 1957 Mercury Turnpike Cruiser or those 1958 Packards and Studebakers that just had 4 headlights crammed in where 2 headlights should be (and it shows)
-Andre
However, since we do live in a relative world, not an absolute one, let's say that relatively speaking, more people think a '57 Chevy is prettier than a 57 Desoto. I myself don't think either one is particularly beautiful, because I'm the type that doesn't like excess in design. Like a beautiful person with too much make-up. A '57 Desoto is perhaps the Dolly Parton of beauty (I was going to say Tammy Fay Baker but that would have been cruel to you:).
Tail fins sort of kill the idea of beauty for me, since they are superfluous to the design. They don't do anything. I think Virgil Exner should have been discouraged from drawing as a child.
BTW, Mr. Shiftright, you really have a way with words and analogies (the Dolly Parton of beauty!) I love it!! (I'd love to hear how you'd refer to some of the late 60's, 70's, and 80's clunkers I've had over the years!)
-Andre
RE: Virgil Exner being discouraged from drawing.
I know some car manufacturers went to the extremes with regard to fins, however, at least Exner designed vehicles with some sort of "character". The cars back then had style and class not like the cars of today where all the Toyotas and Hondas look the same. However I must say the cars of 2000 are showing some style. This is a far cry from the cars of the eighties.
One has a good set of tailfins, the other a good set of headlights. ::rimshot::
Here's a forum that uses it a lot--
http://www.cruisingworld.com/cgi-bin/genlmesg.pl
1967-69 Camaro- My dad was a GM employee and ordered a '67 that he brought home in Sept of 66. I was 9 years old at the the time and remember telling one of my brothers when I first saw it, "Daddy's driving a future car!". He only kept it about 6 months, complained that it "drove like a truck", but his had a 6 cyl, 3 on the tree, manual steering, the only options being radio & heater.
1963-67 Corvettes-Looked great but due to lousy aerodynamics turned into poor airplanes at high speed
1955 Chevy's- clean and mean looking when done up like the 2 lane blacktop/american graffitti car. '56 and '57 too dolled up
1959 Caddies- So ugly they're beautiful
1932 Ford "Duece Coupe"- not the stockers, the hot rods like what Boyd Coddington is doing
67-72 Chevy/GMC Trucks- Especially the Suburbans
68-69 Dodge Chargers- Great looking fastbacks
94-00 Dodge Ram Pickups- Not very practical for what most people use them for, but very tough looking
PT Cruisers- almost too "cute", but I like the retro trend
1930's Cords- Seen one driving around the other day, a true Classic
Michelle Pfiefer- Oops, this just beautiful CARS, right?
Plymouth Superbird
Tatra 603-T1
Not so weird, just wonderful:-
Leyland Australia Tour de Force
Sunbeam Alpine/Tiger
Gordon Keeble
2-- A real AC Shelby Cobra not the fakes
3-- Any late '80s Dodge Ramcharger toughest truck ever made
4-- 1971 Hemicuda FEAR
5-- 1969 Nova What a sleeper
I think that this will be a future collectible.
Personal Favorites:67 Mercury Monterey 2 door hardtop
67 Ford Galaxie 2dr. hardtop
67 AMC Ambassador 2 dr. hardtop
65 Lincoln Continental
53 Studebaker Starliner 2dr.
67 Olds Cutlass 2 dr.
62/63 Chevy Nova 2dr.
I know these are odd,not obvious picks, but they all have a sheerness of line.Very clean,uncluttered and still look good today.
OOPS;forgot one:67 Chrysler 2dr."fastback";really "styled",but elegant.
But the one that STILL blows my shorts up the flagpole is the Avanti. There's a 4 door[!] that sneaks out sometimes near where I work. It's gold and probably from the 80's, built by one of the companies that took it over around then.I've seen a mock up in photos taken @ South Bend after Altman took over when Studebaker moved to Canada. Seems they were going to try to redo their mainstream line along the same styling as the 2dr. Avanti.It doesnt look the same with 4 doors!
Speaking of retro, Shiftright should know that I liked the PT Cruiser until he used his line about "Herman Munster's hearse". Well, at least he saved me $10k over list.
I like the Stude Starliner, too, and it is a pioneer in design, no doubt about it. But when the title of the topic says "Of All Time", that really cuts down the list of possbilities for me. I share your admiration for the '65 Continental, but I think as a rule most 60s designs are really clunky and don't look very good today (with some exceptions....the "cleaner cars", like the '67 Camaro, are rather nice, although I'd hesitant again to say they were attractive enough to make the "All Time" list. Let's say that in my opinion I think some of the cars on your list would be the "most attractive cars of the 1960s", or at least the most interesting....but if you overlay them against 100 years of automobiles, a '67 Ambassador doesn't look so good IMO.
I remember when the Avantis first came out...they looked great because they were so different! Now they seem a bit pretentious...but again, it was the 60s, when pretension was a design concept that everyone bought into. So we have to judge the cars "in their time" I think, and for the 60s, the Avanti was refreshing.
I would hate to think that the 60's were the last, best ideas of the industry....but then there's the Ford 49.........If that don't build that thing....well, I'll have an old fashioned bang my head on the table southern hissy fit!!! It looks like a REAL CAR. Probably THE most beautiful car I have seen in 20 years. What'll it take to get tham to build it?[Of course you know I'd have to have MINE with a 3 speed manual on the COLUMN!!!]. That is a car I would go into SERIOUS debt for.
Just to prove we're different, I'll go with the '61 Continental, the one with the T-bird front end, over the '65.
The reason the '67 Camaro looks so Italianesque is because of a little number called the Corvair, '65 variety. One of the unsung heroes of styling, along with the '60 Corvair and, yes, the '49 Ford.
The 49 Ford looks good because it was the first modern Ford after World War II....it's got clean slab-sides, no bulbous fenders or awkward running boards....definitely a breakthrough for 1949, along with the Studebaker, turtleback Chevy, etc...
Here's one I think would fit:37 [?] Cord Beverly and it's psuedo clones:Graham Hollywood and Huppmobile Skylark.
My apologies to you both for screwing up your names.
jaguar xke
studebaker gt hawk
the new intrepids
As for Grand Prixs (note the Americanized "d"), I thought the '69 was the absolute highwater mark -- elegant and brutal at the same time. Had one of those with the SE400 engine (350 hp), and absolutely loved it. A true, steady 140 mph car. Never found out how fast it really would go -- it buried the speedo the few times I tried, although I'm sure at that speed the speedo was a bit optimistic.
The '68 Charger had 2 round taillights on either side, but the later models had those long taillights that kind of tapered and connected in the middle, kind of like how the Intrepid has that long, skinny reflective piece in the middle on the decklid.
If there's anything I don't like about the newer Intrepids is how they look in the front without a front license plate. Maryland has a back and front plate, so I never noticed it before, but on a recent trip to Texas, I saw a lot of them with nothing up front, and that center spot between the air inlets is just too big and bulky. And it really stands out in lighter colors. The Chrysler Concordes look better without the front plate...at least they remind me of a '55 Chevy. That bulging center spot on the Intrepid makes me think of an Edsel, or those late 60's/early 70's Pontiacs and Fords with the "beaks".
-Andre
Trust me, I'd take a '68-70 Charger over an Intrepid, any day. I especially like the "stealth" models from the Dukes of Hazzard, which could change from a '69 to a '70, then back to a '68, then ahead to a '69 again, all in a single police chase!
I remember Motortrend making a comment similar to my Charger/Intrepid comparison back in the 70's. I think they tested a 1978 or so Grand Am, and said, jokingly, that if you squinted your eyes enough, it would look a bit like a '64 GTO. Although no matter how much I squinted, I couldn't get my '80 Malibu to turn into a '64 Chevelle ;-)
-Andre