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
Of the cars I've owned, my present '00 Bonneville SE and my all time favorite car - a '73 Buick Centurion (which replaced Wildcat in 71) convertible - oh how I loved that car!!
I'm also partial to the 79 - 85 Eldorado as well as earlier Caddies - the bejeweled models of the early 60s.
Andre - nice to see you again - I think the tail of my Bonnie looks a bit like the back of the previous edition Intrepid and I like that style.
Ken
240Z
jag xke's
shelby mustangs 68-70
boss 302's ,1970
porsche 356's
rx7 twin turbos
bmw m1
Anyway the car that won was the 1961-1967 Jaguar -Type. Oddly, the writers said that the coupe was far more attractive than the convertible. The later Jags did not make the list becasue changes to the body brought on by meeting more stringent U.S. safety standards.
To me, those '61-'65 or so Continentals are archetypal of how a "car" should look. Other cars may be beautiful, but those Lincolns cannot be faulted stylewise. Unfortunately, politicians parading around in them tended to cheapen their appeal.
Instead of Ford making the modern Lincoln look like a bulbous Crown Vic, they need to jump on the retro wagon and bring back the early 60s.
There are alot more of good looking ugly cars. I need more time to think.
Some cars are what I call "period attractive"--not necessarily standouts compared to all cars of all time, but rather good within its class. I think many of the suggestions here fit into that category It would be personally difficult for me to call any domestic car of the 80s anything more than perhaps "period attractive". Generally mass-produced cars don't acheive lasting admiration for beauty. It takes a special car to catch and keep the eye of the beholder.
Not all old cars, or even old Packards or whatever, are attractive. I think most of the 1920s sedans, for instance, are rather ugly, as are many of the late 30s domestics, and even early postwar domestics (1946-47).
The other issue is rarity -- it's hard to get all worked up over a car that sells 100k units a year, whereas it's always exciting to see a Ferrari -- even the ugly ones!
could go 180 mph on open Arizona highways....also
Ferrari 250 SWB, and the Ferrari GTO. Very erotic and
exotic. With these cars you don't need a girlfriend or mistress!!
amora
http://www.bobileff.com /ferrari_frame.html?miura_lambo.html
http://www.motorcities.com/contents /99ISC545400551.html
And the 550 Spyder, this is a repro, but ya can't tell the difference.
http://www.motorcities.com/contents /99ISC545400551.html
Gotta remove the spaces on the links. Whoever it was that nominated the 80's Dodge Ramcharger as one of the most beautiful cars of all time ought to be hosswhipped.
And while shifty's point about the Ro80 is partly valid, the Audi 5000 didn't resemble it much, other than the fact that it was smooth. The crispness and elegance of the Audi simply eclipsed the other sedans of the time. If it hadn't been for that BS 60 Minutes "expose" of the unintended acceleration baloney, it would have continued to dominate the market.
What cracked me up about the unintended acceleration hoopla was that every guy who's ever drag raced a car with an automatic transmission knows that you can't overcome the brakes with the engine -- that's how you stage the car! You put your left foot on the brake and rev the engine with your right foot until the rear wheels start to spin. When the light turns green, you take your left foot off the brake and off you go.
If I could go back to 1986, though, and had to buy a new mid-size sedan, I'd probably would have bought a Bonneville with the Chevy 305. I know...boring!
My grandparents bought a 1989 Taurus, and by this time I was used to the style. They didn't like the style of it, but just traded up every 3-4 years. Before the Taurus, they had a 1985 LTD, and before that, a 1981 Granada. They actually liked the Granada's styling the best of them all!
One thing that did impress me about the Taurus, though, is how well thought-out the interior was. Their Taurus got whacked by a 1974 Catalina and pushed into a telephone pole, when it was only a few months old, and they got stuck with a Buick Century rental car while it was being fixed. I remember driving and riding in both cars, and the Taurus was superior in every respect! Even minor details, like the location of the arm rest on the door, felt like they were better though out.
Between the Catalina on one side and the telephone pole on the other, I think the only undamaged sheetmetal on their Taurus was the roof and trunk! But the body shop got it all back together, and they drove it until December 1993, when they traded it in on a 1994. The '94 is still around, mainly because Granddad can't stand the current styles. We went and looked at the 2000's over the summer, and he was so put off that he didn't even look inside.
And the funny thing is, even though the '96-current models look "downsized", they're actually about 8" longer than the '86-94 models.
As for unintended acceleration, we've actually had two cars that have done it. My grandparents (not the Ford buying ones...other side of the family who wouldn't be caught dead in a Ford ;-) had a 1980 or so Dodge D-50 (Mistubishi) pickup. It took off at the gas station one day, went up an embankment, and ended up in the trees. They never said anything about the brakes not holding...just that everything happened so fast and before they knew it it was over.
And on a couple of occasions, one of the springs on my '68's Dart's throttle linkage has broken, causing the car to basically floor it. Of course, it's also a 30+ year old car, so I can't blame Dodge for that ;-) It did it once when I was teaching a friend how to parallel park...that was pretty scary! But as far as overriding the brakes...this car's 318 couldn't do it, although with manual brakes you really had to stand on them. But I'm sure if the Dart's marginal brakes could hold back a 318 in all its fury, an Audi's (hopefully) much better brakes would hold back an engine with much less torque.
-Andre
I have noticed on a lot of cars, mostly smaller ones, that I can hit both the gas pedal and the brake at the same time. Then again, I have a size 13 foot! Didn't Audi end up moving the two pedals further apart as a result of the unintended acceleration allegations?
-Andre
'91 Honda CRX
Mazda MX-6 (last model made)
'77 Monte Carlo and Grand Prix
Mazda 929
original model Acura Legend
2nd generation Integra
Chrysler P T Cruiser
Original Datsun Z
Buick Roadmaster Estate Wagon (I really did love it!) Total Americana!
65 Mustang 2+2
69 Olds 442 (still own it)
71 Fiat 124 Spyder
91 Honda CRX Si (still own it)
Fiat 124 is handsome and holding up well, Datsun Z still looks good, too, in the fastback coupe style.
The Buick Roadmaster I guess you just threw in there to be funny? It is total junkbox, and certainly gets attention...well, who knows, maybe Elvis's wardrobe and the King of Englands have more in common than I can notice with my current vision.
Buick Roadmaster Estate? That, too, is a nice-looking car with flowing lines uncharacteristic of a large American station wagon. But I think my two favorite station wagons are the original Taurus (the taillight treatment is especially nice) and the Cutlass Vista Cruiser. The Honda Accord station wagon, as well as the BMW and Audi, are tastefully done. Question is, will ANY station wagon ever be considered a "classic" as such?
Fun-to-drive Japanese cars? Try the Corolla GT-S with the 4AGE (anywhere from 130 to 175 hp in a 2400 lb chassis, and RWD -- back when Camaros and Corvettes were REALLY sloooooowwwwwww!). Power comes on at 2000 rpm and winds all the way to 7500 rpm. Gotta keep your eye on the tach, cause when the second cam kicks in at 5000 rpm, things happen in a he11uva hurry. I have an '86 sitting in my driveway right now.
The 4AGE is still used in the Toyota Atlantic series, by the way. Great motor, and buildable to he11 and back.
Hard for a wagon to be a classic unless it's a woody...a box is a box is a box. As for "interesting" wagons, I always liked the Audi 5000 Quattro Turbo wagon, a rare car but a fabulous cheap ski car and a very credible and advanced piece of technology for the time (mid 80s) period. But beautiful? Maybe period beautiful for a wagon, but again, they look rather drab by modern standards.
I guess Ford woodies are my only candidate for most attractive wagons ever made.
65 Corvairs are lovely cars, a real styling triumph for the time and still good-looking. One of the best-looking American cars ever made. '63 Riviera is also clean and purposeful, even if it's way too big...but it is proportional in its size and weight, and the styling sort of states what it is. So the overall effect is very good I think. I used to own one, so I put my money where my mouth was on that car. (It wasn't a very good car for me, but I enjoyed looking at it).
'66 T-Birds....ah, typical (to me) overdone mess of 10 different styles jammed into one car...the car bumps into itself visually I think. Best forgotten in my little black book.
I used to like Jensen Interceptors but I can't remember which year. Never like the Avanti regardless of year (did it matter?)
The Interceptor belongs to the "big brute" school of styling, which can be attractive if everything is in proportion...you also have to like that kind of "all glass fastback" styling inspired by the early Plymouth Barracudas.
I'd agree with you, though, that the Jensen Interceptor styling, though dated, is aging pretty well, while the Avanti looks worse and worse very time they bring it back from the dead. It's the Avantis nose job that really kills it.
I think, looking back on history, that both "high narrow grilles" (Edsel, LaSalle, etc.) and shovel noses (Avanti) have never found favor with lovers of the "art" of styling. Same holds for cars with big noses that extend too far out over the front axle.
http://www.oz-limited.com/CARSHOWPICS/imagesinfo/GallopingHill/Info_g222.htm
Other "snout" cars are, of course, the Edsel and I believe late 60s Grand Prix, no?
Postwar Benzes have this problem somewhat, but at least their high grilles are also rather wide, so this helps their late 40s, early 50s cars to recover a bit from the less than wonderful styling of say the 170 Benz models. Once Benz flattened their grilles, they were able to push their traditional designs into the 21st century. Voila! A car where you don't ever have to ask what it is!
Let me go look....
Also on this page is a photo of another car with verticality to the grillework, the Saab 93...I actually like it much better than the BMW, not because it is "beautiful", but it is harmonious....the vertical grille doesn't protrude above the fenderline or headlights, and the grille also has some width to it. Much more proportional than the BMW to my eye.
Here's the link to those sketches/photos:
http://members.aol.com/GDGDMjimg/
I see your point now about the grill extending higher than the headlights..
You responded remarkably calmly when I posted a picture of an Alfa, by the way....
Shift: If you think all Japanese cars of the 80s were boring, then I guarantee you never drove a Corolla, Celica or Supra of the period. They were great little RWD cars with engines that would rev like the dickens. Car and Driver chose the Supra over the Camaro and I forget which other car they had in their test. Great styling too, in all three cars. The first Celica All-Trac was a 190 hp, AWD screamer with Lanica Stratos styling. And the Mazdas were great looking little sports cars with fine handling and very respectable performance.
Not as good as an MG-TD, I'll grant you....
I don't like MGTDs...the wheels are too small for the car and it ruins the entire look of it. The Tc with the larger wheels is much handsomer. Regardless of that, though, an MGTD is way more fun than any 80s Celica IMO. NO contest for fun.
This and the looks and style is probably why a TC is worth $25,000 and an 80s Celica is worth $2,500.
Of course, an 80s Celica is more reliable, faster, blah, blah than an MGTC, but it is after all some 40 years newer.