Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Attractive Older Cars and Why You Think So

1…5791011

Comments

  • rabbitrun3rabbitrun3 Member Posts: 23
    ...because it's a car which is extremely over-done stylistically.

    Anyway... my neighbor just brought home a '69 Mustang Mach 1 (a car I had not really thought about in years).

    Somehow it looks absolutely terrifying AND thrilling. It's intimidating in a way I don't remember in any others in the Mustang line.
    In fact, it looks somewhat like a bored AMC or Chrysler designer modded out a stock mustang. It might be the exaggerated fastback, or perhaps the gigantic butt... I dunno. Whatever it is, I am drooling looking at it.

    Am I just having a nostalgia rush, or was that car very, very good-looking despite being very, very over-the-top?
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    I think the basic FORM is attractive, and even adding on non-functional styling elements doesn't necesssarily ruin a good form...but it can detract from its full potential.

    I mean, there's no rule written up in heaven that says "this is beautiful and that is not", but there does seem to be certain basic shapes and a certain basic harmony that people respond to, even if the object is quite old, even ancient. So I do think certain shapes and ways of doing things are more pleasing to the human heart than other shapes that are just trendy and passing and which will be subject to ridicule or apathy in years to come. I mean, you go into a traditional Victorian living room and you almost want to gag, right....red velvet love seats and dark wood end tables with carved grapes and little angels, and with legs the size of an elephant's?

    Now the CRAFTSMANSHIP might be outstanding, but the result could still be ugly.

    There are all kinds of ironies in car design. Is an old VW bug beautiful? No, but it is cute and it is popular....in the same way that the little pups of even ugly adult animals are kinda cute...there is a "cuteness" in diminution, but that's not beauty IMO.

    So it's a complex subject. Beautiful doesn't mean "I like it". It's deeper than that, I think.
  • rabbitrun3rabbitrun3 Member Posts: 23
    ...Rich Corinthian Leather, a Continental Kit, and a Landau Top? :)

    But back to the Mach 1-
    Perhaps to avoid calling me the Doofus I most assuredly am, you politely chose not to answer my query Mr. Speedshift: Do I need an I-V drip of Ritalin, or is my sudden admiration of this Rhinestone Pony somehow rational?

    Its been 19 hours since I saw it, and I'm growing more and more itchy... I NEED that car. Did I mention it is brown? Who in the world lusts after a brown car? What's wrong with this picture? Ugh! (Was it even a GOOD car, for mercy's sake? I truly don't remember.)
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    That's a tough thing you're asking me...on one level, how can lust for ANY car be rational? People's "needs" have very little to do with what's good for them....lol......

    But let's see what we can do here.....yes, I think the '69 Mach I is a reasonably attractive car, and without that monster hood scoop from the Cobra Jet and the big fat side stripes, it really isn't overdone at all. But when you add all those other geegaws, it does start turning into 1960s self-parody.

    Of course, there is a down side to having a "clean" Mach 1, and that is that you probably end up with a pretty tame car...a 351 V8 with around 250 whimpy horsepower, or an optional 290HP which is a decent amount for this big car...but still, many modern 4 cylinder cars will beat you up pretty bad 0-60...with the 250HP engine you'd be lucky to get 0-60 in 8 seconds....there are SUVs faster than that. The bigass engines (Q or R code 428s) take you down into the mid-5s, but then you are going to pay a whole lot more for the car...at least two and maybe three times as much just for that engine.

    The lamest of the '69s is the Grande, an "upscale" luxury coupe (not a fastback), which looks pretty tacky with the vinyl roof IMO....so apparently do collectors, as they often shun the car...hence the Grande has the most depressed pricing...$5,000 should buy you a nice one.

    In terms of a styling critique from me, self-appointed stylist with no real design credentials other than a very good knowledge of history, values and people's taste (as they vote with their checkbooks throughout the years), I can at least say that most very large fastbacks do suffer from a size issue...that is, the styling is attractive, but the car is too big....you know what I mean? Mice are cute but not if they weigh 65 lbs... That sort of thing....I think the fastback style doesn't work as well with the larger forms....whereas say the two-door hardtop coupe, with the more pronounced trunk linke, seems to work better....cf the large Mercedes or BMW coupes....which seem okay in their large sizes.

    As for the color Brown....well, perhaps you can use that as a bargaining tool....it's not a great color for this car, but it's not awful either. It's sort of blah, doesn't make the car "pop"....unless perhaps it was "bronzey"...that wouldn't look bad at all...with some metallic in it.

    In summary, therefore, I'd say the '69 Mach I is one of the better styles in a large 60s American car.
  • speedshiftspeedshift Member Posts: 1,598
    our host is Shiftright, I'm Speedshift from the side of the family Shiftright never talks about.

    Sounds like you might be going through a mid-life crisis. The Mustang appeals to the permanent adolescent in all of us, and that's not a bad thing. Just go with it, it doesn't cause any permanent scars.

    As far as actually driving the car, I don't think you'll have a religious experience, but at least it'll be different from your late-model sedan. All the engines are torquey, from the standard 351W 2v up to the 428 CJ (and the CJ would provide a religious experience). Handling will be fair but numb with the small block, poor and numb with the big block. Basically a sedan in wolf's clothing. They cranked out a zillion of them, so there must be a lot still around.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    That's not true...we never abandon our family....we may try to hide you in the closet, true, but would never turn you out.
  • rabbitrun3rabbitrun3 Member Posts: 23
    One's name is a treaured thing, so please accept my apologies for the juxtaposition!

    Other than that, thanks to both of you for making me feel a little less like an oddball.

    Mr ShiftRIGHT: You are right... it is awfully BIG for a fastback, isn't it? Somehow looks fantastically heavy even compared to its own (and presumably similarly-sized) siblings.

    (Mr?) SPEEDshift: I think you've pegged the thing precisely: I'm getting old and I don't wanna'! Can't cry about it, Can't change it, but MAYBE I can drive away from it REALLY fast!! :)
  • denniswadedenniswade Member Posts: 362
    See, I knew you'd defend the TD -- and the TC, for that matter. Those horrible little cars command the prices they do because of the sentimental attachment of boomers like yourself, but trust me -- the shifters were awful, the driving position fit only for a contortionist, and they were so ungodly slow they couldn't get out of their own way. The Triumphs of the time were ten times the car the MGs were -- styling notwithstanding (another reason MGs command high prices -- they really were quite beautiful).

    Sorry, shifty -- my tastes are defined by how a car drives, not from whence it came. And taste, as they say, is personal.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Well, this IS a topic about attractive cars, not how they handle or drive, so if we are comparing MGs and Triumphs on that basis, I still have a good argument.

    Also, I think you are completly missing the charm of MGTCs....like I said, I really dislike the TD...it's not a question of baby boomers.....these cars are revered and collected and driven by all ages....I know this because I know the clubs....I think you are quite mistaken on that particular point. As for comfort, speed, sure...it's a cheap shot to criticize a 1947 car built on 1937 technology. Ever drive a 1953 Vette or a 1955 T-Bird?...pretty awful experience.

    I think when it comes to things like speed and comfort, we need to be forgiving of old cars.

    Besides, a TC is really great fun. There are few cars as much fun to drive.

    If a person can't have fun in a TC, he might be legally dead. It's not how fast you're going, it's how fast you THINK you're going. And believe me, 75 MPH in a TC is like a 150 in anything modern.

    DW, I have to get you out in a fully-sorted TC someday. I'll change your mind.
  • denniswadedenniswade Member Posts: 362
    I really do think they are quite charming -- I was just shocked when I drove my buddy's TD years ago and found that I hardly fit behind the wheel. After driving Alfas, steering that old MG with my elbows at full upright lock was more than a little weird!

    And your point about comparing a 1947 car with a mid-80s car is right on the money. For the same reason, I would love to hear what 1980s cars in the Corolla, Celica and Supra size and price range you did find attractive and fun to drive.

    Your point about the GT-S being a bit twitchy was correct as well -- but a set of TRD springs and shocks cured that in spades. These cars are still loved by the auto-x set, and the engines are nothing short of wonderful. The sawed-off little FX16, while hardly endearing style-wise, was a little terror on the street; and the All-Trac was based on Toyota's rally cars.

    Bear in mind that the 4A-GE engine is still used in racing today, in the Toyota Atlantic series. They are indestructible, flexible little screamers that I wish Toyota still made today.
  • ndancendance Member Posts: 323
    To be fair, they don't really have 'giant' hood scoops or stripes (a shaker hood is what, and inch and a half tall?). '69s have pretty modest stripes on the side and '70s just have that big casting under the doors. The best combination of course is a '69 Boss 302 with the '69 front end (4 headlight, no goofy scoop thingies) and '70 back end (no goofy scoop thingies, what is it about Ford and scoop thingies?). Personally I would own only the 428 cars since they are reasonably quick and actually can keep up with modern muscle cars (though they handle awfully bad). I would also tend to look only at 1970 cars (although rarer). I just think they are a little better looking (plus...bonus... a Hurst shifter). Just make sure you are at least average height, as the dash is pretty darn tall.

    As far as Japanese cars go, I can only say one thing, Datsun 510. (No...not a 1978)
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Oh, thanks for reminding me....the old Datsun 510 was a swell car, and nice enough looking....clean styling, fun car to drive. I guess they are still out on the track, which says something right there. Let's see...from the old 510 to the RX7 Twin Turbo I can't think of any Japanese car I would like to drive....oh, maybe the original Datsun 240Z....the RX7 3rd gen is drop dead gorgeous!
  • ndancendance Member Posts: 323
    The deal with the 510's (you already know this I imagine) is that bone stock they are wallowing piglets, but as a platform they kick butt. Take a nice two door, add a five speed/L20B/weber/R-180/lowered/sway bar/13x7 wheel kind of a thing and bang, probably about the most fun per dollar in its day. In the past few years, the 510 guys have really gone over the top with a lot of rotary/Nissan V6/etc. engine swaps resulting in seriously quick cars.

    I've never driven that last RX7, but it *is* nice looking and from all accounts runs really well. As for everything in between, into the scrapyard I say.
  • 404c404c Member Posts: 146
    Alpine Renault A 110
    Citroen DS 21 Chapron Cabriolet
    Peugeot 404 Coupé
    Peugeot 504 Coupé
    Peugeot 406 Coupé
    Lancia Gamma Coupé
    Fiat Dino Cabriolet
    Panhard CD
    Mercedes-Benz 300 SL Roadster
    Jaguar XKE
    Buick Riviera 1963
    Toyota 2000 GT
    Chrysler Airflow
    Dodge Viper
    Ford Mustang Fastback 1965
    Ferrari 365 GTB Daytona
    Porsche 911

    ...among others.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Nice list indeed but you're pushing your luck with the Airflow.....got a pix of the Panhard? I can only recall the Dyno, which isn't very attractive.....
  • denniswadedenniswade Member Posts: 362
    You mentioned the 240Z. I remember back in 1970 when I was working for a graphic designer with a brand spankin new 914. The guy across the hall bought a 240Z and my boss said the thing made his car feel like a sewing machine. After driving both, I agreed.

    510s still bring big prices. Clean styling with lots of aftermarket support. Car and Driver called them the poor man's BMW.

    Shame your tastes are so narrow -- sushi really is a nice change of pace from steak and kidney pie....
  • speedshiftspeedshift Member Posts: 1,598
    Narrow--or pure? That's the eternal question. I don't know the answer.
  • 404c404c Member Posts: 146
    It's the super-aero two-door body developed for use at Le Mans. The CD stands for Charles Deutsch, the Aerodynamicist. It is extremely slippery, with a Cd reported to be in the mid-to low 0.2 range. Although ruthlessly efficient, the car has a certain purity of form that, to me at least, makes it attractive.

    With a 60 HP 850 cc twin, this car would hit just over 200 km/h at Mulsanne.

    Do a google search on Panhard CD and you may find a photo on line.

    As for the Chrysler Airflow, I have a weakness for Art Deco architecture. I also like the Peugeot 402. Enough said?
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    I always liked my father's comment about Art Deco. He was talking about it's revival in the 1970s....

    "oh, great...I get to be sick of it twice".

    Actually I have an Airflow tail light lens and chrome body on my desk...a bit beat up, but an amazingly complex construction. It's my favorite part of an Airflow.
  • veritasveritas Member Posts: 17
    I'm a newcomer to this forum, so I took the time to read all the previous entries before submitting my own list of cars that have caught my eye over the years. I'm 63 and have been a car nut from my earliest memories, so my list might be lengthy:

    PREWAR:

    Duesenberg - especially the early SJs with the eight branch external exhaust. The Brunn Torpedo Phaeton is the nicest looking Duesy of all.
    Marmon 16 - the simple, sharp lines are paragons of simple elegance combined with great engineering. In the early 50s I had a chance to buy a Marmon 16 engine still in the crate for $400. But I didn't have $400.
    Packard 12s of various years.
    1941 Cadillac Series 60 Special - The best looking 4 door sedan of the prewar years bar none in my estimation.

    Later 1940s and 1950s:

    1948-9 Packard Custom - The top series with the egg crate grille and a much more impressive look than the lesser series.
    1948-51 Lincoln - Those big babies would just cruise all day (and night).
    1948 Buick Roadmaster and Oldsmobile 98 - removing the vestigial (Or real in the case of the Olds) fenders of the earlier years and smoothing the lines made these cars beautiful to me.
    1951 Ford - The best of the three years for this body. I had a 51 Custom Tudor in robins egg blue, overdrive, nosed and decked, lowered, full wheel disks, blue dot tail lights, Douglas steelpack muffler - a real crumpet collector for the time.
    1951 Mercury - the slight extension of the rear fenders really made them look much more impressive. I really wanted a Mercury when I had my Ford.
    1951-54 Hudson Hornet - the 53-54s were the best looking of all. Awesome performance and handling for the day. I had a 52 sedan for a while. I could almost play basketball in the back seat! But Hudson began the trend to idiot lights instead of gauges - a definite minus.
    1952-54 and 1956 Lincoln - The lines of the first three years were simple and striking to my eyes. I thought the 55 was a weak attempt to get another year out of the body, but the 56 came back with a bang to make my head turn every time I saw one.
    1954 Packard - The Patrician sedan, Pacific hardtop, and the convertible of the big series were the end of an era. The big 359 CI straight 8 engine was as good as any V-8 of the time and the looks improved greatly once the bottle openers on the rear fenders were removed. The Caribbean looked too gaudy on the square Packard body in 54. The 55s through to the end were cruel jokes.
    1955 Buick Century - It just promised speed and adventure on the open roads of the time!
    1955 Chrysler 300 - What more could I say about this one!
    1955 Imperial - The best looking of all the 1955 cars bar the 300. If only they had made a convertible. The tail fins of 56 and later ruined all the Chrysler cars in my opinion.
    1956 Cadillac - the best Caddy of the 50s. The weak reverse slanted fins of 57 really made them look wimpy to me.
    1956 Ford - One of the rare occasions when the second or later years of a body looked even better than the first year (the 1957 Chevy and 66 Cadillac are the only other two that come to my mind).
    1957 Thunderbird - The best year ever for the -Bird.

    1960s:

    1960 Mercury Park Lane - A good example of what Mercury could do when it didn't have to share a body shell.
    1962-63 Pontiac Grand Pix - less chrome made better looks.
    1961 Dodge Lancer and Plymouth Valiant - I don't care what others say, I liked the looks! Especially the Valiant V-200 hardtop - I owned one. But one of the few cars where the sedans looked as good as the hardtops.
    1962 Plymouth - A lot of people hated their looks, but I always found myself looking when one was around and I was rather attracted by what I saw. The Dodge was a bit more muted.
    1963 Chrysler - If Chrysler had rounded the wheel arches and moved the wheels out just a bit, this car could have held its own with any Italian car of the day. I notice that Chevy copied its looks quite a bit with their 77 Caprices.
    1965 Pontiac Bonneville - a rare case where more chrome was better. One of the most beautiful postwar cars GM ever put out. That sexy swelling curve of the rear fender on the convertibles and 2-door hardtops was an erotic experience just to gaze upon!
    1966 Cadillac- The last beautiful Cadillac in my eyes. Changing the headlight trim to body color rather than chrome made them seem twice as elegant to me.
    1967 Rambler Marlin - adding the extra four inches or so of length to the hood really transformed what had been an ugly duckling.
    1968 Dodge Charger - It was all downhill for the Charger's looks after this year.

    And there wasn't been a Detroit car made since then that really made my heart beat faster when I saw one.
  • speedshiftspeedshift Member Posts: 1,598
    Because it's not just the usual suspects--there's some nice surprises and some history there. And it's a list I can relate to.

    I can't comment on the pre-war cars except the Sixty Special, getting away from the rubbery look of the late '30s. The Buick Y Job is a big favorite, wasn't a production car although I think Harley Earl drove it for years.

    Interesting that you went with the post-war "elephant" Packards and the Lincolns. Not everyone likes those cars although the Lincoln has the same themes as the hugely popular James Dean Merc--the junior Lincoln even shares the same body.

    I think I see '49 Ford in lots of cars over a surprising length of time. The styling of the early '50s Fords, Mercs and Lincolns was simpler and less cliched than the competition. Always liked the '56 Ford more than the '55 because it looks more aggressive, but now the '55's lighter front-end treatment seems a little more appealing. Should also mention the '56-7 Continental, an absolutely gorgeous car that was surprisingly underappreciated until recently.

    Had to get out my Car Spotters Guide to remember what a '60 Park Lane looks like, and the '62 Dodge and Plymouth. There's a lot going on there but it's not the usual careful Detroit statement. In that same vein I like the '61-2 Olds--guess I go for "high content" styling.

    As far as early compacts, the first Corvair also stands out. Actually I think the early Falcon has worn fairly well, but very little else from the first generation of compacts. Oh yeah, the Lark still looks good.
  • veritasveritas Member Posts: 17
    I knew I couldn't type that much at one sitting without some error creeping in.

    Under the cars of the 40s and 50s, I meant the 1949 Buick and Oldsmobile - not the 1948!

    Sorry about that.
  • speedshiftspeedshift Member Posts: 1,598
    I knew that.
  • andys120andys120 Member Posts: 23,391
    Pininfarina's masterpiece, the'63-64 Ferrari 250GT
    Lasso Berlinetta which many think is the best looking Ferrari ever. Other great looking Ferraris: '58 250 GT SWB, 250 GT California Spyder and the 246 Dino GTB/GT S.

    Porsche's original 901/911 '66-'69, the current Boxster. IMO the best looking current design.

    '53 Buick Skylark.

    '56 Chrysler 300B, best looking go the famous "Letter" cars.

    '61 Chevy Impala and '70 they Malibu, esp. the SS

    Mercedes 300SL Roadster and the following 230/250/
    280SLs.

    Ford Mustangs '64-'66 especially convertibles
    and 'GT-350s.

    Lamborghini Miura. IMO best looking exotic ever.

    Race cars: Ferrari GTO, Cobra Daytona Coupe and
    Porsche 917 and 908 BergSpyder, Ford GT-40

    Big GMs from the early 60s IMO especially Pontiac and Bucks.

    Can't think of any more right now. I'll send an addendum when I do

    Andy

    2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93

  • denniswadedenniswade Member Posts: 362
    Nice list is right -- but the '67 Eldorado was the finest car Bll Mitchell ever designed, in my opinion. And the '68 Coupe deVille, while large, was graceful and sporty, with its slanted grille and sweeping rear fenders with integrated taillights (I'm partial to that one anyway, having owned one -- the 472 V8 with 375 hp was awesome).

    The '77 Seville was universally admired for its trim, lean, European lines. The Allante was designed by Pinifarina, and looked it. And the '94 STS is still one of the best-looking American sedans on the road today -- American muscle in an Italian suit.
  • denniswadedenniswade Member Posts: 362
    In case you haven't read the latest issue yet, Automobile magazine had an item in their coverage of the Atlantic City Collector Car Auction that you may find amusing....

    A 1947 MG-TC "Trials Special" roadster went for $28,068. They write: "A triumph [no pun intended, I'm sure!] of visual appeal over logic. With its anemic 1250-cc, 54-bhp engine, the only type of competition the TC is likely to prevail in is against bicycles, going downhill. It generally takes a near-perfect TC restored to stock specifications, to make this kind of money."
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Oh, those overblown windbags from Automobile Magazine....my nickname for that rag is "Food and Fender". They are really much better at restaurant reviews.

    The TC has a marvelous, extensive, trophy-laden race and trials history, so those schmoos should break out their books and learn something. Also they are ingrates for forgetting that were it not for the TC, Americans still wouldn't know what a sportscar actually was....US servicemen brought them home in 1946 and actually started the sportscar craze in America, inspiring not only homebuilt specials but the Corvette & T-Bird as well (bucket seats, floor shift, two seater, that sort of thing....unheard of in the USA before the TC came along).

    AND...(phew!) they don't seem to know the classic car market either....if a car has a documented racing history, it will bring top dollar, often above book value.
  • rea98drea98d Member Posts: 982
    All guaranteed to add 50 to 75 rear wheel horsepower I'm sure ;-)
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    TC doesn't even HAVE 75 HP...lol....

    The '77 Seville does have a nice SHAPE actually, but it's all the cheesy stuff they put on it that kills the car...GM off the shelf headlights, vinyl roof, fake wire wheels, the Full Liberace.
  • veritasveritas Member Posts: 17
    I agree that the 67 Eldorado was the best looking of all the Cadillacs of that year, but (and remember - taste is an individual thing) for my tastes it still came out a very poor second when I compared it with what Olds had done with its Toronado using the same basic platform. In fact, I probably should have included the 66-67 Toronados on my previous list of most attractive cars. The fastback coupe style with the boldly arched and fully rounded wheel openings was a far more integrated design to my eyes than the notchback Caddy with squared wheel openings and the rebirth of a vestigial rear fender.
  • veritasveritas Member Posts: 17
    To me, the Seville was always nothing more than a Chevy Nova that had made it! (grin)
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    I always like the wheels on the early Toronado....I actually had one of those cars briefly. I remember puttig snows and chains on it and rampaging through the Colorado mountais in it. Awesome car but man could it eat the fuel. Of course, I wasn't very light on the gas...still not.
  • veritasveritas Member Posts: 17
    How about the 1950-51 Ford Crestliners? I have only seen four or five in all the years since they were new, but I still remember how much I liked what I saw each time I spotted one.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Well, within their TIME FRAME, compared to most cars in 50-51, they were definitely attractive. Compared to ALL TIME, well, that's gets tougher. AT least they were one of the first "modern" cars after WW II, they deserve credit for that....slab sided, no bulging fenders or running boards, V8 power (still flathead, though), overdrive,not too bad handling either.
  • speedshiftspeedshift Member Posts: 1,598
    I seem to recall the Crestline had a padded top. Basically a Tudor with two tone paint, introduced mid-'50 as a stopgap substitute for a hardtop.

    Fords were known for their (relative) handling through the mid-'50s, according to period road tests. I've heard quality control was abysmal, something about the factory just wanting to crank them out during the Ford Blitz.
  • corsicachevycorsicachevy Member Posts: 316
    Here is my two cents....

    1955-57 Ford Thunderbird
    Early to mid sixties Ford Thunderbird (convert. only)
    1977-79 Lincoln Mark V and Town Car
    Early 1970s Buick Electra
    The last years of the Pantera
    1984 Ferarri GTO
    Ford GT-40
    Auburn Speedster
    Finally....the Panoz Esperante - a new and yet classy design.
  • denniswadedenniswade Member Posts: 362
    Interesting commnent.

    It's true that the Toronado stole Cadillac's thunder that year, with its radically muscular styling. But I preferred the Eldo then, and I prefer it now. To me, the Caddie was much more balanced and elegant. I liked the Toronado's rear end and fender flares, but the front end was just too bulky looking for my taste, and it was nowhere near as sleek as the rear treatment.

    As always, taste is personal!
  • speedshiftspeedshift Member Posts: 1,598
    I've heard that Toronados would wear out front tires like nobody's business, esepcially if driven enthusiastically. All that weight and power going through the front wheels. I imagine Eldos did that too.
  • speedshiftspeedshift Member Posts: 1,598
    I drove a '68 Toro for a few weeks, one that had been donated to a group I belonged to and I was cleaning it up for resale. GM had mucked up the styling by '68--like the Riviera--but it was still a very nice cruiser and a lot more restful than the MGB I was driving then.

    It's close but I'd have to vote for the '66-7 Toro as perhaps the best of '60s GM styling--muscular and sculpted, with that signature Olds front end that's been carried over into the '01 Aurora. It just looks powerful, fun and expensive. The Eldo is very nice but more classic and restrained, as befits its station--but the Toronado has more emotion, and that's a good thing, at least up to a point.

    And then there's the first Riviera--yeah that's the best, just an inspired statement. Not a line wrong.
  • denniswadedenniswade Member Posts: 362
    I loved the Rivs -- all the way through the boattails. Color me wild....!!
  • ezraponezrapon Member Posts: 348
    69 camaro Z/28 RS
    79 Trans Am with 8 inch snowflake wheels
    67 GTO convertible
    67 SS chevelle with induction hood
    69 GTO
    63 corvette
    70 cuda/challenger (hi end models...hemi etc)
    69 Charger
    70 Road runner
    all of the shelby mustang series in the 60's
    and the Mach I mustangs
    I guess I like the domestics in a specific vintage here, but these are all easily attainable cars.
  • speedshiftspeedshift Member Posts: 1,598
    It wouldn't take much to bring that back to stock.
  • rea98drea98d Member Posts: 982
    Mr. Shiftright, does a V-8 powered jag look so bad after seeing this?


    image

  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Certainly is the typical high level of V-8 conversion craftsmanship there.... it doesn't make me cry because it's a Triumph Spitifre. No great loss, eh?
  • speedshiftspeedshift Member Posts: 1,598
    The badging indicates it's the new Judge out of Pontiac Design. Fairly restrained compared to most of their recent work.
  • bob354bob354 Member Posts: 11
    that I was crazy for back in '74 that drove a (I think) Grand Am... long, wide, and very low. Maybe it was just lust, but that car was sooo fine!
  • stumack1stumack1 Member Posts: 56
    WERE fine!! Back in the early '80's I worked with a lady who had a mint '75 in burgundy with a 400-4 bbl, and I asked for dibs if she was ever going to sell it. Had a call from her in about '87 when I was a starving student and couldn't afford the $2,500! Man, I still regret that one.

    Here's a couple of pretty common mass production numbers no one has mentioned that have always struck my fancy...

    '71 Plymouth B-body 2-door (Sebring, Road Runner, GTX) - probably the best styled mainstream US car ever (IMHO)..prefer the taillight and side markers on the '71 over the essentially similar '72. The designer (don't recall his name) states that this was his proudest piece of work.

    '71 Barracuda/'Cuda - (I'm not a Mopar guy, really!) - love the quad headlight front end and the side gills.

    '69 Chevy Full-Size - the wraparound front bumper was a departure for Chevy and it really worked on this one. The similar '70 with the more conventional front end was SO dull....

    '69 Pontiac Full-Size - best version of the "snout" Pontiacs.

    '71-'73 Mustang SportsRoof - yeah, it was big and bulky, but it was a fine styling job. Cleanest is actually the '73 with the larger body colour bumper and the vertical signals.

    Concur...dissent??
  • lokkilokki Member Posts: 1,200
    I have to admit that I thought that it looked grotesque, especially after the clean lines of the 1969 model.


    1971

    http://motorbase.com/picture/pid/1194077664.html


    But... there's no accounting for taste and to each his own.

    1969

    http://motorbase.com/picture/pid/1977179051.html

  • speedshiftspeedshift Member Posts: 1,598
    For what it's worth I like both B-bodies. The '68-9 is clean but boxy, the '71-72 more heavily styled but swoopy. The '73 was a real bummer with the more formal front end. I never could get behind the '71 Charger though--definitely a bring down from the '68-70, a hard act to follow. The '71 had too much bulk and front overhang.

    I set my personal LSR in a '71 Satellite Sebring Plus with 275-hp 383 2v, an indicated 110 mph on Highway 1. I think there was a little more in the car but not in me, and it fried the Torqueflite. And yes at 110 the telephone poles do look like a picket fence, just like in Hot Rod Lincoln.
  • fenway3fenway3 Member Posts: 1
    The Best Looking Car of any Decade.

    1958 Chevrolet Impala Convertible or 2 Coupe
This discussion has been closed.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles