These piecemeal cars deserve to be on the ugly list just as much as the Aztek. The Aztek should be labelled a forerunner of design.
I always thought the Aztek was a trendsetter, in a twisted sort of way. Through most of the 90's up until the Aztek, most cars were fairly clean, cohesively styled, and inoffensive. Every once in awhile we'd get something like a '96 Taurus, which was ugly IMO, but at least the whole design flowed together.
But the Aztek reintroduced the idea of the "committee car", where one committee designs one part, one designs another, and so on, all independently of each other, and then they try to force it all together and make it fit. The domestics were accused of this back around 1958-59, but I think that was more a matter of "let's throw everything at it, and whatever sticks, we'll go with it!"
Remember the interesting feature of the tent that popped out with the hatch on the Aztek? I knew a girl who actually liked the look of the Aztek. She traded in her two year-old New Beetle for a new 2001 Aztek. Well, there are Edsel fans too!
To be fair, the design did have some merit. The Aztek was pretty roomy inside and had fairly good storage space. I think the biggest problem with it was that GM created it on the cheap. They simply took the existing Venture minivan platform and worked from that, which is why it had ungainly proportions, a high beltline, etc. And the 3.4 V-6 did give a reasonable blend of power and economy, for the era.
The original Aztek concept was kinda ugly in its own right, but I think it also has a bold, daring look to it. But trying to apply that design to the minivans just made it seem desperate and half-cocked.
I think the Rendezvous looked better, but just still looked too tall and ungainly, and really couldn't hide its minivan underpinnings.
IIRC, the Rendezvous had a much nicer interior, though. Not as plasticky and pieced-together as the Aztek.
The Rendezvous also did something for Buick that they really needed, and bad. It helped to lower their buyer demographic. IIRC, when it first came out, the average buyer age of the Rendezvous was around 48 years. In contrast, the most "youthful" car was the W-body Regal, with a buyer age of around 57. LeSabre was around 67, and the Park Ave and Century had one foot in the grave with an average buyer age of 70!
I imagine when that Trailblazer derivative they had came out (Rainier?) it might have had a younger demographic as well, but it also wasn't a very hot seller.
IIRC, the Rendezvous had a much nicer interior, though. Not as plasticky and pieced-together as the Aztek.
My SIL used to have a Rendezvous for a company car. The interior was much nicer than the Aztec The proportions were odd and it was to narrow, but it certainly was far more palatable than the Aztec.
I think the Impala looks pretty nice, but I see some resemblance to the new Ford Fusion, particularly in the rear. I'm not sure who will buy it though because a lot of the elderly have moved on to minivans and crossovers, while the younger buyers seem to be either into smaller, more economical sedans or trucks.
Back to CVT, I sometimes think they work better in theory than practice. Nissan rentals I've had never seem to get that great of mileage despite the CVT.
I'm disappointed in the rear view of the Impala. I see "Cruze".
Would it have killed them to put three lights together on each side? Some identity? I like the rear of the Malibu much better despite what the dude in the article said.
I'm assuming there won't be a split-bench seat with fold-down center armrest and column shift available. Too bad...the end of an era and the perception of increased roominess even if it's not truly usable.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
My experience is that its easy to drive a CVT equipped car more "aggressively" (lay more on the accelerator) until you've had a little time to get acclimated to how the car drives.
Both my daughters have CVT equipped cars, and do pretty well with the mileage. Where they tend to excel, at least in my own experience, is in a lot of stop and go driving .vs. highway driving.
Amen Bro. I'd like one of those. That's one thing I like about the Impala--current model.
I gotta admit, I got used to the split bench seat in my Park Ave, although I think I'd still rather have bucket seats and a console. Did Buick ever offer the Ultra with buckets and a console?
As for the new Impala, I think it looks pretty nice. From the rear, it makes me think of something like an Audi A8 in the shape. At some angles it also makes me think of the new VW Passat, but then the new Passat makes me think a bit of the current Impala, so I guess that's a natural progression.
I dunno what to think. I like the wheels, but the back end doesn't say "Chevy" to me. I'd have liked to have seen something along the lines of the new Malibu only with three taillamps per side. It would help tie the Chevrolet family together style-wise. I guess it's better than the "Return of the Lumina" look of the current car.
Would it have killed them to put three lights together on each side?
That would be neat, but I think I understand why they didn't. If they go retro on it people will be claiming they are trying to exploit their heritage because they can't innovate. Also, many of today's buyers really don't know much about the Impala from the hey day 60's. With all of the criticism and cynicism GM faces, I think coming out with something very new was probably a good choice. I think Ford didn't bring back the round tail light for the same reason. As for the bench seat, I'm not sure there really is all that much market percentage for them and the industry has been simplifying options to cut production and inventory costs. I know Avalon didn't sell many bench seats when they were an alternative to buckets. As for the rear end of the new Impala, I still see 2013 Fusion which I think is a copy of Audi which was a variation of some British cars like Aston Martin. I saw the actual Cadillac XTS which shares the chassis with the new Impala and thought it was pretty nice.
These piecemeal cars deserve to be on the ugly list just as much as the Aztek.
Looks like those are Nissan and Mazda vans. Styling is inoffensive, but not grotesque as is the Aztek. GM is famous for the grotesque over the years. Look at pictures of some of their cars in the late 50's for example. More specifically, 58 Oldsmobile and Buick with extreme amounts of mismatched chrome pieces, 59 Cad with fins about 3feet high. Another ugly car is the 59 Chevy with a new slant on tail fins.
Other ugly GM cars were the Cad Seville about 1980, boat tail Grand Prixs, mid 90's cigar shaped Rivs, last gen Malibu, guppy looking mid 90's Impala and Roadmaster, fat and overweight early 2000's Camaro/Firebird.
I gotta admit, I got used to the split bench seat in my Park Ave, although I think I'd still rather have bucket seats and a console. Did Buick ever offer the Ultra with buckets and a console?
If they did, I've never seen one. The two Park Aves and Roadmaster my grandpa had all had split benches with a column shifter. I don't remember any large domestic sedans back then having a console.
I too prefer having a console with buckets. But I did test drive a new f150 that had a split bench and column shift (you don't see many), and I would consider it only to be able to seat 6 which a Super Crew f150 likely could do more comfortably than most current sedans.
But on the flip side, losing the center console also removes adjustable air vents to the rear seat, plus I think the console just looks nicer, but that's simply my preference.
I actually wouldn't mind having a column or dash mounted gearshift along with a console. That way you can get a longer center armrest and more cubbie spaces or cupholders. Maybe they should go back to those push button dash, or steering wheel mounted transmission shifts - nah, the nanny state gov would go ballistic!
Well, you've kind of got to look at the times - although 58 wasn't a pretty year in general. I don't think the 58 Buick and Olds were "grotesque" per se for their times. They were a little over the top with chrome, but that was just as much due to the fact that their styling looked old when they came out. They may have done better a few years earlier, but luckily that didn't happen and we go those very attractive 55/56 Buicks and Olds. While I kind of like them, the 59 Chevy was a bit extreme, particularly the wrap around flat top. But they looked more toned down in sedan trim. Believe it or not, a lot of people actually liked the 59 Caddy when it came out probably because we were entering the jet age. Really, I don't think the 58 Edsel was grotesque for its time either, but it was very different. Then you've got some of those early 60's Mopars which some may have found a bit on the grotesque side, but others liked them when they came out. Design was more adventurous back then so you had a lot of differences between the company models each year which meant winners and failures I guess. Today, an awful lot of stuff has similarities.
I seriously don't see how someone can mention 'grotesque' and not mention the Cube or Juke. I think most people would say they are far more offensive than anything GM ever did.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I seriously don't see how someone can mention 'grotesque' and not mention the Cube or Juke.
I kind of like the overall shape of the Juke, but the front end hasn't grown on me. From some angles I think it's decent looking and the interior looks decent for the intended market. Neither are vehicles I pay much attention too.
>Did Buick ever offer the Ultra with buckets and a console?
The leSabre in 2003 was offered with a center console and bucket seats. The console was configured in a way to be businessman friendly. IIRC it was made with writing surfaces and to be laptop friendly. I don't know if that started in 2000 but it seems it was there in 2002 and on for the H-body leSabre. I I don't recall ever seeing that mentioned in a Park Avenue brochure.
But on the flip side, losing the center console also removes adjustable air vents to the rear seat, plus I think the console just looks nicer, but that's simply my preference.
I'll have to go take a look to double check, but I think my 2000 Park Ave does have vents for the back seat, even though it has a split bench seat. You'd think I'd know my own car, but I haven't really been in the back seat of it, other than to see how well I fit.
I think they run a shallow tube under the carpet on the center hump, and it probably has a flexible duct where it connects up under the seat.
I guess it is nice to have the 6 passenger seating for when you really need it, but I don't think there has been a really comfy 6-seater car since they started downsizing in the late 70's. And even with a really big, wide roomy car, if it has a split bench seat, that center spot is pretty bad.
I think the last time I had six people in a car was when I had my '89 Gran Fury. It was a bit narrow with regards to shoulder room (56"), but had pretty good legroom, foot room, etc. transmission hump, driveshaft hump, and rear wheel wells didn't intrude as much as they did on the larger GM B-body or Ford Panther, so that helped a bit.
I've had three across in my '85 Silverado in recent times, and even with something like 65" of shoulder room (about the max that any car ever had), I find it a bit cramped. I guess a lot of it is just what your tolerances are, as much as the design of the vehicle.
Ford had bailed on the round taillight on each side after '64 (for the most part), but Impalas had three lights on each side, with the exception of '59, from '58 to '85, and Caprices even later than that. I wish this new Impala had the three-light look...classic Chevrolet.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
The 1958 Buick is so over the top it is cool! Same with the 1959 Cadillac. True. Designers were a heck of a lot more adventurous then! They're way too timid now.
I often have 6 in the expedition, but 2-4 are usually kids, so that effects my room requirements. Big difference of having 6 men vs. 1 male (me), my wife (5'6"), and four girls under 14 (my 2 daughters and a few friends). I don't think I've ever had more than 4 adults in it at one time.
Yeah, sitting in the middle of a front row of a bench seat is not fun. When I was 13 or so, 6 of us (grandma, grandpa, mom, and my brother and sister) all drove down to Florida in my grandpa's '83 olds Delta 88. Even with 3 kids 13 to 6 in age I remember not being particularly happy. Especially when having to sit in the middle front seat.
The 1958 Buick is so over the top it is cool! Same with the 1959 Cadillac. True. Designers were a heck of a lot more adventurous then! They're way too timid now.
Safety regs and fuel economy are likely big reasons. Plus, I'd guess it's more expensive to develope a car these days (I don't think crash testing happened in the 50's). Some of those era cars had style, but I sure wouldn't want to be in one in an accident, or hit by one whether in another vehicle or as a pedestrian.
The f150 with a bench had the usual air supply under the seat, but it lost the adjustable vents which were located on the back of the center console, probably not a huge deal.
Sadly, I wouldn't want to be hit in an old car today either...and I own one.
Back then, we didn't have the non-existant attention spans we have today, with cell phones, texting, and people who can't see a brake light if there's not a high-mounted center stop light present.
I'm far more afraid of driving in general today than I ever was in the past.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I'm far more afraid of driving in general today than I ever was in the past.
That's due to getting older;) Statically, we're safer today at least. I've been in several accidents over the years. Some were my fault some were not. None were due to a cell phone, but a few were due to generally not paying attention.
BTW, I retract what I posted earlier about a Juke. My comment was mainly based on photos. I saw a blue Juke today, and it was pretty ugly.
Well, we are safer, even with more drivers paying less attention... Mainly due to the amazing damage a vehicle can take in an accident today, yet preserving the passenger compartment.
It's like Jay Leno said in a comedy bit years ago when discussing a late 1950's Buick he had in his collection. He said the car was built so strongly, and had so much steel in it that after a wreck, they would simply hose the blood off the dashboard and resell the car to the next guy.
50 years ago cars were built to a much different priority standard than today... But, I suspect that's no surprise to anyone nowadays...
Well, we are safer, even with more drivers paying less attention... Mainly due to the amazing damage a vehicle can take in an accident today, yet preserving the passenger compartment.
My guess is that we're probably more likely to get into an accident nowadays, simply because in general, we drive more, the roads are more crowded, drivers are less attentive, etc. BUT, like you said, we are safer. Our chances of surviving said accident are much better than back in the day.
Heck, I almost T-boned a black Camry with my '85 Silverado coming home from work yesterday. I was making a left turn onto my street from a 4-lane road, when suddenly this Camry, which had a stop sign, pulled out in front of me and stopped right in front of me, blocking my path. I hit the horn and the brakes at the same time, and the driver looked at me, seemingly more annoyed than scared, but when my back brakes started to lock up, I think it finally dawned on him that his life was potentially in peril, so he pulled forward out of the way, while I let off the brake to sort of regain control, and swerved around him.
Realistically though, if I had hit him, I probably wouldn't have been going more than a few mph, so I doubt either of us would have been hurt much. My truck would probably be technically totaled, but still driveable, while his Camry would've probably taken enough damage, especially if the side airbags went off, to total it out.
50 years ago cars were built to a much different priority standard than today... But, I suspect that's no surprise to anyone nowadays...
Years ago, I used to belong to the National DeSoto Club, and in one of their newsletters they had a picture of a 1959 DeSoto Firesweep hardtop coupe that had gotten into a high-speed head on collision with a 1979 Camaro. Thankfully, both drivers survived. They didn't show a pic of the Camaro, but the DeSoto was DeMolished. The front-end clip remained mostly intact, but pushed back severely into the passenger cabin, so it really is a miracle that the driver survived.
Now to be fair, the Firesweep was the "little" DeSoto, being on the shorter 122" Dodge wheelbase rather than the 126" wb that Chryslers and the "real" DeSotos used. And it was a few hundred pounds lighter, so it probably wasn't too much heavier than that '79 Camaro.
Still, I'm sure that if I was in my '57 Firedome in a similar collision, the result wouldn't be pretty. Maybe that extra 4" of wheelbase would help a little, as it was all ahead of the firewall, but I'm sure it wouldn't mean much, without seatbelts.
In those days, one of the biggest safety features was where they mounted the steering box. GM tended to mount it pretty far forward, so it wouldn't take that much of a hit to drive the steering column, like a spear, back into the driver. Mopar, in '57-59 at least, mounted it pretty far back.
Even on something like my '85 Silverado, the steering box is disturbingly close to the front of the engine bay. But at least it has a collapsible steering column, so that should help, somewhat.
> My comment was mainly based on photos. I saw a blue Juke today, and it was pretty ugly.
The dogwalker for the folks across the road has had a Juke since not long after they came out. It is bad. But apparently a reasonably useful car for her to go from client to client.
>they would simply hose the blood off the dashboard and resell the car to the next guy.
My cousin bought an almost new 56 Chevy, black w/ yellow, that had been wrecked and repaired. It had two knee prints in the lower dashboard. I wondered what happened to the driver--did he walk again?
Many years back a Bonneville, maybe 94-95 had met a same era Camry left front to left front on a 35 mph local street. The Camry was in pieces and hard to identify on the front. The Bonneville was relatively intact sans the left front fender.
The 2014 Impala was in the NY Auto Show. Built on a Caddilac chassis with all new everything. The current 300 HP V6 will get upped to 303 HP, and a 2.5 L hybrid and an all new 2.5 L are also to be offered. I got 34 on a trip in the 300 HP V6 powered '12 Impala that I rented, but the hybrid '14 will be rated at 35 hwy. I don't know if the 4's are DIG.
Accident results are often about physics and physics can do some weird stuff. A few years ago there was a head on between a Monte Carlo and a Corolla near my place. Both cars were pretty smashed up. The Corolla driver was walking around talking afterwards, but the Monte driver was behind the wheel dead. The fire department had to saw open the car to retrieve his corpse. I would have never guessed that result if I hadn't seen it. I'm guessing it had something to do with the angle and if it happened again the results may have been different. However, the Corolla was a unibody and the Monte was of the previous body on frame design. We also had a Town Car hit a pole and kill the driver. I'm not sure that body on frame is as good as unibody in a crash?
The Corolla driver was walking around talking afterwards, but the Monte driver was behind the wheel dead. The fire department had to saw open the car to retrieve his corpse. I would have never guessed that result if I hadn't seen it. I'm guessing it had something to do with the angle and if it happened again the results may have been different. However, the Corolla was a unibody and the Monte was of the previous body on frame design.
Back in 1998, I got t-boned in my Mom's old '86 Monte Carlo while delivering pizzas, when a teenage girl in a '92 Tempo ran a stop sign in the parking lot. My car definitely took the worst of it. The intial impact was on the right fender, which crumpled, and also bent the rim and put a big blister on the front tire, and knocked it seriously out of alignment. The passenger side door got smashed in, and the A-pillar was bent, cracking the windshield. It also gouged out the rear quarter panel just under the opera window.
The impact was hard enough that it knocked me into oncoming traffic, but luckily I was able to swerve back over, and the oncoming traffic stopped.
The Tempo was smashed in front, but it was mainly just the plastic and glass stuff that broke out. Maybe the hood was bent; I don't remember.
I had to be taken to the hospital, but mainly because of the adrenalin rush, being shook up, disoriented, etc. I vaguely remember the paramedics asking me questions to see how cognizant I was...My name, what year it was, who the president was, etc. I got most of it right, but for the life of me, couldn't get the word "Clinton" out...but I was able to say "Monica-Gate-Dude" or something like that, which I remember made the paramedic giggle.
Needless to say, my Monte was totaled, but the Tempo was put back together and, ironically, a few months later, when I was delivering pizzas in my '89 Gran Fury, I almost hit her again when she cut me off! Evidently, didn't learn her lesson.
Oh, and the guys at the body shop said that the main reason my car took the worst of it was because it was essentially the strongest part of her car hitting the weakest part of mine. If she had been just a few seconds quicker in running that stop sign and I had t-boned her instead, they said there's a very good chance it might have killed her. Especially since I would've been hitting her on the driver's side, whereas she hit me on the passenger side.
As for the weight of the two cars, my old car book lists the base weight of my '86 Monte V-8 at 3244 lb, whereas a the lightest '92 Tempo 4-door was 2600 lb. So while the cars are hardly equal, they're not horribly mis-matched...not like running a Metro into a Hummer!
Accidents can be terribly random things, and often, luck and fate come into play more often than the size, or even safety, of the car!
I'm not sure that body on frame is as good as unibody in a crash?
That actually had some bearing when I bought my '89 Gran Fury copcar. I got it from a dealer that specialized in refurbished copcars, although by this time, 1998, they were down to just Caprices, Crown Vics, and Diplomat/Gran Furys. None of the cool, older mastodon/big-block stuff. They did have a 1980 R-body Gran Fury back in the weeds, but it was shot.
Anyway, in addition to driveable used cars, they had a bunch of wrecks that they bought for parts. They had a few "flying brick" Crown Vics and pre-'91 Caprices that had been in head-on collisions, and they didn't fare too well. Most of them smashed up sort of like that '59 DeSoto I mentioned earlier, where the whole front-end clip stays mostly intact but then the car buckles at the windshield and it all pushes back into the passenger cabin. In contrast, the one wrecked Mopar M-body they had, which also took a hard hit to the front, simply folded up in front like any decent modern car would, and there was very little passenger cabin intrusion.
Now, that's not the most scientific research, as it's not a given that all those cars got smashed at the same speed, and most likely they hit, or were hit by, things of differing weights. But, those Mopar M-bodies were fairly solid, sturdy little cars.
The Camry was in pieces and hard to identify on the front. The Bonneville was relatively intact sans the left front fender.
Actually, per government data and IIHS testing, foreign brands had better safety for driver and pasengers going back 10 years or so. The American brands have made necessary engineering changes to improve survivability. One particular GM brand of suv about 10 years ago had a terrible front end crash survivability problem with parts of the structure intruding into the passenger compartment and causing severe injury. Look it up.
Actually, per government data and IIHS testing, foreign brands had better safety for driver and pasengers going back 10 years or so.
One thing to remember though, is that those safety ratings are only comparable if you're looking at vehicles in a similar weight range. By the mid 90's, a LeSabre probably had about 500-600 lb, it not more, on a Camry.
Also, GM's H-body was one of the better designs of the era, when it came to safety. The G-body, which started with the '95 Aurora/Riviera, and then added the Park Ave for '97, the Seville at some point, and the Bonneville/LeSabre for 2000, was the safest design that GM had ever produced up to that point in time.
I think the midsized W-body did pretty well in crash testing as well. GM came up short with smaler cars though, like the 2003 and earlier Malibu, Grand Am/Alero, and Cavalier. Oh, and let's not forget the Astro, S-10 pickup/Blazer, and I think the older Silverados did pretty bad back then, too.
Accidents can be terribly random things, and often, luck and fate come into play more often than the size, or even safety, of the car!
We read all the time over the years about drivers and passengers who could have been spared more serious injury or been alive IF they had been wearing seat belts. Granted, there are some crashes so severe that even seat belts would not help. But, that is Some.
What is absolutely amazing is the stupidity of some drivers and passengers on the excuses they give for not wearing seat belts. Such as. I do not want to be tangled up in belts in case of an accident with fire so that I can be able to get out quickly.
Belts have been in cars for about maybe 50 years now and there is still a segment of the population that is ignorant as to their benefits.
My Toyota got T-boned in the rear quarter panel at a pretty good clip. The car did a 180 or better from the fairly high speed impact. But the seat belt and airbags let me get out with only a few scratches and small bruises. I'm a true believer that they saved me from some serious injury in that crash. It all happened very quickly with really no time to react. The bad part was that since there was no frame or axle damage, the insurance company paid out $10K to repair a four year old car due to the depreciation being so good on Toyota. The body shop told me that most would have been totaled, but I at least I didn't have to get a car payment and the car is running fine now. I learned that depreciation rate can be a two way street!
Comments
I always thought the Aztek was a trendsetter, in a twisted sort of way. Through most of the 90's up until the Aztek, most cars were fairly clean, cohesively styled, and inoffensive. Every once in awhile we'd get something like a '96 Taurus, which was ugly IMO, but at least the whole design flowed together.
But the Aztek reintroduced the idea of the "committee car", where one committee designs one part, one designs another, and so on, all independently of each other, and then they try to force it all together and make it fit. The domestics were accused of this back around 1958-59, but I think that was more a matter of "let's throw everything at it, and whatever sticks, we'll go with it!"
The original Aztek concept was kinda ugly in its own right, but I think it also has a bold, daring look to it. But trying to apply that design to the minivans just made it seem desperate and half-cocked.
IIRC, the Rendezvous had a much nicer interior, though. Not as plasticky and pieced-together as the Aztek.
The Rendezvous also did something for Buick that they really needed, and bad. It helped to lower their buyer demographic. IIRC, when it first came out, the average buyer age of the Rendezvous was around 48 years. In contrast, the most "youthful" car was the W-body Regal, with a buyer age of around 57. LeSabre was around 67, and the Park Ave and Century had one foot in the grave with an average buyer age of 70!
I imagine when that Trailblazer derivative they had came out (Rainier?) it might have had a younger demographic as well, but it also wasn't a very hot seller.
My SIL used to have a Rendezvous for a company car. The interior was much nicer than the Aztec The proportions were odd and it was to narrow, but it certainly was far more palatable than the Aztec.
Would it have killed them to put three lights together on each side? Some identity? I like the rear of the Malibu much better despite what the dude in the article said.
I'm assuming there won't be a split-bench seat with fold-down center armrest and column shift available. Too bad...the end of an era and the perception of increased roominess even if it's not truly usable.
Amen Bro. I'd like one of those. That's one thing I like about the Impala--current model.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Both my daughters have CVT equipped cars, and do pretty well with the mileage. Where they tend to excel, at least in my own experience, is in a lot of stop and go driving .vs. highway driving.
They're still available in pickups.
I gotta admit, I got used to the split bench seat in my Park Ave, although I think I'd still rather have bucket seats and a console. Did Buick ever offer the Ultra with buckets and a console?
As for the new Impala, I think it looks pretty nice. From the rear, it makes me think of something like an Audi A8 in the shape. At some angles it also makes me think of the new VW Passat, but then the new Passat makes me think a bit of the current Impala, so I guess that's a natural progression.
look of the current car.
That would be neat, but I think I understand why they didn't. If they go retro on it people will be claiming they are trying to exploit their heritage because they can't innovate. Also, many of today's buyers really don't know much about the Impala from the hey day 60's. With all of the criticism and cynicism GM faces, I think coming out with something very new was probably a good choice. I think Ford didn't bring back the round tail light for the same reason. As for the bench seat, I'm not sure there really is all that much market percentage for them and the industry has been simplifying options to cut production and inventory costs. I know Avalon didn't sell many bench seats when they were an alternative to buckets. As for the rear end of the new Impala, I still see 2013 Fusion which I think is a copy of Audi which was a variation of some British cars like Aston Martin. I saw the actual Cadillac XTS which shares the chassis with the new Impala and thought it was pretty nice.
Looks like those are Nissan and Mazda vans. Styling is inoffensive, but not grotesque as is the Aztek. GM is famous for the grotesque over the years. Look at pictures of some of their cars in the late 50's for example. More specifically, 58 Oldsmobile and Buick with extreme amounts of mismatched chrome pieces, 59 Cad with fins about 3feet high. Another ugly car is the 59 Chevy with a new slant on tail fins.
Other ugly GM cars were the Cad Seville about 1980, boat tail Grand Prixs, mid 90's cigar shaped Rivs, last gen Malibu, guppy looking mid 90's Impala and Roadmaster, fat and overweight early 2000's Camaro/Firebird.
If they did, I've never seen one. The two Park Aves and Roadmaster my grandpa had all had split benches with a column shifter. I don't remember any large domestic sedans back then having a console.
I too prefer having a console with buckets. But I did test drive a new f150 that had a split bench and column shift (you don't see many), and I would consider it only to be able to seat 6 which a Super Crew f150 likely could do more comfortably than most current sedans.
But on the flip side, losing the center console also removes adjustable air vents to the rear seat, plus I think the console just looks nicer, but that's simply my preference.
Well, you've kind of got to look at the times - although 58 wasn't a pretty year in general. I don't think the 58 Buick and Olds were "grotesque" per se for their times. They were a little over the top with chrome, but that was just as much due to the fact that their styling looked old when they came out. They may have done better a few years earlier, but luckily that didn't happen and we go those very attractive 55/56 Buicks and Olds. While I kind of like them, the 59 Chevy was a bit extreme, particularly the wrap around flat top. But they looked more toned down in sedan trim. Believe it or not, a lot of people actually liked the 59 Caddy when it came out probably because we were entering the jet age. Really, I don't think the 58 Edsel was grotesque for its time either, but it was very different. Then you've got some of those early 60's Mopars which some may have found a bit on the grotesque side, but others liked them when they came out. Design was more adventurous back then so you had a lot of differences between the company models each year which meant winners and failures I guess. Today, an awful lot of stuff has similarities.
The 2013 redesigned Lincoln MKZ will have a buttons on the dash for gear selection.
I kind of like the overall shape of the Juke, but the front end hasn't grown on me. From some angles I think it's decent looking and the interior looks decent for the intended market. Neither are vehicles I pay much attention too.
The leSabre in 2003 was offered with a center console and bucket seats. The console was configured in a way to be businessman friendly. IIRC it was made with writing surfaces and to be laptop friendly. I don't know if that started in 2000 but it seems it was there in 2002 and on for the H-body leSabre.
I
I don't recall ever seeing that mentioned in a Park Avenue brochure.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I'll have to go take a look to double check, but I think my 2000 Park Ave does have vents for the back seat, even though it has a split bench seat. You'd think I'd know my own car, but I haven't really been in the back seat of it, other than to see how well I fit.
I think they run a shallow tube under the carpet on the center hump, and it probably has a flexible duct where it connects up under the seat.
I guess it is nice to have the 6 passenger seating for when you really need it, but I don't think there has been a really comfy 6-seater car since they started downsizing in the late 70's. And even with a really big, wide roomy car, if it has a split bench seat, that center spot is pretty bad.
I think the last time I had six people in a car was when I had my '89 Gran Fury. It was a bit narrow with regards to shoulder room (56"), but had pretty good legroom, foot room, etc. transmission hump, driveshaft hump, and rear wheel wells didn't intrude as much as they did on the larger GM B-body or Ford Panther, so that helped a bit.
I've had three across in my '85 Silverado in recent times, and even with something like 65" of shoulder room (about the max that any car ever had), I find it a bit cramped. I guess a lot of it is just what your tolerances are, as much as the design of the vehicle.
That's coming from a person who doesn't like big cars
Yeah, sitting in the middle of a front row of a bench seat is not fun. When I was 13 or so, 6 of us (grandma, grandpa, mom, and my brother and sister) all drove down to Florida in my grandpa's '83 olds Delta 88. Even with 3 kids 13 to 6 in age I remember not being particularly happy. Especially when having to sit in the middle front seat.
Safety regs and fuel economy are likely big reasons. Plus, I'd guess it's more expensive to develope a car these days (I don't think crash testing happened in the 50's). Some of those era cars had style, but I sure wouldn't want to be in one in an accident, or hit by one whether in another vehicle or as a pedestrian.
Both my 98 and 2003 leSabres have air vents to the rear on top of the "hump" under the seat.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Back then, we didn't have the non-existant attention spans we have today, with cell phones, texting, and people who can't see a brake light if there's not a high-mounted center stop light present.
I'm far more afraid of driving in general today than I ever was in the past.
That's due to getting older;) Statically, we're safer today at least. I've been in several accidents over the years. Some were my fault some were not. None were due to a cell phone, but a few were due to generally not paying attention.
BTW, I retract what I posted earlier about a Juke. My comment was mainly based on photos. I saw a blue Juke today, and it was pretty ugly.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/04/business/car-sales-keep-up-their-firm-growth.h- - tml
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/hondas-march-us-vehicle-sales-fall-5-2012-04-03- ?reflink=MW_news_stmp
For driving in general, I'd say in the olden days people weren't so oblivious - probably harder to get a license then, too.
It's like Jay Leno said in a comedy bit years ago when discussing a late 1950's Buick he had in his collection. He said the car was built so strongly, and had so much steel in it that after a wreck, they would simply hose the blood off the dashboard and resell the car to the next guy.
50 years ago cars were built to a much different priority standard than today... But, I suspect that's no surprise to anyone nowadays...
My guess is that we're probably more likely to get into an accident nowadays, simply because in general, we drive more, the roads are more crowded, drivers are less attentive, etc. BUT, like you said, we are safer. Our chances of surviving said accident are much better than back in the day.
Heck, I almost T-boned a black Camry with my '85 Silverado coming home from work yesterday. I was making a left turn onto my street from a 4-lane road, when suddenly this Camry, which had a stop sign, pulled out in front of me and stopped right in front of me, blocking my path. I hit the horn and the brakes at the same time, and the driver looked at me, seemingly more annoyed than scared, but when my back brakes started to lock up, I think it finally dawned on him that his life was potentially in peril, so he pulled forward out of the way, while I let off the brake to sort of regain control, and swerved around him.
Realistically though, if I had hit him, I probably wouldn't have been going more than a few mph, so I doubt either of us would have been hurt much. My truck would probably be technically totaled, but still driveable, while his Camry would've probably taken enough damage, especially if the side airbags went off, to total it out.
50 years ago cars were built to a much different priority standard than today... But, I suspect that's no surprise to anyone nowadays...
Years ago, I used to belong to the National DeSoto Club, and in one of their newsletters they had a picture of a 1959 DeSoto Firesweep hardtop coupe that had gotten into a high-speed head on collision with a 1979 Camaro. Thankfully, both drivers survived. They didn't show a pic of the Camaro, but the DeSoto was DeMolished. The front-end clip remained mostly intact, but pushed back severely into the passenger cabin, so it really is a miracle that the driver survived.
Now to be fair, the Firesweep was the "little" DeSoto, being on the shorter 122" Dodge wheelbase rather than the 126" wb that Chryslers and the "real" DeSotos used. And it was a few hundred pounds lighter, so it probably wasn't too much heavier than that '79 Camaro.
Still, I'm sure that if I was in my '57 Firedome in a similar collision, the result wouldn't be pretty. Maybe that extra 4" of wheelbase would help a little, as it was all ahead of the firewall, but I'm sure it wouldn't mean much, without seatbelts.
In those days, one of the biggest safety features was where they mounted the steering box. GM tended to mount it pretty far forward, so it wouldn't take that much of a hit to drive the steering column, like a spear, back into the driver. Mopar, in '57-59 at least, mounted it pretty far back.
Even on something like my '85 Silverado, the steering box is disturbingly close to the front of the engine bay. But at least it has a collapsible steering column, so that should help, somewhat.
The dogwalker for the folks across the road has had a Juke since not long after they came out. It is bad. But apparently a reasonably useful car for her to go from client to client.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
My cousin bought an almost new 56 Chevy, black w/ yellow, that had been wrecked and repaired. It had two knee prints in the lower dashboard. I wondered what happened to the driver--did he walk again?
Many years back a Bonneville, maybe 94-95 had met a same era Camry left front to left front on a 35 mph local street. The Camry was in pieces and hard to identify on the front. The Bonneville was relatively intact sans the left front fender.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Back in 1998, I got t-boned in my Mom's old '86 Monte Carlo while delivering pizzas, when a teenage girl in a '92 Tempo ran a stop sign in the parking lot. My car definitely took the worst of it. The intial impact was on the right fender, which crumpled, and also bent the rim and put a big blister on the front tire, and knocked it seriously out of alignment. The passenger side door got smashed in, and the A-pillar was bent, cracking the windshield. It also gouged out the rear quarter panel just under the opera window.
The impact was hard enough that it knocked me into oncoming traffic, but luckily I was able to swerve back over, and the oncoming traffic stopped.
The Tempo was smashed in front, but it was mainly just the plastic and glass stuff that broke out. Maybe the hood was bent; I don't remember.
I had to be taken to the hospital, but mainly because of the adrenalin rush, being shook up, disoriented, etc. I vaguely remember the paramedics asking me questions to see how cognizant I was...My name, what year it was, who the president was, etc. I got most of it right, but for the life of me, couldn't get the word "Clinton" out...but I was able to say "Monica-Gate-Dude" or something like that, which I remember made the paramedic giggle.
Needless to say, my Monte was totaled, but the Tempo was put back together and, ironically, a few months later, when I was delivering pizzas in my '89 Gran Fury, I almost hit her again when she cut me off! Evidently, didn't learn her lesson.
Oh, and the guys at the body shop said that the main reason my car took the worst of it was because it was essentially the strongest part of her car hitting the weakest part of mine. If she had been just a few seconds quicker in running that stop sign and I had t-boned her instead, they said there's a very good chance it might have killed her. Especially since I would've been hitting her on the driver's side, whereas she hit me on the passenger side.
As for the weight of the two cars, my old car book lists the base weight of my '86 Monte V-8 at 3244 lb, whereas a the lightest '92 Tempo 4-door was 2600 lb. So while the cars are hardly equal, they're not horribly mis-matched...not like running a Metro into a Hummer!
Accidents can be terribly random things, and often, luck and fate come into play more often than the size, or even safety, of the car!
I'm not sure that body on frame is as good as unibody in a crash?
That actually had some bearing when I bought my '89 Gran Fury copcar. I got it from a dealer that specialized in refurbished copcars, although by this time, 1998, they were down to just Caprices, Crown Vics, and Diplomat/Gran Furys. None of the cool, older mastodon/big-block stuff. They did have a 1980 R-body Gran Fury back in the weeds, but it was shot.
Anyway, in addition to driveable used cars, they had a bunch of wrecks that they bought for parts. They had a few "flying brick" Crown Vics and pre-'91 Caprices that had been in head-on collisions, and they didn't fare too well. Most of them smashed up sort of like that '59 DeSoto I mentioned earlier, where the whole front-end clip stays mostly intact but then the car buckles at the windshield and it all pushes back into the passenger cabin. In contrast, the one wrecked Mopar M-body they had, which also took a hard hit to the front, simply folded up in front like any decent modern car would, and there was very little passenger cabin intrusion.
Now, that's not the most scientific research, as it's not a given that all those cars got smashed at the same speed, and most likely they hit, or were hit by, things of differing weights. But, those Mopar M-bodies were fairly solid, sturdy little cars.
Actually, per government data and IIHS testing, foreign brands had better safety for driver and pasengers going back 10 years or so. The American brands have made necessary engineering changes to improve survivability. One particular GM brand of suv about 10 years ago had a terrible front end crash survivability problem with parts of the structure intruding into the passenger compartment and causing severe injury. Look it up.
One thing to remember though, is that those safety ratings are only comparable if you're looking at vehicles in a similar weight range. By the mid 90's, a LeSabre probably had about 500-600 lb, it not more, on a Camry.
Also, GM's H-body was one of the better designs of the era, when it came to safety. The G-body, which started with the '95 Aurora/Riviera, and then added the Park Ave for '97, the Seville at some point, and the Bonneville/LeSabre for 2000, was the safest design that GM had ever produced up to that point in time.
I think the midsized W-body did pretty well in crash testing as well. GM came up short with smaler cars though, like the 2003 and earlier Malibu, Grand Am/Alero, and Cavalier. Oh, and let's not forget the Astro, S-10 pickup/Blazer, and I think the older Silverados did pretty bad back then, too.
We read all the time over the years about drivers and passengers who could have been spared more serious injury or been alive IF they had been wearing seat belts. Granted, there are some crashes so severe that even seat belts would not help. But, that is Some.
What is absolutely amazing is the stupidity of some drivers and passengers on the excuses they give for not wearing seat belts. Such as. I do not want to be tangled up in belts in case of an accident with fire so that I can be able to get out quickly.
Belts have been in cars for about maybe 50 years now and there is still a segment of the population that is ignorant as to their benefits.
Yet, young folks still take up the habit...
Look it up for yourself if you have a point and share the link here.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,