I agree that the CR-V is an ugly little runt. Did you notice that the roofline is identical to that of the Mercedes R-Class?
It never hit me that the Benz R-class had the same type of roofline, but in looking at the pics yep, it's awfully close. But somehow, its styling doesn't bother me. Probably because the grille up front isn't such an incoherent puss. And the R-class is bigger and longer, so perhaps the way the top of the window line curves down isn't as exaggerated. One thing I notice is that it doesn't seem to drop down in the rear door as much, and saves most of the plunge for the rear side window area. The rear pillar ("D" pillar?) also seems a bit slimmer on the Benz.
As for the CR-V being a sales success, I guess it goes back to the old saying "Handsome is as handsome does". I'm sure it's a good, reliable, versatile, reasonably priced little vehicle. Actually, not so little anymore...I guess the traditional "cute ute" class is history. Plus, it has the Honda name value behind it.
...was the slightly curved A-pillar GM used on many of its 1961 cars.
I think it was a kind of vestigial wraparound windshield but worked very well on the big GM's. IIRC it was used in 1962 as well. IMO '61-'62 was the high point of the Mitchell Era with some of the best styling The General has ever offered. I'm particularly fond of '62 Buicks and Ponchos>
I don't like the current CRV a bit. I'd buy a used one of the last generation if I were in that market or else I'd get a RAV4 or, for styling, even a Santa Fe.
A coworker just bought a new CRV. Even she wanted to go with a used one but the dealership wanted just about as much for that as the new one. (A dealership I avoid by the way.) Her husband wasn't go to sign to pay as much for a used car as new so she got the new one.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
The R-Class sells like that because nobody wanted a Mercedes minivan. Ask Toyota how many fully loaded $40K Siennas it sells - less than 1% of the total.
I think it's a shame that I can't think of a single car except the Mini that really stands out for me and says to me "you have to have me, NOW!"
OK, I do like some of the new "F1-inspired" Mercedes, like the SLK. That is a nice-looking car.
I finally saw a 128i in person yesterday, and my biggest reaction was a yawn. It is basically a narrower 328i, and the 90s 3-series coupes looked better.
My award for biggest improvement this year in styling has to go to the Lancer though. It looks quite good, where the old one definitely looked quite bad.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
About 6 months ago I started to hear from some of my media friends that the new LaCrosse was the best looking mid size vehicle they had seen in years. I have only seen the photos of it but it looks pretty nice.
I am not sure about the China designed interior though. Need to see it in person.
I like that A-pillar too, there is something almost elegant about it, especially in chrome or on a hardtop like an Impala bubbletop - it works well. It was a good transition between wraparound and conventional designs.
I suspect with those curves the windshields were more expensive.
CR-V sells here to middle aged secretaries who see it as rugged, and young mothers who don't have the self-confidence to drive a minivan or a wagon. It's trendy.
I am sure it is a functional well made car, but boy is it awkward.
Are those windows about 12" tall? Doesn't look fun for those of us who park in tight spots or simply like to have visibility. I also am not sold on the haunched rear fenders. The midsection creased is interesting, would be cooler if the window could be made to follow the dip yet look ok.
But, compared to Buicks of even 5 years ago...it's pretty remarkable.
Yeah, I see that group in some of them here too, along with RAV4s and Libertys/Escapes. The tallness must be an attraction for older people. But the pseudo-rugged crossover thing seems to be more of a draw.
The tallness issue is an issue. My MIL will only ride in our van because she can get in and out of it easily. Oddly, when my dad was still mobile he couldn't deal with climbing up into the van so I always ended up driving him around in his car which was a Buick Century.
That is one thing now driving around in the Celica - I'm practically sitting on the road! It's a bit of an adjustment but I'm not minding it at all.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
Last year I drove a Focus ZX5 for a week, and getting back into my E55 felt like a lowrider...and it's not even that much lower. Maybe if big SUVs can become less common a low car can be less risky.
The '99 Celica was nice. I have liked most of the Celicas and Supras.
I thought I would check the '89 Maxima before posting this, and I found out that Edmunds' picture database only goes back to '90. I hope they reconsider that some day.
Anyway, I am fairly certain that I agree that those version of the Maxima, around 1990, were the best.
Anyway, I am fairly certain that I agree that those version of the Maxima, around 1990, were the best.
1989-94 Maxima>
Those were good cars and not bad looking although the rears were kind of blah llooking. IMO the best looking Maximas were the 2000-2003 cars with their more prominent grilles and headlights>
Those were nice,especially if you got the SE which did something with the tail lights which looked better.
Firnds of mine had a black 00 - 03 vintage Maxima SE with a stick (in Manhattan yet; gotta like a dedicated shifter). Good looking car. Really nice car.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
I took some time and looked over the '09 Vibe and I think that this time around, the Vibe looks better than the Matrix. So if the Pontiac dealers do not make the sales, there is not much you can blame on GM.
I think I still prefer the styling of the '08 Matrix really. But from what I gather, the '09s are better vehicles overall.
It is a good thing that I like these styles (including the Nissan Versa, and Suzuki SX4, because, with the fuel situation, I think a lot of people are going to move into them to get the capacity of larger cars, but with better economy.
The '89-94 Maxima used to be my favorite generation. I liked them when they first came out. But now, in restrospect, they just don't seem like they've aged so well. They're still not bad looking cars, but I guess they kind of blend into obscurity.
In contrast, I didn't like the 2000 Max when it first came out. But it seemed like they tweaked the front and rear just a bit each year, so later models looked better. That generation has started to grow on me.
I hate to say it but you've caught it exactly. The 89 - 94 seemed perfect at the time but are now pretty squared off compared to what you are used to seeing anymore.
Like you I didn't like the 2000 redesign but now find them pretty attractive. I'd be slightly tempted to buy one when my second daughter gets her license in a year. The only reason it's slightly is because that's a fair bit of power for a kid.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
Regarding "Coupe" and "Sedan" nomenclature, I think that for 1957, there was no such thing as a 4 door Plymouth. As I understand it, they had a "2 door Sedan" and a "2 door Coupe" (or maybe they called it a "Hardtop" -- not sure about that). I know that it was pretty hard to tell the difference.
look at all that distance from the rear-ward part of the passenger door to the rear of the car! They made 'em right and made 'em strong and made 'em heavy back in the day, huh?
Hmm, one thing I never noticed before, but the '57 era DeSoto and Chrysler 4-door hardtops actually used a different roofline from the Plymouth. Here's an ad for one...
I knew this was the case with the 2-door hardtops, as DeSotos and Chryslers used a more upright C-pillar that didn't extend as far back as the Plymouth/Dodge, and the DeSoto/Chryslers had a smaller side window and more of a wraparound back window.
With 4-door pillared sedans, all four divisions used the same passenger cabin, roof, and windows, so I just presumed it was the same with hardtops as well. But the C-pillar on that Plymouth looks slimmer than on the DeSoto. Rear window looks different too. Unless the artist's rendering is just wrong.
They made 'em right and made 'em strong and made 'em heavy back in the day, huh?
Not so much...for all their size those old cars were light compared to today's vehicles of similar size. They were strong in the sense of being able to tow or carry big loads but in a crash you'd much rather be in today's cars or for that matter a 1960s Mercedes or Volvo. The certainly weren't made "right" either, most of those cars were a basket case when they crossed the 50K mark and were junked before they made it to 100,000 miles.
The certainly weren't made "right" either, most of those cars were a basket case when they crossed the 50K mark and were junked before they made it to 100,000 miles.
I think the basket case at 50K is a bit much but few cars were driven to 100K because by then they were really old. MIles/year on cars back then were much lower so a car could easily be 10 years old and just getting to 100,000. And by then if in a northern state rusted out. In the southern states the interiors were rotting out due to sun.
Plus, back in those days, a 10 year old car, or even a 5 year old car, looked pretty ancient. And if it was considered a "loser car", resale tended to plummet, big-time.
For instance, in 1957, a Plymouth was the car to have. But suddenly it was 1958, and it was last year's model, and the quality woes were becoming widespread. And by, say, 1961, those very tailfins that made the car seem so sleek and exotic when it was new, just drew attention to the fact that it was a 4 year old car. My mother's first car was a 1957 Plymouth. She bought it in 1965 when she was 16, for something like $75.
Now for an 8 year old car, it actually still had plenty of life left in it, and from what she recalls, it was still relatively rust-free. But in her mind, it was just a big, old, outdated car. She really didn't have any emotional attachment to it. It was just her first step to freedom, and would soon give way to a 1959 Rambler station wagon that lost one of its wheels because of a bearing problem, and then to a '66 Pontiac Catalina convertible that she bought brand new her senior year in high school. She really didn't have any incentive to take care of the Plymouth...all she cared about was having something to drive until she could get something better.
Those old cars would last if you took care of them. My '57 DeSoto is proof of that. But the rustproofing techniques are so much better these days. They also just build the bodies better nowadays so that the seals around the windows are less likely to leak, and there aren't so many nooks and crannies just waiting to collect dirt and moisture.
Also, all that chrome they used to hang on the cars actually caused some kind of chemical/electrical reaction to the sheetmetal. That reaction made the sheetmetal more conducive to rusting, and the fact that it would collect dirt and debris and moisture up under it only exacerbated the problem.
Also, all that chrome they used to hang on the cars actually caused some kind of chemical/electrical reaction to the sheetmetal. That reaction made the sheetmetal more conducive to rusting, and the fact that it would collect dirt and debris and moisture up under it only exacerbated the problem
That and all the mounting holes required were invitations for water to get inside doors and fenders.
It seems that I have had a case of scrambled brain. Oh well. Nice to see the old ads and remember those cars. I know that in 1957 in particular, the Plymouth and one of the Fords (I am not sure which one) really stomped the 57 Chev in sales, and primarily due to styling. The story goes that the trade in value of the 57 Chev was so low that this is why the "kids" of around 1960 got them. But the 57 Chev was a sound car, and gas being cheap, that is why they got a really good reputation for value and reliability, and even performance.
A very good thing for Chev because in a couple more years, Ford brought out their Mustang and the Chrysler Hemi was dominating the drag strips. The '63 Sting Ray came out, but that was never a "big seller". I doubt if it is really harder to compete today. But that good reputation back then was fairly earned, just as the bad reputation of some of the later products were.
Anyway, that is getting a bit far off topic. Back to "gee those tail fins were actually pretty nice. -- in context." And there were too. :-)
I know that in 1957 in particular, the Plymouth and one of the Fords (I am not sure which one) really stomped the 57 Chev in sales, and primarily due to styling.
Yeah, in 1957, Ford outsold Chevy by about 100,000 units. I think the figures were something like 1.55 million to 1.45 million, but I forget now. Plymouth sold something like 762,000 cars that year. Still in 3rd place, but that was the strongest volume Plymouth had ever had up to that point. In fact, they'd only break that record twice. 1971 and 1973, I believe.
I don't think the '57 Chevy ever had bad resale value though. What actually happened was that the Ford and Plymouth were both serious rusters that year. On top of that, Ford and Plymouth became bigger cars that year, and sort of morphed into the kind of car your parents bought. So when the '57's were hitting the used car lots, teens looked at the '57 Chevy as more of a fun car to hop up, whereas the '57 Plymouth and Ford pointed the way to the future of the family car...something that's NOT cool when you're a teen! The '58 Chevy was bigger too and started to follow that trend, one reason it's probably not as popular as the '57.
To be fair, the '57 Chevy was a good performer, too. You could get a hopped up 283 with dual quads that put out 270 hp, or fuel injection that put out 283. Both were fairly expensive options, but available across the board. With Plymouth, if you really wanted performance, you had to buy the limited edition Fury, which had a high-output 318 with dual quads and 290 hp. Most Plymouths just had fairly mundane 277 or 301 CID V-8's, and the 283 was a better revver in a lighter car.
I think most Fords just had fairly mild 292 V-8's, although there was a pretty potent 312 that was optional that year.
As for popularity, I think the '57 Chevy became popular almost instantly, mainly because its competition and even itself for 1958 "grew up" and became more "adult". In fact, the main reason the '64 Chevelle was launched was because of public demand for the return of a '55-57 Chevy-type car.
As for the '57 Plymouth, they really didn't start becoming popular until the movie "Christine" came out in 1983. That was a 1958 Fury, but it sparked enough interest in the general "Forward Look" era of Mopar. A lot of people hated that movie because they destroyed something like 12-13 cars to make it, but in the years, many more cars than that have been saved from the junkyard because of the interest it sparked.
As for the '57 Ford, I don't know if they ever got really popular or not. I know Robert Mitchum drove one in "Thunder Road". Anthony Perkins dumped one in a swamp in "Psycho". And a hot biker chick blew up one that was chasing Sean Connery in "Thunderball". :P
Whenever I go to the brand-specific car shows at Carlisle, PA, it seems like there's a ton of '57 Plymouths at the Mopar show, and so many '57 Chevies at the GM show that they all start to look alike. But at the Ford show, usually just a small gathering of '57 Fords, usually lumped in with the other late 50's Dearborns. I think there's usually a better turnout of '58 Edsels than '57 Fords. :surprise:
>As for the '57 Ford, I don't know if they ever got really popular or not.
I wonder if the sales was the total of the Fairlane and the Custom models. The Custom was shorter and not as flowing as the Fairlane 500 models. The Customs may not have caught collector's eyes in the early days. Plus there was a lot of rusting in spots after several years. Headlights were quick to go because of design of pockets to collect salt and water and dirt. They rusted faster than those foreign cars of the 80s.
> don't think the '57 Chevy ever had bad resale value though.
What fraction of the Chevies were 6-cyl? I believe more of the Fords and Plymouths were higher power motors. The Chevies seemed like a fancied up 55 Chev body. The others, well, had style?
Not exactly but back then they would do a minor restyle yearly and a major restyle every two or three years . The '57 Chevy was the last of the Tri-Chevies so it did resemble the preceeding two years.
Plymouth and Chevy both went into '57 at the beginning of their cycles that's why they looked more different from the '56s than the Chevys.
In light of this it's the '58 Chevy that's an outlier with little style connection to either the '57 or the '59.
I wonder if the sales was the total of the Fairlane and the Custom models. The Custom was shorter and not as flowing as the Fairlane 500 models.
I'm too lazy to add up the figures right now, but the majority of the Fords sold were the upscale Fairlane/Fairlane 500 models, on the longer 118" wheelbase. The Fairlanes were a full lineup though, with 2- and 4-door hardtops and convertibles in addition to 2- and 4-door sedans. The Custom/Custom 300 was just comprised of 2- and 4-door sedans. Station wagons were also on the 116" wheelbase, but were considered their own series.
Oddly, while the Fairlanes were on a longer wheelbase, they were actually smaller inside! The roofline was lower, and I believe the C-pillar connected with the beltine further forward on the Fairlanes. While that made them look sleeker, it also forced them to move the back seat forward a few inches to maintain some semblance of headroom. I remember Consumer Reports griping about the Fairlane models being space inefficient compared to the cheaper Custom models.
Also, the 2-door pillared Fairlane was more like a low-slung hardtop coupe with a B-pillar welded in and a window frame installed on the door. In contrast, the 2-door Custom was basically just the 4-door roofline with no rear doors and the B-pillar moved back a few inches. So I guess Ford actually deserves some credit for trying to make sleeker 2- and 4-door sedans with the Fairlane. If you look at a pillared '57 Chevy 2/4 door sedan, or the Plymouth, they're sort of upright, clunky looking things in contrast to the hardtops. But the Fairlanes are kinda sleek.
The Plymouth 2-door sedan was an especially odd looking beast. It used the same big roofline as the 4-door pillared sedan. However, the 4-door had to use a quarter window aft of the rear door, and it was too far over the rear wheel to allow for a roll-down window. So they split the rear window into two sections, one roll-down and one stationary. It's kinda interesting, but still odd.
Well, Plymouth could've done that cool thing four-door '56 Chryslers did - have the big window roll down and have that quarter window pivot down with it! Maybe that quarter window was too big? Do you have a picture of a 1957 Plymouth two-door sedan?
The movie "Christine" did bring back the '57-era Mopars in a big way. I remember I was a freshman in college when that movie came out. During my trek out to school, I'd pass by a gas station that had a 1958 Plymouth Savoy in two-tone green. Unfortunately, this one was a six-cylinder and I didn't have any money to indulge in buying classic cars anyway. It was another one that got away like that 1958 Oldsmobile Super 88 and 1950 Buick Roadmaster.
I guess with some planning, they could have found a way to make that rear-most window pivot down in conjunction with the roll-down part. But remember these 2-door sedans were pretty much bargain-basement, bottom-of the-barrel bodystyles. In contrast, a 4-door hardtop in those days was considered fairly luxurious. I guess we should be grateful that they even bothered to make a roll-down window at all back there!
The '57 Chevy 2-door sedan had a roll-down window, but it only went down about 2/3 of the way. Not sure how far they went down on the Ford 2-door sedans.
Dodge 2-door sedans used the same roof structure, but with Dodge being a more upscale division, the 2-door sedan was limited to the Coronet line. With Plymouth, the 2-door sedan was offered in the Plaza, Savoy, and Belevedere lineups
Interestingly, DeSoto and Chrysler did away with all 2-door sedans entirely after 1954. Buick, Olds, and Mercury held onto them, but just in their cheapest lines, and they tended to sell poorly.
that after being started to discuss modern faves in styling, this thread has quickly turned to 50 year old cars to celebrate as models of really great design, and has remained there.
Today's cars are mostly just anonymous schlock when it comes to styling. there are minor differences, but nothing that stands out except the ones that are so ugly that nobody buys them.
Part of the problem is some of the best-looking models today are nothing more than "retro" designs, just makeovers of 40 and 50 year old models.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
"Part of the problem is some of the best-looking models today are nothing more than "retro" designs, just makeovers of 40 and 50 year old models."
Yep - I like the 2008 Mustang that looks like a 1965 Mustang. You can bet no-one in 1965 was wishing they could buy a new car that looked like a 1922 whatever!
The Mustang was one of the ones I specifically had in mind when I was writing that! Also the New Beetle, same-styled as it has been and will be for about a dozen years because VW doesn't dare mess with a good thing....
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
...two of the features of my 2007 Cadillac DTS Performance I like could be considered "retro": the stacked headlights reminiscent of a 1965-68 Cadillac and the narrow vertical taillights.
I'd say certain elements of it are - such as the VentiPorts and the design of the instrument panel. In it's entirety - no. It's very much a modern vehicle.
Heck, even in my 2000 Intrepid, there are a few faint retro touches. The C-pillar and rear window area have just the slightest hint of "flying buttress", which if you get enough beers in you, and squint your eyes just right, is fainly reminiscent of a '68-70 Charger. And even the taillights, the way they're larger toward the outside and smaller as you move inward, has a faint touch of late 60's Dodge to it. Nothing that out-and-out screams out in-your-face retro, but there is at least a vague family resemblance.
Car styling tends to go in cycles too, alternating back and forth between rounded and angular. So that always ensures that no matter how new something may seem at first, chances are you've seen it before, or at least something that vaguely resembles it.
And once cars started going taller and stubbier, that made me start thinking of 40's and early 50's style cars, the era before longer/lower/wider signified what a modern car should be.
This current look with the trunks, where the decklid is higher than the rear fenders, makes me think of the old days when cars were evolving from bolt-on fenders. I guess the earliest car I can think of that had this look was the 1994 Accord or 1995 Cirrus/Stratus sedans, but at that time, they didn't seem retro or old fashioned. Once the Hyundai XG300 started doing it though, it seemed old.
Awe, comon, I'm being generous here :P Actually, the (overdone, IMHO) Enclave's fender curves are different than the CX 7/9 twins, and the Outlook/Traverse/Acadia look more like each other than they do the Enclave.
nippononly: Today's cars are mostly just anonymous schlock when it comes to styling. there are minor differences, but nothing that stands out except the ones that are so ugly that nobody buys them.
Because a large segment of the population approaches car buying differently than their ancestors did in the 1950s and 1960s. The realities of the market have also forced changes in how the automakers operate.
In the 1950s, and through at least the mid-1960s, car design was still evolving, so people approached new cars with the "newest-is-best" mindset. In the 1950s, the trend was to lengthen and lower the car, while the early 1960s involved shaving off the excesses of 1958-59.
Realistically, how can car design evolve much further? Cars can't get any lower, and there really isn't any excess ornamentation to eliminate.
Also, cars - both foreign and domestic - didn't last as long, unlike today, when it's not unreasonable to expect a brand-new car to last 200,000 miles with decent care. If people approach their car purchase with the mindset that that they are either going to keep it for 10 years, or trade it in within five years and still expect it to have considerable resale value, they don't want something that will look "dated" within a few years.
Most highly styled cars do look dated after a few years, unless they are truly trendsetters (1961 Lincoln Continental or 1963 Buick Riviera). If the design is exciting mostly because it is "new," there is the risk that it will look dated within a few years. Chrysler's 1957 models were all the rage in the fall of 1956, but by the fall of 1960 they looked tired and shouted, "Suddenly, It's 1957." That didn't matter as much when many people traded every three years.
Some of the "Art & Science" Cadillacs, like the old CTS, already looked dated (to me, anyway) compared to a more "boring" design like an Accord from that same vintage.
Also remember that adults in the 1950s and 1960s had grown up during the 1930s and 1940s, which meant that many of their memories of the "old days" revolved around the Great Depression and World War II - hardly good times. The past was best forgotten. They wanted to look forward to better times, not back to a past that was filled with widespread bloodshed and real economic hardship. They wanted cars were capable of transporting them to a better future, away from the not-too-pleasant past. That type of mindset encourages more experimentation.
Today, the stakes are higher, because auto makers offer more lines of vehicles - count the number of models offered by Ford, for example - and all of those vehicles must be updated every 5-6 years (except for, say, the Ford Panther cars, which are basically being allowed to fade away).
In the 1960s, if a car maker came up with a dud - as Chrysler did with the downsized Dodges and Plymouths for 1962 - it could restyle the entire car within a year. Today, there is less money for emergency facelifts, and new sheetmetal could affect crashworthiness or even fuel economy (more drag). That makes an emergency facelift much more expensive - and risky. Better to play it safe, especially when buyers don't necessarily reward innovation in design. The idea of taking a flyer is MUCH less attractive than it was 40-50 years ago.
Also, we've been conditioned over the past 20 years to think of the German cars as the technological leaders, and the Germans have taken a very conservative approach to design until recently. Their cars didn't change drastically over the years, and they were guided by function over form. Buyers took their cues from the leaders. Which makes it ironic that over the past 5 or so years the Germans, led by BMW and Chris Bangle, have been attempting to ad some "drama" to their cars, and others are following suit.
Nah, other than a few minor elements, the Enclave reflects very current styling.
Now, I like the Enclave very much. My full response wonders just how distinctive it is though. The current market is full of CUV's with swooping, curvy sheetmetal. Sure the Enclave has details that clearly identify it being what it is and what it is not, but that is a crowded segment that is getting more crowded. Hard to stand out.
Comments
It never hit me that the Benz R-class had the same type of roofline, but in looking at the pics yep, it's awfully close. But somehow, its styling doesn't bother me. Probably because the grille up front isn't such an incoherent puss. And the R-class is bigger and longer, so perhaps the way the top of the window line curves down isn't as exaggerated. One thing I notice is that it doesn't seem to drop down in the rear door as much, and saves most of the plunge for the rear side window area. The rear pillar ("D" pillar?) also seems a bit slimmer on the Benz.
As for the CR-V being a sales success, I guess it goes back to the old saying "Handsome is as handsome does". I'm sure it's a good, reliable, versatile, reasonably priced little vehicle. Actually, not so little anymore...I guess the traditional "cute ute" class is history. Plus, it has the Honda name value behind it.
I think it was a kind of vestigial wraparound windshield but worked very well on the big GM's. IIRC it was used in 1962 as well. IMO '61-'62 was the high point of the Mitchell Era with some of the best styling The General has ever offered. I'm particularly fond of '62 Buicks and Ponchos>
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
A coworker just bought a new CRV. Even she wanted to go with a used one but the dealership wanted just about as much for that as the new one. (A dealership I avoid by the way.) Her husband wasn't go to sign to pay as much for a used car as new so she got the new one.
I think it's a shame that I can't think of a single car except the Mini that really stands out for me and says to me "you have to have me, NOW!"
OK, I do like some of the new "F1-inspired" Mercedes, like the SLK. That is a nice-looking car.
I finally saw a 128i in person yesterday, and my biggest reaction was a yawn. It is basically a narrower 328i, and the 90s 3-series coupes looked better.
My award for biggest improvement this year in styling has to go to the Lancer though. It looks quite good, where the old one definitely looked quite bad.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I am not sure about the China designed interior though. Need to see it in person.
http://www.conceptcarz.com/view/photo/277938,15275,0,0/2008_Buick_Invicta_Concep- t_Photo.aspx
I suspect with those curves the windshields were more expensive.
I am sure it is a functional well made car, but boy is it awkward.
But, compared to Buicks of even 5 years ago...it's pretty remarkable.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
That is one thing now driving around in the Celica - I'm practically sitting on the road! It's a bit of an adjustment but I'm not minding it at all.
I thought I would check the '89 Maxima before posting this, and I found out that Edmunds' picture database only goes back to '90. I hope they reconsider that some day.
Anyway, I am fairly certain that I agree that those version of the Maxima, around 1990, were the best.
Anyway, I am fairly certain that I agree that those version of the Maxima, around 1990, were the best.
1989-94 Maxima>
Those were good cars and not bad looking although the rears were kind of blah llooking. IMO the best looking Maximas were the 2000-2003 cars with their more prominent grilles and headlights>
2000-03 Maxima>
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
Firnds of mine had a black 00 - 03 vintage Maxima SE with a stick (in Manhattan yet; gotta like a dedicated shifter). Good looking car. Really nice car.
I think I still prefer the styling of the '08 Matrix really. But from what I gather, the '09s are better vehicles overall.
It is a good thing that I like these styles (including the Nissan Versa, and Suzuki SX4, because, with the fuel situation, I think a lot of people are going to move into them to get the capacity of larger cars, but with better economy.
In contrast, I didn't like the 2000 Max when it first came out. But it seemed like they tweaked the front and rear just a bit each year, so later models looked better. That generation has started to grow on me.
But the '08 Matrix looks better than both. ;-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Like you I didn't like the 2000 redesign but now find them pretty attractive. I'd be slightly tempted to buy one when my second daughter gets her license in a year. The only reason it's slightly is because that's a fair bit of power for a kid.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
I knew this was the case with the 2-door hardtops, as DeSotos and Chryslers used a more upright C-pillar that didn't extend as far back as the Plymouth/Dodge, and the DeSoto/Chryslers had a smaller side window and more of a wraparound back window.
With 4-door pillared sedans, all four divisions used the same passenger cabin, roof, and windows, so I just presumed it was the same with hardtops as well. But the C-pillar on that Plymouth looks slimmer than on the DeSoto. Rear window looks different too. Unless the artist's rendering is just wrong.
Not so much...for all their size those old cars were light compared to today's vehicles of similar size. They were strong in the sense of being able to tow or carry big loads but in a crash you'd much rather be in today's cars or for that matter a 1960s Mercedes or Volvo. The certainly weren't made "right" either, most of those cars were a basket case when they crossed the 50K mark and were junked before they made it to 100,000 miles.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
I think the basket case at 50K is a bit much but few cars were driven to 100K because by then they were really old. MIles/year on cars back then were much lower so a car could easily be 10 years old and just getting to 100,000. And by then if in a northern state rusted out. In the southern states the interiors were rotting out due to sun.
For instance, in 1957, a Plymouth was the car to have. But suddenly it was 1958, and it was last year's model, and the quality woes were becoming widespread. And by, say, 1961, those very tailfins that made the car seem so sleek and exotic when it was new, just drew attention to the fact that it was a 4 year old car. My mother's first car was a 1957 Plymouth. She bought it in 1965 when she was 16, for something like $75.
Now for an 8 year old car, it actually still had plenty of life left in it, and from what she recalls, it was still relatively rust-free. But in her mind, it was just a big, old, outdated car. She really didn't have any emotional attachment to it. It was just her first step to freedom, and would soon give way to a 1959 Rambler station wagon that lost one of its wheels because of a bearing problem, and then to a '66 Pontiac Catalina convertible that she bought brand new her senior year in high school. She really didn't have any incentive to take care of the Plymouth...all she cared about was having something to drive until she could get something better.
Those old cars would last if you took care of them. My '57 DeSoto is proof of that. But the rustproofing techniques are so much better these days. They also just build the bodies better nowadays so that the seals around the windows are less likely to leak, and there aren't so many nooks and crannies just waiting to collect dirt and moisture.
Also, all that chrome they used to hang on the cars actually caused some kind of chemical/electrical reaction to the sheetmetal. That reaction made the sheetmetal more conducive to rusting, and the fact that it would collect dirt and debris and moisture up under it only exacerbated the problem.
That and all the mounting holes required were invitations for water to get inside doors and fenders.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
The great thing now are those stick on ads - because you can take them right of!
A very good thing for Chev because in a couple more years, Ford brought out their Mustang and the Chrysler Hemi was dominating the drag strips. The '63 Sting Ray came out, but that was never a "big seller". I doubt if it is really harder to compete today. But that good reputation back then was fairly earned, just as the bad reputation of some of the later products were.
Anyway, that is getting a bit far off topic. Back to "gee those tail fins were actually pretty nice. -- in context." And there were too.
:-)
Yeah, in 1957, Ford outsold Chevy by about 100,000 units. I think the figures were something like 1.55 million to 1.45 million, but I forget now. Plymouth sold something like 762,000 cars that year. Still in 3rd place, but that was the strongest volume Plymouth had ever had up to that point. In fact, they'd only break that record twice. 1971 and 1973, I believe.
I don't think the '57 Chevy ever had bad resale value though. What actually happened was that the Ford and Plymouth were both serious rusters that year. On top of that, Ford and Plymouth became bigger cars that year, and sort of morphed into the kind of car your parents bought. So when the '57's were hitting the used car lots, teens looked at the '57 Chevy as more of a fun car to hop up, whereas the '57 Plymouth and Ford pointed the way to the future of the family car...something that's NOT cool when you're a teen! The '58 Chevy was bigger too and started to follow that trend, one reason it's probably not as popular as the '57.
To be fair, the '57 Chevy was a good performer, too. You could get a hopped up 283 with dual quads that put out 270 hp, or fuel injection that put out 283. Both were fairly expensive options, but available across the board. With Plymouth, if you really wanted performance, you had to buy the limited edition Fury, which had a high-output 318 with dual quads and 290 hp. Most Plymouths just had fairly mundane 277 or 301 CID V-8's, and the 283 was a better revver in a lighter car.
I think most Fords just had fairly mild 292 V-8's, although there was a pretty potent 312 that was optional that year.
As for popularity, I think the '57 Chevy became popular almost instantly, mainly because its competition and even itself for 1958 "grew up" and became more "adult". In fact, the main reason the '64 Chevelle was launched was because of public demand for the return of a '55-57 Chevy-type car.
As for the '57 Plymouth, they really didn't start becoming popular until the movie "Christine" came out in 1983. That was a 1958 Fury, but it sparked enough interest in the general "Forward Look" era of Mopar. A lot of people hated that movie because they destroyed something like 12-13 cars to make it, but in the years, many more cars than that have been saved from the junkyard because of the interest it sparked.
As for the '57 Ford, I don't know if they ever got really popular or not. I know Robert Mitchum drove one in "Thunder Road". Anthony Perkins dumped one in a swamp in "Psycho". And a hot biker chick blew up one that was chasing Sean Connery in "Thunderball". :P
Whenever I go to the brand-specific car shows at Carlisle, PA, it seems like there's a ton of '57 Plymouths at the Mopar show, and so many '57 Chevies at the GM show that they all start to look alike. But at the Ford show, usually just a small gathering of '57 Fords, usually lumped in with the other late 50's Dearborns. I think there's usually a better turnout of '58 Edsels than '57 Fords. :surprise:
I wonder if the sales was the total of the Fairlane and the Custom models. The Custom was shorter and not as flowing as the Fairlane 500 models. The Customs may not have caught collector's eyes in the early days. Plus there was a lot of rusting in spots after several years. Headlights were quick to go because of design of pockets to collect salt and water and dirt. They rusted faster than those foreign cars of the 80s.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
What fraction of the Chevies were 6-cyl? I believe more of the Fords and Plymouths were higher power motors. The Chevies seemed like a fancied up 55 Chev body. The others, well, had style?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Not exactly but back then they would do a minor restyle yearly and a major restyle every two or three years . The '57 Chevy was the last of the Tri-Chevies so it did resemble the preceeding two years.
Plymouth and Chevy both went into '57 at the beginning of their cycles that's why they looked more different from the '56s than the Chevys.
In light of this it's the '58 Chevy that's an outlier with little style connection to either the '57 or the '59.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
I'm too lazy to add up the figures right now, but the majority of the Fords sold were the upscale Fairlane/Fairlane 500 models, on the longer 118" wheelbase. The Fairlanes were a full lineup though, with 2- and 4-door hardtops and convertibles in addition to 2- and 4-door sedans. The Custom/Custom 300 was just comprised of 2- and 4-door sedans. Station wagons were also on the 116" wheelbase, but were considered their own series.
Oddly, while the Fairlanes were on a longer wheelbase, they were actually smaller inside! The roofline was lower, and I believe the C-pillar connected with the beltine further forward on the Fairlanes. While that made them look sleeker, it also forced them to move the back seat forward a few inches to maintain some semblance of headroom. I remember Consumer Reports griping about the Fairlane models being space inefficient compared to the cheaper Custom models.
Also, the 2-door pillared Fairlane was more like a low-slung hardtop coupe with a B-pillar welded in and a window frame installed on the door. In contrast, the 2-door Custom was basically just the 4-door roofline with no rear doors and the B-pillar moved back a few inches. So I guess Ford actually deserves some credit for trying to make sleeker 2- and 4-door sedans with the Fairlane. If you look at a pillared '57 Chevy 2/4 door sedan, or the Plymouth, they're sort of upright, clunky looking things in contrast to the hardtops. But the Fairlanes are kinda sleek.
The Plymouth 2-door sedan was an especially odd looking beast. It used the same big roofline as the 4-door pillared sedan. However, the 4-door had to use a quarter window aft of the rear door, and it was too far over the rear wheel to allow for a roll-down window. So they split the rear window into two sections, one roll-down and one stationary. It's kinda interesting, but still odd.
The movie "Christine" did bring back the '57-era Mopars in a big way. I remember I was a freshman in college when that movie came out. During my trek out to school, I'd pass by a gas station that had a 1958 Plymouth Savoy in two-tone green. Unfortunately, this one was a six-cylinder and I didn't have any money to indulge in buying classic cars anyway. It was another one that got away like that 1958 Oldsmobile Super 88 and 1950 Buick Roadmaster.
I guess with some planning, they could have found a way to make that rear-most window pivot down in conjunction with the roll-down part. But remember these 2-door sedans were pretty much bargain-basement, bottom-of the-barrel bodystyles. In contrast, a 4-door hardtop in those days was considered fairly luxurious. I guess we should be grateful that they even bothered to make a roll-down window at all back there!
The '57 Chevy 2-door sedan had a roll-down window, but it only went down about 2/3 of the way. Not sure how far they went down on the Ford 2-door sedans.
Dodge 2-door sedans used the same roof structure, but with Dodge being a more upscale division, the 2-door sedan was limited to the Coronet line. With Plymouth, the 2-door sedan was offered in the Plaza, Savoy, and Belevedere lineups
Interestingly, DeSoto and Chrysler did away with all 2-door sedans entirely after 1954. Buick, Olds, and Mercury held onto them, but just in their cheapest lines, and they tended to sell poorly.
Today's cars are mostly just anonymous schlock when it comes to styling. there are minor differences, but nothing that stands out except the ones that are so ugly that nobody buys them.
Part of the problem is some of the best-looking models today are nothing more than "retro" designs, just makeovers of 40 and 50 year old models.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Yep - I like the 2008 Mustang that looks like a 1965 Mustang. You can bet no-one in 1965 was wishing they could buy a new car that looked like a 1922 whatever!
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I guess classic is as classic does.
I was going to comment earlier that most sedans have kinda morphed together in my eye, regardless of market segment or manufacturer.
Some newer buggies have achieved some distinction, but it does appear that distinctiveness is often retro in origin.
Car styling tends to go in cycles too, alternating back and forth between rounded and angular. So that always ensures that no matter how new something may seem at first, chances are you've seen it before, or at least something that vaguely resembles it.
And once cars started going taller and stubbier, that made me start thinking of 40's and early 50's style cars, the era before longer/lower/wider signified what a modern car should be.
This current look with the trunks, where the decklid is higher than the rear fenders, makes me think of the old days when cars were evolving from bolt-on fenders. I guess the earliest car I can think of that had this look was the 1994 Accord or 1995 Cirrus/Stratus sedans, but at that time, they didn't seem retro or old fashioned. Once the Hyundai XG300 started doing it though, it seemed old.
Because a large segment of the population approaches car buying differently than their ancestors did in the 1950s and 1960s. The realities of the market have also forced changes in how the automakers operate.
In the 1950s, and through at least the mid-1960s, car design was still evolving, so people approached new cars with the "newest-is-best" mindset. In the 1950s, the trend was to lengthen and lower the car, while the early 1960s involved shaving off the excesses of 1958-59.
Realistically, how can car design evolve much further? Cars can't get any lower, and there really isn't any excess ornamentation to eliminate.
Also, cars - both foreign and domestic - didn't last as long, unlike today, when it's not unreasonable to expect a brand-new car to last 200,000 miles with decent care. If people approach their car purchase with the mindset that that they are either going to keep it for 10 years, or trade it in within five years and still expect it to have considerable resale value, they don't want something that will look "dated" within a few years.
Most highly styled cars do look dated after a few years, unless they are truly trendsetters (1961 Lincoln Continental or 1963 Buick Riviera). If the design is exciting mostly because it is "new," there is the risk that it will look dated within a few years. Chrysler's 1957 models were all the rage in the fall of 1956, but by the fall of 1960 they looked tired and shouted, "Suddenly, It's 1957." That didn't matter as much when many people traded every three years.
Some of the "Art & Science" Cadillacs, like the old CTS, already looked dated (to me, anyway) compared to a more "boring" design like an Accord from that same vintage.
Also remember that adults in the 1950s and 1960s had grown up during the 1930s and 1940s, which meant that many of their memories of the "old days" revolved around the Great Depression and World War II - hardly good times. The past was best forgotten. They wanted to look forward to better times, not back to a past that was filled with widespread bloodshed and real economic hardship. They wanted cars were capable of transporting them to a better future, away from the not-too-pleasant past. That type of mindset encourages more experimentation.
Today, the stakes are higher, because auto makers offer more lines of vehicles - count the number of models offered by Ford, for example - and all of those vehicles must be updated every 5-6 years (except for, say, the Ford Panther cars, which are basically being allowed to fade away).
In the 1960s, if a car maker came up with a dud - as Chrysler did with the downsized Dodges and Plymouths for 1962 - it could restyle the entire car within a year. Today, there is less money for emergency facelifts, and new sheetmetal could affect crashworthiness or even fuel economy (more drag). That makes an emergency facelift much more expensive - and risky. Better to play it safe, especially when buyers don't necessarily reward innovation in design. The idea of taking a flyer is MUCH less attractive than it was 40-50 years ago.
Also, we've been conditioned over the past 20 years to think of the German cars as the technological leaders, and the Germans have taken a very conservative approach to design until recently. Their cars didn't change drastically over the years, and they were guided by function over form. Buyers took their cues from the leaders. Which makes it ironic that over the past 5 or so years the Germans, led by BMW and Chris Bangle, have been attempting to ad some "drama" to their cars, and others are following suit.
Now, I like the Enclave very much. My full response wonders just how distinctive it is though. The current market is full of CUV's with swooping, curvy sheetmetal. Sure the Enclave has details that clearly identify it being what it is and what it is not, but that is a crowded segment that is getting more crowded. Hard to stand out.
From Edmunds long term test blogs.
2008 Buick Enclave: Lasting Impressions
2008 Mazda CX-9: "Hey, is that the new Buick?"