General Motors discussions

1138139141143144558

Comments

  • logic1logic1 Member Posts: 2,433
    http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000596/

    Jonathon Pryce is the British actor Nissan hired to promote the J in case potential US buyers missed the Jaguar connection.

    Apparently, they paid him too much.
  • paolopaolo Member Posts: 13
    It's too early to tell. Remember - GM is playing catch up as far as the design is concern. GM’s problem is far deeper than the car design itself. The real question is “how can GM afford to pay their retirees without sacrificing their profit margin?” GM has tack on $1,200 to the price of every car sold to pay for every GM retirees. Fortunately, GM has a lot of cash. As retirees are living longer, the stash “cash” won’t be.
  • m1miatam1miata Member Posts: 4,551
    With debt of what, say 15:1, and rising interest rates, I don't see how they can make it through this year. Obviously they have as they are still in business. As debt needs to be refinanced, as in new bonds issued, won't those get very costly with increasing interest rates and decreasing faith in GM? Oh well, not my worries. Much wiser and more knowledgeable people are on the books and figuring out the strategies. We can guess, wonder, scratch our heads, and well chat, but in the end, they got it right or they claim bankruptcy within a year. I haven't a clue as to how they keep afloat. Guess that is why they are paid the big money. For GM and their workers sake, I hope everything is looking better as they say it is.

    Personally, when I look at the GM cars which have the style and equipment for safety items and such, I find a couple good ones, but price and/or resale makes me pause and think some more about the decision. I am not slamming the car say, but only saying that car looks to be say $3K more on the retail than I would see it as, before negotiations of say another $2K off on the price.
    -Loren
  • nvbankernvbanker Member Posts: 7,239
    "The beloved Miata copied the Lotus Elan."

    Ok, whatever.... :blush:

    "I saw a GTO today...somehow it slightly reminded me of an early 90s BMW 8-series."

    I see what you mean, if you look at from the side only. But honestly, I often mistake it for a Grand Am if I don't look carefully.... The Pontiac DNA is strong there.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,120
    IMO, the J30 beared (bore?) a strong resemblance to the first-gen Altima. And that, to me, was a big part of Infiniti's problem early on. They just weren't that unique, with the exception of the Q45, which itself bore a faint resemblance to a '92 Crown Vic (I think the Q came first though?)

    Anyway, following in that tradition, the G20 looked too much like a Sentra, and evidently the public agreed, because it was a poor seller. From what I hear it's a shame though, because it was supposed to be one of the best-handling FWD cars out there. Then there's the I30, which WAS a Maxima, just with some Buick-ish styling cues thrown on.

    Then there was that M30 (I think that's what it was called) "coupe" (if you could call it that, it looked more like a 2-door sedan) and convertible, both of which looked an awful lot like they were based on my Mom & stepdad's old junk '91 Stanza.

    As for BMW? Well, honestly I think it's sad the direction they're taking. For years now, Pontiac has been accused of aping BMW, but now when I see these latest BMW's, at first glance I think of Pontiac! Sad, huh? :sick:
  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    STUPIDEST thing is to rent-to-own somethning like one of these televisions. Rentway, Aaron's etc. make a FANTASTIC profit. Sometimes some chump ends up paying over retail for a used TV! The rent-to-own market is there for those with the worst credit. In the end, you'll wind up paying $6,000 for that $2,000 hi-def television you wanted so bad rather than paying your gas bill and feeding your kids.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,120
    t's very good nothing else looks like a Monte, and the CTS can be debated. I don't know about that T-Bird comparison...there's only so much you can do with a big coupe.

    I'm seeing some J30 in that LaCrosse...


    Now that ya mention it, I do see a bit of J30 in that LaCrosse, too.

    As for the '89-97 T-bird, I vaguely remember reading, when they came out, that Ford DID look to the BMW 6-series for inspiration, mainly in the roofline. Another car that I thought had a passing resemblance to the 6-series was the '86-91 LeSabre and 88 coupes. IMO, the roofline did bear a strong resemblance to the 6-series, and the LeSabre T-type, in its blackout trim, looked about as "Euro" as a Buick could be back then!

    I don't know if GM was really going after the 6-series look or not, though. They could have just been going back to the look of the '77-79 LeSabre and Catalina/Bonneville coupes, which had large, triangular windows in back, before going to that personal luxury coupe formal look for '80.
  • logic1logic1 Member Posts: 2,433
    Yeah. Those rent to own companies are licensed to print money. I don't know why anyone does that. I'ld rather hang out at the local appliance store and watch the programming than pay that sort of mark up.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,120
    I don't think BMW would look to Pontiac for inspiration. That would be really sad, vinyl cladding, sculptured everything, and a dash that looks like a video game. Something happened to you and it is "sad".

    Oh I don't think that they REALLY looked to Pontiac for inspiration. But over the years, the two have started to get closer and closer together in styling. The Bangled-up styling has put a lot of unneccessary creases and jigs here and there, which IMO are almost as bad as some cladding. And BMW grille nostrils have gotten wider. They've gone from that "twin kidney" motif that was centered on a clean, unadorned horizontal grille to more of a Pontiac-ish looking split grille style. Now, I think the new 6-series coupe comes off really attractive, but I still see some Pontiac in it.

    Now don't get me wrong...I'd mistake a Gran Fury for a Diplomat before I'd mistake a BMW for a Pontiac. But I do still think that the latest BMW's, with their wider, Pontiac-ish grills, do look a bit, well, Pontiac-ish! :P
  • corsicachevycorsicachevy Member Posts: 316
    This discussion seems to prove my point. Everyone has been talking about how manufacturer X has been copying manufacturer Y with this or that model. GM can't afford to get caught up in copy-you-copy-me game.

    Is there anything out there in the concept car world from anyone, not just GM, that GM could use to create a mainstream "wow" factor?

    And by the way, BMW, like any auto manufacturer, will steal ideas and styling cues from ANY other manufacturer including Pontiac. We would all be foolish to think these things are put together in a vacuum.
  • driver100driver100 Member Posts: 32,678
    For years now, Pontiac has been accused of aping BMW, but now when I see these latest BMW's, at first glance I think of Pontiac! Sad, huh?

    Andre, you are usually very good with your analysis, but I think your dog must have kept you up last night...must have had the Animal Channel on!

    I don't think BMW would look to Pontiac for inspiration. That would be really sad, vinyl cladding, sculptured everything, and a dash that looks like a video game. Something happened to you and it is "sad".

    2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250

  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,120
    And by the way, BMW, like any auto manufacturer, will steal ideas and styling cues from ANY other manufacturer including Pontiac. We would all be foolish to think these things are put together in a vacuum.

    I think another thing that happens is that, as time goes by, when it comes to automotive style and design, there just becomes less and less that's been un-tried. So the further we go into the future, the more we'll see the "been there, done that" routine.

    Just think back to the late 1800's, when they started putting gasoline engines in carriages. There was literally a whole universe of untried, never-before-seen design and style ideas. But over the years we've seen the cars get longer and lower and wider, then shorter and narrower and taller. We've seen tailfins, wraparound windshields, and two-toning. We've seen styles with separate "bolt-on" fenders. We've seen upright, formal styles, low-slung sporty styles, angular styles, rounded styles, etc. We've seen single headlights, quad headlights, horizontal quad headlights, vertical quad headlights, slanted quad headlights. Round headlights, square headlights. Every possible taillight pattern under the sun. High beltlines, low beltlines, thick roof pillars, narrow roof pillars.

    There's really only so much out there to choose from, so you can probably look at just about any automotive design out there and see cues from some other time. Then, add to this the fact that there are only so many styles that are feasible. You can only make a car so small or low-slung before it gets to the point that people can't fit in it or it gets banned for being unsafe. And you can only make a car so big, or it gets to the point that nobody will buy it because it's too cumbersome/expensive/thirsty. And of all the styles in between, you still can't get too wild or unique, because the style still has to have some function, and be able to hold passengers and cargo. And aerodynamics further dictate which styles out there can be used, because of fuel economy concerns.

    You can really see this happen in just about everything. Housing styles, hair styles, clothing styles, etc. There are only so many different things you can do with hair or clothes or houses, before it gets to the point that you've seen it all before.
  • driver100driver100 Member Posts: 32,678
    I think another thing that happens is that, as time goes by, when it comes to automotive style and design, there just becomes less and less that's been un-tried.

    This is true, but there will always be new designs. Look at music, there are only so many notes, yet you can make endless songs.

    This has some good elements of design for a Ford. I like the Bronco while you are there. You might like there idea for a Mustang. Too swoopy and curvy for me.
    link title

    IMO the elements for good design in a car are;
    1) should be squarish...should look like what is is...a car
    2) large windows - sensible design is practical
    3) you should be able to judge the corners - again practical
    Things like dual headlights get dated because it isn't sensible practical design. Same with white walls, continental kits, landau rooves, etc.
    Back to basics...that '89 Gran Fury was a beaut, all the elements of good design.

    For more see;
    link title

    2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250

  • nvbankernvbanker Member Posts: 7,239
    "I don't know if GM was really going after the 6-series look or not, though. They could have just been going back to the look of the '77-79 LeSabre and Catalina/Bonneville coupes, which had large, triangular windows in back, before going to that personal luxury coupe formal look for '80."

    OR, they may have had absolutely NO IDEA what they were doing, and just took the first drawing they saw - which in the case of the MOnte Carol, was drawn by the new designer on dope.
  • 210delray210delray Member Posts: 4,721
    IMO the elements for good design in a car are;
    1) should be squarish...should look like what is is...a car
    2) large windows - sensible design is practical
    3) you should be able to judge the corners - again practical
    Things like dual headlights get dated because it isn't sensible practical design. Same with white walls, continental kits, landau rooves, etc.
    Back to basics...that '89 Gran Fury was a beaut, all the elements of good design.


    I suppose, except for the quad headlights, the '61 Chevy Bel Air my mother once had would qualify for all of the above. I know you could see all 4 corners from the driver's seat. Nice looking car to boot, better than the outlandish '59 and '60 Chevys that preceded it.

    '89 Gran Fury -- uh, I don't think so; this isn't a paragon of great car design, even though it has the elements you list (sorry Andre).
  • 210delray210delray Member Posts: 4,721
    Wouldn't the 1990-93 Accord qualify for the above? Plus it's good looking, IMO.

    Lo and behold, my '98 Nissan Frontier also qualifies, although I don't think anyone would nominate it for any beauty contests!
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,799
    Wouldn't tailfins kind of fall under the "dated" thing though? Not really sensible or practical.

    But the rest is very sensible...shows why so many old MB have aged pretty well.
  • xrunner2xrunner2 Member Posts: 3,062
    Wouldn't the 1990-93 Accord qualify for the above? Plus it's good looking, IMO.

    That was a very elegant style. It has and will survive the test of time for good design. Can't think of "any" GM styled sedan of early 80's that was done as well.
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738

    There's really only so much out there to choose from, so you can probably look at just about any automotive design out there and see cues from some other time.


    And yet, a 1975 Mercedes 450SL still looks as unique today.

    Trust me - it's not the design elements - it's the groupthink designers the colleges are churning out.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,120
    are very practical. They make it easier to guide the car when you're backing up or parallel parking. They allow for higher mounting of taillights, for better visibility by other drivers. Also allow for a higher mounting point for an antenna, giving you better radio reception. They also increase trunk volume, as they are hollow inside. And if designed correctly, they add stability at highway speeds. Well, okay, at 80-90 mph highway speeds! And if not properly designed, they just allow you to lift up the rear end of your car once you get it up to around 100 mph, like on a '59 Chevy! Or so I've heard...never tried it myself!

    And yeah, I was reaching some for the advantages on those tailfins, although to be honest my '57 DeSoto never was that hard to parallel park, considering its size.

    As for the Gran Fury/Diplomat, I wouldn't call them a timeless design. They're not the most beautiful cars in the world, but I don't think they're ugly, either. One thing that really did impress me about their design, though, and this is a sore point with me on many cars, but on the M-body Chrysler was able to get the rear door windows to go almost all the way down. They only stick up about an inch and a half. In contrast, Ford only got the Crown Vic windows to go down about 3/4 of the way back then, and the Caprice only rolled down half-way!

    I think the M-body does look a bit dated. Has kind of a neoclassic look to it that wore well in the 80's, and now that the 300C has undone the evolutionary progress made by two generations of Intrepid and Concorde, the M- doesn't look so bad. I do think the R-body (the '79-81 full-size) looked much more modern than the M's, though.

    Another thing I like about the M-body is that Chrysler usually put 15x7 wheels on them and they had a fairly wide track, which gave them a nice, well-planted look. The sides of the bodies didn't seem to overhang the tires as much as on most other cars of that time.

    I think the '90-93 Accord has aged very well. It did have nice proportions to begin with though, and was just rounded off enough to look modern, but not as over-the-top as a Taurus, '91 Caprice, etc.

    And I know y'all will disagree with me on this one, but I think the '87-91 Camry is a nice looking car. Again, nothing to get excited or orgasmic over when you see one, but easy on the eye and well-proportioned. The Mazda 626 from around '88-92 I guess, had a very similar style. It also had a hatchback that I thought was really sharp which is saying something I guess, because normally I don't like the style of hatchbacks.

    About the only GM cars that I'd really like the style of from the '90-93 era are maybe the '90-92 Brougham and the '91+ Park Avenue. I like the Caprice and Roadmaster, and bathtub Fleetwood, but only because they're big, RWD, and V-8. IMO styling isn't their strong suit!
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,120
    Well, one thing I'll say for the M-body Gran Fury, is that it seems to hold up pretty well in side impact crashes, but not so well in withstanding rollovers! :surprise:

    And yeah, I'd say those old 70's Benz SLs were pretty classy! :P

    For the most part though, I just don't find most late 70's/early/mid 80's styles to be ugly. Sometimes dull and nondescript, and conservative. I always kinda liked this front-end style, because the way the grille curves up under the headlights and contains the turn signals, it makes me think just a bit of a 1960 DeSoto. So see, even way back then I could still find stylings cues lifted from older cars!
  • grbeckgrbeck Member Posts: 2,358
    I always liked the 1994-97 Accord, although it was apparently "too small" to compete effectively with that era's Camry.

    And I like several full-size Fords from the 1960s - 1961, 1962, 1963, 1965, 1966 and 1967.

    Recently I talked to a 78-year-old aunt, and the conversation turned to cars that she had once owned. Her favorite car? Her 1959 Cadillac Coupe De Ville (don't tell Mr. Shiftright!).

    Why did she like it? The ride, comfort...and that she could see all four corners of the car, thanks to those tailfins and wide, flat hood!
  • driver100driver100 Member Posts: 32,678
    And yet, a 1975 Mercedes 450SL still looks as unique today.

    This design is a classic good one that will look good 100 years from now. Along these lines there is also a 55 to 57 T-Bird, I would say looks better than the newer one.

    Some cars mentioned are also good designs, from the Frontier Truck to the 89 - 90 Camry, 90 - 93 Honda. 61 Chevy is excellent and I liked the 65 Galaxie at the time...looks a little weird now because the wheels are in too far. These are designs you don't get tired of because they have simple lines that never go out of style

    Andre, your 89 Gran Fury has all the right elements of design, unfortunately those cars are UGLY! :D

    2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250

  • m1miatam1miata Member Posts: 4,551
    Looks to me like the Fusion. Well, and larger and richer looking one. The Fusion and Milan/Zephyr project was well done, I think.
    -Loren
  • m1miatam1miata Member Posts: 4,551
    I take it you may not like a Porsche ;)
    -Loren
  • m1miatam1miata Member Posts: 4,551
    Early 90's Japan makes had the rounded, smoothed Euro look without the too tall door and small windows of today's cars. The best Camry was no doubt the 1992 look. Dittos for the Celica. Then there was the Stealth/3000, and the Z's looked awesome. What's up with the current one? Almost forgot a side window and the front is but a slit.
    -Loren
  • chuck1959chuck1959 Member Posts: 654
    100K? hmmmmmm...then why don't I see more of them?
  • logic1logic1 Member Posts: 2,433
    Trust me - it's not the design elements - it's the groupthink designers the colleges are churning out.

    You may be on to something.

    Auto design is increasingly done by a small group of people working in specialty shops in West LA.

    You know these people hang out, attend the same seminars, etc. and probably switch employers pretty frequently.
  • logic1logic1 Member Posts: 2,433
    100K? hmmmmmm...then why don't I see more of them?

    What are there, 60 million cars on the roads in the US today? What percentage or 60 million is 100k? .6%?

    That means even if the figure is correct, 99.4% of the cars you have a chance to see would be something other than the Lucerne.

    As it is, Buick sold 7,311 Lucernes last month. That equates to around 88k. So about 99.5% of the cars you see would be other than the Lucerne.

    Long and short, unless a car model sells in the range of 1 million of more per year, your chances of seeing one among the millions of cars out there are not all that great. Better to confirm sales numbers with the hard facts, not sight observations.
  • m1miatam1miata Member Posts: 4,551
    Then you liked 1964-65 Fords and Chevy line when most were rectangular in shape.

    The Tiburon, while stealing some ideas from Ferrari 456, is one awesome looking car in its price range.

    What happened with the Jetta. Every so many years, they kinda improved on a signature look, then all the sudden it looks Japanese in the rear quarter. And BMW, we don't even need to talk about. The 3 is OK. Some high priced coupe are looking good. The 7 went kaput. Must say that flame design grows on ya, or maybe not. I kinda like the Z4 effort at coming up with new. Makes it look more exotic. If you want same o'l - same ol', anything like the old Mercedes SL, the Mustang, or Miata will do. All classic lines. With the Z4 they took the long hood, which is signature to having power, with the short tail for sport, and added flaming curves for motion, even while parked. The first time I saw it, I didn't know if they had lost their minds or not. It is rather radical, like the GM Arts & Science of the CTS. I guess if you don't mind blending in with the rest, perhaps simple, like the Sonata and Azera works. Those cars look good. To have character, or great looks, it takes a bit more uniqueness. Some have good looks, like the Miata, but I they are borrowing on personality and character from the Lotus. Guess that is a good thing, as in a poor mans Lotus with built proof reliability. But now we are talking package. It is a good package. To have your own personality, perhaps in looks the Z3 got it right. It too borrows from the past, but speaks a little more loudly, like hey look at me. The Miata look was sort of a softer Lotus Elan, and will stand the test of time. Kinda like the agressive look of the Tiburon and Z3. The Datsun/Nissan Z's had some good years. The Porsche Spyder, 911,944, and 914s are all cool. Well maybe a six only for the 944, unless you got lots of time to get to 60 MPH :surprise:
    -Loren
  • m1miatam1miata Member Posts: 4,551
    Owned an Opel Manta Rallye back in 1973. Now that is a look they could bring back. Actually the coupe AND that neat little GT. At the time I looked at the handling stats for the GT and they lagged the Manta Rallye. No doubt the light tail stepped out on those GT cars, which were miniature Corvettes.

    Come to think of it, there were a lot of good looking cars back in that period. The Cutlass around '72 looked great. Then there was the Camaro. My o' my, now we have the current Malibu and other bland - blah cars. I realize most people do not come close to liking the Monte Carlo, but at the least, I would say it is something original in the current line up. The Impala looks better than ever, as a Japan car, say a larger looking Accord. Where is the unique in that? Call me crazy, as others will, but I kinda liked the C3, C4 and C5 Vettes better. Not saying the current ain't an awesome car, just got a strange feeling that it is getting away from what I see a Vette as. Maybe it is just me. And yes, if you gave me one, I would be dancin' in the street!

    I think the Fusion has more snappy stylin' than does the Impala, and GM needs to get on the drawing boards with something better. Or maybe not, as the RWD is likely already done, with design chosen and we will see the concept car next year? Hey, bring back the old tail lights.
    -Loren
  • driver100driver100 Member Posts: 32,678
    take it you may not like a Porsche

    I know people really like Porches but I think the square Porches like this 1971 914 looks better than those round kind;
    link title
    And then about a 1967 Jaguar XKE is rounded and curved but is still a great classic car;
    link title
    There are some cars that can still look good with that bubble look, but overall I think simple straight lines will always look good. Saw a 58 T-Bird the other day, they look better than most of the new cars out there. A little updating on that, like Fusion headlights would make a great looking car...for style I would like it more than a Camry...and if it had the same reliability I'd buy one before buying a Camry or almost anything else.

    2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250

  • logic1logic1 Member Posts: 2,433
    Or maybe not, as the RWD is likely already done,

    You have made this claim on many occaisions.

    If anything, I think the facts argue RWD will continue to grow.

    Stabilitrak and other computer aided traction devices continue to make RWD (which is not all that difficult for even a modestly experienced driver to master in the first place) ever easier to drive.

    RWD cars tend to have better front rear balance meaning better overall ride and handling, even with the nanny driver systems on.

    RWD also has a luxury and bling cachet, with the popularity of Lexus, BMW, Benz and the big Chrsylers, to name just a few.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,799
    Is there a limit to practicality? Fins in a 1955 car (or a fintail for example) vs a 59 Caddy or some way-out Mopar. They are a good corner aid yeah.

    Two great homogenous designs are the MB W124 and W126.
  • driver100driver100 Member Posts: 32,678
    Then you liked 1964-65 Fords and Chevy line when most were rectangular in shape.
    I'll try to follow your thought m1;
    Actually, I like a lot of the cars at that time...62 to 70 Fords, Chevies and I liked Chryslers with their boxy style and huge windows. They even had a ridge that went from the front to the back to see exactly where the edges are (Dodges and Chryslers).
    European designers come up with classic designs and the BMW Z3 and 4 look good. The 3 series has beautiful flowing smooth lines, although I prefer a 10 year old BMW, more square. The 7 Series is a little radical but I think it quietly distinguishes itself from Lexus and the others - until they copy.
    About the Jetta. Although reliability is a weak point, it has great handling (from what I have read), and comes with safety features like ABS. It is a fun car, and IMO they get points for coming out with a sensible pleasing style that is pretty unique. The back end looked a little better one or two models ago, but maybe they were increasing the trunk size.

    CTS is an example of a great design IMO. Square smooth lines, good glass area, simple and classic.
    Sonatas, Kias, Honda, Camry, Mazda are mostly pretty good. A few curves but mostly simple and sensible.
    The Miata is great for a sports car concept and it is building on the original MG. Of course it has brought out more copy-cats but from what I have seen, Miata is the leader in this segment for cost and performance.

    What is the difference between almost any old Mercedes which looks good even today, and a Buick Century from about 1980 to 2005 which was Ok at the time, but is better to forget about now? It is hard to pin down, but a key point is the MB has sensible styling is not fadish in any way.

    IMO the latest claim to fame for GM is the Arts and Science Caddie. With leading original styling like that, there is hope.

    2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250

  • driver100driver100 Member Posts: 32,678
    Two great homogenous designs are the MB W124 and W126.

    These are 2 of my favorites, especially the 124. The rear trunk lid is beautiful with those bevelled edges. We had a 10 year old one as a loner and it is beautiful to drive. The steering is like it is on rails and you get a precise feel of the road, the sight lines are really good and it has that beautiful hood to look out over...and you can see the whole hood. Dash is simple but everything is easy to see. The doors close with a solid vault like thump (can't say clunk). The 126 is also classicly styled, you would never get tired of that styling. I prefer these cars to their similar newer versions.

    About those fins. They are good up to a point and do make some sense. But, if you can design a car without them it is better...too much of a fad. My Dad had a 60 Ford with the sideway fins and he actually banged it on a parking meter on his way OUT of a parking space....they overhung the side so much....and he was a good driver too!

    2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250

  • nvbankernvbanker Member Posts: 7,239
    "What happened with the Jetta. Every so many years, they kinda improved on a signature look, then all the sudden it looks Japanese in the rear quarter."

    Oh, no kidding!! I mistook one today for a Corolla!! That's an insult to the mighty Jetta.....
  • 210delray210delray Member Posts: 4,721
    Most of the usual suspects are on there, but how in blazes did the LeSabre make the cut?

    Then again, it's just the number of complaints divided by sales. What if the same person complained multiple times about the same problem? By sales, do they mean annual sales or a longer period? Hard to tell.
  • 210delray210delray Member Posts: 4,721
    Actually, I do prefer curvaceous cars in general. I was just listing the '61 Chevy as an example following driver200's maxims of good car design.

    Now the '61 is good for its cleanness, but I really prefer GM's large cars of 1965-66, especially Pontiac. The '66-'67 GM intermediates also were very nice looking (Pontiac best again), and of course the '63-'67 Riviera and '66-'67 Toronado. And I have to mention the '63-'67 Corvette Sting Ray. Then we had the redesigned intermediates of '68-'72: the 2-doors had a real sense of style, and there was no badge engineering!

    These were the salad days of Bill Mitchell; sadly, I don't think GM can recapture that kind of magic.
  • logic1logic1 Member Posts: 2,433
    These were the salad days of Bill Mitchell; sadly, I don't think GM can recapture that kind of magic.

    At least in the mass market Mitchell designed for, I don't think any manufacturer can recapture that kind of magic.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,799
    No MB on that list...surprising.

    On the good design topic....I've been trying to think of 1970-1990 GM cars that worked well. I'm not coming up with much...I suppose some of the 1977 downsized cars were decent enough designs, if left plain and not pimped out...same for the 75 Seville....the 79-85 Eldo is fairly clean for the time (but it cannot have pimpy grilles/wheels/tops etc). Most of the smaller cars seem pretty crappy.

    I find the MB W124 and 126 very pleasing to my eyes. I've always had admiration for those models.
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    You may be on to something.

    Auto design is increasingly done by a small group of people working in specialty shops in West LA.


    Having grown up and spent most of my life here, I can say that this is the case. Shoot - I drive three miles away from the College of Art and Deisgn in Pasadena every day on my way to work, and for a year, right past their second Pasadena annex(other side of the city - in the industrial area). The problem is that the design elements are taught and then graded by "experts", namely, the professors, so barring extreme designs, the results are pretty much the same homogenous ones by the time the auto makers get through with it.

    The same is true for archetecture. What GM needs is to throw away the book and hire another Warhol or Frank Lloyd Wright - someone who thinks outside the book.

    Mazda and Chrysler seem to have done it - and the results are much more pleasing. At least half of both makers' lineups are recognizeable and decent looking(I really like the Ram pickups and the future Wrangler pickup a lot). The RX-8 and Miata looks as clean and nice as ever.

    GM? I saw an Infinity a couple of days ago - and did a double-take, because from the side, it looked exactly like the Lucerne. Not bad, mind you, but you could see the "jellybean" in it.

    Me? I own a Mercedes W111/112. Timeless and beautiful. Handles like a late-80s/early 90s Buick, which is to say, like a normal modern car. Great daily driver and well, looks fantastic.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_W112

    Seriously look at that picture. That's gorgeous, even today. Nothing except maybe a Porsche 911 or something like a Lutous Elise looks as nice and unique today. The designers really need to stop and get back to the basics.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_W111
    That's a picture of mine, just mine's the "little tail" second version, which I find to be a tad more pleasing and streamlined. It also has about ten more HP, due to better more "modern" carbs, plus fancy options like power steering.(heh)

    The W112s, though, are the real gems of the era, with 200HP at the wheels and an optional 5 speed gearbox, enabling it to go well over 100mph. :)
  • m1miatam1miata Member Posts: 4,551
    Yes indeed, very good those old designs. How about the current SLK. Good effort in a modern day Mercedes.

    Has your Mercedes gone up in value? In our neighborhood, we have someone with a nice coupe. And the older ones just look so solid. And there is of course around three of those SL older year convertibles around. People do like to collect and drive them. I bet some have lots of miles on them, as they are not just used of weekends like a lot of Vettes.
    -Loren
  • driver100driver100 Member Posts: 32,678
    Me? I own a Mercedes W111/112.
    That is a gorgeous car and nicer than 95% of the cars out there on the road today. The fin is a nice touch, it was done because it was the thing to do at the time, but it was done in an elegant way...not over the top.
    My favorite sedan is the MB 124 because of the squared of rear deck and the soft front.
    But that W111/112's are beautiful as are all MB's.

    2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250

  • chuck1959chuck1959 Member Posts: 654
    That makes a lot of sense.
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    My 230S is identical to the 220S other than a little bit different fins(we're talking about half an inch or so) and the engine's displacement. The 220SE has about the same HP as my 230S, but other than that - hardly any difference)

    The interior, though - the second generation 230S(66-69, IIRC) was a more budget car than the older 220S/SE, though - so mine has a lot less wood and more vinyl.

    I'd love to find a pristene W112 LWB as well. :)
  • wildsywildsy Member Posts: 2
    Talking about modern cars and GM "today" the question is "will styling save GM" and the answer is no. GM had its glory days only because there was a lack of competition. Now the market consists of lower priced cars (Korean manufacturers) and higher quality manufacturers (Japanese) and more prestigious manufacturers (European). Styling just won't cut it in this competitive environment.
    First, GM needs to kill the old fashioned iron block, push-rod engines. Next, GM needs to create higher quality interiors. The new large SUV's by GM have done this. GM needs to worry more about creating cars that customers want (Aztek) then creating something and discounting it to a price that consumers will buy it. The Malibu (Maxx) is a wonderful car, with good underpinnings but is ugly.
    Overall, GM needs to make better cars period. With its current offerings, the market does not need GM for value or quality.
  • grabowskygrabowsky Member Posts: 74
    How about the Olds Cutlass/Chevy Monte Carlo?
  • nvbankernvbanker Member Posts: 7,239
    I agree with you. Styling might save GM, but even if they had that knack these days, which they definitely don't, it wouldn't be enough in today's world.
This discussion has been closed.

Your Privacy

By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our Visitor Agreement.