The 100 Best Cars of All Time

jres · July 2000

The Trans-Am had a flamer on the hood which was appropriate since many of them succumbed to engine fires. 70's Camaros had the same problem of course.

Pulpfictionado · July 2000

If the PT Cruiser is ready 4 this list yet, but it looks like it.
MC= Monte Carlo
I 4got the Cizeta Moroder V16

Mr_Shiftright · July 2000

Hm...well, I guess if the 1965 Mustang can be a disguised Ford Falcon and make the "best list", then a PT Cruiser as a disguised Neon can qualify as well....if popularity makes a car a 'best', then the PT is a qualified candidate, but if it's more about looks and technology and performance, I wouldn't vote for it myself. I always think of "best" as something special, but that's just one angle on the concept.

lokki · July 2000

So far the PT cruiser is just an unusual looking vehicle. It does appear to have potential but
wearing a uniform like Babe Ruth's doesn't make you a great baseball player, or even a good one. It doesn't mean you can't become one but the PT cruiser has just entered the field and hasn't done anything yet. In fact, although I live in a major urban area, I've only seen one. (It was gray, and, frankly, didn't look as good in person). The PT Cruiser may become significant if other manufacturers follow it, or if it develops some Harley Davidson-like cult following.

So far, it rather reminds me of the AMC Pacer. Both are the result of a company thinking outside the box in styling. Both have generated great inital excitement and response (The Pacer wasn't laughed at until later in it's life.) Both are underpowered and of (potentially) dubious quality (Hey - remember - Neons are not exactly paragons of reliability. It won't take much of a stumble to turn the Cruiser into a loser... I think the lack of power may kill the concept despite it's positive potential. Remember, in terms of styling, space, and power this thing IS your Grandfather's oldsmobile.....

Mr_Shiftright · July 2000

One thing going for it is popularity. Just about every car that became a "classic" started off being loved, and I can hardly thing of a car that was despised or ignored when new that became a classic later on.

toomanychoices · July 2000

I've heard some good comments about the Edsel's style on Edmunds.

sgaines1 · July 2000

I really like them. So does my girlfriend. They're kind of cute in a pokey sort of way. Yes, I know, there must be something wrong with me.

Mr_Shiftright · July 2000

Well, liking them in no problem, but what I meant was is they have very little value because they were well-known for all the wrong reasons. People still don't like them enough to pay any serious money for them--sort of "oh, they're cute but no, I don't really want one!" Unlike TV or Hollywood or sports personalities, if a car develops a negative reputation, it usually hurts their career.

andre1969 · August 2000

I don't think Edsels were really the failures that history makes them out to be. And I think it was a recession that hit the middle-priced car market, not the car's styling, that hurt sales the most. As I recall, the Edsel was offered in 4 series. The 2 cheaper ones were basically Ford bodies with Mercury engines, and the 2 expensive lines series were basically Mercury's with Lincoln engines. I think Consumer Reports tested one with a Lincoln engine, and said it was the fastest car (0-60) that they had ever tested up to that point (keep in mind CR usually tested cheaper stuff like Chevies and Plymouths with the smallest V-8's available) I'm sure a car like that would be hard to sell during a recession. And for the record, something like 63,000 Edsels were made for 1958, compared with about 63,000 Chryslers, 137,000 Dodges, 49,000 DeSotos, and 150,000 or so Mercury's. So the car wasn't a TOTAL flop! I think around 45,000 were built on a much thinned-out 1959 lineup, and only around 3,000 for 1960.

Is it ugly? Sure it's ugly!! But I don't think a 1958 Edsel looks any worse than a 1958 Olds or Buick.
-Andre

andre1969 · August 2000

I know this decision will get a lot of flack, but at least they started a trend of fuel-efficient, space efficient modern cars that handled fairly well. They were actually smaller and lighter than a 1977 Malibu, but nearly as roomy (actually roomier in some dimensions) than the 1976 full-sized models they replaced. I believe they were also the last GM model you could actually TRUST the first year out (unlike the 1978 Malibu, which wasn't quite as good, and, well let's not mention the Citation, Cavalier, Celebrity, 1982 Camaro, Corsica/Beretta, etc ;-)
-Andre

Mr_Shiftright · August 2000

Well, your point on the Edsel is well taken, but Ford spent much more on this car then they ever made back, so in that sense 9rather than numbers produced as a guideline) it was a flop. Certainly enough corporate heads were chopped off. But then they had a great comback with the cheap and cheerful Falcon and the smash success Mustang.

I'd rate the 1977 Chevys as "utilitarian", which means honest enough to win some respect perhaps, but hardly exceptional. Like a good tractor maybe.

andre1969 · August 2000

I remember my grandfather telling me about a Model A he had when he was a teenager. He flipped it (I guess boys will be boys, no matter what the timeframe ;-) Anyway, it ended up on its roof. He got some friends together, and they uprighted the thing. I think he had to put oil in it, but that was about it for the damage. He also paid like 50 bucks for it.

How many Model A Fords did they make over the years, anyway. I heard they made something like 15 million Model T's, but I always wondered how the Model A stacked up.
-Andre

lobsterman · August 2000

in another town hall forum, sedans, owners of the late 90's olds aurora are saying that this car will become a classic one day. any opinions on this?

speedshift · August 2000

Nothing against Aurora, or Olds in general, but very few Oldsmobiles are (or will be) wildly sought after, at least based on my experience. W-30s might be the exception. If it's Detroit iron and it doesn't have a Ford, Chevy or GTO nameplate on it, the chances aren't good. Fifteen years ago I paid $1500 for a '63 Starfire convertible, loaded, powerful and in good condition. I probably would have paid at least twice that for the Chevy equivalent, a 409 Powerglide SS. Can't see that changing any time soon.

andre1969 · August 2000

I'd say the late 90's Aurora has a better chance of becoming a classic that any other Olds produced in the last 2 decades. Especially since they "de-prestiged" it for 2001. I know the auto reviewers seem to love the new Aurora, but it just looks too mainstream...kinda like an Alero up front and a Hyundai Sonata in the back...typical "committee" car.

The only other Olds models maybe of some interest from the 80's/90's might be the Cutlass 442/Hurst, the Cutlass Supreme Convertible, and maybe the 1980-85 Toronado. Personally I like the old rwd 88/98, because they're big, fairly reliable, comfortable, roomy, and just about every other adjective you can't use to describe a fwd Olds. I know they'll never be worth anything, but I still have a soft spot for big rwd cruisers.
-Andre

rabidbowtie · December 2000

Alot of 1958 models look alittle odd. That was the year 4-headlight technology was implemented. The oems tried to accomodate 4 headlights on body lines originally designed around 2 headlights. The 1957 & 1958 Rancheros are good examples. 1958 Corvette seems to be one of the exceptions. Throw in controversial redesigns of the Belair and Thunderbird in 1958.

Mr_Shiftright · December 2000

With a few notable exceptions, 1958 will (already has) go down as a rather dismal year for styling and quality in American cars.

andre1969 · December 2000

Call me weird, but I actually prefer a lot of the '58 model cars to the '57's. With the exception of Plymouth and the DeSoto Firesweep, I believe you could get any Chrysler car with either 2 or 4 headlights, and I think they actually look better with 4! With the exception of Buick and Olds, and to an extent, Mercury, the 1958 Big Three cars are pretty easy on my eye. What's really preposterous is those final-gasp Studebakers and Packards that had the hastily-contrived 4-light setups that featured unsightly bulges in the fenders to accommodate them!

I think the real styling-disaster year is 1959. Too much chrome, too many fins pointing in too many different directions, etc. Although it looks like Ford and Mercury picked that year to go (relatively) conservative.

Also, just a question. Some state laws allowed 4-headlight setups in 1957, hence the Mopars, Mercury's, and other cars that had the option of 2 or 4. But what about cars like the 1957 Lincoln and 1957 Nash? They came with 4 headlights STANDARD that year. No 2-headlight setups, period. Did this make them technically illegal in some states?

-Andre

Mr_Shiftright · December 2000

Interesting question...I'm not sure, but I dimly recall that there was "talk" of banning 4-headlight cars but that this was never seriously enforced. I presume the automakers just leaned on the right people.

Yeah, 1959 was also a year for unfortunate styling excesses...cars from this era may go down as "conspicuously noticeable" but I don't think anyone will ever seriously consider them "great"....great for what? Handling, styling engineering? These late 50s cars are in fact "bracketed" by interesting cars...the 1955 models, that broke the mold of pre-World War II styling...the first "modern" American cars! and then the mid-60s cars, with the muscle car craze, the Mustang & Camaro...not necessarily any advanced engineering here, but the 60s cars were for the most part tasteful enough, great performers (if somewhat brutal), fun to drive and very cleverly marketed.

So when you compare the late 50s winged and finned monsters with what came before and after, they don't stand up very well at all in my opinion. And the collectors seem to feel the same, although you can get big money for the occasional pink '59 Cadillac--there are enough people with money who enjoy the sheer over the top bad taste of that car...I'm rather amused by it myself. The late 50s cars seem to say "Sure, we are flamboyant, as big as aircraft carriers, shockingly ugly, and gas hogs, but....SO WHAT! Have a look at me...whoo, whoo!" They are "great" cars like Liberace is a "great" pianist or Marilyn Monroe a "great" actress.

cruizin67 · December 2000

I think they decade of 1960 was the best decade for the American automotive companies. Especially the year 1967. Seems like ever make had truly awesome "muscle cars" back then. Especially Ford. Ford has stayed on top as far as I am concerned in both innovation and design ever since.

Mr_Shiftright · December 2000

I think GM made Ford look good, but compared to the rest of the world, Ford was just as asleep as all American car companies when it came to design and styling mid 70s-mid 90s. The foreign companies really outthought and outdesigned American manufacturers. Possibly the only innovation to come out of America since the late 1950s was the air bag...but fuel injection (both mechanical and electronic), AWD cars, disc brakes, adjustable suspensions, effective turbocharging, FWD, radial tires, OHC engines, IRS suspension, V6 engines---all this came from Europe and Japan.

But fortunately, we are waking up...for styling I really like the Cougar, and the Corvette C5 shows that we can design a modern and innovative car.

speedshift · December 2000

Some of those Fords from the '70s and '80s were just as bad as anything from GM. The Tempo with its sawed-off Falcon engine, the first downsized T-Bird, Cougar stationwagons, the Fairmont--a lot of that stuff was pretty agricultural. Styling from the mid-'70s on was corny until the Taurus and '83 T-Bird. Ford woke up before GM but then, some people would say GM still hasn't got it right--many people.

Mr_Shiftright · December 2000

The talent to make great cars is there in American car companies, and I think it was there in the 80s. It's really a management issue--what the boys at the top will allow their teams to create. GM is so used to being on top and dictating what people will buy that they haven't noticed perhaps that they aren't King anymore.

Great cars are great the day they are built. You can't produce greatness from committees and focus groups...it's like with kids...the brilliant ones are trail-blazers, they aren't always doing exactly what their teachers tell them to do.

rabidbowtie · December 2000

All the GM exercize did was expose hypocrisy. The same people who were slamming the current GM offerings for lack of vision are now slamming the latest concepts and products founded from a more aggressive policy. The Evoc is a fine example.

I've seen people who for years, did nothing but bag on the old small block Chevrolet. Suddenly, Pepe has black shoe polish on his stripe and he's singing the praises of the old small block V8. "It's sooooo much better then this new LS1/vortec engine" he says. Give me a break!

A skunk can change its stripe but you'll never get that smell out.

Mr_Shiftright · January 2001

Personal attacks are not encouraged at Town Hall, so if you find your posts deleted, this means you tripped up on that particular rule we have here. Please feel free to repost without personal references to people's intelligence or physical characteristics. You may, of course, challenge their *Ideas* if you can do so courteously.

rabidbowtie · January 2001

That sounds like an invitation to reply. I'll take it.

Lokki, you made subjective, incorrect and contradictory statements (that's as nice as it can be put). For example:

You gave Ford high marks for it's 50's retro-styling calling it a piece of "americana", while blasting GM vehicles as "ugly and weird". A subjective comment but contradictory none-the-less. GM used retro-styling to create the SSR & Nomad.

Another contradiction came later by praising sleekness while ridiculing GM for "clunky" looks. I would love to see a wind tunnel comparison of the "sleek" retro-style T-bird vs the "clunky" Corvette which is stable to over 170mph.

You criticized GM for not building lightweight aluminum V8's, with RWD and IRS suspensions and went on to state the Japanese pioneered this in the 80s. First of all, take a close look at a ZR-1. Second, why criticize just GM? Where was Ford on that score??? Third, the Japanese pioneered nothing of the sort anyway. They offered a rwd irs V6 in a few models which was anything but revolutionary. The Turbo 300ZX is not exactly light with a curb weight of 3400 lbs.

You stated people would buy roomy cars if they were built with options the people wanted. That car already exists, it's called a wagon. There is no marketing evidence to suggest the suv trend is fading and the wagon industry is poised for a come-back.

There were a few more examples but we'll leave it at that.

lokki · January 2001

Name GM cars of the last 15 years that deserve to be among the 100 best cars of all time. Take your time...

Ford: Ford at least attempted the Taurus... a step forward for America in designing cars and a move beyond the parts bin mentality.
The Taurus wagon was a particularly handsome design. Sure Ford's quality sucks but that seems to be endemic to American Cars of the last decade, so they lose no points to GM there or to Chrysler.

I personally think that the new TBird is the old TBird as a guy of 58 is to a guy of 18. Fat and out of condition. I have no interest in the new one, but it fits my formula and it is predicted to be very very popular.

The concept car I refered you to is the Ford 49. Please look at that and see what you think. I made no comment about Ford cars otherwise.
Go and look at the new issue of Automobile Magazine.....it's on the cover.

GM Styling:

The Nomad is a great looking car that won't get built. It is exactly the type of car that I refer to.... isn't it? But it's designed on a dead platform. It never made the streets and never will, although another GM show car of the same period did. The Aztek. The SSR is great, if you like trucks. Let's see if it really does hit the market and what it looks like when it does - there's many a slip t'wixst show car and street car. Below is the link to the cars that I referred to. This is what GM is showing now. The SSR is conspiciously absent from this show, although I do note they've promised to produce it. I think that the new GM show cars look like they've taken Pontiac pills....and I think they are neither sleek or handsome. I don't care for them

http://www.edmunds.com/edweb/editorial/concept/gmpreview/index.html

Please tell me which of these cars you like.....and which one you'll but to replace your Camaro.

I like the Corvette, although the interior is cheap for a 50 K car.
The Corvette, however, is just an image car for Chevy, just as the Viper is for Dodge. It is a great car but not indicative of anything else the company does. Totally unrelated to the rest of the car lineup... except for the Camaro and the Firebird.... which are living dead and out of production next year.

Finally as for the Japanese- Quite a few Japanese sedans of the 80's offered IRS. The reference was to suspension design.... The Japanese did not attempt to sell full size sedans in America until the 90's and when they started, they did it better than the Americans; I refer you to the Toyota Avalon ... the better Buick.

rabidbowtie · January 2001

A good portion of your reply was based on personal subjective opinion. Absent of a double standard, this is not something I wish to debate. We'll agree to disagree.

There were a few things worth noting though:

- I don't believe in the premise of a best car
- The Taurus was the #1 selling sedan until that redesign
- This 49 you speak of was never the issue, it was the double standard
- Nomad: word says GM is quietly discussing possible production

An image car is the Mustang Cobra-R:
- Virtually unobtainable due to the high cost and low production numbers: 300
- Appears to have no specific purpose other then PR and car collections
- It came at a time of bad publicity (we all know what happened)
Mustang controversy is nothing new. Those over 40 remember the Boss 429

- Camaro dead? Gullibility and wishful thinking. GM already laid this to rest.
- 80's? IRS was under early 60's GM cars: Corvairs, Tempests, Corvettes

Mr_Shiftright · January 2001

I think the original spirit of this topic for "BEST" cars meant something truly exceptional, so one has to choose pretty carefully!

lokki · January 2001

I've had my fun with the topic above.

To get back on track, I've been pondering the absence of cars from the early part of the century in this topic, since it is "best cars of all time".

I wonder if we've left them off mostly because we have so little personal experience with them.
Lack of technological sophistication can't be the standard here, since that would only allow the latest and newest to qualify - all the 'best' under that standard would have to be from the last decade or so. I think that we've said influence on the future can put cars on the list
accordingly, here are some thoughts.

I've always thought that the Cord 810 was a great car in that it forshadowed so many things. Front wheel drive and a V-8 engine,hidden headlights, and a comparatively 'modern' look.

Going even earlier, what about the famous Stutz Bearcat? I admit to not knowing much about it except for the basics, but I seem to recall reading that it was the first of the 'sports' cars. Wouldn't that put it into our list?

Mr_Shiftright · January 2001

Certainly both of those deserve consideration....the Cord for styling and FWD...Stutz was technically a very interesting car, and the Bearcat really set a trend (along with Mercer) for what we today would call a "real" sportscar.

tjeep27 · March 2001

How can you make a list of the "best" cars of all time that includes European cars without including the Willy's MB. Without the succesful designing by Bantam and the competition sparked by Willys and Ford, there'd be no Europe to speak of. Everybody would be riding around in "people's cars" (volkswagens), if there had never been a jeep. Give the guy a chance to rewrite the list. I'd forgive him.

denniswade · March 2001

In terms of significance, the Jeep has to be right at or near the top. It was the most universally recognized and useful military vehicle of all time, great personal transportation that was capable of taking you absolutely anywhere you wanted to go, and so widely copied it can honestly be credited with starting the whole (detested, on these boards) SUV craze. Pretty impressive, if you ask me. Plus, like most purely utilitarian things, they were really cool lookin.

qbrozen · March 2001

Several people here mention the Willy. Definitely belongs on the list. A few people mention the Shelby Cobra (I'd prefer to put 429 after that name), and, Mr. Shiftright, you say that its too brutal to be on the car list. Well, I'll take the punishment anyday.

I also want to throw F40 out there. Probably due mostly to pre-days-I-could-drive dreaming than anything else. I think a racecar built for the street that was so cool they wouldn't even put interior door panels on it is a great angle. Not to mention that it held the 0-60 time from a production car record for many years.

Somebody a while back mentioned the Miata. I'm not sure why. The Alfa Spider was still being sold here in the states back when the Miata was introduced. Does better marketing make a top 100 car?

That list must have been created by an Alfa owner. There are just too many on there (not that I'm complaining, just observing).

I also think the Tucker DOES belong on there. If we're talking about innovation, then the safety advances that it brought to the table in an American built car qualify it.

Mr_Shiftright · March 2001

Yeah, I'd agree on the F40, too....pretty amazing car to put on the road!

I think the Miata deserves a place because the Miata renewed interest in the two seat roadster in America...without the Miata's successs, I doubt other carmakers would have followed with all the nifty roadsters we have now. Alfa would have been just one more failure in that market. It took the Miata to bring back the two seater to the USA. Also, it's a great little car, very competent, a true sports car, quality-built, tough, beautiful. Everything a sports car should be.

I think the Cobra 289 is really a much better car than the 427. The 427 is a nasty brute, typical American overkill-attitude of a good idea. This is what makes the 289 a "bargain" today--not only is it a way more pleasant and fun car to drive, it's rarer---and yet it costs less....go figure.The 427 takes a great little British sports car and makes it ridiculous. More is not always better, IMO.

The Tucker is a very interesting car, but severely underdeveloped......an innovative car in concept, but pretty awful in reality.....it's an evil-handling thing, and you can break the axles out of it in a heartbeat....so I'd definitely put it in the admirable car category, but "best" is a stretch for me...."Could Have" been the best is more like it, had Tucker not run out of money and not played so fast and loose with business practices. Besides all that, nobody followed Tucker...no big, rear engine four door sedans ever came .

Jeep, yep, very significant "car", and did a great job, too. Certainly one of the best "utilitarian" vehicles ever built.

I can see the reason for lots of Alfas on the list, and also the reason why most people today would not understand why so many are on the list. Alfa's glory days were long ago, but when they were hot, they were very hot. They dominated racing, won just about everything, and were technically very advanced cars. I believe someone may have already mentioned Henry Ford's well-known and well-documented quote: "Whenever I see an Alfa Romeo, I tip my hat".

qbrozen · March 2001

well, like I mentioned, does better marketing really make a better car? Yes, the Alfa Spider would have been just another failure, but I don't see what the Miata has over it in terms of handling, appearance, or quality over the Alfa. I definitely give it respect for bringing the roadster back into view of the general public, but that's it. And that's all marketing.

I thought about the earlier Cobras as well because, obviously, the big blocks didn't do anything for it except add more power. But, then again, wasn't that what it was all about. Leave it to Shelby to cram a big block V8 into the smallest car possible. And, to make something that could go 0-60 in less than 5 seconds back at that time was a wonder. I mention the 429 because, personally, I consider that the true Cobra. But that is completely subjective. The objective fact is that it was a thinner walled and lighter engine than the 427.

I'm not denying the validity of Alfa. I own one (as I think I read you did), I love it, and I think that Alfa has, without a doubt, contributed some of the prettiest and most fluid cars in history. I just think that if I had my 100 list, it would be a little more diverse. Well, then again, I may be biased towards Ferraris, so I guess I should shut up.

stealth1969 · March 2001

I think the M5 is pretty amazing. Take a 4 dr sedan that is only less than a tick slower than a Corvette on a road course, but is faster in the slolam, accelerates faster, brakes quicker, can carry 5 people and doesn't get the police attention. May not be one of the Best, but rather good at least.

denniswade · March 2001

As a former Alfa owner (and lifetime Alfisto -- they'll do that to ya), allow me to attest to the fact that the Miata is a better car in every way than its Alfa contemporary. It handled better, rode better, was quicker, had a higher top speed, better styling (subjective, I know, but I really detested the Alfa Spider once it lost the integrated look of the Duetto -- the Giulia and Giulietta were far superior, IMO), wouldn't leave you stranded, etc., etc. The car was a masterstroke, which is why it's still around and still the one to beat. The only Alfas in the last 50 years I'd put on the list would be the Giulia/Giulietta Spider and the GTV.

qbrozen · March 2001

I hate to keep beating on this one point. And, I swear, this is it from me about the Miata vs. Alfa. I still have to contest Miata being in the top 100 when we're talking about it merely being a 1-up on an existing car. Just because its faster doesn't mean it should usurp its predecessor. If that were true, we'd have to say that a new mustang should beat out the 64 1/2 on the all-time list. And we know that is just ridiculous.

I'm also not saying the Alfa spider belongs there instead, I merely used it because it was the easiest for me to claim being a predecessor to the Miata.

Mr_Shiftright · March 2001

I think it matters not only that you are FIRST or INNOVATIVE, but to be best requires HOW WELL you do something. The Alfa is better than an MGB and the Miata uplevelled the Alfa big time. The Miata is simply a brilliant car in every respect, whereas the MGB or Alfa were charming in certain ways and dismally deficient in others. The Miata just excels as the archtypal little sports car. It is everything that MG and Alfa should have been......EXCEPT....it's so good it's rather boring.

RE: Shelby and Cobras....even Shelby himself realized that stuffing the largest possible motor into the Cobra was not a good idea....when road racing the Cobra, he overpowered a number of his cars and was badly beaten because of it. The cars were too powerful and ungainly and hard to control.

If you get a chance to drive both the 289 and the 427, you can immediately see that the 289 is a delightful daily driver and a whole lot of fun...the 427 is ridiculous as a street car and a real chore....it's overdone except for the truly power-mad, of which there are "that type" certainly. But the "best" car is not always the fastest or the biggest.....it's the BALANCE, and the BEAUTY that makes a car special, IMO.

The loudmouth always gets NOTICED in public, but doesn't always win people's hearts.

speedshift · March 2001

Now he tells me. Oh yeah, I couldn't get mine out of the slow lane. Well, in those days I wasn't in a hurry.

qbrozen · March 2001

OK. well, in this case, I elect the NEW Alfa Spider. We already said that we can't limit this to U.S. soil. And, based on the pictures and specs and reputation for engineering, I believe the new Spider blows away the Miata. How's that? Or, better yet, how about the S2000. That's a Miata on steroids AND its got Honda reliability AND its MUCH prettier (again, subjective, but that seems to be where we've gone here).

I've got nothing against the Miata, really. I just can't swallow it being on the list of the top 100 cars of all time. That's a mighty big honor for a 4-cylinder roadster built in the 1990s that used to reside in the um-teen thousand dollar price range.

I'm going to stay away from the Cobra discussion. If I ever get to drive EITHER, I will die a happy man. 'nuff said.

denniswade · March 2001

but I have a feeling that iof the Miata had an Alfa badge on it, you'd be all over it.

WE aren't talking labels, "tradition" or other soft criteria here -- we're talking innovation and/or competence. The Miata was a brand new model that copied nothing from anybody except the exterior styling (and they chose a wonderful car to copy) and the exhaust note (which they spent something like $100k on, to get it just right), which they wanted to sound like the old British roadsters. Good for them! The innovation and competence were that they managed to give us the handling (much improved), performance (ditto) and styling (preserved in a modern steel body) wrapped up in an affordable, totally dependable package.

As for being "boring," I believe shifty's opinion is in the minority there -- every other magzine editor, owner and sometime user seems to love it.

qbrozen · March 2001

So I will be.

The Alfa badge has nothing to do with it. That's why I mentioned the S2000. I'd rather have that. Also, I own a Mazda, remember?

Mr_Shiftright · March 2001

Oh, by "boring" I didn't mean "not fun"....I meant that you can't enjoy the delicious thrill of wondering if you'd ever arrive at your destination.......the Miata is so reliable you don't even have to fiddle with it...I rather miss "messing around" with a car, and the Alfa never lets you down that way (although I must tell you that mine have been dead-on reliable cars...just not as "civilized" as the MGB.

On the Cobra, it's all a matter of taste, so I won't push that discussion anymore, but really, the Miata really deserves the status as one of the best cars of the 20th Century. Why? Because it was the first two seater that did the following:

fun to drive
incredibly reliable
very well built
beautiful
affordable
great aftermarket

There is no small, nimble, two seater you can name that is all those things at once (as of 1990, I mean). No Benz, no British car, no Italian car (Alfa is CLOSE, but not quite), no nuttin'........this is why it belongs on the list IMO.

lokki · March 2001

Is there any out there that is more interesting and beautiful than the Alfa logo?

Here it is for those who may have forgotten or (sob)never seen it.

http://www.favali.com/logo.html

Sadly, though I have to agree that the Miata deserves the spot on the list more than the Alfa Spider.

lokki · March 2001

Strange things afoot!

qbrozen · March 2001

Where does the Alfa fall through on that list? You said yourself that yours have been reliable, likewise so has mine. That 2 liter is a VERY strong engine. Its alot of fun. Very well built goes along with reliable. I think it is beautiful (again, subjective area). How much were they new? I'm unfamiliar with this. Mine was VERY affordable, but it was also 13 years old when I bought it.

The only thing I see in that list is the aftermarket. The aftermarket is very good for the Alfa. Great? Hmmmm... not sure. Again, that's subjective. I can get a couple grand of aftermarket parts for the Alfa. Seems good enough to me.

Sorry, but you're still not convincing me.

Mr_Shiftright · March 2001

Well, if we were talking about the late 50s Alfas, then sure, I think it would have to be on the list, because the little Giuletta gave the USA the first dohc 5-speed roadster....upon which, I might add, all modern roadsters are modelled. A beautiful, fun, decently reliable car that was well put together (unlike its Fiat brethren). The later 1750s Spiders weren't so hot because of the Spica injection system, and by the time the 2000 roadsters came out (the last model we saw in the USA, up to 1993), about all Alfa could give us was variable cam timing...quite a few years before Honda. But by that time, the 2000 Spider was a pretty old fashioned car, hardly the "best" anymore.

So the Miata was the "smash hit" of 1990 just like the Alfa was in 1955....man 1955-56 were great years for cars, wasn't they? Mercedes Gullwing, '55/56 Chevy, first V-8 Corvettes-- and I'm sure more I can't just think of right now. Definitely a "vintage" year!

speedshift · March 2001

That might explain the flags.

You guys sure know more about sports cars than I do, but it's an interesting conversation so I'll weigh in anyway.

There's no denying the Miata's effect on the car industry--and the boost in morale it gave car guys just by being around during some fairly dark days--but I never found it compelling.

A B was my daily driver for several years, and I drove my brother's Fiat 1500 and 850 regularly too and really enjoyed all of them, so I guess I like traditional sports cars. The B in particular had loads of personality.

So I wanted to like the Miata. I remember reading the first test in Road & Track and thinking Hallelujah there's hope for car enthusiasts.

So I take one out and well, I didn't hate it, but it was close. That $100k exhaust note sounded like a Protege with a bad muffler. Acres of black plastic. A nervous feel that the B and Fiats didn't have. Even the vaunted shifter didn't have the pure mechanical feel of the B.

On the other hand I loved the MX-3 V6 I drove at the same dealership, so maybe I'd "graduated" from sports cars to GTs--got old and lost my fastball without any warning.

The 100 Best Cars of All Time

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles