There's a guy here in ABilene that has an old 1970 Charger half-buried under clutter in the driveway (Don't know the guy, but I saw the car!) It's painted Hemi Orange, and it caught my eye because I thought I saw the General Lee in somebody's driveway! Couldn't see the front end, but I could tell it was a 70 from the doors. I'd kinda like to have an old car like that, and paint it to look like the General Lee. (Of course, this would come behind getting my Mercury fixed, acquiring a '02 T-Bird convertable, as well as a Jag XJ6/8, and since I already have a T-Bird....I'd better get a big garage ;-)
Voting for Auburn Boat tail Roadster as the nicest design ever - and the progenitor of the 71-73 Buick Riviera that I also lusted after as a teenager.
Of the cars I've owned, my present '00 Bonneville SE and my all time favorite car - a '73 Buick Centurion (which replaced Wildcat in 71) convertible - oh how I loved that car!!
I'm also partial to the 79 - 85 Eldorado as well as earlier Caddies - the bejeweled models of the early 60s.
Andre - nice to see you again - I think the tail of my Bonnie looks a bit like the back of the previous edition Intrepid and I like that style.
I remember reading an article in Road & Track about 15 years ago on this very topic. The writers at the time were asked what they thought were some of the most beautiful production cars ever built. The article specifically looked at only production cars, not one-off, custom jobs, or cars built for marketing purposes like the ones you see at auto shows. The article's definition of a production car included a stipulation that a minimum number of cars had to be built during the run of the car. I believe that number was 500 but it could have been as low as 100 per year.
Anyway the car that won was the 1961-1967 Jaguar -Type. Oddly, the writers said that the coupe was far more attractive than the convertible. The later Jags did not make the list becasue changes to the body brought on by meeting more stringent U.S. safety standards.
A few days ago some kind of '60s Ferrari-red Ferrari blasted past me and talk about charisma. Seeing one at a concours is one thing, but seeing--and hearing--one in motion is something else.
The Lancia Aurelia Spider, the earlier style of 1953 or '54 with the Corvette-style wraparound windshield is WITHOUT A DOUBT (alright, it's a question of taste but nevertheless...) WITHOUT A DOUBT the most beautiful body ever.Just find a good example or photo series of one and see it for yourself.The Lancia Flaminia SS Zagato (the later style of,like...'65 or '66) is also incredibly pretty.The engineering underneath the skins of the older Lancias just as as wonderful as the exteriors, moreso in the case of some of their exteriors.
Best looking car of all time is the early 60s Lincoln Continental (as convertible or 4-door suicide HT). The very definition of smooth. This came after the absurd late 50s Lincolns (and just about every American car was looking kinda funky and excessive). They kept the same body for most of the 60s, but unfortunately they had to change it eventually, when they started cheapening it and putting creases in the body. Eventually, the ugly Mark cars came about, and Lincoln lost its style edge over Cadillac as we entered the wretched 70s.
To me, those '61-'65 or so Continentals are archetypal of how a "car" should look. Other cars may be beautiful, but those Lincolns cannot be faulted stylewise. Unfortunately, politicians parading around in them tended to cheapen their appeal.
Instead of Ford making the modern Lincoln look like a bulbous Crown Vic, they need to jump on the retro wagon and bring back the early 60s.
But the '56 Continental MkII and '56 Premiere Hardtop Coupe were gorgeous. Sleek, elegant and rich-looking, they were among the very best of their time. (But you're right -- they went quickly downhill for the rest of the decade.)
I like the new Neons. You look at one and they look right back at you. The Echo is another cute car for those with poor taste. Aztec is a manly kind of ugly for those who are having an identity crisis. What about the Focus. The street walker said "yeah,bowf ov us". How about the Sonata,Frank There are alot more of good looking ugly cars. I need more time to think.
Having been around since the 1933 Packards hit the showroom floors, I have a broader perspective on the subject. From a classic perspective, the early to mid 30s classics (Duesenberg, Packard, Pierce Arrow, Peerless, Marmon, Lincoln, Cadillac, etc. are without peer. That being said, many great looking cars were built in succeeding decades. It all depends where you're coming from. BTW, I think my '85 Porsche 911 is a modern classic.
I think attractiveness is dependent on time, too. If a car looks good ten, twenty, thirty years after it is built, then one might be more comfortable calling it beautiful.
Some cars are what I call "period attractive"--not necessarily standouts compared to all cars of all time, but rather good within its class. I think many of the suggestions here fit into that category It would be personally difficult for me to call any domestic car of the 80s anything more than perhaps "period attractive". Generally mass-produced cars don't acheive lasting admiration for beauty. It takes a special car to catch and keep the eye of the beholder.
Not all old cars, or even old Packards or whatever, are attractive. I think most of the 1920s sedans, for instance, are rather ugly, as are many of the late 30s domestics, and even early postwar domestics (1946-47).
has to do with car companies' basic conservatism. They're afraid to take too much of a chance on a radical new design, so they produce "transition" models which have some of the newer elements melded into the old to get people used to the new look. This almost invariably produces a badly compromised design that has the elegance and integrity of neither the old nor the new. Once in awhile when they DO take a chance (as Ford did with the Taurus and audi did with the TT), we are blessed with a really wonderful design.
The other issue is rarity -- it's hard to get all worked up over a car that sells 100k units a year, whereas it's always exciting to see a Ferrari -- even the ugly ones!
1972 Ferrari Daytona Spyder with V12, 6 webers, chain driven camshafts, wire wheels, wooden steering wheel, could go 180 mph on open Arizona highways....also Ferrari 250 SWB, and the Ferrari GTO. Very erotic and exotic. With these cars you don't need a girlfriend or mistress!!
Er...Denniswade, there is nothing whatsoever "really wonderful" about the Ford Taurus design, except to a female catfish in heat. The rest of us find it ugly. The TT's not the best looking car in the world, but it kinda grows on you. The reason that car companies are so afraid to take monumental leaps with car designs is because more often than not they fail miserable. When the Chrysler Airstream first came out, people thought it was strange looking. Ford edcided cars could be made completely with elipses, and people thought it was strange looking. Pontiac decided SUV's could be made completely without elipses and people think it's strange looking. It is very rare that groundbreaking revoloutionary changes in styling catch on in a big way. In fact, you can see a slow, steady evoloution of cars from 1900 to present. Change in styling needs to be gradual. If (really big if) you could get all of edmunds town hall to agree on one truly gorgeous 2001 model car, packaged it in a big brown box and took it back in time to 1930, and unwrapped it, people would say it's the ugliest car ever made. We didn't go from fenders, running boards and boattails to the cars of today overnight. The public had to have time to adjust.
If the Taurus would have been considered truly ugly by the majority of car buyers, it wouldn't have sold in the numbers that it did. The Chrysler Airstream you mention was a sales flop as is the modern equivalant of the truly ugly vehicle, the Aztek. Most manufacturer's only take risks with styling when they are desperate, and go along with the mainstream styling to avoid offending current taste. The 85 Taurus was designed at a time that Ford was in severe financial trouble, otherwise it would have been styled like the Fairmont or 81-86 LTD II.
Gotta remove the spaces on the links. Whoever it was that nominated the 80's Dodge Ramcharger as one of the most beautiful cars of all time ought to be hosswhipped.
was the Gen1 -- which was a radical departure from Detroit styling and, I thought, quite a wonderful design -- expecially the station wagon. Quite a few people agreed with me too, based on sales and the influence it had on other domestic car-makers. The Gen2, on the other hand, was a styling disaster (your reference to it as a catfish in heat is absolutely accurate in my book) and was based on the false assumption that if it was radical, it would sell. The Gen1 Taurus didn't sell because it was radical (in fact, it looks very conservative by today's standards) -- it sold because it was beautiful. The Audi 5000 really set the new standard for sedans of the period, and predated the Taurus by several years.
And the Audi 5000 really swiped the design from the NSU Ro80, the first rotary engine sedan that was mass-produced. So the "melted ice cream" look goes back to the late 1970s, quite some time before Taurus took it up and in fact, saved Ford's butt at the time.
OK, OK, I see now. Yes, the Gen 1's are good looking, if a bit bland by modern tastes, but wasn't that style pioneered (at least by Ford?) by the Fox-body T-Bird in 83? And FWIW, When Ford switched from the Gen1 to the Gen2 Taurus, the car immeadiately fell from #1 in the country to #3. Of course, the class it competes in has never been one where styling is a major factor, or else it might have fallen to # 34534.
Breakthrough beautiful styling may not be, but ugly cars don't sell in volume. From #1 to #3 in mid size sedans isn't that great of a drop, the Camry, Accord, and Taurus have been swapping those spots for years. The Camry and Accord are bland, but not unnattractive. The Taurus was a much bolder, albeit controversial design. Actually the Taurus was still #1 in 1996, the first year of the Gen 2, it dropped later after updates to the Camry and Accord.
with the Gen2 Taurus as well -- including the fact that people thought it had been down-sized (it hadn't -- the styling just made it look smaller) and the goofy instrument panel that tied in the stereo and HVAC controls so that there was no way to upgrade the stereo. In their single-minded attempt to work the Ford oval into every asspect of the design, they basically blew it.
And while shifty's point about the Ro80 is partly valid, the Audi 5000 didn't resemble it much, other than the fact that it was smooth. The crispness and elegance of the Audi simply eclipsed the other sedans of the time. If it hadn't been for that BS 60 Minutes "expose" of the unintended acceleration baloney, it would have continued to dominate the market.
What cracked me up about the unintended acceleration hoopla was that every guy who's ever drag raced a car with an automatic transmission knows that you can't overcome the brakes with the engine -- that's how you stage the car! You put your left foot on the brake and rev the engine with your right foot until the rear wheels start to spin. When the light turns green, you take your left foot off the brake and off you go.
I remember when I saw the first pictures of the 1986 Taurus, before the car actually hit the streets, I didn't think it looked any different from a Ford Tempo. I tend to not like stubby cars, so to me the Taurus was just ugly. I'm also a bit conservative, and styles have to grow on me a bit. For example, I couldn't stand the new Chrysler LH cars when they came out for 1998, but now I drive a 2000 Intrepid! Hypocrisy or what? ;-)
If I could go back to 1986, though, and had to buy a new mid-size sedan, I'd probably would have bought a Bonneville with the Chevy 305. I know...boring!
My grandparents bought a 1989 Taurus, and by this time I was used to the style. They didn't like the style of it, but just traded up every 3-4 years. Before the Taurus, they had a 1985 LTD, and before that, a 1981 Granada. They actually liked the Granada's styling the best of them all!
One thing that did impress me about the Taurus, though, is how well thought-out the interior was. Their Taurus got whacked by a 1974 Catalina and pushed into a telephone pole, when it was only a few months old, and they got stuck with a Buick Century rental car while it was being fixed. I remember driving and riding in both cars, and the Taurus was superior in every respect! Even minor details, like the location of the arm rest on the door, felt like they were better though out.
Between the Catalina on one side and the telephone pole on the other, I think the only undamaged sheetmetal on their Taurus was the roof and trunk! But the body shop got it all back together, and they drove it until December 1993, when they traded it in on a 1994. The '94 is still around, mainly because Granddad can't stand the current styles. We went and looked at the 2000's over the summer, and he was so put off that he didn't even look inside.
And the funny thing is, even though the '96-current models look "downsized", they're actually about 8" longer than the '86-94 models.
As for unintended acceleration, we've actually had two cars that have done it. My grandparents (not the Ford buying ones...other side of the family who wouldn't be caught dead in a Ford ;-) had a 1980 or so Dodge D-50 (Mistubishi) pickup. It took off at the gas station one day, went up an embankment, and ended up in the trees. They never said anything about the brakes not holding...just that everything happened so fast and before they knew it it was over.
And on a couple of occasions, one of the springs on my '68's Dart's throttle linkage has broken, causing the car to basically floor it. Of course, it's also a 30+ year old car, so I can't blame Dodge for that ;-) It did it once when I was teaching a friend how to parallel park...that was pretty scary! But as far as overriding the brakes...this car's 318 couldn't do it, although with manual brakes you really had to stand on them. But I'm sure if the Dart's marginal brakes could hold back a 318 in all its fury, an Audi's (hopefully) much better brakes would hold back an engine with much less torque.
that some cars had problems with the cruise control malfunctioning, etc. -- leading to unintended acceleration. The part that was a bold-faced lie was the plaintiffs who claimed that they had their foot on the brake and couldn't stop the car. That is total BS.
Unintended acceleration is one good reason why I teach my kids to left-foot brake when driving an automatic -- there's simply no way you can inadvertently stomp the accelerator instead of the brake.
Actually, I had an '82 Cutlass Supreme with a sticky cruise control. If I hit the brakes, which should have disabled it, it would automatically try to resume its speed as soon as I let my foot off the brake. I doubt that my grandparents' D-50 had cruise...probably just a sticky throttle or something. And it only pulled its sudden acceleration stunt once, although that was enough for my grandmother! They sold it to a neighbor (I hope they told him about the added "bonus") and he had it for at least 8 years or more until it just started getting ragged.
I have noticed on a lot of cars, mostly smaller ones, that I can hit both the gas pedal and the brake at the same time. Then again, I have a size 13 foot! Didn't Audi end up moving the two pedals further apart as a result of the unintended acceleration allegations?
Eh....I might bend and call a CRX "period attractive" but personally I can't say as it fits "for all time". It's already looking very 80s in style. But we'll see what people think in another ten years. Same for the American iron, very period attractive. Maybe the Mustang 2+2, though, will be admired long into the future...it is very good looking because if its proportions...the 70s cars are very SHOWY but not really beautiful to my eye...too much clutter I think spoils them. Designers just didn't know when to STOP adding stuff.
Fiat 124 is handsome and holding up well, Datsun Z still looks good, too, in the fastback coupe style.
The Buick Roadmaster I guess you just threw in there to be funny? It is total junkbox, and certainly gets attention...well, who knows, maybe Elvis's wardrobe and the King of Englands have more in common than I can notice with my current vision.
Actually, I'm very fond of the original CRX, too, but not necessarily because of its looks...I just think it is a fun little car, especially for a Japanese car of that era, which didn't have many (any?) Japanese cars that were truly fun to drive...maybe the old 240Z and that's it until the Miata came along.
guess we part ways on this one (not the first time, nor the last I'm sure!) -- I think the CRX is the best thing Honda has ever done, and it still has immaculate proportions and detailing. i think it is still the absolute highwater mark for a car of that size.
Buick Roadmaster Estate? That, too, is a nice-looking car with flowing lines uncharacteristic of a large American station wagon. But I think my two favorite station wagons are the original Taurus (the taillight treatment is especially nice) and the Cutlass Vista Cruiser. The Honda Accord station wagon, as well as the BMW and Audi, are tastefully done. Question is, will ANY station wagon ever be considered a "classic" as such?
Fun-to-drive Japanese cars? Try the Corolla GT-S with the 4AGE (anywhere from 130 to 175 hp in a 2400 lb chassis, and RWD -- back when Camaros and Corvettes were REALLY sloooooowwwwwww!). Power comes on at 2000 rpm and winds all the way to 7500 rpm. Gotta keep your eye on the tach, cause when the second cam kicks in at 5000 rpm, things happen in a he11uva hurry. I have an '86 sitting in my driveway right now.
The 4AGE is still used in the Toyota Atlantic series, by the way. Great motor, and buildable to he11 and back.
I guess "fun" comes in different flavors, as does styling. I think most Japanese cars of that era 1980s are as numb and boring as you can get in a car, short of a Buick Roadmaster. That's why I liked the CRX, at least you could sort of point it somewhere and it would go there, and the brakes were pretty good, too. Of course, it still sounded like a can of gnats, another complaint I had with Japanese cars of the time. Also, to its credit, the CRX broke away from the gaudy Japanese styling excesses of the 1980s (someone on board here called it "Atomic Cockroach School of Design", which I really liked. But like you say, I'm sure you can spend money and turn an 80s Japanese car into something interesting....but beautiful? Never in my eyes, and certainly not to collectors at this time. But the CRX always remains on my "recommended" cheap fun cars list.
Hard for a wagon to be a classic unless it's a woody...a box is a box is a box. As for "interesting" wagons, I always liked the Audi 5000 Quattro Turbo wagon, a rare car but a fabulous cheap ski car and a very credible and advanced piece of technology for the time (mid 80s) period. But beautiful? Maybe period beautiful for a wagon, but again, they look rather drab by modern standards.
I guess Ford woodies are my only candidate for most attractive wagons ever made.
I hesitate to suggest to anyone that the original Ford Taurus wagon was beautiful, but I personally think it was. I thought that, as a piece of design, the original stationwagon was wonderful. I always wanted an SHO version of the wagon to compete with the Volvo sport wagons...
Just started reading this site and thought I'd throw in my opinion. Almost any Jaguar has had great styling. I agree the '63-'65 Buick Riviera was one of the best looking cars of its era. So is my '65 Corvair. Even today, it's styling looks very current. The '63 Pontiac Grand Prix. In fact, most early to mid '60's Pontiacs. '64-'66 Thunderbirds. I think the Audi A6 will age well. How about for fun a Citroen 2cv, or for its time the Renault Dauphine.
I don't think you'll get a lot of people lining up next to you calling the 2CV "attractive". You may be a majority of one on that choice--but they are "attractive" in a charming toad-like, armadillo-like, banana-slug-like way. But the word "beautiful" does not spring to mind when I see one. If you called one beautiful, you'd need another word for a Ferrari then, like supra-beautiful or some such.
65 Corvairs are lovely cars, a real styling triumph for the time and still good-looking. One of the best-looking American cars ever made. '63 Riviera is also clean and purposeful, even if it's way too big...but it is proportional in its size and weight, and the styling sort of states what it is. So the overall effect is very good I think. I used to own one, so I put my money where my mouth was on that car. (It wasn't a very good car for me, but I enjoyed looking at it).
'66 T-Birds....ah, typical (to me) overdone mess of 10 different styles jammed into one car...the car bumps into itself visually I think. Best forgotten in my little black book.
1960 Austin Healy 3000 Mk I 1955 Chevrolet Corvette1951 Ferrari 2121993 Mazda RX7 & the first (late 70's) body style too!Porsche 356 Speedster1964 Aston-Martin DB-5 (guess why?)'36 Auburn 852 Speedster (hey, I can dream, can't I?)
I used to like Jensen Interceptors but I can't remember which year. Never like the Avanti regardless of year (did it matter?)
Nice list, but I'm curious you find the Porsche 356 all that attractive...it's kind of a lump, isn't it? I will say that as time went on, the T6 body style of the 356 (basically the 356C and a few 356Bs) streamlines the car a bit more, and with the twin engine grilles I rather like it more than the T5 or the earlier T2 bodies. I find the 356 notchback really unattractive myself.
The Interceptor belongs to the "big brute" school of styling, which can be attractive if everything is in proportion...you also have to like that kind of "all glass fastback" styling inspired by the early Plymouth Barracudas.
I'd agree with you, though, that the Jensen Interceptor styling, though dated, is aging pretty well, while the Avanti looks worse and worse very time they bring it back from the dead. It's the Avantis nose job that really kills it.
I think, looking back on history, that both "high narrow grilles" (Edsel, LaSalle, etc.) and shovel noses (Avanti) have never found favor with lovers of the "art" of styling. Same holds for cars with big noses that extend too far out over the front axle.
nah, nah, lokki, but GOOD try.....you will note (I trust) how the Alfa grillework does not extend above the headlights....it is a very "modest" verticality and in good proportion to the fenders and lights. Compare to this:
Other "snout" cars are, of course, the Edsel and I believe late 60s Grand Prix, no?
Postwar Benzes have this problem somewhat, but at least their high grilles are also rather wide, so this helps their late 40s, early 50s cars to recover a bit from the less than wonderful styling of say the 170 Benz models. Once Benz flattened their grilles, they were able to push their traditional designs into the 21st century. Voila! A car where you don't ever have to ask what it is!
You know, I can't bring that car to mind just now...let me go find a photo or two and I'll tell you what I think. Thanks for bringing that up! I do know the early postwar 502s etc, have this same problem...they are pretty clunky up front...but the 507, that looks very good to me....I think the verticality depends somewhat on how harmoniously it blends into the rest of the car.
I found this sketch of a prewar BMW 328, and I think the car is pretty homely....the Germans were not generally great stylists, even if their cars are very IMPOSING....certainly they aren't SHY stylists!
Also on this page is a photo of another car with verticality to the grillework, the Saab 93...I actually like it much better than the BMW, not because it is "beautiful", but it is harmonious....the vertical grille doesn't protrude above the fenderline or headlights, and the grille also has some width to it. Much more proportional than the BMW to my eye.
Oh, I don't care what others think/say about Alfas...the car's history speaks for itself--Alfa Romeo doesn't have to apologize to anyone for anything. It's a company with lots of glory, many, many victories and some gorgeous cars. I'm proud to own them.
An interesting car....in some ways, kind of "over the top" styling-wise, but still beautiful in an extravagant sort of way. It's interesting to compare that F&F Talbot Lago with the LaSalle we looked at. In the Talbot, the grille is high, but the fenders sweep up to meet it...did you notice that? And I like how the front and rear fenders connect in the Talbot, while the LaSalle has much clumsier "pontoon" type fenders (cover part of the wheel) which just hang off the car and do not connect front to rear. The Talbot is just better "thought out".
Teh stupid Earthlink server was down for two days, so I couldn't post, so this is a little late in coming. Please bear with me....
Shift: If you think all Japanese cars of the 80s were boring, then I guarantee you never drove a Corolla, Celica or Supra of the period. They were great little RWD cars with engines that would rev like the dickens. Car and Driver chose the Supra over the Camaro and I forget which other car they had in their test. Great styling too, in all three cars. The first Celica All-Trac was a 190 hp, AWD screamer with Lanica Stratos styling. And the Mazdas were great looking little sports cars with fine handling and very respectable performance.
I guess we have different ideas about what "exciting" is....I always found most Japanese cars of the 80s rather rubbery in steering and shifting and pretty homely...there was no precision in the cars by my standards. Sure, maybe some of them were fast enough in their day, but that's only maybe 1/4 of what an exciting car is to my mind. You could easily get them way out of shape if you pushed them.
I don't like MGTDs...the wheels are too small for the car and it ruins the entire look of it. The Tc with the larger wheels is much handsomer. Regardless of that, though, an MGTD is way more fun than any 80s Celica IMO. NO contest for fun. This and the looks and style is probably why a TC is worth $25,000 and an 80s Celica is worth $2,500.
Of course, an 80s Celica is more reliable, faster, blah, blah than an MGTC, but it is after all some 40 years newer.
Comments
Of the cars I've owned, my present '00 Bonneville SE and my all time favorite car - a '73 Buick Centurion (which replaced Wildcat in 71) convertible - oh how I loved that car!!
I'm also partial to the 79 - 85 Eldorado as well as earlier Caddies - the bejeweled models of the early 60s.
Andre - nice to see you again - I think the tail of my Bonnie looks a bit like the back of the previous edition Intrepid and I like that style.
Ken
240Z
jag xke's
shelby mustangs 68-70
boss 302's ,1970
porsche 356's
rx7 twin turbos
bmw m1
Anyway the car that won was the 1961-1967 Jaguar -Type. Oddly, the writers said that the coupe was far more attractive than the convertible. The later Jags did not make the list becasue changes to the body brought on by meeting more stringent U.S. safety standards.
To me, those '61-'65 or so Continentals are archetypal of how a "car" should look. Other cars may be beautiful, but those Lincolns cannot be faulted stylewise. Unfortunately, politicians parading around in them tended to cheapen their appeal.
Instead of Ford making the modern Lincoln look like a bulbous Crown Vic, they need to jump on the retro wagon and bring back the early 60s.
There are alot more of good looking ugly cars. I need more time to think.
Some cars are what I call "period attractive"--not necessarily standouts compared to all cars of all time, but rather good within its class. I think many of the suggestions here fit into that category It would be personally difficult for me to call any domestic car of the 80s anything more than perhaps "period attractive". Generally mass-produced cars don't acheive lasting admiration for beauty. It takes a special car to catch and keep the eye of the beholder.
Not all old cars, or even old Packards or whatever, are attractive. I think most of the 1920s sedans, for instance, are rather ugly, as are many of the late 30s domestics, and even early postwar domestics (1946-47).
The other issue is rarity -- it's hard to get all worked up over a car that sells 100k units a year, whereas it's always exciting to see a Ferrari -- even the ugly ones!
could go 180 mph on open Arizona highways....also
Ferrari 250 SWB, and the Ferrari GTO. Very erotic and
exotic. With these cars you don't need a girlfriend or mistress!!
amora
http://www.bobileff.com /ferrari_frame.html?miura_lambo.html
http://www.motorcities.com/contents /99ISC545400551.html
And the 550 Spyder, this is a repro, but ya can't tell the difference.
http://www.motorcities.com/contents /99ISC545400551.html
Gotta remove the spaces on the links. Whoever it was that nominated the 80's Dodge Ramcharger as one of the most beautiful cars of all time ought to be hosswhipped.
And while shifty's point about the Ro80 is partly valid, the Audi 5000 didn't resemble it much, other than the fact that it was smooth. The crispness and elegance of the Audi simply eclipsed the other sedans of the time. If it hadn't been for that BS 60 Minutes "expose" of the unintended acceleration baloney, it would have continued to dominate the market.
What cracked me up about the unintended acceleration hoopla was that every guy who's ever drag raced a car with an automatic transmission knows that you can't overcome the brakes with the engine -- that's how you stage the car! You put your left foot on the brake and rev the engine with your right foot until the rear wheels start to spin. When the light turns green, you take your left foot off the brake and off you go.
If I could go back to 1986, though, and had to buy a new mid-size sedan, I'd probably would have bought a Bonneville with the Chevy 305. I know...boring!
My grandparents bought a 1989 Taurus, and by this time I was used to the style. They didn't like the style of it, but just traded up every 3-4 years. Before the Taurus, they had a 1985 LTD, and before that, a 1981 Granada. They actually liked the Granada's styling the best of them all!
One thing that did impress me about the Taurus, though, is how well thought-out the interior was. Their Taurus got whacked by a 1974 Catalina and pushed into a telephone pole, when it was only a few months old, and they got stuck with a Buick Century rental car while it was being fixed. I remember driving and riding in both cars, and the Taurus was superior in every respect! Even minor details, like the location of the arm rest on the door, felt like they were better though out.
Between the Catalina on one side and the telephone pole on the other, I think the only undamaged sheetmetal on their Taurus was the roof and trunk! But the body shop got it all back together, and they drove it until December 1993, when they traded it in on a 1994. The '94 is still around, mainly because Granddad can't stand the current styles. We went and looked at the 2000's over the summer, and he was so put off that he didn't even look inside.
And the funny thing is, even though the '96-current models look "downsized", they're actually about 8" longer than the '86-94 models.
As for unintended acceleration, we've actually had two cars that have done it. My grandparents (not the Ford buying ones...other side of the family who wouldn't be caught dead in a Ford ;-) had a 1980 or so Dodge D-50 (Mistubishi) pickup. It took off at the gas station one day, went up an embankment, and ended up in the trees. They never said anything about the brakes not holding...just that everything happened so fast and before they knew it it was over.
And on a couple of occasions, one of the springs on my '68's Dart's throttle linkage has broken, causing the car to basically floor it. Of course, it's also a 30+ year old car, so I can't blame Dodge for that ;-) It did it once when I was teaching a friend how to parallel park...that was pretty scary! But as far as overriding the brakes...this car's 318 couldn't do it, although with manual brakes you really had to stand on them. But I'm sure if the Dart's marginal brakes could hold back a 318 in all its fury, an Audi's (hopefully) much better brakes would hold back an engine with much less torque.
-Andre
I have noticed on a lot of cars, mostly smaller ones, that I can hit both the gas pedal and the brake at the same time. Then again, I have a size 13 foot! Didn't Audi end up moving the two pedals further apart as a result of the unintended acceleration allegations?
-Andre
'91 Honda CRX
Mazda MX-6 (last model made)
'77 Monte Carlo and Grand Prix
Mazda 929
original model Acura Legend
2nd generation Integra
Chrysler P T Cruiser
Original Datsun Z
Buick Roadmaster Estate Wagon (I really did love it!) Total Americana!
65 Mustang 2+2
69 Olds 442 (still own it)
71 Fiat 124 Spyder
91 Honda CRX Si (still own it)
Fiat 124 is handsome and holding up well, Datsun Z still looks good, too, in the fastback coupe style.
The Buick Roadmaster I guess you just threw in there to be funny? It is total junkbox, and certainly gets attention...well, who knows, maybe Elvis's wardrobe and the King of Englands have more in common than I can notice with my current vision.
Buick Roadmaster Estate? That, too, is a nice-looking car with flowing lines uncharacteristic of a large American station wagon. But I think my two favorite station wagons are the original Taurus (the taillight treatment is especially nice) and the Cutlass Vista Cruiser. The Honda Accord station wagon, as well as the BMW and Audi, are tastefully done. Question is, will ANY station wagon ever be considered a "classic" as such?
Fun-to-drive Japanese cars? Try the Corolla GT-S with the 4AGE (anywhere from 130 to 175 hp in a 2400 lb chassis, and RWD -- back when Camaros and Corvettes were REALLY sloooooowwwwwww!). Power comes on at 2000 rpm and winds all the way to 7500 rpm. Gotta keep your eye on the tach, cause when the second cam kicks in at 5000 rpm, things happen in a he11uva hurry. I have an '86 sitting in my driveway right now.
The 4AGE is still used in the Toyota Atlantic series, by the way. Great motor, and buildable to he11 and back.
Hard for a wagon to be a classic unless it's a woody...a box is a box is a box. As for "interesting" wagons, I always liked the Audi 5000 Quattro Turbo wagon, a rare car but a fabulous cheap ski car and a very credible and advanced piece of technology for the time (mid 80s) period. But beautiful? Maybe period beautiful for a wagon, but again, they look rather drab by modern standards.
I guess Ford woodies are my only candidate for most attractive wagons ever made.
65 Corvairs are lovely cars, a real styling triumph for the time and still good-looking. One of the best-looking American cars ever made. '63 Riviera is also clean and purposeful, even if it's way too big...but it is proportional in its size and weight, and the styling sort of states what it is. So the overall effect is very good I think. I used to own one, so I put my money where my mouth was on that car. (It wasn't a very good car for me, but I enjoyed looking at it).
'66 T-Birds....ah, typical (to me) overdone mess of 10 different styles jammed into one car...the car bumps into itself visually I think. Best forgotten in my little black book.
I used to like Jensen Interceptors but I can't remember which year. Never like the Avanti regardless of year (did it matter?)
The Interceptor belongs to the "big brute" school of styling, which can be attractive if everything is in proportion...you also have to like that kind of "all glass fastback" styling inspired by the early Plymouth Barracudas.
I'd agree with you, though, that the Jensen Interceptor styling, though dated, is aging pretty well, while the Avanti looks worse and worse very time they bring it back from the dead. It's the Avantis nose job that really kills it.
I think, looking back on history, that both "high narrow grilles" (Edsel, LaSalle, etc.) and shovel noses (Avanti) have never found favor with lovers of the "art" of styling. Same holds for cars with big noses that extend too far out over the front axle.
http://www.oz-limited.com/CARSHOWPICS/imagesinfo/GallopingHill/Info_g222.htm
Other "snout" cars are, of course, the Edsel and I believe late 60s Grand Prix, no?
Postwar Benzes have this problem somewhat, but at least their high grilles are also rather wide, so this helps their late 40s, early 50s cars to recover a bit from the less than wonderful styling of say the 170 Benz models. Once Benz flattened their grilles, they were able to push their traditional designs into the 21st century. Voila! A car where you don't ever have to ask what it is!
Let me go look....
Also on this page is a photo of another car with verticality to the grillework, the Saab 93...I actually like it much better than the BMW, not because it is "beautiful", but it is harmonious....the vertical grille doesn't protrude above the fenderline or headlights, and the grille also has some width to it. Much more proportional than the BMW to my eye.
Here's the link to those sketches/photos:
http://members.aol.com/GDGDMjimg/
I see your point now about the grill extending higher than the headlights..
You responded remarkably calmly when I posted a picture of an Alfa, by the way....
Shift: If you think all Japanese cars of the 80s were boring, then I guarantee you never drove a Corolla, Celica or Supra of the period. They were great little RWD cars with engines that would rev like the dickens. Car and Driver chose the Supra over the Camaro and I forget which other car they had in their test. Great styling too, in all three cars. The first Celica All-Trac was a 190 hp, AWD screamer with Lanica Stratos styling. And the Mazdas were great looking little sports cars with fine handling and very respectable performance.
Not as good as an MG-TD, I'll grant you....
I don't like MGTDs...the wheels are too small for the car and it ruins the entire look of it. The Tc with the larger wheels is much handsomer. Regardless of that, though, an MGTD is way more fun than any 80s Celica IMO. NO contest for fun.
This and the looks and style is probably why a TC is worth $25,000 and an 80s Celica is worth $2,500.
Of course, an 80s Celica is more reliable, faster, blah, blah than an MGTC, but it is after all some 40 years newer.