OT: They don't style them like this anymore.

Page 2 of 5  
Robatoy wrote:

I thought the computer was supposed to do that. Where's the computer?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You pointed out shit. You made a couple of flat statements with zilch to back them up.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Maybe not to us. But can you imagine trying to explain to someone from the 30s and 40s why you would take a few thousand dollars and 4-5 years of your life and RESTORE a model T? What made that a "classic"? The fact that it was cheap, had no accessories, came in one color, leaked when it rained, and had no heater for the winter?

Not to mention that it is a common practice to compare a design triumph of a certain vintage with todays' utility designs. No one seems to remember how lackluster the offerings were from most car makers from the late 30s to the later fifties. To me, those were not good cars, and they were some of the first to start showing the quality strains of huge mass production.
I think sometimes we are all getting old too fast. I admit, I cannot tell one car from another anymore. But I will tell you this, the young guys I am around sure can. My eyes don't see the distinctions, but theirs sure do. And they know which ones are cool and which ones aren't. I really can't tell much difference from my point of view.
I am thinking... if they had just seen a '67 GTO hard top with a deep pacific blue metallic paint job with white letter tires and Craiger mags and all her chrome ablaze... they would know what a REAL car design triumph looked like.
Sadly, did I get a lesson. I had a classic muscle car calendar a few years ago that had a '69 "Cuda (alright now, everyone hum the tune from Mannix), of course a "goat", a tricked '69 Mustang fastback, a Camaro or two, and a Shelby Mustang. Not one of those cars hit the mark with the under 35 set. To ME those were the classic American designs. To them, they were cool looking old cars.
I certainly agree with that the market drives the design. I think that Detroit is in such a mess right now that if you told them that your sure fire bet was to build ice cream trucks, you would hear the tinkle of little bells rights away.
Robert
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote: [snippp]

You'd have to equip them with strawberry coloured gun turrets these days.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

Sweet!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I must have screwed up. I bought a '68 340S 'Cuda the eyar before I turned 30. Car went like stink, but was otherwise a fairly typical of the era Mopar pice of crap.
As to comparing general use cars to yesterday's special cars, I strongly suggest you take a look at Cars & parts or similar magazines. I've got an article due out in the June C&p, on a '49 Studebaker four door. Admittedly, the piece I have in the March Corvette Enthusiast is on a '60 'Vette, but my January article in C&p was on a '40 Ford pick- up restoration. I think that one set the owenr back something close to 50K, and a whole bunch of years.
Somewhere in the pile, they've got a piece I did on a '31 Ford A four door phaeton, a fairly common car at the time.
Sorry, but the interest is not only in distinctive true classic old cars. In fact, I'd love to have my first new car back: '57 Chev convertible, Duntov 283 V8 (dual 4s, hot cam, compression ratio that probably wouldn't run on today's pump gas--it was, I think 10.5 to 1). Another POS as far as quality went--threw the fan belt every time I stood on it, and backing off right away almost always snapped the rotor--but today, it would sell for 100K in good shape and God knows what in top notch shape. Hell, you can get $18,000 for an AMX these days, if it is in top shape. Hard to believe.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I meant my comment to point out that there is a lot of mediocrity in design no matter what decade you look to. Maybe a lot of good work as well, but every generation seems to have their favorites.
I remember when Mopar was really making a wide range of muscle cars, and I thought some of them were great. The original Charger fastbacks, their cousins "The Super Bee" and all those that were late 60s. There was a show on called "Nash Bridges" that was almost worth watching so you could see his gorgeous 'Cuda drop top from that time.

I would submit to you that the '49 is a really cool car, http://tinyurl.com/2w9vtk but you pointed out what exactly what I said with this Ace

http://tinyurl.com/ysphum
I'll say it's a classic, no doubt.
But there was also the 1960 Fords, Chyslers, and a lot of other Chevies of that time that toiled away in mediocrity. They far outweighed that gem. In my mind I am seeing our family 1960 Ford stationwagon, and my first truck, a 1959 for one ton.

At this time I would like to alert the audience that not only is Mr. Self a noted writer on the ways of woodworking machinery, but he is also a hugely talented photographer of autos.
http://www.charlieselfonline.com /
Exposed!
I say this with respect Charlie. Your opinion doesn't mean that much because I think with your skills as a photographer (especially in your setups) you could make a "K" car look good.
Seriously, for anyone following this thread go look at Charlie's site. There are indeed some true classics there. Hope you don't mind Charlie. I found your site a few years ago when you were underground and not writing much. Imagine how surprised I was to find cars and not tablesaws there!

I can never figure that out. One of my buddies has the 10,000 channel package on his satellite, and we watched some "distinctive car auction" one rainy day. I never, ever got the prices right. Cars I thought would sell for a ton of dough went cheap. Cars I thought (like the AMX!) were total crap sold very well.
Robert
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I'm usually pretty close in my ballpark estimates. Things like the AMX trip me up though. Who knows? A 100,000 dollar Pacer? Half a million for a Yugo? hehehehehe//ohkay.. maybe not. (unless there are Scarlett's boob prints on the windshield.)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

One of the guys who runs Akeda has a Pacer he bought fairly recently, he says in great shape, and I believe him. The price was nowhere near $10,000 never mind 100K. If he weren't so far away, I might try to do a deal, but driving to British Columbia for a Pacer....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I couldn't disagree more. A very heavy car, weak engine, and horrid styling. The 'Vette thing didn't stir me till the 427 Sting Ray (split window) of 65-6. Then they dropped that nose, and blech again.
There were so much more interesting things going on at the time, like the Cobras (AC style) and a lot of cool Italian stuff..and of course Porsches. Hell, back then, I'd even have chosen a 3000 Healy over a Vette, even though the Vette would have whooped my ass.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

I saw an AMX last summer in of all places Fermont, Quebec. http://www.flickr.com/photos/39383723@N00/2278466802 /. Guy had driven off before I got to the parking lot to talk to him and get a better angle on it though.
If you liked Nash Bridges for the car, (incidentally in one ep there were _two_ of them, a matched set, or else one and trick photography), you might want to check out "Fastlane" if it's ever reshown--the pilot had an honest to Henry GT-40 (well, it was an exceedingly well done replica, not even Hollywood can pry one of _those_ loose from the owner). And it also has an exceedingly decorative Tiffani Thiessen. Had "interesting" cars from the 60s on.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Last June I went to a local (sort of) road racing track for its 50th anniversary. One of the display cars was a GT40 that had been driven to several wins. There was also a Maserati that someone said the owner had paid 6 million bucks for not long before. You guys want to see an interesting track, check out Virginia International Raceway (www.virclub.com). The new owners have done a job and a half of restoring it to the form Paul Newman is said to have loved not long after it opened.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Well, actually, that AMX with the 390 was a decent muscle car. I think we need to recall that probably 90%+ of the designs from ANY maker are dullards, aimed at people who want transport, not excitement. They are rather like point and shoot cameras: the makers sell many millions of those things for every million DSLRs they sell, yet if you go to a photo web site (try the forums at www.dpreview.com) you'll find all sorts of argument over why a DSLR is, or isn't, better than a P&S.
Today's cars are better, no doubt about it, but, and this is my main point, they do lack visual interest. Cars are now generic. Hell, so are pick-ups. The Dodge design of '94 has been emulated by every single pick-up manufacturer going, and the front end was even stuck on GM's Yukons, Tahoes and other gas gulpers. It's on the Escalade, too, in fact, but they squared up the corners a bit.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:15:46 -0800 (PST), " snipped-for-privacy@aol.com"
With no empirical evidence to back it up, in my heart I believe that not to be true. I think the market is much like an election--picking the "best" of a bad lot.
We laugh now at the finned Chryslers of the late '50s, forgetting that we laughed at them then, too. At least I did. But, you know what? Chrysler stayed in business (I've always wondered how). I suspect there must have been a lot of Chrysler-loyal buyers who figured better a bad looking Mopar than a less bad looking Ford, GM, or AMC.
I think auto design is no more scientific (that is, calculated to generate sales) than any other self absorbed artistic output. Designers' idea to add a little chrome from one model year to the next to "make it sell better" is akin to Christopher Walken asserting that, "we need more cow bell."
--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So those vent holes on the side of Buicks never worked?

HA HA!!
(Oh great.. Incense and peppermint going through me freakin' head now...)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm LOL for real. Classic.
For your viewing pleasure... http://www.starterupsteve.com/video/more_cowbell.html
JP
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

not
A '49 & 50 Merc had the front fenders at just the right height for a guy and his girl to use to full advantage.
That counts for something in the design category <G>.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Lew, it used to. From what I hear, it doesn't today because these kids do it anywhere they feel like it, including in school hallways.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Charlie Self" wrote

You came to mind last evening when I was watching the PBS special "At Close Range", about a guy named Satore who photographs for Natl'l Geographic.
_Excellent_ documentary/human interest. Catch it if you can because I'm betting you would enjoy it
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/14/07
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Who said a thing about impact protection, and 200 pound fenders? As for aerodynamics, nonsense. Aerodynamics comes into play with any importance at just about the same speed those stupid airfoils do. And there isn't a damned thing keeping manufacturers from building classically attractive vehicles, with topnotch impact protection and today's lighter (sometimes) materials, but their own sense of follow- the-leader.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.