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

[Robatoy]

I have always been very fond of this design. (Front wheel drive too)

[nailshooter41]

BTW, how do you get the pics up on photobucket without all the other ads, buttons, ratings and other claptrap?

Robert

[Robatoy]

I either upload to my own server or I pay a little for theirs. I like theirs because it limits bandwidth to mine. It's cheap enough.

[Mark & Juanita]

though the design is dated, it still looks good.

[Ross Hebeisen]

I supply wood (white ash) to a guy that builds replica old vintage cars like auburns and he's done a number of 1938 mercadies. these old cars have wooden body frame work wrapped in steel. he runs flat sheets of steel though trip hammers and english rollers to make the fenders and all.. unbelievable work. also he gets huge money for them needless to say. last time i made a delivery he was making 2 cars for some rich guy in russia and after having to wait for the wood from me was very happy when i finally delivered. he said he was getting afraid the ruskey was going to send the guy's with the long black coats to visit him. I told him if they show up give me a call and i'll send up the guy's with the long black dresses, that otta scare the hell outta em. ross

[Charlie Self]

Mark,

I sometimes wonder if those old designs really are dated, or if we've moved our tastes into a less pleasing area just to keep up with the times. I think the last interesting year for American cars was probably '59 or '60. Yeah, those Chevies with the sideways fins were uuuuugly, but they sure were distinctive looking. What out there today has any kind of design feature that stands out? A trunk airfoil? Well, it's decorative and it only comoes out on probably 87% of all cars. Has to be decorative, because they don't do squat until something like

100 MPH.

Anyway, what I'm saying, I guess, is that today's auto design is so damned mediocre that none of them will ever be classic in any classical sense.

[DS]

Yeah, they've really screwed things up by giving priority to silly things like impact protection and aerodynamics. 200lb fenders and bugeyed headlights were so much more important.

[Robatoy]

Not to mention that so much of 'today's designs are stolen from yesteryear.

that belt line look familiar?

[Robatoy]

Styling. We're talking about styling. Today's cars are ugly, regardless of reason.

After all, people drop 5 million on a 32 Duesenberg because it is safe?

:)

[DS]

If you don't think that designing to strict standards for crash survival and aerodynamic performance places limits on styling, think again.

[Robatoy]

Didn't slow the Prowler design team much.

[Mike Marlow]

I happen to think that today's styles are every bit as attractive as the styling I grew up with (that Charlie makes reference to), but I don't think you really understand too much about those cars. 200lb fenders? Those cars were what they were. Just like today, they were a reflection of what people wanted back then. Comparing them to today is meaningless. Inaccurate comparisons are worthless.

[DS]

Yes, 200lb was an exaggeration, I know you never see that on the internet, so I can understand your confusion. It was the OP that compared them to today's designs. I was merely pointing out a couple of valid reasons why todays designers are operating under different constraints than yesterdays.

[DS]

Saw one of those yesterday. Man, that's a beautiful car. If they hadn't priced it so high, they could have sold a LOT of them.

[DS]

Time calls it one of the worst 100 cars ever!

I agree the thing REALLY needed a manual gearbox, I still think it's a sweet ride.

[Mike Marlow]

Not confusion - just a pet peeve.

Part of my pet peeve (though not completely...) is that otherwise valid points get completely lost in bad exaggerations. I hate to see a good point get wasted.

[nailshooter41]

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

[B A R R Y]

My neighbor has _4_ of them, but it's his money.

If my car budget had $240,000, I might choose differently.

[Robatoy]

On Feb 19, 12:15=A0pm, " [e-mail]" wrote: [snippp]

You'd have to equip them with strawberry coloured gun turrets these days.

[DS]

Point well taken.