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.
You pointed out shit. You made a couple of flat statements with zilch to back them up.
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.
The Prowler will eventually be a classic, despite the inability of the Time writer to figure out how to lay rubber with an auto transmission and a V6.
It's kind of a long term investment, though, probably another 20-25 years to time to cash in. Or maybe not if Barrett-Jackson keeps boosting the auction prices.
My neighbor should have sprung for the matching trailers, as well.
Now that's just foolish. Aerodynamics come into play in fuel efficiency at VERY low speeds. If it weren't for rolling resistance and air resistance you could just give your car a push first thing in the morning and it would keep going all day long. No need for an engine at all!
Safety and fuel efficiency certainly limit what engineers can/should when designing a car. Sorry Charlie, but that's just the truth. When you design a chair, do you just make whatever shape you want without regard for stability or strength? No, (with the exception of 'art only' pieces) and it's the same with any design.
Now certainly they can make different designs than are currently stylish. And I for one hope they don't go back to the bad old days of monster fenders, fins, bug-eyed headlamps, and other ugly inefficient accouterments. Compare that pic of yours to pics of all of its contemporaries and predecessors and what I see is just another mediocre piece of lazy engineering that varies little from the others of it's time. Pleasing lines to some, but not to others. That's just a point of personal preference.
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."
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 .
Lew
So those vent holes on the side of Buicks never worked?
HA HA!!
(Oh great.. Incense and peppermint going through me freakin' head now...)
The only thing that can be said about those years is "..What a friggin joke"
My first new car was from the '60 model year, I held my nose and bought one out of necessity, not because I was impressed.
If you remember, '60 was the year that gave us the Corvair, the Valient, and I forget what POS Ford was offering in competition.
Lew
The concept of the Corvair was a great idea. When done right, you end up with a set-up that makes nothing but sense. Porsche believes it.... and now so do I.
a Yugo.
Sweet!
The concept of the Corvair was a great idea. When done right, you end up with a set-up that makes nothing but sense. Porsche believes it.... and now so do I.
Porsche doesn't do it for me.
Hell, I can't even get in a Corvette.
For me a car is strictly a piece of rapidly depreciating personal property the you buy new, drive 60,000 miles to the junk yard, get out of and get in the next one.
Must say that attitude has changed with the purchase of my Tonka Toy which has over 115,000 and doesn't appear to even be warmed up yet.
Lew
It is pricey but by no means unattainable.... not like an Enzo or an over-priced Lambo (Ha! The Diablo has an Audi engine...*EG*)
Hey, I owned one of those Valiant's. 225 slant six, three on the column, no air, no radio, rubber floor mats and vinyl seats. It was cheap, very reliable tranportation.
I and drove one of those upscale Corvairs, what was it called a monza or spider or whatever. An absolute thrill to drive. You never had to slow for corners and it would stay absolutely flat in the turn. Now if they could have figured out how to keep that motor from falling out the back end........and if ole Ralph hadn't happend along....
Ford was offering the Falcon. Now there was an abomination, at least the entry level version.
Frank
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,
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.
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
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.)
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.
My mother had one of those. So did my best friend in high school. He was a bit out of touch with reality--he honestly believed that driving his "Foulcoon" he could have beaten Peter Gregg in a works Porsche because unlike Peter, he "didn't have anything to lose". My mother's wasn't bad for the time--kept your butt off the ground and the rain off your head and got you to the grocery store. Drove across the US twice in it with cats (the cats are significant because with cats in the car you can't open the windows very far lest there shortly after be fewer cats in the car) and that was _not_ much fun especially since it was Jacksonville to San Diego in the summer the first time. I think that that was the last non-air-conditioned car she owned.
HomeOwnersHub website 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.