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

Han wrote:
>
> There are stil many, many lovely places in
> Holland/Netherlands, as we found out on our bicycle trip last summer

Lucky Han!

I'm really wanting to do a trip like that.

On Feb 18, 9:13 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> I have always been very fond of this design. (Front wheel drive too)
>
> http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/1955.jpg

A classic road design we will never see again.

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

Robert

On Feb 19, 9:19=A0am, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 12:07 am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Robatoy wrote:
> > > I have always been very fond of this design. (Front wheel drive too)
>
> > >http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/1955.jpg
>
> > =A0 Yep, the esthetics of that design are quite pleasing, aren't they? =
=A0Even
> > though the design is dated, it still looks good.
>
> 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.

Not to mention that so much of 'today's designs are stolen from
yesteryear.
http://www.naaaccc.ca/pebble2.jpg
Does that belt line look familiar?

On Feb 22, 11:54 am, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 22, 11:31 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 22, 11:17 am, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 22, 9:09 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > One of my dad's clients (he is an accountant) had a DS 19 Citroen.
> > > > That was the smoothest ride I have ever experienced. Bar none.
>
> > > A guy I worked for in '62 had a DS 19. One day, it cranked up on its
> > > hydraulic suspension and would come down...during the drive from
> > > Northern Westchester (Goldens Bridge) to William Street in NYC. He
> > > parked it, and came back and it was down and wouldn't come up. I think
> > > his next car was a Pontiac.
>
> > I said nothing about reliability...LOL. The suspension's concept was
> > brilliant. Great when it worked. To change a tire, set suspension on
> > HIGH, then put an axle stand under the chassis, remove fender (for the
> > back wheels) and reset suspension to LOW. The wheel would rise off the
> > ground and the tire change was simple.
>
> > Oh, another 'great' idea was the elevation of the turn signal lights
> > to the upper back window corners.
> > Some models, like the SM (Maser motor) had steerable headlights.
>
> > It's okay to have good ideas, but make them reliable.
>
> We're speaking of the French, now, right? Reliability is built-in at
> the riot.

Anf for those who don't get that, a riot is what you get when you make
"unreasonable" demands on the French working class. A demand for
quality is not reasonable.

On Feb 19, 1:26 pm, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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 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've got an article due out in the June C&p, on a '49 Studebaker four
> door.

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

>Admittedly, the piece I have in the March Corvette Enthusiast is
> on a '60 'Vette

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.

> 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.

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!

> Hell, you can get $18,000 for an AMX these
> days, if it is in top shape. Hard to believe.

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

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 10:55:27 -0800 (PST), Charlie Self
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Feb 21, 10:12 am, LRod <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 04:08:59 -0800 (PST), Charlie Self
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >So, maybe, a Scion. A neat car that lets my wrecked knees
>> >ease their way in and out with no struggle.
>>
>> You actually *want* to be seen in a car that looks like a shoe?
>>
>> Tied for 1st (along with the Honda Element and the Chevy Avalanche) as
>> the ugliest car on the road. Possibly ever.
>>
>> --
>
>Yeah, well, that's a large part of the appeal, that shoe shape, with
>all the room in the shaft of the ol' work shoe. That and well over 30
>MPG...which is why a used one is in order; the '08s are larger,
>heavier, more powerful, all of which adds up to worse gas mileage.
>
>As to wanting to be seen in it, who of such importance is going to see
>me that it will affect my income? Otherwise, why give a rat's ass.
>
>Unless you can afford cars I can't, and wouldn't drive daily if I
>could, style is all in the sense of comfort, safety and economy the
>vehicle brings to you.

Remember the "Home Improvement" episode when Jill bought an
Austin-Healy 3000 without Tim's approval? He liked a lot of features
of it--bucket seats, stick shift, convertible (replace those features
with "comfort, safety, and economy") but he kept choking and saying,
"but it's...BRITISH!" (a sentiment most gear heads on this side of the
pond can appreciate--e.g. why is British beer always warm? Lucas
electrics).

Substitute "scion" for British, and you will get my point.

Anyway, it was a funny episode.

--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net
http://www.normstools.com

Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997

email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
care to correspond with you anyway.

Robatoy wrote:

> I have always been very fond of this design. (Front wheel drive too)
>
>
> http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/1955.jpg

Yep, the esthetics of that design are quite pleasing, aren't they? Even
though the design is dated, it still looks good.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

<[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.

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

Somebody wrote:

> I think the last interesting year for American cars was
> probably '59 or '60.

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

"Robatoy" wrote:

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

Charlie Self wrote:

> On Feb 19, 12:07 am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Robatoy wrote:
>> > I have always been very fond of this design. (Front wheel drive too)
>>
>> >http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/1955.jpg
>>
>> Yep, the esthetics of that design are quite pleasing, aren't they?
>> Even
>> though the design is dated, it still looks good.
>>
>
> 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 don't disagree with that.

> I think the last interesting year for American cars was
> probably '59 or '60.

I grew up mostly in the late 60's or 70's and found some of the cars from
the 50's to be really neat (but then, I was influenced by "American
Graffiti" :-) ) Got to drive a 70 Pontiac LeMans to school -- that had a
certain amount of style to it. It was the later models where all the cars
started looking like 1/2 used bars of soap (I think mid-70's, early 80's
where that really hit). Just about the only way to tell the make was by
looking at the label

> 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.
>

... on a boar hog comes to mind.

> 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.

I find the new Ford pickups kind of appealing. I really like the pre-90's
Ford pickups; I just really like the clean lines on the late 70's era
pickups much better than the rounded shapes of the 40 and 50 era and the
squat square shapes on the early 60's models. Even though I drive an 86, I
really like the earlier style.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Charlie Self wrote:

> On Feb 20, 11:11 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Charlie Self wrote:
>> > On Feb 19, 12:07 am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> Robatoy wrote:
>> >> > I have always been very fond of this design. (Front wheel drive too)
>>
>> >> >http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/1955.jpg
>>
>> >> Yep, the esthetics of that design are quite pleasing, aren't they?
>> >> Even
>> >> though the design is dated, it still looks good.
>>
>> > 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 don't disagree with that.
>>
>> > I think the last interesting year for American cars was
>> > probably '59 or '60.
>>
>> I grew up mostly in the late 60's or 70's and found some of the cars
>> from
>> the 50's to be really neat (but then, I was influenced by "American
>> Graffiti" :-) ) Got to drive a 70 Pontiac LeMans to school -- that had
>> a
>> certain amount of style to it. It was the later models where all the
>> cars started looking like 1/2 used bars of soap (I think mid-70's, early
>> 80's
>> where that really hit). Just about the only way to tell the make was by
>> looking at the label
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> ... on a boar hog comes to mind.
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> I find the new Ford pickups kind of appealing. I really like the
>> pre-90's
>> Ford pickups; I just really like the clean lines on the late 70's era
>> pickups much better than the rounded shapes of the 40 and 50 era and the
>> squat square shapes on the early 60's models. Even though I drive an 86,

Man, what was I smoking last night? I drive a 97, not an 86; IIRC, 86 had
the kind of styling I really liked, the 97 was the new more rounded
style -- like the pickup, but the styling is not near as esthetically
pleasing as the cleaner lined earlier styles IMO.


>> I really like the earlier style.
>>
>> --
>> If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
>
> Now, I really LIKE that half-a-bar of soap description. I may steal
> it.

I borrowed if from somewhere, I think a comic strip from the
80's, "Peaches" or something like that.

> It is dead accurate, though I think you may be a little early on
> your dating:

I may be. I know the early 70's didn't have that styling, it was probably
some time during the 80's.

> when my wife and I started dating, she had an '84 Ford
> Tempo (now, if you want to discuss a POS, that one comes very, very
> close to the top of the list) that was just edging its way over into
> soapdom (it was already decrepit and had been since it rolled off the
> line). We unloaded that for Plymouth Caravelle, which we ran 145,000
> miles before trading it on a LeBaron four door, which got about the
> same mileage. The mileage is more from my distrust of tiny engines
> than from any real problems, by the way. I just have a hard time four
> cylinders can haul that much weight around for so long and still be
> sound. We'll be trading our Stratus soon, and it has less than 120,000
> on it. I want to make a driving trip to NY later this year, to see an
> old junior high school friend and my niece. She's on the island, he's
> upstate. So, maybe, a Scion. A neat car that lets my wrecked knees
> ease their way in and out with no struggle.

I certainly agree regarding the small engines.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Somebody wrote:

> A guy I worked for in '62 had a DS 19. One day, it cranked up on its
> hydraulic suspension and would come down...during the drive from
> Northern Westchester (Goldens Bridge) to William Street in NYC. He
> parked it, and came back and it was down and wouldn't come up.


You buy a Frog car, you get what you deserve.

Lew
.

On Feb 20, 10:18=A0am, Frank Boettcher <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 18:22:13 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Frank Boettcher wrote:
> >> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 13:00:50 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> Somebody wrote:
>
> >>>> =A0I think the last interesting year for American cars was
> >>>> probably '59 or '60.
>
> >>> 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
>
> >> Hey, I owned one of those Valiant's. =A0225 slant six, three on the
> >> column, no air, no radio, rubber floor mats and vinyl seats. =A0It was
> >> cheap, very reliable tranportation.
>
> >> I and drove one of those upscale Corvairs, what was it called a
> >> monza
> >> or spider or whatever. =A0An absolute thrill to drive. =A0You never had=

> >> to
> >> slow for corners and it would stay absolutely flat in the turn. =A0Now
> >> 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. =A0Now there was an abomination, at
> >> least
> >> the entry level version.
>
> >My mother had one of those. =A0So did my best friend in high school. =A0H=
e
> >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". =A0My 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. =A0Drove 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. =A0I
> >think that that was the last non-air-conditioned car she owned.
>
> >--
>
> Imagine two adults, six kids, one large Russian wolfhound dog, one
> parakeet in a cage and all the luggage and supplies necessary to
> sustain them, Biloxi, MS to Severna Park, MD, and back in August in
> one of those early model, six cylinder, non-air conditioned, Falcon
> station wagons. =A0I still have nightmares.
>
Oh yeah? Try crossing the US border from Canada with a load of whisky
and a car full of drunk Tommy-gun-totin' gangsters smoking big cigars!
In one of these:

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/Bucciali.jpg

Damn, I love the looks of that thing... and such a super-cool logo/
badge.

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/1932LOGO.jpg

Charlie Self wrote:
> On Feb 19, 12:39 pm, B A R R Y <[email protected]> wrote:
>> DS wrote:
>>
>>> Time calls it one of the worst 100 cars ever!
>> My neighbor has _4_ of them, but it's his money. <G>
>>
>> If my car budget had $240,000, I might choose differently.
>
> 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.

My neighbor should have sprung for the matching trailers, as well.

In article <[email protected]>, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:290e8102-31f5-421d-ab90-b5ec45ab3456@h25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>> I have owned at least a half dozen
>> Valiants over the years, and while none provided any excitement, they
>> all did what they were supposedly designed to do, carried five adults
>> in modest comfort over a 200,000+ mile lifespan. That's with the slant
>> 6, of course.
>
>This one causes me to trip up a bit. I can believe a Valiant going 200,000
>miles if the motor gets rebuilt two or three times, and the tranny replace
>another couple, but I can't see it going 200,000 miles in anywhere near a
>reliable manner.

You've evidently never owned one, then. I've had three. The *shortest* lived
one made it to 161,000. [nitpick: mine were Dodge Darts, not Plymouth
Valiants, but except for minor changes in trim and chrome, the same car.]



--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Feb 19, 4:00 pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Somebody wrote:
> > I think the last interesting year for American cars was
> > probably '59 or '60.
>
> 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

Uh, actually, I had a friend with a Covair and there was NOTHING wrong
with the car, and we all drove our cars pretty hard back then, a lot
of the time on dirt roads...not in '60, though I was twisting wires on
helicopters for the Marines. I have owned at least a half dozen
Valiants over the years, and while none provided any excitement, they
all did what they were supposedly designed to do, carried five adults
in modest comfort over a 200,000+ mile lifespan. That's with the slant
6, of course.

On Feb 18, 11:42=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Feb 18, 9:13 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I have always been very fond of this design. (Front wheel drive too)
>
> >http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/1955.jpg
>
> A classic road design we will never see again.
>
> BTW, how do you get the pics up on photobucket without all the other
> ads, buttons, ratings and other claptrap?
>
> Robert

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.

On Feb 19, 5:12=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
> >Admittedly, the piece I have in the March Corvette Enthusiast is
> > on a '60 'Vette
>
> =A0http://tinyurl.com/ysphum
>
> I'll say it's a classic, no doubt.
>

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.

On Feb 22, 11:31 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 22, 11:17 am, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 22, 9:09 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > One of my dad's clients (he is an accountant) had a DS 19 Citroen.
> > > That was the smoothest ride I have ever experienced. Bar none.
>
> > A guy I worked for in '62 had a DS 19. One day, it cranked up on its
> > hydraulic suspension and would come down...during the drive from
> > Northern Westchester (Goldens Bridge) to William Street in NYC. He
> > parked it, and came back and it was down and wouldn't come up. I think
> > his next car was a Pontiac.
>
> I said nothing about reliability...LOL. The suspension's concept was
> brilliant. Great when it worked. To change a tire, set suspension on
> HIGH, then put an axle stand under the chassis, remove fender (for the
> back wheels) and reset suspension to LOW. The wheel would rise off the
> ground and the tire change was simple.
>
> Oh, another 'great' idea was the elevation of the turn signal lights
> to the upper back window corners.
> Some models, like the SM (Maser motor) had steerable headlights.
>
> It's okay to have good ideas, but make them reliable.

We're speaking of the French, now, right? Reliability is built-in at
the riot.

On Feb 19, 12:15=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
[snippp]
>
> 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.
>
You'd have to equip them with strawberry coloured gun turrets these
days.

On Feb 21, 10:12 am, LRod <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 04:08:59 -0800 (PST), Charlie Self
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >So, maybe, a Scion. A neat car that lets my wrecked knees
> >ease their way in and out with no struggle.
>
> You actually *want* to be seen in a car that looks like a shoe?
>
> Tied for 1st (along with the Honda Element and the Chevy Avalanche) as
> the ugliest car on the road. Possibly ever.
>
> --

Yeah, well, that's a large part of the appeal, that shoe shape, with
all the room in the shaft of the ol' work shoe. That and well over 30
MPG...which is why a used one is in order; the '08s are larger,
heavier, more powerful, all of which adds up to worse gas mileage.

As to wanting to be seen in it, who of such importance is going to see
me that it will affect my income? Otherwise, why give a rat's ass.

Unless you can afford cars I can't, and wouldn't drive daily if I
could, style is all in the sense of comfort, safety and economy the
vehicle brings to you.

"DS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:SJCuj.40736$yE1.11345@attbi_s21...
> Charlie Self wrote:
>> times. I think the last interesting year for American cars was
>> probably '59 or '60. Yeah, those Chevies with the sideways fins were
>
>> 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.
>
> 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.

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.


--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 03:15:49 -0800 (PST), Charlie Self
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Feb 19, 4:59 pm, Frank Boettcher <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 13:00:50 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
>>
>>
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >Somebody wrote:
>>
>> >> I think the last interesting year for American cars was
>> >> probably '59 or '60.
>>
>> >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
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
>There's a '63-1/2 Falcon convertible with the, I think, 302 engine...


260 I think unless they had a special edition model which I don't
remember.

Far cry from that earlier entry trim version. My Dad had one of
those. What a nightmare.

Frank

On Feb 19, 6:47 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Feb 19, 1:26 pm, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> 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 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've got an article due out in the June C&p, on a '49 Studebaker
> >> four
> >> door.
>
> > 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
>
> >> Admittedly, the piece I have in the March Corvette Enthusiast is
> >> on a '60 'Vette
>
> > 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.
>
> >> 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.
>
> > 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!
>
> >> Hell, you can get $18,000 for an AMX these
> >> days, if it is in top shape. Hard to believe.
>
> > 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.
>
> 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.
>
> --

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.

On Feb 19, 5:12=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
> I can never figure that out. =A0One of my buddies has the 10,000 channel
> package on his satellite, and we watched some "distinctive car
> auction" one rainy day. =A0I never, ever got the prices right. =A0Cars I
> thought would sell for a ton of dough went cheap. =A0Cars I thought
> (like the AMX!) were total crap sold very well.

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.)

On Feb 19, 2:50=A0pm, LRod <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> I think auto design is no more scientific (that is, calculated to
> generate sales) than any other self absorbed artistic output.

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

> 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."
>
HA HA!!

(Oh great.. Incense and peppermint going through me freakin' head
now...)

On Feb 20, 10:18 am, Frank Boettcher <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 18:22:13 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Frank Boettcher wrote:
> >> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 13:00:50 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> Somebody wrote:
>
> >>>> I think the last interesting year for American cars was
> >>>> probably '59 or '60.
>
> >>> 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
>
> >> 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.
>
> >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.
>
> >--
>
> Imagine two adults, six kids, one large Russian wolfhound dog, one
> parakeet in a cage and all the luggage and supplies necessary to
> sustain them, Biloxi, MS to Severna Park, MD, and back in August in
> one of those early model, six cylinder, non-air conditioned, Falcon
> station wagons. I still have nightmares.
>
> Frank

Christ. You didn't even have to drop acid to have a bad trip.

On Feb 19, 12:39 pm, B A R R Y <[email protected]> wrote:
> DS wrote:
>
> > Time calls it one of the worst 100 cars ever!
>
> My neighbor has _4_ of them, but it's his money. <G>
>
> If my car budget had $240,000, I might choose differently.

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.

On Feb 19, 12:07 am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > I have always been very fond of this design. (Front wheel drive too)
>
> >http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/1955.jpg
>
> Yep, the esthetics of that design are quite pleasing, aren't they? Even
> though the design is dated, it still looks good.
>

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.

On Feb 19, 11:21 am, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
> Mike Marlow wrote:
> > "DS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:SJCuj.40736$yE1.11345@attbi_s21...
> >> Charlie Self wrote:
> >>> times. I think the last interesting year for American cars was
> >>> probably '59 or '60. Yeah, those Chevies with the sideways fins were
> >>> 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.
> >> 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.
>
> > 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.
>
> 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.

You pointed out shit. You made a couple of flat statements with zilch
to back them up.

On Feb 19, 5:12 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
> 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.
>

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.

On Feb 19, 2:50=A0pm, LRod <[email protected]> wrote:
> "we need more cow bell."

I'm LOL for real. Classic.

For your viewing pleasure...
http://www.starterupsteve.com/video/more_cowbell.html

JP

On Feb 22, 11:17=A0am, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 22, 9:09 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > One of my dad's clients (he is an accountant) had a DS 19 Citroen.
> > That was the smoothest ride I have ever experienced. Bar none.
>
> A guy I worked for in '62 had a DS 19. One day, it cranked up on its
> hydraulic suspension and would come down...during the drive from
> Northern Westchester (Goldens Bridge) to William Street in NYC. He
> parked it, and came back and it was down and wouldn't come up. I think
> his next car was a Pontiac.

I said nothing about reliability...LOL. The suspension's concept was
brilliant. Great when it worked. To change a tire, set suspension on
HIGH, then put an axle stand under the chassis, remove fender (for the
back wheels) and reset suspension to LOW. The wheel would rise off the
ground and the tire change was simple.

Oh, another 'great' idea was the elevation of the turn signal lights
to the upper back window corners.
Some models, like the SM (Maser motor) had steerable headlights.

It's okay to have good ideas, but make them reliable.

On Feb 19, 11:00=A0am, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Feb 19, 10:38 am, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Charlie Self wrote:
> >>> times. I think the last interesting year for American cars was
> >>> probably '59 or '60. Yeah, those Chevies with the sideways fins were
> >>> 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.
> >> 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.
>
> > Styling. We're talking about styling. Today's cars are ugly,
> > regardless of reason.
>
> If you don't think that designing to strict standards for crash survival
> and aerodynamic performance places limits on styling, think again.

Didn't slow the Prowler design team much.

On Feb 20, 7:49=A0am, B A R R Y <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>
> > 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*)
>
> I like the Toyota powered Lotus cars.
>
> A dependable British car! =A0<G>

One of my profs at U of Toronto had a 'selection' of Loti.
He used to say: (and I quote)
" I have an EEEElan, an EEElite, an EEEEclat, and an EEEEnormous
fucking headache."

"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:944040cf-1fe5-4788-9bae-99bf694cfb3d@n75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

>
> The worst of my half dozen Valiant or Valiant based cars went 197,000
> miles with a slant 6, no rebuilds, oil changes every 3,000 with filter
> change, and not much else in the way of care except the occasional set
> of points and plugs and brake shoes. I got that mileage on a '72
> Duster I bought new in Albany, NY, and I got 211,000 on a '65
> Barracuda my mother gave me--slant 6--and again on a Dodge Dart,
> another '72, as well as on a '69 Valiant four door I bought new. Hell,
> I had the slant 6 in my '87 pick-up, but I sold that at 199,000, with
> no oil burning or other problems. Though it was a long time ago, I
> don't recall oil burning problems with ANY of those slant 6s. I do
> recall the unibody construction not being suitable for northern NY
> roads and their salt: that Duster was ready to break in two just in
> front of the rear seat by '78...when I traded it on the '72 Dart.

Well then indeed - you did have some great performance out of those
vehicles.

>
> I don't know where or how you got your slant 6s, or even the 318 (had
> that in a '66 Formula S before that was such a wild package), but I
> never have heard of the slant 6s having major oil burning problems.

I never owned one. The only MOPAR I ever owned was a '66 Dodge Coronet 440
with a 361 and a MOPAR factory equipped 4 on the floor. I forget now, how
many miles I put on it, but it was under 100,000. My comments on the slant
six are just based on being around back then, and being somewhat familiar
with the motor based on other people I knew owning them. I do recall the
slant six as running forever, but as being a pretty significant oil burner
well before 100,000 miles. My father-in-law owned one in a Dodge truck
(late 70's I believe). I recall it being all the engine a basic
transportation pickup ever needed (not suited though to heavy use like
plowing or carrying loads on a regular basis), but his too was a burner
before 100,000. To its credit, it just kept right on running for as long as
you wanted to keep throwing oil into her.


--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Robatoy wrote:
> On Feb 19, 10:38 am, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Charlie Self wrote:
>>> times. I think the last interesting year for American cars was
>>> probably '59 or '60. Yeah, those Chevies with the sideways fins were
>>> 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.
>> 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.
>
> Styling. We're talking about styling. Today's cars are ugly,
> regardless of reason.

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

On Feb 20, 6:46 am, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:290e8102-31f5-421d-ab90-b5ec45ab3456@h25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > I have owned at least a half dozen
> > Valiants over the years, and while none provided any excitement, they
> > all did what they were supposedly designed to do, carried five adults
> > in modest comfort over a 200,000+ mile lifespan. That's with the slant
> > 6, of course.
>
> This one causes me to trip up a bit. I can believe a Valiant going 200,000
> miles if the motor gets rebuilt two or three times, and the tranny replace
> another couple, but I can't see it going 200,000 miles in anywhere near a
> reliable manner. Hell, by 60,000 these things were well suited to mosquito
> control with all the spew coming out of the exhaust pipe. Yeah - the slant
> six kept running, no matter what, and the damned thing would run forever
> with no rings at all left in it, but a lot of cars would meet that criteria.
> Didn't make them good cars. We got by with a lot of junk in the old days by
> doing things like throwing thicker motor oil at them and not worrying about
> the blue cloud behind us.
>

The worst of my half dozen Valiant or Valiant based cars went 197,000
miles with a slant 6, no rebuilds, oil changes every 3,000 with filter
change, and not much else in the way of care except the occasional set
of points and plugs and brake shoes. I got that mileage on a '72
Duster I bought new in Albany, NY, and I got 211,000 on a '65
Barracuda my mother gave me--slant 6--and again on a Dodge Dart,
another '72, as well as on a '69 Valiant four door I bought new. Hell,
I had the slant 6 in my '87 pick-up, but I sold that at 199,000, with
no oil burning or other problems. Though it was a long time ago, I
don't recall oil burning problems with ANY of those slant 6s. I do
recall the unibody construction not being suitable for northern NY
roads and their salt: that Duster was ready to break in two just in
front of the rear seat by '78...when I traded it on the '72 Dart.

I don't know where or how you got your slant 6s, or even the 318 (had
that in a '66 Formula S before that was such a wild package), but I
never have heard of the slant 6s having major oil burning problems.

Now, if you want to talk about my '50 Stude 6, or my '51 Ford V8 and
oil consumption, let's do it. I used to use drain oil from the garage
where I worked in the Stude. Even low cost oil at 15 cents a quart was
too costly for that thing. It really needed a new engine, but instead
I put very, very heavy oil in it and traded it on my '57 Chev. That
was the only time I went above 30 weight oil...oh, wait: until I got
an '81 Olds V8 in '86, which I promptly traded on a '78 Mustang II
with the 302. Neat little car that would spin out if you stood on it
and the road was even damp. Too much power for the wheelbase, I guess.

On Feb 19, 4:59 pm, Frank Boettcher <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 13:00:50 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Somebody wrote:
>
> >> I think the last interesting year for American cars was
> >> probably '59 or '60.
>
> >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
>
> 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.
>

There's a '63-1/2 Falcon convertible with the, I think, 302 engine...

Charlie Self wrote:
> On Feb 19, 11:21 am, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Mike Marlow wrote:
>>> "DS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:SJCuj.40736$yE1.11345@attbi_s21...
>>>> Charlie Self wrote:
>>>>> times. I think the last interesting year for American cars was
>>>>> probably '59 or '60. Yeah, those Chevies with the sideways fins were
>>>>> 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.
>>>> 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.
>>> 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.
>> 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.
>
> You pointed out shit. You made a couple of flat statements with zilch
> to back them up.

SHIT!? Sorry Charlie, but I assumed that the evidence pointing to
automobiles being designed safer and more fuel efficient was so FUCKING
SELF EVIDENT that it didn't require citations.
Google is your friend. Common sense even more so, but you seem to be
deficient in that regard today.

Mike Marlow wrote:
> "DS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:SJCuj.40736$yE1.11345@attbi_s21...
>> Charlie Self wrote:
>>> times. I think the last interesting year for American cars was
>>> probably '59 or '60. Yeah, those Chevies with the sideways fins were
>>> 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.
>> 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.
>
> 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.

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.

Robatoy wrote:
> On Feb 19, 11:00 am, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Robatoy wrote:
>>> On Feb 19, 10:38 am, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Charlie Self wrote:
>>>>> times. I think the last interesting year for American cars was
>>>>> probably '59 or '60. Yeah, those Chevies with the sideways fins were
>>>>> 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.
>>>> 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.
>>> Styling. We're talking about styling. Today's cars are ugly,
>>> regardless of reason.
>> If you don't think that designing to strict standards for crash survival
>> and aerodynamic performance places limits on styling, think again.
>
> Didn't slow the Prowler design team much.

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.

Charlie Self wrote:
> times. I think the last interesting year for American cars was
> probably '59 or '60. Yeah, those Chevies with the sideways fins were

> 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.

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.

Mike Marlow wrote:
> "DS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:MlDuj.40782$yE1.32110@attbi_s21...
>
>> Yes, 200lb was an exaggeration, I know you never see that on the internet,
>> so I can understand your confusion.
>
> Not confusion - just a pet peeve.
>
>> 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.
>
> 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.

Point well taken.

Charlie Self wrote:
> On Feb 19, 10:38 am, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Charlie Self wrote:
>>> times. I think the last interesting year for American cars was
>>> probably '59 or '60. Yeah, those Chevies with the sideways fins were
>>> 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.
>> 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.
>
> 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.

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!

> 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.

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.

LRod <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>>By the way (further to my above reply), I think it's interesting that
>>there are at least four modern vehicles to displace the all time
>>ugliest vehicle prior to their ascendancy--the Renault 2CV.
>
> Oops. Citroen 2CV.
>
That one took me and my bride over the Alps into Italy in 1967. It even
went 80 km/hr when going downhill on the autobahn! Trucks hated it when I
had to go into the slow lane when going uphill ... That shift lever
sticking out of he dashboard! Those comfy simple seats you could take out
of the car for picknicks!

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote in
news:ddd86118-ff6d-4278-af07-f667c72585cb@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

> On Feb 22, 8:09 am, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>> LRod <[email protected]> wrote
>> innews:niksr35geghbnteqqal74ccvnr7qs5
> [email protected]:
>>
>> >>By the way (further to my above reply), I think it's interesting
>> >>that there are at least four modern vehicles to displace the all
>> >>time ugliest vehicle prior to their ascendancy--the Renault 2CV.
>>
>> > Oops. Citroen 2CV.
>>
>> That one took me and my bride over the Alps into Italy in 1967.  It
>> even
>
>> went 80 km/hr when going downhill on the autobahn!  Trucks hated it
>> when
> I
>> had to go into the slow lane when going uphill ...  That shift lever
>> sticking out of he dashboard!  Those comfy simple seats you could
>> take o
> ut
>> of the car for picknicks!
>>
>
> Yes, but you didn't want to have to sit in the middle of the back
> seat. That tube would carve you another butt-crack. (Aside from it
> being awfully cramped back there).

You noted I was talking about our honeymoon? It was the cheapest and
roomiest car you could rent for the money.

> My sister had a lot of friends at
> Leiden University who drove these things. That is also where I was
> exposed to the Citroen 11B, such as the one I started the OP with.
>
> The old joke was, (about the 2CV aka Ugly Duckling "Eend")

"Lelijke eend", yes indeed a loving nickname!

> Q: Why are the door knobs on the 2CV so small?
> A: So they won't scrape the street when rounding a corner.

Indeed the suspension was very "giving"!

> The car was very innovative for its day with front wheel drive,
> opposing cylinders, adjustable headlights from inside, oil/air
> suspension and great mileage.
> With the back-seat removed, as Han mentioned, and the roof rolled back
> (like a old-time sardine can) a Duck could move most of a student's
> belongings in one trip.

For that we used the VW Vanagon or whatever it was called then and there.
>
> There was a 'wagon' version of it as well delivering a lot of bread
> and stuff all over Europe.
>
> One of my dad's clients (he is an accountant) had a DS 19 Citroen.
> That was the smoothest ride I have ever experienced. Bar none.
>
> Now I'm getting nostalgic.... but no desire to go back to visit, that
> place is like the outskirts of Paris now... totally ruined.

Let's not get into that. There are stil many, many lovely places in
Holland/Netherlands, as we found out on our bicycle trip last summer
(Nijmegen-Almelo and vice versa, some by train because we were too
chicken to cycle through the rain).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

B A R R Y <[email protected]> wrote in news:%0Evj.58434$Pv2.50386
@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net:

> Han wrote:
>>
>> There are stil many, many lovely places in
>> Holland/Netherlands, as we found out on our bicycle trip last summer
>
> Lucky Han!
>
> I'm really wanting to do a trip like that.
>
Better start saving! The US $ has devalued from $0.85 to $1.48 per €. And
in my experience, the Europeans spend a € like we spend a $. That was OK
when it was $0.85/€, but now !!!!

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Feb 19, 2:07=A0pm, DS <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Point well taken.

Speaking of points.. you get to adjust the angle AND gap on the fly in
this Benz.. none of this vacuum crap.

http://www.motorsportscenter.com/uploads/benz_cockpit_full.jpg

"DS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:MlDuj.40782$yE1.32110@attbi_s21...

>
> Yes, 200lb was an exaggeration, I know you never see that on the internet,
> so I can understand your confusion.

Not confusion - just a pet peeve.

> 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.

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.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"Charlie Self" wrote

> <snip>

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
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Feb 21, 1:55=A0pm, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 21, 10:12 am, LRod <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 04:08:59 -0800 (PST), Charlie Self
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >So, maybe, a Scion. A neat car that lets my wrecked knees
> > >ease their way in and out with no struggle.
>
> > You actually *want* to be seen in a car that looks like a shoe?
>
> > Tied for 1st (along with the Honda Element and the Chevy Avalanche) as
> > the ugliest car on the road. Possibly ever.
>
> > --
>
> Yeah, well, that's a large part of the appeal, that shoe shape, with
> all the room in the shaft of the ol' work shoe. That and well over 30
> MPG...which is why a used one is in order; the '08s are larger,
> heavier, more powerful, all of which adds up to worse gas mileage.
>
> As to wanting to be seen in it, who of such importance is going to see
> me that it will affect my income? Otherwise, why give a rat's ass.
>
> Unless you can afford cars I can't, and wouldn't drive daily if I
> could, style is all in the sense of comfort, safety and economy the
> vehicle brings to you.

I think they're kind of nice in an ugly way. I also think UniMog makes
beautiful beasts.
Form follows function, I always say..... well... not ALWAYS, but
often.
Hummer =3D looks good
Hummer H2 =3D looks like shit
Hummer H3 =3D just plain silly.

r

On Feb 19, 10:38 am, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
> Charlie Self wrote:
> > times. I think the last interesting year for American cars was
> > probably '59 or '60. Yeah, those Chevies with the sideways fins were
> > 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.
>
> 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.

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.

On Feb 20, 10:18=A0am, Frank Boettcher <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 18:22:13 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Frank Boettcher wrote:
> >> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 13:00:50 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> Somebody wrote:
>
> >>>> =A0I think the last interesting year for American cars was
> >>>> probably '59 or '60.
>
> >>> 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
>
> >> Hey, I owned one of those Valiant's. =A0225 slant six, three on the
> >> column, no air, no radio, rubber floor mats and vinyl seats. =A0It was
> >> cheap, very reliable tranportation.
>
> >> I and drove one of those upscale Corvairs, what was it called a
> >> monza
> >> or spider or whatever. =A0An absolute thrill to drive. =A0You never had=

> >> to
> >> slow for corners and it would stay absolutely flat in the turn. =A0Now
> >> 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. =A0Now there was an abomination, at
> >> least
> >> the entry level version.
>
> >My mother had one of those. =A0So did my best friend in high school. =A0H=
e
> >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". =A0My 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. =A0Drove 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. =A0I
> >think that that was the last non-air-conditioned car she owned.
>
> >--
>
> Imagine two adults, six kids, one large Russian wolfhound dog, one
> parakeet in a cage and all the luggage and supplies necessary to
> sustain them, Biloxi, MS to Severna Park, MD, and back in August in
> one of those early model, six cylinder, non-air conditioned, Falcon
> station wagons. =A0I still have nightmares.
>
> Frank

I will NOT imagine that. Can't. My mind won't let me.

On Feb 19, 12:15 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Feb 19, 10:08 am, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >> 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.
>
> 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?
>
> > 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.
>
> 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

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.

Robatoy wrote:
>
> 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*)

I like the Toyota powered Lotus cars.

A dependable British car! <G>

On Feb 19, 4:29=A0pm, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Feb 19, 4:00 pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Somebody wrote:
> >>> =A0I think the last interesting year for American cars was
> >>> probably '59 or '60.
> >> 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.
>
> >http://www.audi.ca/audi/ca/en2/new_cars/Audi_R8.html
>
> If that R8 doesn't get your blood pumping... you may as well be driving
> a Yugo.

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*)

On Feb 19, 10:08 am, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote:

> >> 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.

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?


> 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.

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

"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:290e8102-31f5-421d-ab90-b5ec45ab3456@h25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

> I have owned at least a half dozen
> Valiants over the years, and while none provided any excitement, they
> all did what they were supposedly designed to do, carried five adults
> in modest comfort over a 200,000+ mile lifespan. That's with the slant
> 6, of course.

This one causes me to trip up a bit. I can believe a Valiant going 200,000
miles if the motor gets rebuilt two or three times, and the tranny replace
another couple, but I can't see it going 200,000 miles in anywhere near a
reliable manner. Hell, by 60,000 these things were well suited to mosquito
control with all the spew coming out of the exhaust pipe. Yeah - the slant
six kept running, no matter what, and the damned thing would run forever
with no rings at all left in it, but a lot of cars would meet that criteria.
Didn't make them good cars. We got by with a lot of junk in the old days by
doing things like throwing thicker motor oil at them and not worrying about
the blue cloud behind us.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Feb 21, 3:29 pm, LRod <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 10:55:27 -0800 (PST), Charlie Self
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Feb 21, 10:12 am, LRod <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 04:08:59 -0800 (PST), Charlie Self
>
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >So, maybe, a Scion. A neat car that lets my wrecked knees
> >> >ease their way in and out with no struggle.
>
> >> You actually *want* to be seen in a car that looks like a shoe?
>
> >> Tied for 1st (along with the Honda Element and the Chevy Avalanche) as
> >> the ugliest car on the road. Possibly ever.
>
> >> --
>
> >Yeah, well, that's a large part of the appeal, that shoe shape, with
> >all the room in the shaft of the ol' work shoe. That and well over 30
> >MPG...which is why a used one is in order; the '08s are larger,
> >heavier, more powerful, all of which adds up to worse gas mileage.
>
> >As to wanting to be seen in it, who of such importance is going to see
> >me that it will affect my income? Otherwise, why give a rat's ass.
>
> >Unless you can afford cars I can't, and wouldn't drive daily if I
> >could, style is all in the sense of comfort, safety and economy the
> >vehicle brings to you.
>
> Remember the "Home Improvement" episode when Jill bought an
> Austin-Healy 3000 without Tim's approval? He liked a lot of features
> of it--bucket seats, stick shift, convertible (replace those features
> with "comfort, safety, and economy") but he kept choking and saying,
> "but it's...BRITISH!" (a sentiment most gear heads on this side of the
> pond can appreciate--e.g. why is British beer always warm? Lucas
> electrics).
>
> Substitute "scion" for British, and you will get my point.
>
> Anyway, it was a funny episode.
>
> --

Uh, yeah, except that Scion doesn't sub for an AH 3000 in any way,
shape or form, including being British. It is based, or was
originally, on the Toyota Yaris, which isn't a world beater, but is a
decent, long lasting car. Austin Healey cars were a lot of fun, but
not particularly long lasting or decent quality otherwise. Brit cars
were like Brit bikes back then: you could always tell where one was
parked after it left; there was a sizeable oil stain.

I can understand a lot of the reasons for not liking British cars,
having grown up in the Lucas, Prince of Darkness, era for both
motorcycles and cars. There simply is no comparison.

On Feb 19, 3:47 pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> 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

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.

On Feb 22, 8:09=A0am, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
> LRod <[email protected]> wrote innews:niksr35geghbnteqqal74ccvnr7qs5=
[email protected]:
>
> >>By the way (further to my above reply), I think it's interesting that
> >>there are at least four modern vehicles to displace the all time
> >>ugliest vehicle prior to their ascendancy--the Renault 2CV.
>
> > Oops. Citroen 2CV.
>
> That one took me and my bride over the Alps into Italy in 1967. =A0It even=

> went 80 km/hr when going downhill on the autobahn! =A0Trucks hated it when=
I
> had to go into the slow lane when going uphill ... =A0That shift lever
> sticking out of he dashboard! =A0Those comfy simple seats you could take o=
ut
> of the car for picknicks!
>

Yes, but you didn't want to have to sit in the middle of the back
seat. That tube would carve you another butt-crack. (Aside from it
being awfully cramped back there). My sister had a lot of friends at
Leiden University who drove these things. That is also where I was
exposed to the Citroen 11B, such as the one I started the OP with.

The old joke was, (about the 2CV aka Ugly Duckling "Eend")
Q: Why are the door knobs on the 2CV so small?
A: So they won't scrape the street when rounding a corner.

The car was very innovative for its day with front wheel drive,
opposing cylinders, adjustable headlights from inside, oil/air
suspension and great mileage.
With the back-seat removed, as Han mentioned, and the roof rolled back
(like a old-time sardine can) a Duck could move most of a student's
belongings in one trip.

There was a 'wagon' version of it as well delivering a lot of bread
and stuff all over Europe.

One of my dad's clients (he is an accountant) had a DS 19 Citroen.
That was the smoothest ride I have ever experienced. Bar none.

Now I'm getting nostalgic.... but no desire to go back to visit, that
place is like the outskirts of Paris now... totally ruined.

On Feb 20, 8:25 am, Frank Boettcher <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 03:15:49 -0800 (PST), Charlie Self
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Feb 19, 4:59 pm, Frank Boettcher <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 13:00:50 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
>
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >Somebody wrote:
>
> >> >> I think the last interesting year for American cars was
> >> >> probably '59 or '60.
>
> >> >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
>
> >> 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.
>
> >There's a '63-1/2 Falcon convertible with the, I think, 302 engine...
>
> 260 I think unless they had a special edition model which I don't
> remember.
>
> Far cry from that earlier entry trim version. My Dad had one of
> those. What a nightmare.
>
> Frank

You're probably right: this was a special edition, though, and from
what the owner told me, Ford didn't produce too many. Ah, from what
the records say, Forrd kicked out 4,278 of the Sprint convertible, no
numbers available on what engines, though. OK. From what Bobby told
me, it was the Challenger V8, 289. Maybe it really was.

I think there is an odds on chance that the car was a precursor to the
Mustang, which appeared on the half year (April) of '64.

On Feb 19, 4:00=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Somebody wrote:
> > =A0I think the last interesting year for American cars was
> > probably '59 or '60.
>
> 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.

http://www.audi.ca/audi/ca/en2/new_cars/Audi_R8.html

CARPE DIEM!

On Feb 19, 10:38=A0am, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
> Charlie Self wrote:
> > times. I think the last interesting year for American cars was
> > probably '59 or '60. Yeah, those Chevies with the sideways fins were
> > 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.
>
> 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.

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?

:)

On Feb 22, 12:57=A0pm, B A R R Y <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>
> > Hummer =3D looks good
> > Hummer H2 =3D looks like shit
> > Hummer H3 =3D just plain silly.
>
> H2 SUT =3D Ultra Silly!

Is it any wonder all these companies are in trouble?

"Let's see here...where can we hang some more gaudy plastic do-nothing
parts..."

LOL...I just remembered... do you recall those yellow/brown plastic
trunk straps they put on blue Thunderbirds? They're revisiting that
era, I think...

On Feb 20, 11:11 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> Charlie Self wrote:
> > On Feb 19, 12:07 am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Robatoy wrote:
> >> > I have always been very fond of this design. (Front wheel drive too)
>
> >> >http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/1955.jpg
>
> >> Yep, the esthetics of that design are quite pleasing, aren't they?
> >> Even
> >> though the design is dated, it still looks good.
>
> > 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 don't disagree with that.
>
> > I think the last interesting year for American cars was
> > probably '59 or '60.
>
> I grew up mostly in the late 60's or 70's and found some of the cars from
> the 50's to be really neat (but then, I was influenced by "American
> Graffiti" :-) ) Got to drive a 70 Pontiac LeMans to school -- that had a
> certain amount of style to it. It was the later models where all the cars
> started looking like 1/2 used bars of soap (I think mid-70's, early 80's
> where that really hit). Just about the only way to tell the make was by
> looking at the label
>
> > 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.
>
> ... on a boar hog comes to mind.
>
> > 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.
>
> I find the new Ford pickups kind of appealing. I really like the pre-90's
> Ford pickups; I just really like the clean lines on the late 70's era
> pickups much better than the rounded shapes of the 40 and 50 era and the
> squat square shapes on the early 60's models. Even though I drive an 86, I
> really like the earlier style.
>
> --
> If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Now, I really LIKE that half-a-bar of soap description. I may steal
it. It is dead accurate, though I think you may be a little early on
your dating: when my wife and I started dating, she had an '84 Ford
Tempo (now, if you want to discuss a POS, that one comes very, very
close to the top of the list) that was just edging its way over into
soapdom (it was already decrepit and had been since it rolled off the
line). We unloaded that for Plymouth Caravelle, which we ran 145,000
miles before trading it on a LeBaron four door, which got about the
same mileage. The mileage is more from my distrust of tiny engines
than from any real problems, by the way. I just have a hard time four
cylinders can haul that much weight around for so long and still be
sound. We'll be trading our Stratus soon, and it has less than 120,000
on it. I want to make a driving trip to NY later this year, to see an
old junior high school friend and my niece. She's on the island, he's
upstate. So, maybe, a Scion. A neat car that lets my wrecked knees
ease their way in and out with no struggle.

On Feb 22, 9:09 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> One of my dad's clients (he is an accountant) had a DS 19 Citroen.
> That was the smoothest ride I have ever experienced. Bar none.

A guy I worked for in '62 had a DS 19. One day, it cranked up on its
hydraulic suspension and would come down...during the drive from
Northern Westchester (Goldens Bridge) to William Street in NYC. He
parked it, and came back and it was down and wouldn't come up. I think
his next car was a Pontiac.

On Feb 19, 5:31 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 5:12 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> 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.)

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....

In article <[email protected]>, duckecho@gmail-dot-com wrote:
>On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 04:08:59 -0800 (PST), Charlie Self
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>So, maybe, a Scion. A neat car that lets my wrecked knees
>>ease their way in and out with no struggle.
>
>You actually *want* to be seen in a car that looks like a shoe?
>
>Tied for 1st (along with the Honda Element and the Chevy Avalanche) as
>the ugliest car on the road. Possibly ever.

No, that's a three-way tie for *second* place.
*First* place belongs to the Pontiac Aztec.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Frank Boettcher wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 13:00:50 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Somebody wrote:
>>
>>> I think the last interesting year for American cars was
>>> probably '59 or '60.
>>
>> 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
>>
>
>
> 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.

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.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

[email protected] wrote:
> On Feb 19, 1:26 pm, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 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 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've got an article due out in the June C&p, on a '49 Studebaker
>> four
>> door.
>
> 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
>
>> Admittedly, the piece I have in the March Corvette Enthusiast is
>> on a '60 'Vette
>
> 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.
>
>> 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.
>
> 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!
>
>> Hell, you can get $18,000 for an AMX these
>> days, if it is in top shape. Hard to believe.
>
> 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.

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
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Frank Boettcher wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 18:22:13 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Frank Boettcher wrote:
>>> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 13:00:50 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Somebody wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think the last interesting year for American cars was
>>>>> probably '59 or '60.
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> --
> Imagine two adults, six kids, one large Russian wolfhound dog, one
> parakeet in a cage and all the luggage and supplies necessary to
> sustain them, Biloxi, MS to Severna Park, MD, and back in August in
> one of those early model, six cylinder, non-air conditioned, Falcon
> station wagons. I still have nightmares.

Ack. Horrors. I thought that _I_ had had a bad trip.


--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 04:08:59 -0800 (PST), Charlie Self
<[email protected]> wrote:

>So, maybe, a Scion. A neat car that lets my wrecked knees
>ease their way in and out with no struggle.

You actually *want* to be seen in a car that looks like a shoe?

Tied for 1st (along with the Honda Element and the Chevy Avalanche) as
the ugliest car on the road. Possibly ever.


--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net
http://www.normstools.com

Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997

email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
care to correspond with you anyway.

Robatoy wrote:
> On Feb 19, 12:15 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> [snippp]
>> 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.
>>
> You'd have to equip them with strawberry coloured gun turrets these
> days.
>

Sweet!

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 22:59:29 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, duckecho@gmail-dot-com wrote:
>>On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 04:08:59 -0800 (PST), Charlie Self
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>So, maybe, a Scion. A neat car that lets my wrecked knees
>>>ease their way in and out with no struggle.
>>
>>You actually *want* to be seen in a car that looks like a shoe?
>>
>>Tied for 1st (along with the Honda Element and the Chevy Avalanche) as
>>the ugliest car on the road. Possibly ever.
>
>No, that's a three-way tie for *second* place.
>*First* place belongs to the Pontiac Aztec.

Since there's no way the Aztec (and I wholly agree with your notice of
it) is uglier than the Scion, can we agree on a four way tie for
first? Or, as further compromise, I'll give you the Avalanche for 4th
place and you give me the Scion and Element to tie with the Aztec for
1st. Deal?



--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net
http://www.normstools.com

Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997

email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
care to correspond with you anyway.

Robatoy wrote:
> On Feb 19, 2:07 pm, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Point well taken.
>
> Speaking of points.. you get to adjust the angle AND gap on the fly in
> this Benz.. none of this vacuum crap.
>
> http://www.motorsportscenter.com/uploads/benz_cockpit_full.jpg

I thought the computer was supposed to do that. Where's the computer?

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 13:00:50 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Somebody wrote:
>
>> I think the last interesting year for American cars was
>> probably '59 or '60.
>
>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
>


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

DS wrote:
> >
> Time calls it one of the worst 100 cars ever!

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

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

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:15:46 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:


>I certainly agree with that the market drives the design.

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

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net
http://www.normstools.com

Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997

email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
care to correspond with you anyway.

Robatoy wrote:
> On Feb 19, 4:00 pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Somebody wrote:
>>> I think the last interesting year for American cars was
>>> probably '59 or '60.
>> 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.
>
> http://www.audi.ca/audi/ca/en2/new_cars/Audi_R8.html


If that R8 doesn't get your blood pumping... you may as well be driving
a Yugo.

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 00:45:29 +0000, LRod <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 22:59:29 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, duckecho@gmail-dot-com wrote:
>>>On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 04:08:59 -0800 (PST), Charlie Self
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>So, maybe, a Scion. A neat car that lets my wrecked knees
>>>>ease their way in and out with no struggle.
>>>
>>>You actually *want* to be seen in a car that looks like a shoe?
>>>
>>>Tied for 1st (along with the Honda Element and the Chevy Avalanche) as
>>>the ugliest car on the road. Possibly ever.
>>
>>No, that's a three-way tie for *second* place.
>>*First* place belongs to the Pontiac Aztec.
>
>By the way (further to my above reply), I think it's interesting that
>there are at least four modern vehicles to displace the all time
>ugliest vehicle prior to their ascendancy--the Renault 2CV.

Oops. Citroen 2CV.


--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net
http://www.normstools.com

Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997

email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
care to correspond with you anyway.

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 22:59:29 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, duckecho@gmail-dot-com wrote:
>>On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 04:08:59 -0800 (PST), Charlie Self
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>So, maybe, a Scion. A neat car that lets my wrecked knees
>>>ease their way in and out with no struggle.
>>
>>You actually *want* to be seen in a car that looks like a shoe?
>>
>>Tied for 1st (along with the Honda Element and the Chevy Avalanche) as
>>the ugliest car on the road. Possibly ever.
>
>No, that's a three-way tie for *second* place.
>*First* place belongs to the Pontiac Aztec.

By the way (further to my above reply), I think it's interesting that
there are at least four modern vehicles to displace the all time
ugliest vehicle prior to their ascendancy--the Renault 2CV.


--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net
http://www.normstools.com

Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997

email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
care to correspond with you anyway.

Robatoy wrote:
>
> Hummer = looks good
> Hummer H2 = looks like shit
> Hummer H3 = just plain silly.
>


H2 SUT = Ultra Silly!

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 18:22:13 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Frank Boettcher wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 13:00:50 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Somebody wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think the last interesting year for American cars was
>>>> probably '59 or '60.
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
>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.
>
>--
Imagine two adults, six kids, one large Russian wolfhound dog, one
parakeet in a cage and all the luggage and supplies necessary to
sustain them, Biloxi, MS to Severna Park, MD, and back in August in
one of those early model, six cylinder, non-air conditioned, Falcon
station wagons. I still have nightmares.

Frank

In article <[email protected]>, duckecho@gmail-dot-com wrote:
>On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 22:59:29 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
> duckecho@gmail-dot-com wrote:
>>>On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 04:08:59 -0800 (PST), Charlie Self
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>So, maybe, a Scion. A neat car that lets my wrecked knees
>>>>ease their way in and out with no struggle.
>>>
>>>You actually *want* to be seen in a car that looks like a shoe?
>>>
>>>Tied for 1st (along with the Honda Element and the Chevy Avalanche) as
>>>the ugliest car on the road. Possibly ever.
>>
>>No, that's a three-way tie for *second* place.
>>*First* place belongs to the Pontiac Aztec.
>
>Since there's no way the Aztec (and I wholly agree with your notice of
>it) is uglier than the Scion, can we agree on a four way tie for
>first? Or, as further compromise, I'll give you the Avalanche for 4th
>place and you give me the Scion and Element to tie with the Aztec for
>1st. Deal?

Works for me! Damn, but those are ugly cars.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Robatoy wrote:
> On Feb 19, 11:00 am, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Robatoy wrote:
>>> On Feb 19, 10:38 am, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Charlie Self wrote:
>>>>> times. I think the last interesting year for American cars was
>>>>> probably '59 or '60. Yeah, those Chevies with the sideways fins were
>>>>> 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.
>>>> 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.
>>> Styling. We're talking about styling. Today's cars are ugly,
>>> regardless of reason.
>> If you don't think that designing to strict standards for crash survival
>> and aerodynamic performance places limits on styling, think again.
>
> Didn't slow the Prowler design team much.

Time calls it one of the worst 100 cars ever!
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1658545_1658544_1658536,00.html

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