So...

[Cory Wolfe]

...I'm home alone and board. So here's some pics of some random car search I did...

[z28luvr01]

The car looked a lot better in person, with the revised chrome trimmings as in the first pic. It also looks a little lower in that pic...check out the wheel well gap. I remember Lutz saying that this car could be done for around 20K if they did it. I'd buy it.

[ocnblu]

In addition to the convertible, we need a coupe, sedan, wagon, and El Camino. There's your full-size Chevrolet lineup, plain as day.

[pow]

I *LOVE* that interior. It's retro AND modern.

[Sixty8panther]

This is the kind of retro I DON'T like. :(

WTF... take a gorgeous 1957 Chevy and water it down to the point where it looks more like a Sebring then a Chevy, then raise the grille 24" and voila! If the designer of the Toyota Camry was asked to do a modern version of the Tri-5 cars I think it might actually bne better.

[Sixty8panther]

Look closely where the grille is on this car!

Now go back to the drawing board and get to work on something that actually has tail fins, otherwise don't bother. <_<

[pow]

This is the kind of retro I DON'T like. :(

WTF... take a gorgeous 1957 Chevy and water it down to the point where it looks more like a Sebring then a Chevy, then raise the grille 24" and voila! If the designer of the Toyota Camry was asked to do a modern version of the Tri-5 cars I think it might actually bne better.

[post="25647"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I'm with you on the exterior. It gives me a bad 2002 Thunderbird vibe.

[Cory Wolfe]

Tail fins are overrated. :D Edited October 8, 2005 by blackviper8891

[Satty]

Tail fins are overrated.

[post="25654"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Not in the 50's and 60's, which is where some of our members seem to be living.
The past=the past, not now.

[ShadowDog]

I, for one, am happy they avoided this car.

[LosAngeles]

Time to compare...

We offer Ford's entry:

[LosAngeles]

And now, the Dodge entry:





Now if only the BMWs, Toyotas, Hondas, and Renaults of the world wanted to make 50s concepts....

[Flybrian]

Thanks for reminding me how lousy the Dodge Super 8 Motel concept looked.

[Croc]

That Ford is nice, though I still love that Bel Air!

[ocnblu]

I fully admit the Forty Nine puts the Bel Air to shame. I agree the front end is not the most attractive on the Chevy, but I like the sides, rear, interior, and the fact that it's RWD. Since it was supposedly built on the GMT360 platform, it should be a simple, tough car, and relatively cheap to manufacture. With the inline 5 as a base engine and with the proper gearing, it should be economical to run. Of course, it would need an LS V8 with DOD as top engine offering.

It may be an old idea, body-on-frame with an inline engine, but it seems to me it has been fully updated and could still be viable, perhaps even preferable, for Americans at large and for rugged service applications.

Side note: I recently read somewhere that one of the leading proposals for a fullsize Chevy RWD sedan takes some styling cues from the 1966 Impala... a handsome car, imo. Edited October 8, 2005 by ocnblu

[Cory Wolfe]

Of those three... Best exterior: Ford 49 Best interior: Chevy Bel Air The Dodge is just disgusting... Ugh.

[milleramerican]

Wow is dodge capable of producing anything sleek looking? Honestly, the sleekest looking car they have is the Viper. Other than that, everything is blocky and very square. Also, that ford is so sexy. It looks very clean.

[ocnblu]

Perhaps if the Thunderbird had sold better we would have seen the Forty Nine on a dealership lot. Thunderbird's performance also may have indirectly nixed something like the Bel Air from Chevy.

[pow]

That Ford looks very, very sexy, inside and out. The Dodge on the other hand, looks hideous.

[Northstar]

The Forty-Nine is definetly the best of the 3, but none of them really do much for me.

[balthazar]

Wow is dodge capable of producing anything sleek looking?

Bel Air: I tend to agree with Sixty8 here: it's has some nice body lines but the details come off as watered down. Overall it does not stir me.

Forty-Nine: One gorgeous car! I would buy this baby in a heartbeat, and I know I have never uttered that statement on these boards in regards to any modern vehicle. Beautiful body envelope, clean classic & strong detailing, A+ stance & slick rims. Interior is great too: fresh & simple. Why can't mercedes or bmw craft something this inspiring & drop-dead gorgeous? More importantly- why can't Ford build this (as a Lincoln even)?? The Most Beautiful Ford Ever in my book.

Super 8: Tho the wrap windshield gets me all gooshy, the bulk of the exterior is brutish & crude without being cool. I want to like but... there's no way. Interior does have some interesting, funky elements tho- worth saving.

[LosAngeles]

Thanks for reminding me how lousy the Dodge Super 8 Motel concept looked.

[post="25723"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I think it's got the best interior of the three....exteriorwise, I'll take the Ford. The Chevy simply looks the closest to production.

[ocnblu]

I do like the dogleg windshield and the pushbutton gear selector (like an old TorqueFlite) on the Dodge. I also like the general upright shape because it makes for a roomy cabin.

[Sixty8panther]

Bel Air: I tend to agree with Sixty8 here: it's has some nice body lines but the details come off as watered down. Overall it does not stir me.

Forty-Nine: One gorgeous car! I would buy this baby in a heartbeat, and I know I have never uttered that statement on these boards in regards to any modern vehicle. Beautiful body envelope, clean classic & strong detailing, A+ stance & slick rims. Interior is great too: fresh & simple. Why can't mercedes or bmw craft something this inspiring & drop-dead gorgeous? More importantly- why can't Ford build this (as a Lincoln even)?? The Most Beautiful Ford Ever in my book.

Super 8: Tho the wrap windshield gets me all gooshy, the bulk of the exterior is brutish & crude without being cool. I want to like but... there's no way. Interior does have some interesting, funky elements tho- worth saving.

[post="25755"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I agre with you 100% here Balthazar. One quick addition.

Super 8:

Idea on paper: A+ (c'mon a hardtop with suicide doors :wub:)

Excecution: D- ugly and cheap looking like a Plastic toy. Edited October 9, 2005 by Sixty8panther

[ocnblu]

I find it funny that Croc has chosen to make fun of Sixty8's sig (with a flawed example in the SSR). Croc drives an M-class. The Mercedes CLK is (as far as I know) the only pillarless hardtop coupe with retractable quarter windows left on the market.

I wish the G6 coupe had retractable quarter windows, it would look so cool cruising around with all four windows down.

[Sixty8panther]

Not in the 50's and 60's, which is where some of our members seem to be living.
The past=the past, not now.

[post="25657"][/post]

Which era would you rather live in as an Automotive enthusiast?


1955-1960






























Edited October 9, 2005 by Sixty8panther

[Sixty8panther]

2000-2005



























Ocnblu: Absolutely. How about a true 4dr hardtop STS or 300C? :) Edited October 9, 2005 by Sixty8panther

[ocnblu]

Planned obsolescence certainly kept the excitement level up year after year with annual design changes. The 50's, 60's and early 70's were great times to be a car enthusiast I'd imagine.

Before someone makes fun of Sixty8 once again for his above post, remember, he is placing you in that time period, not looking back from today. Today, more people view the car as an appliance, how else would Toyota be where they are, really?

[Sixty8panther]

yup.... a classic car from the 50s/60s jumps out at you. Bold and dynamic, a modern car (95% off the time) blends in like a pebble in a cobblestone street.

[pow]

I find it funny that Croc has chosen to make fun of Sixty8's sig (with a flawed example in the SSR).  Croc drives an M-class.  The Mercedes CLK is (as far as I know) the only pillarless hardtop coupe with retractable quarter windows left on the market.

I wish the G6 coupe had retractable quarter windows, it would look so cool cruising around with all four windows down.

[post="25953"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

The Merc CL, Aston DB9, Aston AMV8 Vantage, new Jag XK, and Bentley Continental GT are hardtop 2-doors as well.

[razoredge]

The Chevy had potential, the nose was the problem, that and its a Chevy, we dont need more Chevys A little top edge on the rear quarters would be a nice touch Were not living in the 50's and 60's, were just not sold on modern styling as being "all that". The Ford looks unfinished as did the Thunderbird The Dodge looks remarkably in line with the Mr. Roboto that the CTS is. Ah, Im going to get in my time machine and go back to 1967 when there were new fresh ideas. Sorry for you youngsters that those Old boys burned through the frontier so fast. Keep dabblin, we've seen it before and we've seen it done better. :P :)

[razoredge]

excellent post 6T8.........but .......uh...........Ive got to think about it for awhile......uh.....all those old cars look different..........not like my favorite car.........I want all cars to look like my favorite car..........they all suck if there not just like my favorite car....... :P http://www.cheersandgears.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/AH-HA_wink.gif

[Croc]

I find it funny that Croc has chosen to make fun of Sixty8's sig (with a flawed example in the SSR).  Croc drives an M-class.  The Mercedes CLK is (as far as I know) the only pillarless hardtop coupe with retractable quarter windows left on the market.

I wish the G6 coupe had retractable quarter windows, it would look so cool cruising around with all four windows down.

[post="25953"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

First of all, I don't care cuz I think it's funny.

Secondly, according to this wikipedia article, it is still a pillarless hardtop:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardtop

It has no B-Pillar, and it is a hardtop. I don't see the problem with this?

[Croc]

Taking and running with 68s idea of which era would one rather be an enthusiast in, I have to say his selections for the current era were pretty lousy. You took the exciting cars of the 1950s. Not every car had that outlandish styling. Let's compare apples to apples, eh?

Here are the cars of the current era to be compared with thoose 68 posted from the 50s:

















So there we have it...



For me? I'd rather be in the present simply because ride and handling are far superior than the older cars. The older cars look great, don't get me wrong, but I love the present era. Plus cars today are far safer than those of the past.

[Croc]

[Croc]

[Croc]

[Croc]

I dunno...I really think this era has its share of lookers as well... ;)

[Cory Wolfe]

My computer is having a heart attack with all these pics. :blink: Anyways, going by what's typed... As a full fledged automotive enthusiast, I would rather live in this era. Much better handling, ride, brakes... much tighter, less excessive bodies... much more technology and much more performance orientation. What isn't better? Styling... not IMO. Now that I've waited for about a half hour for all the pics to load... Sixty8, all you did was post pics of some of the best examples of the '50s and '60s, then post some of the worst examples of today. Like Croc said, compare apples to apples. Also, sorry to bring this up again, but stop being so close-mined, too. Those '50s cars stand out because they're from the '50s! Duh! To the general public, I'm sure they all look the same. They all have excessive styling, tailfins, lots of chrome, hardtops, round headlights, and the same wheels. You cannot criticize today's cars without criticizing ones from then.

[Croc]

Sorry BV...I know there were a lot of pics, but damn...I couldn't leave a single hot car out, now could I have?

[Croc]

I really think the SSR is more of a sports car than it is a truck...If I were in the market for a truck, I wouldn't consider the SSR, and if I were in the market for a sports car, I would...

[CaddyXLR-V]

I really think the SSR is more of a sports car than it is a truck...If I were in the market for a truck, I wouldn't consider the SSR, and if I were in the market for a sports car, I would...

[post="26074"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

It fails miserably as a sports car. If you were in the market for a sports car, why would you pick an SSR, sitting right next to the Corvette?

[Croc]

It fails miserably as a sports car. If you were in the market for a sports car, why would you pick an SSR, sitting right next to the Corvette?

[post="26079"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

It fills the niche left by the Camaro. Corvette is for the performance, ride and handling, SSR is like the Camaro: raw power and straight line action.

It's pretty good now that it has the engine upgrade...

[Flybrian]

Though this is funny and all...

Sixty8, dude, '58-'60 Lincolns are bad examples to showcase vintage American styling to be good...

Show the front, too...

Slabbed flanks, ugly front wheelwell scallops, gaudy ass-heavy chrome bumper surround, lower ventral fins that are almost larger than the dorsal ones, three-year-old Cadillac bumperettes, pointless fin-like front bumper endcaps, horrendous canopy roofline, overwrought wheel wells, chrome side molding that originates from and goes nowhere, not to mention the ass-ugly dash layout inside that looked like an '85 Caprice - plain, boring, and cut-out.

Those things looked like shit and are probably the worst cars ever borne from that era. Its unthinkable that Lincoln went from the class and presence of the '57 Premier and '56 Mark II to the simplisticlly elegant '61+ Continentals through these grotesque, rolling monstrosities.

[Croc]

I disagree. SSR's only failing was the weak engine for the initial price. Now that it has a 6-speed and a 90hp bump, it is quite good. AFAIC it is a car made to look like a truck even though it IS GMT-360-based. It is BOF, it has RWD, V8, 6-speed, and it is a hardtop...a hardtop convertible no less, and no pillars. It is the reincarnation of an old muscle car. Even the handling characteristics are virtually the same as an old muscle car.

[razoredge]

Fly I think the point was all the interesting varibles. Where as today there just insnt all that much different or inspiring. Of course thru 60 was not my era either but why bore people with photos of the best looking cars ever made :P Whats really funny is 6T8 posted random photos of all the varibles of your basic family cars of the era and their modern counterparts. Then croc counters by throwing up the cream of the crop, some of which are throwbacks to the 50's & 60's, and many are just not noteworthy and will disappear into Chinese smelt pots. The recent SSR is a joke just like the Prowler. That money should have gone to Buick or fatter wallet liners for the underpaid execs.

[Flybrian]

Whats really funny is 6T8 posted random photos of all the varibles of your basic family cars of the era and their modern counterparts.

Then croc counters by throwing up the cream of the crop, some of which are throwbacks to the 50's & 60's, and many are just not noteworthy and will disappear into Chinese smelt pots.

[post="26092"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Uh, not really. Half of those classics were high-line Cadillacs, Lincolns, or Chryslers, certainly not your 'basic family cars.'

The 50s and 60s certainly had its share of more basic, less-graceful machines like the Plymouth Plaza, Chevrolet 150 and Del Ray, Ford Custom, Studebaker Scotsman (a real Hyundai of its day), Nashes, and the like.

[Croc]

SSR has a retractable hardtop...the Corvette does not. So what were you saying about technological innovation? Retractible hardtops are pretty expensive to make...

[z28luvr01]

As far as retractable hardtops go, I think the SSR is about as innovative as they get, folding in half clamshell-style then stowing vertically behind the seats so as to steal no cargo space. Plus the SSR's bodywork really pushed the limit of GMs steel stamping ability. It really is a rather impressive machine.

[ocnblu]

Why would the SSR have a pillar? It's designed to resemble a regular cab pickup truck. Like I said... bad example.