Unpopular Opinion about a Popular Car?

[Drew Dowdell]

Last week we had "Unpopular Opinion about an Unpopular Car".  This week we're doing Unpopular Opinion about a Popular Car.  What good selling car or one that gets lots of praise in the motoring press do you have a contrary opinion about?

One entry for me is the Alfa Romeo Giulia.  While they handle well, I find their styling, both interior and exterior to be completely underwhelming. They lack the refinement of most of their competition. The reliability is ...erm.... traditional Italian brand reliability.  I've just never seen what the rest of the motoring press is going on about with how "great" these cars are.  Apparently shoppers agree with me as the Alfa brand is down 34% month over month with just 797 Giulias sold in May. 

[G. David Felt]

Easy for me to answer is all the bloody praise heaped on the hard plastic interiors of the superior Lexus CUVs and how they are better than anything America builds. My sister was all set to go test drive and buy one based on all the crazy praise the Lexus gets and once inside, she was totally underwhelmed. Test drive was also not impressive and she ended up buying the Buick Envision. Far superior to the Lexus.

[Drew Dowdell]

13 minutes ago, dfelt said:

Easy for me to answer is all the bloody praise heaped on the hard plastic interiors of the superior Lexus CUVs and how they are better than anything America builds. My sister was all set to go test drive and buy one based on all the crazy praise the Lexus gets and once inside, she was totally underwhelmed. Test drive was also not impressive and she ended up buying the Buick Envision. Far superior to the Lexus.

The Lexuses are good vehicles, but not worthy of the praise lumped on them as "best evar!!!".... plus they have no soul. 

[trinacriabob]

I do not like the new Regal - either as the sportback or the wagon.  I find the styling bland from almost all vantage points.  Inside, the choices of interior colors is dismal.  I am warming up to the more horizontal dash.

[G. David Felt]

26 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

The Lexuses are good vehicles, but not worthy of the praise lumped on them as "best evar!!!".... plus they have no soul. 

I feel that way about Toyota Pickups and VW in general. Bland blah auto's that have not soul.

[frogger]

11 minutes ago, trinacriabob said:

I do not like the new Regal - either as the sportback or the wagon.  I find the styling bland from almost all vantage points.  Inside, the choices of interior colors is dismal.  I am warming up to the more horizontal dash.

I agree for the most part, I think the Regal took a step back inside and out (aside from roominess), but I don't think they are popular.

 

 

 

 

[Potluck]

Civics are just mediocre little econoboxes. Not worth all the fuss made over them. 

[oldshurst442]

I HATE BMWs.

Its an irrational sentiment as its...a car...its just an inanimate object....

 But why do I loathe such a thing as a BMW?

Its NOT an overly complicated matter. Au contraire, its quite simple. Petty. But simple. But I wont be dwelling on that. I will just be telling you folk how I LOATHE BMW and these two models in particular. 

These two models, are the REASON why BMWs are soooo famous. These two BMWs are the basis of their now...ironic slogan. 

"The Ultimate Driving Machine"

The BMW 2002 and the E30 3 Series.  It dont matter in what trim, I CANT STAND these things.  

 

Maybe I should have chosen the econobox versions to post as pics as to PROVE that I have ZERO respect for these homely pieces of shyte!

 

[Robert Hall]

You sure it's not that you hate BMW drivers?  The stereotype is they tend be pricks and assholes.  Have you driven any? The cars often drive very nicely, esp. the older ones before they became too mainstream.  I enjoyed the E36 M3 I had, and I've driven friends' E46 3-series and E39 540i sedan, and a Z3...all were very nice to drive, great steering feel, manual transmissions, good handling.  Also driven an E38 740i and it was fast and smooth, great steering feel and handling for a full sizer.

Edited June 11, 2019 by Robert Hall

[oldshurst442]

16 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

You sure it's not that you hate BMW drivers?  The stereotype is they tend be pricks and assholes.  The cars often drive very nicely. I enjoyed the E36 M3 I had, and I've driven friends' E46 3-series and E39 540i sedan, and a Z3...all were very nice to drive, great steering feel, manual transmissions, good handling.  Also driven an E38 740i and it was fast and smooth, great steering feel and handling for a full sizer.

Not BMW drivers per se.  My closest personal friends that I grew up with.  (My Greek friends whose parents grew up together with my mom)  And yes...those Greek friends are EXACTLY how BMW drivers tend to be... 

These guys have always put BMWs on such high pedestals and these same guys have made fun of me for loving American cars and dissing me for enjoying muscle cars.  

But THAT is not the ONLY reason. Its also on a personal level with me. 

Those early Bimmers...almost all of them...are HOMELY. UGLY. Econobox POS for the masses. 

Chevys were always economy cars for the masses too. But they were hardly homely and ugly.  ESPECIALLY from Chevy's existence to the 1970s.  Chevy made some peculiar decisions in the 1970s, but they were not BMW ugly or BMW homely either....YET some how, we diss on Chevy...

If car magazines and car guys dissed the Chevy Cavalier even the Chevette, I NEVER heard the same for BMW.

 Yeah...I know...M3

OK...CORVETTE...

If we could be lax with the hate for BMW homeliness because 2002 Turbo and M3, then we could be lax on Chevy because of Citation II and Chevette and Cavalier BECAUSE of Corvette, Camaro, Chevelle SS, Impala SS...

So there...petty, but simple, but from the HEART!!!

PS: Ive driven a 1984 E30 316 in Greece.  While it has some honest RWD capabilities, I was never impressed on the same level as how some enthusiasts tend to glow over Bimmers.  Its just...an econobox that is chintzy...and light...like a go kart... I like driving go karts...But I dont wish to drive go karts on the street with pot holes...  All I retained from that E30 316 is that it was chintzy and light...

So I never understood the "love" for Bimmers...

Edited June 11, 2019 by oldshurst442

[Robert Hall]

Styling was never the main goal of BMW products in the past, it was all about the driving experience.   I'm pretty sure a '70s BMW 2002 would be way more fun to drive on a winding mountain road than any '70s Chevy.  

As far as the 80s, I couldn't imagine a Cavalier, Chevette or Citation would be pleasant to drive in any context.

Edited June 11, 2019 by Robert Hall

[balthazar]

Not discounting 70's Z/28s, are you Robert? Stout handlers with much better power & nicer built than a 2002. 

[Robert Hall]

2 minutes ago, balthazar said:

Not discounting 70's Z/28s, are you Robert? Stout handlers with much better power & nicer built than a 2002. 

Yeah, they were probably decent handling...much bigger car, though. 

[oldshurst442]

30 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

Styling was never the main goal of BMW products in the past, it was all about the driving experience.   I'm pretty sure a '70s BMW 2002 would be way more fun to drive on a winding mountain road than any '70s Chevy.  

As far as the 80s, I couldn't imagine a Cavalier, Chevette or Citation would be pleasant to drive in any context.

I edited my response above.

But the edited response would not answer your response. 

1950s-1970s Chevys  Not just Chevys, but American cars in general were (still are?) not meant for twisting, mountainous roads.  Those cars were meant for the great American road and highway. For CRUISING.  And for stop light to stop light acceleration.

European roads are tight. Narrow. Twisty on mountainous terrain. But...are torqueless and horsepowerless because of gasoline being sooooo expensive.  Even today. But we wont mention today. The cut-off is the 1980s.

Regular Bimmers even in the 1980s...were chintzy.  WORSE than the Cavalier.  WORSE...

A LOT WORSE.   That 316 was in Chevette territory interior wise.  The Cavalier, any trimmed Cavalier  faired better.

THIS is why GM and Cadillac went with the Cimmaron based on a Cavalier, because in reality, a BMW E30 was very comparable to a Cavalier. Exterior. Interior.   Stupid decision...but still...

Apart from the RWD/FWD thing...same...

Yes...I equate the E30 as a J-Body...

Yes...the Cimmaron lookeds like a Cavalier in 1984...but...the Bimmer is an econobox too.  Nothing special.  RWD you say?  So are G-Bodies from GM MADE for OUR roads...JUST because G-Body's didnt handle the twisties, they sure did handle cruising excellently...something the E30 was awful at...

Look at all that awful hard plastic...and those spartan doors...

Id say the Cavalier has a slightly better interior...

Better, more comfy seats...

Just for the record...I aint too fond of the GM J-Body either...

Edited June 11, 2019 by oldshurst442

[Robert Hall]

8 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

I edited my response above.

But the edited response would not answer this response. 

1950s-1970s Chevys  Not just Chevys, but American cars in general were (still are?) not meant for twisting, mountainous roads.  Those cars were meant for the great American road and highway. For CRUISING.  And for stop light to stop light acceleration.

European roads are tight. Narrow. Twisty on mountainous terrain. But...are torqueless and horsepowerless because of gasoline being sooooo expensive.  Even today. But we wont mention today. The cut-off is the 1980s. 

Depends on where you enjoy driving.   Stop light to stop light 'cruising' is beyond boring to me, winding, hilly backroads and twisty mountain roads are what is fun driving to me.  (i.e. the back roads of Ohio and Colorado, for example--places I've done a lot of driving in the past).   No driving enthusiast would compare a shitbox like a Cavalier with a 3-series.   G-bodies were RWD, but they were old school w/ BOF and solid rear axles--not the stuff of handling prowess.  (I'm sure an '80s Monte SS or Buick GN would be fun on a drag strip, though)

Edited June 11, 2019 by Robert Hall

[balthazar]

442 is correct tho- those early 2002/first 3-series cars had terrible interiors. Just junk.

2nd gen Camaros were about 20" longer than a 2002, but still small cars at 188" overall length. They brought a ton of road racing experience to the table by '70; even tho the Trans Ams were a notch above, the early Z/28s were very good road / driving cars from what I've read.

[oldshurst442]

Just now, Robert Hall said:

Depends on where you enjoy driving.   Stop light to stop light 'cruising' is beyond boring to me, winding, hilly backroads and twisty mountain roads are what is fun driving to me.  (i.e. the back roads of Ohio and Colorado, for example--places I've done a lot of driving in the past).   No driving enthusiast would compare a $h!box like a Cavalier with a 3-series. 

Yeah...and THAT is why I HATE BIMMERS. 

I am not too fond of the GM J-Body for the record...

Because its always about putting down what American cars were meant to do. And always playing up the BMW factor. (Not saying you are doing that...but that is what I was exposed to)  And Ive had a taste of the ultimate driving machine, and I wasnt too impressed with it.   

 

[Robert Hall]

2 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

Yeah...and THAT is why I HATE BIMMERS. 

I am not too fond of the GM J-Body for the record...

Because its always about putting down what American cars were meant to do. And always playing up the BMW factor. (Not saying you are doing that...but that is what I was exposed to)  And Ive had a taste of the ultimate driving machine, and I wasnt too impressed with it.   

 

American cars should handle well also..the US isn't all boring flat straight roads...American cars in general handle pretty well nowadays, many of them are outstanding...heck, my '87 Mustang GT handled quite well for an '80s car, IMO..

Edited June 11, 2019 by Robert Hall

[oldshurst442]

7 minutes ago, balthazar said:

442 is correct tho- those early 2002/first 3-series cars had terrible interiors. Just junk.

2nd gen Camaros were about 20" longer than a 2002, but still small cars at 188" overall length. They brought a ton of road racing experience to the table by '70; even tho the Trans Ams were a notch above, the early Z/28s were very good road / driving cars from what I've read.

And Ive been exposed to that...so I dont get the "ultimate driving machine" moniker when Both Camaro and Trans Am even by mid 1970s standards STILL had engines that would overpower ANY BMW.  And the driving dynamics of a 2nd or 3rd generation F-Body was not bad in the handling department either.  

The E30 was chintzy and light.  Like a Go Kart.  THAT is not something I enjoy in a daily driver. That is just me.  

An F-Body in the 1970s and 1980s, was really not that bad of a daily driver despite what car magazines were saying about them...

And of course...everybody wanting to be cool just jumped on that bandwagon...

And I was not going to fall prey to that, which lead to me DESPISING Bimmers!!! 

4 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

American cars should handle well also..the US isn't all boring flat straight roads...American cars in general handle pretty well nowadays, many of them are outstanding...heck, my '87 Mustang GT handled quite well for an '80s car, IMO..

Yes. I agree.

But they handled well enough for the majority of our roads. Like you said. 

This is one reason why I LOVE the modern Challenger.  It did not jump ship to be a European style sports car like the Mustang and Camaro did.  Its all good that Mustang and Camarto did that. I prefer that Ford and Chevy engineers took that path. But Im also glad that the MOPAR guys kept the Challenger true to its roots. And this new Challenger handles the twisties as good as any modern car should handle them.  But it also retains that muscle car cruising attitude which I prefer!

[Robert Hall]

7 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

 

This is one reason why I LOVE the modern Challenger.  It did not jump ship to be a European style sports car like the Mustang and Camaro did.  Its all good that Mustang and Camarto did that. I prefer that Ford and Chevy engineers took that path. But Im also glad that the MOPAR guys kept the Challenger true to its roots. And this new Challenger handles the twisties as good as any modern car should handle them.  But it also retains that muscle car cruising attitude which I prefer!

The Challenger is my favorite of the 3...the Camaro I find unusable--the small mirrors, small windows, would need a periscope to see out of.   Very claustrophobic inside.  The Mustang is small inside also.   I love the heft and styling of the Challenger.   Though I wouldn't mind having a Mustang also since it is available in convertible form.    

[balthazar]

Last BMW I was in was probably a late ‘80s, as this would’ve been in 1989. Still the most uncomfortable seats I’ve ever sat in- that’s an incredibly long record.

[Robert Hall]

18 minutes ago, balthazar said:

Last BMW I was in was probably a late ‘80s, as this would’ve been in 1989. Still the most uncomfortable seats I’ve ever sat in- that’s an incredibly long record.

I've ridden in an '86 3 series--a buddy had one in college, don't recall it being uncomfortable.  the ones I've driven were all mid 90s to early 00s, and were comfortable..

[oldshurst442]

Just now, Robert Hall said:

I've ridden in an '86 3 series--a buddy had one in college, don't recall it being uncomfortable.  the ones I've driven were all mid 90s to early 00s, and were comfortable..

The E36 Bimmer is one Bimmer I can tolerate. The E39 M5 is a car I lust after.  So, Im not all hate hate hate vex vex vex on BMW. But I aint far off... 

[Robert Hall]

Just now, oldshurst442 said:

The E36 Bimmer is one Bimmer I can tolerate. The E39 M5 is a car I lust after.  So, Im not all hate hate hate vex vex vex on BMW. But I aint far off... 

I haven't driven an E39 M5, but I have driven a couple different E39 540is..they were wonderful cars, IMO...

[oldshurst442]

1 minute ago, Robert Hall said:

I haven't driven an E39 M5, but I have driven a couple different E39 540is..they were wonderful cars, IMO...

Same.  I had a chance to drive a friend's father's E39 540i as well.   This gentleman had a late 1980s Bonneville SSE  that he traded in for that 540i.  I had a chance to drive the Bonneville too.    

I liked both cars but I did prefer the Bimmer....  (you did not read that...OK?)

 

 

[balthazar]

I looked all over the BMW I referenced above, could not find any 'E--' badge on it.

[oldshurst442]

1 minute ago, balthazar said:

I looked all over the BMW I referenced above, could not find any 'E--' badge on it.

E-- is just the generation of a particular model of a BMW.

From Wiki as I dont remember when the generations begin and end myself.

E30 =  the 2nd generation of 3 Series of years 1982-1994   

E36 = the 3rd generation 3 Series between 1990-2000   

E39 =  the 5 Series 4rth generation of years 1995-2003

[Robert Hall]

E codes are just the platform generation codes that BMW fans use to refer to specific generations...no different than Mustang fans referring to Fox bodies, SN95 and S550, M-B fans with W126, W124 (both favorites of mine), w140s, etc..or Corvette fans talking about C5, C6, C7, etc or Camaro fans talking about 5th gen or 6th gen models.

Edited June 11, 2019 by Robert Hall

[Potluck]

BMWs are expensive Civics and accords. No soul, no character.

[oldshurst442]

8 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

E codes are just the platform generation codes that BMW fans use

 

I use those codes all the time....

 

 

I AM NOT A BMW FANBOY!!!  

 

 

[Robert Hall]

I've always been a bit of automotive generalist..I have my favorites, but I've never been a single-brand or maker fanboi like some.  Though I grew up in a Ford family, I've found vehicles from other brands that I like....several '90s Acuras I like, BMWs (esp. the pre-Bangle era), M-Bs, plenty of GM models, and of course many FCA models, especially from Dodge and Jeep.