Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Classic Cars Project Cars--You Get to Vote on "Hold 'em or Fold 'em"
19373 messages, Last post on Dec 01, 2009 at 3:11 PM
You are in the Classic Cars Forum. Your Host is mr_shiftright
|
I can live with ugly if the design is unified and appropriate. If it's a good design that I just don't like I can accept that it's just a matter of personal taste. (De gustibus non est disputandum and all that) What I hate are the cobbled together assemblies of styles or styles inappropriate to the name or history of the car. Examples of me wanting to shout "SHAME, SHAME' include: The Mustang II - the tail and the front end are on different scales of size  The 1992 Pontiac LeMans. - I wouldn't have given a !%$#% if they'd called it anything else, but LE MANS! An insult to both the history of Pontiac and to the historic race ... and don't give me any of that "Index of Performance" bull****  
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Dec 24, 2008 9:25 am) If what you can see is that bad, the rest is going to be worse. When I see that picture, I see a guy who probably couldn't be bothered to change his oil, let alone his brake fluid, antifreeze, or transmission fluid. Estimated miles before something fatal and expensive happens with that car - less than 1,000..... |
|
|
Replying to: lokki (Dec 24, 2008 9:35 am) The Charger doesn't rile me up as bad, but I still hate it. When it was just an Omni 0-24, I didn't care. But Charger was just a slap in the face. Chrysler had been dragging the Charger name through the dirt a few times before that though. And even the '68-70 Charger could be had with engines as tame as the 225 slant six. The Mustang II, believe it or not, doesn't rile me up. It's just a cheap little car with some flair, or what passed for it by 1974. So in that sense, I don't see it as that radically different from a
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Dec 24, 2008 5:57 am) Same here, Andre. For example, I silently echoed Gus' sentiments regarding that '79 Dodge van, and yours as well, in relation to the extended rear end. I have always found those tacked-on rears to look clumsy on older vans. Another example - Honda Ridgeline. Hideously ugly, but I still like them. They are so annoyingly practical that I cannot help but like them. 
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Dec 24, 2008 8:48 am) Hey, now, I know you were not referring to me with that comment.... 
|
|
|
Replying to: urnews (Dec 24, 2008 6:32 am) Nobody really knows what it is. There was an article about it in Car and Driver I think, or a picture, but it's sorta unknown. Some think it's a rare million dollar one off future concept car from the past, others think that farmer Joe built it from the abandoned wrecks he found by the freeway close to his farm (ok, I made that up). Another theory states that it came from the future........... |
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Dec 24, 2008 9:54 am) |
|
...as that travesty called a LeMans but close:]  Anybody recall the Chevrolet Spectrum? I would refer to this "car" as the Rectum! |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Dec 23, 2008 10:47 am) Bill
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: lokki (Dec 23, 2008 11:53 am) Bill
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Classic Cars Project Cars--You Get to Vote on "Hold 'em or Fold 'em"
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
