Last post on Oct 18, 2006 at 7:10 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views-Archives
Apr 11, 2006 (9:09 am)
The carriage roof is the thicker version, right?
I still remember seeing a Sable and even a Topaz (!) with a thick vinyl top.
#506 of 524 I always took...
Apr 11, 2006 (9:29 am)
a carriage roof as a treatment that simulates a convertible with the top up. Kinda like this Mark V or this Cordoba LS
In contrast, a vinyl roof often came in many styles, with varying degrees of padding. There were styles that covered the whole roof of the car, or landau styles, which just covered the roof from the B-pillar back, or in the case of many hardtops, from the C-pillar back. Landaus were usually used on coupes, but Chrysler found a way to force them onto sedans starting with the 1979 New Yorker, and culminating with perhaps the 1993 Imperial, or maybe the last (1995?) LeBaron sedan. Then there was kind of a reverse landau style, where the rear part was metal and the vinyl just covered the area in front of the C-pillar or B-pillar.
Here's an example of an aftermarket roof on a car that simply does not need it. I guess I'd classify it as a thickly padded landau roof. There are also a few other things I'd classify it as, but I don't think they're printable.
Apr 11, 2006 (9:39 am)
Aaah OK. I mix the terms.
I remember when I was a kid someone in town had a current (mid 80s) Mustang with a carriage roof. Even then, I would call it the "fake convertible".
It seems most modern cars to get vinyl get it padded pretty thick. Maybe it would be less revolting if it was thinner, as I think was more common on 70s mainstream cars. Less revolting, but not tolerable.
I just can't see how this stuff can exist today.
#508 of 524 In some cases...
Apr 11, 2006 (9:44 am)
like that Grand Marquis I posted, it seems like the vinyl portions are too thick and too squared-off, and just don't flow with the rest of the car.
I agree, that if they just made it thinner, it would help alot. Not as much as just going with a plain steel roof, but still better than that thick stuff!
Apr 11, 2006 (10:36 am)
How about "pop art" paint, red-line tires, under dash record players, continental kits. Would that be a sweet xB?
#510 of 524 Re: Fads [ubbermotor]
Apr 11, 2006 (10:52 am)
a sweet xB
a sweet xB? isn't that an oxymoron? I mean when I see one I expect it to say "when I grow up I want to be a Brinks truck". Ok I will admit that everyone has the right to make a ugly car, but Toyota is abusing the privilege
#511 of 524 Re: Fads [snakeweasel]
Apr 11, 2006 (11:27 am)
I think one of the things that separates "insipired ugly" from just plain ugly is intent. The xB was designed to be purposely outrageous, and as such, it kinda works (it's not my thing, but I can kinda see it...)
But take something like the Aztec, which Pontiac earnestly thought was going to be the next big thing in SUVs, and it's just terrible.
#512 of 524 Re: Fads [john_324]
Apr 11, 2006 (11:38 am)
I think one of the things that separates "insipired ugly" from just plain ugly is intent.
That may be true but the unifying thing between the two is the term 'ugly'. In other words inspired or not ugly is ugly.
Actually I think the Aztec is better looking than the xB, but then again thats not saying much.
#513 of 524 I can usually differentiate...
Apr 11, 2006 (12:16 pm)
between varying degrees of ugliness. For example, I once owned a 1969 Bonneville, one of the beaky styles. That sucker was kinda ugly, but I still thought it was way cool. It was big and had a hunkered-down, menacing look to it.
I also had a 1967 Newport hardtop coupe, the style with a Barracuda-ish roofline. It was more creased and stuffed-shirt, and had a lot of Lincoln-Mercury influence in its style (stylist Elwood Engle penned most of the 60's crisp, angular Fords before jumping ship to Chrysler) It was ugly too, but I just didn't consider it to be quite as cool. If anything, it was kinda stodgy looking, and old fogey-ish, whereas the Bonneville had more of a youthful, sporty flair to it.
Apr 11, 2006 (2:28 pm)
Rumor has it the xB was meant to look like the Chevy Astro, which has a cult following in Japan as a gray-market car. Also has to do with current Japanese life (congestion, insane home prices) - the ideal car in Japan is a small mobile room so you can get away from your family. It wasn't designed with the same intent that Scion had when it brought it over. Here, I think it's a status symbol that says "I am proud to shock and offend people with no imaginations." But it's not really an inferior vehicle in its class, is it?
Audi hasn't been competitive in reliability, resale, or even ride quality. Mercedes Benz in build quality (but kept alive by perception lag). Land Rover ergonomics are known to be inferior to much of the competition. Lexus, inferior in dynamics. Infiniti, in interiors. Everyone has a weakness. If they're not priorities for the buyer (like if you don't mind the G35's interior) then great!
But some people buy BMWs and then complain that the steering's too sensitive and the cabin too small. Or they get a full sized SUV and complain about the mileage. That's buying an inferior vehicle because it's a status symbol. By inferior I mean by the buyer's actual preferences, which he or she didn't think about before falling in love with a car and buying it.
I saw it a lot in high school. The internet was just picking up, maybe they didn't have easy access to research. I mean, who would've known that a Z3 isn't a great car for driving from SF to LA and back every weekend, or that an Integra type-R is expensive to insure?