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
Automotive News & Views Wouldn't Be Caught Dead Driving One
1094 messages, Last post on Jul 28, 2008 at 4:35 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: fintail (Feb 24, 2007 2:25 pm) |
|
|
Toyota FJ Cruiser - homely looking vehicle. Pontiac G6 - looks like it is cheaply made. It's advertised as a midsize, but seems a bit small for that segment. Scion xB - cartoonishly boxy vehicle. Ford Explorer Sport Trac - What's the point? Why not just get an F150? |
|
ugggh!! just rubs me the wrong way, big time. Likewise whatever that monstrosity Lincoln pickup thing is called. To think that's what my F150 got Hollyweird morphed into (shudder) 
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: spoom (Feb 25, 2007 1:28 pm) Nissan X-Terra (era that had random body bulges here and there and on the tailgate, for no apparent reason) Late '90's VW Jetta. Blunt in front. Blunt in rear. Tiny tires and wheel openings. Rear doors' cutout is an almost completely square. Only a European manufacturer like VW could get away with styling like this and it still be considered a desirable car. Actually, I probably detest this car's styling more than the X-Terra. Chevy Avalanche. Honda Ridgeline (styling rip-off of Avalanche) Scion. Is this a shrunken Chevy Astro? Ford Focus three-door. Looks like a Chevy Citation hatchback. For good measure: 1978-79 Buick Century and Olds Cutlass Salon aeroback sedans. Need I say more? Bill |
|
|
Replying to: uplanderguy (Mar 03, 2007 2:41 pm) The Aztec is too easy a shot. I'd avoid anything devaluing a formerly great muscle car name. Anyone remember the Olds Quad 442 based on the Calais? Attaching the 442 name to that was a disgrace. I'd have no problem with a Calais, but a Quad 442? No way.
|
|
|
Replying to: gsemike (Mar 09, 2007 5:33 am) RO_____AD RUN_____NER. |
|
|
Replying to: gsemike (Mar 09, 2007 5:33 am) I've seen pics of a Buick Century aeroback coupe that actually looked pretty sharp. It was a turbocharged sport coupe, in black, with some blackout trim and a spoiler, and some rally wheels. But by and large, these things were very awkward. You really gotta wonder what they were thinking when they made these thigs! I could almost see making the Century and Cutlass Salon coupes ugly on purpose, to coax people into spending a few more bucks on a Cutlass Supreme notchback or Regal, but forcing that treatment on the sedans just makes no sense to me! Oh, as for insulting the 4-4-2 name, how about this? In the late 70's, it received the Aeroback treatment as well! And I think they just stuck low-output Chevy 305's in them, so there wasn't anything performance-oriented about it. I liked the 80's 4-4-2 though, the one based on the Cutlass Supreme notchback coupe. I thought it was good looking, and it at least had some performance, with an Olds 307-4bbl, bumped up from the normal 140 hp to 180. |
|
|
was kind of a disappointment, too. Now the original Grand Am wasn't all that popular to begin with, being a new musclecar name launched on the eve of a fuel crisis, at the same time were passing up muscle for the personal luxury look, but at least the original, with its stable of 400 and 455 V-8's, had some performance about it. The '78-80 just used a Pontiac 301, and was just a gussied up LeMans. When Pontiac put this name on the small N-body coupes for 1985, it probably actually did some good for the name's equity, in contrast to the way names like 4-4-2, Roadrunner, Charger, Challenger, GTO, etc got watered down. |
|
| ...I forgot about the Omni-based Charger and the Mitsubishi Challenger! Yuck! | |
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Wouldn't Be Caught Dead Driving One
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
