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 50 Worst Cars of All Time
298 messages, Last post on May 11, 2009 at 1:53 PM
You are in the Classic Cars Forum. Your Host is mr_shiftright
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Nov 13, 2008 9:12 am) I suppose a case can be made for all of his picks too, even though historical significance can forgive some faults. A good quote from the H2 blurb: "It all contributed to GM's emerging image as the Dick Cheney of car companies." ....indeed |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Nov 13, 2008 9:44 am) Maybe the writer had the benefit of hindsight, since these clumbersome Chrysler cars were the cause of their near-demise a few years later.
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Nov 13, 2008 9:53 am) But is a '71 Imperial any worse than its peers of the time? For example, a 1971 Lincoln or Cadillac? If nothing else, I think the Imperials were rather tastefully styled, although I'll agree that good style and good design don't always go hand-in-hand. Maybe the writer had the benefit of hindsight, since these clumbersome Chrysler cars were the cause of their near-demise a few years later. Actually, when that style came out for 1969, the Imperial was pretty popular. But Chrysler always did have trouble making the Imperial stand out from lesser Chryslers. And sharing the same bodies as they did in 1969-73 certainly didn't help. Other than the 3" longer wheelbase and hood, I don't think the car really gave you anything that you couldn't get on a New Yorker. It would get even worse for 1974, when the cars not only shared the same bodies, but the same wheelbase. The only difference by this time was that Imperials had hidden headlights and New Yorkers didn't. No longer was size used to differentiate the cars. The Imperial went away after 1975, but for '76-78 was replaced by the New Yorker Brougham, a car that was practically identical. If anything, it was probably the fuel crisis that killed the first Imperial. 1974 was a horrible time to introduce an all-new full-sized car...especially one that looked more massive than the one it replaced, even if it really wasn't. All big cars did bad in 1974, and it was only inevitable that the weakest would get culled first. FWIW, I was actually shocked when I found out how big a '69-73 Imperial really is. Something like 230-233", depending on the year (although most of that extra length was because of those big black rubber blocks they put on the cars...something that makes the cars longer, without making them LOOK longer. I mean, a car that's 230" of all car is going to look bigger than a car that gets puffed up to 230" by way of protruding bumpers or tacked-on bumper guards. I always thought the Imperial did a good job of hiding its size. Maybe the coupes are a bit extreme, because of the smallish passenger cabin and correspondingly longer rear deck, but I thought the sedans looked great. |
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Nov 13, 2008 9:12 am) |
|
|
|
I don't think these deserve to be on this list while the Vega should have definitely been on it.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: hpmctorque (Nov 13, 2008 12:52 pm)  As for the Model T, it did linger on way too long and gave Chevrolet the edge it needed to dominate Ford for most of the time after all (with some exceptions). So maybe history's his angle, I dunno. But then, why is the Yugo on there? Well, it did start a whole decade of Yugo jokes--maybe that's it!
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Nov 13, 2008 1:03 pm) OK (maybe) - but why the Chevette instead of the Vega? I'd claim the Vega did way more to convince folks that GM could not build a quality compact car, and that ToyHonDatsun were more deserving of their hard-earned $$$.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: texases (Nov 13, 2008 1:16 pm) At least a Vega, when new, gave you a nice ride, rather attractive looks, and the promise of something better. The Chevette was enough to make you take anti-depressants after your first test drive.
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Nov 13, 2008 1:21 pm)  And my problem with the Vega is that it incorporated the worst element of GM - release an apparently OK car with hidden major defect(s) resulting from incomplete development time. At least the Chevette was an 'honestly' cheap car, you knew what you were getting
|
|
|
the Chevette WAS a Japanese car! It was also a Korean car, and a European car. (Isuzu I-mark, Daewoo Maepsy, and Opel Kadette) What was the original source material for that design? The Opel?
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Classic Cars 50 Worst Cars of All Time
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
