Post by: griz on September 19, 2007, 03:40:32 AM
Post by: SkunkApe on September 19, 2007, 03:47:14 AM
Post by: K Frame on September 19, 2007, 03:53:38 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on September 19, 2007, 03:55:20 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_%281957_automobile%29
But this comes close:
Post by: charby on September 19, 2007, 04:14:19 AM
AMC Gremlin
Post by: mfree on September 19, 2007, 04:38:27 AM
Post by: K Frame on September 19, 2007, 05:06:48 AM
Post by: Harold Tuttle on September 19, 2007, 05:11:48 AM
The aztek is particularly "pretty"
neather mini van nor SUV, its a mutt
the suzuki X-90 was a tow headed step child too:
Post by: charby on September 19, 2007, 05:17:26 AM
The Gremlin is beautiful in comparison to its stablemate, the AMC Pacer, aka the Fishtank on Wheels.
I think the Pacer is an ugly car also, but the lines on the Gremlin are much sharper and not as rounded as the Pacer, so I think it is uglier. Actually I think most 1970's cars are ugly. Early 80's were bad also with some of the Dodge vehicles, like the AMC engineers stayed on when Chrysler bought them out.
Post by: mtnbkr on September 19, 2007, 05:27:14 AM
Chris
Post by: Sergeant Bob on September 19, 2007, 05:30:30 AM
The Gremlin is beautiful in comparison to its stablemate, the AMC Pacer, aka the Fishtank on Wheels.
Did ya ever notice the Pacer is actually shaped like a lemon?
Post by: Ben on September 19, 2007, 05:34:22 AM
Post by: TexasRifleman on September 19, 2007, 05:51:56 AM
Post by: Silver Bullet on September 19, 2007, 06:52:31 AM
I once read a book on the genesis of the Ford Taurus. When Ford got around to the second or third generation, the car with the overly-ovaled theme, the designers were showing the car to the upper managers. One of the managers liked sharp, rectangular dashboards, and was going to insist that they design one into the car, despite the fact it was at complete odds with the rest of the design. He had no concept of design integration or holistic aesthetics, but he was willing to put antlers on the hood of a Ferrari if he liked antlers.
Post by: Boomhauer on September 19, 2007, 07:05:21 AM
You know those Toyota Scion XB's- yeah, pretty ugly. Why, oh why, would one want to drive a box? And the ones that are 'riced out' (we have another word for them around here that I can't use) are pretty wierd
Honda Element. ugly.
Pontiac Aztec: Looks like a retarded Prius trying to be an SUV.
I don't like the Mini Cooper, either...
Oh, and some of the new Fords have pretty fugly front ends. The best Ford body styles are 80's and 90's. Same for Chevy, who should have stuck with the older style body for the S-10. The newer bodies with the curves just aren't as desirable for me.
Post by: AJ Dual on September 19, 2007, 07:24:21 AM
For the two minutes I was behind him I didn't feel so bad driving that damnable PT Cruiser I inherited from my wife as my daily driver. (Sorry Dick, I know your wife loves hers...)
Honestly, whenever I see another PT Cruiser on the road my initial reaction is "Geez, what a tool&"
Then about .5 seconds later I remember I'm driving one.
I'd rather have an anonymous Nissan/Toyota/Honda sedan any day of the week. I'd buy a new car in a heartbeat except for the fact that PT is paid off, and as I've matured, I now understand that within the bounds of fiscal responsibility, that buying new vehicles, or even pricy used ones is a prospect for the wealthy, not the middle class.
The Aztek is an even greater tragedy, as the initial car show Pontiac crossover concepts that led to the Aztek generated lots of interest, then the abortion you see on the road was what was actually came out of the factory. Although the Aztek bears lots of credit for the new surge of the "crossover" category, as it was at least a huge lesson for everyone else of what not to do...
Post by: charby on September 19, 2007, 08:02:23 AM
the Fiat Multipla
Post by: roo_ster on September 19, 2007, 09:19:56 AM
Honda Element. ugly.
'Tis truth. But it holds more crap than any two Accords.<--Element Owner
Post by: sm on September 19, 2007, 10:56:36 AM
-'58 Chevy.
Now this baffles me, Chevy had the '55, '56, and '57 and what idiot come up with the '58?
-Edsel
Only thing I can think of someone from Edsel was sleeping with a designer from Chevy in '58.
-Earliest Honda's in the 70's.
-Then the VW Beetle "conversions". Remember folks adding Lincoln, Caddy, Benz "like" grills to fronts and rear tire covers to the back end?
-AMC Javalin. Not once do I recall one of these 'muscle cars' winning a street race.
Heck a little old lady in a Rambler could out run one of these things....
Post by: Sergeant Bob on September 19, 2007, 11:20:56 AM
-Pacer
-'58 Chevy.
Now this baffles me, Chevy had the '55, '56, and '57 and what idiot come up with the '58?
-Edsel
Only thing I can think of someone from Edsel was sleeping with a designer from Chevy in '58.
-Earliest Honda's in the 70's.
-Then the VW Beetle "conversions". Remember folks adding Lincoln, Caddy, Benz "like" grills to fronts and rear tire covers to the back end?
-AMC Javalin. Not once do I recall one of these 'muscle cars' winning a street race.
Heck a little old lady in a Rambler could out run one of these things....
-'58 Chevy.
Now this baffles me, Chevy had the '55, '56, and '57 and what idiot come up with the '58?
-Edsel
Only thing I can think of someone from Edsel was sleeping with a designer from Chevy in '58.
-Earliest Honda's in the 70's.
-Then the VW Beetle "conversions". Remember folks adding Lincoln, Caddy, Benz "like" grills to fronts and rear tire covers to the back end?
-AMC Javalin. Not once do I recall one of these 'muscle cars' winning a street race.
Heck a little old lady in a Rambler could out run one of these things....
You think this is ugly? Whats ugly about it?
Post by: griz on September 19, 2007, 12:28:48 PM
Post by: Larry Ashcraft on September 19, 2007, 12:38:57 PM
Steve, the 57 Chevy was supposed to be a total redesign, but the factory ran out of time and decided to just dress up the 56 model. Turned out to be one of the longest lived and desired cars of all time.
My vote: the 1967-69 Thunderbirds. Looks like it was designed by a committee, and who in the HELL decided a T-Bird needed four doors? Especially after the Little Birds, the Square Birds, the Bullet Birds, and the Sculpted Birds. I call them the Ugly Birds.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 19, 2007, 12:44:18 PM
My Daddy is a Buick man.
Post by: Parker Dean on September 19, 2007, 01:02:43 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 19, 2007, 01:20:04 PM
Post by: Sergeant Bob on September 19, 2007, 03:18:22 PM
Quote
Aw c'mon, NOBODY held a candle to AMC when it came to hideous. I give you proof, the 74 Matador Coupe. You might wanna avert your eyes...
So thats a Matador!
Post by: K Frame on September 19, 2007, 08:06:32 PM
Post by: jeepmor on September 20, 2007, 12:11:44 AM
And the pink isn't what bothers me.
Don't get me wrong, I still think AMC holds the "all time ugly" torch with about any car they made in the 70's. But GM has come real close lately. Give it a good name, a stupid high price and call it a status symbol......SOLD!!!
Post by: mfree on September 20, 2007, 03:09:30 AM
Post by: Boomhauer on September 20, 2007, 03:57:03 AM
Post by: K Frame on September 20, 2007, 04:58:56 AM
A Maverick? Mavericks aren't ugly...
Ah, good. I still get misty about my Maverick. I almost bought one several years ago. It had the 302, but I couldn't do it... It was a 4 door.
Post by: Silver Bullet on September 20, 2007, 05:35:19 AM
I remember they had ads emphasizing that you could maintain it yourself. One of the ads showed, within the space of the minute that the commercial ran, four women who came over with wrenches and removed all the body panels.
Post by: K Frame on September 20, 2007, 06:16:59 AM
The "computer" was rudimentary, at best, and I think served only to control the electronic ignition module.
It was a bit problematic changing the rear most spark plugs on the 8 cylinder, but it wasn't impossible.
Changing the oil was a challenge, though, as Ford really loves to hide that filter down underneath, a trait which continues in their designs to this very day.
Post by: mtnbkr on September 20, 2007, 06:26:42 AM
People make too much over the computerized car issue. It's really not all that hard to maintain a modern car. It's different, but the basic tools you need aren't all that expensive and they're offset by the tools you don't need.
Chris
Post by: Larry Ashcraft on September 20, 2007, 06:35:33 AM
The thing absolutely refused to quit running, even after one cylinder died. It was always dependable, even as a 7 cylinder.
Post by: K Frame on September 20, 2007, 06:46:07 AM
I am saying, however, that the computerization of cars has taken tasks that were once relatively easy into the realm of the trained technician.
Changing brake pads/rotors is the same as it's been for 50 years.
Even changing spark plugs is the same.
Diagnosing and fixing ignition issues is more problematic because the computer control has interlinked so many of the processes that were once independent of each other.
Things have, however, shifted back the other way in the last few years now that easy-to-use code readers are readily availble. You can even get code reader modules that synch up with a Palm Pilot.
Post by: Manedwolf on September 20, 2007, 06:56:21 AM
You can even get code reader modules that synch up with a Palm Pilot.
I have one for my PocketPC. It can record data in realtime and produce a Pocket Excel spreadsheet for you, complete with graphs.
There's also refits for the black box of some cars that will let you adjust the fuel mixture, advance ignition timing, change throttle settings and cam switch points with a laptop. (the wise usually pick from preset performance curve settings for regular driving or racing, since if you muck it up, you'll just make the car stall or be otherwise unhappy.)
Post by: mtnbkr on September 20, 2007, 06:58:35 AM
Is that ignition problem the coil, plugs, plug wires, condensor, points, some random wire leading to/from the coil/condensor, etc?
A modern ignition system is simpler in my view. You have fewer parts and most of those parts talk to the computer which can deliver easy to understand codes. If you don't have a code reader, most cars can deliver codes via the CEL. Sometimes you have to put a jumper on the diagnostic port, others have a button you press.
I've worked at both ends of the spectrum. Not only is it easier to diagnose a problem on a modern car, you don't have to do it as often. The only downside is that it tends to be more expensive when you do have to repair something.
Chris
Post by: Gewehr98 on September 20, 2007, 07:13:22 AM
Give me a carburetor and a points/condenser or magneto ignition anyday. That's what's going into my '53 Chevy 3/4 ton pickup's 383 as I speak.
Post by: mtnbkr on September 20, 2007, 07:26:30 AM
I scoured junkyards in rural NC to get the larger jets I needed for the Weber progressive carb I put on my mildly oversized VW engine while in college. I didn't want to pay the price for "official" Weber jets and parts since the same carb (rebranded) was used on domestic autos in the 70s. When I finally got it jetted to match the engine, I had peppy Vdub.
IIRC (been nearly 15 years), I replaced the idle jet with a slightly smaller one and the accellerator pump "squirter" with a larger one. The end result wasn't so much a change in total fuel used, but how it was delivered. The larger "squirter" nozzle dumped the same volume of fuel quicker and offset the smaller idle jet, improving the off-line performance. The idle jet was used until you the RPMs and fuel requirement got much higher (basically you spend most of your time on the idle yet) before the mains kicked in. That plus a bit of idle circuit tweaking got things running smoothly. Man I miss that car...
Chris
Post by: K Frame on September 20, 2007, 07:38:08 AM
My 1977 Maverick had a very simplistic computer that synched, or attempted to synch, ignition functions -- literally a "one chip" wonder that automakers began introducing as a result of tightening environmental laws.
In these older systems it was supposedly possible to completely remove the computer, jumper the wires, and increase the power and performance markedly.
Post by: mtnbkr on September 20, 2007, 07:42:22 AM
Chris
Post by: K Frame on September 20, 2007, 07:49:07 AM
One of the car companies brought out a new car/computer design, and it immediately started failing because of a very very simple design issue that wasn't part of the computer...
They ended up recalling something like 150,000 new cars...
I'm wanting to say that one of the wiring connectors under the hood would get hot from the engine and if it was wet out it ran a very high risk of shorting out, which caused a feedback that killed the computer...
Who the heck was that?
Post by: mtnbkr on September 20, 2007, 07:54:03 AM
Chris
Post by: mfree on September 20, 2007, 08:21:36 AM
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on September 20, 2007, 08:28:40 AM
Post by: charby on September 20, 2007, 08:29:54 AM
In high-school had a 1968 Plymouth Satellite with a 383 and if I really ran hard on a Friday night, I was adjusting the points (and timing) the next day to get it right again. I would run it so hard that I'd break motor mounts.
I couldn't imagine what I'd done if I had a 426 Hemi. Those would dyno at 800+ HP
Then when I was 25 I bought a 89 5.0 Mustang that was modded pretty good, I could run hard all weekend long and never worry about adjusting squat.
Post by: Sindawe on September 20, 2007, 06:25:17 PM
Quote
'77 Maverick with a 302 V8 and that thing could absolutely scream
Sidebar: I can attest to that. A friend inherited on of those and it was scary.
Then he pulled the 302/tranny/rear-end and stuck it in a PINTO!
Sweet Zombie Jesus that monstrosity was ugly, but when the accelerator was stepped on it felt like a Warp Drive.
Post by: Boomhauer on September 20, 2007, 06:39:37 PM
Quote
People make too much over the computerized car issue. It's really not all that hard to maintain a modern car. It's different, but the basic tools you need aren't all that expensive and they're offset by the tools you don't need.
But when you are stuck on the side of the road w/o your pocket scanner, you are screwed. At least, we can usually patch together our older cars long enough to limp home for better and more permanent repairs...
Quote
Then he pulled the 302/tranny/rear-end and stuck it in a PINTO!
Ugh...Pinto...
While we are on the subject of ugly cars, let's not forget the wonderful colors. Baby *expletive deleted*it yellow or puke green, anyone?
Post by: K Frame on September 20, 2007, 08:04:41 PM
Quote
'77 Maverick with a 302 V8 and that thing could absolutely scream
Sidebar: I can attest to that. A friend inherited on of those and it was scary.
Then he pulled the 302/tranny/rear-end and stuck it in a PINTO!
Sweet Zombie Jesus that monstrosity was ugly, but when the accelerator was stepped on it felt like a Warp Drive.
Pintos were available stock with the same short block V8 302, standard (4 speed) or automatic (3 speed) transmission, and 3.8 to 1 ratio rear end as the Mavricks AND the Mustangs of the same vintage.
It was the exact same frame, just different bodies and finish trims. The curb weights were all within something like 400 pounds of each other.
A friend of mine had a Pinto that was the exact same as my Maverick.
Don't forget that wonderous Ford Orange from that time frame, Avenger. You could see one of those from a mile away. Get a couple of years of fade on the paint, and things got REALLY psychodelic.
At least my Maverick was silver. It had a black vinyl top. I was going to see my girlfriend in New York one weekend and the damned top peeled back on the New Jersey Turnpike.
Thank God for a pocket knife and duct tape!
Post by: Sylvilagus Aquaticus on September 20, 2007, 08:15:56 PM
Oh, you mean the colors of my '69 Ford F100?
jfruser's actually seen it.
The only concession to this century is swapping out the points for a Hall effect ignition module. I had enough of adjusting points in the 1970's.
As far as ugly vehicles, nobody has mentioned the Pontiac 6000LE. A friend of mine who worked at a dealership told stories of Bubba coming by to see 'that Ponnyac Goolie and 'Luminum Chevy'
Regards,
Rabbit.
Regards,
Rabbit.
Post by: Antibubba on September 20, 2007, 08:37:32 PM
Post by: Gewehr98 on September 20, 2007, 09:01:28 PM
I didn't know the Maveric/Comet/Pinto-Stangs of that era even had frames, Mike! I thought they were unibody...
Regarding ugly, I guess I should admit my first car was a 1960 Chevy Apache 20 - it looked very similar to this Apache 10:
I'd get another one some 25 years later, but I'm up to my elbows in my '53 Chevy 3/4 ton project now.
Post by: jeepmor on September 21, 2007, 05:25:53 AM
Quote
"While we are on the subject of ugly cars, let's not forget the wonderful colors. Baby *expletive deleted*it yellow or puke green, anyone?"
Don't forget the orange chevy pickups with the avacado green interiors. :puke:
Post by: Silver Bullet on September 21, 2007, 05:50:28 AM
Quote
Regarding ugly, I guess I should admit my first car was a 1960 Chevy Apache 20 - it looked very similar to this Apache 10:
I think we have a winner.
Why are the brake and tail lights on the front ?
Post by: mfree on September 22, 2007, 07:17:03 AM
Nope. Mavericks are "Ohio" frames, if I remember the codes correctly. They're the last vestige of the Falcon.
Pintos, I don't remember the frame code but they're a beast in and of themselves. Those who love to call the Mustang II a pinto must also remember that the only shared component between the two is a small section of rear floorpan.
It's easy to see; Mavericks have shocks and springs attached to the upper a-arm with a terminus in the top of the shock tower. Pintos have it attached to the lower arm with a terminus on a horn attached to the K-frame.
Pintos never came stock with a V8. They did, however, eventually come fitted with the 2.8 V6.
Mustang IIs almost didn't come with the V8 either; that's why a lot of parts are split 1974 and 1975-later, there was a minor redesign to get the V8 to fit. Same with the Maverick and the 1971 versus 1972 onward models... those are easy to tell, 4 lug versus 5 lug wheels.
Post by: brimic on September 22, 2007, 08:59:28 AM
Quote
Aw c'mon, NOBODY held a candle to AMC when it came to hideous. I give you proof, the 74 Matador Coupe. You might wanna avert your eyes...
Matador was the first thing that came to my mind as well when I read the thread. Pretty much anything made by chrysler during the 70's as well is completely tasteless and ugly.
Post by: lee n. field on September 22, 2007, 02:05:23 PM
Quote
They're the last vestige of the Falcon.
Of fond memory. My first 2 cars were Falcons, a '63 and a '61. The first one succumbed to too much rust, the second because nobody, but nobody had a replacement electric wiper motor.
The first Mustang was basically a Falcon with the passenger compartment moved back.
Post by: Balog on September 25, 2007, 08:35:55 AM
Quote
You know those Toyota Scion XB's- yeah, pretty ugly. Why, oh why, would one want to drive a box?
They get excellent mileage. They have tons of legroom; put the front seat all the way back and a 6 foot plus man can sit in back without touching the front seat. The tall windows equal great visibility. The instrument cluster is a single large gauge on top of the dash; I hated trying to look through the steering wheel to see how fast I was going, this thing is like a friggin HUD. And they're cheap.
So I can deal with a little bit of ugly for a lot of practical.
Post by: Manedwolf on September 25, 2007, 08:53:24 AM