tristarenvy
Posts: 2235
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2004 2:07 am

Worst Decade For Cars, Ever!

Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:40 pm

I was behind a '76 Ford T-bird in traffic on the way to work today. And as I sat there, looking at the miles of vinyl covered rusted top, and horrid five mile an hour bumpers tacked on to it, I got to thinking. Was the 70's possibly the WORST decade for cars, ever? Let's review...big motors that turned out little horsepower, strangled by new-technology anti-smog devices, interlock's on the 73-74's that wouldn't let you start the car unless seat belts were hooked up, hulking bumpers tacked to cars, horrific build quality, downsizing, opera windows, and colors only an LSD induced trip might describe!

And THAT'S just American cars! I'll wager our Brit friends could do a few chapters on British Leyland, alone!... Big grin
If you don't stand for SOMETHING, you'll fall for ANYTHING.
 
UTA_flyinghigh
Posts: 6304
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2001 8:46 pm

RE: Worst Decade For Cars, Ever!

Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:46 pm

And let's not forget French horrors like the Peugeot 304 my folks owned in the 70's, heheh.

UTA
Fly to live, live to fly - Air France/KLM Flying Blue Platinum, BMI Diamond Club Gold, Emirates Skywards
 
vafi88
Posts: 2981
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2001 10:32 am

RE: Worst Decade For Cars, Ever!

Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:49 pm

I'd say it was one of the best decades.

You got the developement of the muscle car industry booming and you got your Tangs, vettes, pontiac GTOs, chevy SS/chavelles. Eventhough the birth of most of these were in the 60's, their popularity and the American muscle car was really the era of the 70s.
I'd like to elect a president that has a Higher IQ than a retarted ant.
 
tristarenvy
Posts: 2235
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2004 2:07 am

RE: Worst Decade For Cars, Ever!

Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:53 pm

Ah, French cars! My parents looked at buying a new Renault R16 for a trip from Houston to California in 1972. And let's not forget that oh-so-sexy-yet troublesome Citroen SM!
If you don't stand for SOMETHING, you'll fall for ANYTHING.
 
KROC
Posts: 18919
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 11:19 am

RE: Worst Decade For Cars, Ever!

Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:58 pm

I'm sure Superfly will weigh in on this as soon as he stops convulsing from someone cracking on anything from the '70's.
 
Alessandro
Posts: 4962
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 3:13 am

RE: Worst Decade For Cars, Ever!

Tue Jul 20, 2004 10:07 pm

I vote for the 1940ies, Willy jeep give me a break...
From New Yorqatar to Califarbia...
 
desertjets
Posts: 7570
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2000 3:12 pm

RE: Worst Decade For Cars, Ever!

Tue Jul 20, 2004 10:31 pm

As much as Superfly will cringe over this, I will concur that the 70s are the worst decade for cars GLOBALLY. Poor quality control and design plauged pretty much everybody. All the automakers will saddled with tons of new safety and emissions requirements that they were simply unable to design elegant solutions to. The automakers had been generally lazy in many regards. For much of the 50s through the early 70s there was not a ton of major innovation, aside from the widespread development of overhead valve V-8s. Safety and efficiency were not in the minds of many designers and engineeers.

The 70s did produce some good looking cars. Superfly's Towncar being one of them. Its relatively simple and clean lines stand in contrast to the excessively vinyl topped, opera windowed cars of the era. The Chrysler Cordoba is my personal pick as best looking car of the 1970s. But otherwise a bleak era.
Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
 
tristarenvy
Posts: 2235
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2004 2:07 am

RE: Worst Decade For Cars, Ever!

Tue Jul 20, 2004 11:29 pm

Desert has a great point. There were some true class cars from that time. I think the 75 Cadillac Seville is a great one. And most Lincoln's (EXCEPT that Granada based Versailles) are nice. I like the 77-79 GM B-body (Caprice/Bonneville) which is still looking pretty good today.
If you don't stand for SOMETHING, you'll fall for ANYTHING.
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Worst Decade For Cars, Ever!

Wed Jul 21, 2004 12:36 pm

Tristarenvy:
I don't know you that well so I'll be nice to you but I should skin you alive for such comments!  Pissed
I think the 1970s was the best decade for cars. I like the vinyl roofs, opera windows, large velour & leather seats, thick cut pile shag carpeting, woodgrain instrument panels, large upright chrome grilles, long hoods and hood ornaments. The cars in the 1970s had lots of character and were very unique. Even the crappier cars of the 1970s had lots of character and were unique. I'll even take a Gremlin or Bobcat over a new VW Passat or Toyota Matrix.
I think the ugliest cars are the ones of the last 4 years. The only cars to come out in this decade that are unique and have character are the retro cars (Thunderbird, S-Type, PT Cruiser, Bettle). Ironic isn't it?


How can you not like these beauties?




Lincoln took high fashion to the open road. You can get your Lincoln Mark V with interiors designed buy the finest Italian designers such as Emilio Pucci, Hubert de Givenchy, Cartier as well as Bill Blass.





A genuine 3 arm Cartier timepiece that gives you the day and the date.







Say what you want, but I like the 1974-1978 Ford Mustang IIs
Just look at that attention to detail in terms of interior luxury on just a little compact car. You can't even get this much luxury in Audi, BMW or Cadillac.



Our fellow Airliners.net member Sccutler owns this beautiful 1976 Cadillac Eldorado. This one here show is the limited 200 model run of the Bicentennial Edition. This is How the the United States celebrated it's 200th birthday.  Smile



Here is the beautiful1975-1978 Mercury Colony Park stationwagon.
In the rear compartment, these wagons had a chess and checker table that folded up (made of metal with magnetic pieces) for the children to play. You see it offered games in which children used there brains and could learn. Today family vehicles (SUVs & minivans) come with DVD players to watch crap on TV. Another example of the dumbing down of our society. These wagons were based off the Lincoln Contenintal and offered very a luxurious ride and the 460cu" V8 powerplant could still out tow most pickups, and SUVs on the road today. This was the ideal family vehicle.

American Motors was a company way ahead of it's time and it's too bad we lost them in 1987.



You could get a camper package with your Gremlin, Hornet, Pacer or Matador.  Smokin cool




One thing I miss the most about 1970s cars were those beautiful plaid seats!  Smokin cool  Big thumbs up


You have to be a very sterile and uptight individual to not appreciate these beauties.
Bring back the Concorde
 
Matt D
Posts: 8907
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 1999 6:00 am

RE: Worst Decade For Cars, Ever!

Wed Jul 21, 2004 12:42 pm

 
bristolflyer
Posts: 2103
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 1:35 am

RE: Worst Decade For Cars, Ever!

Wed Jul 21, 2004 12:46 pm

Man alive you Americans haven't seen anything like the sort of trash that British Leyland turned out in the 70s and 80s. Ever heard of the Allegro? Or the Princess? Truly awful cars that were a shame on our car industry and inevitably put nails in the UK car industy's coffin.

Unfortunately we no longer have any major car manufacturers, although we do have some awesome sports car builders - Lotus, Caterham, Noble and I guess I must mention Morgan. I'd love to drive a Caterham around the streets of Phoenix among all the Hummers!

BF
Fortune favours the brave
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: Worst Decade For Cars, Ever!

Wed Jul 21, 2004 12:52 pm

The 70s were pretty bad for cars, but, except for a few classic examples over the decades today is the golden age of the automobile.

I know the worshippers of cars of other eras can point with reverence to the 1929 Deusenberg SJ or the Gullwing Mercedes or the '57 Chevy but once you have tried to stop a two-ton plus car with mechanical drum brakes you will appreciate ABS disks. When you have pumped 33 gallons of gas into your 1933 LaSalle at today's prices you will appreciate a car like mine that will do 150 mph and get 28 miles per gallon (though not at the same time)

Cars today are wonderful. If you like performance, there are half a dozen that will get you a speeding ticket in first gear and do over 200 in top gear. They will cost you, but the main point is, they are available.

But the 70s, I am hard pressed to rememeber a single car that I liked from that decade. The muscle cars were really more muscular in the 60s before the emission controls. On the Mopar 426s you could pull off those plates on the end of the headers and reach in to tickle the exhaust valves. You could get your whole arm up the header pipes. By the mid '70s you could open the hood and not even see the engine for all the enviroplumbing.

During the "Arab oil embargo" I saw a muscle car and a same-year VW sitting side by side on a used car lot. They were asking nearly twice as much for the VeeDub.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Worst Decade For Cars, Ever!

Wed Jul 21, 2004 12:54 pm

Bristolflyer:
Look at the bright side. Jaguar and Aston Martin is owned by the world's best automaker, FORD!  Smokin cool

Ford being the magnicifent company they are still allows Jaguar, Aston Martin and Rover the freedom to design there cars they want. Look at the GM partners in Europe such as Saab. Talk about a bland enemic company of boring looking cars. I wish Ford could have bought out Rolls Royce before they allow the Germans to butcher there designs.

By the way, the Rolls Royce Silver Shados of the 1970s is my favorite British car. Bristish cars have way more character than the German cars.
Bring back the Concorde
 
N766UA
Posts: 7843
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 1999 3:50 am

RE: Worst Decade For Cars, Ever!

Wed Jul 21, 2004 1:18 pm

The late '80s were the worst. All the cars were little square pieces of crap. Look at the mustang! I mean, it's always been a piece of crap, but then it looked so econo.
This Website Censors Me
 
mdsh00
Posts: 3968
Joined: Mon May 17, 2004 11:28 am

RE: Worst Decade For Cars, Ever!

Wed Jul 21, 2004 1:26 pm

The late '80s were the worst. All the cars were little square pieces of crap. Look at the mustang! I mean, it's always been a piece of crap, but then it looked so econo.

I agree. Cars in the 80s lacked any kind of style whatsoever. They were all just boxes with an angle here and there. Gross.
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a big fat white guy who is threatened by change."
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Worst Decade For Cars, Ever!

Wed Jul 21, 2004 1:27 pm

N766UA:
Hey man, what about the 1987 Chrysler LeBaron Convertible?

[Edited 2004-07-21 06:30:06]
Bring back the Concorde
 
N766UA
Posts: 7843
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 1999 3:50 am

RE: Worst Decade For Cars, Ever!

Wed Jul 21, 2004 1:30 pm

I'm not sure, the '89 mustangs look alot like cheapo aluminum boxes I could just plow over. Earlier ones are even worse.. take the '86:



[Edited 2004-07-21 06:32:40]
This Website Censors Me
 
N766UA
Posts: 7843
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 1999 3:50 am

RE: Worst Decade For Cars, Ever!

Wed Jul 21, 2004 1:34 pm

The '87 LeBaron has at least some substance to it. The nose looks alot less...idk...cheap... but it's still nothing like the big cars of the '70s.
This Website Censors Me
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Worst Decade For Cars, Ever!

Wed Jul 21, 2004 1:48 pm

I've seen more awful designs over the last 4 years than in my entire life.

THe worst looking cars in my opinion:
Pontiac Aztec
H2
Matrix/Vibe
Avalanche/Escalade
Lexus RX300/330
Porsche/Cyanne
Mercedes M-class (all of them)
BMW X5
BMW X3
BMW Z3
BMW Z4
Honda CRV
Toyota Rav4
Infiniti FX 35/45
Nissan Murano


These cars would be better off melted down and turnes in to beer cans!  Pissed
Bring back the Concorde
 
N766UA
Posts: 7843
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 1999 3:50 am

RE: Worst Decade For Cars, Ever!

Wed Jul 21, 2004 1:55 pm

Not to mention the slaughter of perfectly good cars like the Accord or Civic. Damn fart cannons.
This Website Censors Me
 
Delta767300ER
Posts: 2436
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2003 7:12 pm

RE: Worst Decade For Cars, Ever!

Wed Jul 21, 2004 2:01 pm

The 80's were pretty bad. The cars were extremely ugly and boxy. But any year with 200 Horsepower V8's sucked! Their is just no excuse for that.

-Delta767300ER
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Worst Decade For Cars, Ever!

Wed Jul 21, 2004 2:20 pm

Just watch it now!

There is a lot more to a car than 0-60.
Just look at the beautiful 1987 Chrysler LeBaron convertible. It was a perfect blend of state of the art technology, classic American luxury and styling touches that harkens back to the dawn of Western Civilization with it's Greek Corintian leather seating surface.
OK, OK OK it was made by the Greeks in New Jersey but the idea was cool, don't you think? Afterall, you had Ricardo Mantalban (Fantasy Island) as the spokesman and promoter of these fine vehiceles.

I owned on for five years and it caught on fire only 3 times. Fortunatly, I've always kept a fire extinguisher in the trunk in case that 2.2 turbo got too hot.  Smile






and don't forget about the New Yorker


Bring back the Concorde
 
NoUFO
Posts: 7397
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 7:40 am

RE: Worst Decade For Cars, Ever!

Wed Jul 21, 2004 8:17 pm

I wish Ford could have bought out Rolls Royce before they allow the Germans to butcher there designs.

There was no German involved in designing the new RR.
I support the right to arm bears
 
tristarenvy
Posts: 2235
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2004 2:07 am

RE: Worst Decade For Cars, Ever!

Wed Jul 21, 2004 9:59 pm

Dear Superfly, I meant no offense! If you noticed I did say that most 70's Lincoln's are great. The Mark V's, preferably with Blass, or Gucci designer options RULE! My point was, that the 70's were a time of transition for the auto industry, and some of the first results left a lot to be desired. The late 70's cars, were designed with fuel efficiency, and those five m.p.h. bumpers, in mind. So the Mark IV, by 1976, looked pretty bloated, but the Mark V, was a clean design.

And I HAD a '78 Cordoba! But sadly, WITHOUT, the rich Corinthian leather!

And my dad had the best example of what had gone wrong with the British auto industry. A Triumph TR7. 'Nuff said.
If you don't stand for SOMETHING, you'll fall for ANYTHING.
 
desertjets
Posts: 7570
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2000 3:12 pm

RE: Worst Decade For Cars, Ever!

Wed Jul 21, 2004 10:53 pm

When it comes to the Cordoba the 76 and 77 are much better looking without those silly stacked quad lamps.

I think what Superfly is trying to say is that the 70s were the pinnacle of old American luxury, gaudy as it seems to me. I think the Big 3 are trying to define what new American luxury is... cars like the new Chrysler 300C and Caddilac STS are pretty damn good efforts and give the Germans and Japanese a good run.

The big problem with most cars from the 70s is that new designs were brought in hastily and were rather poor, or were imported in from the European divisions... which were just as poor or just plain quirky.


But today is the best era for cars. You can buy a run of the mill car that will easily keep up with the muscle cars of yore on the drag strip, then out handle them on the road course, and still carry the kids and 6 bags of mulch home from the Home Depot. While our cars are getting porkier.... getting close to the average curb weight numbers of the early 70s, pound for pound the cars are better, more crash worthy, more efficient, faster, and with more equipment.
Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Worst Decade For Cars, Ever!

Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:22 pm

Tristarenvy:
I understand ware you are coming from now but there are still some good examples of cars designed in the 1970s that are great. The Ford Panther platform debuted on the 1979 LTD/Grand Marquis. Till this day, the Crown Victoria, Grand Marquis, Town Car and new Marurader are on this 25 year old platform. The For Fox platfom that debuted in 1978 on the Fairmont/Zepher just went out of production two months ago. Over at General Motors, the 2.5 Iron Duke 4 cylinder which debuted on the 1975 Vega lasted until just a few years ago. The B-body platform which was the first wave of downsizing lasted up until 1996. The AMC Hornet which debuted in 1970 turned in to a 4X4 drive Eagle in the 1980s being the first car-based SUV. What is the trend today? Car-based SUVs. There are a lot of great things to come out of the 1970s that are often over looked.


DesertJets:
Speed isn't everything. Power to weight ratios are better than ever today but there are just too many ugly vehicles to come out in recent years. In terms of features, everything had already been done by the 1960s at least with Lincoln, Cadillac and Imperial
American luxury cars of the 1950s & 1960s already had power seats, power windows, rear-window defrost, cruise control automatic headlights, power heated rear view mirrors, lumbar support, power glass tops, illuminated vanity mirrors, remote garage door opener, anti-lock breaks (1968 Lincoln Mark III), air bags (1975 Oldsmobile 98 Regency & Delta 88)AM/FM stereo with stereo tape player, 4 wheel disc breaks and many other features.
The only thing new in the past 25 years in cars is in car navigation screens.
Bring back the Concorde
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8572
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Worst Decade For Cars, Ever!

Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:35 pm

The only thing new in the past 25 years in cars is in car navigation screens.

Yeah... forget CD players, fuel injection, and the like...
 
CaptOveur
Posts: 6064
Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 3:13 am

RE: Worst Decade For Cars, Ever!

Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:36 pm

I think we are in another dark era for American cars right now. Look at most of the crap being shoveled out on dealer lots today. We have oversized SUVs that are either enclosed pickup trucks or cars that have been jacked up. American cars are all the same tiny engined, front wheel drive pieces of crap we learned how to build from the Japanese, except they do it better. They even all look pretty much alike. Even worse, the only thing resembling a sports car in the mass market (excluding the Corvette) is a Holden someone slapped a Pontiac badge on (GTO).

Speaking of the new GTO, i really hope they don't ruin another good name like they did with the Impala.

The late 80s might have been a bad era for styling but in my experience the quality GM turned out was some of the best they have ever had.
Things were better when it was two guys in a dorm room.
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Worst Decade For Cars, Ever!

Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:42 pm

DfwRevolution:
Feul injection first started in the 1950s and it was a standard on Cadillacs 1976 and on.
CD players?
Digital audio sucks!
Bring back the Concorde
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8572
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Worst Decade For Cars, Ever!

Thu Jul 22, 2004 2:27 pm

DfwRevolution:
Feul injection first started in the 1950s and it was a standard on Cadillacs 1976 and on.


That's really irrelevant. The Concorde and Tu-144 began supersonic passenger service in the 70s, but even today it isn't mainstream. Kudos to the rich for being able to afford fuel injection, but it was not until the last 25 years that it became common place, and now how many carbs are on the market?

And what about VTEC which didn't arrive until the last 20 years or so? Whether you find it a cheap Asian toy or not, variable timing is a part of cars from the base Honda Accord to the BMW M3.

CD players?
Digital audio sucks!


You must be joking. I think everyone here is willing to up-chuck their I-pods and customized mix CDs to go back to the days of hunt and peck tape decks and pos 8-tracks.  Insane


BTW- Is there an audio format with higher resolution than DVD-Audio?
 
Lono
Posts: 1136
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2004 5:47 pm

RE: Worst Decade For Cars, Ever!

Thu Jul 22, 2004 2:32 pm

Superfly
There is nuthin better than motoring down the road in a 5 thousand pound land yacht getting 8 miles to the gallon... God I miss it.... these cars today would just be speed bumps back then!!!
Wally Bird Ruled the Skys!
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Worst Decade For Cars, Ever!

Thu Jul 22, 2004 2:45 pm

DfwRevolution
Real Name: Withheld
E-mail: Contact
Gender: Male
Age: 21-25
Country: United States
Location: Dallas-Fort Worth


Just as I thought. You are too young to even understand.  Sad
I hope Matt D, Sccutler and maybe Hartsfeildboy can weight in on this.
I'll take a premieum audiophile or even regular pressing vinyl LP and reel to reel tape over any little Ipod. Hell I'll take the 8track tape over an Ipod or Mp3. I do have the equipment to and trained ear to listen to the different formats to compare. Do you DfwRevolution?
Do you even know what an 8track or Lp even looks like, let alone sound like?
I don't it's a good idea for you to challenge me on this topic kid.

And what about VTEC which didn't arrive until the last 20 years or so? Whether you find it a cheap Asian toy or not, variable timing is a part of cars from the base Honda Accord to the BMW M3.

The Dutch were using this technology 30+ years ago.


That's really irrelevant. The Concorde and Tu-144 began supersonic passenger service in the 70s, but even today it isn't mainstream. Kudos to the rich for being able to afford fuel injection, but it was not until the last 25 years that it became common place, and now how many carbs are on the market?

I guess you totally missed the point Tristarenvy was making when he started this topic.
If you scroll up to post #23, he was talking about designs that started in the 1970s. Therefore the features that I mentioned that started in the 1950s, & 1970s ARE relevant.
Market success isn't the topic here.


I'll chime in more about this tomorrow.
Goodnight.  Smile
Bring back the Concorde
 
whitehatter
Posts: 5180
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 6:52 am

RE: Worst Decade For Cars, Ever!

Thu Jul 22, 2004 2:47 pm

If the Russians had wanted to bring America to its knees in the 1970s, then it would have been simple.

Buy the plans from British Leyland, then take over Ford using a front company.

Then have Detroit start pumping out the Austin Allegro, Austin Maxi and Morris Marina. All three still give British drivers the sort of nightmares that end up in a screaming fit. Allegros in particular liked to throw off the occasional wheel, generally on a motorway at about 70mph (God knows I know all about that...)

An Austin Maxi I owned as a teenager used to do thirty miles to the gallon. Of engine oil....

The Marina was a car built on the suspension of a 1940s design which was half the size. It was like being at sea in a force nine when the body started rocking on the tiny leaf springs.
Lead me not into temptation, I can find my own way there...
 
AvObserver
Posts: 2422
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 7:40 am

RE: Worst Decade For Cars, Ever!

Thu Jul 22, 2004 4:32 pm

"American Motors was a company way ahead of it's time and it's too bad we lost them in 1987 (absorbed into Chrysler after Renault sold all its shares)."

I concur. They didn't have the newest engineering or styling but their quality was solid since they kept designs in production so long.

"You could get a camper package with your Gremlin, Hornet, Pacer or Matador."

Didn't know that. Wish I had with my Gremlin and Pacer (gone but not forgotten  Crying )

"One thing I miss the most about 1970s cars were those beautiful plaid seats!"

Yes, I thought that 1970 Ford Maverick was "the cat's meow" with those 3M Scotch plaid seats. That and the $1995. base price. How could you go wrong?

"The worst looking cars in my opinion: Pontiac Aztek, H2..."

I actually like the looks of these two but only the Aztek is an acceptable buy. It's fairly cheap, roomy and has enough versatility to be a mini-RV; you can get a camper package with it as well. The H2 may be visually cool to some but it's a ridiculously heavy, fuel thirsty and poorly built vehicular misanthrope that usually draws scorn, wherever it goes. At least most people find the Aztek offensive only in looks, the H2 usually offends folks across the board.

 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Worst Decade For Cars, Ever!

Thu Jul 22, 2004 4:36 pm

The 1980's....

Especially the first half decade, when Detroit was half-assed teaching itself how to build small cars.

After all this is the decade of the K car.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
cptkrell
Posts: 3186
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 10:50 pm

RE: Worst Decade For Cars, Ever!

Thu Jul 22, 2004 10:13 pm

I think the 'bad decade' actually started with the 1973 model year, the year when the federally-mandated chrome logs were installed front and rear to upgrade (barely) impact resistance, and advancing polution standards eventually emasculated most powerplants. The expertise for better solutions than were actually produced was available but the powers that were in the autos at the time were having nightmares about federal envolvement and chose to go the "band aid" route to keep production scheduled and pour vast amounts (time-frame wise) into exhaustive testing for future models that would hopefully weather the scrutiny of outsiders wanting to hamstring the industry.

A styling case in point that I was envolved with (and Superfly will remember these great-looking cars) were the '72 Montego and Torino. The styling was sacrificed when the huge chrome logs replaced the integrally designed front bumpers in 1973 (-4?). There were other technical solutions that would have not degraded the appearance so bad, but there was the perpetual item of cost plus the long-term livability of newer materials and processes such as self-skinning foam and reaction-injection molding was not known.

The above is not meant as an apology for questionable taste in design...for example, I personally am strongly opposed to vinyl or phoney convertible tops on cars, but as Gene Bordinat, then Ford chief of styling, used to say "if the customer wants shit, let's give them good shit", so the buyer bears a little bit of responsibility, too. Regards...Jack
all best; jack
 
tristarenvy
Posts: 2235
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2004 2:07 am

RE: Worst Decade For Cars, Ever!

Thu Jul 22, 2004 11:43 pm

AVobserver, yes AMC did offer a tent package. There was also a pull out tent for the 74-77 Hornet Hatchback, that had a big AMC logo on the side. GM offered a similar set up for the '74 X-body (Nova-Omega-Ventura-Apollo) two door hatches.

And, along AMC lines, it's a shame that more development had gone into Pacer. The GM Wankel rotary was slated for the car, but shelved at the absolute last minute, and AMC was forced into shoving their 6 under the hood. And build quality, never a Kenosha trademark, was "iffy" at best. A great idea, but missing important items to make it a winner.

Many auto books cite the '74-'78 Matador coupe (I love that car!)as the "final nail in the coffin" for AMC, as money that COULD have been spent on totally fresh replacements for Hornet and Gremlin, was instead put towards a car that would have made sense in 1970, as opposed to 1974. The GM intermediates were leaning towards the "colonnade" formal style, and forgetting the muscle-car image. The '73-'77 Olds Cutlass is the best example of this. More "style" and less "muscle".
If you don't stand for SOMETHING, you'll fall for ANYTHING.
 
srbmod
Posts: 15446
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 1:32 pm

RE: Worst Decade For Cars, Ever!

Fri Jul 23, 2004 10:24 am

L-188 summed it up best in mentioning the K Car. I admit to owning one of the later ones back in the mid 1990s (1988 Dodge Lancer), wasn't that bad of a car, just butt ugly. Then there's the other 1980's travesty, the Yugo. I actually knew a guy in High School that had one (bought it for $1000, and put more than that into a stereo system in it. He even put a car alarm in it {like anyone would suspect a nice stereo system in a Yugo}).

As for 1970s era British Leyland, although my knowledge is on what they imported to the States (Triumph and MG), they did have some dogs. While the Triumphs and MGs were attractive cars (although the later Spitfires and MGBs and Midgets with the bumper mods made such beautiful cars ugly), they did have a few hiccups. The Triumph Stag was dogged with a crap engine that was prone to overheating (The chances of finding a Stag in the US with the original motor still in it are not that good). Then there was the whole TR-7/TR-8 thing. The Flying Wedge was about 5 or so years too early, and was too radical of a departure from what Triumph had done in the past. Plus throw in the well-known problems with the Lucas electrics, and you got a bit of a dog.
 
Matt D
Posts: 8907
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 1999 6:00 am

RE: Worst Decade For Cars, Ever!

Fri Jul 23, 2004 10:42 am

I'll chime in on this and say that I agree with Superfly. There are three reasons why Ipod/MP3's are popular, none of which is applicable to my reasons for listening to music:

1. They are "new and trendy".
2. They are convenient (although I think that this point is debatable to some extent).
3. There is a lot of pressure to get them banned.

Nobody who listens to Ipods/MP3's do so because they care about the quality of the sound.

I still prefer the sound of analog myself as well. And yes, I know what 8-Tracks, LP's, and Reel to reels look like.

And you better know what you are talking about if you think you're going to argue analog...
 
sccutler
Posts: 5567
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2000 12:16 pm

RE: Worst Decade For Cars, Ever!

Fri Jul 23, 2004 2:35 pm

Superfly (and for this topic, SuperFi), wrote:

Just as I thought. You are too young to even understand.
I hope Matt D, Sccutler and maybe Hartsfeildboy can weight in on this.
I'll take a premieum audiophile or even regular pressing vinyl LP and reel to reel tape over any little Ipod. Hell I'll take the 8track tape over an Ipod or Mp3. I do have the equipment to and trained ear to listen to the different formats to compare. Do you DfwRevolution?
Do you even know what an 8track or Lp even looks like, let alone sound like?
I don't it's a good idea for you to challenge me on this topic kid.


I see Matt has already jumped in, I'll only add a bit... well-mastered and pressed vinyl still slaps harsh-edged digital down, solid.

Give me a good MoFi or Telarc pressing, on a decent turntable / cartridge setup (even my mid-range Luxman will do nicely), and roll it out through the rich depth that only a tube amp can deliver. If you are recording, MattD or Superfly can lay down the tracks on open-reel with fidelity that anything with "bit rates" can only dream about. And you won't have to wonder if the technology to play it will still exist in ten years (analog never dies).

New music is mixed ("engineered" is a better term) for the digital target, and that's OK. But don't pretend that it is better- it's just different.
...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
 
AvObserver
Posts: 2422
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 7:40 am

RE: Worst Decade For Cars, Ever!

Fri Jul 23, 2004 3:39 pm

Tristarenvy, thanks for the comments. I'm aware of the Pacer's developmental woes. It was hard to change sparkplugs due to the underhood crowding and the 258 CID six really lacked power, thanks to the car's over 3000 lb. curb weight. I concur on quality, my '75 wasn't too well screwed together though my '72 Gremlin was much better. Did you know GM's stillborn rotary was also to go into the Chevy Vega spinoff sport coupe called Chaparral?

The Matador coupe was AMC's biggest failure, even bigger than Pacer! You're absolutely right on why, it was out of phase with the market. Yes, AMC squandered money on Pacer and Matador that could've made its bread and butter cars more competitive; it kept old designs way too long, though this aspect helped their quality. The 4WD Eagle was their best model in the last days, though Concord and Spirit helped keep them going for awhile. The much ballyhooed Renault Alliance/Encore proved to have reliability issues and was a big sales disappointment for Renault, which had heavily invested in AMC, only to pull out a few years later, selling all of the shares to Chrysler who morphed AMC into its Eagle division which also eventually failed. Given all of their problems, however, it's still remarkable how long AMC managed to hang on (1954-1987). R.I.P. - spunky little American Motors!  Crying



 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Worst Decade For Cars, Ever!

Fri Jul 23, 2004 3:42 pm

It always amazed my how such as small car such as an AMC pacer or eagle, could have so many damm vacume hoses!

It was unreal!!!
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
cptkrell
Posts: 3186
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 10:50 pm

RE: Worst Decade For Cars, Ever!

Fri Jul 23, 2004 7:51 pm

Tristarenvy' psost reminded me of specicific under-the-table envolvement with Bobby Allison's Daytona 500 effort with the Matador. We increased the top speed by almost 2.5 mph by simply installing the grille upside down (yes, the bolts and screws symetrically installed properly). produced 750 slope-nose headlight 'doors' (500 production pieces were a NASCAR requirement at the time) and helped aero by using a rear-quarter-panel window insert to reduce high speed drag (an item FoMoCo sucessfuly used in their T-Bird NASCAR Daytona 500 conquest). Richard Petty lined up next to me in the MIS pit-pisser and told me he was going to get the car kicked out because of rules infractions. Sorry, RP, we kicked your ass.

The AMC Hornet was a cheap (but) then state of the art, commuter car, however, with a simple check on the order form could be delivered with a small-block V-8 quite similar to the perpetual Chevy and would kick-ass with a little tunin" (read: 'tuning', not 'tuner' as relative to 'rice'). It was so good that mee-self, Wally Booth and Dick Aarons (thanks, too, to Trateshaud, Gostenik and rest of crew) knocked all the GM divisions, FoMoCo and Chrycorp's dicks in the dirt at the NHRA Nationals at Indy.

The demise of AMC actually gestated in about 1961/2 when (then) AMC chief Sherwood Eggbert (unfortunate name, huh?) engaged famed industrial designer Raymond Lowey to design a benchmark vehicle. The resultant Avante (remember, this was pre-'AMC', but in-gestation Studebaker/AMC era) was acclaimed in 1963 but the dollars that must be weren't quite there, and so, strapped for R&D bucks, the headquarters on Six Mile Road in Dee-twaw eventually succombed to the ChryCorp (and now Daimler) take-over. Geeze; what great memories. And all you kids  Smile think problems can be solved overnight. Bye....Jack
all best; jack
 
tristarenvy
Posts: 2235
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2004 2:07 am

RE: Worst Decade For Cars, Ever!

Fri Jul 23, 2004 9:38 pm

Cptkrell, thanks for all the info! I'd heard of the Vega Wankle offshoot. Cool info, too.

I think the biggest failure of AMC was the total loss of George Romney's ideal for the company. Build cars on ONE platform, w/a 100" wheelbase, that no one else offers. Rambler was a luxury compact, when those two words didn't fit together. Roy Abernathy's attempt to match the Big Three car for car was a disaster. Rebel, Marlin, Javelin, Matador coupe... all good ideas if it was GM, but not for AMC. Hornet/Concorde/Eagle was a great platform, and PROBABLY would be viable, even today! I'd wager Chrysler could have kept the line in Kenosha rolling on a facelifted 30 year old Eagle Wagon for a lot longer than they did. Hell, the tools and dies were paid for, and if the price was low enough...

Ever see any of those AMC cars built in Mexico that were not offered in the US? I saw a cool five door Concorde hatchback, in Mexico in 1984.
If you don't stand for SOMETHING, you'll fall for ANYTHING.
 
An-225
Posts: 3859
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2000 2:55 am

RE: Worst Decade For Cars, Ever!

Sat Jul 24, 2004 12:01 am

I just want to add a few things to the worst-looking cars list - Honda Element and that atrocity by Toyota... I cannot look at those things without cringing. What the hell were they thinking???

Alex.
Money does not bring you happiness. But it's better to cry in your own private limo than on a cold bus stop.
 
PHLBOS
Posts: 6504
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 6:38 am

RE: Worst Decade For Cars, Ever!

Sat Jul 24, 2004 1:02 am

We have oversized SUVs that are either enclosed pickup trucks or cars that have been jacked up. American cars are all the same tiny engined, front wheel drive pieces of crap

Blame the current CAFE standards on cars for that. If it weren't for them, maybe we would see Crown Vic/Grand Marquis - based Country Squires/Colony Parks with a 5.4L V8 instead of Expeditions and Excursions. The real Impala SS would still be around and the Merc Marauder would have the 5.4 V8.

Not to get political, but a certain Democratic Senator from Massachusetts who's running for President attempted (but failed) to raise the CAFE standards for trucks/SUVs and cars about a year-and-a-half ago.

If he gets elected, the worst decade for cars could be... yet to come.

Something to think about when voting and not just for the Presidency but for Congress as well.

[Edited 2004-07-23 18:10:08]
"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Worst Decade For Cars, Ever!

Sat Jul 24, 2004 12:46 pm

Actually the other thing about the early 1980's that irks me about the cars is that is when Detroit was making the switch from standard to metric....a switch that never should have been made IMHO. The Metric system is the devils ruler.

But back on subject, I bring up my old 81 F-150. The body was metric and the engine was standard.....so I needed two entirely different sets of wrenchs to work on the damm thing!!!
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
User avatar
mighluss
Posts: 965
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 12:11 am

RE: Worst Decade For Cars, Ever!

Sat Jul 24, 2004 6:22 pm

70's?



Nothing more to say!! (I was 4 years old!! Big grin )
Miquel.
 
AvObserver
Posts: 2422
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 7:40 am

RE: Worst Decade For Cars, Ever!

Sat Jul 24, 2004 8:07 pm

"Not to get political, but a certain Democratic Senator from Massachusetts who's running for President attempted (but failed) to raise the CAFE standards for trucks/SUVs and cars about a year-and-a-half ago."

Call me an 'eco-weenie' if you want, PHLBOS, but I don't have a problem with this. Though I'd most want to see SUV mileage standards tightened up first, I don't see why we should stop with cars. I don't think we really need passenger cars that can hit 150+ mph on U.S. roads, there's no autobahn, here. Since you can't legally drive more than 65 in most of the country and have a reasonable leeway up to only about 80 or so with the police, such mega-powered cars are roundly unnecessary here, however much fun they may be. I often see idiots blasting down Route 80 in NJ at triple-digit speeds and on such a congested road, that's nuts. These fools have no common sense so why should they drive cars that can take the pole position in the stock car rallies when you can't legally drive less than half that fast. On top of that, we should continue to reduce oil dependence wherever we can. Most big sixes in cars these days outperform a lot of V8s in the past and I think that's enough. I've always done fine with sixes and fours and have never needed a monster motor. Some V8s, like the Corvette's, are relatively efficient but not all of them are. I'm all for cars with decent passing power on the road but we really don't need uber-engines in family sedans. In the heavier luxury cars, sure you need a V8 but with increased CAFE standards, you'll still be able to get those big motors in these and other cars, it won't outlaw them. You'll just pay a much heftier gas-guzzler tax, which I find appropriate. You'll still have the freedom to drive such hyper-engined cars, if you want, it'll just cost you more to buy one, that's all. Kerry's plan shouldn't stop such cars from being offered, although it will definitely reduce demand for them. I know I'll get seriously flamed for this, except by some Euros, but I'm fine with it.

 
cptkrell
Posts: 3186
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 10:50 pm

RE: Worst Decade For Cars, Ever!

Sat Jul 24, 2004 10:35 pm

I like fast, powerful cars, but I don't have a problem at all with AvObserver's suggestion; if you want such, then pay extra through a CAFE tax or such.

Increasing the truck fleet mpg will be more difficult, though. Physics works against solutions; torque efficiency usually means a sacrifice in mileage, trucks also need some weight through a stouter build to carry payload, also a sacrifice in performance (and I'm including mpg when I refer to performance). Many improvements are being tested (like substituting HSLA custom-blanked and stitched steels for integrity whilst lowering sprung weight, but again, time-to-market if often agonizingly slow. One cannot legislate physics.

Some folks previously mentioned the doomed Wankel (first slated for the Chevrolet Monza in production). The next time you get a chance to peer inside a Monza or one of its' sisters, note the rediculously high (almost elbow height) center console/driveshaft hump through the center of the car. This inefficient interior packaging was the result of the engine centerline being so high in a Wankel engine (as opposed to the low crank centerline in a 4, 6 or V8 engine). The entire vehicle had been tooled and production lines were running prototype Job-Ones when GM got cold feet on the Wankel. The body-in-white was never redesigned for a 'normal' powertrain build. Stupid, I guess, but interesting nontheless. Regards...Jack
all best; jack

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: LittleFokker and 13 guests