Fly's post about the 1959 Ford Skyliner insipred this:

As much as I do not like the 1959 Fords, I love most any other 1959 domestic.

First & forermost the entire GM lineup including the Opel-Buicks.

I would rate the GM stuff like this in order of favorites:

Buick

Cadillac

Pontiac

Chevrolet

Oldsmobile

(GMC/Chevy trucks fall somewhere in between Pontiac & Olds)

But after that, the next best thing is a 1959 Imperial, which is about as easy to

find as a polite Frenchman in Paris if you're wearing an American flag on your

baseball cap. Back to reality, a 1959 Dodge 2 door hardtop of any kind is a

great thing to aspire to without having your head up in the clouds.

Love These cars. I guess I should say that if and when a hardtop (2 or 4 door)

ever paths with me I just might snap it up as long as it's affordable.

What a pissed off face... Not quite a 1959 Buick but close.

Just for comparison:

Except for the non-canted headlights and the bizzare tail fins they're 99% as cool as 1959 Buicks.

More:

http://www.caroholic.com/images/59Dodge1.jpg

http://cars.em-ef.de/DodgeCoronet59/Dodge-0.htm

http://www.dyna.co.za/cars/Dodge_59_Kingsw...pe_Red_sf11.jpg

Edited January 23, 200719 yr by Sixty8panther

And yet a mere two years later, Plymouth gave us this disgusting beast:

I can see why people found 1959 Cadillacs distasteful, though, especially compared to the classy '58s and more svelte '60s. Its a little bit like Anna Nicole Smith without the diseases.

That car is awesome! Looks so cool... (Not flys plymouth)

Not bad, but I'd still rather have this:

Which, as it so happens, I do have (Just not in running condition)

It's all relative, I love 1958 Cadillacs but I'd take a beat up, cosmetically challenged

1959 four door hardtop over almost any 1958 Cadillac in near perfect condition.

Those bullet tail lights & knife edge tail fins insipre one of only two reactions: LOVE

or JEALOUSY. (and therefore hate)

Lincoln just kind of threw their hands up in the air & ended up giving us a beautiful

'61 Continental as a result of the fact that EVERYONE knew that the '59 Caddy meant

CHECK-MATE! It think even in the fall of 1958 it was apparent that the tail fin had

reached the pinnacle of perfection!

Eh... The only interesting part about that dodge are the "eyebrows". For me, I'd have to take the 1961 Dodge over it. Basically, most other Dodge, Plymouth, Chrysler, Imperial, or DeSoto vehicles were unattractive to me. Also, while the 1959 Buick is a favorite of mine, I like the 1960 a little bit more. I also prefer the 1960 Cadillac to the 1959. As for Ford, I don't like anything until the 1962 Thunderbird. The rest were utterly boring for the time while Continental, Lincoln, Edsel, and Mercury were either boring as well or somewhat odd. As far as the early '50s goes... There are only two American cars I like; the very rare 1954-55 Hudson Italia and the 1953 Studebaker

Hudsons are beautiful, underappreciated cars, especially the '46-'54 step-down bodied cars.

Its unbelievable how sleek and modern Hudsons look, especially with the trend towards bulkier flanks with narrow gunslit windows.

One look at those 50s Mopars says talk about good luck ever finding one.

L.A.

You mean as in most of us 20-something year olds

have never seen most of these cars in the flesh?

Hey BV; whaddya think?:

Hey BV; whaddya think?:

Well, the Corvette is one of those cars that doesn't need to be mentioned... Ofcourse I like it, though not as much as the C2.

The others aren't bad, but I never really liked them. The original Thunderbird is much better later ones for the sole reason of being a true sports car, but there's nothing really special about the design... just a small two seater '50s Ford. The 2nd gen Tbird was horrible compared to it, but I like the 3rd gen's styling more than both of them. The 300 on the other hand... The grill was too much, the tail fins were too much, and the taillights were also too much on the car that is plain for the '50s. Other than the taillights, none of it really relates to size, but more or less the shape and style.

Love the Vette and Studebaker and...

L.A.

You mean as in most of us 20-something year olds

have never seen most of these cars in the flesh?

I mean those Mopars are for whatever reason LONG gone. Maybe they just weren't big sellers, maybe they rotted very quickly, maybe every owner treated them like crap, maybe they were mostly quickly crushed. I'll be 31 in three months, and I've never seen one on the street a day in my life.

It's sad too, because it's by and large not strange of Mopars throughout history. There's plenty of Darts and Valiants, but the Satellites and Chargers and Newports and even LeBaron GTCs of the world just start disappearing after a while. Dodge Spirits and Eagle Visions are only about 13 years old and I can't remember the last time I've seen one.

This just doesn't happen with GM or Ford, and it's crazy. It's just this weird Chrysler thing we'll never understand.

'nother '59 Camino

>>"The original Thunderbird... there's nothing really special about the design... just a small two seater '50s Ford."<<

How can a 2-seater Ford not be something special? You cannot fairly dismiss it just because it says 'FORD" on it. Seriously- have you ever sat in a 1st gen (T1?) 'bird; they are very cool & unique- on the order (tho different) than a Corvette beyond the obvious reason. My B-59 bunked with a '56 in a barn for a year- I could own a T1 no problem (except that they are too popular for me.

300: The 300 is plain in the way a vintage ferrari is plain; it's not so much unadorned as it is purposeful. The grille is on the large side, tho IMO it's F-ing perfect for a racing car (it does need to feed a 375-hp 8bbl Hemi), as are the fins (areodynamic aids over 90 MPH, don'tcha know). Timeless motion-at-rest.

>>"Other than the taillights, none of it really relates to size, but more or less the shape and style."<<

Wow- unusual opinion on this one; it's so clean. How about the 300's little sister:

Last '59 Camino post for this thread. I promise.

I am tempted to bid on this one: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1959-EL-CAM...1QQcmdZViewItem

Most complex quarter panel and tailgate ever:

>>"The original Thunderbird... there's nothing really special about the design... just a small two seater '50s Ford."<<

How can a 2-seater Ford not be something special? You cannot fairly dismiss it just because it says 'FORD" on it. Seriously- have you ever sat in a 1st gen (T1?) 'bird; they are very cool & unique- on the order (tho different) than a Corvette beyond the obvious reason. My B-59 bunked with a '56 in a barn for a year- I could own a T1 no problem (except that they are too popular for me.

300: The 300 is plain in the way a vintage ferrari is plain; it's not so much unadorned as it is purposeful. The grille is on the large side, tho IMO it's F-ing perfect for a racing car (it does need to feed a 375-hp 8bbl Hemi), as are the fins (areodynamic aids over 90 MPH, don'tcha know). Timeless motion-at-rest.

>>"Other than the taillights, none of it really relates to size, but more or less the shape and style."<<

Wow- unusual opinion on this one; it's so clean. How about the 300's little sister:

I was talking about the design. Sure, the car itself is special, but I just find the Corvette's design to be so much more interesting. Other than the egg crate grill, it's essentially the same design as any other '55-'57 Ford shrunken down into a two seater.

As for the 300... Yes, it's very clean and I can respect that. I more or less meant, for the tail fins, that theyre big, straight lined, and nearly flat. They suddenly start right behind the door. It's like a kink in the design. Then, they tower over the low decklid. It's just not something I like, especially with those huge taillights. The grill on the other hand, it's just shaped so oddly. Its probably by biggest complaint about the 300.

Otherwise, you must realise... I'm very picky about '50s cars. Some, I find to be absolutely gorgeous. Some, I find to be completely appalling. While most others, I find to be attractive, but not all that interesting. Probably similar to your opinion of '90s cars.

Edited January 25, 200719 yr by blackviper8891

I admire just about every '57-'60 Mopar.

I'm with O.B. and Balthazar.

Although I'm not a big fan of the Thunderbird... love the first three generation

stylistically but I'm just not into them enough to want to buy one ever.

Thanks for keeping this thread alive, nice to just click open a thread &look at

classics for once, instead of being the one to post them all myself.

Now how about some photos of 1959 Pontiacs...?

The '58s looked better for one reason...

...the rocket.

Yup.... of all the 1958 GMs Pontiac has always been my favorite.

I want the red 1958 Bonneville Safari that pops up on Google

searches quite often. It has the drop down railroad axles since

it was used for year by some R.R. maintenance crews IIRC....

Not the photo I'm thinking of but it's actually BETTER quality.

If I could somehow track this car down and buy it I'd never

touch a thing on it... exept for maybe painting the rocket &

"vapor trail" in white. I knew it was up norht somewhere,

I thought Maine or Vermont but it was CANADA, eh!

Edited January 25, 200719 yr by Sixty8panther

Sixty8 - That's a Chieftan wagon, not a Bonne; jumpin' jehosephat- it's not even 2-toned!

blackviper -

I'm very picky about '50s cars. Some, I find to be absolutely gorgeous. Some, I find to be completely appalling. While most others, I find to be attractive, but not all that interesting. Probably similar to your opinion of '90s cars.

No- I find absolutely all '90s cars either uninteresting or completely appalling (for sure in the interior) and nearly zero to be absolutely gorgeous.

In my memory I remember it being a Bonnie, and of course it is not

but I posted it when I was getting ready for my lunchbreak and I

neglected to correct the model. Either way I'd LOVE to own this car.

You know what, I bet that wagon corners like it's on rails. Wow!

No harm, no foul, Sixty8.

Yeah- 'railriders' are very cool. I used to know a guy who worked for the railroad- had a mid '60s Ford pickup railrider. I was always fascinated- like you had this other avenue of escape besides roads....

Exactly... plus there's several miles of defunct rail road within a stone's throw of my house

here in the Merrimac Valley. There's a few miles of straight strack and then a break where

the enterance to a fancy cul desac was paved over, plenty of opportunities to hop on the

rails and have some fun. I bet Massachusetts is not the only state with lots of defunct rails

littering once small towns that have built up an infrastructure of roads and closed the local

rail road station for lack of interest.

No- I find absolutely all '90s cars either uninteresting or completely appalling (for sure in the interior) and nearly zero to be absolutely gorgeous.

You don't really believe that, do you?

Let me also ask you this, do you have any appreciation for GMs of today?

Some of them, sure, as transportation (and here I am not talking about only GM). But late model cars are not objects of outright lust for me- I cannot think of anything made in the last 30 years that makes me pitch a tent. Also true: a great quantity are so utterly.... disposable, IMO.