First off, I just mentioned this car in another thread,

but I thought what the heck, why not post some of

my favorite lesser known hardtops.

Not the typical, well known '57 Bel Airs, '59 Cadillacs

& '70 Challengers, (I love those too) but the weird,

off the beaten path stuff you might not have EVER

seen before, or perhaps you saw one but it was 7

years ago at a car show.

Here goes:

1.) 1965 to 1968 BMW 2000cs Be still my heart!

The later 1970s cs/csl coupes were quite beautiful as well.

2.) Going even FURTHER back in time: 1962 - 1965 BMW 3200cs

A compact, slick looking car that had a V8,

four on the floor, two door hardtop... and

it predates the Mustang.

And yet, it's GERMAN.

3.) 1974 Mazda RX-4 hardtop coupe.

I love the styling on these things... if only modern Japanese

cars had anywhere CLOSE to this much personality.

That first Bimmer, composite headlamps on a 60's car? Seems so out of place, and then to go to the "Normal" sealed beam style on the next generation seems like an odd move.

The Mazda looks like a baby Barracuda. How kawaii!

Some very nice finds, Sixty8. Looking at the beautiful Bimmers gives the casual observer a much deeper appreciation for the newest 1-series... BMW has certainly stayed true to themselves, so many car companies cannot say that. I love the mix of heritage and modern attitude on the 1-series.

The Mazda's cool, too, although no one can deny where their inspiration came from. Their (the Japanese makers') coolest cars of that era were scale models of American stuff. And look what they've got coming now, that new 3 with a hideous, huge black grin pasted on the front. It's time for America to once again seize the Design high ground.

Edited March 15, 200917 yr by ocnblu

Some very nice finds, Sixty8. Looking at the beautiful Bimmers gives the casual observer a much deeper appreciation for the newest 1-series... BMW has certainly stayed true to themselves, so many car companies cannot say that. I love the mix of heritage and modern attitude on the 1-series.

You want some Bavarian cream?

yes

This was really interesting. I've never seen that BMW model with the covered headlights. The car in the Bavarian Cream ad is especially sharp!

The Mazda looks like a baby Barracuda. How kawaii!

screams ford maverick to me hehe

edit... is this a sign of the future partnership?

Edited March 15, 200917 yr by cletus8269

There's a reason every one of those hardtops pictures are forgotten, and it's YOU-GEE-EL-EYE-ness.

Don't forget, it's theoretically possible to build a hardtop garbage truck- but it's still a garbage truck first.

LoL @ Balthy.

I do find the 3200CSa tad awkward but I love the 65-68 CS.

Also, while I find the RX-4 quite charming I'm 100% with

O.B. as far as the scale model comment.

Look hard enough at late 1960s & early 1970s Mopars & you

will see the TRUE inspiration for the Madza RX-4.

Random google search find that was too delicious to leave out.

1970s cs/csl is teh only one of those that I wouldn't mind looking at for an extended period of time. The other two give off an Edsel vibe, which is NOT a compliment.

As for the Mazda:

`nuff said.

Of course the obvious Mopar inspired design cues is probably why I like it. It's a baby.

Huh. The Mazda is really the one I care for the least. I've never been a huge fan of the wide-grilled classic muscle car look, and I'm getting rather sick of it nowadays.

Those BMW's are da bomb ...

That first Bimmer, composite headlamps on a 60's car? Seems so out of place, and then to go to the "Normal" sealed beam style on the next generation seems like an odd move.

Euro-spec vs. US- spec.

Take a look at Euro versions of a Benz of that era.

Euro-spec vs. US- spec.

Take a look at Euro versions of a Benz of that era.

I knew Euro spec car's had them by that point, for some reason that thought totally slipped my mind when I posted that.

Exactly (Camino)

Another product of over regulation!

Look at my 1984 Mercedes (Gray market import from Deutchland)

And compare it to a USA-spec. '84 M.B.

Those sealed beams in a bucket... I'll be nice and call them awkward.

Of course for all the same reasons the typical '84 GM car is no better.

I love the 3.0CS... what a gorgeous car.

I love the 3.0CS... what a gorgeous car.

I love these cars absolutely LOVE them.

BUT

As a kid growing up in Europe I was conditioned too

think BMWs = perfection.... same as M.B.

I will admit as much as I LOVE these BMWs, without

their hardtop greenhouses I'd be much less interested

in them AND I DO think they are a little Euro-Quirky.

Like (not to give Balthazar Ammo) the tacked-on

front blinker on the 3.0 CS

Still I love it.

DUDE ... Sixty8 ... you always share some AWESOME cars ... these are no different.

VERY sweet!!!

Cort | 35swm | "Mr Monte Carlo"."Mr Road Trip" | pig valve.pacemaker ...MidW Event = 04/04/09

WRMNshowcase.legos.HO.models.MCs.RTs.CHD = http://www.chevyasylum.com/cort

"Pictures come alive" ... Irene Cara ... 'What A Feeling'

>>"not to give Balthazar Ammo"<<

These cars ('60s-70s BMWs) supply all the ammo themselves. Unrefined (cubed) & lacking attention to detail are their hallmarks. It's like BMW was a 3rd world carmaker in their first decade of building cars- the exposed rockers, the horrendous federalization body hardware, good God, man- how is this stuff overlooked... yet we go back-n-forth over the infetessimal grades of "plastic quality" like we're scientists talking on a molecular level. Not an ounce of stylistic effort in these uber-bland euro-generics, either. Right up to the Banglized BMWs... the entire 'design vocabulary' remained exactly the same for decades; is BMW the originator of retro thru self-parody, then?

This is just commentary on the exterior styling- interiors & drivability are other, thorny issues...

One pic/car that is interesting to me is the euro-spec 2-dr up top- but there it's merely the row of louvers behind (??) the bumper- something different (even if doubtfully functional). But drooling and heart palpitations ???? Ooooooo-kkkkkkkkkkk........

Well, one thing I think we can agree on Balthazar...

The best thing about these BMWs is their blatantly American influenced

pillarless Greenhouses which DO to a large degree IMHO add a certain

sophistication and luxury to an otherwise "economical" looking car.

I do think you underestimate BMW's strengths as far as innovation,

performance & the subtle art of "under styling". BMW never got on the

"square sealed-beam headlight" bandwagon and they are to be

commended for that, being the only ones other than Porsche to never

put square headlights on any production car.

I can overlook many of the "unrefined " details you pointed out & yet

the '75-'79 Seville which you appreciate, to me looks just terrible.

It's a BOX with a myriad of BOXY/rectangular details. That to me is a

car that looks like it's lacking design altogether.

LOL @ '76 Bonneville in the exact colors as my old '76 LeSabre that now belongs to Fly.

http://www.cheersandgears.com/index.php?showtopic=17490

---

Well, one thing I think we can agree on Balthazar...

The best thing about these BMWs is their blatantly American influenced

pillarless Greenhouses which DO to a large degree IMHO add a certain

sophistication and luxury to an otherwise "economical" looking car.

I do think you underestimate BMW's strengths as far as innovation,

performance & the subtle art of "under styling". BMW never got on the

"square sealed-beam headlight" bandwagon and they are to be

commended for that, being the only ones other than Porsche to never

put square headlights on any production car.

I can overlook many of the "unrefined " details you pointed out & yet

the '75-'79 Seville which you appreciate, to me looks just terrible.

It's a BOX with a myriad of BOXY/rectangular details. That to me is a

car that looks like it's lacking design altogether.

I like the styling of old BMWs, certainly wouldn't call them 'unrefined'....just different than the '50s-60s American cars that Balthy knows. They were created in a different reality context...Germany in the '60s-70s was very different than Detroit.

The best aspect of vintage BMWs, though, wasn't styling...it was the handling....a concept that it took American car makers a long time to take seriously.

>>"...an otherwise "economical" looking car."<<

VERY much so- slab, generic sides with NO character (well- there is that stem-to-stern body line ), an 'exposed' rocker there as a nod to the limits of engineering, very little stylistic intergration & just about zilch body hardware integration, generic bumpers just slapped on... these '60s & '70s BMWs just reek of cheapness. The hardtop greenhouse does nothing to improve a wretched exterior design, IMO.

While I'm no raging fan of it (too new), I do 'like' the 1st gen Seville. It's very well integrated overall- body hardware, bumper fitment, stance over the wheels/wheel gap, overall flow- nothing tacked on with an afterthought; every piece designed for the Seville specifically. Nothing cheap about it, design-wise. Whether you like the design or not, the engineering of the design was class-leading then- far above that of BMWs of then & earlier.

That's not a '75 Catalina, as captioned, it's a Bonneville. The '75 Catalina was more a twin to the Canadian Laurentian shown.

I guess I just have to agree to disagree... I think as USA-spec.

1970s cars go the 3.0CS is gorgeous. I mean we're talking the

same era as the Pinto & Mustang II.

>>"I guess I just have to agree to disagree..."<<

Just spent 20 minutes looking @ '70s BMWs via google.

We're just on opposite sides of the issue on this one.

Agreed to disagree.

Just don't slobber so. :wink:

1958 Nash:

1958 Super 88 Fiesta Wagon:

Nash wagons looked goofy.

'58 was not a great year for car styling.

Nash wagons looked goofy.

'58 was not a great year for car styling.

I beg to differ.

Balthazar:

One thing I've never given much thought to... "exposed rocker panels"

You do have a point... GM in the 1960s had some gorgeous detailing

on rocker panels. 1st gen. F-body RS with the deluxe trim, 1965

Rivieras, my '64 Super 88, even a Chevy sedan could be had with a

nice stainless steel trim package that included the rockers.

WMJ:

Fantastic choices.

I love the '58 Rambler, it's the '58 Olds that's not my cup of tea.

LOL @ '76 Bonneville in the exact colors as my old '76 LeSabre that now belongs to Fly.

http://www.cheersandgears.com/index.php?showtopic=17490

---

I always like how you light your evening and night shots ...

PCS:

Thanks. I wish I had more time to pursue my love of Automotive photography.

WMJ:

1st time ever seeing a '63 Dodge 880 hardtop-station wagon.

MMMMmmmmm...one of my personal favs...

look ma! no pillars!

Edited March 26, 200916 yr by Nick

When I look at that '58 Nash roof all I see is Nissan Armada... separated at birth?

When I look at that '58 Nash roof all I see is Nissan Armada... separated at birth?

Yeah... I had a neighbor with an Infiniti QX57 and I loved to

joke with him and call it a Rambler... of course I had to

explain myself in order for him to get the joke.

Envoy XUV is another "reincarnation" on an idea that is now

half a century old.

The8 series is truly magnificent.

OMFG t3h overhang!!121`32`~!~!

The 8-series is a cute little runabout.

I like the Avantime.

^^ Uhhhhh....... nice try Ford, but NO SOUP 4 U!

Edited March 29, 200916 yr by balthazar

I never understood why "hardtop" is used only for cars without B-pillars. A pillared sedan's roof is still hard, is it not?

I never understood why "hardtop" is used only for cars without B-pillars. A pillared sedan's roof is still hard, is it not?

I think it's a term from ancient times to distinguish them from 'ragtops', i.e. convertibles, I think.

I have always thought they were called hardtops because they had no pillar, therefore the top had to be "harder" for rollovers. Weird, and prolly wrong.

I have always thought they were called hardtops because they had no pillar, therefore the top had to be "harder" for rollovers. Weird, and prolly wrong.

Nah...no one thought about safety 60 years ago, the early hardtops just collapsed in rollovers, since they were lacking the strength of b-pillars.

It would seem to me that any car roof that isn't a soft top would be a hard top. But anyway.

I don't have any special fondness for hardtops. I don't like driving with the windows down (unless the A/C doesn't work). On a lot of older cars the hardtops look better than the sedans, but on most modern cars I don't think the absence of a pillar would make a much of a difference in the design.

It would seem to me that any car roof that isn't a soft top would be a hard top. But anyway.

I don't have any special fondness for hardtops. I don't like driving with the windows down (unless the A/C doesn't work). On a lot of older cars the hardtops look better than the sedans, but on most modern cars I don't think the absence of a pillar would make a much of a difference in the design.

ooohhh....you opened a can of worms there. I'm sure 68 will now post a delusional, 20 paragraph incoherent rant about why he thinks hardtops 'rule'..

Hardtops look good on the old cars, and are kind of fun to drive around town in ( I drive my sister's Merc 300CE occasionally) but I don't like them in freeway driving (rather have the windows up and A/C on, can't hear the stereo well with the windows down at speed). The downsides of hardtops compared to sedans/coupes w/ B-pillars are the extra weight of a hardtop and lesser side impact protection.

Edited March 29, 200916 yr by moltar

moltie, you are right, I just remembered the first hardtops were known as "hardtop convertibles" by some manufacturers.

moltie, you are right, I just remembered the first hardtops were known as "hardtop convertibles" by some manufacturers.

Yes..I was trying to remember the name they used. That's it...and sometimes, convertibles were called 'convertible coupes'. I've read that some of the early hardtops were simply convertibles w/ roofs welded on.

Edited March 29, 200916 yr by moltar

The only American hardtop I'm aware of that was built by welding a roof on a convert is possibly the '46/7 Chrysler T&Cs.

'Hardtop' did sort of come about to distinguish them from convertibles, aka "hardtop convertible", since they had that same, open & airy appearance. Also enabled the ad writers to get the most desirable & attention-grabbing descriptor in print("convertible"). But officially, the manufacturers called them what they were physically, ie; "1949 Buick Roadmaster Riviera hardtop coupe". Even Ford's Skyliner retractable was officially called merely a 'convertible'.

Hardtops were not traditionally heavier that their sedan counterparts... unless you consider circa 30 lbs (less than 1% or thereabouts) to be 'notable'. The strength of the body relied primarily on the frames, and well-engineered ones were overbuilt to begin with, thusly they seldom required structural changes under a hardtop. Said frames also provided the bulk of side impact protection (talking about perimeter frames here), until the additional advent of door beams circa '70. Convertibles were another matter, tho.

But once corners were cut & cut again in the interest of saving money (& weight), and overbuilding anything went out the window, yes; beefing up a unibody to support a hardtop design would require a much greater percentage of weight gain.

Edited March 30, 200916 yr by balthazar

WMJ:

The sedans just piss me off for blatant misuse of what

was back then (in the 1970s) still a household lexicon.

The "1976 LTD 2-door pillared hardtop" is not only NOT

a hardtop but it's EPIC_FAIL since it's a two door car

with not only a B-pillar but a bloody B, C & D-pillar!!!

All I can think of is "I'll have a XXXL Thunder-TURD,

hold the quality, with a side order of UGLY and some

extra lame greenhouse for the little lady."

And yet Renault STILL managed to one-up them in the

ugly department with that.. thing. Sorry, not a fan.

Actually it gives me a migraine just looking at it.

Nah...no one thought about safety 60 years ago, the early hardtops just collapsed in rollovers, since they were lacking the strength of b-pillars.

Another GROSSLY erroneous myth!

While it may be almost true for 40% of the "60 year old cars"

you are referring to it's NOT even close to a generalization I

would brand as mostly correct.

Edited March 30, 200916 yr by Sixty8panther