The 70s and 80s had a lot of awkward bumpers due to supporting bumper laws in various jurisdictions..

A lot of the older Italian sports cars (and British) had interiors that looked like kit cars, not designed but with random parts from other cars stuck on wood panels.  Probably due to budgetary constraints...

Edited April 6, 20214 yr by Robert Hall

Only car on the previous page with Federalized bumpers is the countach, but that's a cartoon car, not a serious design.

For instance- this car sports a lot of design problems; I don't see people with a critical eye calling it 'beautiful' : 

Do you see what I see, or is it "all good, dude!" because of the emblem?

18 minutes ago, balthazar said:

Do you see what I see, or is it "all good, dude!" because of the emblem?

Way too many small things to point out, but these two are so glaring to be offensive on all levels of style!

10 hours ago, balthazar said:

Only car on the previous page with Federalized bumpers is the countach, but that's a cartoon car, not a serious design.

For instance- this car sports a lot of design problems; I don't see people with a critical eye calling it 'beautiful' : 

How you criticize this as design problem when you like this ugly, over chromed, disproportionate thing?

36 minutes ago, ykX said:

How you criticize this as design problem when you like this ugly, over chromed, disproportionate thing?

 

Yeah, it's hard to take seriously a guy that thinks the '59 Cadillac as a the pinnacle of design calling a Countach 'cartoonish'....the '59 Cadillac was totally cartoonish!  Even in the black & white world. 

I never stated the '59 Cadillac is the pinnacle of design. It's got a degree of unbalance in the front vs. the rear, tho the detailing & refinement of design are still excellent. But it's an entire world's better executed than a '72 Marquis! This is where you torpedo your own POV. 

But the Countach is inarguably cartoonish; it's like if Fisher-Price built an actual car. The '80s versions are like a Mardi-Gras drag queen version of the original prototype. That at least was innovative and struck new ground... but the 'poster editions' are ridiculous.
 

My absolute, top favorite muscle cars from the late '60s to early '70s.  Im doing 1 year for each brand. And each brand gets only 1 model.   In the exact trim and colour combo as I post them

1969 Camaro Z/28 302

1973 Pontiac Trans Am SD455

1970 Oldsmobile 442 W-30 (WITHOUT the vinyl top)

1970 Buick GSX Stage 1

1967 Ford Mustang GT500

1969 Mercury Cougar Eliminator CJ428

http://fastmusclecar.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Cougar-Eliminator-dfgfg245.jpg

1970 Dodge Challenger R/T 440 six pack

1969 Plymouth Roadrunner Hemi

I was inspired by Balthy's posts in the Random Thoughts thread

I nearly bought one in the early '90s, but my dad intervened.  Told me the car is tooo old. I was willing to learn to wrench on it. But my dad, I guess, didnt have the energy to go through all that.  I blame myself for not learning enough from him when he did have the energy to go through all that.   I regret NOT listening to him and I should have bought it anyway. But I was a good son in many ways that I ALWAYS listened to him and his advice.  If there was any time I should have rebelled against him, it was that time.   

Maybe 1 month after I showed him the car and we (he) decided that it wasnt a good car for me, he approached me before leaving to go to school.

He asked me. 

DAD:  "Hey, remember that Chevy you wanted to buy?   You liked that car?"   

ME:    "Umm...yeah!  (confused by the question) Why?

DAD:  "You actually like those horizontal wings?  (He gestures in the air showing how the wings are horizontal with his hands)

ME:    "YES!  (with glee)   I think they're cool!"

DAD"  "Oh...(with a sad tone) I always thought they were awkward . They were uglier in '59!"

 Love him.  Miss him!   Although now Im thinking that I typed it out, he just hated the car and didnt want it anywhere near him.  LOL.   I still love him and miss him even more. 

 

It was an Impala coupe. Dont remember the trim. 

 

I took my dad with me when I was looking for my first car. He balked at the age there, too; it was a '62 Studebaker GT Hawk. That was circa '85. The next year I bought my '64 GP, tho I didn't tell him about it until 3 years later.

I do recall looking at a few cars w/ my Dad when I was a teenager, he didn't like the idea of me driving an old car or something with high miles...especially since he was paying for it.   Circa 1986, looked at a '67 Galaxie 2dr (clean), a ''79 Cordoba (rust free, a dented rear quarter, he didn't like Chrysler products), a dark blue '79 Eldorado (sharp car, but some bubbly rust, too many miles), a yellow '80 Lincoln Town Car (too many miles).     So after I got my license I drove his '84 Ford Escort diesel for about a year until he bought me my new '87 Mustang GT.      Then in '88 when I went off to college, he bought me an '86 Mustang LX (4 cyl, used with 10000 miles) since the GT was too nice to leave outside at college..

 

 

 

 

I am having a Ford Truck fetish, go figure. Love this video of them wrenching on a basic F series. 

 

I'd love to have a Testarossa.  And a Ford pickup.  Maybe a  '92-96 style or a '67-69. 

Wouldn't mind having a '90s Bronco also....test drove one back in '96, thought seriously about buying one then.

Edited April 12, 20214 yr by Robert Hall

I like Ferraris.  Usually.   More than Lamborghinis. More than Porsches.  These types of cars are not the types of cars Id buy had I had the money (including Corvettes), but they do brighten up the roads when you see one. Any of one of them so-called exotic things. They also do beautify a teenager's bedroom (with posters) of them or pics  in a beautiful cars thread.   

I prefer modern Ferraris over any other modern exotic super or hyper car.  Even though I think that modern Ferraris are also overdone. 

Looks like it could be Aston Martin rather than a Ferrari. But hey...its a start. The start (maybe and hopefully) of beautiful, sexy and elegant lines rather than the awkward ugly-aggressive design language they had going on since the late 1990s. 

 

12 hours ago, oldshurst442 said:

 

 

I honestly do not get what is so exciting about driving a Sardine can car. Glad you like them, but a hard pass from me.

On 4/5/2021 at 8:57 PM, balthazar said:

Only car on the previous page with Federalized bumpers is the countach, but that's a cartoon car, not a serious design.

For instance- this car sports a lot of design problems; I don't see people with a critical eye calling it 'beautiful' : 

 

Ive been thinking about this all this time.  And although I do agree with you that some lines, like how David pointed out on that C pillar, is awkward, I feel that THIS car's beauty is MORE than the sum of its parts.

 And although at this angle, like you say, the undercarriage seems to be unfinished as you could see the ugly pipes of the exhaust system too much, it could have been done better, the lines, ALL lines do flow smoothly from front to back. 

I will disagree with @David by him mentioning that those bumperettes are not pleasing to the eye, they are no more "vulgar" or unnecessary than what Cadillac did with their style of bumperettes to try to beautify their front ends of their cars of mid 1950s.  Or even Chevy's 1957 Belair.  

This SWB version seems to be tidied up quite a bit from the one above

 The rear of the 250 SWB is less flattering, uglier and bulkier than the  25 GT Lusso, which is not very pretty itself, between the two, I prefer the 250 GT Lusso. 

In comparison, a 1962 Corvette's lines were not that cohesive either  (year for year)

'50s front end with '60s back end styling made for a bumble bee behind. Fat.

 

And that stainless steel trim on the bottom there maybe made for a clean finish, it was not a very pretty look.

The '58 and '59 were much much sweeter. Devoid of that stainless steel trim and the '58/'59 seemed lighter and more sprightly.  

 

Edited April 12, 20214 yr by oldshurst442

28 minutes ago, David said:

I honestly do not get what is so exciting about driving a Sardine can car. Glad you like them, but a hard pass from me.

Do not be like OCNBLU

If you dont like them, you dont need to be confused as to why others actually DO like them.

1 hour ago, oldshurst442 said:

I like Ferraris.  Usually.   More than Lamborghinis. More than Porsches.  These types of cars are not the types of cars Id buy had I had the money (including Corvettes), but they do brighten up the roads when you see one. Any of one of them so-called exotic things. They also do beautify a teenager's bedroom (with posters) of them or pics  in a beautiful cars thread

I did say this later on.  But it does NOT change the fact that even if these may NOT be BOTH of our style of cars, we CAN appreciate them for what they are or what they look like.  Or you may NOT like the way they look, which is fine, I like them.  They are beautiful.

Well, maybe NOT the car in this commercial, but you get the idea with the sexy visuals, song choice and the lovely Italian language! 

 

The ‘50s Corvettes posted above are 100 times more cohesive than the ferrari 250 also shown here. i’ll have to do an analysis tonight to illustrate how I look at them. Lots of ‘starts & stops’ and misalignments in the linework on the 250.

Just now, balthazar said:

and misalignments in the linework

More of an Italian car industry problem rather than a design problem? 

 

No; pretty sure it’s design-sourced.

OK

Im very interested in your analysis.  Like I have said in the past, I like to pick your brain with stuff like this! 

31 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

 

Ive been thinking about this all this time.  And although I do agree with you that some lines, like how David pointed out on that C pillar, is awkward, I feel that THIS car's beauty is MORE than the sum of its parts.

 And although at this angle, like you say, the undercarriage seems to be unfinished as you could see the ugly pipes of the exhaust system too much, it could have been done better, the lines, ALL lines do flow smoothly from front to back. 

I will disagree with @David by him mentioning that those bumperettes are not pleasing to the eye, they are no more "vulgar" or unnecessary than what Cadillac did with their style of bumperettes to try to beautify their front ends of their cars of mid 1950s.  Or even Chevy's 1957 Belair.  

This SWB version seems to be tidied up quite a bit from the one above

 The rear of the 250 SWB is less flattering, uglier and bulkier than the  25 GT Lusso, which is not very pretty itself, between the two, I prefer the 250 GT Lusso. 

In comparison, a 1962 Corvette's lines were not that cohesive either  (year for year)

'50s front end with '60s back end styling made for a bumble bee behind. Fat.

 

And that stainless steel trim on the bottom there maybe made for a clean finish, it was not a very pretty look.

The '58 and '59 were much much sweeter. Devoid of that stainless steel trim and the '58/'59 seemed lighter and more sprightly.  

 

The vette is better looking IMHO. 

 

There is something about gold Oldsmobiles...

 

When I was a kid in the 70s, next door neighbors had a gold '72 Olds 98 4dr ht like this, and a black '73 Cadillac Sixty Special.

 

That is a noice Oldsmobile too!   I missed it!  Thank-you for posting it! 

 

1 hour ago, Robert Hall said:

When I was a kid in the 70s, next door neighbors had a gold '72 Olds 98 4dr ht like this, and a black '73 Cadillac Sixty Special.

 

My grandfather drove a car identical to this in blue, my fathers best friend had one in white. Sbulime cars....

4 hours ago, oldshurst442 said:

I like Ferraris.  Usually.   More than Lamborghinis. More than Porsches.  These types of cars are not the types of cars Id buy had I had the money (including Corvettes), but they do brighten up the roads when you see one. Any of one of them so-called exotic things. They also do beautify a teenager's bedroom (with posters) of them or pics  in a beautiful cars thread.   

I prefer modern Ferraris over any other modern exotic super or hyper car.  Even though I think that modern Ferraris are also overdone. 

Looks like it could be Aston Martin rather than a Ferrari. But hey...its a start. The start (maybe and hopefully) of beautiful, sexy and elegant lines rather than the awkward ugly-aggressive design language they had going on since the late 1990s. 

 

1 out of 2 awesome cars not bad. That Aston is Bomb.Com!

This is Lovely!

6 hours ago, A Horse With No Name said:

The vette is better looking IMHO. 

Yeah...that would be a personal opinion. 

I like both equally.  But no matter which one you think is better looking, you cannot deny that the other is NOT not good looking.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 13, 20214 yr by oldshurst442

3 hours ago, oldshurst442 said:

no matter which one you think is better looking, you cannot deny that the other is NOT not good looking. 

One is great looking, the other is mostly 'meh'.

 

Is 'meh' considered "good looking"?

5 hours ago, oldshurst442 said:

Yeah...that would be a personal opinion. 

I like both equally.  But no matter which one you think is better looking, you cannot deny that the other is NOT not good looking.   

 

There ya go, the only auto's that are decent enough for me.  

The lone blue Ferrari has some nice attributes, but like @balthazar Most Ferraris to me are MEH!!!!

Actual truck photographed by my friend Greg. 

 

4 hours ago, A Horse With No Name said:

Actual truck photographed by my friend Greg. 

 

That is one way to use the trailer hitch for a storage unit!  

17 hours ago, balthazar said:

One is great looking, the other is mostly 'meh'.

 

Is 'meh' considered "good looking"?

I stand corrected.

I guess one can...

It is more accurate to say: Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder.  

If you look for beauty, you will find it. And by contrast, if you look for ugliness and faults, you will find that too...

It all depends on what you want to find. 

 

 

Hard to reply specifically as there are now like 23 different ferraris pictured in this thread.

22 minutes ago, balthazar said:

Hard to reply specifically as there are now like 23 different ferraris pictured in this thread.

23 different forms of Meh!!! ?

11 hours ago, David said:

23 different forms of Meh!!! ?

Personally to me Mehh is most American cars from the late 60s, early 70s and 80s you guys are posting.  Huge, misproportionate, land yachts full of chrome and bad taste.  I don't see them as beautiful at all.  Plus they drove like crap too.  The only cool cars from that period are muscle and pony cars.

But that's just my personal opinion

There are many things.  Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and everyone has an opinion.   '50s cars don't do it for me...before my time.   60s-70s cars I can relate to, but my sweet spot is the 80s-90s.    I like all sorts of cars, from the US and abroad.   I try and avoid xenophobia with cars...not partial to any particular brand or country of origin.   How a car drives is irrelevant to the styling;  many 60s-70s cars are horrid to drive by today's standards, many vintage exotics look gorgeous but are ergonomic/packaging nightmares. 

9 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and everyone has an opinion.  

Exactly. Everyone likes what they like.   

For example, I personally like cars from 50s even though they are way before my time, just like their swoopy aerodynamic (or what they thought aerodynamic at that time) shape.

It just balthasar and David making comments about how badly designed old Ferraris or Lamborghinis are while adoring some over chromed bricks seems a bit funny to me.  But as they say, whatever floats your boat.

RE the Ferrari vs. Corvette discussion, in plucking out 2 adjacent pics I can sum up what I see design-wise right here.

Corvette is completely cohesive; it's lines and surface transitions have excellent 'follow thru' - where the rear quarter top line just has a beautiful, gently-varying radius thru the taillight, sharper thru the bumperette, yet still continues down to the bottom edge of the car. The lights are flush and fluid, the exhaust is both neatly concealed yet is located in the brightwork of the bumper port. It's 'hidden' until you spot it as an 'Easter egg'. The bumper, in wrapping around the rear quarter, seems like it may echo the radius of said fender line to the bottom edge, just rotated 90 degrees.

Just tons of thought in the design. 

One can argue against the '58-only chrome moldings sweeping forward up the deck (and many do). As much as I like chrome I could do without them (but I also could live with them).

There's no ill-fitting / low-hanging exhaust, no out-of-place rectangular reflectors, no tacked-on bumper with heavy bumper guards, no sudden sharp edges in the middle of the flow of the deck. I also get a strong VW Karman-Ghia vide from the Ferrari's tail lights- there's nothing wrong with them, they just look like they come off of something decidedly pedestrian.

Corvette here is head & shoulders above the Ferrari from a standpoint of design.

- - - - -
That's not to say the Ferrari is not without merit. The general proportions are very nice, and I do love the front fender grille that echoes the shape of the fender's curve. The silver accent there is also peachy against the dark blue. The rear 'bustle' is a tad overly tall, but it still works. And I generally prefer some sort of wheel well lip accent -as seen here- vs. the 'sheer' look at the 'wells... but the Corvette has enough eye candy to do without them here. I do think the Ferrari's rear bumper might look a tiny bit better mounted about 2-in higher on the body... but the front bumperettes are very low and I would not advise increasing that (minor) disparity. 

 

Edited April 20, 20214 yr by balthazar

On 4/14/2021 at 8:44 AM, ykX said:

Personally to me Mehh is most American cars from the late 60s, early 70s and 80s you guys are posting.  Huge, misproportionate, land yachts full of chrome and bad taste.  I don't see them as beautiful at all.  Plus they drove like crap too.  The only cool cars from that period are muscle and pony cars.

But that's just my personal opinion

Again, kind of burned out on the car thing. I love the 50's and 60's American cars, and a lot of the imports, but to me nobody is building much of interest in cars right now. I like the Civic Type R, but can only get so excited by it. 

Motorcycles on the other hand...

As a person who’s ‘average model year owned’ number is 1968, I can attest that ‘60s cars do not drive either ‘horridly’ or ‘like crap’. The longer wheelbase, wider track in general is smoother, if you get a car with all coils (most of mine) and put radials & good shocks on it, it’s both controlled and firm as a driver. Now, if it has original- spec bias plies / worn out suspension, then yes; they can be not pleasant- just like a modern vehicle with overly low-profile tires an worn struts.

’60s Pontiacs are excellent drivers with the minor upgrades mentioned above.

I think he @ykX is equating a  'wallowy" suspension with crappy ride.  To that he aint wrong about the cars having wallowy suspensions during the time he is referencing which is from the late 1960s to the early and mid-1980s.  

I aint gonna judge nobody for liking and not liking this type of ride. I dont care really what somebody's preference is for car suspensions, but there are some things that I will take exception to.  But his or anybody else's preference aint one of them.  

The thing I WILL take exception to though is about calling it a crap ride as opposed to a tighter European "road hugging, stiffer suspension is that I will DEFEND the wallowy ride for these reasons:

BECAUSE our NORTH AMERICAN roads and CAR CULTURE DICTATED that OUR cars RODE like we are in our living room on our sofas in COMFORT.   Our highways, to THIS day, are STRAIGHT for THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of miles and when we USED to go on family trips from coast to coast practically, East to West or North to South and EVERYTHING in between, in European terms, many borders of many countries, 5-6 -7 countries, would be crossed. Europe is also very very mountainous, and hence their cars being smaller and because most of their roads were horse and donkey travelled, cars HAD to be tighter for turning.   American roads flattened the mountains or go right through them, but NOT travelling around the perimeter of the mountain when on one side is the mountain, the other side is a plummet to your death and you have to share the very very narrow road with cars going the opposite side.  Brakes and handling and turning radius had BETTER be tight...

City driving is the same.  HUGE phoquing boulevards. Street light to street light...racing.  

Is THAT a better ride over the other?

Well, take a North American road trip in a small, tight suspension-ed Japanese or European car of that era and you would realize that those cars were NOT great for OUR roads AND car culture.  Id say shytty if we were truly honest about this whole thing.

By contrast, traditional big American cars SUCK for Europe...for many many reasons. As many as those 1970s European and Japanese cars were for us.  High gasoline prices was probably the SOLE reason why these cars even got a foothold on our shores. Again, if we were truly honest about this whole thing... 

What I have said is not a secret. I aint teaching anybody anthing knew here.  Its just sometimes, we let our biases get in the way... 

?

And I understand preferences, for sure, but there is a HUGE range of differences in "1960s-1970s American car rides"; too huge to generalize.
A Ford Falcon in original, worn spec and a Wide Track Pontiac with modern shocks/radials would be wildly different. And ykX may STILL not like the latter's ride personally... I just wanted to weigh in on the generalization. There's loads of bouncy, heavily-leaning Euro cars with 8 turns lock-to-lock in the same era.

Hell; I've encountered significant differences in the same era/brand, ride-wise. My buddy has a '67 Catalina I drove last year; it was beat and it wallowed. I had my own '64 Catalina set up so nice; gas Monroes, 70-series radials, dialed in alignment- it rode great and back then- I really used to hammer on my cars.