I used to find these '62 Tempest / LeMans ugly.
A buddy had a rough one, with a Chevy drivetrain, and it grew on me a bit.
The one below is a fully-restored, 87K mile car, and it's looking pretty cheeky to my eye. I could run it.
 

7 hours ago, balthazar said:

I used to find these '62 Tempest / LeMans ugly.
A buddy had a rough one, with a Chevy drivetrain, and it grew on me a bit.
The one below is a fully-restored, 87K mile car, and it's looking pretty cheeky to my eye. I could run it.
 

An uncle of mine had a '63.  These are interesting cars, up above and down below.

Tempest Super Duty :

'64 X-400 concept :

'62 X-400 concept :

4 electric-motor driven DeSoto concept, 1958 :

1966 Electrovair II

1966 Pontiac Banshee Concept

1966 GM Electrovan

2019 Buick Riviera Plug-in Concept

GM had a Volt Plug in way before anyone did in 1980, GM Silver Volt Station wagon with an 80 mile range on pure lead acid batteries.

https://cartype.com/pages/7109/gm_silver_volt__1980#:~:text=GM Silver Volt %3A 1980. The Silver Volt,minimum of 40%2C000 miles of driving before replacement.

1957 exercise for the '60 DeSoto. That body line / sculpting is just high art. Throw a '61 Chrysler 300-esque nose on, with canted headlights and a trapezoid grille, and I'm all over it like wallpaper cement  :
 

I had sooooo wanted to post a 1955 Chieftain when I posted the Buick pic a couple of days ago. I just ran out of steam. I have been tired from work these past few days.  I was just too lazy to search for the perfect picture of one. But then Balthy posted the front end.  

Great minds think alike.

So Ill do Balthy, myself and the car some justice right now.

 

 

 

The Mustang Fastback at 2;05

 

 

1 hour ago, A Horse With No Name said:

The Mustang Fastback at 2;05

 

 

I like the one at 2:30 also...Port of LA, Terminal Island, where the Terminal Island Raceway drag strip used to be located...

Some sweet '72 Impalas...

Back in high school one of my best friends aprents ahd a 72 that was blue jsut like the first one. 

RIP Sir Connery

Beautiful cars he will be forever associated with

 onscreen

 

real life

 

Those... are... alll... 
 

ugly. Sorry. ?

Is it the canted headlights?

James Bonds (Daniel Craig's) new car for No time to Die!

Too much ugly underneath that one.  It bleeds through.

56 minutes ago, balthazar said:

Those... are... alll... 
 

ugly. Sorry. ?

 

Well...

opines like these are personal, and I wont grill you for the Jenson as I could see why some folk wont find it beautiful, but for the the Aston Martin DB5...I find it perplexing that you dont like it...

 

^ It's because European designers never could figure out what to do south of the headlights (or maybe the bumpers).

 

Here's 2 similar-ideal cars using a lot of the same elements (even tho the A-M came 10 years later).
Both have single headlights in the down-curving fenders, wide low grilles, minimal bumpers, round parking lights.

See where the A-M sheetmetal just stops dead at the horizontal bumper? What's up with that? Where's the lower valence/continuation of the lines? Why is exactly 50% of the front tire exposed... is it intended to go off road? It's 'wrong'.

I also find the concave 'corners' of the A-M fighting with the headlight ovals- the Corvette's convex curves there are a lot more harmonious.

Next, I apreciate the Corvette's subtle wheelwell flares, it brings the eye to the wheels... where as the A-M feels like it was cut out of cardboard there.

Then you have that dip at the beltline on the Corvette - S3XY.

Edited November 6, 20204 yr by balthazar

^^^

I should have known.  We've had a similar talk  a few years back about a certain Ferrari.  Its ALWAYS about the bigger picture with you.   The WHOLE package.  The WHOLE car.

Yes.  Ill have to agree with you. 

Especially with the picture of the Corvette side by side, the front end seems desperately lacking in the DB5. 

 

PS:  I saw all that you explained before you wrote it.  I had time to sneek in my post before you added your explanation. 

 

Edited November 6, 20204 yr by oldshurst442

Judging a car (positively) on one or two elements only is like going to an elaborate Thanksgiving dinner and just eating brussel sprouts and cranberry sauce. Euro designers seldom ever got a handle on the WHOLE envelope. GM thru history has strongly excelled in that aspect.

Jag E-type is like that- lovely from a bird's eye view, or parked in very tall grasses... but the design falls down below the waist.

Edited November 6, 20204 yr by balthazar

My criteria is not as elaborate and refined as yours.  I will eventually learn to critique the way you do.  Im open to it.  Ill ask you why you feel that way so I could pick your brain from time to time.  

 

Not to mention, there's the old stereotype that 'European is high class', and to pick at it, or chose American design over European, is to be looked down upon, as if 'how dare you; that's an Aston-Martin! [snif]'.
Bullshit. There it sits, right there, and I have both eyes and discerning eyes. 

Another myth : 'A good American design is one influenced by a European design, and never the other way around.'  Yeah, OK, Guiseppe.

Edited November 6, 20204 yr by balthazar

20 minutes ago, balthazar said:

Judging a car (positively) on one or two elements only is like going to an elaborate Thanksgiving dinner and just eating brussel sprouts and cranberry sauce. Euro designers seldom ever got a handle on the WHOLE envelope. GM thru history has strongly excelled in that aspect.

Jag E-type is like that- lovely from a bird's eye view, or parked in very tall grasses... but the design falls down below the waist.

 

I dont particularly like the Jag E Type myself.  I dont know what it is about it that rubs me the wrong way, but I just analyzed one and I think its what you just described.  

 

Very sleek car.  Sexy on top as you described it.   Awesome very long hood and very short deck.  But yeah...now that you mentioned it, its the bottom that I cant stand as there is nothing going on.  Non-existent front and back end below the bumper.  Tooo much exhaust  exposure on the bottom due to lack of body panels.   Sure it makes it look sleeker, but like you say, it lends itself to be un-complete.  If it had a more complete bottom, it wouldnt take away from the sleekness as the very very long hood and very very short deck and the cabin being back there would still keep it a very sleek design.  

I also dont llike the grill.  Catfish mouth and face....    

 

 

 

Edited November 6, 20204 yr by oldshurst442

^ That's actually a flattering angle pic.
I think the nose / eyes look fine / good. And it has a front valence / finished look there. Wheelwells are well matched. Here I like the thin bumpers.
But you're right- the rear is unfinished; exposing too many 'dirty bits'. Those parking lights are a grotesque afterthought. And the upright jut of the windshield detracts from the fluidity of the body. Don't know why the exhaust has to droop like a camry's. I guess I find it kind on the bland & unfinished side.

I like the cleaned up look of the E-Type Zero, the electric converted version and that is what @balthazar tends to point out about all the junk hanging out like the exhaust pipe and other stuff.

I do agree that the Tail lights could have been better incorporated into the sleekness of this car. They are like an after thought to me.

^ LOL, that's literally the exact same bodyshell.

50 minutes ago, balthazar said:

^ LOL, that's literally the exact same bodyshell.

Yes it is except there is no hanging exhaust pipe and other stuff. Seems to be cleaner underneath the auto. To me that makes the design look cleaner and sleeker. I still think the tail lights should have been incorporated into the body lines to be clean and sleek. They were an after thought to me.

Sure, tho that’s the engineering department, not Styling.

On 4/21/2020 at 1:13 PM, balthazar said:

It sounds to me like we -as 2 car enthusiasts- are each approaching 2 vehicles in the same way; you don't find the Eldorado properly enough stylisitically distanced from the Toronado, and I don't find the 6-series anymore stirring than a old VW rabbit.

Stalemate.

Actually I dig all four. Old VW Rabbits are cool, as is the Eldorado. I just kind of look at each car for what it is. I don't feel a need to make excessive value judgements about cars. 

Taht being said, the only modern vehicles that seem to move me emotionally are midsize trucks (Colorado-Ranger-Gladiator-Tacoma-Ridgeline), Jeep/Bronco, and hot hatches like the GTI, Civic Type R, Focus RS/ST and the like. 

A C8 Corvette or an Audi R8 are like a good looking Blonde woman who doesn't sexually excite me at all. 

The GTI and Colorado ZR2 are like a Nerdy girl who just wants to undress and get it on. 

YMMV>

 

On 11/7/2020 at 8:53 AM, David said:

I like the cleaned up look of the E-Type Zero, the electric converted version and that is what @balthazar tends to point out about all the junk hanging out like the exhaust pipe and other stuff.

I do agree that the Tail lights could have been better incorporated into the sleekness of this car. They are like an after thought to me.

I do love this. 

On 11/5/2020 at 8:32 PM, balthazar said:

Judging a car (positively) on one or two elements only is like going to an elaborate Thanksgiving dinner and just eating brussel sprouts and cranberry sauce. Euro designers seldom ever got a handle on the WHOLE envelope. GM thru history has strongly excelled in that aspect.

Jag E-type is like that- lovely from a bird's eye view, or parked in very tall grasses... but the design falls down below the waist.

First time I think I am ever down voting one of your posts in 15 years....but I disagree entirely. 

This car wins the entire thread...

On 11/5/2020 at 8:22 PM, balthazar said:

^ It's because European designers never could figure out what to do south of the headlights (or maybe the bumpers).

 

Here's 2 similar-ideal cars using a lot of the same elements (even tho the A-M came 10 years later).
Both have single headlights in the down-curving fenders, wide low grilles, minimal bumpers, round parking lights.

See where the A-M sheetmetal just stops dead at the horizontal bumper? What's up with that? Where's the lower valence/continuation of the lines? Why is exactly 50% of the front tire exposed... is it intended to go off road? It's 'wrong'.

I also find the concave 'corners' of the A-M fighting with the headlight ovals- the Corvette's convex curves there are a lot more harmonious.

Next, I apreciate the Corvette's subtle wheelwell flares, it brings the eye to the wheels... where as the A-M feels like it was cut out of cardboard there.

Then you have that dip at the beltline on the Corvette - S3XY.

I really like both designs. 

Getting into MOPAR products of this Era. 

Fairlane 427...

I love this picture...

 

Still in a Buick state of mind...

 

Pantera

For a vintage Buick convertible, this would probably be my ideal..

Oldsmobile!

Just now, Robert Hall said:

For a vintage Buick convertible, this would probably be my ideal..

That looks so fantastic in that color. 

Robert...I will see you and raise you Buick Convertible goodness...

Clean modded GM truck. 

Maybe my favorite of the muscle car era Plymouths--the '71 Road Runner and GTX.  Love the rounded fuselage styling and loop front bumper.

 

Non OEM color on a CTS-V, but it looks badass. 

2 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

Maybe my favorite of the muscle car era Plymouths--the '71 Road Runner and GTX.  Love the rounded fuselage styling and loop front bumper.

 

This is probably sinfularly the most under rated bodystyle of any post WW 2 American car.