Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 35 of 35

Thread: What classic car do you really dislike?

  1. #21
    Staff
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    3,126

    Re: What classic car do you really dislike?

    I would like to add the 1964-1967 Chevrolet Chevelle. I liked the later ones a lot better, but I find these cars to be dull and uninspiring.

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    287

    Re: What classic car do you really dislike?

    Quote Originally Posted by D_E_Davis
    Quote Originally Posted by mrblanche
    Well, in that case, the Edsel would certainly qualify.
    How so? Except for being a prime example of a car model that couldn't find its own way out of the showroom there is almost nothing to differentiate it from its Ford and Mercury cousins.
    If someone can expllain to me in what way the 1958 Edsel was a worse car than the 1958 Ford or Mercury, I will agree that it might have a claim on the tiel of "worst". It was the wrong car for 1958, that was all. It was a marketing disaster, true. That doesn't make it a "bad" car.

  3. #23
    mrblanche
    Guest

    Re: What classic car do you really dislike?

    Quote Originally Posted by swamprat
    I would like to add the 1964-1967 Chevrolet Chevelle. I liked the later ones a lot better, but I find these cars to be dull and uninspiring.
    I would have to disagree. I desparately wanted a '66 Chevelle SS when I was in high school.



    You will notice it shared a roofline with the "inspired" GTO and the "brilliant" 1968 Charger.

  4. #24
    Senior Member misterdecibel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Little Rock, Arkansas
    Posts
    3,408

    Re: What classic car do you really dislike?

    Anything MOPAR.

  5. #25
    Staff
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    3,126

    Re: What classic car do you really dislike?

    Quote Originally Posted by misterdecibel
    Anything MOPAR.
    Disagree. Mopar made some interesting looking cars in the 1950s and 1960's. The junk that came out in the 1970s was substandard compared with cars of the time.


  6. #26
    Senior Member misterdecibel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Little Rock, Arkansas
    Posts
    3,408

    Re: What classic car do you really dislike?

    Quote Originally Posted by swamprat
    Quote Originally Posted by misterdecibel
    Anything MOPAR.
    Disagree. Mopar made some interesting looking cars in the 1950s and 1960's. The junk that came out in the 1970s was substandard compared with cars of the time.

    "Interesting looking" is all that MOPAR ever had to offer. That and cheap power.

  7. #27
    D_E_Davis
    Guest

    Re: What classic car do you really dislike?

    Quote Originally Posted by misterdecibel
    "Interesting looking" is all that MOPAR ever had to offer. That and cheap power.
    You overlook some really fast and good-handling police cars that Dodge produced in the sixties.


  8. #28
    Senior Member misterdecibel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Little Rock, Arkansas
    Posts
    3,408

    Re: What classic car do you really dislike?

    Quote Originally Posted by D_E_Davis
    Quote Originally Posted by misterdecibel
    "Interesting looking" is all that MOPAR ever had to offer. That and cheap power.
    You overlook some really fast and good-handling police cars that Dodge produced in the sixties.

    "Good-handling"? They must have replaced the torsion bar front suspension with Chevy parts then...

  9. #29
    D_E_Davis
    Guest

    Re: What classic car do you really dislike?

    Quote Originally Posted by misterdecibel
    "Good-handling"? They must have replaced the torsion bar front suspension with Chevy parts then...
    Not with Chevy parts of that era - the "stovebolts" then weren't noted for handling, nor were the Fords.

    Once, in the mountains, I was passed by a CA Highway Patrol Dodge who was running hard with his emergency lights on. I stomped the Morgan in an attempt to keep (discretely) on his tail but he was making the turns faster than I could.


  10. #30
    Vulture of The Western World Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The Land of The Edentulites
    Posts
    22,730

    Re: What classic car do you really dislike?

    Quote Originally Posted by swamprat
    Quote Originally Posted by misterdecibel
    Anything MOPAR.
    Disagree. Mopar made some interesting looking cars in the 1950s and 1960's. The junk that came out in the 1970s was substandard compared with cars of the time.

    Absolutely.

    The mid-late '60s (and early '70s) Mopar muscle cars were stunners; sure, they handled poorly and had terrible brakes. So did almost all other muscle cars. But for style and curb appeal and raw power, it is very hard to beat a 440-6 or Hemi 'Cuda, Challenger or Charger!

  11. #31
    Vulture of The Western World Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The Land of The Edentulites
    Posts
    22,730

    Re: What classic car do you really dislike?

    Quote Originally Posted by misterdecibel
    Quote Originally Posted by D_E_Davis
    Quote Originally Posted by misterdecibel
    "Interesting looking" is all that MOPAR ever had to offer. That and cheap power.
    You overlook some really fast and good-handling police cars that Dodge produced in the sixties.

    "Good-handling"? They must have replaced the torsion bar front suspension with Chevy parts then...
    The AAR 'Cuda and Challenger (Dan Gurney) are just two examples of Mopar iron from the period that handled as well or better than comparable GM and Ford vehicles of the time.

    And you seem to forget which brand of car dominated NASCAR superspeedways for several seasons... and that was in the day when "stock" cars were, indeed, based on real production cars.

    You're being unfair to Mopars of the era. I have driven several - and also many GM/Ford equivalents. Trust me - a '69 Chevelle SS 396 is no great handler, either.


  12. #32
    Senior Member misterdecibel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Little Rock, Arkansas
    Posts
    3,408

    Re: What classic car do you really dislike?

    I haven't driven the AAR or R/T Cuda or Challenger, but the regular Challenger with a 318 was one of the worst pigs I ever drove. You couldn't feel a thing through the over-assisted steering or brakes. The massive body was hugely overweight, they weighed hundreds of pounds more than a Mustang or Camaro. I was glad to get back into my '66 Fairlane.

    A 396 Chevelle I dunno about, but I know that the Chevy bits were capable of working pretty well 'cause the 302 Z-28 was a decent car to drive, for Yank iron.

    I'm not terribly nostalgic about American cars of the '50s-'70s, because their design priorities were not what I prefer in a car. And Chrysler Corp. products were the most extreme in every department -- the massive weight, the sloppy suspension, the outlandish styling, and enough cheap power to get the driver in a whole lot of trouble. They were the epitome of everything that was wrong with American cars.

  13. #33
    Vulture of The Western World Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The Land of The Edentulites
    Posts
    22,730

    Re: What classic car do you really dislike?

    "I haven't driven the AAR or R/T Cuda or Challenger, but the regular Challenger with a 318 was one of the worst pigs I ever drove. You couldn't feel a thing through the over-assisted steering or brakes. The massive body was hugely overweight, they weighed hundreds of pounds more than a Mustang or Camaro."

    Virtually all of the muscle cars of the '60s had over-boosted steering; most were also overweight (esp. relative to the brakes they had), etc.

    "A 396 Chevelle I dunno about, but I know that the Chevy bits were capable of working pretty well 'cause the 302 Z-28 was a decent car to drive, for Yank iron."

    The early Z-28 was basically a "homologation special" - that is, a low production "street" version designed to make the car legitimate for SCCA Trans-Am racing. Very few 302 Z-28s were produced. Just as very few AAR 'Cudas were made.

    Cars like the SS 396 - and 440 Charger - were great in a straight line. In stock trim, their handlingleft much to be desired.

    "... the massive weight, the sloppy suspension, the outlandish styling, and enough cheap power to get the driver in a whole lot of trouble. They were the epitome of everything that was wrong with American cars."

    To be fair, one could level the same criticism against equivalent GM and Ford vehicles of the era. Ever drive a mid-'60s GTO?

  14. #34
    Senior Member misterdecibel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Little Rock, Arkansas
    Posts
    3,408

    Re: What classic car do you really dislike?

    But the MOPAR cars were heavier and sloppier than even the GM and Ford competition. GM and Ford were my basis of comparison in '72-'74 when I decided that my friends' MOPAR cars were crap. There's a reason why they were #3 of the Big Three.

    Note that the Challenger and Cuda were never competitive in SCCA Trans/Am, and were beaten even by AMC Javelins.

  15. #35
    Vulture of The Western World Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The Land of The Edentulites
    Posts
    22,730

    Re: What classic car do you really dislike?

    Quote Originally Posted by misterdecibel
    But the MOPAR cars were heavier and sloppier than even the GM and Ford competition. GM and Ford were my basis of comparison in '72-'74 when I decided that my friends' MOPAR cars were crap. There's a reason why they were #3 of the Big Three.

    Note that the Challenger and Cuda were never competitive in SCCA Trans/Am, and were beaten even by AMC Javelins.
    And neither was the Pontiac Trans-Am!

    Again, I think you're being overly harsh toward Mopars. '60s-era muscle cars were all basically dangerous, ill-handling, weak braking hell rides irrespective of make. The Mopar E-bodies weren't signifcantly worse than the equivalent GM or Ford cars. And there were plenty of GM and Ford cars that were worse than average (such as the big block Chevelle and Galaxie 500... ye gods!)

    Even the early second-gen. Camaro/Firebird (which were better than most cars of the time) oversteered wildly and you could get into trouble very easily.

    These cars all had very crude suspensions that by modern standards resemble a pick-up's more than a passenger car's. Leaf springs, solid axles... only a few even came with rear stabilizer bars. 14 inch steel rims (supporting a 4,000 lb. car!) were common. Hideously inadequate tires. Marginal disc/drum brakes that often went soft after a single hard stop.

    They all sucked - as far as "safety" or "good handling/braking" go.

    But damn they were fun!

Similar Threads

  1. Is your old car a classic - or just a used car?
    By Eric in forum Classic Car Corner
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-08-2010, 07:03 AM
  2. How to debate people who dislike guns
    By Eric in forum Guns, Second Amendment
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-14-2009, 09:06 AM
  3. These may be classic...
    By D_E_Davis in forum Classic Car Corner
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-28-2007, 07:02 AM
  4. Does anybody else dislike daytime running lights?
    By Disco Man in forum Motor Mouth
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: 10-09-2007, 01:33 PM
  5. Buying a classic car
    By Eric in forum Classic Car Corner
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-20-2006, 11:31 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •