In reply to wbjones:
Jeez, I completely forgot about the E-type. Spot on with that!
Can't say I agree with the Mazda 3 opinions. The first gen looked like a pudgy scaled down minivan, the second?.......well at least it looks happy about being ugly.
Some times government regulations uglied cars up for us.
The 67 850 spider......woah! what a beaut.
The the US stepped in and said hey you...no more pretty headlights and while you are at it those bumpers are far too nice looking.
And then this happened
And sometimes car makers just did it themselves
Behold the stunning beauty of the Fiat 124 AC coupe!
Next model the BC coupe. Not bad but a step backwards
And then it went wrong with the CC coupe
And here is what we americans can do to cars Ah the simple understated VW golf. Nice looking huh?
Lets let the americans give it a facelift
Ahhhh, might as well let 'em finish it off
And if you think the outside is bad, you should see what they did to the inside! Velour and garish colors.....ewwww.
T.J. wrote: Bugeye Sprites >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Spridgets I really like the differences in early Minis (Mk1) versus all others. (Don't get me started on Mini vs. MINI) I like Chevy II Novas >>>> later Novas. I even like the first gen Fit way more than the current one. On the other hand the Genesis coupe is way better than the tiburon.
No, sir. I used to think that Bugeyes were the pinnacle until I got a good look at my 69 midget. The midget is minimal, it's spectacular. It's beautiful in its own way. The bugeye strives to be too cute. Just look at both.
The ford falcon
Nice if not a bit homely
Perfected it in '63 with the Falcon sprint
64 and 65 kept going strong.
Then everything went wrong
and just got worse
Ford made a lot of bad style decisions in the 70's.
The Mustang 2, and the Falcon are both excellent examples.
Saw both generations parked next to each other this morning and couldn't believe these didn't come up yet
Good
Bad
The RX-7 went from good to bad. FB= FC=
They did fix it with the FD though.
Beautiful.
Not the ugliest car ever by far, but definitely a step in the wrong direction.
Also beautiful.
ditchdigger wrote: Saw both generations parked next to each other this morning and couldn't believe these didn't come up yet Bad Even worse
Fixed for you
In reply to aussiesmg:
aussie, you're slipping. the first 3 are 1969s, the last is a 1970.
1969 = four headlights, front fender side marker light below bumper
1970 = two headlights with vents outboard, front fender side marker light up next to the headlight.
also, i think a real "Boss" won't have the fake vents up high on the rear quarters.
http://grassrootsmotorsports.com/forum/off-topic-discussion/the-grm-board-drinking-game/32912/page1/
Lived through the 70's and saw most of the changes when they happened. I think if the Mustang II was called anything but Mustang it would have been more successful and respected. I kinda like the Mustang II hatchbacks when they were new, just didn't think of them as Mustangs though. And as a side note, Mustang II and Pinto's were built on basically the same platform and everything that went wrong on the Pinto happened to the Mustang II also but the Pinto gets the bad rap.
Prefer the 69 Camaro over the 67-68 myself and 70 is my favorite. Although I would take a 69 SS/Z-28 w/302 over any of them.
70 Mustang is my favorite, in BOSS trim please.
stuart in mn wrote: One car I've always put in this category is the Countach. The first version, without all the flares and wings and whatnot, was much more attractive in my opinion.
I didn't even realize there was an earlier Countach until a few months ago. Looks much better than the 80s version.
You'll need to log in to post.