 
Hpgrmln
Member
Username: Hpgrmln
Post Number: 163
Registered: 06-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 12:03 am: |    |
"Hpg, I'd have to disagree about the Rabbit"
I think it was one of those cars that all depended on the day it was made. One former owner told me it was great to drive, but "Hitler was still alive when they made that car", in reference to constant electrical problems.It seems that quite a few were constantly in the shop, while others made it past 200,000 miles.
" LIKED my Gremlin! It didn't wear well, though."
Ive never driven a car that was better to back up in terms of visibility.It made the list because of its odd-looking back-end, but darned if it doesnt have an excellent view of what youre about to back over.The sail panels create really bad blind spots, though. It isn't a bad car overall, they just didn't rustproof them properly and the carberators make me thankful for my Chevys fuel-injection system. |
Dnvn522
Member
Username: Dnvn522
Post Number: 283
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 7:50 am: | |
Where's the Pontiac Fiero? |
56packman
Member
Username: 56packman
Post Number: 1736
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 8:26 am: | |
Tponetom--I'm sure you are old enough to remember the raping that car dealers subjected their customer to after the war. as a point of reference for y'all there were no new cars made for almost 4 years, 1943-'45 (1942 was a very short model year, the '42s began production in the fall of '41 and most production was halted by Jan-Feb of '42) the entire industry, and most other industries stopped making their regular products to concentrate on war production.
This followed the depression, during which car sales were dismally small, next to no one could afford a new car.
When new cars were available after the war (very warmed over '41-'42 models) the dealers were writing a new book of dirty tricks. Every car the factory made, and the hauler delivered was going to be sold quickly, no question. The men who were in the war earned combat pay they couldn't spend, and the women who worked 12 hour shifts making bombers and tanks and rifles and other articles of war couldn't find anything to buy because there wasn't much new product being made! Everyone had money in the bank and everyone wanted a new car.
The dealers decided that since every car was going to be sold in record time after it arrived, it might as well go out the door with EVERY dealer screw-on option in the catalogue:
Spot lights, fog lights, back-up light (was an option until the mid-60s), the top radio, vent window shades, curb feelers--the works.
The other trick was to have you buy something you really didn't need at a grossly inflated price to get a better place in line for the new cars when they arrived. Sets of Luggage were popular items, coolers.
A friend of mine told me about how his parents bought a new Chevrolet from Matthews-Hargraves in Royal Oak every two years. They were both school teachers, and never had a lot of money, but kept working through the depression. They went to the same salesman, who was very happy to see them, and traded in their old car for a new Chevy regularly. After the war, like everyone else, their old car was really shot. They went to their same salesman who smugly informed them it would be months before they could get a new car, but if they bought a $600 Frigidare freezer
that they didn't need (the car only cost $1,800 NEW) he could move them up to this month's list, they would be in a new Chevy within the month.
They were pretty upset with this, in view of their steady business during the depression, and went to the Dodge dealer in Royal Oak, who wasn't playing that game. Solid Chevy man bought a Dodge!
(Message edited by 56packman on September 13, 2007) |
Mikeg
Member
Username: Mikeg
Post Number: 1167
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 9:33 am: | |
Look at the complete list of Time's "The 50 Worst Cars of All Time and you will notice that only about one-third of them were produced by GM, Ford or Chrysler and their predecessors.
Look at the blurb for this feature that they have on their "Time.com" page in the print edition and you would get a completely different viewpoint of who made the "50 worst":
|
Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo
Post Number: 396
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 10:06 am: | |
That list is inappropriately named. Should be "The 50 most lampoonable autos" Not all those were considered bad cars.
A funny writer and that was the thrust of that project. Not singling out the 50 worst vehicles.
Having a bit of auto experience, many shouldve been included that were not. |
Cambrian
Member
Username: Cambrian
Post Number: 1607
Registered: 08-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 10:08 am: | |
"Look at the blurb for this feature that they have on their "Time.com" page "
Couldn't find it Mike, what did it say? |
Rb336
Member
Username: Rb336
Post Number: 2197
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 10:19 am: | |
I'm shocked that the whole range of those horrible late-70s (?) GM diesels weren't included. |
Pam
Member
Username: Pam
Post Number: 2585
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 10:22 am: | |
I like the Amphicar. From the article:
quote:Even so, a large number of the nearly 4,000 cars built between 1961 and 1968 are still on the road/water. In fact, during the recent floods in Britain, an Amphicar enthusiast served as a water taxi, bringing water and groceries to a group of stranded schoolkids. Bully!
How could he hate something so useful?
I also like the one with the horse's head. |
Mikeg
Member
Username: Mikeg
Post Number: 1168
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 10:34 am: | |
quote:Couldn't find it Mike, what did it say?
The image I scanned and posted (above) is taken from the "Time.com" page in their print edition. That is the page they use in the magazine to highlight their web-only offerings. You won't find the image and description that I scanned anywhere on the "Time.com" web site. |
56packman
Member
Username: 56packman
Post Number: 1738
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 10:48 am: | |
Re: what the author says about the 1909 Ford model T:
Quote: A century later, the consequences of putting every living soul on gas-powered wheels are piling up, from the air over our cities to the sand under our soldiers' boots.
OK--So it would be better if the automobile had been restricted to the very wealthy, kept the numbers down and kept the cities full of tenements of the poor, kept the farm boys forever tied to the farms and the drudgery of same, and seriously compromised the world's security had we not been able to use our industrial prowess (squared largely on the auto/truck industry) to provide the means for beating the Huns in WWI and WWII.
No other creation of man has created more individual personal wealth than the democratic success of the automobile. |
Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge
Post Number: 2357
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 10:51 am: | |
The Mustang II was a real piece. |
Gnome
Member
Username: Gnome
Post Number: 71
Registered: 08-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 11:18 am: | |
The Volkswagen Thing was a real Nazi POS
|
Mikeg
Member
Username: Mikeg
Post Number: 1170
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 11:19 am: | |
Quote: A century later, the consequences of putting every living soul on gas-powered wheels are piling up, from the air over our cities to the sand under our soldiers' boots.
Everyone seems to forget that we are still benefiting from one major consequence of the mass "automobilization" of society: we no longer have horse manure piling up underfoot, fouling the air we breathe and creating a health hazard in our urban areas. |
Detourdetroit
Member
Username: Detourdetroit
Post Number: 338
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 11:27 am: | |
i agree 56 pack, but the point of how dependent society has become on cars is very apt. it's a fine line in my opinion, but we've crossed it by a long shot. i would say that in many ways, we're not a lot better off (as far as personal freedom) - how many in modern America can reasonably go about their daily business WITHOUT a car?
When I lived in NYC, I felt an incredible sense that is hard to describe to many Detroiters. I felt a certain freedom without a car that was quite liberating. America is inculcated with a dangerous sense of entitlement to personal mobility and American society has skewed radically in that direction.
I'm not advocating for the elimination of the car...its utility and need have made it ubiquitous. But, having options for life that rely more on a more diverse approach to development and land use is sorely needed. Fully a third of residents in Motor City do not have reliable access to a car. Cars allow us to leave our problems behind far too easily...
(Message edited by detourdetroit on September 13, 2007) |
Meaghansdad
Member
Username: Meaghansdad
Post Number: 140
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 11:30 am: | |
What about the XR4TI? |
Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo
Post Number: 398
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 11:30 am: | |
JohnL, Yeah, with the clutch cable housing ripping through the firewall.
Or how about the early Mustangs and the rear leaf springs suddenly winding up in the trunk.
And I was disappointed to see no mention of the early 60's Rambler. Or "Gambler" as most owners came to call them. It was a crap shoot wether it would start or not.
No mention of the "starter eating" Ford line of the early 70's..
No Mention of the VW? The knob says heat, but guess what. They should've offered a Mackinaw as optional equipment.
Or how about the beloved Simca? Now there was a pile. Or the Austins , some more fine Brit engineering.
How about the Opal's? Our neighbor had a "Chapparal" and he was late for work about 250 days a year. That thing would never start. Every morning walking to school, he was running around with jumper cables and it was a new car.
The list is funny, but overlooks some much better candidates. |
Rb336
Member
Username: Rb336
Post Number: 2204
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 11:34 am: | |
hey, i had a mustang II t-top. 2.8 v-6. not a great car, no, not up to the mustang name, definitely, but i drove the heck out of it and it died after 230,000 + miles, and that was only after it got into a nasty flood in galveston |
Vetalalumni
Member
Username: Vetalalumni
Post Number: 729
Registered: 05-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 11:49 am: | |
Meaghansdad, I remember the Merkur XR4Ti well. A friend had one and he frequently needed help with a push to start it! He always complained about how much he hated the car. |
Jiminnm
Member
Username: Jiminnm
Post Number: 1416
Registered: 02-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 12:01 pm: | |
I had a 1985 Merkur XR4Ti. I really liked driving that car and drove it a lot, but ... The dealer was offering a deal on an extended warranty when I bought the car, so I bought one (the only time I ever have). Wow, was that an omen of things to come. I think it was to 75,000 miles, and I traded the car when it was about 72-73,000. In that period, just about everything of significance was replaced. Power steering, brake master cylinder, air conditioner, radiator, differential, valve lifters, radio and tape player, clutch, and so on. The transmission was leaking pretty badly when I got rid of the car. Ford must have felt sorry for us because they sent all Merkur owners a $1500 certificate good on the purchase of another Ford. I traded for a 1989 T-Bird Super Coupe, which was a far better car. |
Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge
Post Number: 2363
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 12:05 pm: | |
As Dnvn asked above, how about the early Fiero's? Nothing like a care that spontaneously combusts while you're driving. |
Lahinch
Member
Username: Lahinch
Post Number: 3
Registered: 08-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 2:34 pm: | |
The '71 Imperial should not be on the list. I learned to drive on a hand-me-down '73 New Yorker -- I can parallel park anything after that thing! Nothing like floating along on the open highway soaking up the bumps with the marshmallow suspension...
I concur with the votes for the Mustang II (so ugly), the Citation (loved when the gas pedal mechanism snapped in the middle of an intersection when I drove my boss's) and I'll raise you an AMC Matador! |
Cambrian
Member
Username: Cambrian
Post Number: 1610
Registered: 08-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 2:40 pm: | |
I think the reason you don't see more Asian cars on these lists is because they usually copy everyone else. Only those that take the risks get criticized. You could say that's the reason the big 3 don't produce interesting cars anymore is because now we are trying to beat the copycats at the blase game. |
Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge
Post Number: 2379
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 2:43 pm: | |
The reason you don't see more Asian cars, is because the ones that really really really sucked (everything in the 70's and back) weren't really sold here.
But here's one for you. I hate to say it, but the second generation Prelude. While I loved my 2ndGen Prelude, because it was an oversized go-kart, the engine was the most insane thing you have ever seen in your life. It was one of the very last carbeurated engines, and the one I had was sold in Colorado, so had to pass higher emission standards. The engine was completely covered in small black vacuum tubes. It looked like a rubber bird had built a nest under the hood. I once replaced the engine in that thing, and had to tag and cut a hundred of these little vacuum tubes, so I would know where they all went when it was time to put them back. INSANE! |
Gazhekwe
Member
Username: Gazhekwe
Post Number: 506
Registered: 08-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 2:45 pm: | |
I liked my '62 Rambler Classic. When my mother insisted on my lending it to my brother, which I did NOT want to do, I gave him the keys under duress and prayed. He couldn't start it, hehe. I was the only one who could start it when it was raining, it liked me. Bro' ended up taking my mom's car instead, see how things work out? |
Cambrian
Member
Username: Cambrian
Post Number: 1612
Registered: 08-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 2:47 pm: | |
My buddy had one ( an 83 prelude) nifty looking little car, but when the timing belt snapped the pistons destroyed the valves, a really stupid design. |
Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge
Post Number: 2380
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 2:49 pm: | |
Both of my engines (original and the one I replaced) liked to leak oil. But damn, could that thing handle! I mean there was ZERO roll. It was really a glorified go-kart, and a joy to drive. Mine had a nice moon-roof in it too, and my flip-up lights worked just fine through its entire life. |
Beavis1981
Member
Username: Beavis1981
Post Number: 596
Registered: 08-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 2:59 pm: | |
John- That was just a '80s thing. I had a '85 riviera with a 307 4bbl. Same deal last year for carburation on this model. First thing I did when I bought this car was replace 15ft of vacuum hose. |
Cambrian
Member
Username: Cambrian
Post Number: 1613
Registered: 08-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 3:00 pm: | |
Sounds like my '83 Alliance John, that car was so slow with it's Le Car 1.4L and Auto Trans it couldn't even get out of its own way, but oh boy you could take a 90 degree turn while going 40 mph and not spill a drop of coffee. |
Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge
Post Number: 2386
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 3:30 pm: | |
Ha, yeah. When I replaced the Prelude's engine, I used a mini cherry picker to pull the block up out of the engine compartment. From there a friend and I just carried it accross the garage and threw it in the corner! LOL! What a powerhouse. I bet one of us could have carried it ourselves. |
Nainrouge
Member
Username: Nainrouge
Post Number: 246
Registered: 05-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 3:33 pm: | |
I disagree with the Fuller Dymaxion, the EV-1 and the Trabant. I drove the Trabant and it had all the faults that he mentions, but it also never broke down on me. Not something I can say about my 2000 Dodge Intrepid.
Both the EV-1 and the Dymaxion were before their time.
The Dymaxion seated 10, went 120 miles/hr on a 90 horsepower engine, and got between 30-50 miles to the gallon of gas. It was one of the first cars to use aerodynamics in its design and had an incredibly tight turning ratio. Hardly the "worst car ever" especially considering the time when it was built. The accident was not caused because of any crosswind as the author tries to imply but by Buckminster Fuller showing off. The future of the car was killed by the idiosyncrasies of the inventor, not the quality of the car. |
Burnsie
Member
Username: Burnsie
Post Number: 1148
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 4:45 pm: | |
Johnlodge wrote about Asian cars: "...everything in the 70's and back) weren't really sold here"
Actually, the 1973 oil embargo was when the American automakers first truly had to face the Asian competition. The Asian automakers had a number of fuel-efficient cars that people flocked to buy during the crisis, while the US makers had little or nothing immediately available.
(Message edited by Burnsie on September 13, 2007) |
Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo
Post Number: 400
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 4:50 pm: | |
Quote"The '71 Imperial should not be on the list."
I agree, that was a really good car. |
Burnsie
Member
Username: Burnsie
Post Number: 1150
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 5:08 pm: | |
Luckycar and Gibran didn't like the Chevy Citation...True, that car did have issues (brakes that needed work too often, faulty flywheel design, too much carbon buildup, etc.). But it was surprisingly roomy inside with lots of legroom, got good mileage, and the hatchback model could haul a LOT of stuff. My parents had their 1980 model for 16 years, putting over 210,000 miles on it. And it was still running when they finally gave it away. |
Angry_dad
Member
Username: Angry_dad
Post Number: 164
Registered: 02-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 6:05 pm: | |
Any list that puts a Lotus on it, especially one as absolutely beautiful as the Elite is a complete load of crap. Anybody that takes any of the nonsense that was written by this idiot is a fool.
There is a difference between the art of engineering and a car that you drive to work.
This article was written for a moron to read on the morning news at some brainless radio station. |
Tponetom
Member
Username: Tponetom
Post Number: 131
Registered: 06-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 6:33 pm: | |
Sstashmoo:
I sincerely hope the 1971 Imperial was better than the 1957.
I forgot to include all Chrysler Products that had AutoLite Spark Plugs and ignition wire system that were built before and after WWII.On a dry day, if you spit within 50 feet of them they would not start. The following ritual had to be followed: Pull out the spark plug wires and the distributer cap and dry them with hand towels. Then spray them with some plastic crap that would last about a week or so. After doing that, you would get one of your neighbors to give you a "push" with his car and away you go!
My Dad bought a new 1957 Imperial. (He was Chrysler Crazy) That car started every time he had to take it into the Service Department. I can still hear the "torsion bars" exploding while the car was parked at the curb. That is NO joke.
Chrysler Corporation sold over a million cars with their 1957 models,,,and they lost a million customers.
Later on, AutoLite got their act together. |
Tponetom
Member
Username: Tponetom
Post Number: 132
Registered: 06-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 6:44 pm: | |
56 Packman, # 1736:
Go to the head of the class. I can't add anything more to it. It explains why us old codgers, when shopping for a new car, still have fire in our eyes, if not in our tummies. (Well, maybe there is a pilot light still glowing there.) |
Fury13
Member
Username: Fury13
Post Number: 2306
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 7:40 pm: | |
Tponetom, yeah, but those '57 Chrysler products looked GREAT.
The '58s looked pretty much the same but were better in quality. |
56packman
Member
Username: 56packman
Post Number: 1740
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 11:24 pm: | |
In 1957 the Plymouth dealer's service letters addressed the problems of water getting into the trunks of the new '57 Plymouths. Their sole solution (from the factory, mind you) was a drawing indicating where to drill the drainage holes in the trunk floor pan.
The 1957 Chrysler bodies were scheduled for the 1958 sales year. 1956 had been a sales recession year for the industry, following a spectacular, record-breaking 1955, and Chrysler brand sales were slumping. Management put pressure on Exner's stylists and engineering to get the new body ready for '57, which they did. There is a marked difference between the pre '57 Chrysler bodies and the post '57s. I like to call this "the descent into the dark ages of Chrysler body construction". The pre-57s were solidly built bodies, no more or less prone to rust than the competition, and very rigid in their construction.
A huge factor in this, in my estimation is the fact that Briggs manufacturing engineered a lot of the body sub-structure for Chrysler as an outside design house (Briggs had a formidable design/engineering staff). A 1952 Chrysler is built amazingly similar to a Packard of the same vintage, and Briggs engineered and built that body. Packard, like Chrysler styled the exterior sheet metal.
After purchasing Briggs in December of 1953 Chrysler folded portions of Briggs design staff into Chrysler engineering as a new division “Chrysler ABD“ (Automotive Body Division), and as late as the mid fifties Chrysler was the last "big" maker to have all of their major-parts fab in-house.
They were "the engineering company", based on the strength of the outstanding work of Carl Breer, Owen Skelton and Fred Zeder, the “three Musketeers“ engineers who saved Maxwell from a near-fatal engineering crisis in 1922-‘23 and were Walt‘s right hand men in the formation of the new Chrysler corporation to come from Maxwell. But most of that engineering was chassis, engine and transmission design--a great deal of the body engineering was done out-of-house, as was the fabrication of all Plymouth bodies, certain labor intensive models like convertibles and station wagons (again, by Briggs)
from '57 until the advent of the K-car (some would even say the LH platform) Chrysler bodies were marginal at best.
(Message edited by 56packman on September 14, 2007) |
Crash_nyc
Member
Username: Crash_nyc
Post Number: 1027
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 14, 2007 - 3:49 am: | |
I saw a little Chevette on the street last week ('86 or '87?), struggling up a hill like "the little engine that could". Thought I was hallucinating, because those things were worn-out 15+ years ago. One of the saddest pieces of shit I've ever seen on four wheels. |
Hpgrmln
Member
Username: Hpgrmln
Post Number: 167
Registered: 06-2007
| | Posted on Friday, September 14, 2007 - 5:33 am: | |
Hmmm, interesting,because I haven't heard much bad about the Chevettes. Ive heard about groups of people that used to all go out with their Chevettes, almost like a car club.My impression is that it was very slow but fairly durable. You have to admit, it was kind of a cute car (no, im not gay). |
Tponetom
Member
Username: Tponetom
Post Number: 136
Registered: 06-2007
| | Posted on Friday, September 14, 2007 - 7:04 pm: | |
56packman # 1740 Re: 1957 Chrysler Products
Your post was excellent. Amen.
It was a stunning 'style' departure from the old staid models they had been offering. The new design was terrific, but the 'guts' were lacking. Later, an automobile 'critic' said, "Chrysler's rush to get the new model to the market place, became a procession to the graveyard.
Speaking of "bodies" only, GM's Fisher bodies, while great in styling, became rust buckets within three or four years. God (A) only knows I had enough of them. |
Fury13
Member
Username: Fury13
Post Number: 2335
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 14, 2007 - 7:17 pm: | |
From personal experience, I can say that if you want to restore a '57-'59 Chrysler product, you have to do it so that the finished project is better than factory original (get rid of the rust traps, provide drainage, reinforce certain panels and bracing, etc.).
I think it's worth it. The styling (especially for '57-'58) was miles ahead of what GM and Ford had to offer. |
Missnmich
Member
Username: Missnmich
Post Number: 612
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 14, 2007 - 11:51 pm: | |
The Chevy Vega was a worthless piece, as was the Ford Maverick. I had an 85 Ford Tempo with "California Styling" that looked great from my third floor apartment window, but I came to believe that Tempo was short for temporary.
I knew two guys in SF that had 82 Toyota Supra Sporty Automatics! Yuck.
And what about the Catera, the Cadillac that zigged?
(Message edited by missnmich on September 15, 2007) |
Hpgrmln
Member
Username: Hpgrmln
Post Number: 170
Registered: 06-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, September 15, 2007 - 12:45 am: | |
"The Chevy Vega was a worthless piece, as was the Ford Maverick"
Ya know what? I just saw a Maverick tonight.It had me thinking about the cars bad reputation for being junk yet I seem to see more of them than any other compact car of its time, if not ANY other car of its time.Those cars were quick rusters. the fact I still see them must mean that TONS were sold...Like, in the millions. |
Cambrian
Member
Username: Cambrian
Post Number: 1624
Registered: 08-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, September 15, 2007 - 6:18 am: | |
Consumer Reports did a study on the best used cars to buy over 10 years old in the 80s and the Maverick was in the top 5, they said the window cranks would wear out before the rest of the car. I liked 'em better then the fairmonts that replaced them. Another horrible looking car that wouldn't die no matter what. |
Vetalalumni
Member
Username: Vetalalumni
Post Number: 735
Registered: 05-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, September 15, 2007 - 8:43 am: | |
I had a 1972 Ford Maverick (4-door) during the late 70s. It was very easy to do your own maintenance on the Maverick, and it ran great. Mine looked similar to this photograph, but it was white on red (the colors left much to be desired).
(Message edited by vetalalumni on September 15, 2007) |
56packman
Member
Username: 56packman
Post Number: 1749
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, September 15, 2007 - 9:19 pm: | |
The Ford Fairmount was truly the antichrist on wheels. Too poorly made to be a good car, made just good enough that they kept going after they should have been scrapped. |
Fredgarvin
Member
Username: Fredgarvin
Post Number: 62
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 18, 2007 - 4:49 pm: | |
I had to drive a Pontiac Astre, the Pontiac version of the Vega. What a POS. To make matters worse, it was a station wagon and tan in color. Man, what a chick-magnet that was cruisin up and down Hines Drive in the '70's. |
Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge
Post Number: 2538
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 18, 2007 - 5:34 pm: | |
Have you ever seen a Ford Aerostar mini-van that didn't have the paint peeling off of it? Man, what did they paint those things with, Testors? |
Ericdetfan
Member
Username: Ericdetfan
Post Number: 185
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 18, 2007 - 6:41 pm: | |
I see a lot of early neons with the paint peeling off as well.. |
Ericdetfan
Member
Username: Ericdetfan
Post Number: 186
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 18, 2007 - 6:52 pm: | |
|
Newport1128
Member
Username: Newport1128
Post Number: 130
Registered: 05-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 18, 2007 - 7:07 pm: | |
I didn't see the 1971 & 72 Plymouth Cricket on the list. I had a '71. It was a re-badged Hillman Avenger from Great Britain. The engine and tranny were pretty good for that era (75 hp), but it was definitely not a cold-weather car. It had a manual choke, manual windshield washer (you pumped a button on the steering column to squirt the washer fluid), and the coil was mounted where all the slush and rainwater splashed up on it - replaced two of those).
But I can't believe the author put the Model-T on the list. Yes, it was crudely made in some respects, but for $250 you weren't going to get a Cadillac. It was reliable, affordable transportation that the farmer and factory worker could buy. The author seems to be saying that autos should have remained the plaything of the rich. Wonder if he'd be willing to give up what he drives for the sake of the environment? |
56packman
Member
Username: 56packman
Post Number: 1762
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 18, 2007 - 10:19 pm: | |
Have you ever seen an Aerostar van that still had rocker panels? most of them I see still driving make me wonder if I'm up to date on my tetanus shots. |
Cambrian
Member
Username: Cambrian
Post Number: 1630
Registered: 08-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 19, 2007 - 7:27 am: | |
Our '96 neon was pretty good. I bought a stripped down one for the X wife, brand new for 10Gs. The only options it had was AC, rear defrost and the RH mirror. No radio, manual trans. It got to 125K with no real issues besides an oil leak at the oil pressure sending unit. It was "totalled" by a side impact accident. That was the first time I ever drove a totalled car home from an accident scene. |
Hpgrmln
Member
Username: Hpgrmln
Post Number: 177
Registered: 06-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 19, 2007 - 7:34 am: | |
Newport-
Any pictures? My dad had a cricket before I was born. It was one of the very few cars I have not seen at least one of in person.
GM had problems with peeling paint in the 90's as well. Some of their colors were faulty.Luminas, Berettas, and dustbuster vans (Transport, etc.) were plagued with this. |
Newport1128
Member
Username: Newport1128
Post Number: 132
Registered: 05-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 19, 2007 - 4:59 pm: | |
Hpgrmln,
Try Googling Plymouth Cricket. There's a Wikipedia article there with a picture. |
New threads cannot be started on this page. The threads above are previous posts made to this thread.