Cars you seem alone in disliking.

[Negative Creep]

I don't have a problem with them, I just don't think they live up to the hype they get in the classic press.

Fine! Point taken.

 

 

I still think they look like a slug

[oman5]

Another positive vote for Maserati (shock horror, Autoshite has unanimous verdict on car ) I had a close look at a QP a couple of years ago. The sound was fabulous as everyone has said, and the interior was the ultimate in style and luxury. I could have just about afforded to buy and run it but that and even the thought of the office managers face when he saw 'Maserati Quattroporte IV Evoluzione' in the space on the expenses claim form usually filled with something llike 'Ford Fiesta Zetec' or 'Kia Rio' was enough to outweigh the fact that a 10 year old Maserati with 8 pistons, 4 camshafts, 32 valves and 2 turbos, each with a mind of their own might not be a wise long-term investment.

 

Anyway, this is about cars we seem to be alone in disliking . The 1957 Chevrolet is an ugly, tacky, bloated, chrome-laden, badly handling barge and is probably the low-point of American car design. Don't get me wrong, America has produced some fine cars, eg the Loewy-deigned Studebakers and the original Mustang, but this thing isn't even outrageous in a Cadillacy sort of way.

 

 

I see what you are saying...but basically the '57 was styled to look like something a lot more expensive, an everyman car that looked like a small caddy. similar deal to buying a vauxhall vectra that looks like an S class Merc. It was cheap to buy and had one of the best engines ever to come from detroit. The low point of american car design for me would be late '70s to mid '80s, when there was not even decent engineering to compensate for cruddy styling

[oman5]

You must be JOKING! The DS is absolutely beautiful! I cant believe that it was launched in 1955! Never driven one, so I can't comment on the handling, but come on! You can't deny that it is a piece of art work... OK, what do I know! I Blog about Paykan!

 

 

 

My 5 year old son likes these- he says they only have "half a wheel" at the back

[mattblack]

I don't have problem with Minis as such, but I object to them being hailed as 'significant' in terms of car development. If you want something that pointed to the future, try a Fiat 128...

[The Reverend Bluejeans]

You must be JOKING! The DS is absolutely beautiful! I cant believe that it was launched in 1955! Never driven one, so I can't comment on the handling, but come on! You can't deny that it is a piece of art work... OK, what do I know! I Blog about Paykan!

 

 

 

It's utterly hideous. Grotesque detailing, melted welly top body lines and awful proportions. It's an overrated shitheap.

 

If you want to know what a really nice 50's/60's European car is, look at what Lancia were building. That was work of art engineering, and they weren't powered by some knarly old four pot one step removed from steam power.

[The Reverend Bluejeans]

Anyway, this is about cars we seem to be alone in disliking . The 1957 Chevrolet is an ugly, tacky, bloated, chrome-laden, badly handling barge and is probably the low-point of American car design. Don't get me wrong, America has produced some fine cars, eg the Loewy-deigned Studebakers and the original Mustang, but this thing isn't even outrageous in a Cadillacy sort of way.

 

The 1955/6/7 Chevrolets are dreadful things and the preserve of the Good Ol' Boys with more money than sense. The 1955 has some sort of merit because it was a very cheap car to make, an American Mark 1 Cortina and thus vaguely landmark. Bel Air convertibles make insane money (about 100 grand I think) and they're not very good, a very average car pumped up by nostaligia - a touch of Mark 2 Escort syndrome.

The Cadillacs of that period weren't that great either - the high points were the 1949 Club Coupe/Sedanette with the OHV V8 and the mad 1959 Coupe DeVille/Series 62 Coupe. The Mustang was a fantastic object lesson on marketing. The really good American cars are still very undervalued - the 1962/3 Lincolns, 63-65 Rivieras, 1967/68 Cadillac Eldorados, the Oldsmobile Toronado on which they were based and the last of the Corvairs. You could buy a superb example of all five of these for the price of one concours 1957 Bel Air Convertible.

[seth]

The 1955 has some sort of merit because it was a very cheap car to make, an American Mark 1 Cortina and thus vaguely landmark.

 

Quite significantly landmark I'd have thought, seeing as they introduced the small block Chevy engine to the world.

 

I'm not a fan of the '57's styling either.

[Pete-M]

The '55 Chevy rocks from my point of view because of one in particular.

 

 

Two lane blacktop AND American Graffiti. If they're the only things the '55 is famous for, then that's enough for me.

[Barrett.in.the.USA]

Yep, '55s are awesome. The TLB car is THE hardest looking motor ever bar none. I agree about '57s looking naff though, US car styling dipped for most of the fifties but really picked up again in the very early '60s and was great right up to the mid '70s.

 

I love the DS styling too....

[Rocket88]

Anyway, this is about cars we seem to be alone in disliking . The 1957 Chevrolet is an ugly, tacky, bloated, chrome-laden, badly handling barge and is probably the low-point of American car design. Don't get me wrong, America has produced some fine cars, eg the Loewy-deigned Studebakers and the original Mustang, but this thing isn't even outrageous in a Cadillacy sort of way.

 

The 1955/6/7 Chevrolets are dreadful things and the preserve of the Good Ol' Boys with more money than sense. The 1955 has some sort of merit because it was a very cheap car to make, an American Mark 1 Cortina and thus vaguely landmark. Bel Air convertibles make insane money (about 100 grand I think) and they're not very good, a very average car pumped up by nostaligia - a touch of Mark 2 Escort syndrome.

The Cadillacs of that period weren't that great either - the high points were the 1949 Club Coupe/Sedanette with the OHV V8 and the mad 1959 Coupe DeVille/Series 62 Coupe. The Mustang was a fantastic object lesson on marketing. The really good American cars are still very undervalued - the 1962/3 Lincolns, 63-65 Rivieras, 1967/68 Cadillac Eldorados, the Oldsmobile Toronado on which they were based and the last of the Corvairs. You could buy a superb example of all five of these for the price of one concours 1957 Bel Air Convertible.

 

 

 

Having ACTUALLY OWNED some of the above,a few comments. Tri Chevys first. My '55 was a 6 pot maual with o/d, and was a sweet old car. Compared to a Brit equivalent [Humber Hawk] better in every respect [ride performance handling comfort] The Toronado was an evil handling, under braked pile of shit. Far too fast for it's chassis and brakes. I do agree that '57s are over hyped though.

[wuvvum]

I love the DS - I've owned two, back when you could buy one without having won the lottery. I'm not going to debate the styling because it's a matter of personal taste, but I love it, especially the later quad-headlight cars and especially the Safari. It looked like nothing else on the road when it was new and it still does now - which is more than can be said for the CX, much as I love those too. DS's are also enormous fun to drive, especially in semi-auto form. Yes the engine on the early ones was a clunky old lump of pig-iron, but then lots of successful cars were lumbered with outdated engines when they were first introduced (Morris Minor, obviously, but also the Ka and the original Twingo), and a late DS23 EFI is both quick and more than adequately refined, although I'll admit it's never going to sound as good being thrashed as a Rover V8 or a BMW straight 6.

[fotorabia]

I fugging hate these.. proportions all wrong...driven by cheepskates that aspire to something greater..GTO in these terms stands for Goat Turd Orifice..on standard rims they look ridiculous..and for the dix that drive the automatic versions..plarleese...and just on the 57 chev note..i couldnt agree more...i never understood why they have such a great following..the Bel Airs make stupid money here as well...and the only one i like is the local long term owner stock 4door..at the show i went to day i totally ignored them..even my Viva is a rarer beast these days..

[Cavcraft]

Another lover of the DS here, I think they look fantastic.

 

Back to the subject in hand though:

 

Ford Probe: hideous 'style', bland, nasty sea of cheap plastics, shit engines and the seats alone are absolutely hateful even to look at.

[mattblack]

...Compared to a Brit equivalent[Humber Hawk]...

 

I would have said the British equivalent to a '55 Chevy was a Morris Minor...

 

The Hawk was a middle class car, probably equivalent to a Buick.

[The Reverend Bluejeans]

Anyway, this is about cars we seem to be alone in disliking . The 1957 Chevrolet is an ugly, tacky, bloated, chrome-laden, badly handling barge and is probably the low-point of American car design. Don't get me wrong, America has produced some fine cars, eg the Loewy-deigned Studebakers and the original Mustang, but this thing isn't even outrageous in a Cadillacy sort of way.

 

The 1955/6/7 Chevrolets are dreadful things and the preserve of the Good Ol' Boys with more money than sense. The 1955 has some sort of merit because it was a very cheap car to make, an American Mark 1 Cortina and thus vaguely landmark. Bel Air convertibles make insane money (about 100 grand I think) and they're not very good, a very average car pumped up by nostaligia - a touch of Mark 2 Escort syndrome.

The Cadillacs of that period weren't that great either - the high points were the 1949 Club Coupe/Sedanette with the OHV V8 and the mad 1959 Coupe DeVille/Series 62 Coupe. The Mustang was a fantastic object lesson on marketing. The really good American cars are still very undervalued - the 1962/3 Lincolns, 63-65 Rivieras, 1967/68 Cadillac Eldorados, the Oldsmobile Toronado on which they were based and the last of the Corvairs. You could buy a superb example of all five of these for the price of one concours 1957 Bel Air Convertible.

 

You don't really buy old Yank stuff on their merits as a drivers car. They're all pretty nasty compared with proper European stuff

 

 

 

Having ACTUALLY OWNED some of the above,a few comments. Tri Chevys first. My '55 was a 6 pot maual with o/d, and was a sweet old car. Compared to a Brit equivalent [Humber Hawk] better in every respect [ride performance handling comfort] The Toronado was an evil handling, under braked pile of shit. Far too fast for it's chassis and brakes. I do agree that '57s are over hyped though.

 

To be fair, you don't really buy old Yank stuff (or any old car) on their merits as a drivers car. They're all pretty nasty compared with proper European stuff, and I daresay handling and braking deficiencies can be vastly improved upon with some decent shocks, tyres etc.

Tri Chevs were gussied up plodders, the Toronado/Eldorado were attempts at doing something different which as you say, weren't entirely successful. I mean, 6-7 litre V8's and FWD!

The difference is, I wouldn't cross the road to look at any 1950's Chev apart from the gorgeous 1959 Impala/BelAir/Biscayne (another great looking but undervalued car) but I would for a late sixties Mercury Cougar or Galaxie 500.

 

 

If I had to choose one US car, it would be a 1962 or 1963 Lincoln Continental hard top*. A stunning looking car with such purity of line and quality GM could only dream of - they were probably the closest thing to a Rolls Royce the Yanks could turn out. A really nice one might set you back £10k, but probably a lot less.

 

 

 

*The one that was crushed in 'Goldfinger'.