PDA

View Full Version : MSN has just gone too far!



Jim B PEI
12-30-2010, 09:59 AM
#4 on the list of 'ugliest cars of all time'

http://autos.ca.msn.com/photos/gallery.aspx?cp-documentid=20622618&page=4

showbizkid
12-30-2010, 10:04 AM
I don't put too much stock in anything MSN says :)

barnlark
12-30-2010, 10:10 AM
Saying it was ugly all the way to 2005 would be going too far.

studebaker-R2-4-me
12-30-2010, 10:12 AM
Look on the road to today and you can see and make a longer list that this one. What about the Cube or Aztec, both far uglier vehicles than anything on that list.

jclary
12-30-2010, 10:33 AM
Look on the road to today and you can see and make a longer list that this one. What about the Cube or Aztec, both far uglier vehicles than anything on that list.

My thoughts exactly! The fact that the Pontiac Aztec is not mentioned at all means that the entire list has zero credibility!

sweetolbob
12-30-2010, 10:46 AM
Actually, I agree with them. So all you Avanti owners that want to get rid of that ugly duckling, let me know. I'll be happy to show up with a trailer and 10- $100 bills which is way more than their value at a scrap yard.

Just can't imagine why anyone would would want to own the 4th ugliest car in the world. Let sweetolbob help you unfortunates out of your sorrow.:mad::cool:

The things I do to help forum members.

Bob

Sdude
12-30-2010, 10:47 AM
So who made this person an expert. I wonder what he/she drives? Probably a Nissan Versa.....

okc63avanti
12-30-2010, 10:56 AM
I don't put too much stock in anything MSN says :)

Yeah it is so ugly it has been on exhibit at the Louvre in Paris, the British Design Museum in London. the Toyota Automobile Museum in Japan and the Renwick Gallery at the Smithsonian in Washington D.C.

It's been called a rolling piece of art work ...

Skip Lackie
12-30-2010, 10:57 AM
I know I'll sound like a curmudgeon (which might be accurate), but these lists (both best-looking and ugliest) are really getting tiresome. They all seem to be assembled by a couple of thirty-somethings who have been given a few hours to generate some filler for their employer's web site. Knowledge of or familiarity with the subject matter does not seem to a requirement, nor does any inclination to look back farther than WWII. In other words, if they authors haven't actually seen one in person, it didn't exist.

BTW, I found the comment about the headlights being set wide apart kinda ironic, since one of the objections expressed by a couple of the contemporary car magazines at the time was that the Avanti's headlights were TOO CLOSE together.

Pat Dilling
12-30-2010, 11:13 AM
Many articles on the web are written to generate "clicks" to the site. This one certainly hooked us. Take some comfort that Studebaker with its Avanti fell into company with Rolls-Royce, Porsche and Cadillac on this list. Beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder.

Pat

JDP
12-30-2010, 11:23 AM
No question the Avanti styling was a love/hate deal. I've had a few folks comment how ugly my Avanti's were. Don't forget the public loved the 58 Buick "juke box" styling over the much cleaner 57's.

Stude-Dude
12-30-2010, 11:30 AM
any "ugliest" list that does NOT include the '82 Cadillac Cimarron clearly indicates that the author has NO CLUE whatsoever...

the '76 Aston Martin Lagonda should be on that list, the thing had SIX headlights, three per side, barf!...

the Corvair should be on the list, as well as the BUTT-UGLY Hummer, the first one, the H2, and the H3, god i hate those STUPID things!...

rjohnston79
12-30-2010, 11:39 AM
Blasphemy! And right-o about the Aztec... I recall Peter Egan commenting at a show where they displayed it with an innovative accessory camping tent that came out and enclosed the back of the Aztec: "Thats amazing - can you make one that covers the front end too?"

Kurt
12-30-2010, 11:43 AM
Notice there are no Toyota's on the list.....

barnlark
12-30-2010, 12:14 PM
Blasphemy! And right-o about the Aztec... I recall Peter Egan commenting at a show where they displayed it with an innovative accessory camping tent that came out and enclosed the back of the Aztec: "Thats amazing - can you make one that covers the front end too?"

Oddly, it seems that the best looking girls drive those Aztecs around here. I never noticed anything about the vehicle! The one person's beauty versus another's revulsion will never cease in the car design business, or what people wear. A museum having a car isn't a barometer of a car's beauty, either. How many times have you walked right by an undesirable car (to you) in an automobile museum? We love our Studebaker designs, but let's face it, not many people out there appreciate them as much, even with credentials. This topic has been broached often...even within the Club we can't agree on what is ugly and what is not.

raprice
12-30-2010, 12:15 PM
As a rule, I always ignore all "best" or "worst" lists. All they are are someone's subjective feelings at that moment. They mean absolutely nothing. As the saying goes, "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder."
Rog

Stude-Dude
12-30-2010, 12:38 PM
Notice there are no Toyota's on the list.....

nice catch!
dollars to doughnuts that the "author" is driving a dumb Prius, or some other Toy-ugh-la...

BobPalma
12-30-2010, 12:39 PM
I know I'll sound like a curmudgeon (which might be accurate), but these lists (both best-looking and ugliest) are really getting tiresome. They all seem to be assembled by a couple of thirty-somethings who have been given a few hours to generate some filler for their employer's web site. Knowledge of or familiarity with the subject matter does not seem to a requirement, nor does any inclination to look back farther than WWII. In other words, if they authors haven't actually seen one in person, it didn't exist.

AMEN.
(And AMEN again to fill up the ten characters required for a post.)

dictator27
12-30-2010, 12:55 PM
"A vacant, clueless expression?" Was he/she looking at the car or a mirror?

Terry

Bob Andrews
12-30-2010, 01:34 PM
As a rule, I always ignore all "best" or "worst" lists. All they are are someone's subjective feelings at that moment. They mean absolutely nothing.

Pre-zactly. (local slang)

I never get why anybody would get bothered about somebody not liking what they like:confused: We all have our own tastes, for our own reasons. I've still not fallen in love with Avanti styling myself, although I do enjoy them all the same. If others think they're the ultimate, that's great; if they think it's the worst, fine too. It doesn't hurt anyone, or affect Avanti values one way or another. The lists are just opinion, and the writer's entitled to his like everyone else. Maybe a good plan would be to work on becoming a guest columnist and writing one's own list, making the Avanti the best-ever. Might even it out, right?

As for the Aztek- that was a gutsy, radical move by GM to really open up the crossover market. They were right on with the concept- crossovers are hugely popular. The execution, well... controversial:) I've sold a bunch of them. They're one of the best-driving vehicles going if one does not mind the styling; and they're still good sellers. My current personal car is the Aztec's fat older sister, the Buick Rendezvous. Just a wonderfrul driving car, AWD, 20+ mpg. Just turned 160K and runs and drives new; just not that attractive. We'll see if it makes the 268K the 97 Park Ave it replaced. I've sold plenty of both when they were newer; this one got old enough and high enough miles that I'd drive it; I leave the bigger-buck stuff for the customers.

With Aztecs in particular, we've had customers wowed by them and customers gagged by them. So it goes with the Avanti. And most other cars for that matter;)

DudeStude
12-30-2010, 01:45 PM
Haha I actually never heard that about Edsels. I like them, Avantis, and other cars on the list. That Volvo almost looks like a chop top whichs improves the otherwise borrowing look to other Volvos which sould be on the list first.

JBOYLE
12-30-2010, 02:01 PM
Some writer needs to produce something.
Remember, most of the non-car media hate cars.
They live in New York, so they probably don't even own one...or if they do they see tham as an unsafe envirmental nightmare...combining the "exptertise" of Ralph Nader and Al Gore.

Newsweek did a feature on the "Worst Cars" and named the Model T because it was crude. I rest my case.
It also named the Ford Excusion...even though our benelovent govenment...the source of all wisdom...calls it a truck.
Freaking left-wing morons....

Gunslinger
12-30-2010, 03:10 PM
The photo is of a black '63 R2...if the photo was taken in the UK, as it's a UK site...could that car possibly be the one owned by Ian Fleming? To the best of my knowledge it's never been conclusively identified by VIN or whether it still exists. Some years back someone identified what car they believe the car is by Studebaker shipping records, but it's still an unsolved mystery.

E. Davis
12-30-2010, 03:28 PM
Dang.....I always thought the AMC pacer was kind of neat. Hee Hee Hee

StudeDave57
12-30-2010, 04:20 PM
There's a reason my Packard grins the way she does~


http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w143/StudeDave/My%20Rides/hellothere.jpg


She's never made any of these lists, you see... :rolleyes:

Jim B PEI
12-30-2010, 04:26 PM
1) I remember being shown a first ad brochure of an Aztek by my favourite multiple deal Pontiac salesman, Muncie. I said to him. "You've got to be kidding; that design is so off kilter it could drive Pontiac out of business" We laughed, and I though the specs were great, and confirmed it with a drive later, but it was so freakishly ungainly with all the lines in the wrong spots that I wouldn't have one new, especially when I learned how much an AWD one would set me back. Friend got a great (and desperate) deal on a fully loaded one that a good dealer just couldn't move. He loved it as a lease, and we all loved riding in it.
2) Corvairs in the second incarnation weren't ugly, but it was a shame the engine was in the rear when it should have been up front from 1960 onwards. What was a real shame was that front end design team communicated exclusively by telegraph in code on another planet with the the rear end design team. I would also have liked some of those hallucinogens the engineers were taking (it WAS the 60s, and I was there....I think?) when I think of the differential, the engine fan and fan belt, the carburetor linkage, and the precise and headscratchingly original and bizarre layout of the Powerglide and manual transmissions. Having had 5 of the beasts, i still like them for their charms even though I loathe their drawbacks.
3) Anyone who thinks an Ami 6 is ugly, should compare it to the Deux Chevaux it tried to replace. Why yes it is freakishly ugly, but the ugly is oh so 1960 and it at least had usable space, and was 30 years more up to date than the 2CV which was just ancient Art deco and ungainly ugly.
4) The Pacer in the UK was un-usable for the same reason that the Nissan Cube is just so wrong in North America. In each case, the car was designed specifically for the steering wheel being on the other side. For the Pacer in the UK, the long door on the right was the driver's door, and rear seat passengers were supposed to get in and out using the >>short<< door and the fold forward seat on the left. Not possible unless you were very tiny and agile. like a midget acrobat. The Cube has that nice panoramic view of the ditch--they should have reversed the wraparound rear window for sales in NA and Europe outside of the UK and Ireland, and then it would have made some sense. Some.
5) I still think that somehow FIAT has a lovely modern Multipla languishing in a museum somewhere as a one off because someone mixed up the "show car" and "production car" drawings. Ooops! The cowl looks aside, the design worked very well in real life use.

Andy R.
12-30-2010, 06:37 PM
3) Anyone who thinks an Ami 6 is ugly, should compare it to the Deux Chevaux it tried to replace. Why yes it is freakishly ugly, but the ugly is oh so 1960 and it at least had usable space, and was 30 years more up to date than the 2CV which was just ancient Art deco and ungainly ugly.

Yes, but the Deux Chevaux has CHARM. Improve its looks 100% simply by adding a picnic basket, baguette and nice bottle of Bordeaux.

There's nothing wrong with an Aztek that can't be fixed with white paint and some NASA decals...
I saw one STAR WARS fan who likes his transport:

52 Ragtop
12-30-2010, 06:50 PM
Well now THAT just does it! I haven't even finished putting my BLACK Avanti back together, and it's now one of the uglyist cars!

Hey, sweetolbob, give me a call-- nevermind, I'll just keep driving my ugly ole' Black POS! But, JP is right, you either love 'em, or hate 'em

Jim

MyStude_51
12-30-2010, 07:23 PM
I've been driving "so called" ugly cars around for years; I guess I'm used to it. The most beautiful car I ever saw when I was in my early twenties was a 1958 Edsel. I didn't know that much about it's history and it made the top ten lemon list of all time, as well as the first year Chrysler Airflow which I love. One time when I pulled up in a gas station to check my oil, someone came up to me and said they had never seen an Edsel up close before. I thought they were admiring it and I explained a few things about it, when as he walked away he declared, "But they sure are ugly." So I responded with my usual retaliation of, "well I think that all cars made within the last twenty years are ugly." By the look of his expression his car was included in my comeback. Everyone has the right to their opinion and their taste, but on the other hand everyone has the right to defend against those opinions. This post is an example of just that kind of rebuttal against what we love, and that's refreshing. If the owner can't defend their cars, who will. But now I own me a 1951 Bullet, so for now, my ugly car days are over.
Glenn

MyStude_51
12-30-2010, 07:32 PM
PS:

That Packard Hawk is a beauty!

Corvanti
12-30-2010, 08:06 PM
i miss my black '63 avanti :(

i'd take about 19 of the 25 shown anytime...

StudeDave57
12-30-2010, 08:11 PM
PS: That Packard Hawk is a beauty!
Gosh~ Cleo and I sure hope you don't mean her-
she's SO MUCH CLASSIER then any Hawk...

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w143/StudeDave/My%20Rides/60670006.jpg



StudeDave '57 :cool:

okc63avanti
12-30-2010, 08:19 PM
Here are my candidates for ugly cars .... (1) VW Thing (2) AMC Matador (3) 58 Mercury Turnpike Cruiser (4) Any sport car with aftermarket ridiculous high spoiler (5) Jackass power versus horse power rated vehicles

62496253625062526251

beatnik64
12-30-2010, 08:33 PM
Not that I think I'm saying anything new but....

THIS LIST... BULL S***

If the Avanti was so damn ugly to earn #4 why did they produce them for so long, basicly unaltered
if anything its design is timeless and out lived just about any bodystyle hands down,

as a side note I am not a avanti owner,nor do I plan on it... they are not my flavor as far as cars go, but I do not belive they are ugly. boo to that MSN writer

MyStude_51
12-30-2010, 10:56 PM
Easy on the Turnpike, that car is my dream machine. Has a big block Mercury and I love the taillights, how they extend the entire back end of the car. It's a masterpiece. Please start picking on other cars. You're hurting my feelings.
Glenn

Jett289
12-31-2010, 03:06 AM
Certainly looks like everyone agrees the Aztec should have made it on the list and been #1 . lol I would throw the Buick Rendevous on there as well. My mom had rented a Rendevous when her jeep was in the shop. I asked her what she thought of it and she said " Its a nice car but when you get out and walk away from it dont look back at it cause its butt ugly"

StudHawk60
12-31-2010, 03:18 AM
Yeah it is so ugly it has been on exhibit at the Louvre in Paris, the British Design Museum in London. the Toyota Automobile Museum in Japan and the Renwick Gallery at the Smithsonian in Washington D.C.

It's been called a rolling piece of art work ...

There's also one on display at the Auburn Cord Duesenberg museum. I wonder what the "author" of this article would say about those cars?

leyrret
12-31-2010, 04:52 AM
I don't care for the looks of an Avanti but I wouldn't call it one of the ugliest cars out there either. A 61 Plymouth is up there on my list, as is a 59 Ford. I love a 57 Mercury

63r2
12-31-2010, 05:47 AM
I never thought the Avanti was much to look at in photo's.
Then I saw one in the flesh and had to have one. I guess they aren't photogenic.
Still, name another car built in the 60's that looks like a modern car and not dated.
pb

Bob Andrews
12-31-2010, 06:09 AM
Still, name another car built in the 60's that looks like a modern car and not dated.



69 Camaro
69-70 Mustang

And to me, the Avanti does look dated; AKA retro. That's part of their charm:)

aenthal
12-31-2010, 07:05 AM
I'll take one of each of those "ugly" cars, and throw in an "ugly" 1958 Packard for good measure.
Oh, and also throw in a 25 car garage with those extra cars.

I can see them picking on the 1955 Studebaker as ugly. All that solid chrome in front of it is an acquired taste, but the Avanti?
I don't want to see what this guy thinks is pretty. The Smart for two that looks like a tennis shoe on wheels?
But his uglies include many of my favorites.

Stude-Dude
12-31-2010, 07:34 AM
69 Camaro
69-70 Mustang

And to me, the Avanti does look dated; AKA retro. That's part of their charm:)

agree...
to me, i've always thought the '53/'54 Starliner to be more "futuristic" than the Avanti...
albeit, "European" futuristic, not "American" futuristic...

JBOYLE
12-31-2010, 07:51 AM
The photo is of a black '63 R2...if the photo was taken in the UK, as it's a UK site...could that car possibly be the one owned by Ian Fleming? To the best of my knowledge it's never been conclusively identified by VIN or whether it still exists. Some years back someone identified what car they believe the car is by Studebaker shipping records, but it's still an unsolved mystery.


In the UK cars keep their registration numbers ( license plates) for life...unless a subsequent owner gets a personalized plate (VERY expensive over there since you're buying someone else's plate they were issued.)

Since his number is well known from photos, if the car was still around, we'd probably know about it.
But then again, it could have been exported after his death or it could be locked up somewhere waiting to be found.

Johnnywiffer
12-31-2010, 07:56 AM
...the Corvair should be on the list...
You might have a slight argument over THAT statement, with the thousands of members of CORSA. Might even be a couple of people on HERE that would disagree.

John

Stude-Dude
12-31-2010, 08:18 AM
You might have a slight argument over THAT statement, with the thousands of members of CORSA. Might even be a couple of people on HERE that would disagree.

John


what? i held restraint and didn't mention any of the "fish-face" Stude's...
i'm also not a fan of the Lark, but nor would i place it on an "ugliest" list (whereas i personally would any "fish-face", be it Stude or otherwise)...

like others have pointed out, "all in the eye of the beholder" :D

Bob Andrews
12-31-2010, 08:25 AM
looks like a tennis shoe on wheels?


LOL! The first Aztec we saw in person was white, and Linda said exactly that about it. Since then around here they are referred to simply as "sneaker cars":)

GTCruiser
12-31-2010, 08:28 AM
Agreed except insert Matador Sedan instead of the coupe.

clonelark
12-31-2010, 09:08 AM
Wish i knew what that author drives,There were 3 cars i like to own, Avanti, Crossfire, Hyundai Tiberon.
I'd even take the Edsel if it were a 2 dr. But like everyone else if the Pontiac Aztek isn't on the list is't not an accurate list.

sweetolbob
12-31-2010, 09:27 AM
Well!!, Has it occurred to anyone that the ADC (Aztec Drivers Club) is ripping this forum for it's comments on a car that didn't even make the list.:cool:

Bob

Johnnywiffer
12-31-2010, 11:51 AM
Corvairs are ugly? And the engine in the rear was a bad idea? Humph!

Next thing you know, someone’s gonna say the ’53-‘55 Studebaker Champion and Commander sedans were dumpy-looking because they weren’t built on the longer wheel base of the Land Cruiser and C/K.

And THEN they’re gonna pick on my Fiero.

The ’53-’55 dumpy? I always thot the sedans were lower and longer looking than other cars of the day.



http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s311/johnnywiffer/championsedan1.jpg



http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s311/johnnywiffer/0e_3.jpg


The 1st series Corvair UGLY? Well, it was chosen ‘Car of the Year’ by Motor Trend.
(Of course, they also chose the rubber-driveshaft Tempest as COY a year later.)

But then you’ve gotta say all the GM cars of ’59-‘60 were ugly because the basic lines were the same.

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s311/johnnywiffer/61monza4-door23.jpg


http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s311/johnnywiffer/belair.jpg



http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s311/johnnywiffer/60buick1.jpg


And if they were so ugly, how did it happen that sooo many other manufacturers (including BMW) copied the lines? SOMEbody musta thot they were pretty.

And if you say the 2nd series is ugly, then you’d have to say the early Camaro and Firebird were ugly because they had the same basic lines.



http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s311/johnnywiffer/blue2.jpg




http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s311/johnnywiffer/blue3.jpg


Of course, the Corvair has smoother lines, is not so ‘hippy’ and doesn’t need that long snout, so it’s more balanced.

Why was the engine in the rear? The simple answer is: Because Ed Cole said so. The cute answer is: The trunk is in the front where it belongs—ask any elephant. The REAL answer: Because VW had the engine there. So you can blame VW for the engine placement, not Corvair. They were just following the leader. And after all, it was supposed to be an ECONOMY car, right—like VW?

Hey, this guy must not have thot Corvairs were so bad. He was BURIED in his!


http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s311/johnnywiffer/casketinacorvair.jpg


And before you say ANYthing about the Fiero, you’ll have to admit it was: the 1st mid-engine car by a major American manufacturer, only the 2nd non-metal body by the same and really a beautiful car.



http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s311/johnnywiffer/87silver7a.jpg




http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s311/johnnywiffer/desktop1.jpg


HA! These were all revolutionary cars because they were designed that way.

Next?

John

sbca96
12-31-2010, 01:50 PM
Notice there are no Toyota's on the list.....

Its hard to take pictures of a MOVING target, maybe if they could STOP ...... ;)

Tom

okc63avanti
12-31-2010, 02:56 PM
OK ... Here's a new candidate for Butt Ugly .... only I can't figure out what kind of car is underneath this custom exterior ...

http://i429.photobucket.com/albums/qq16/okc63avanti/MISC/buttugly.jpg

PlainBrownR2
12-31-2010, 06:05 PM
Corvairs are ugly? And the engine in the rear was a bad idea? Humph!

Next thing you know, someone’s gonna say the ’53-‘55 Studebaker Champion and Commander sedans were dumpy-looking because they weren’t built on the longer wheel base of the Land Cruiser and C/K.

And THEN they’re gonna pick on my Fiero.

The ’53-’55 dumpy? I always thot the sedans were lower and longer looking than other cars of the day.


Lest we also forget that the rear engine has been a staple for Porsche, who for all these years have built there cars off of an evolutionary car model. We also can't forget the supercars, who also for the majority of them are rear engine design as well. The reasoning these guys used a rear engine setup was that the weight of the engine was over the driving axles on the car, like a permanent sand weenie over the rear axle. It took the weight and shifted it to the back, making the vehicle more maneuverable(and a little more twitchy), than having the engine up in the front.
As an addendum the Bulletnoses were meant to have a rear engine, but the cost to change over from a front engine to a rear engine in those cars was a bit more than Studebaker was willing to spend, so the trunk just "increased in size" in those cars.

8E45E
12-31-2010, 09:02 PM
One BIG factor that can make or break a good design is exterior color. Jonquil yellow looks good on a 1960 convertible, or Coraltone and Shasta white on a '55 really typifies the era, but try and picture either of those colors on a beautiful 1964 G.T. Hawk! Yeecch! I believe colors can make or break a car's good design, or it can work to great effect and disguise a 'bad' design.

Craig

Johnnywiffer
12-31-2010, 09:37 PM
...As an addendum the Bulletnoses were meant to have a rear engine, but the cost to change over from a front engine to a rear engine in those cars was a bit more than Studebaker was willing to spend, so the trunk just "increased in size" in those cars...Interesting tidbit. So the '50-'51 had a larger trunk than the previous or subsequent models of that body style? Interesting....:cool:

John

PlainBrownR2
12-31-2010, 09:44 PM
....or so I was told, lol. What had happened was, it was on the table to put a rear mounted engine in those cars, and the design of the car was already in place with the extra space to accomodate the engine in the rear. It would take some money and retooling to put the engine in the rear, so Studebaker decided not to spend the money to do the conversion. However, they didn't want to go about changing back the design of the car in the rear, so the rear of the car just got a large trunk area instead.

Johnnywiffer
01-01-2011, 06:43 AM
For some reason, I thot the trunks '47-'52 were all the same...silly me!

John

Stude Rookie
01-01-2011, 01:26 PM
It would seem that car manufacturers figured out a long time ago that the car buying public would buy anything that was described as cute, versatile , practical, or cutting edge no matter how ugly it is now, or was back in the day. I refer to the freshly designed "Milk Delivery Trucks" of today and the " Somebody's Nightmare Grilles " of yesteryear. When it comes to old ugly, no matter what vehicle, I for one truly appreciate the time and effort the owner has put into bringing it back to life. As for new ugly, only time will diminish the pain that it brings to my tired old eyes.
Stude Rookie

supersix
01-01-2011, 04:31 PM
Ridiculous. Some were concept cars or so obscure that no one has ever seen one anyway and I never thought the Avanti or Mustang II fastback was a bad looking car.

Bill Pressler
01-01-2011, 04:38 PM
Hey John, re.: that light brown '60 or '61 Corvair Monza sedan you pictured:

In the Corvair club, has there been any discussion that you're aware of, about how from '61 to '62 (I believe), Chevrolet moved the horizontal part of that Monza emblem on the front fender, waaayyyyy down on the vertical part of the emblem? I always thought the original emblem (as you pictured) had a very religious look, connotation, whatever, to it and somebody thought to change it, simply, for that reason.

4961Studebaker
01-02-2011, 11:06 AM
One BIG factor that can make or break a good design is exterior color. Jonquil yellow looks good on a 1960 convertible, or Coraltone and Shasta white on a '55 really typifies the era, but try and picture either of those colors on a beautiful 1964 G.T. Hawk! Yeecch! I believe colors can make or break a car's good design, or it can work to great effect and disguise a 'bad' design.

Craig


Firm believer in this as well.

my guess to the pink marshmellow.........something european : ) license plate

sbca96
01-02-2011, 05:19 PM
Interesting tidbit. So the '50-'51 had a larger trunk than the previous or subsequent models of that body style? Interesting....:cool:
John

I recall reading some publication from back in the day list the trunk space of the all new
1956 Hawk bodys as being increased over the swooped lid of 53-55. This was untrue
as the internal spider was unchanged. Also the '62 GT Hawk was listed as having more
headroom than previous years due to the roof redesign, but I believe that was opposite
and the earlier cars actually had more rear seat headroom.

Tom

Johnnywiffer
01-04-2011, 07:10 AM
Hey John, re.: that light brown '60 or '61 Corvair Monza sedan you pictured:

In the Corvair club, has there been any discussion that you're aware of, about how from '61 to '62 (I believe), Chevrolet moved the horizontal part of that Monza emblem on the front fender, waaayyyyy down on the vertical part of the emblem? I always thought the original emblem (as you pictured) had a very religious look, connotation, whatever, to it and somebody thought to change it, simply, for that reason.
You’re speaking of this ‘61 “Monza Cross”…

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s311/johnnywiffer/61emblem.jpg

compared to THIS ’66-‘69?

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s311/johnnywiffer/66-69emblem.jpg

I have never heard why there was a difference in the “Monza Cross”, year to year. While I have to agree the original looks a little like the Christian cross, I’m thinking the change was only that--just for the sake of change. But they did use the later one for 4 years, compared to 1-2 years for the others.

I’ve always thot the ’62-’64 Spyder turbo emblem was an outstandingly well thought-out design.

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s311/johnnywiffer/62-64turbo.jpg

But notice that on the ’66, they reversed the direction of the arrows.

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s311/johnnywiffer/66turbo.jpg

Why? I guess you’ll have to ask the designers.

John

sweetolbob
01-04-2011, 08:43 AM
Those were on the ones sent to South America and Oz.

Bob