: Three awful cars.



Jesda
02-28-11, 08:20 PM
http://jesda.com/2011/02/28/three-awful-cars/

I know there's a lot of malaise-era enthusiasts on the forum. Here's three.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ob6JHimnKeM

Its baffling that GM would put a four door vehicle on the market with rear windows that don’t go down… at all! Diplomat scores points for offering more standard equipment and at least being durable enough for police and fleet use. Diplomat and Monaco M-bodies had a long lifespan, from 1977 to 1989.

http://jesda.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/dodge_diplomat_medallion_brown_1978.jpg
Admittedly, Diplomat was not the worst looking car in the world. With clean lines, a tasteful hood ornament, padded vinyl roof, wire wheel covers, and Cadillac-like headlamps, it pretended to be upscale.


http://jesda.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/olds_cutlass_salon_brougham_4_door.jpg
Nothing redeeming here. A fastback, yes. Fast, no. Oldsmobile’s attempt at European design was a failure.


http://jesda.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/ford-granada-ad-2.jpg
Ford was betting on the ignorance of its customers, and it worked. They found more than two million idiots.


I admit, I’m being a bit harsh. You have to evaluate these cars in the context of their time. We may look back on the Camry in 30 years and wonder what the hell we were thinking.


For those of you who were alive back then, did they seem as awful as they seem now?

ga_etc
02-28-11, 08:44 PM
Ford seriously thought the Granada looked like a Benz? Best drugs, in the world, EVAR.

Stric9
02-28-11, 08:44 PM
Heh, Heh, Heh
A friends Mom had the diplomat (maroon). It was not that bad of a car. It would start getting that "floaty" ride about 90 mph. I think it had a 318 2V under the hood.
I also knew a chick that had the Olds 4 door (same color). The styling (both her and the car) were considered "sub par" back then.
I hit it anyway... LMAO

Fleet
02-28-11, 10:26 PM
Ford seriously thought the Granada looked like a Benz? Best drugs, in the world, EVAR.
I always wondered why Ford would want their cars to look like Mercedes. Cadillacs, I can see, but not Mercedes with their boxy and bland styling.

Destroyer
02-28-11, 10:34 PM
http://jesda.com/2011/02/28/three-awful-cars/

I know there's a lot of malaise-era enthusiasts on the forum. Here's three.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ob6JHimnKeM

Its baffling that GM would put a four door vehicle on the market with rear windows that don’t go down… at all! Diplomat scores points for offering more standard equipment and at least being durable enough for police and fleet use. Diplomat and Monaco M-bodies had a long lifespan, from 1977 to 1989.

http://jesda.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/dodge_diplomat_medallion_brown_1978.jpg
Admittedly, Diplomat was not the worst looking car in the world. With clean lines, a tasteful hood ornament, padded vinyl roof, wire wheel covers, and Cadillac-like headlamps, it pretended to be upscale.


http://jesda.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/olds_cutlass_salon_brougham_4_door.jpg
Nothing redeeming here. A fastback, yes. Fast, no. Oldsmobile’s attempt at European design was a failure.


http://jesda.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/ford-granada-ad-2.jpg
Ford was betting on the ignorance of its customers, and it worked. They found more than two million idiots.


I admit, I’m being a bit harsh. You have to evaluate these cars in the context of their time. We may look back on the Camry in 30 years and wonder what the hell we were thinking.


For those of you who were alive back then, did they seem as awful as they seem now?They were all decent cars back then. I remember in '76 my uncle bought a Granada and wrecked shortly thereafter. He then bought a '78 LTD. I think you picked the wrong batch of cars to pick on. These are not sought after cars but they are all pretty cool, somewhat. :thumbsup:

Rusty058
02-28-11, 11:55 PM
HEY! One of those idiots was me,used to own a Mercury Monarch which I believe WAS a Granada.There was nothing worse than a Chevy Chevette or Ford Aspire imho,both of which I have driven.

Playdrv4me
03-01-11, 12:23 AM
With the exception of that hatchbacked atrocity, none of those offends my senses even half as much as this pile:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4a/1982-1983_Buick_LeSabre_--_11-25-2009.jpg/800px-1982-1983_Buick_LeSabre_--_11-25-2009.jpg

It's amazing how many vomit inducing cars were produced from roughly the same platform that also produced the fantastic Fleetwood.

Jesda
03-01-11, 12:39 AM
They were all decent cars back then. I remember in '76 my uncle bought a Granada and wrecked shortly thereafter. He then bought a '78 LTD. I think you picked the wrong batch of cars to pick on. These are not sought after cars but they are all pretty cool, somewhat. :thumbsup:

You had me until "cool, somewhat"

orconn
03-01-11, 12:45 AM
I ques you had to be there! In 1978 the handwriting was on the wall as far as the huge land cruisers of the previous decade were concerned. GM had already downsized and greatly improved the build quality of their full size cars. Ford was trying to catchup and Chrysler had had a success with the Cordoba and the Volares. The shock of the "Gas Crisis" of 1973 was still a recent memory.

In 1978 Chrysler brought out there attempt at mid sized, mid-market cars with the introduction of the Dodge Diplomat/ Chrysler LeBaron, not quite as "luxurious" as the Cordoba, but certainly upmarket from the the entry level Volare. Ford also was trying to stay abreast of the market and there mid sized Monarch/Granada were definitely a step up from what Ford had been offering in this market niche.

The Europeans were offering underpowered, over priced (in the case of BMW and Mercedes cars that really weren't suitable for American driving conditions. The powerful European cars were in a completely different price range than the American middle class family could afford, the European cars that were affordable were slow and had reputations for being prone to electrical problems. Japanese had come into there own as small economy cars, but really were suitable for Americans families needing passenger and trunk space, not to mention cars capable of eating up the long distances of the Midwest.

Against this backdrop, and expecting the arrival of a new child in the family, I ditched my wife's 1978 Pontiac Firebird Esprit with a 350 V-8 for a 1978 Dodge Diplomat wagon. The Diplomat was a nice size and decent looking, and could accommodate a stroller, playpen and numerous other trappings of a baby passenger. The Diplomat wagon was white with vinyl wood grain side appliqué, with a nice roof rack, Corintian leather seating ( exactly as shown in the film clip) and a 360 V-8 (which was not available on any other comparatively sized wagon at that time). To be honest "Dudley Dooright" the Dodge was a decent car for its time and purpose. Never had any trouble with it and after 21/2 years of baby hauling duty, when playpens were no longer needed I sold it to my best friend who drove it back to Pennsylvania from California and used it for another ten years, and it was replaced with a Peugeot 505S (which turned out to be my wife's all time favorite car).

So when passing judgment on these transitional cars of late seventies you really have to take into account the time and what was available and affordable in the marketplace at the time. Yes there were Sevilles, Jag XJ6s, Mercedes 450SEs and ,thank God the full sized GM cars, but most middle class families needed nice but economical transportation to better cope with the new reality of high fuel prices.

So, you really had to be there!

I~LUV~Caddys8792
03-01-11, 12:49 AM
It's amazing how many vomit inducing cars were produced from roughly the same platform that also produced the fantastic Fleetwood.

I hate everything about that statement.


The three cars discussed in this topic do not interest me at all. In all reality, the '70s cars sucked, aside from the early '70s muscle cars and the luxury cars which I love so much. Most everything else was ugly, underpowered, rust prone and just plain weird.

Playdrv4me
03-01-11, 12:59 AM
I hate everything about that statement.

That's because you like cars that look like this...

http://static.cargurus.com/images/site/2008/02/09/23/10/1982_oldsmobile_ninety-eight-pic-47641.jpeg

:tease:

(Side note... Why would you even MAKE a CarDomain page for that?)

drewsdeville
03-01-11, 01:04 AM
http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/20/putin-medvedev-laughing.jpg

ga_etc
03-01-11, 01:08 AM
Drew thinks it's funny because that's secretly his old car... :p

drewsdeville
03-01-11, 01:09 AM
Drew thinks it's funny because that's secretly his old car... :p

Close, but wrong color and too little rust!

The difference is I don't seek them out, I just accept them as hand-me-downs :)

I~LUV~Caddys8792
03-01-11, 01:10 AM
No, that's nicer than his old car. He only had the Eighty Eight, that's the Ninety Eight!

orconn
03-01-11, 01:13 AM
http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/20/putin-medvedev-laughing.jpg

Bolshemoi! Even this pair would rather drive a Cadillac! Especially a Northstar!

ga_etc
03-01-11, 01:41 AM
Close, but wrong color and too little rust!

The difference is I don't seek them out, I just accept them as hand-me-downs :)


No, that's nicer than his old car. He only had the Eighty Eight, that's the Ninety Eight!

I wasn't being an ass, I was just picking on him. As a hand me down or an under-a-grand-beater, I would drive it and not feel ashamed.

77CDV
03-01-11, 02:37 AM
Orconn has it right. The three cars in question were pretty average for standard family transportation at the time. Americans still wanted the room and comfort of the old land yachts, but they also wanted better fuel economy, with the 1973 OPEC embargo of just a few years earlier still on everyone's mind. I remember seeing all three of those cars (and their corporate stablemates) everywhere when I was small. It was like seeing Camrys and Accords for the children of the 90s. They were just there. Nothing special, nothing offensive, just stuff people drove to get them around.

Ian, what's your beef with the 77-84 GM B bodies? They weren't anything to write home about, but they were solid full-sized family cars for their time.

Playdrv4me
03-01-11, 03:30 AM
Ian, what's your beef with the 77-84 GM B bodies? They weren't anything to write home about, but they were solid full-sized family cars for their time.

I have no beef with their transportation abilities or any problem with their reliability. These are some of the most robust, reliable and easy to work on cars in GM's recent history, especially because they are simple RWD construction. Unfortunately, they are also some of the least inspiring, most depressing and in some cases downright hideous "bag em and tag em get it sold" designs. Not classics like what was produced in the 50s and 60s, and not sufficiently modern or interesting. With few exceptions (Fleetwood and b body Caprice) they're just ugly cars. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but outside of enthusiast places like this forum, I don't know many people that would choose to drive that LeSabre I posted unless it was a necessity, as with any of us when we need a car.

Later on in the 90's the Fleetwood continued to be the looker along with the RM Wagons that have kind of grown on me, but I can't stand the turtle Caprice which amusingly, ruined the clean squared off lines of its predecessor.

I would go so far as to say that I prefer the little (non Cadillac) Buicks that came at the end of the '80s to the b bodies. I do like certain cars of this period, don't get me wrong... such as the Regal, Grand National and GNx, Monte Carlos and such. I just find those b bodies (and things like the St. Regis, I'm an equal opportunity hater) hideous... sorry.

gdwriter
03-01-11, 06:16 PM
I don't care for the 1980 restyling of the GM B, C and D-bodies. The rooflines were upright and the Electra, Ninety-Eight and DeVille/Fleetwood looked especially bloated. Plus, after the second gas panic of 1979, you were stuck with small-displacement engines or self-destructing diesels. But I love the GM's downsized 77-79 full-size cars. I wouldn't kick any of them out of my garage, but a '78 DeVille d'Elegance or a '77 Impala coupe with a 350 and F-41 suspension would be my favorites.

Aron9000
03-02-11, 03:11 AM
^That's funny because I think the Cadillac, Olds, and Buick look much better after their 1980 restyle. The 77-79 Caprice/Impala coupe was really a looker with its wraparound rear glass though, one of the few products of the late 70's I'd actually plunk my own $$$ down to own.

drewsdeville
03-03-11, 01:03 AM
Funny we were just discussing these pigs, one popped up on craigslist tonight:

http://madison.craigslist.org/cto/2229156550.html

ga_etc
03-03-11, 01:29 AM
Not happening for the price, and not real big on the red interior, but it's a damn sharp car.

Playdrv4me
03-03-11, 02:21 AM
lol 5 grand lol.

Jesda
03-03-11, 08:28 AM
its got wheelwrapz yo

I~LUV~Caddys8792
03-03-11, 09:39 AM
Funny we were just discussing these pigs, one popped up on craigslist tonight:

http://madison.craigslist.org/cto/2229156550.html

That's gorgeous. I'd rock that, but not at that price.

DouglasJRizzo
03-03-11, 10:25 AM
You have to understand the dynamics of the time. Change was in the air and it was tough for ALL the car makers. In the late 70s GM was downsizing the fullsize and midsize lines, and while the fullsized cars met with tremendous success, the midsized cars less so, the bustle backed cars just didn't look right and the 231 2bbl carbed V-6 in most of them was very tame.

Ford had it's big cars right up thru the end of 78 and sold every one. Their midsized "LTD II" line was an "ok" seller but the name badging was confusing and people weren't quite sure what to expect. The Granada gets panned today, but at the time was one of the best choices you could make. It was reasonably well built, roomy enough, and while the ads were cornball, it was a hit. They sold A LOT of those things and you could option it in a zillion different ways.

Chrysler had a mixed bag. The midsized Aspen/Volare was "ok" also and the LeBaron/Diplomat came off quite well. But Chrysler was plagued with a bad rap for QC and while many of their cars were built pretty good, the dealer body was less than responsive at fixing things.

The Japanese had small cars down pretty good although, interestingly, their QC was not up to "Japanese Standards" like it is now. Hondas and such were notorious rusters. Toyotas were well known for blowing up engines and transmissions. Nissan (then called Datsun) was known for having paint jobs that lasted no more than 2-3 years tops before wiping out and rusting.

European cars were not the vaunted signs of perfection that people think they are. BMW's had paint/corrosion problems and were very austere inside. The low line MB's were very stark inside as well and more expensive than they should've been. French and Italian cars were too delicate and finicky. Even the Germans were known for electrical gremlins and assorted maladies.

Big cars in the 70s sense were becoming pariahs in the face of oil crunches and the unrest in Iran (it fell in 79 and there went a HUGE source of oil for the US), and even the midsized cars were looking too big. The automakers were in flux. They had to shift emphasis from BIG stuff to much smaller than what they were accustomed to building. It took time, plain and simple. And many ideas were tried and cast aside before they found things that worked.

Really, looking back, it's a wonder the Diplomat/LeBaron, Granada/Monarch and GM "G" bodies did as well as they did. Times were NOT good for automakers.

stmbtwilli
03-03-11, 05:19 PM
I look at the Camry now and wonder what the hell they are thinking. Talk about soul sucking.