We are living in THE ugliest period in automobile history

Rick · June 7, 2006, 5:26am

Dude, put down the rice and step away from the keyboard.
The Fast and the Furious was not a documentary.
Ask the McLaren Can-Am team what happens when somebody shows up with oh say 30% more horsepower.
Or better yet google Porsche 917 + Can-Am and read what happens when there is 30%+ difference.
And you claim that your car can overcome a 100% difference in horsepower?

anamnesis · June 7, 2006, 6:22am

This whole side conversation, irrelevant as it is to the topic, is very funny. Hilarious post, Rick. I just love it when people try to argue over the specific torque output of Japanese four-bangers vs. precision-tuned German inlines … and yes, this is coming from someone who has a 2.3L Mazda3 who would really like to upgrade to the new Mazdaspeed3, so it’s not like you’re not talking to someone who disagrees with your taste, E-Sabbath. I’d be more inclined to trade up to it this fall if they were offering it as a sedan, but they won’t.

I can keep up with my buddy’s BMW 740i up to around 70mph but after that, any benefit I had from the lower vehicle weight disappears as his Autobahn stormer leaves me in the dust. Sure, if I had the Mazdaspeed3, it would be a different story because that thing will redefine sport compacts, but anybody who races against a slightly tuned up four-cylinder compact car using a BMW M3 and loses is either an idiot or isn’t racing you. I’ve been behind the wheel of every M3 that’s been made, and I assure you that there are no four-cylinder cars that can touch the current one, provided that’s the one you’re referring to. My Mazda is lighter than a Matrix, and has a much larger engine. You say it’s “all about tires and knowing your limits” … well I’m riding on 225/40/18 BF Goodrich KDW2 performance summer tires and I know that my limits do not encompass the realm of dusting M3s. You have 120 ft lbs of torque. If you think you’re winning, it’s because they’re letting you win or they aren’t racing, not because they aren’t taking turns at an optimum speed or the sweet spot of the M3’s engine isn’t as wide or peaky as yours. It surpasses yours in every way possible just as it does mine. Using the excuse that the driver of a better-performing vehicle doesn’t push it to the limit just to prove something to you is essentially saying “I win the race because you didn’t race”.

Have you ever driven an M3? My guess is no because if you had, you’d understand and respect what it’s capable of instead of attempting to convince people who know better that your 150hp Toyota is consistently shutting them down. I guess the new E90 M3 will be able to at least keep up with you on the twisties now that it’s getting a 400hp V8, right? :rolleyes:

Dervorin · June 7, 2006, 8:08am

I’m not sure if anyone has posted this link, which is the Ugly Car nominations from cartalk.com - makes for amusing reading. I particularly like the Toyota Scion xB - I’m getting me one of those!

Argent_Towers · June 7, 2006, 8:13am

anamnesis you’re right, the Santa Fe looks horrible. The Armada looks overly bulky, but there’s another thing - I personally don’t think that SUVs should have too many curves. Ruggedness and sleekness should not be mixed. One or the other, I say. An SUV should have straight lines, which is why I think the new Suburban looks so horrible, it has way too many curves and rounded corners and edges. This makes it more mini-van like.

Perhaps you have read the excellent book “High and Mighty” which among other things provides a short history of the SUV in America beginning with the Willys Jeep and the Suburban and ending up at the H2. The author makes a very astute point about minivans, which is that they resemble a womb. The minivan turned on its rear and stood vertically resembles a pregnant woman in a floor legnth dress. The curves of the minivan suggest femininity. The H2 (which I think is a horrible, ugly design, but which is undeniably popular among SUVs) has very strong straight lines. Its ancestor, the much more rugged looking H1, is more angular still. It looks purpose-built, military, and masculine. The mid 90s had some of the best SUVs, I think. The Ford Bronco, 2-door Chevy K5 Blazer (Yukon GT/Tahoe), the older 4Runners, the boxy kind of Suburbans and Tahoes like the one Tony Soprano drives - these were good SUVs because they emphasized the utility part. The ones now no longer do this.

E-Sabbath · June 7, 2006, 10:37am

Once again, while I understand your point, it remains counter to fact.

Who_me_1 · June 7, 2006, 10:53am

The fact is, if you’re beating people driving M3’s in your car… it’s you beating bad drivers, not your car beating M3’s. You even said that…

I’m sorry that says nothing about the cars, only the crappy drivers. Good drivers in lousy cars (no, I’m not saying your car is crappy) can beat bad drivers in good cars over a road course. If you want to compare that cars themselves you either need drivers of comparable skill of a long straight track.

Who_me_1 · June 7, 2006, 11:01am

Damn… I mean OR a long straight track.

E-Sabbath · June 7, 2006, 3:15pm

By the way, I hope people like the pics. Took 'em myself at NYIAS 06 before the public entered. There’s one historical oddity there… can anyone see it? It’s one of the two-shot pics.

Well, as I said, I have good tires, good suspension, and I’m being accurate about the horsepower… that’s at the front wheels. Toyota tuned the engine back, I think, because of the 13.5 PSI compression being insane. I admit there’s the Celica GT-S’s headers in it and a replaced cat-back exhaust. It sounds flatter, but I wanted a q-ship. (Decided against cold air flow filter because of the chance of FOD by water. Call me superstitious, but I don’t like it. It’s cheap, but…)
Anyhow, the thing is, with all these really fascinating design variants, how can things be that bad? There’s got to be something out there for you. Even if it is a Pontiac GTO. (God, I hate that arrowhead grille and jellybean-descendant design.)

E-Sabbath · June 7, 2006, 3:28pm

Argent Towers: Personally, I always found the SUV to be a return to the prototypical 1940 Ford Sedan.
http://www.seriouswheels.com/1940-1949/1940-Ford-Sedan-V-8-Black.htm
It’s that era that gave us modern proportions and sensibilities, the engine/passenger/trunk division. We can see the inheritance even today. Put it up against a modern Jeep Grand Cherokee…
http://www.seriouswheels.com/2005/2005-Jeep-Grand-Cherokee-Startech-FA-1600x1200.htm
and you can see what I mean. It’s a ‘natural’ size for a car, and a snapback from the anemic catalyst-shrunken 80s cars.

Who_me_1 · June 7, 2006, 3:47pm

I don’t really care for much in the way of American cars… even though I own a Pontiac G6 GT. I got it because it has 4 doors which I needed and room for a tassel of kids. It’s sorta, kinda sporty… but not what I’d call immensely fun to drive. I love stick shifts, but I was instructed by a woman that could make my life miserable that I needed an automatic… so that’s what I got…

If I had the choice of any car that I wanted to buy, without needing passenger or trunk space… maybe I’d get an Audi TT or a Nissan 350Z… but alas…

I do love the Lotus cars, but since I’m closing in on 50… I think I’d look ridiculous. I’d rather have my mid-life crisis in a more dignified manner.

Pushkin · June 7, 2006, 3:54pm

Sorry, but this looks like a customised Mustang gone wrong. Picking on the post (and not the poster) I can see a kind of spent look to the car, all the muscle has gone and there’s not much underneath.

You can go through any decade and pick out horrendous car designs and quite nice ones. From the decade that gave us the Triumph Stag and Triumph Dolomite, we also have the Austin Allegro and the Morris Marina.

I can appreciate the modern lines of new Audis, the Pagani Zonda is a supercar that creates almost as much of a stir as a Lamborghini Miura, the new Honda Civic is a fantastic looking family hatch, I could go on.

E-Sabbath · June 7, 2006, 3:59pm

Oh, what’s that British thing that’s more sick and twisted than a Caterham/Lotus 7? I keep thinking Avril Arrow. I know that’s wrong.

Anyhow, the 350 shares the same chassis as Nissan’s SUV, and the Audi TT has that Golf IV chassis. Both have their strong points, but the 350 is amazingly heavy for a sports car, and that’s why.

Dignified mid life crisis. Sounds like a sports wagon to me… you catch the recent For Better or For Worse?

enipla · June 7, 2006, 4:26pm

Are you sure? What did they use, the Xtera?

I just purchased a new PathFinder to replace my '93. Love it. Just the right size for me. Like others here, I’m more concerned with function over form. But, for the most part I like the looks of it. It’s just different enough, but not two weird like the Aztec or the Armada.

Who_me_1 · June 7, 2006, 4:47pm

Well, my mid-life doesn’t need to really be dignified so much as not totally embarrassing. The Lotus cars are for younger people than I and I can’t afford a real sports cars that will give me the performance I’d really like. The 350’s FM chassis is the same chassis as the Infiniti FX SUV… not the Nissan, but it is also the same chassis as the Nissan Skyline. It is heavy, but the review are good.

And Sport Wagons may be in my future… just for necessity, but getting an automatic one is a waste of fun.

I think I have to teach someone to like to drive a stick…

Who_me_1 · June 7, 2006, 5:07pm

Are you talking about the Ariel Atom?

galt · June 7, 2006, 5:44pm

[assuming you’re talking to me; correct me if I’m wrong]I’m not sure where you’re getting all that. 70s retro is great in my book. I don’t necessarily follow your designations like “EuroRetro”, but let’s take a few examples: Current-gen Mustangs: great looking cars. Late 60’s, very early 70’s muscle cars: awesome. The new stuff Chrysler is doing (crossfire, magnum, 300C, etc): great stuff. Mazda Rx-7 / later generation Miata: gorgeous. Anything “passenger-ish” from Mazda: horrible. (incidentally, the Rx-8 is merely ok). 350Z: boner city (although I don’t like the convertible)

I definitely would tell you no such thing. Here’s my gut reaction to all those:

Rick · June 7, 2006, 5:47pm

Oh and E-Sabbath before you tell us how your Toyota is as fast as the Atom, you might want to take a gander at the Top Gear lap time chart . The atom is the 4th fastest car they have ever taken around the track. FYI the M3 is #32. There are no Toyotas in the top 72 cars listed.

Who_me_1 · June 7, 2006, 5:57pm

Incorrect… you’re looking at the old lap board. The Atom is now 5th after the Koenigsegg CCX (With Top Gear spoiler) blitzed the best time the week before last.

Rick · June 7, 2006, 10:15pm

:smack: That’s what I get for just doing a quick google.
The Koenigsegg CCX is further proof that Swedes are crazy. I saw the clip from the first time they drove it and had the off course excursion.
Looks like the wing really helps.

Argent_Towers · June 7, 2006, 10:47pm

Alright, so we’ve now confirmed that the 1971 Mustang Mach 1 is an ugly, tacky, white-trash, redneck, immature, horrendously-designed piece of shit. Fine. I still like it. That doesn’t change the fact that I also like the 69 Mustang, the 65 Mustang, classic GTOs and Challengers and Olds Cutlasses, TVRs, and a whole host of other cars which most car people agree are well-designed.

So many cars today are just so bulky. All these huge flared-out fenders, for instance. They’re obnoxious. Nobody has yet addressed the issue of the obscenely gigantic logos and the fact that the chrome bars over the grilles are ridiculously thick and chunky looking. Cars have gone for decades without huge thick door handles, why do we need them now? What does all this add to the design of a car? Something can’t be sleek and bulky at the same time, it’s a contradiction. The old classics that I’ve mentioned above are sleek looking, they’re not so humpy-looking - that hump-backed look of the passenger compartment of the new Mustang just detracts so much, as does the fact that the front end seems needlessly short. I don’t know, I can’t see the beauty in these new Mustangs.

Topic		Replies	Views
OK then - what's the most beautiful car (all time)? In My Humble Opinion	60	2399	July 27, 2001
Prettiest car ever made? In My Humble Opinion	107	3885	December 25, 2003
Ugly ugly cars! In My Humble Opinion	88	7115	October 6, 2004
Do modern cars have character? In My Humble Opinion	36	7272	October 29, 2008
Who makes the best looking car? In My Humble Opinion	47	2015	April 26, 2001

We are living in THE ugliest period in automobile history

Related topics