The best-looking cars were made in the 1920s.
And that’s why cars in the 80s were boxy? 
D’OH, you’re right, it was Ghia.
Pinanfarina was on my Fiat 124.
Oops.
That is a matter of taste. The best looking cars, in my opinion were custom bodies on the Duesenberg J chassis, with the outboard exhaust pipes. 1929 to 1936
Word!
Have those silly wings gone away yet?
“Aerodynamics are for people who can’t build engines.” -Enzo Ferrari
I wonder if the sheer amount of plastic in modern automobiles has influenced a more wavy design. Plastic injection molding is the opposite of steel stamping in that it is not easy to make sharp angles. It tends to create brittle spots and I believe flow issues.
I had a 924 in the '80s. I think you could say Porsche ‘held the line on curves’ with the 924 just as much as they did with the 928. As far as ‘succumbing a bit’ with the 944, the flared fenders blended quite well. I wouldn’t call it ‘boxy’ at all. The only thing wrong with the 924/944 was that it wasn’t sold as an Audi.
Some good designs came out of the 80s. I’m still found of Jeep XJs, which had the aerodynamics of a brick but one of the best engines ever made and can beat out 90% of the modern stuff off-road. It’s hard to find an “SUV” now that isn’t a restyled car with about the same capabilties.
Yep. I bought my '99 XJ because it was truck-like.
Compared to the Cube?
But really, yes I remember that and the transition to what I first called the bubble butt cars, from sharp lines to more globular shapes, particularly in the rear (hence the term bubble butt), It was a obvious style change and took me quite a bit to get used to.
But to be that’s all it ever was, a style change.
The main thing wrong with the 944 was that an engine rebuild exceeded the value of the car.
“Sport Utility Vehicle” originated as a designation of primarily road-going trucklets not intended for the heavy uses of pickups and 4x4s. You may as well be complaining that sports cars don’t play baseball well, or economy cars don’t come with Alan Greenspan. 
IIRC, the 924/944 engine was based on the Audi 100’s slant-four. So the same argument could be made of the Audi.
As a car, the 924/944 were very good. Their weight distribution was just about 50/50, so they handled very well. They were as reliable as an Audi. IMO, they suffered from the Lucas-like electrical system of the VWs of the '70s and '80s. But they looked good, handled well, were somewhat fast for their displacement, and were a lot of fun to drive. (Of course my 911 was in another class entirely.)
See, I never saw that - I owned a same year 911, 944 and 928, and I much preferred the latter two. Porsche should be flat-out ashamed of using the 915 tranmission in the 911 for as long as they did. The 911SC I had was fun, but the 944 was fun, predictable, comfortable, and had great storage space.
As far as rebuild cost: 1) they need engine rebuild much less often than 911s and 2) they’re no more expensive; can’t blame the car for the fact the 911’s cult following keeps values up. And newsflash - the 996/986 will be in the same boat soon.
My feeling is Porsche does their best work on the entry-level models - 914, 944, 986/7, and since I’m down to just one car I’m considering selling the 987 for a 944S2 or 968 coupe.
My understanding was that the 924 was pretty much an Audi designed by Porsche, and the 944 was significantly redesigned to be more “real Porsche.” The 924 engine was common to Audi sedans, and the 944 engine was essentially half a 928 V8 - all from memory, I will accept corrections from Porschephiliacs.
But it’s pretty much a standard that a 944 with a bad engine is a parts car. The cost of a proper rebuild significantly exceeds the value of the car. Last time I looked, you could get a good driver 944 in the $12k range, and a rebuild could easily run $15k or more. Certainly modern Porsches as a whole are fearsomely expensive on major maintenance and repair, but the 944 is the only one with such an upside-down valuation on a rebuild.
The 914 with 4 cylinder faces the same problem, and there’s rust to deal with. It’s just that with that model, people stuff in a different engine (VW, chevy, larger Porsche engine) and move on.
The 944’s contemporary the 928 is in the same boat for all but a few models - only the last S4s cost more to buy than a rebuild, and like the 944 I’ve doubts about it being easy to find someone that knows what they’re doing. That said, both engines can do crazy miles if properly maintained - my 944 had 135k when I bought it and ran like a champ. People worried about rebuilds because of the timing belts, but keep them changed and you’re good. I’ve heard 100x more people that never owned a 944 worry about the cost of engine and transmission rebuilds than I’ve heard need them.
The early 986 Boxster is already less to buy than a new engine would run you, which is why the IMS/RMS issues are so harped on. Early 996 values are getting there, squeezed by cheap later cars and pricier but more desirable older aircooled ones.
I stand corrected on the 944 engine. As I said, my first Porsche was a 924.
IIRC, the 924 was supposed to be a VW, but for some reason that division didn’t want it. So they considered making it an Audi. Then someone realized they could make more money on it if they badged it as a Porsche. I think the original thought was to make it a VW, because Porsche 914s were sold as VWs in Europe. I could be wrong.
In any case, to bring it back to the thread, The 924/944 was a '70s/'80s car that wasn’t boxy.
It’s too late, too late I tell ya, to drag relevance back into the thread.
I do recall a comment - probably from a *Car and Driver *article - related to Ford’s rather sudden rounding-off of their cars around 1982-3. The quote was from a GM style manager who sniffed, “We aren’t going to go from boxes to jellybeans in one model year.”
Of course not, not when they can do it in several 2-year iterations that accelerate the outmoded look of each prior generation and drive sales. Duh.