Not all Italian-designed hatchbacks are created equally. On the left is the Alfa Romeo 147, designed by Walter de Silva and Wolfgang Egger at Centro Stile Alfa Romeo. On the right is the Daewoo Lanos, designed by Giorgetto Giugiaro.
With its pert proportions, strong character lines and neat details, the Alfa 147 is one of the most attractive hatchbacks of the current century.
And, something almost unheard of, it was made even more attractive with its mid-cycle enhancement.
You would never think a Daewoo could have been as attractive as an Alfa Romeo. Despite its Giugario design, the Lanos is not as attractive as the 147. And yet, it doesn’t look half bad. Perhaps not beautiful but definitely easy on the eyes, particularly if you strip away the Daewoo grille.
The Lanos was a barely competitive subcompact that, along with the average Leganza and subpar Nubira, failed to save Daewoo from financial ruin. Perhaps that Giugario design might have been better used on another company’s car? I pose to you this: has there ever been a beautiful or at least handsome design that was just begging to be attached to a better car?
Absolutely!
The Avenger/Sebring coupes (which were really re-worked Mitsubishi Eclipses) and the later Stratus/Sebring coupes both looked attractive yet the mechanicals and performance fell far short of the looks. These cars were more or less the Mopar answer to the contemporary Mustang and GM F bodies at that time. The ’94-’04 ‘Blobstang’ may have been one ugly looking pile, but the car had a useable back seat making it practical as an everyday car and the mechanicals were solid and lent themselves to upgrades. The F bodies were gorgeous updates of the 3rd gen layout and the smallblock was as good as ever. The cars were penalty boxes though, if you spent much time in them. The Mopar coupes fell between them, in the looks department (first gens are more attractive to my eye) but the mechanicals were dumbed down even from the Eclipse. No turbo 4’s, no awd…only workaday n/a 4cyls and lackluster V6s. The first ones had a 24v 2.5 V6 derived from the old SOHC 3.0 and hooked to a fragile automatic. The 2.0 DOHC 4 cyl was derived from the Neon R/T and had better acceleration than the ‘upgrade’. The 2nd gen cars had a Mitsu 2.4 4cyl and the 2.5 got punched back out to 3.0L and got a manual trans available with both motors. Either one made for a nice sports coupe but with sedan mechanicals. Hardly a threat to the Mustang and F body or even to import tuners. Basically the personal luxury formal re-booted.
In August, I picked up a nice one owner low mileage ’02 Sebring coupe 3.0/5spd as a 2nd car. Nice economical runabout, and it looks sharp but its frustrating knowing that the bones were there to make this car a serious performance machine.
On one hand, the 318 and 360 were easily competitive with what GM and Ford had going on…Ive compared the numbers for 1998-ish. Jeep just launched the 4.7 ‘Corsair’ V-8 which was a step backwards when used in fullsize trucks but in a smaller vehicle was very effective at motivation. It has never seen duty in a car, and I wonder how that V8 wouldve performed in an Avenger hooked to a 5spd with rwd. If that isnt enough punch, then break out the 360 Magnum.
A few years later, the PT Cruiser GT’s HO 2.4 turbo got dropped into a Neon and the SRT-4 was born. Stupid fast for a fwd car in either application–my ’03 5spd PT GT was an absolute rocket! But why the Neon, with its lumpy, dorky sedan bodystyle? If sticking with fwd, the Stratus R/T would have been a more appropriate place to drop that engine, since theNeon coupe was gone for the 2nd gen. The Sebring top model couldve kept the V6 since thats more in line with Chrysler’s mission.
Another good example would be the Prowler. Cool looking car, but while the 3.5 V6 was a great motor for the LH sedans, it had no business powering anything remotely like a hot rod.
I nominate the second generation LH’s with three words: Two point seven. As a lifelong Mopar guy, and the former owner of a ’99 Concorde with this 24-valve aluminum turd under the hood, I cannot recall a car that was as much of a disappointment. The car was perfect for me – roomy, stylish, fuel efficient – for a while. anyway. Took a financial bath on it, too. I guess I was one of the lucky ones – traded it in while it still ran. You couldn’t miss that rod knock, however…
The first ones were definitely turd sandwiches. I hear tell the later ones are much improved, but when the proven 3.5 was available as an upgrade….why bother?
I had a 04 Eclipse with the 2.4L for about 3 year. It was a very torquey for a 4 cylinder but it didn’t like to spin much faster that 5000 rpm. Yes the car was not fast by any mean but, that engine with a good exhaust sounded fantastic.
Seriously, I had so much fun driving that car. The amount of abuse it took is unbelievable, trust me. But you are right, this is not as nice as a good turbo 4 or something really sporty. I have never driven the 3,0L V6 but it seems that i don’t miss much.
Have you ever driven one of those cars ?
It’s been covered here before so I’ll just throw it out there; 1953-54 Studebaker coupes. So pretty, yet flawed underneath.
ABSOLUTELY! First thing I thought of when I saw the question.
Most of the tests of the 53 Starliner touched on the pathetically small trunk, but only one I have seen really went off on the car, complaining about the car being a noisy, foul handling, rattletrap. One of the Starliner’s bad points, that test stated, was it’s tendency to drift wide, way wide, on corners. I wonder of that notoriously weak frame was causing some rear wheel steering.
Those two have pretty much the generic aero hatch styling of the 90s early 00s, I drive one every day Ive no idea or interest in who drew the pictures of it the idea was generic hatch that doesnt put people off unlike its ancestor and stable mates the ZX and 306 far better mechanically than either the Alfa or Daewoo with much better handling than any other hatch on the then market and ride comfort in spades.
Short answer: yes.
One of the most typical instances of shoulda-woulda-coulda is another Daewoo: the Matiz, although better than the Lanos, was not a great car. It was, however, an IDEA design originally destined for FIAT, who turned it down in favour of the very boxy Cinquecento. Looking at superminis today, it’s clear which one of the two spelled the future.
Another example: the original sketches of the Austin Allegro looked very handsome. The car that came out after BL had gone to work with it, well, let’s just say it didn’t look as good.
One of the worst ones: the Skoda 105 looked quite sharp for the times but was severely outdated mechanically the day it was introduced. The saddest part is the design was destined to be a much better car: the Skoda 720 (pictured). Moscow refused to fund it for fear it was outclass their own Lada. A few prototypes survive.
Other examples I’d put up:
Moskvitch Aleko – cribbed from Simca
Chevrolet Citation – so great on paper
I’m sure there are many more I didn’t think of.
Vauxhall/Opel Calibra. Wayne Cherry’s beautiful dart shaped coupe on the Cavalier/Vectra chassis. Not a bad chassis, but not a good one either.
Isuzu Impulse on the GM T body [Chevette] platform. Not all RWD designs are ‘drivers cars’.
I was going to post the same thing. Giorgetto Giugiaro designed a beautiful Chevette.
This was the first one I thought of. Called the Impulse in the US, the interior was even more beautiful and futuristic than the outside. But underneath, it was mostly a Chevette.
I’ll offer three cars, all made years apart from each other by the same company. The Allante, the 92-02 Eldorado and the 92-97 Seville.
The Allante’s main weakness was the engine, the HT4100, still the worst engine that Cadillac made. A Cadillac engine needs to be either dead reliable, or smooth, but the HT4100 was neither. A 135 HP engine that blew up at less than 100K miles? Not exactly what you want in a sports roadster that costs 56,000 bucks new. The 4.9 was a mechanically solid and well versed engine, but at 200 horsepower, it wasn’t as fast as should’ve been for the price point. Then we get to Northstar engine for all three….
Alright look, as the owner of a 98 Cadillac ETC, I will say that there are still plenty of things about that engine that I like. The horsepower and torque are pretty good for a big luxury car, and an American one at that, the acceleration is rather decent, it makes a very good sound, and despite the high power, it’s still rather smooth and silky in a way that’s pleasant and expected. But even I can’t deny the problems that the Northstar continues to have, it’s still a finicky engine that requires almost anal retentive attention and care, lest a headgasket blow up in the most spectacular way and force the engine to be scrapped. I understand that there are kits out there to remedy the older ones and help prevent the problems, I also know Cadillac did improve it over it’s life to a fairly reliable engine, but those first teething problems really left a bad taste in everyone’s mouth for a good reason. I wish that Cadillac just kept the engine in gestation for longer and introduced it at a latter date when all the bugs were worked out, that way you could have a great engine with all the positives that it does offer, with the same reliability as the previous V8s Cadillac offered. Had the Northstar been perfect from the start (or at least, not have the same drastic problems at the same drastic rate that it got saddled with), the Seville, final Allante, and Eldorado would’ve been much bigger successes.
Also, the Allante and the Seville, especially the STS, should’ve been RWD from the start. I can forgive the Eldorado for being a FWD car given its lineage and heritage, but if Cadillac wanted the Seville to be a serious competitor against the ‘Furin’ cars it was going up against, it needed to be RWD.
I agree whole-heartedly with your picks.
Allante is a great choice.
The Lincoln LS is another car where I liked the exterior styling – it wore Lincoln’s cues of the time very well – but the powertrain choices were odd (Manual on the V6 but not the V8?) and the electricals were junk. Making the same basic car on a stretched Mustang platform with the Coyote and Ecoboost powertrains would be extremely impressive.
Given how much it costs to tool up and certify an engine/transmission combination – and how few Lincoln (or any) buyers will consider a manual – we should probably count our blessings that we could buy a manual LS of any sort. As it was, only 2,331 bought them.
My only point was that if they were going to offer a manual on a luxury sedan, it made more sense on the V8 (as a performance option) than on the base engine (where it almost seems like a value option). An LS with the same powertrain as a Mustang Cobra would have been the CTS V before there was a CTS-V, only bigger and without Cadillac’s overwrought A&S styling cues.
That’s all I was getting at.
And I agree. It’s just that, given how few manuals are purchased at all, we “shifty types” sometimes need to see the glass as half full. But then, I’m an eternal optimist. 🙂
Here’s how the move might have made sense: The Getrag manual couldn’t handle the V8’s torque, and none of Ford’s other manuals would fit (or work) without considerable reengineering. Jaguar already made it clear that a V6/manual combination was necessary for S-Type to sell in European markets, so that was a done deal. It almost sounds as though they released the Lincoln V6/manual combination to see if there was demand for a manual, before committing to the cost of engineering, marketing and certification of a V8/manual. When it didn’t sell – and Lincoln dealers didn’t want to stock or service manuals – well, you can see how that drove the final nail in the coffin.
@BuzzDog
That sort of sequence of events makes sense.
The LS (and the T-Bird after it) were hamstrung by the decision to use the Euro Jaguar V8 instead of the NA Mod V8. The electrics were always unreliable and they never had the performance/aftermarket support.
It was a glaring oversight, considering how much money there was to be made in the luxury/performance segment and how easily Ford could have accommodated it. A T-Bird with the DOHC Mod V8 would have been a pretty attractive prospect. Ford seems like they overestimated the market for old-school, Boulevard Cruiser type of luxury.
When the DEW was finally modified to take NA developed engines (in the form of the S197) it was finally successful.
As if we needed more evidence, styling is very clearly subjective. I find that Alfa to just be okay looking, and find most of the examples listed above to vary from meh to bleh.
My response would be the first Audi TT.
VW’s Corrado was similarly an attractive body on a terrible chassis.
Certainly.
She doesn’t look very comfortable, but she sure looks good doing it.
THAT, is a beautiful body. Apparently aching for something? What were we talking about again?
I agree, Johannes. And may I offer another one along the same lines?
That is one beautiful chassis.
Another Alfa Romeo that springs to mind is the recent Berera and Spider twins. Period reviews of the time were not pleased with how these cars compared to peers like the Audi TT when it came to driving dynamics. A shame really, because they are good looking vehicles:
Same (but less so) for the 159. Gorgeous looks, but too heavy and a tad too GM-esque to really stand out like an Alfa should.
I can think of many examples, both past and present, but the one that always irritated me was the late 80’s LeBaron coupe and convertible. I always thought the design was beautiful,, with clean lines, unfussy shapes and an almost classic italian-looking silhouette. But damn, they were generally crappy cars, from a drivetrain AND body integrity standpoint. A shame. They could have been classics if they weren’t so disposable.
+1 on those LeBarons. Great-looking (until they ruined the nose styling by deleting the hidden lamps) but hamstrung by their K-derived chassis and anemic engines.
The K platform was well engineered and solid. The base 4 cyls weren’t any barnstormers and the 3 point blow V6 sucked. Now, a coupe with the 2.2 turbo and 5spd would be a nice (and rare) find.
+1 Had a 1988 lebaron conv 4 cyl in my life for a while. Was really a nice clean design on the exterior, but cowl shake was horrible and suspension was completely flaccid and pedestrian. Power was just adequate.
I’d suggest the Opel GT. They were handsome, well made little cars, and I liked them, but their looks promised more chassis capability than was really on offer. In a sense, they were Opel’s Karmann Ghia.
In a sense, they were Opel’s Karmann Ghia.
Right down to their propensity to rust.
Another easy one for me, my 1982 Camaro Z28. It wasn’t just the low power output, but that you had a flat camshaft 305 hooked up to a 200C trans that wasn’t even rugged enough to last 100K km behind that feeble engine. It would’ve been so satisfying to “rescue” a late model powertrain from an ugly new Camaro and install it in my ’82, but that car is long gone now.
DeLorean DMC-12.
Interesting call!
+1
Easy answer to this one–Vega. The original Vega was a damn good-looking car, a 5/6 scale Camaro, with a nifty 2-door wagon variant. If it had been reliable rather than a legendary bucket of fail, it could have been the class of all compacts. Instead, we know how it ended.
I’ll also mention its descendant Monza. The Monza hatchback was very striking, with styling that suggested the beautiful Ferrari Daytona. But the chassis was average at best, the quality iffy at best, and something like seven different engine offerings over the car’s run, most of them poor (and the most bewildering of them a Chevy 350 that had been somehow detuned to just 125 HP for California).
Seconded. If the Vega had been not perfect or even close but even just as good as Chevys had been up to that point it would’ve been one of GM’s Greatest Hits.
Having owned a black ’72 Kammback – AND a ’75 Monza 2+2 with a V8…both of these with 4-speeds…
You’re, I’m gonna say, mostly correct. Because both cars handled pretty well, and were, to me anyway, a ball to drive.
Monza’s achilles heel was its brakes – unchanged from Vega. I knew someone with a V8 automatic who changed their pads/shoes every six months. We did better ’cause of the 4-speed.
Vega, of course, was A) that abortion of an engine and B) rust.
Two potential Greatest Hits that became Deadly Sins.
I agree about the Vega. Many years ago I had a ’73 Vega GT and what attracted me to it in the first place was the looks. I owned this car for several years, and was always favorably impressed by the handling. Of course every other thing about the Vega was a disappointment, starting with the engine, but also including its propensity to rust, poor build quality, and non-existent resale value. A better drivetrain would have gone a long way in making the Vega the car GM wanted us to believe it was.
Giugario again. Pleasant enough, in a generic way. Underneath the inoffensive skin is a very offensive Daewoo Lacetti5, aka Chevy Optra5 in Canada and Suzuki Reno in the US.
Came dead last in a C&D comparison test, with colorful descriptions such as comparing the shift linkage to “bungee cords and plastic forks”
There is an orange (Holden something?) one photobombing the lead photo up top.
Yep, a Holden Viva. Good catch. I wasn’t paying attention to small Holdens back then, so I had to Google it.
Built by Daewoo so almost a three fer.
Michelotti: Triumph Stag. Clean and athletic looking. R&T was despondent as nothing worked right in their test car. The most bizarre “feature” being the sidestep the rear of the car did at the end of a fast acceleration run. Their theory was either the splines in the half shafts would stick under the torque load, or the suspension bushings would yield as the most powerful version of the Triumph sedan, which used the same rear axle, did the same thing.
Saw a Stag in a movie once. While the actor may not have been the best at rowing a manual tranny, I saw him make about three attempts to get the Stag into reverse, as the other actor stood there with nothing to do, before they could finish the scene. Considering they left that in the finished movie, the other takes must have been even worse.
Currently, the Ford Fusion. All debate about whether it should have inherited the Taurus nameplate, it begs for an ST/SHO version in a big way.
Sadly, Alfas come to mind.
The 147, the Mito, the 159 and Brera, the current Giulietta, may be even the 4C and 8C.
I also wanted to highlight the same new millennium Alfa cars have you elaborated on. A whole lineup of hit-or-mostly miss for the past 15 years.
I totally disagree with you both. Have you ever driven any of these cars? The Brera V6 I get, but the others were not crap.
Rover 3500 SD1. Should have been the finest executive express in the world. But wasn’t.
That was sad. So many people bought the image, and had to put up with the car.
But then, a lot of us do that, don’t we?
So very true, indeed….
The 147 is not very attractive. The Lanos is marginally better.
Better car underneath? Fiat 130 Coupe. Stay tuned.
Tell me more…snicker, snicker.
Yet to break through the pain barrier.
X2. Fiat never understood a big car needs to have at least one powerful version. The 130 should have had a 200-250 hp engine.
The Hyundai Scoupe. Good looking car but with early hyundai reliability, they are impossible to find now. I have never even heard of this car until I found the only one I have ever seen in a junkyard.
Apparently there was a turbo version.
People think Probe is one of THE worst names for a car, but I think Scoupe beats it by a mile. When I hear Scoupe I think of what you use to pick up doggie “donuts” with.
Besides, the Scoupe is just an Excel with a (slightly) different roofline….except for the turbo models.
Just a thinly disguised Mitsubishi Mirage/Lancer.
I’ll nominate the 1987-1995 Chrysler LeBaron coupe/convertible. Definitely a beautifully styled wedge shape, let down by its K-car chassis, weak rigidity, drivetrain.
Another vote for the LeBaron for those exact same reasons. I will add the Daytona/Laser as well. Great-looking cars saddled with awful K-car underpinnings.
Imagine the possibilities if they had been developed on some sort of RWD frame, perhaps a variation of the M-Body chassis which had survived through the 1980s and was actually a pretty competent platform, and since they both lived on well into the 1990s, they could have received the excellent torquey and bulletproof 318/360 Magnums that came out in the trucks in 1992. Even the turbo 4s from those years in a RWD platform would have made those cars seriously competitive. Imagine a RWD Turbo LeBaron going up against a BMW 325, or a small block Daytona against a 5.0 Mustang.
The slant nose late sixties Corona. Very nice shape, still pushrod 4, still 4sp or toyoglide powerglide, and the chassis of a small truck.
The Tiara that came before that model was even more trucklike.
There was a DOHC version for more money. just sayin.
Jaguar XJ. Not only did it have style, but it had the basics to be the executive express. Everything needed was there – except build quality and reliability.
+1
Reliability schmeliability.
William, that is a sad trio of horrible cars. The Viva caps them off.
KJ in Oz
Aww, no love for the 147? I wouldn’t call it a great car but I wouldn’t call it horrible…
IHMO, the 147’s worth more several thousand Daewoos.
Yeah the Viva name had a good rep in NZ plus some of the factory hotrods turned up here in the late 60s early 70s but the Korean version was awful.
Here is another one: The Audi 5000/100 from the 1980s. It was a slick looking car for it’s time. But it’s reputation was tarnished by the unintended acceleration scandal that nearly sent Audi into oblivion.
That means you agree with the witch hunters? I do not.
I’m surprised nobody has suggested the Volvo P1800 yet. Gorgeous, sinewey lines betrodden to Volvos tractor engine and primitive suspensions. I have seen and ridden in a few that have been lowered, stiffened and warmed, but the stock ones just always seemed 3″ too high, low revving and too narrow a track for the body they carried. But as I said I’ve never driven one.
First thing to spring to mind: Alfa Romeo Montreal.
When I think of “horrible” in the present context, I’m thinking of a car that looks nice, and drives miserably. iirc, the Audi 5000 drove nicely, just had a possible problem with pedal location. The X 1/9 looked great, drove great, until it broke. Not “horrible”. Nothing some decent quality could not resolve.
Another candidate for “horrible” would be the Morris (Austin in US) Marina. Inoffensive, contemporary styling. I found the fastback two door quite attractive.
Underneath, a collection of BL parts bin artifacts that had been obsolete a decade earlier. I remember the Motor Trend test, where the writer noted that, as an example of poor design, the weight of the radio caused the dash to flex visibly as he drove. He then noted that he thought maybe a stiff drink would help his impression of the car. It didn’t.
The pedal placement wasn’t even that bad, it was just unexpected. The real issue with the Audi 5000 was the failure-prone electrics.
But I agree with you that it doesn’t belong on this list in either case.
Nothing wrong with those parts. The problem was shoddy build quality and reliability. Had it been Volvo-reliable it would have sold in far greater numbers and remembered today as a worthy yet dull car.
Nothing wrong with those parts. The problem was shoddy build quality and reliability.
The problem seems to have been deeper than typical BL build quality and reliability.
I found a copy of that Motor Trend test on offer on eBay. By mousing over the photo of the article page, the image is magnified enough that it can be read. The test starts out well enough, but just at the bottom of the page, the writer gives a hint of the criticisms that were on the second page, which is not shown on the eBay listing.
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1973-Austin-Marina-GT-Road-Test-Classic-Article-D158-/370649840409
Well, the only thing I could see is that they were unhappy with the fact it was computer designed-like, so unless you can quote at greater length, it does not change what I’ve said: absence the bad build quality and reliability, it would have been a dull, unexceptional but worthy piece of A to B transportation device. And I think a lot of the cars regarded here as “sins” all suffered from those shortcomings. For example, how would the Vega and the Citation have been remembered had they possessed Japanese-like reliability? My recollection of the Marina from the late 80s and the 90s in the UK was that once you sorted out any problems, it just kept going and going; in fact, it was ideal transport for the impecunious or miserly – there were always a few on any university car park back then…
it would have been a dull, unexceptional but worthy piece of A to B transportation device….it was ideal transport for the impecunious or miserly
Isn’t that the thrust of the article? As the MT article said, there was nothing radical or experimental about it, but rather components that had been in production for a long time and, therefore, should be reliable. The writer’s issues with the car were centered around the poor driving experience, as I noted earlier, with his comment about how the weight of the radio caused the instrument panel to flex. I don’t recall other specific complaints. It has been 42 years since I read that article.
The impecunious or miserly would not care about the driving experience, and would be as happy with a Marina as a Daewoo or any other old school penalty box of a car, and would not care that the company had expended some effort to make the exterior attractive.
Someone at work drives a lanos just like that. Not bad looking for an econobox.
And, of course, the Chevrolet Vega.
Oh boy, let’s see here…
Peugeot 106. The suspension needed help because of low-speed understeer, and every reviewer and owner said the non GTIs needed more power.
The Ford Festiva. The thing needed more reinforcement for the unibody, wider tires, and a turbo on the engine as a standard setup.
The Plymouth Sundance. Almost perfect, but not quite. Unless you got a special edition that was souped up, the car ran out of steam way too fast, even as light as it was.
Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme Coupe. While I do love the way this car looks, there’s so much to be said if it was moved of the W-body platform and turned into a proper rear-wheel-drive vehicle. I say the same thing for it’s cousin of the era, the Grand Prix GTP Coupe.
Triumph Spitfire 1500. Oh, how terrible this car is. The weight distribution makes it handle like the pig, the rear swing-axle setup makes you afraid to go around interstate on-ramps that curve more than thirty degrees, and the engine is just so weak. It’d be a long time until the Spitfire’s proper form would come around, when TVR built their own take on it with the S-series in the late 1980s.
Volvo PV544. Pre-war styling on a well-past post-war car, the PV cars were amazing looking. It’s such a shame that the suspension would cause the car to have immense body roll if only one person was in the car, and that the engine only spat out 70HP in the best shape. Not a good combination for something so heavy.
Interesting comparison between the 147 and the Lanos – both designed by Italian design studios, and yet the 147 looks so much better. And the 147 isn’t even the most beautiful Alfa of the era – actually it looks quite mediocre (especially pre-facelift) when compared to, say, the 159, the Brera and the GT, even the recent Giulietta and MiTo.
But it’s very obvious that Italian design studios do their best effort when designing Italian cars – when commissioned to do cars from other countries, they simply send some leftovers and go for lunch, apparently….
I would like to nominate the Nash Healey and the Kaiser Darrin. Both cars were beautifully designed roadsters with sporting pretensions. The only problem was, underneath all that gorgeous sheet metal were rather pedestrian underpinnings. Both cars were powered by side valve straight sixes, and both cars shared other chassis components with their sedan counter parts. It all added up to cars that had dismal performance for their sleek looks. As such, only a few thousand of each were made during the early ’50’s.
Jake S.
The Nash Healey
The Kaiser Darrin, complete with its sliding doors.
I like this answer. The Kaiser Darrin is a beautiful car that had a chance to be a Corvette competitor, not that it was a big market of course.
At least Dutch Darrin remedied the Kaiser Darrin’s problem in the end, showing everyone what could’ve been by buying up the leftover stock and stuffing modern OHV V8s into them.
My first thought when I saw this article was a bunch of 1950s British “specials” – sleek rebodies of wheezy, sidevalve engined, pre-war Morris Eights or Ford Anglias – but then I thought they didn’t really count.
Well the Nash Healey DID have very good underpinnings as a competition car. Sadly none of the good bits found its way to the road cars.
When the Nissan 240SX was introduced for the 1989 model year, its clean, flowing lines reminded one of the original 240Z, and it handled really well. The engine, however, was a heavy, underpowered lump.
And I may need to go into hiding for this one: The SN95 Mustang (1994-2004) was a brilliant move on Ford’s part, nicely styled and popular, but it really deserved a more modern platform than the Fox (and I’ve owned three Fox Mustangs). Unfortunately, at the time Ford didn’t have another affordable rear-wheel-drive platform to use, given that the DEW platform was several years away.
Yah, I heartily vote for the Monza as the best looking body attached to the worst car. The Vega was shapely, but the Monza was MUCH better looking. A timeless, classic design attached to a rolling pile. Nothing else from the 70s looked nearly as good.
How about the first gen J car? Shapely bodies, 5 flavours to choose from, and especially in the first couple of years, horrible to drive.
The W Cutlass was GORGEOUS but underpowered and while not as floppy as a K, somewhat floppy.
The K Lebaron was beautiful but also floppy. They were, however, reliable, unlike most of the GM mentions.
The Geo Storm and Isuzu Impulses were beautiful cars attached to pedestrian underpinnings.
Bugatti 101. That body deserved the 64’s engine and a modern suspension which Jean Bugatti was working on before he was killed in a testing accident. Alas, after the war the money was just not there so they had this very modern and striking body on the pre-war 57 chassis…
I’m completely in love with this coupe version of the Type 101:
I somehow never realized these existed. Beautiful from the front wheels back, but what an odd nose treatment. I see what they were trying to do, but to me, it didn’t work all that well.
I hereby nominate my last car, which I did love. But only 5 gears and not enough power!
See?
Cord L29 810 812.
And what was wrong with them other than the FWD layout? (Which is a rather subjective thing to call wrong…it was quite advanced for the time.)
Maserati Biturbo
I know some do not like their looks, but I always found them attractive, and it’s what I thought of the minute I saw this post.
I always found the Biturbo interior to be very elegant. Like the Vega, I think people see an unattractive car when they look at it because they *know* how craptastic the underlying car is. Had the Biturbo been reliable and had good all-around performance, I could see these being the BMW 3-series competitor Maserati envisioned.
Nobody’s mentioned the Pontiac Fiero yet. Maybe because GM finally did get it almost right by the last model year, but by then the Toyota MR2 did it all much better. Like the aforementioned Piazza/Impulse, the Fiero had some Chevette parts underneath.
Any number of cute British and Italian roadsters would seem to qualify – not sure which one would top my list.
Also, the NSU Ro80 – gorgeous 4-door from the late ’60s that still looks modern today, this one actually did drive very nicely until the innovative rotary engine needed a rebuild by 30,000 miles.
Good call on the Fiero. And there are so many kit cars that put a different body on the Fiero chassis!
Kinda like throwing away the banana and eating the peel.
Oh and speaking of the RO80, am I the only one who sees an almost uncanny resemblance between it and the W-body Buick Regal sedan that came 20 years later?
DeLorean.
Vega.
First Gen Toronado.
Huh?
Brazilian DKW-Vemag “Fissore” sedan.
On the outside: strikingly modern for the time, very similar to Pininfarina’s Datsun 410/411.
On the inside: a DKW F91, the origins of which date to before WWII.
How about the 1964.5 Mustang? Very pretty body on top of lousy Falcon chassis, with many equipped with a boat anchor inline 6.