Taxiguy57 /PD – modified
When you’re a young auto enthusiast — whether or not you’re yet old enough to drive — you often develop dogmatic attitudes about certain cars or types of cars. Some you love, some you covet, and some you just can’t stand. Over time, some of those attitudes soften, while others only calcify into life-long grudges.
Hating the Dinosaurs
Starting around the time I was in high school, the two cars I most disdained were the G-body Chevrolet Monte Carlo, which by then was no longer in production, but was still a common sight on Midwestern streets, and the Fox-body Ford Mustang, which seemed likely to soldier on until the heat death of the universe. I grimaced every time I saw either of these cars. (I can already sense hackles going up throughout the CC commentariat.)
Bull-Doser / PD – modified
Looking back now, I think there were a number of factors at play in my disdain for these cars:
- They both had a strong poor white trash vibe. There was a level of classist snobbishness to this attitude that I’m not particularly proud of now; for instance, following a family trip to Indiana, where it seemed G-body coupes were everywhere, I began disdainfully referring to the Monte Carlo SS as “the muscle car of the discriminating redneck.” I had yuppie tastes when I was younger, and I was never so economically or socially secure that I felt I could approach things that were déclassé or trashy in a camp or ironic way of the sort the rich and glamorous can often pull off.
- I hated that they seemed so willfully antiquated. By the time I started paying attention to them, both the Mustang and the Monte Carlo were over a decade old, and they looked it. This was an era where the Big Three seemed determined to cling forever to designs that were never very inspired to begin with — aging K-car derivatives, the cheap and cheerless J-body Cavalier, the awful American Escort — but many of those were either not even remotely aimed at me (the late K-car had a decidedly geriatric image, as did the GM A-body cars) or were so obviously budget specials that they were safely beneath contempt. (By the late ’80s, there was no point hating a car like the Chevette unless you owned one.) But in the sporty coupe arena, a warmed-over 1978–1979 design just didn’t cut it anymore. I was especially vexed when I read that the Mazda-based Ford Probe had been intended as a new Mustang, only for Ford to change course at the last minute due to wailing from purists. That first-generation Probe had its weaknesses too, like alarming torque steer with the turbocharged engine, but to reject a more sophisticated modern design in favor of the homely ’79 Fairmont aura of the Fox-body Mustang struck me as a disagreeable corporate commitment to willful anachronism as well as perennial cheapskate-itis.
- Both seemed far too crude and deficient in stock form. I realized then, as I do now, that for many of the fans of the Fox-body Mustang and of the G-body Monte Carlo, part of the appeal was that they were endlessly tunable — not so much cars as cheap canvases for hooning. However, I’ve never had much taste for that sort of thing, and I object to feeling like it’s a requirement for decent all-around performance in a new car. A case in point was brakes: So far as I can think, all of the G-body cars had undersized rear drums, even on the absurdly fast Buick Regal Grand National and GNX, and all but a few rare iterations of the Fox-body Mustang did as well — the same mediocre parts-bin stuff that was barely adequate in the old Fairmont. I recall a Motor Trend “Bang for the Buck” comparison test (September 1989) where editor Jim Miller stubbornly defended the Mustang despite its inadequate stopping power and crude shift linkage, declaring, “I’ll talk to Steve Saleen about fixing the brakes.” Even at the time, I thought, “Why should you have to?” I prefer cars that are better-rounded out of the box, and I resented that Ford and Chevrolet were so stubbornly reluctant to meaningfully upgrade these aging platforms, even where they could have. (The much rarer Mustang SVO, out of production and seldom seen by this time, had better brakes and a variety of detail improvements that never made it to the quotidian LX 5.0 or GT.) The Monte Carlo didn’t even have particularly good straight-line performance to balance its other shortcomings, which was also true of the all-too-common base Mustang, with its rough, nasty, underpowered 2.3-liter four.
- Their anachronistic Detroit Iron vibe often correlated with some very unpleasant jingoism. This was the era when half of America still felt deeply threatened by the Japanese economic bubble, so about two-thirds of popular culture was littered with deranged Orientalist nonsense about ninjas and the Yakuza, and some quite prominent business leaders and automotive pundits felt no compunctions about spewing racist nonsense about the insidious Foreign Devils that could have come straight out of a Sax Rohmer pulp story. There were definite factions who needed little excuse to bend your ear about how they were never gonna drive one of them [racial slur] [racial slur] [term of reproach] ferrin’ cars. Since by this time a lot of Made in the USA products were downsized FWD four-cylinder cars intended to compete with the aforementioned Foreign Devils, this left the Mustang, the G-body Monte Carlo (and I suppose the contemporary Grand Prix, although I saw those so infrequently that they never registered), and the third-gen F-bodies as the most desirable remaining choices among newish American iron of the old school. This correlation was of course not always one-to-one, but spotting a Monte Carlo with Confederate flag stickers was definitely grounds for panic.
General Motors LLC
(If you’re wondering, my regard for the third-gen F-bodies was not a great deal higher than for the Mustang, and in some ways I thought they were even cruder. The difference was that the Camaro and Firebird/Trans Am were at least good-looking, in an impractical and rough-hewn sort of way, whereas the Fox-body Mustang looked like a rental car without the silly GT addenda, and clownish with it.)
Latter-Day Rapprochement
What do I think about these cars now?
I will never love the looks of the Fox-body Mustang, although I’ve come to feel there’s a certain honesty about the cleaner LX notchback that I can respect. As for its other qualities, I find the older Mustang’s strengths and limitations a good deal more palatable as a used car than as a new one. Once a car goes from “new” to “late-model” to just “old,” much of the former competitive pressure falls away. The cars I thought were better when I was in high school are also now “old,” and continuing to press the former rivalry would quickly start to feel rather sad. Also, while I’m still not one for aftermarket hoonery, Fox Mustangs are abundant and potentially very cheap, so there’s no compelling reason not to hop one up if that’s what floats your boat.
Beyond that, I eventually developed a fondness for certain other cars that I realized are not that different from the Fox-body Mustang in concept and appeal, like the AE86 Corolla Levin/Sprinter Trueno/Corolla GT-S coupes or the European Mk3 Ford Capri. The latter has a lot of the same strengths and weaknesses as the Mustang (down to the usually mediocre brakes), and since the Capri was based on the Mk2 Cortina of 1966–1970, it was if anything even more antiquated.
Mecum Auctions
As for the G-body Monte Carlo, a while before the pandemic, I spotted a well-preserved late SS parked on the street some blocks from here, white with aluminum wheels (not the car pictured above, but another ’87 just like it), and had to grudgingly concede that the basic shape did clean up pretty nicely. The LS is less convincing at hiding its 1978 roots, especially with the landau top, but the SS has aged well. I still wouldn’t want one — there’s nothing about the mechanical package that I find remotely compelling — but the kind of swagger the SS was trying to project is no longer as lost on me as it once was.
Long story short, I’m still not a fan of these cars, but I no longer sneer when I see either go by.
So, I’ll put it to the group:
What cars did you just hate earlier in life? Has time changed your mind, or only hardened your resolve?
GM’s Colonnade cars. They were a jarring change from the 68-72 A-body cars, bloated, heavy, and slow. I still am not a huge fan but I don’t hate them as much today as I did when they were new.
These were absolutely the first cars that came to mind for me on this post. Not surprised to see them make the first comment. I actually don’t mind them now though. I don’t recall them new though, when I learned to drive in the 90s they were both hopelessly outdated & complete hoopties. Not exactly a winning combination to love.
I hated them from day one, and still hate them. I have a friend who has recently bought a ’74 Monte Carlo, which IMHO, is the worst looking of the mid sized Colonades. He drooled over those old Montes for years, I have no idea why, and turned down endless pre Colonade Montes, Cutlasses, Chevelles, Regals, for the Monte. I used to hate the ’71-73 Mustangs a lot, but I don’t hate them as much as I used to. To be honest, I’ve generally hated Ford products most of my life, from exterior styling, to some of the interiors, I just don’t understand the appeal. Now that I’m an old man, I don’t hate them….quite as much, but other than possibly getting despearate and buying a Mustang because nothing else is out there to buy, I don’t see me ever buying any Ford. If I was pickup shopping, I would go Ram, and then GMC. The Ram looks a lot better, IMO, than either the F150 or GM trucks do.
Aaron, you nailed it about the Monte Carlo with your comment “the muscle car for the discriminating redneck”, although I never thought of the Monte Carlo as a muscle car. More like a “fake luxury car for the discriminating redneck.”
Today, I think I would call the Monte SS “the muscle car of the discriminating product planner.” It had all the right cues: stripes, decal callouts, deep-dish wheels, RWL tires, rumbly V-8 exhaust that was becoming rarer by then, and the facelifted styling that tightened up the rather prissy look of the ’78. There was no substance to back up the image, at least in stock form, but it looked the part, and I think all that honed in on the tastes of the intended market quite accurately.
The turbo Regals of the same period had a lot of the same limitations, but the late GN and GNX were genuinely fast cars, which counted for something.
I would disagree that there was no substance to back up the Monte Carlo SS image. There wasn’t much substance, but there was some in the Monte Carlo SS. It had decent performance for the era, and it was a significant improvement over a standard 305 powered Monte Carlo. The straight line performance may not have been late 60s muscle car era stuff, but the handling was certainly was a step up from the cars of that era.
I would say the 307 powered Oldsmobile 442 more fit the lack of subtance than the Monte Carlo SS. It was significantly slower and didn’t have the same handling prowess.
Here are C/D test results from 1985:
I agree on both. I recall seeing acres of new emerald green Mustang convertibles with white tops at dealers and one too many at car shows while only a year old. Almost made me sick parking my sweet 66 coupe next to one. With the Monte, revamping the 78 compressed body of the previous generation helped, but the cheapo interior of that generation made me want to cry. The rarity of each in the wild now gives me a smile when I happen to see one. A few I’d like to add: The Mustang II, the reissued Buick Roadmaster in all forms, and any Cutlass Ciera.
Always have and always will HATE anything that is not an OTT excessively chromed upscale LAND YACHT. And that includes Trucks and SUVS and crossovers, masquerading as Luxury vehicles. 🤮. That’s the opinion of a Vintage Rolls Canardly (Roll down one hill and Can ardly get up the next) !
Have never “hated” a car. One, I never had a car that was so bad that I hated it. Actually never had a bad car. Two, while a car may not have been attractive, and maybe outright ugly, I would simply say that looks stupid. Now if you asked if I hated a genre of automobiles I could say yes. SUV’s and today’s massive trucks which encompass all manufacturers.
+1 well said.
I quickly grew to hate my Citation .
They could and should have been a winner hands down but GM muffed it, IMO deliberately .
-Nate
Yes, built to fall apart.
At the time, I found the fuselage Mopar C-bodies totally ugly. Nowadays I can tolerate them much better for some reason. Not that I’m out looking for one or anything…
My list is way too long, but I really disliked the whole brougham era and its effect on cars’ styling and interiors. I was a Euro snob at the time, although its effect on European cars was also a reality.
Now I appreciate any and all survivors. It’s taken a while.
I still hate the Buick Rendezvous.
I appreciate the Rendezvous for what it is: a good reason for thinking that the Aztek looks pretty good.
My Dad bought a Rendezvous and LOVED it. At the time, I regularly drove an Acura MDX, and the Rendezvous reminded me of a prototype MDX that needed another six months of refinement to get it ready for sale. All the pieces were there, but nothing worked together.
dman, in regards to styling- The oval grille and oval license plate insert on the tailgate both looked like someone had bought Buick parts at the junkyard and taped them onto an Aztek. Half baked.
When I was in college in the early ’70s, GM’s bloated full-sized cars and the Colonnade cars were new. By the mid-’70s, these bloatmobiles were aging poorly. I saw so many, it seemed, with something oozing out from behind chromed window moldings, so many side rub strips with oozing adhesive, so many dashboards cracking already in the southern Arizona sun, and paint already beginning to fade (especially the metallics). The ones I see today I respect as survivors, but I still don’t like them. GM did a lot to redeem themselves with their downsized models starting in ’77, including apparently better materials.
I couldn’t stand the ’80-’85 Bustle-back Cadillac Seville when it came out. The styling just grated on me when I was younger. Now, I can at least look at them without making faces.
The odd looking, “Imperial” that came along a few years later never looked good either.Always thought of it as “homemade”.
I absolutely hate all SUV’s. Without exception, from all brands.
It’s a deformation that is destroying the automotive industry as a whole.
At least 90% of today’s cars seem repulsive to me, horrible in design and shape .
The ugly old cars (even the ones seen in the photos in this thread) at least had more personality than any of today’s cars.
I agree with you 1,000%. Nothing says ‘rugged individuality’ like driving a vehicle style everybody and his brother owns.
🤣
Yeah I don’t think there’s a single car made today that I truly like, even the ones I “like” have substantial attributes foisted into that ruin them for me between the plastic covers over or under anything mechanical, to the BCM/canbus systems, to the LCD screens, to the dozen heavy airbags, to the rubber band tires on giant wheels, to port clogging direct injection, and so on… I don’t see my attitude changing on much of that “technology” that defines all current cars. In fact some of it I thought was logical and interesting 10-15 years ago but in the opposite spirit of this topic I ended up hating it.
I disliked the R35 Nissan GT-R when it came out because I hated its styling (it looked like an obese caricature of earlier Skylines), no matter how amazing its performance was. I’ve warmed up to it since, and I’m sad to see it go away.
All 1970’s Fords. The Road Hugging Weight era, when they tried to make a virtue out of outdated designs. Nowadays, nostalgia has kicked in, and it’s great to see one in the metal.
One car that I always hated was the VW beetle. I especially hated the stupid exhaust note and clattery engine. I thought that they were ugly and ridiculous, still do. I would never own one, though I bought one for my oldest daughter. She liked it.
The second car was the Porsche 356, especially the early ones. Again ugly and ridiculous, with no power and an excessively high price. My disdain for the Porsche and it’s owner extended to later 911s, though I was a bit smitten with the 924/944.
Now I’ve come to appreciate the last of those models, especially the Speedster. Basic, simple. but now even more overpriced.
I used to hate the FWD replacements for all the old standard American cars. That started to change when I realized that the cars in my older used car vintages were now FWD coupes and sedans. They have started to look better to me over time.
I used to dislike SUVs, I thought that most were over the top and excessive. Now I really like the luxo models, and think that the smaller versions are much better and practical than most cars.
Happy Thanksgiving to all!
The RWD Monte SS handled well and was quick
(although I had a box Vic with some Police stuff that smoked one)
I ignored all those GM A-bodies at the time until I fell head over heels for a loaded Grand Prix.
At $14,000 I considered it both outrageous and beyond my grasp
There is nothing good about a ’80’s Montecarlo SS other than it looks good.
Same with the 3rd Gen F-body’s.
Terrible weak engines, 305 crude EFI. No manual transmissions, 7.5″ spindle rear axle, small brakes, floppy chassis, crude front and rear suspension, no rack and pinion steering, terrible build quality..
It takes a ton to make these cars handle, speedy, fun to drive.
Throw the entire original powertrain away and start over.
However a Fox body 5.0L has an excellent chassis and excellent powertrain.
Excellent strong 5.0L engine with fantastic, way ahead of it’s time EFI.
Strong T5 manual transmission, super strong 8.8″ rear axle.
Lightweight, pretty stiff unibody, pretty good front and rear suspension, rack and pinion steering, very good front disks, lame rear drums, pretty good build quality.
So easy to go fast in a Fox body 5.0L.
That’s why GM G-bodies and 3rd Gen F-bodies are so rare these days. Unlike Fox body 5.0L’s.
The 4th gen F-body could be called a GM deadly sin. That car was a complete failure, except the T-56 6 speed manual trans and the LS V8’s that were in the last ones.
I derided the Nissan Juke as a total that was rebuilt by someone who had never seen a car.
God help me I get it now.
The Nissan Juke reminds me of a Tasmanian devil.
From the “Thalidomide School” of auto design.
Like them. They’re ideal for crowded city neighborhoods like mine. Room for some stuff in there too, when needed.
I can be a little opinionated at times, I realize that and hate is a very strong word, but since you asked, here are a few:
AMC Pacer – Laughed out loud the first time I recall seeing one, and time hasn’t changed that. Just no. Even now knowing the history etc still hasn’t endeared them to me, I’ll look at one in wonder when they appear, but still find them hideous and unappealing in any way. Head shaker.
Chevy Nova, second generation – I used to dislike these with a passion (we had a ’77 Ventura 4door) but I’ve come around on them in a big way. If I had to have one it would be a later Chevy, the others do nothing for me really, but I like the style now. Probably a 2door, maybe the hatchback, too bad there was never a wagon.
Pontiac Aztek – I was there during the Detroit Motor Show public unveiling event and recall the collective gasp and step back from the assembled public when the sheet was pulled off the thing. That pretty much set the tone. Now I vaguely respect them as a minivan alternative but still find the execution, especially the interior plastics, to be an insult to the consumer. Hard pass, pretty much the Pacer of the new millennium. Breaking Bad did more for public acceptance of the thing than anything GM ever did which you kind of have to wonder about, given the show’s subject matter… A fitting metaphor for the car.
The last FWD Monte Carlo generation – horribly bloated design, cheap interiors, represents exactly as the 2door Lumina it is. Worse are the Dale Earnhardt signature editions, which while I get there’s a fan base and a sale is a sale, it’s just such a poor execution of a car that I can’t see Dale ever driving an actual one (of course once upon a time I’d probably have lined up for a Walter Röhrl or Hannu Mikkola signature package on any Audi were it offered, so there’s that…). Still, it’s one of the few cars that elicits a negative (and perhaps unfair) stereotype from me.
4th Generation Toyota Prius – Hideous initial design, a serious step back from the 3rd generation, but now I respect them and don’t even overly mind the looks (I’ve grown), especially after having ridden in a few. They do their job extremely well and while the new one is a looker, it’s also less practical than the ones before, which didn’t really have to be. The plug-in one has a different rear end which is somewhat more attractive, but that’s a difference without much distinction. For quality and value for money it’s hard to beat though and it’s far less offensive as the years pass.
There are more but those are the ones top of mind. At the end of the day every car suits a purpose and does something for someone, so who am I to judge…
The two Mustangs you pictured are probably the two exact ones I would choose if I had to have a Fox Mustang and kind of represent two that I looked at back in the day (different times, not against each other). The version with a trunk has a purposeful style, the later economy model doesn’t look *as* economy as the older ones, and the LX 5.0 with those 9-hole wheels is probably the peak of that generation of Mustangs stylistically, zero fluff. I didn’t buy either of them as the economy one was even more base than I thought they could be while the LX 5.0 was an ex-CHP that looked and felt like every mile it had on it and then some.
Those Monte Carlos you pictured are all about lipstickery on pigs to me, although I can appreciate the looks of the SS version, the later the better I suppose, and one made an appearance in a post of mine last year. I did enjoy seeing it, but the pic from across the street is the closest I needed to get to it. It somewhat reminds me of my LeSabre T-Type coupe but not as understated, I wouldn’t have bought it at the time that I did buy the LST.
The final FWD Monte actually helped me to reassess my feelings about the style of the 1983–1988 G-body cars, because the FWD version was so obviously trying to recapture that look … and failing, badly.
You mention you hate the second generation Nova (1966-1967). Then you compare it to a 4th generation Nova? (1977 Ventura)
I’m confused. Or you are.
Oops that’s probably me since I’m not particularly invested in the Nova or early ’60s GM… My understanding is the first two Novas were upper trim options on Chevy II’s so I tend to think of those as Chevy IIs instead of Novas. I usually default to the first real Nova being the one where it was named that for most of its run and the second one the 1975 version. In short I was formerly not a fan of the ’68s or the ’75s and now kind of like them, especially the ’75 and up as long as they are Novas and not gingerbreaded Apollos or Venturas or Omegas etc…
The older Chevy II’s I don’t have an opinion on either way.
While I didn`t exactly hate it, we had an `80 Chevette 2 door. An El Cheapo 2 door stripper in dull gray with a red vinyl interior. The only options it had were a 2 speed automatic and an AM radio. This was just a place holder until we got a better car, but for some reason I was embarassed to be seen in it.Even my dog (who loved riding in the car) hated it! However in the 7 moths we had it it turned out to be good, cheap and very reliable basic transportation. I almost hate to admit it, but it was fun to drive as it could zip in and out of NY traffic like a champ. It`s long gone by some 35 years, but in retrospect it still holds some good memories.
I also never liked the Volvo 240 much as a kid. As a 1983 car, fine, but as a 1993 car, why would someone buy this over a 1993 Camry or Accord, let alone a Volvo 940 or 850? I’ve grown to appreciate the 240’s simplicity with age and wouldn’t mind owning a 240 wagon, though I still don’t like the 1986-1993 headlights.
Ford Maverick and Granada. The Maverick mostly because it was cheap looking and lacked standard power. I remember a friend of mine who’s dad had a loaded Maverick (72) with the V8. It was laughable at best.
But the Granada- oh that drove things over the edge.
There he was in his office with perhaps a few designers, and Lido started by adding his obligatory vinyl roof.
Then, he must have shouted “ all aboard” as we watched Ford add cornering lamps, consolettes, lacy wheels, shag carpet, etc. All the while, they couldn’t make them slower, could they, using antique engines. Who cares that they were sluggish? Who cares that the fuel mileage aligned with a Grand Torino, or that they left the quality by the workbench?
To top it all off, they built the Versailles!
Do not think I’ll ever own either of these cars.
I do recall a neighbor, cash strapped, when her ( you guess the year) boxy looking Datsun retired.
She was about to secure an every level Granada with a floor shifter and heat for a price that she me made it possible for her to be paid off in half the time.
Happy Thanksgiving to all
I don’t hate any car. In fact, I like any car that is in good condition and runs well.
I have to think hard about this, as I’m probably realistically in the camp of many who have already commented saying that there really aren’t any cars that they truly “hate”.
Although as a guy who nearly always has harbored strong opinions – even if I ultimately give up any given opinion and sometimes tack 180 degrees in the other direction – I can nominate 2.
1 – As an adolescent I held no love for Trans-Am’s or Camaros. This was mostly due to the fact that they were driven by the redneck, jock, en-mulleted, cohort in my high school. Who when they weren’t off getting their drunk selves (and their friends) killed in their vehicles, were hanging around the school and parking lot giving everyone else grief. That left a bad taste for those cars. BUT THEN, I wound up with a Firebird as a rental car in 1979, and later became a big fan of The Rockford Files on TV (where Jim’s tan Firebird was featured prominently)…and the bad taste subsided. I really have nothing against them nowadays.
2 – Chevy Suburbans. Aside from an early 1970s model that was owned by some hippie neighbors shortly after college (they were potters and used it mostly to schlep around loads of clay), these just always seemed like 50% more vehicle than anyone who I ever saw driving one seemed to need. They got wedged in my mind as overblown, wasteful, extravagances. It didn’t help that they seemed (to me) to introduce the SUV movement/trend.
OK, maybe I’ve not gotten over Suburbans yet.
In my younger days I was more opinionated, cars built between about 1945 and 1964 were good (ideally American) anything else bad. I didn’t even consider practicality or parts availability, got burnt by a Peugeot 404. Now I’ve just got a T230 Celica an am very happy with it. But then a Nash Metropolitan would be a good fit for Cornish roads as well….
Honda Civics from the 90s. I hated the rice burner image with the big spoilers ground effects, coffee can exhausts and the awful farting note that came with them. Everybody I knew with them was an asshole white teen who blasted rap music from them that rattled the trunk or hatch with their giant subwoofers. They‘d make fun of muscle cars for only being fast in a straight line, yet they’d only ever race each other in…straight lines, often from roll as they were never as fast as they boasted from a normal dig.
I’ve grown a respect for the basic nature of those Civics themselves, the styling is attractive, they’re truly small and efficient, and they are easy to work on and affordable to modify to respectable levels of performance, it’s no wonder they were so popular.
Sort of the same feelings, it seemed like if you were a teen in the 90’s, you were either on Team America or Team Japan. I mostly was on Team America and hated imports, but friends that had things like Hondas (that were far better built), I could begin to appreciate them.
I now don’t even touch American cars and will concede that the 90’s Japanese cars were probably the golden era of quality.
But that era of imports were never fast in a straight line, that part I’ll never concede.
I have always detested the Chevette. That’s because every one I ever drove was manifestly inferior to the offerings coming from Japan and Germany. The Chevette sold well and I always wondered why, since it was such a poor car. It wasn’t on price as the early ones were as expensive as anything else. The later ones did compete on price and there were loads of later model Chevettes in Victoria BC.
Over the years, I have tried to understand the Chevette. I assume its sales success was due to the brand loyalty GM had at the time. Cars like the Chevette destroyed that brand loyalty.
I had a high school friend who had an ancient Chevette for a minute. Its entire exhaust system from the manifold aft had fallen off — rusted brackets, I guess — so it was deafeningly loud inside, but they drove it that way for a while anyway because a ticket would have cost less than fixing it, and both were way more than it was worth.
I think that kind of sums up the North American Chevette: It wasn’t good at anything, but fixing it would have cost more than GM figured it was worth, so it soldiered on as rock-bottom transportation for people who couldn’t afford anything else.
It was an American Trabant.
I would respectfully suggest that brand loyalty for Chevy was already a bit shaky before the Chevette came along. Think Vega. From what I’ve read here, I wouldn’t have chanced a small Chevy ever again if I’d experienced that debacle.
While the Holden/Isuzu Gemini was a fantastic small car in Australia, and the Opel Kadett was quite competent in Europe, with the Chevette GM somehow managed to lose the goodness Australia, Japan and Europe enjoyed when it came to the US market. Same thing happened with the J-car. While I get that emissions technology was in its infancy, I feel GM could have swallowed the ‘not-invented-here’ pill, got over it and tried harder, and not dumbed down/cheapened the rest of the car so much.
Cheapening their small cars didn’t make buyers ‘move up’ to the next size car, it drove them away. Talk about not understanding the customer!
“I assume its sales success was due to the brand loyalty GM had at the time.”
A lot of it had to do with the fact that GM had 7,000 Chevy dealers in 1975. As my Dad said “Just hanging a bowtie on the grille is going to sell a lot of cars.”
Chevy / GM Astro, Ford Aerostar come to mind. Drove and felt like trucks, heavy, vague steering, as they were intended of course, but I was a Plymouth Voyager guy.
My list is topped by the 1973 Pontiac Le Mans aka Knife Job. You could cut a tomato on the sharp end out back. Karma was such that I was assigned a 1975 Knife Job – er Le Mans during a summer job in 1975, and I got to drive it all over Toronto. The little sign on the dash – “Radial Tuned Suspension” still appears in my worst dreams at night. I thrashed that car pretty good and it always came back for more. You could say the styling was more muted by 1975, and I did like its performance
A buddy had a 66 Cadillac, and his brother had a Le Mans. I came to learn never to mention the Le Mans to the Caddy guy, as his hatred was even deeper than mine.
At the time I also disliked the 73 Olds Cutlass Supreme. Another buddy had one of those and he was all nose up in the air on how great his car was. Of course it rusted out 5 years later and he had to get a Camry.
However since those days, I came to love the 73-77 Cutlass line. I have saved lots of photos of them on my PC, and I enjoyed Paul’s Cutlass stories.
I did not dislike all colonnades, I did appreciate the 73-75 Malibu. A relative had one and it was running practically dry of motor oil and was still chugging along.
When they were new, I now think the Astro and Aerostar suffered most from being the wrong tool for the job. As family minivans, they were completely hopeless, like the product planners in Detroit had looked carefully at the Chrysler T-115 vans and missed every single lesson.
Once the prices of used ones started coming down, they became essentially the default van for plumbers, handymen, and other tradesmen: rugged enough to do some rough jobs, much easier to park than a big van, and more secure than a pickup truck. I see fewer of them in recent years due to attrition, but they were EVERYWHERE for a while, and I still sort of wonder what replaced them.
The Astro has become a cult vehicle and I see several a day where I live; most as recreational transportation (camper, surf rig) but a few still plying the trades. Aerostar, not so much, maybe once every week or two.
When they were new I hated the Citroen DS and SM. I thought that they were weird and when their suspensions leaked down they hugged the ground. I’ve come to appreciate them looking back though.
I’ll start off saying that with age, and for the last decade or so, seeing a different perspective on CC, where every car has a story and often a positive one, I have grown to dislike almost no car, let alone hate.
But since Hard Boiled Eggs and Nuts brought them up, I was never a DS fan but I have come to appreciatethe style and the tech. And since my neighbor has one, I see it almost every day and it doesn’t get old. On the other hand, I still don’t see anything positive about the Citroen SM. Hideous then, hideous now.
But have you seen a (Euro-headlight) SM in person? I thought similarly till the day I saw one up close, and it was just remarkable. Possibly not actually beautiful, but utterly striking.
The Mustang II. I know the car was a perfectly rational response to where the market was headed and sold very well (and far better than the Mustang it replaced), but the car was to me everything that a Mustang shouldn’t have been. I much preferred the Monza, Chevy’s response to the Mustang II. Not only did I think the Monza was a better looking car, part of its appeal to me was that it didn’t replace the Camaro, it just augmented it as a smaller and more efficient alternative. How do I feel about the Mustang II today? Exactly the same!
I was a bit rushed earlier, so thanks for reminding me of the MII. And as much enjoyment I get from still seeing one on the road (very rarely now) I cannot warm up to them.
Everyone gives it a pass for selling so well. That’s strictly in its first year (’74) because it was the heart of the energy crisis. The Pinto, Vega and Gremlin all had their best year ever in ’74, so that doesn’t exactly mean much for the MII. Sales in subsequent years fell drastically, to the level they would have been if the energy crisis hadn’t happened and made everyone desperate for a small car (and not an import for that still large swath of the population who were import-phobic).
Interesting point about Mustang II sales after the first year. I heard that GM was close to dropping the F bodies in 1974 due to a drastic drop in sales, but sales of the Camaro and Firebird dithered just above the point at which they were profitable. Keeping the F bodies in production after ’74 was a fortuitous move, as after fuel prices stabilized sales of the Camaro and Firebird really took off. Being the only game in town after the Mustang, Barracuda, Challenger, and Javelin were discontinued sure didn’t hurt. It would seem that the market did indeed prefer the larger traditional ‘pony cars’ as long as gasoline prices were reasonable.
I agree. Ford was right in making the Mustang smaller and more efficient, but they didn’t have to make it ugly. And on top of it, and saddle it with anemic engines and econobox interiors. Even its name, Mustang II, seemed to be an admission by Ford that this was not a real Mustang, but something inferior. It wasn’t until well into the Fox era that the Mustang regained its footing.
The 1974 energy crisis really did panic U.S. automakers. They all overacted, thinking that fuel shortages and European price levels were here to stay. The silver lining was that it forced them to address efficiency and economy in ways they never had. It’s really sad that regarding important advances in emissions, safety and efficiency, American automakers generally had to be dragged kicking and screaming by either the government or external economic conditions.
The Citroen C5 from 2000 remains a detestable car. Its styling cannot be rectified by tweaking. Then it doesn’t look like a Citroen but a parody of someone’s uninformed prejudice of 90s Korean design. The interior is reminiscent of toiletries in some subliminal way. It is built to the standard of a supermini – cheapness prevails making the predecessor Xantia seem like an 80s Mercedes. Citroen must have had no corporate continuity when developing the C5 – it is so fundamentally unlike its kin and kith. That it had a nice ride and was roomy doesn’t compensate.
I really dislike the W210 Mercedes E-class for its poor build and inept front-end; not the lamps but the ham-fingered way the wing fails to blend with the a-pillar and the rotten mirror panel solution. The rear lamps are mean too. They rust enthusiastically and are a genuine rubbish old banger.
The W210 for me went the opposite direction: When they were first introduced, they seemed to me like a breath of fresh air after almost 15 years of rigid applications of the W126/W124/W201 style. Some of the stylistic details didn’t seem so well considered, but I didn’t mind the blobby headlamp shape, and it seemed Mercedes was moving the game on.
But, as you say, they were rubbish, the German automotive equivalent of “fast fashion,” and they marked the point where Mercedes went from an engineering company to a lifestyle brand. That makes them awfully disagreeable to see even when the survivors are not obviously clapped-out rust traps — a reminder of when Mercedes lost the plot.
Agree on both counts.
I did come across a C5 fan somewhere online, once, but (from what you say) fortunately I have no experience with them, other than seeing one in a car park once. Unforgivable mis-styling, then and now.
The W210? While the softer styling was kind of okay, I could never understand the ‘double-Beetle’ look of the front lights. Four individual lights seemed a retrograde step, and the larger ones looked like they were pinched from a pre-68 Beetle. Were they trying to shock us with the new? Or giving us a hint that we couldn’t take quality for granted any more?
To my eyes the R170 SLK has an even uglier wing/pillar/door window line mismatch than the W210, looking less like the work of an engineer and more like that of a drunken blacksmith.
Shh! kiwibryce might be around!
But while he’s not, yeah, I reckon the C5 was just awful to look at.
To drive, not so. I’ve been in one, a V6, it was damn nice. (There you go, Bryce).
The pre-facelift C5 Break (wagon) was actually rather nice. The facelift of 2004 ruined the front of that car and it ruined the -already very unfortunate- styling of the sedan even further with arguably the ugliest pair of taillights ever slapped on a car.
The first time I got into a Monte Carlo it was the poverty model four door ~ as I slid into the rear seat I noticed it had NO GLOVE BOX and not much in the way of dashboard right of the gauge binnacle .
Then I slammed the door and discovered the rear windows didn’t open (!). since then my feelings to how the SS model coupes has mellowed but not enough to buy one .
I found the Fox Body Mustang notchback to look pleasing but like Camaros they will always be “Mullet Mobiles” (think Joe Dirt) to me .
Plenty of other late 70’s & 80’s cars I doubt I’ll ever cotton to, the Chevette and Escort may have been hair shirts but they ran and ran for the poor folks so I give them a pass .
HAPPY THANKS GIVING TO ALL ! .
-Nate
I think it was no Monte Carlo you slid into, but a Malibu.
Monte Carlo’s never came with 4 doors.
Oldsmobile Ninety Eight (1991-1996). I thought they were hidrously ugly at the time, especially compared to their Buick Park Avenue platform mate. However, I saw one recently, and I didn’t hate it nearly as much. I see where it and the Oldsmobile Achieva were going for a similar “big brother, little brother” look. Time has a way of softening one’s views and opinions, whether it be politics, religion or even cars.
Somewhat oddly I have a bit of a soft spot for the styling of these, which was rather outside of the mainstream at the time. Why? It may seem a bit odd or surprising, but they somehow reminded me of GM’s new 1961 line of full-size cars. The airy greenhouse, the shape and texture of the grille, the excessive bright trim on some versions; somehow they channel the vibe of 1961 for me. I have no idea if the stylists had even a hair of that in mind when they did these, but it just somehow evokes GM 1961 for me, which were the new cars out the year we moved to the US.
I liked the styling of those too. It seems the public favored the Buick Park avenue but there’s something about the Olds I find way more appealing. I have a soft spot for the Achieva too despite my better judgement. That very brief early 90s period of GM styling almost seemed like they got their mojo back after the dismal 80s
The Olds 98 of that time really captured my attention – and I like them even more today. They had an Art Deco vibe and a striking combination of squareness and radiused edges.
The Peugeot 307 was another mish and mash, especially disappointing after the tidy 306.
Thanks Aaron for a good question which has prompted some thoughtful responses, good reading on a lazy Thanksgiving Day (for me). We took a long bike ride yesterday, and a longish walk today, and I’m thankful to live in a town with so many CC’s curbside, in driveways, and often just driving along. And equally thankful to be part of the online community here at CC which has made me more aware and appreciative of these cars.
Lazy day for me also as wife had to work till 9pm. So I was able to take out the F100, Mustang, and Polara for an hour drive in each earlier in the day. Yesterday was the 626 and tomorrow the LeSabre. Five cars in 48 hours is a record for me. I did notice that I was followed, behind the F100, by a 1969 Skylark for awhile.
I could never truly hate anything from the US, as it still works a tiny bit of its magic on me. I remember landing at Dulles in 1987 and just being amazed at absolutely everything everywhere all at once, as they say nowadays. And because we went back to Europe in 1990, American cars (even lousy Malaise-era 5mph bumper atrocities) remain exotic to me, in a way. Kind of like Iron Curtain cars.
I reserved my bile for the cars I grew up with back in the old country, especially during the 90s. Things like the Peugeot 309, the Citroën Visa, the Ford Orion, the Lancia Dedra, the Austin Montego… God, I loathed all that stuff. Thirty years on, they don’t seem quite so horrible.
The 309 had good driving qualities; the Visa had the wonderful lunule controls and its individual styling; the Dedra had fine styling and a good 2.0 engine plus its good interior finish. Montego? No, not much going for that. The Orion was merely ordinary but not criminally so. I´d probably go for the Dedra if I had to pick one. These aren´t the worst of the Euro cars from around then. That award goes to the Volvo 440 and 460.
I’m not sure I like any Monte Carlo’s anymore. Even the first generation. And especially the ’77 model I owned.
Except the Aero Coupe. I like that.
Weird, huh?
A few years ago I came across a ran when parked 77 Monte Carlo. $500 and the usual necessities and it ran OK.
It reminded me oh so much of the ’78 Monarch I had way back when. And that’s NOT a happy remembrance.
Lots of good entries here. I’m thinking of the C4 Corvette (84-96). I really didn’t like it that much when new. I was much more of a 50’s and 60’s Vette fan and the 80’s Vettes just seemed like weak sauce. So-so power, harsh ride, quality problems, and the styling seemed bland and uninspired.
The Corvette has gotten progressively more competent and well-made over succeeding generations. However, IMHO the styling hasn’t been its strong suit, especially the C7 and C8. Decent proportions, but really busy. I’ve come to appreciate that maybe Chevy was onto something when styling the C4. It’s very streamlined and modern for the time, but unmistakably Corvette. Very clean design with very little, or really no, extraneous detail. Good looking wheels. Good looking engine. Interior is not too great to look at, but you can’t win them all.
What a question!
Earlier in life I hated the FJ Holden. This 1953 facelift on a 1948 body based off a prewar prototype soldiered on till 1956, and looked laughably old-fashioned alongside any other 1956 car. But nowadays I’ll admit it did a lot to put Australians on wheels, and played a huge part in national pride: hey, look: we can build cars! Well, we used to… And I like seeing restored ones.
The original 1978 Holden Commodore, based on the Opel of the same name. I could never warm to the awkward C-pillar treatment, fixed for the 1984 VK series. Now I realise that was something of an Opel styling trait, but back then and seen in isolation, it just looked inept and clumsy. Went well with the 4.2 V8 though, and that exhaust note!
I was going to choose One American car – and I’ll stick to that. The Colonnade-era Chevy Monte Carlo. To my eyes, the Ugliest American Car Ever. Overblown styling with those ridiculously exaggerated 1940’s style fender bulges on the side. The way the
single headlights were sunken into the front end. The grille that didn’t line up with the headlights but looked like it was slipping down the front end. Even worse with the stacked quad light front end. Yes I know they sold like crazy, but for the life of me I cannot imagine why. Ugly then, even worse now.
I thought the VB Commode was sensationally nice, and still do. So there.
I was, like everyone, a firm believer in the EH over the EJ, until quite recently, probably partly from comments made here about the Rambler-ness of the EH. The EJ has more Caddy, and is nicer. Well, now it is!
When I was a kid and saw my first AMC Matador Coupe, I knew there was something off about it. None of the cars of that era suffered regulation ramming-speed bumpers well, but the Matador really looked bad. And then there were the requisite barf-spectrum color choices of the ’70s, which didn’t help. There was always something that just didn’t add up in any of the 1/4 or 3/4 views of the car, and the stock wheels looked like they were made for a pedal car.
Recently I saw a Matador that had been cleaned up and painted with a more modern color, without bumpers, and it was actually quite beautiful. (maybe that was here?) I don’t know if the suspension had been altered, and thankfully they hadn’t put a set of stupid wheels on it, but the tires were sized more correctly. Something about the removal of those cursed bumpers helped the lines of the car a lot more, and I appreciated the design better.
Barf-spectrum color choices! I might have to steal that.
I would be honored, Aaron.
Subarus. And most of their owners. But slowly slowly coming around
If I restrict myself to examples based solely on my own personal ideas of stylistic appeal I’d have to say the revived Jaguar S-type.
When new, I found them to be ghastly. Then somewhere along the way, something happened. Either retro inspired design became commonplace to the point where the S was no longer jarring, or maybe as cars became busier in their detailing in general, that S today comes across as dare I say restrained? I’m not even sure, really. Is it classically gorgeous? Hardly. But I do know I don’t mind studying it with an open mind when I see one these days.
I think the car I remember hating from the start was the Pontiac Aztec. I don’t hate it as much now, but there is something to the Aztec that could be a growing hatred. The thing about the Aztec is that the most popular “car” today is basically that without the gaudiness – and more refined, obviously. But no, I hate today’s crossovers more: they all look alike, they’re all taller and heavier than anything under the category of a commuter or family car needs to me (assuming the typical two-child household), and the hatchback body just adds to the trend towards featureless jellybean cars.
Anyway, on the “hated” cars mentioned, I’ve never felt any hate, really. The ratty Camaro is the quintessential white trashmobile to my eyes; I never felt that way about the Monte Carlo. The only reason I might have hated it a bit was because I was a Ford guy, and into NASCAR. I maybe had the lowest opinion of Pontiac of any make when I was a kid; I think because at the time (mostly 90s), they were overdone with “look at me!” plastic boy-racer cladding and racy marketing that didn’t hold up on the street (except for some of the Trans Ams – but I saw a lot more Gran Ams and such). Then they were the ones to come up with the Aztec…
I think you’re a little hard on the Fox-body Mustang. They should have put the SVO brakes on the later 5.0s, but unlike the 60’s muscle cars with another 500-1000lbs and drums all around, they weren’t dangerously under-braked. I’d bet most drivers found them adequate, although nothing to write home about. My 924 turbo has drums and solid disks, isn’t a lot lighter, and it does OK. It is true the Fox Mustang was a bit archaic by the 90s, but still a good bit of fun. I think the late SVOs looked pretty cool, and the fastback GT wasn’t bad, but I would agree on the notchback being the one to have. That’s more because of the extra rigidity (they were kind of a floppy chassis) and lighter weight. You also have to remember the Mustang was on end-of-life status around ’85, and it probably wasn’t until it kept selling despite the Probe that Ford committed to a major update (and I bet a few people at Ford said “just watch, those yokels will be forced to admit the Probe was what they really wanted all along). So you can thank popular demand, and Ford being unwilling or late to read it, for the Fox body Mustang lingering so long.
Finally, on the Japanese cars, I think it was the late 70s through mid-80s where they really shone. The big three started to stumble into the light in the mid-80s: th Taurus showed that the US could still build a better family sedan, and some of the GM and Chrysler offerings were starting to hit the mark around 1990. Gm had a pretty good engine in the 3800 v6 (and to a lessor degree, 3100). The elephant in the room, that I don’t see mentioned nearly enough, is UAW. I remember a few people who HATED GM or Ford or Chrysler because they got one terribly put together or that constantly broke down, while others with the same car lived it. I think QC has gotten better now, but I’d venture you’d have been wise to treat new cars from certain plants at certain times like you were buying a used car. Also, maybe I was lucky in where I grew up, but I can’t think of any criticism of Japanese cars that boiled down to racism. And there were more than a few WWII vets in the area who’d fought the Japanese, including one in the little town I mostly call my home town who was on the Bataan death march. That town also had a successful Japanese grocer when I was growing up. Nobody seemed to have a problem with him. Of course, we were just kids, but if it were considered acceptable to some degree, I think that would have filtered down. Even though it was (arguably) misdirected, I miss the kind of pride and patriotism that could lead you to drive a clunker of a Chevette over a Civic. Somewhere around my generation everyone stopped caring, and before long the big three cared even less (if that’s possible), and now “US-made” cars are just assembled from pieces shipped from anywhere but here to factories in the US. A far cry from when the US turned out most of the machines of war and munitions that won WWII.
I’m going to have to disagree with you regarding the brakes on Fox bodied Mustangs and Capris. I’d had a couple of 5.0L Capris (85 and 86) back in the day which I really liked. But between the two Capris, I spent a lot of time in a WS6 Pontiac Trans Am. The WS6 package had a number of upgrades to the suspension system including 4 wheel disc brakes. Even though it was a heavier car than either of the Capris, it always stopped shorter and with better control than the Foxes. The SVO I sampled back then had the 4 wheel discs and stopped similarly to the T/A.
In the end, I couldn’t make a deal on the SVO and the Mercury dealer was willing to work with me, so I ended up with another 5.0L Capri. I was fortunate that I never needed the full capacity of the brakes on my Capris.
I’ve only driven a Fox body Mustang GT once and, not that it was enough to judge by, all I can say is the brakes were not noticeably lacking in regular driving. You may be right that most people found them adequate.
I owned a more modern 2011 GT, with rear discs of course, for 14 years and the brakes were just great (though it never did any track duty). I now have a 2015 with the performance package Brembo brakes, and I have to say it has the opposite problem from the old Fox body. Is it possible to have TOO MUCH braking capability? The brakes are powerful to the point that it’s tricky to brake smoothly. Touch that pedal even a little and it want’s to stop ASAP. It could be calibration, but I’m pretty sure it’s factory specs because I’ve read reviews that said the brakes are touchy.
I think the biggest criticism on the brakes is that Ford didn’t offer an upgraded brake option, especially when they went through the trouble to develop them for the SVO. The base 2.3 cars didn’t need any more, and I still think the way of lot of people drove the 5.0s, they got along fine (especially with upgraded pads and shoes), so I can’t see where it’s a breaking point (pun intended). Everybody know they weren’t getting a Porsche-killer (once the SVO died out, at least). I think you could argue Ford made the right economic choice to stick with the disk/drum setup for most cars, but not making the SVO brakes and option seems like passing up a low-investment, high-reward opportunity. Especially considering all the car mags would have spec’d them, and the complaints about the brakes would’ve disappeared.
It’s definitely possible to have too much brakes. Bigger brakes don’t necessarily make the braking action too aggressive though; it may actually be the opposite. I know with track-oriented brake pads, it often takes a lot of pedal effort until the brakes warm up – not that you’re likely to find those from the factory. I think it has more to do with pad compounds and sizing of the hydraulics, booster, and such. I’ve driven a few cars with touchy brakes though, and it can be a real pain, especially on slick roads. The worst is cars where pedal travel, not pressure, is what seems to determine the amount of braking, and I don’t care for any car that has a lot of brake pedal travel. Actually going back to my Porsche, the biggest issue with the drum brakes is the pedal is a little spongier than all-disk cars tend to be – that and you have to manually adjust the drums. But I’m still surprised at how well they work, even though I’ve given quite a bit of thought to potential upgrades.
I actually really like both the cars you’ve written up. The fox body avoided the mullet association that the 80s F bodies never seemed to escape. I love the 78+ A/G cars, following the 77 B bodies with GM’s ‘sheer’ look, I still love them today.
However the 73-77 Colonnade cars, any & all of them, were some of the most hateful cars to my eyes. I’m not surprised they made the first comment on this post. It probably didn’t help that I learned to drive in the 90s when by then these cars were totally anachronistic. At least they were also totally hooptified in these parts. I was ok with the Monte Carlo as so totally overdone on theme to even kinda look nice, but the others, not so much.
Today though? I actually kinda like them, yes any & all of them. They really represent GM still at the top of its game before losing. Some of the styling cues even seem similar to the 73-87 square bodies, some of the most beautiful trucks ever created (& I’m a Ford guy). The 98 new beetle was hardly the first car to try retro modern styling, Ford beat them there with the 94 mustang. But GM? Started the trend in 73 with these cars. From the sculpted fenders to the side glass with triangular quarter windows & trapezoid door windows. These look like a modern interpretation of what was then a 30 year old car. The Monte Carlo did that purposefully, however all the cars looked like that. And if I understand right they lent a large part of their frame to the 77 B bodies. I still can’t muster much love for 70s Chryslers though in this way. I think the fuselage era is still lost on me.
Oh & speaking of Volkswagen, the Beetle was truly anachronistic while still being sold. I can’t imagine people cross shopping it with a Pinto, much less a Corolla, & finding the Beetle to be the choice. Today though I appreciate seeing one running around in the summer, even if they don’t make my bucket list garage of old cars to own one day.
Ford Zephyr Mk III – the styling creeped me right out as a child! And growing up in NZ in the late 1970s/80s meant there were still a lot of Mk IIIs on the road, so the frequency of my creeped-outedness was high. It was something about the angle of the fins, the concave baleen whale teeth grille, the narrow wheel track; it just looked sort of evil to little me (of course I later read Christine, but that had no impact on my love for ’59 Plymouths!). My hatred for the Mk III Zephyr was completely irrational and I can’t explain it. Now, 40+ years later, I don’t mind them at all, and find the Zodiac styling to be very crisp and cool with the different glasshouse.
I’ll start by echoing everyone who said SUVs of pretty much every stripe made today going back to when the trend first started around the time of the Explorer in the 90s. A couple here and there I think broke some ground but eventually got co-opted into the genre to the point where I can’t find anything interesting about them.
That said I’m not going to say there isn’t ANYTHING to like today–the Miata and 86 twins, some Hyundais and Kias seem to at least face forward with interesting styling and niches that nobody else wants to spend the money filling but it is bleak out there.
As for older stuff I’ve come around on, the 80s GM A-bodies were sad sacks in my (grade school) eyes but now I’ve come to see them as extremely honest cars that held up while everything else I liked more at the time just evaporated. The Fox body Mustang took exactly the same journey for me as in the piece. John Stephenson mentioned the C4 ‘Vette but I can’t say I hated it at the time, only that my appreciation for the styling has grown quite a bit (the continuity with the 82 C3 is masterful).
My biggest problem is that I didn’t hate that many cars and the ones I did I haven’t moved much on. Much more the case was that there were cars I didn’t think much of at the time that I’ve come to appreciate now that there’s nothing like them. Small, cheap econoboxes or 90s FWD sport coupes which are just entire segments that do not exist anymore and while I didn’t hate them at the time, I did just assume they’d always have some modern equivalent.
I would say that there are some interesting cars out there today.
– GR Corolla, 300HP, manual trans.
– Integra Type S. 300HP, manual trans.
– Cadillac Blackwings. Tons of HP, manual trans.
– Ford Mustang, 500HP, manual trans but too big, too heavy.
Wow, this post really got some traction, and I’ll throw a bit more in.
C3 Corvettes. Late 70s I was driving a Simca that handled like it was on rails, in spite of being tall and skinny. I regularly drove a particular 2 lane highway with lots of curves and just a few straight sections, and some turnouts. I got stuck behind so many C3 Vettes that would tiptoe thru the turns, then romp on the loud pedal when the straight came, then by the second of the next 20 turns I’d be right on it’s ass. Never, ever used a turnout or let me pass.
70’s Monte Carlo. Absolutely garish, but slow, handled poorly with no space inside, but enormous outside. 50 years later they’re still ugly and garish.
Fox body Mustangs. I’ve warmed to them over the years. Cheap and sporty and could be quick in some years with the right engines. Not with the 2300 Pinto engine. Really, IMO a successor to the original Mustang, cheap and sporty, occasionally good. And they got better looking as they refined the styling over it’s long life.
Cars are like people – each has redeeming qualities. Also like people, these redeeming qualities are sometimes harder to find on some than others.
However, there have been attributes of certain cars I could not tolerate. The four-cylinder Fox Mustang is a big one. I liked the car itself, I had an ’89 for many years, but that 2.3 liter four was a horrendously underpowered engine. It was what swore me off four-cylinder anythings for a quarter century.
Time does soften a hard heart.
Another attribute I’m not impressed about is the umpteen speed transmissions currently seen. If one is traveling 60 mph, with a ten speed automatic transmission, that puppy has shifted approximately every 6 mph. I’ve experienced them and it is really tedious how it will keep the engine within a 500 rpm band under many conditions. Yet people fuss about CVTs…
The general absence of color variety has gotten old. While I need to post it, I found a flyer from GM truck – they had 34 different colors for the GM truck line in 1994. Now it’s about a half-dozen, not all of which are available on every trim.
Black interiors. Horrible, no good, wretched, and just sad looking.
Thankfully the aftermarket vinyl roof treatment has subsided. Not completely, but enough.
A car I used to hate but have now reconsidered is the early Ford Pinto. I know the interior space and ergonomics were not great, and the car was very stripped down as far as features go. But it was an honest car of sorts. It didn’t pretend to be other than what it was (I’m looking at you, Lincoln Versailles).
Give me the first year of the wagon, 1972. Heck, let’s go with the di-noc woodgrain cladding while we are at it (“Squire”, it was dubbed). I get rack and pinion steering and front disc brakes. I’ll take the bulletproof and somewhat tunable 2 liter four, and the four speed transmission. The car turned out to be easily repairable, and the drivetrain was bulletproof. These days, there is no wagon built like it, in so many ways.
’69 VW Beetle while in high school…what a money pit!!
VW was never on the radar scope after that!!
Early ’60’s Mopars were my most hated as a youth, based on styling. I’ve grown an appreciation for the first generation Valiant due to engineering and the sedan styling now looks premium compared to the boring Falcon. ’62 Dodge was really a turnaround in my opinion, then vs now. Styling has grown on me and, while not the high horsepower beast of a 409 equipped Chevy, probably a better all-around street car.
In my case, I’ve owned all kinds of cars. I’ve owned two Yugos, three Pontiac Azteks, three Fox body Mercury Capris and since children, a bunch of norm-core conventional cars. Generally, I have developed a rather laissez-faire attitude toward styling. I was not a huge fan of the Aztek’s styling, but my wife really wanted one. Once you got past the styling and lived with it for a while, it was a rather pleasant vehicle. I guess what proves Pontiac was about 15 years ahead of the times is that there are dozens of Aztek-like cars on the road now.
I think I project my views of owners of cars onto the cars. When I was a young boy, my dad (who drove truck) always said to avoid Cadillac and Mercedes drivers as they drive like they own the place. So, as a child, I was not a fan of those cars.
Another example was my irrational dislike of AMC Ambassadors. One of our neighbors owned one when I was a youngster and he was a bit of a curmudgeon, always yelling at us neighborhood kids (too noisy, on his lawn, teasing his dog, etc.). Again, I projected my dislike of our old neighbor onto Ambys and 4 door Matadors, too. It wasn’t until a buddy of mine got bequeathed a 401-equipped Matador sedan that I changed my mind.
I came of age right at the end of the disco era, just as the tide was shifting to imported sporty cars (i.e. Datsun 280ZX, Toyota Supra, etc.). My friends and I developed stereotypes of the classic disco guy, slightly tubby and balding, with wide lapel shirts open down to the navel that featured gold chains tangled in their chest hair. These guys were in their late-20’s to late-30’s and were desperately trying to bed as many women 8-15 years younger than them as possible. They seemed so pretentious to us working stiffs, so I was not a fan of that era of those sporty cars.
My current irrationality is my dislike of Subarus, of any type. It has a lot to do with the same reasoning my dad didn’t care for Cadillac and Mercedes drivers back in the day. I’ve encountered a rather large number of seemingly oblivious Subie drivers here in snow belt that are the ones tailgating you in whiteouts (really in any other weather conditions) and generally acting like they own the place. In time, these Subaru drivers will graduate to another type of car and drive just as badly as they do now and I will get over my irrational dislike of those cars, like I did the previous ones.
Great question! My negative reactions to the following have not changed over the years:
– The Olds Cutlass and the Buick Skylark from ’68 through ’71. They looked obese. And the Skylark was too short to pull off the full-length S-curve along the side that didn’t look good on any of the Buicks of that era. I think GM was alarmed by the success of their predecessors, which had looked like 7/8-scale versions of the B and C bodies. They were beautiful and perfectly proportioned, probably stealing sales from the full-sizers. So the replacements were made to look fat and thus shorter than they really were. But because they were fast and comfortable they still sold well.
– The Hummer H1 and H2. Overtly militaristic gas guzzlers. And the H2 even came in a version with a pointless little pickup bed.
– Luxury SUVs – a silly concept IMHO. When the Range Rover became popular in the US in the ’90s, starting a trend, I thought of suggesting they use a rather British sounding tag line: “Quite possibly the most pretentious car you can buy.”
Cleaner look of the Mustang LX notchback? I don’t agree, at least the HB is more practical and its fastback rear breaks up the overall squareness. For the same reason even if they are not HB , I prefer the short-lived aéroback Buick Régal and Olds Cutlass. Yes those that everyone runs to say that they hate them . I like them so much, in two doors form, that I would like to get my hands on one of them and since they are worthless, I would not hesitate to put the Hackzall in their posterior to make 3-door HBs.
The two door one had “frameless window glass”. Other wise I’d a preferred them to the “4dor”, relatives.
Also, if those rear side windows would have been “hinged, pop openers”.
Great question! My negative reactions to the following have not changed over the years:
– The Olds Cutlass and the Buick Skylark from ’68 through ’71. They looked obese. And the Skylark was too short to pull off the full-length S-curve along the side that didn’t look good on any of the Buicks of that era. I think GM was alarmed by the success of their predecessors, which had looked like 7/8-scale versions of the B and C bodies. They were beautiful and perfectly proportioned, probably stealing sales from the full-sizers. So the replacements were made to look fat and thus shorter than they really were. But because they were fast and comfortable they still sold well.
– The Hummer H1 and H2. Overtly militaristic gas guzzlers. And the H2 even came in a version with a pointless little pickup bed.
– Luxury SUVs – a silly concept IMHO. When the Range Rover became popular in the US in the ’90s, starting a trend, I thought of suggesting they use a rather British sounding tag line: “Quite possibly the most pretentious car you can buy.”
I’m a lot younger than most of the commenters here I suspect. I was born in the early 2000s, and started noticing cars and learning what they all were by about 2007. As a kid I had a disdain for most ’80s and ’90s cars, particularly the American ones, since I thought they all looked weird, boring, dated, or all 3. A lot of them were well-loved and ratty looking by the 2010-13 period when I was starting to form opinions. It didn’t help that my Dad, a Gen-X through and through, had a distaste for Foxbodies and C4 Vettes in favor or much nicer imports. Most of these cars I appreciate a lot more now, since they’ve become so much more rare as they’ve fallen off the roads. Even the ugly ones are still neat to spot, and ugly modern cars (I’ll get to later) made me appreciate the ’90s designs more too.
In middle/high school I started getting into online car forums/discussions and absorbed opinions other than my Dad’s and Granddad’s. Around 2015-16 the crossover hate online was big, maybe even bigger than today. I was definitely one of those “Every CUV ever is terrible and the buyers should feel bad” types. My least favorites were probably subcompacts like the first-gen Buick Encore and Chevy Trax. Just terribly proportioned little ballsacks. I still dislike those. Same goes for the Ford EcoSport from a few years later. Nowadays I’ve lessened my crossover hate though, not in the least because I personally find their styling to be much more palatable now than 10 years ago. So many back then were way too rounded and it just looked weird that they tried to be both round and truckish/blocky at the same time. I like the more squared-off SUV shape. The current Nissan Rogue and Pathfinder, Honda CR-V, Pilot and Passport, Chevy Trailblazer, Hyundai Santa Fe, etc. all look so much better than their decade-old counterparts by going back to that squarer shape. And other ones, like the new Chevy Trax, aren’t really boxy but are just much better proportioned than before. Also props to Chevy for offering the Trax and Trailblazer in some really sweet colors, a Trailblazer in that bright aqua turns my head faster than any greyscale Mercedes that costs 3X more.
I appreciate a lot of the cars I used to loathe when I was younger due to maturity and of course reading CC everyday.
The cars I still despise after all these years are the BMC Issigonis cars, the ADO 16 and the other bigger Austin thing, I don’t care how advanced they were or how strong the bodies are I maintain my dislike for those horrible cars with a passion.
It feels weird now, but I used to hate air cooled VWs – especially Karmann-Ghias, which I viewed as wannabe sports cars…now I drive one every day and am a total convert. My girlfriend (now wife) loved them and I bought a 1303 Cabrio for her – not fast, but incredibly solid and great handling on 16” Fuchs.
Then I spent years designing Porsches and had a long trip in a 356SC – an absolute epiphany!
So now I anm passionate about all things air cooled and especially Porsche and VW. I love my faithful daily driver Ghia to bits and have found the whole VW scene to be firiendly and accommodating….
Late to the party, but hate is such a strong word, so I’ll use dislike or other terms.
As others have said, each car has its merits and its detriments, but they are all special in some way to someone. Ok, now that the obligatory politically correct statement is out of the way, I’ll speak to three cars (or car types) on which I’ve had my own change of heart.
When I started driving in the seventies at 16 in 1976, I was a brougham head with a ‘73 LTD. Go figure, as these are old people cars, and now, as an old guy, I drive a Mustang and a Civic Coupe. There were many PLC(s) in between.
First the Civic since I brought it up. I never liked small cars, the Honda Civic included. The 8th gen was especially boring to me. I think the only small car that I might possibly use the term “hate” for was the Datsun B210… Damn that car was ugly.
The change of heart: I love my 2016 Honda Civic EX-T Coupe. It’s fast enough for this old man, an excellent commuter car, gets killer gas mileage, and handles like it’s on rails. Who knew? Apparently about a bazillion other people before me.
Second: CUV(s). Disliked them, because I drive a car and hated (sorry… strongly disliked) getting stuck behind anything around which I could not see.
Then came the Mazda CX-5. A CUV that actually had good looks (IMHO, anyway). When the wife decided she wanted one, and realizing that resistance is futile, I steered her towards this one. We both like this car very much.
I will add another car type I’ve never embraced, and it may be one of the reasons I’ve never had kids of my own… The Minivan. They were freaking everywhere in the eighties and nineties and I could not wrap my head around why anyone would want one of those things. Again, no kids, and thus no perspective here… I drove a Thunderbird… now THAT was a practical car!
The change of heart, even though I’d never own one: Some friends and I piled into a Plymouth Voyager, or Dodge Caravan, or Chrysler Town and Country (I forget which… the all looked the same) and off to the mountains we went to go skiing. It had room for all of us, our gear, and even made it through like 14 inches of snow in western PA without missing a beat. I had a new respect for something I otherwise despised.
The Fox body Mustangs and G-Body coupes were two of my favourite cars from the 80s! I like them because they were anarchistic throw backs. I was not a fan of modern FWD cars or “imports” during this era. Being a hands-on V8 guy that liked to fiddle with cars, they old RWD V8 cars were (and still are) my bread and butter.
There were lots of cars I didn’t like when I was younger. I generally didn’t like any of the mid-70s stuff, big bumper, smog era, broughams. Big fluffy land yachts were everything I disliked about Detroit. Being a performance car guy, I had a lot of disdain for the Mustang II in particular. I also didn’t like the Colonnade cars, especially the Chevelles, since I was a early Chevelle fan. It was actually this distaste for the Colonnade cars that made it okay for my dad to daily drive the ultra low mile mint condition never seen winter ’76 Malibu I found for him. Then after living with the car, I learned to like it – a lot. Now decades later, it sits in my garage. It may not be the best car ever, but it is a wonderful car that I really love and enjoy to drive. And having owned the early A-bodies, I have learned the 1973-77 platform is better in some ways.
As I mentioned above, I also did not like “import” cars. German and Italian stuff was ok, but stuff from Japan – yuck! Now years later, my daily drivers have been exclusively Japanese for many years.
Today, I pretty much appreciate any old car that is still on the road or well cared for, and I have even learned to appreciate the older Japanese stuff I used to hate. What I dislike today, is modern cars. They perform the transportation function very well but are completely soulless.
1974-1978 Ford LTD/Mercury Marquis. With a father and my uncle working for Ford in South Chicago, I made it clear that I thought these popular Ford products were bloated, ugly sedans.
I was wrong. Thanks to CC, I learned that they were bloated, ugly, DEPENDABLY GOOD cars.
Thanks CC for the unvarnished truth.
I own a 1979 Monte Carlo today. Completely stock and original, without any silly modifications, which make me immediately lose interest in any Monte Carlo so afflicted. And in the 1980s, I had another just like it. Back then these cars had a completely different image. They were trim, modern and stylish, a breath of fresh air coming from the bloated disco-mobile Montes that preceded them and not yet associated with all those retrograde mullet-mobile stereotypes. That started later, when the SS model, introduced in 1983, became affordable as a used car (so not before 1986 or so). That’s when all the hooning and hot-rodding began, and then this derogatory image of the car and the social types likely to own one devolved onto all Monte Carlos. I clearly remember a time when all that stigma did not exist. But at some point in the 1980s Monte Carlos certainly acquired it, and had I been in the market a few years later, I would have most likely shared your views.
Here is my COAL on the Monte Carlo:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/cars-of-a-lifetime/coal-1979-chevrolet-monte-carlo-time-is-on-my-side/
Now that I’ve defended my Monte Carlo, I’ll answer the question itself…
Back when I owned my first Monte, what I hated was BMW. I thought that they were cars for yuppie a-holes, and in the 1980s I absolutely despised yuppie a-holes with hot heaping hunks of hate. I have since learned to appreciate the cars themselves on their own merits, independently of the stereotypes about typical Beemer owners.
What I never understood was all the hatred for SUVs. I grew up in a large family and my parents owned two Suburbans, simply because that was the smallest vehicle into which all of us could comfortably fit, plus Dad used them for work. We were way ahead of the curve. But when everybody else started buying SUVs, I immediately recognized this as simply going back to the pre-war sedans where you sat upright and higher off the ground. Back to rational space utilization after years of longer-and-lower.
I really hated the Jaguar XJ-S. The car was fine for what it was, but such a disappointment as a replacement for the E-Type and the flying buttress styling was a bit too much like a ’69 Galaxie SportsRoof.