As everyone knows in the car game timing is everyting... generally I think it's best to be the first in a segment so you get to define it (GTI, 3 series, Accord etc.), but sometimes manufacturers know what customers want before the customers even do
My first submission:
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/exvOiRJLguM/maxresdefault.jpg)
Still not quite handsome per se but come on. BMW & MB totally swagger jacked. I think had this not come out right when the recession hit, and it didn't have that stupid grill, it could have been a low key hit for Acura
"Swagger jacked". I'm going to nominate Sporty for being ahead of his time :lol:
McLaren F1
It was such a giant leap forward and cost so much more than any car before it that they couldn't even sell enough of them to fulfill the entire production plan. Originally, they were supposed to build 300 cars, but only could find buyers for 100 of them. But today, cars like that sell out before the public even knows they're coming to market.
With the ZDX, I wonder if part of the issue is that BMW and Mercedes already have large customer bases that are accustomed to paying high prices. The ZDX, meanwhile, was Acura's most expensive product. You don't have anyone coming into the Acura store saying "hmmm, I have $60,000 and I always buy Acuras, so let's see which Acuras are available."
AMC Eagle.
I think my car was a bit ahead of its time - especially in all the electronics and adjustability. It was criticised a lot for it back in 2006. Today basically every car in the segment has the adjustability. Every time I drive it I feel amazed at how modern it feels almost 10 years after it was launched.
(http://i1269.photobucket.com/albums/jj593/MexicoCityM3/IMG_20140614_191741-2_zps4660408b.jpg)
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03414/Mini-Cooper-S-driv_3414822b.jpg)
Way ahead of it's time.
(http://www.uniquecarsandparts.com.au/images/car_info/Studebaker/Avanti/studebaker_avanti_large.jpg)
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on March 15, 2016, 09:23:40 AM
I think my car was a bit ahead of its time - especially in all the electronics and adjustability. It was criticised a lot for it back in 2006. Today basically every car in the segment has the adjustability. Every time I drive it I feel amazed at how modern it feels almost 10 years after it was launched.
(http://i1269.photobucket.com/albums/jj593/MexicoCityM3/IMG_20140614_191741-2_zps4660408b.jpg)
It wasn't ahead of it's time because every car in the segment that followed had it's own version of what your car has. It started the adjustability craze.
Lamborghini Countach! The original Super Car....
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/1963_Chrysler_Turbine_in_Hershey_PA.JPG)
The points. They are being missed by some :lol:
I'll throw this one out there. The new Volvo engine architecture. I think using one block and then having battery, super, and/or turbo to help it out based on model/trim will be the future. But I think that Volvo will take a lot of sales flack for a while until it catches on
The first generation Tempest
(http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/3/3005/4681/32512340003_original.jpg)
Why? Rear mounted transmission, independant rear suspension, a curved "rope" driveshaft that solved many of the space problems which would later make FWD more desirable in smaller cars.
By '65 GM gave up on all these ideas. Their next divorce mounted transmission would be on a Corvette forty years later.
Quote from: FoMoJo on March 15, 2016, 04:47:21 PM
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/1963_Chrysler_Turbine_in_Hershey_PA.JPG)
Yes, look at how common turbine cars are now. :lol:
The Cosworth Twin Cam Vega.
(http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/chevyvega/images/2/23/1976_Cosworth_Vega.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140326030117)
Okay, so not just ahead of its time, but badly executed and disastrously marketed.
Still, the idea of a compact, four cylinder High Performance car would be vindicated later once the Japanese started selling significant numbers of them.
GM EV-1: any EV before the Tesla Model S, really
Oldsmobile Jetfire: Aluminum engine, turbocharged
Quote from: Soup DeVille on March 15, 2016, 05:52:27 PM
The first generation Tempest
(http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/3/3005/4681/32512340003_original.jpg)
Why? Rear mounted transmission, independant rear suspension, a curved "rope" driveshaft that solved many of the space problems which would later make FWD more desirable in smaller cars.
By '65 GM gave up on all these ideas. Their next divorce mounted transmission would be on a Corvette forty years later.
GM mostly stopped engineering interesting cars in 1965.
Quote from: Gotta-Qik-G8 on March 15, 2016, 04:29:51 PM
Lamborghini Countach! The original Super Car....
You misspelled Muira.
The Countach was a styling hit; as radical as it looked in 1971 is hard to explain even today; but the early examples were lackluster performers.
It wasn't until owners started fitting them with wheel flares and proper sized tired that Lamborghini finally got the right idea, and in 5000S trim it finally became a supercar.
Nobody mentioned the Citroen DS yet!
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on March 15, 2016, 08:55:59 AM
As everyone knows in the car game timing is everyting... generally I think it's best to be the first in a segment so you get to define it (GTI, 3 series, Accord etc.), but sometimes manufacturers know what customers want before the customers even do
My first submission:
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/exvOiRJLguM/maxresdefault.jpg)
Still not quite handsome per se but come on. BMW & MB totally swagger jacked. I think had this not come out right when the recession hit, and it didn't have that stupid grill, it could have been a low key hit for Acura
You're aware that the X6 came out a year before the ZDX, right? And the X6 concept debuted 2 years ahead of the ZDX concept. So BMW hardly swagger jacked Acura.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on March 15, 2016, 05:52:27 PM
The first generation Tempest
(http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/3/3005/4681/32512340003_original.jpg)
Why? Rear mounted transmission, independant rear suspension, a curved "rope" driveshaft that solved many of the space problems which would later make FWD more desirable in smaller cars.
By '65 GM gave up on all these ideas. Their next divorce mounted transmission would be on a Corvette forty years later.
Wait, all Corvettes up till the C6 had a normal transmission and not a transaxle?
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on March 15, 2016, 05:55:01 PM
Yes, look at how common turbine cars are now. :lol:
Could be it's time has not yet come :huh:.
Quote from: FoMoJo on March 15, 2016, 06:40:30 PM
Could be it's time has not yet come :huh:.
Sure as hell doesn't look like it. :lol:
Quote from: thecarnut on March 15, 2016, 06:33:09 PM
Wait, all Corvettes up till the C6 had a normal transmission and not a transaxle?
C5s had transaxles, but C4 and before were conventional.
Quote from: MX793 on March 15, 2016, 09:07:49 AM
AMC Eagle.
I wanted to post this but I got pulled into a meeting.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on March 15, 2016, 06:03:30 PM
You misspelled Muira.
The Countach was a styling hit; as radical as it looked in 1971 is hard to explain even today; but the early examples were lackluster performers.
It wasn't until owners started fitting them with wheel flares and proper sized tired that Lamborghini finally got the right idea, and in 5000S trim it finally became a supercar.
Was the Muira considered a Super Car in it's day?
Quote from: Gotta-Qik-G8 on March 15, 2016, 10:07:36 PM
Was the Muira considered a Super Car in it's day?
I think so. Furthermore, it became the archetype for all supercars.
I thought it was more of a GT than Super Car! I could be wrong.....
Quote from: 93JC on March 15, 2016, 07:01:08 PM
C5s had transaxles, but C4 and before were conventional.
Oh, interesting. I didn't know that, thanks!
NSU Ro-80
(http://www.carstyling.ru/resources/classic/1967_77_NSU_Ro_80_01.jpg)
Quote from: Gotta-Qik-G8 on March 15, 2016, 11:42:37 PM
I thought it was more of a GT than Super Car! I could be wrong.....
It is regarded as the first supercar.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on March 16, 2016, 09:05:27 AM
D'Oh!
As long as you spell Camero right, it's all good ;)
Quote from: cawimmer430 on March 16, 2016, 06:24:47 AM
NSU Ro-80
(http://www.carstyling.ru/resources/classic/1967_77_NSU_Ro_80_01.jpg)
No, this never would have caught on.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on March 16, 2016, 01:05:50 PM
No, this never would have caught on.
The hell are you talking about?
It's got contemporary styling, FWD, rotary, disc brakes on all four corners, macPherson strut front, trailing arm rear suspension, rack and pinion steering, and a monocoque chassis in
1967. It's a basic blueprint for family sedan motoring, but 25 years ahead of anyone doing anything similar.
Quote from: 2o6 on March 16, 2016, 02:02:00 PM
The hell are you talking about?
It's got contemporary styling, FWD, rotary, disc brakes on all four corners, macPherson strut front, trailing arm rear suspension, rack and pinion steering, and a monocoque chassis in 1967. It's a basic blueprint for family sedan motoring, but 25 years ahead of anyone doing anything similar.
Lol. No, none of that would ever catch on.
Quote from: 2o6 on March 16, 2016, 02:02:00 PM
The hell are you talking about?
It's got contemporary styling, FWD, rotary, disc brakes on all four corners, macPherson strut front, trailing arm rear suspension, rack and pinion steering, and a monocoque chassis in 1967. It's a basic blueprint for family sedan motoring, but 25 years ahead of anyone doing anything similar.
I saw a great British video of that. Sounded like a superb car. Shame about those apex seals, everything else seemed awesome.
But yeah, I should be CarSPIN contrarian:
"No."
No you shouldn't.
Quote from: SVT666 on March 15, 2016, 09:03:23 AM
McLaren F1
It was such a giant leap forward and cost so much more than any car before it that they couldn't even sell enough of them to fulfill the entire production plan. Originally, they were supposed to build 300 cars, but only could find buyers for 100 of them. But today, cars like that sell out before the public even knows they're coming to market.
Too bad they didn't make 200 more...exactly as originally specified.
So I could still have the exact same non-existence chance of owning one.
Quote from: 2o6 on March 16, 2016, 02:02:00 PM
The hell are you talking about?
It's got contemporary styling, FWD, rotary, disc brakes on all four corners, macPherson strut front, trailing arm rear suspension, rack and pinion steering, and a monocoque chassis in 1967. It's a basic blueprint for family sedan motoring, but 25 years ahead of anyone doing anything similar.
Huh. I never knew that car was innovative for being anything but a rotary. Feels like everything but the rotary is still around today.
It really is a pleasant car to look at. It looks more like it was introduced in 1982, instead of 1967.
Quote from: shp4man on March 15, 2016, 11:05:34 AM
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03414/Mini-Cooper-S-driv_3414822b.jpg)
Way ahead of it's time.
I believe BMC lost money on every one of those it sold. They priced it as an economy car rather than a fashionable chic gem.
Quote from: 2o6 on March 16, 2016, 10:42:26 PM
It really is a pleasant car to look at. It looks more like it was introduced in 1982, instead of 1967.
OK, fair points but the rotary doomed it
Audi Quattro. Introduced in 1980, one of the first AWD rally racing car.
Also in the U.S. where it snows, it's difficult to find a new luxury car which is not AWD. This was all started by Audi which was way ahead of it's time regarding this.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on March 17, 2016, 06:24:13 AM
OK, fair points but the rotary doomed it
In 1967, no one really knew that. The rotary is inconsequential. The rest of the car is ahead of its time, with most cars being BOF RWD solid axle affairs for at least 15 more years.
The car was incredibly ahead of its time. You can't contest that.
Quote from: 2o6 on March 17, 2016, 06:56:13 AM
In 1967, no one really knew that. The rotary is inconsequential. The rest of the car is ahead of its time, with most cars being BOF RWD solid axle affairs for at least 15 more years.
The car was incredibly ahead of its time. You can't contest that.
My best buddy's dad had a Ro80. This was about 1973. It was like riding in a spaceship compared to other cars at the time - way ahead of everything else in ride, handling, ergonomics, aerodynamics.
Quote from: veeman on March 17, 2016, 06:47:53 AM
Audi Quattro. Introduced in 1980, one of the first AWD rally racing car.
Also in the U.S. where it snows, it's difficult to find a new luxury car which is not AWD. This was all started by Audi which was way ahead of it's time regarding this.
Ahead of its time; but not too far. It was a success; and Audi still capitalizes on the success of the ur-Quattro to this day. Now, you can argue that the '72 Subaru Leone was ahead of its time too much, because soon after Subaru backed off on AWD for several years before making a successful go at it again; but the Leone wasn't a failure either.
The '66 Jensen FF though...
http://jalopnik.com/267959/jensen-ff (http://jalopnik.com/267959/jensen-ff)
That Jensen is gorgeous.
A friend of mine, a MOPAR fan had a Jensen Interceptor. A beautiful car but the paint on the hood wrinkled from the heat the big block generated.
Quote from: FoMoJo on March 17, 2016, 04:42:28 PM
A friend of mine, a MOPAR fan had a Jensen Interceptor. A beautiful car but the paint on the hood wrinkled from the heat the big block generated.
Just needed some insulation or better paint. Less engine is not the answer.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on March 17, 2016, 04:45:22 PM
Just needed some insulation or better paint. Less engine is not the answer.
Very little clearance between the engine and the hood/bonnet seemed to be the main problem. Doubt there was much room for insulation.
Quote from: veeman on March 17, 2016, 01:37:50 PM
That Jensen is gorgeous.
Yes it is, but Studebaker did it first.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/ff/1934ChryslerAirflow.jpg/800px-1934ChryslerAirflow.jpg)
1934 Chrysler Airflow.
All-steel monocoque body construction, designed in a wind tunnel, near 50/50 weight distribution and one of the first cars to move the engine above (instead of behind) the front axle and placed the passengers within the wheelbase of the car. All this in 1934.
Of course, it was a sales flop. It was too unconventional for buyers at the time but all these ideas became the norm decades later.
(http://cdn.barrett-jackson.com/staging/carlist/items/Fullsize/Cars/115982/115982_Front_3-4_Web.jpg)
Looks like my mutt puppy when she crouches down and gets ready to pounce
O god is that a central headlight, the more I look the worse it gets
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on March 19, 2016, 09:28:00 PM
Looks like my mutt puppy when she crouches down and gets ready to pounce
O god is that a central headlight, the more I look the worse it gets
And it turns with the front wheels!
Really neat cars actually. Big step forward for 1948
Quote from: Morris Minor on March 17, 2016, 04:55:50 AM
I believe BMC lost money on every one of those it sold. They priced it as an economy car rather than a fashionable chic gem.
It was an economy car...
Quote from: Soup DeVille on March 19, 2016, 09:33:57 PM
And it turns with the front wheels!
Really neat cars actually. Big step forward for 1948
Guy seems to have bit off a LOT more than he could chew. I can respect that. We need forward thinkers, even if they fail.