Spotted this from afar. Looks like some sort of Chevrolet... :huh:
Looks beautiful though. :wub:
(http://img815.imageshack.us/img815/5364/81303646.jpg)
Mids 70s Malibu maybe?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/%2774_Chevrolet_Chevelle_Coupe_%28Centropolis_Laval_%2710%29.jpg/800px-%2774_Chevrolet_Chevelle_Coupe_%28Centropolis_Laval_%2710%29.jpg)
^Hey, nice pimp coupe!^ :rockon:
That's a Chevy Nova- maybe a 77. Not sure how to tell the years apart exactly but that's about the age.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1978_Chevy_Nova_Custom_4-Door_Sedan.jpg
Ah looks like you're right.
So does Nova in German mean no go like it does in Spanish?
Detroit had some of them as police cars when I was a kid.
Quote from: rohan on April 24, 2011, 06:48:50 PM
Detroit had some of them as police cars when I was a kid.
Guess it's a good crime deterrent. No one would want to get arrested and have to sit in the back of one of those!
Quote from: Mustangfan2003 on April 24, 2011, 06:46:31 PM
So does Nova in German mean no go like it does in Spanish?
Actually, "nova" in Spanish means "nova."
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova
Quote from: ifcar on April 24, 2011, 07:32:50 PM
Actually, "nova" in Spanish means "nova."
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova
I was just referring to the urban legend.
Quote from: ifcar on April 24, 2011, 07:32:50 PM
Actually, "nova" in Spanish means "nova."
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova
I believe "no va" (two words) means "no go" in Spanish.
Quote from: MX793 on April 24, 2011, 08:23:09 PM
I believe "no va" (two words) means "no go" in Spanish.
Different pronunciation, different meaning of "go."
Quote from: rohan on April 24, 2011, 06:43:08 PM
That's a Chevy Nova- maybe a 77. Not sure how to tell the years apart exactly but that's about the age.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1978_Chevy_Nova_Custom_4-Door_Sedan.jpg
Thanks! :ohyeah: :cheers:
Quote from: ifcar on April 24, 2011, 07:32:50 PM
Actually, "nova" in Spanish means "nova."
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova
Nope. Nova in German can mean "new star". That's about it. :tounge:
Quote from: hotrodalex on April 24, 2011, 07:04:19 PM
Guess it's a good crime deterrent. No one would want to get arrested and have to sit in the back of one of those!
Rear leg space looks to be nonexistent! :thumbsup:
Quote from: ifcar on April 24, 2011, 08:24:40 PM
Different pronunciation, different meaning of "go."
That's why it's a pun.
Definitely a late-'70s Nova. These cars were everywhere when I was a kid.
Quote from: Madman on April 25, 2011, 09:38:38 PM
Definitely a late-'70s Nova. These cars were everywhere when I was a kid.
And nowadays? Still see them around? :praise:
Almost all our cars looked the same back int he 70's. Ugly.
Quote from: cawimmer430 on April 26, 2011, 03:18:41 AM
And nowadays? Still see them around? :praise:
Very unlikely, nobody restores these things.
We need to get Wimmer into one of these misery wagons he lusts over to end this charade
One drive... ONE DRIVE in one of these things, even in tip top condition, Wimmer would be CRUSHED with disappointment.
Quote from: cawimmer430 on April 26, 2011, 03:18:41 AM
And nowadays? Still see them around? :praise:
Occasionally.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on April 26, 2011, 07:37:57 AM
We need to get Wimmer into one of these misery wagons he lusts over to end this charade
One drive... ONE DRIVE in one of these things, even in tip top condition, Wimmer would be CRUSHED with disappointment.
I remember when I was really young my mom had an 83 Olds Cutlass, not a car I miss at all.
Quote from: cawimmer430 on April 26, 2011, 03:18:41 AM
And nowadays? Still see them around? :praise:
Hardly ever. These cars were miserable relics from an era everyone wants to forget.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on April 26, 2011, 07:37:57 AM
We need to get Wimmer into one of these misery wagons he lusts over to end this charade
One drive... ONE DRIVE in one of these things, even in tip top condition, Wimmer would be CRUSHED with disappointment.
I've tried telling him, but he just won't listen! I've explained how awful it was living with these terrible cars when I was a kid and how you could never be sure you'd actually get where you were going. I've even told him how the 1974 Ford LTD I took my driver's test in tried to KILL us with fire!!! I'm pretty sure I've also mentioned the Thunderbird that dumped it's driveshaft in the middle of the road. (Good thing we were moving slowly or that damn car would have killed us, too!) Or our Buick LeSabre with doors that randomly flew open as you were turning a corner! And our turd-brown Ford LTD wagon with no brakes. And our Ford LTD II "wallpaper-woody" wagon whose gas tank fell out the bottom of the car due to rust. I've told him all about these horrible Detroit Deathtraps and yet he still gets a hard-on at the sight of vinyl roofs, plasti-wood dashboards and button-tufted crushed velour upholstery!
Sporty, I agree with you. We need to get Wimmer over here and put him behind the wheel of a 1970s-vintage reject from a Starsky and Hutch street scene just so he can experience for himself how terrible these cars really were! Nobody who grew up driving a BMW or Mercedes Benz can fully understand the depths of mechanical misery these cars inflicted upon their owners. One drive and he'll finally understand why everyone in America today drives a Toyota!
The craziest part about it is it would be hard as hell to even find him one of these cars- which ties back into why we hate them
But to really gain an appreciation of the automotive misery that is a mid 70s American car, Wimmer needs full immersion. He has to pay $5 a gallon to fill a 20 gallon tank to drive a car that gets 8 MPG, has a "+2" back seat, 250" body length, and the acceleration of a Ford Aspire towing a 20' boat. Aside from the style, I literally can't think of anything good about cars from here during that time. But it takes time for the hatred to really mature, and I am not sure that a drive alone (while convincing in itself due to some of of truly dynamically awful cars of that time) would be enough to seal the deal.
Wimmer I know there is a lot of meaningless hyperbole on the internet about cars.... "if it cant do the 1/4 mile in 13s it's slow!!!! i dont care if its a $10K Hyndai Accent!"... but when I say cars like the one in the OP were absolute shit, it's an understatement. Like Madman said, think about how bad a car would have to be to make people love Toyota Camries, and multiply that badness by 10. You'll be getting close to how awful things got.
"He has to pay $5 a gallon to fill a 20 gallon tank to drive a car that gets 8 MPG"
That's a little unfair. The cars were designed (or at least built, if designed is too generous a term) for an era in which gas was cheaper. A classic should be evaluated in the context of its own time -- and in this case, they're bad enough without subjecting them to modern gas prices.
GM was still cranking out V8 A-bodies w/the same horsepower & interior room as same year Camrys and Accords, but 1/3 the fuel efficiency & reliability. And the scramble in the late 70s/early 80s to adapt really spawned some truly awful hardware.
Ah the 70s, the era of 200hp big blocks.
Guys, I think this is an Oldsmobile. :lol:
(http://img815.imageshack.us/img815/5364/81303646.jpg)
Quote from: sportyaccordy on April 26, 2011, 09:44:56 AM
GM was still cranking out V8 A-bodies w/the same horsepower & interior room as same year Camrys and Accords, but 1/3 the fuel efficiency & reliability. And the scramble in the late 70s/early 80s to adapt really spawned some truly awful hardware.
1986 Honda Accord - 100 hp 2.0L I4
1986 Toyota Camry - 98 hp 2.0L I4
1986 Olds Cutlass Supreme V8 - 140 hp 5.0L V8
As pathetic as the Old's output is, it's still making a lot more power than the Accord or Camry of that time.
Quote from: shp4man on April 26, 2011, 01:25:23 PM
Guys, I think this is an Oldsmobile. :lol:
(http://img815.imageshack.us/img815/5364/81303646.jpg)
GM's rear-drive X Platform spawned the Buick Apollo/Skylark, Oldsmobile Omega, Chevrolet Nova and Pontiac Ventura/Phoenix. Looking at the grille, stand-up hood ornament and chrome trim around the wheel arches, I pretty sure this is a 1977 Chevrolet Nova Concours sedan. It doesn't appear to have the split grille common to the Oldsmobile Omega and it's definitely not a Pontiac Ventura or Phoenix. It's also not a Buick Apollo/Skylark because the Buicks had wraparound front turn indicators and fake "Ventiports" on the sides.
BTW, the 1978-79 Nova Custom (which replaced the 1977 Nova Concours) didn't have a hood ornament. Therefore, I am fairly certain this is a 1977 Chevrolet Nova Concours. Available with a 5.7 litre V8, 155 horsepower and 13 MPG!
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5183/5609413621_09cb21ee56_b.jpg)
.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2667/4063610249_cb3a51012c.jpg)
.
(http://nozama.typepad.com/.a/6a00e54ed05fc288330133f6144500970b-400wi)
When did the US car industry go downhill?
Is a 1960 "Square bird" any good compared to the competition?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/1959_Ford_Thunderbird_Convertible.jpg/800px-1959_Ford_Thunderbird_Convertible.jpg)
Quote from: Galaxy on April 26, 2011, 04:07:17 PM
When did the US car industry go downhill?
It's difficult to pinpoint an exact moment when the US car industy started going to shit. Some say it started with the shift to front wheel drive in the 1980s, others say it began with safety legislation in the 1970s or the first emission controls in the late 1960s. Some would even say the rot started soon after World War II when quality was replaced by quantity and ever more outlandish styling built on ancient mechanicals.
Quote from: Galaxy on April 26, 2011, 04:07:17 PM
Is a 1960 "Square bird" any good compared to the competition?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/1959_Ford_Thunderbird_Convertible.jpg/800px-1959_Ford_Thunderbird_Convertible.jpg)
An average car for it's time. No better, no worse. Although the term "Square Bird" is typically used in reference to the 1964-66 models but could be even more appropriate on the Fairmont-based 1980-82 models.
1965 "SquareBird"
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/78/1965_Ford_Thunderbird_Convertible.jpg/800px-1965_Ford_Thunderbird_Convertible.jpg)
1980 "BoxBird?"
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cc/Ford_Thunderbird_1980.jpg/800px-Ford_Thunderbird_1980.jpg)
Quote from: MX793 on April 26, 2011, 03:43:51 PM
1986 Honda Accord - 100 hp 2.0L I4
1986 Toyota Camry - 98 hp 2.0L I4
1986 Olds Cutlass Supreme V8 - 140 hp 5.0L V8
As pathetic as the Old's output is, it's still making a lot more power than the Accord or Camry of that time.
Convenient timing lol. In 87 Toyota released the Camry V6, making 160HP from half the Cutlass Supreme V8's displacement. Also weighed a couple hundred pounds less, and was prob not much less roomy (my dad had a Camry and my babysitter had a Cutlass Supreme in 88-91). And that's just the engine....
Quote from: sportyaccordy on April 26, 2011, 04:30:29 PM
Convenient timing lol. In 87 Toyota released the Camry V6, making 160HP from half the Cutlass Supreme V8's displacement. Also weighed a couple hundred pounds less, and was prob not much less roomy (my dad had a Camry and my babysitter had a Cutlass Supreme in 88-91). And that's just the engine....
'87 was the last year of the RWD, V8 A-body sedans and they were ancient by that point. Most of the Cutlass line (Calais and Ciera) had actually gone to FWD years earlier.
And the interior volume difference between an '87 Camry or Accord and '87 Cutlass Supreme is huge. 12 cubic feet for passenger space.
Quote from: Galaxy on April 26, 2011, 04:07:17 PM
When did the US car industry go downhill?
I think the downfall started with the end of the muscle car era. Rite around 1973!
How good were the air suspensions offered in some US cars in the 50s, and 60s? Did they do a superb job of absorbing bumps or did the entire car become even more floaty? I am assuming that the reliability was a nightmare.
Quote from: Galaxy on April 26, 2011, 04:07:17 PM
When did the US car industry go downhill?
Unsafe at any Speed was published in 1965 which set in motion the 'safety' regulations which took hold in the early '70s and made domestics unable to compete with imports. As well, Ford withdrew from racing in late 1970 - while they were sitting atop most of the World's racing series - which signalled an end to the competitivness between the domestic manafacturers as they submitted to the safety regulations and onset of the energy crisis as well as anti-pollution laws 'lead free gasoline' by simply lowering compression ratios on existing engines and trying to fit mandated safety features onto vehicles that were fast becoming obsolete.
Quote
Is a 1960 "Square bird" any good compared to the competition?
The "square bird" 1958-1960 defined the 'personal luxury' car segment in the US: a compact, powerful, four passenger, stylish vehicle with luxury appointments (for the time). They really had no direct competition then. They are now considered collectibles.
I think 1973 is a good starting point for going down hill. I think the American car industry still has a little bit to go but things are much better now.
I'd say the ventrure into smaller cars put GM and Ford down.
I mean, by the 80's, Ford and Chrysler were still doing pretty well and came back from the disastrous 70's. Chrysler had the somewhat advanced K-platform, and they had created the Minivan.
It seems like GM never recovered, though.
Quote from: 2o6 on April 26, 2011, 08:30:07 PM
I'd say the ventrure into smaller cars put GM and Ford down.
I mean, by the 80's, Ford and Chrysler were still doing pretty well and came back from the disastrous 70's. Chrysler had the somewhat advanced K-platform, and they had created the Minivan.
It seems like GM never recovered, though.
The Big 3 had built compact cars for some time before they went to crap in the 70s. Falcon, Corvair, Chevy II/Nova, Dart, Lancer and Valiant were all around in the early 60s.
Quote from: MX793 on April 26, 2011, 08:48:45 PM
The Big 3 had built compact cars for some time before they went to crap in the 70s. Falcon, Corvair, Chevy II/Nova, Dart, Lancer and Valiant were all around in the early 60s.
The Cutlass was a very small, for the day, vehicle in the early 60s; 192" overall and was considered compact.
The next version, much more popular, came in 1964 and was 203" overall and still considered a small car.
Quote from: Madman on April 26, 2011, 03:52:42 PM
GM's rear-drive X Platform spawned the Buick Apollo/Skylark, Oldsmobile Omega, Chevrolet Nova and Pontiac Ventura/Phoenix. Looking at the grille, stand-up hood ornament and chrome trim around the wheel arches, I pretty sure this is a 1977 Chevrolet Nova Concours sedan. It doesn't appear to have the split grille common to the Oldsmobile Omega and it's definitely not a Pontiac Ventura or Phoenix. It's also not a Buick Apollo/Skylark because the Buicks had wraparound front turn indicators and fake "Ventiports" on the sides.
BTW, the 1978-79 Nova Custom (which replaced the 1977 Nova Concours) didn't have a hood ornament. Therefore, I am fairly certain this is a 1977 Chevrolet Nova Concours. Available with a 5.7 litre V8, 155 horsepower and 13 MPG!
^^^^
I appreciate you guys trying to warn me about these cars, but I still like them. I like their outrageous size and their kitsch(y) design (which I think looks awesome) and perhaps even the fact that they weren't perfect. It makes them "interesting". Also, I am often thinking in terms of photographic subject matter and such cars - especially in Europe, would make for some awesome pictures.
I like American cars from the '40s, '50s, '60s, '70s and '80s in terms of styling. To me it's all about styling, not how they drive or how reliable they are. The 1990s in terms of American cars were a no-no for me since I figured that was the absolute low-point for their designs. Yep, I think the American cars from the '80s had way more visual character than the bland stuff made in the 1990s.
But hey, this is my opinion. :lol: :cheers:
Quote from: Madman on April 26, 2011, 04:28:14 PM
1980 "BoxBird?"
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cc/Ford_Thunderbird_1980.jpg/800px-Ford_Thunderbird_1980.jpg)
Gorgeous. I am absolutely digging this thing. 1980s boxy styling on American coupes = DESIGN FLAIR in my book. :praise:
Quote from: cawimmer430 on April 27, 2011, 11:07:49 AM
I like American cars from the '40s, '50s, '60s, '70s and '80s in terms of styling.
The 1990s in terms of American cars were a no-no for me since I figured that was the absolute low-point for their designs. Yep, I think the American cars from the '80s had way more visual character than the bland stuff made in the 1990s.
Personally I hate most of the 70s, and 80s boxes on wheels.
For the most part a lot of the American cars from the 90s are horrid from a styling point of view imo, while many of the european marqes hit their styling high point in the 90s. Nevertheless there are some American design themes from the 90s that I find visually appealing
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6b/1st-Sebring-convertible.jpg/800px-1st-Sebring-convertible.jpg)
Mid-to late 90s Chrysler styling
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/02/Pontiac_Grand_Prix_GT_coupe_--_10-12-2009.jpg/800px-Pontiac_Grand_Prix_GT_coupe_--_10-12-2009.jpg)
mid-to late 90s Pontiac styling.
Quote from: Galaxy on April 27, 2011, 11:49:22 AM
Personally I hate most of the 70s, and 80s boxes on wheels.
The "boxes on wheels" aspect appeals to me. I think there are many nice-looking American cars from the '80s with boxy styling, which was the design trend of that area.
Take this for example: the early 1980s Ford LTD. It's so beautiful despite its simple design (using boxy lines for the most part). This car has always looked good in my eyes. I seriously think this car is sexy. :wub:
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4091/5031168939_bc4673a120.jpg)
Quote from: hounddog on April 26, 2011, 09:16:38 PM
The Cutlass was a very small, for the day, vehicle in the early 60s; 192" overall and was considered compact.
The next version, much more popular, came in 1964 and was 203" overall and still considered a small car.
^^^^
The second iteration of the Cutlass was classified as an "intermediate" car (same as the Chevelle/Malibu), even back in the day. The first generation was classified as a compact.
Quote from: cawimmer430 on April 27, 2011, 11:54:55 AM
The "boxes on wheels" aspect appeals to me. I think there are many nice-looking American cars from the '80s with boxy styling, which was the design trend of that area.
Take this for example: the early 1980s Ford LTD. It's so beautiful despite its simple design (using boxy lines for the most part). This car has always looked good in my eyes. I seriously think this car is sexy. :wub:
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4091/5031168939_bc4673a120.jpg)
These were pretty decent cars, aside with some issues with electronic engine control systems.
Quote from: Onslaught on April 26, 2011, 04:47:06 AM
Almost all our cars looked the same back int he 70's. Ugly.
Everybody's cars from every decade look the same.
Quote from: shp4man on April 27, 2011, 05:50:03 PM
These were pretty decent cars, aside with some issues with electronic engine control systems.
Glad to hear it.
Are these '80s LTD considered "collectibles/classic cars" nowadays?
They're $400 demolition derby entrants.
Quote from: Laconian on April 29, 2011, 10:05:44 AM
They're $400 demolition derby entrants.
No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :rage:
Do you not realize that you're destroying
HISTORY & HERITAGE!? :confused:
Those '80s Ford LTDs are HOT!!! SEXY!!! Even the '70s model is a work of art! :wub:
If you wanted one you could come to America and get one cheap, I'm sure your cost of shipping it back would be more than the car is worth.
Quote from: Mustangfan2003 on April 29, 2011, 03:49:16 PM
If you wanted one you could come to America and get one cheap, I'm sure your cost of shipping it back would be more than the car is worth.
If I had a benefactor who'd provide me with an XXXL parking spot in Munich and years of free gas, then you have a deal. :tounge:
Well you can park an S class or a 7 series in Munich, right?
Quote from: Mustangfan2003 on April 29, 2011, 04:04:24 PM
Well you can park an S class or a 7 series in Munich, right?
Barely.
There's a parking garage in downtown Munich where I parked a few times - if the space next to me was empty. The parking lots there are so small I can't even squeeze into them with a friggin BMW 1-Series. And I cannot back up to maneuver into a frontal parking space since the next parking space is right behind me and is shielded by supporting pillars (underground garage). Horrible. The last time I had my dads E350 CGI with me I had to park on two parking spaces because the car couldn't fit into a normal 2x2 parking space zone.
I suspect these parking slots are from the 1970s when our cars were small. Cars have gotten bigger here but the size of the parking spaces has remained the same. Epic fail.
This is the parking garage I am talking about.
(http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/7997/bild254.jpg)
Now imagine you're standing ^here^. The distance from this parking spot to the parking spots behind the BMW is barely 5 meters - not enough to maneuver properly even with a car like the 1-Series. This garage needs to be torn down and redesigned to be able to house Ford Excursions, yo!
Quote from: Mustangfan2003 on April 29, 2011, 04:04:24 PM
Well you can park an S class or a 7 series in Munich, right?
More or less, in some parking garages you will need to back up to get around the corner.
To give you an idea of how crowded it can get here:
(http://i54.tinypic.com/3tr8m.jpg)
That is the main entrance the truck needs to take to deliver groceries to the grocery store . It took him a good 10 minutes to get out of there (there is another row of cars behind him), 10 minutes that I spent waiting to get in. :lol: I took that picture on my iPhone for one of the "small luxury cars are dumb" threads, and then decided not to bother posting it.