Non-Volvo car chat megathread

[mrbrian200]

It does have a pleasing muscle car shape. The best? IMHO Challenger. Beautiful classic masculine car design.

I don't seem to appreciate the new Challenger, it's look is all big and brute but lost it's style compared to the classic designs it's based on. Ford (successfully) managed to bring back back the classic styled pretty looks, while also updating it, to the new Mustangs.

One of my favorite classics is the '71 Hemi Cuda from the Phantasm movies. Here's an artists rendition of a 'modernized' version that looks really sharp.


FCA went a different direction with their classic inspired designs: huge and awkward, approaching the size of a small SUV, that just doesn't really capture the beauty of the cars from that era that they're based on.

[matthew1]

The new ones are actually a foot shorter than say a 1969 Challenger.

2009-dodge-challenger-r-t-manual-photo-248589-s-original.jpg (42.82 KiB) Viewed 1834 times

[mrbrian200]

The new ones are actually a foot shorter than say a 1969 Challenger.

Compared to the rendition, that looks sort of messy and uninspiring. The sloped/aerodynamic front end on the rendition shows that yes you can modernize the design while retaining the distinction and maybe even improving the look of whole package which if teleported back to 1971, enthusiasts back then might faint at the sight of it.
I feel like Ford pulled that off with the new Mustangs. Teleported back to 1968 the Mustang crowd would be all over it.
A new Challenger teleported back to 1971.. I suspect the hemi crowd would look at it like some kind of cheap knockoff "Looks like it was made in Taiwan brahahah!!!" sort of thing.

Size wise neither Ford nor FCA did enough chopping. Note differences in the rear/trunk and back seat area between the real Challenger and the artist rendition. There probably wouldn't be a back seat, or only suitable for small children. I've had the new challengers pull beside me at stoplights etc. They're substantially bigger than my S60. That shouldn't be. I've thought if they were a few inches taller they'd be pretty close to my sisters XC90 size wise. That's not a classic inspired modern sports car, it's a land yacht in disguise.
I noted the '15 Mustang is about 8 inches longer than my S60. But how that compares to a 1968 Mustang is kind of beside the poiint. These cars should not be larger than a modern mid size sedan. In 1960-70s, these looked small in comparison to 4 door sedans which at the time were about the size of a small friggin' house. It's all relative...

[matthew1]

Bizzarrini Manta,1968

40142135_1905772842835339_7388612448099500032_n.jpg (86.34 KiB) Viewed 1816 times

[matthew1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panhard_CD

40358097_1907563035989653_6322894980218093568_n.jpg (68.81 KiB) Viewed 1809 times

40310609_1907563092656314_820670806047588352_n.jpg (65.7 KiB) Viewed 1809 times

[mrbrian200]

Bizzarrini Manta,1968

If there's one thing Giugiaro is good at, it's designing catchy looking eye candy. That looks like an early concept of his trademark supercoupe profile that he refined through the 70s-80s for Lambo/Lotus/Bugatti etc.

His design firm was involved with the design of the new Mustangs, which would be a really good car had Ford upped the base price 10-15k which would have allowed for less penny pinching around the mechanical/structural design. Which is where it really started to fall short compared to what I'm used to (a P2) when we were looking underneath for a place to safely attach a tow strap. I was sort of expecting to find/attach to a good solid engine cradle/subframe like you kind of expect on performance vehicles. There was nothing of the sort. There was a formed steel cross member spanning the front end that was clearly designed to accommodate vertical (engine torque) and lateral (body flex). I'm sure does the job it was designed for just fine. But as far as forward towing the steel plate from which is was formed looked an inadequately thin gauge and kind of dicey for the purpose of pulling the car out of the mud - risk of collapse or bowing/bending. Last thing you would ever want to do is slide the thing off the road into a ditch in the winter and try to attach a winch without being able to augment the tow force with engine power at the rear wheels (which was the case at the campground). I just don't see that crossmember surviving unscathed at which point the whole front end would be structurally compromised until you replaced it.

[June]

I had a good laugh recently here on MVS when the S80 was compared to a 1958 Buick. For those of you who have no idea what a 58 Buick looks like here are some photos of a 58 Buick. My grandparents had a 58 Buick that looked like this car. It was a massive tank of a car that not many people today could even start one without being told how to engage the starter .

Actually calling the S80 the Buick of Volvo really makes sense to me, but more like a mid 90's Park Avenue Ultra supercharged had offspring with a 850 ! And wahala S80 T6 ! Coming from a family on both mom's and dad's sides drove Buicks though mom always had a Volvo. The 99 through 05 S80 2.9 and T6 cars give the best of both worlds in my eyes and has been my favorite model by far. June

[93Regina]

...1958 Buick...many people today could even start one without being told how to engage the starter

That feature was offered from 1934 to 1960 on Buicks. In carburetor days, one had to depress throttle towards the floor before engaging starter, and this would "prime" intake with some fuel, and set the choke, if it was an automatic-mechanical choke, instead of a cable.

Needless to say, switching headlights (low beams, high beams) is something younger generations would not know about. Nor what Ethyl (tetraethyllead) was about, which hasn't been around for some forty plus years for vehicle usage..

[June]

...1958 Buick...many people today could even start one without being told how to engage the starter

That feature was offered from 1934 to 1960 on Buicks. In carburetor days, one had to depress throttle towards the floor before engaging starter, and this would "prime" intake with some fuel, and set the choke, if it was an automatic-mechanical choke, instead of a cable.

Needless to say, switching headlights (low beams, high beams) is something younger generations would not know about. Nor what Ethyl (tetraethyllead) was about, which hasn't been around for some forty plus years for vehicle usage..

Your correct, the gas pedal had to be healed on the floor to engage the starter. It seemed strange to me the few times I drove that car. Actually it was a fun car to ride around in. My father had a 57 Cadillac he kept through my childhood as a garage ornament as it was his first car. Or first love? I often wondered... the Cadillac started with the key like a normal car.
June

[mrbrian200]

Speaking of oldies, I'm thinking about going to the Studebaker national museum sometime. It's practically in my back yard, never been to it. There's a temp exhibit running that looks interesting: featured in the local news and caught my eye "Ten cars that changed the world".

https://studebakermuseum.org/collection ... llections/