Hooniverse Asks- What Car is Your Chariots of Fire?
Period English dramas, like period English sports cars, are an acquired taste. Chariots of Fire, a drama about British runners competing in the 1924 Olympics, was one flavor that was adopted by many, including a sufficient number of Academy members to garner the film seven nominations and four wins, including best picture. The thing of it is, in the years since its release, many have opined that Chariots of Fire is not really all that good.
Now, take that as you may, and perhaps you do not share that view considering CoF to actually have held up, but it still brings to mind the issue of something gaining huge popularity, only later to have even its advocates slapping their foreheads and exclaiming what were we thinking?! A similar arc happened with parachute pants back in the Nineties. At that point, what was once an object of general positive attention, become one to be shunned.
And that occurs with cars too. I remember distinctly when Chrysler introduced the PT Cruiser, everyone fawned over its retro, mini hotrod styling, and accessible price. It was but a few years later that discovering you had been assigned a PT by the rental desk could ruin your vacation. Today, people cross themselves when seeing one on the street. But that’s only a single example of a Chariots of Fire car – albeit one that many would not be adverse to seeing as an actual chariot on-fire – there must be more. What car comes to mind when you hear that Vangelis theme, and start imagining everything in slo-mo? What car is your Chariots of Fire?
Image: [imcdb]
Related posts:
Volkswagen New Beetle – a charming novelty when it was introduced in 1998. It didn't take many years for the charm to wear off.
<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/54/2006-2007_Volkswagen_New_Beetle.jpg/800px-2006-2007_Volkswagen_New_Beetle.jpg" width=500>
as much as I objectively like the redesign, subjectively the ruin that was the first gen cannot be overcome for me.
It looked awesome in pictures. Then I saw one in person and it was the size of a minivan and had the stunningly wasteful interior packaging of a GM F-body. Yep, it only took months to fall way out of favour with me.
<img src="http://taurussho.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/2011-Ford-Taurus-SHO.jpg" width="500" />
Yeah, I was very surprised to learn how "cramped" the interior felt when I sat in one, although much of that can be attributed to the super high belt line that afflicts most cars today.
I'm used to the high beltline in contemporary – it was more the lack of elbow room and the feeling of claustrophobia created by the centre console/dashboard design that struck me. It makes a car like the Nissan Versa feel like a stadium.
Yeah, I belt the same way about the dash and console, but the beltline made it even more noticeable.
On the note of a Versa, I'm renting a "Versa or similar" in Hawaii next month from Alamo. I really hope they have a "similar" car instead.
Don't tell anyone else here but I had a Versa hatchback for a while. I was young and I needed the money. It's a surprisingly good car when it's 6M equipped but with a CVT or automatic transmission it's a penalty box. The sedan is so hideous as to make wearing a KFC bucket on one's head mandatory while driving it. The new sedan is a POS of epic proportions.
Be careful what you wish for, an Aveo might still be on the lot and considered "Or similar" and that's horror in a badly made box.
Actually the Versa was probably the most entertaining dealer test drive I've ever been on, because the dealer was a bit crazy and kept encouraging me to do stupid things. "Take this corner! I forgot to tell you, but you can make it!" And then he reclined the driver's seat at 110km/h (recline levers in the middle for some reason). Probably left me with a more positive impression of the car than it deserves.
Well the level below "compact car" (Versa or similar) is "economy car," and their example is the Aveo, so I opted for the "compact" for a reason.
Corollas are considered midsize. Nobody but car rental companies would agree with that!
I felt the same way in the new Mustang, I hope it does not get to be a Ford thing. Makes sense in a big luxurious car only really to me.
Call me crazy, but I actually love the super high console, I found it crazy comfortable when I drove one. But when I'm drunk I sleep between the couch and the wall so I might just instinctively like cozy spaces others would consider cramped.
I recommend an '80s Jag for you then!
Oooooh…good one.
I was all about these coming back, but I think it was Lieberman who accurately described it as a good Taurus GL or some other decently high end package, but nowhere near on-par with where it needs to be to be a SHO.
Or the Ford Five Hundred. What a dog.
Chariots of fire? Two words: Italian supercars.
Plymouth Prowler.
The design had a lot of potential, yet sadly didn't live up to a single bit of it.
Picture that car with an early version of the SRT8 package. Oh, what could've been. . . .
<img src="http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q290/treyb1/e7e937b4.jpg">
Now that was a car that looked fairly big on the outside but was tiny on the inside. I'm all of 5'8" and I was claustrophobic sitting in one with the top up.
Honda Ridgeline. I had no problem with the concept at all, and I liked the funky looks and the usefulness. But then I saw just how big and bloated these things were. A keeper had it been 15% smaller and 25% lighter and had a stick been available. But as it is? Nahhh – might as well get an F-150 crew cab and have a real truck.
<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5d/2006_Honda_Ridgeline_RTS_–_NHTSA_1.jpg/800px-2006_Honda_Ridgeline_RTS_–_NHTSA_1.jpg" width=400>
The first Ridgeline I saw in person, just a week after they went on sale, had been riced out completely–lowered at least three inches, huge rims with low-profile round-cornered tires, gawdy chrome trim added to the side and wheel wells, and a fart can muffler. Sorry, Honda. You never got a second chance to make a first impression.
4th Gen GM F-body. I saw them as a cheaper alternative to a Corvette. The only problem was I got a Corvette first. There is a world of difference in build quality between a Camaro and a Corvette. The LT-1 powered cars look great on paper, but soon you learn that a car that requires dropping the engine out the bottom to change the two rear spark plugs isn't a great idea. That coupled with the disaster that is Opti-spark makes for disappointment.
Man, do I hate LT-1s.
I had the 1994 Corvette from 1998 to 2004 and it wasn't too bad. I had the Optispark replaced once at the dealership. The car was a 6MT coupe. In 2004 I got a 1996 Z-28 Convertible (the downside of marriage) I think I replaced the Optispark twice and had lots of other assorted issues. I ditched it in about 2007. I traded it for a '87 BMW 325 and cash. I should have never gotten rid of that E30.
On paper, and when optispark isn't busted, they were pretty good for a 90s motor.
My problems with them are twofold:
1) They're a smallblock with just enough differences from the preceding 40 years of smallblocks to eliminate one of the best features of the smallblock: the interchangeability with 40 years of smallblocks.
2) They tended to be the weapon of choice for a number of unfortunate builds/swaps: lame hot rods and innumerable LT-1 + 700R4s in Zs, RX-7s and the like.
1) With the introduction of the LSx series that really makes the LT-1 the odd man out. Not quite an old school small block, but not an LS motor either.
2) The LSx generation has now taken over this category.
Also, most folks don't realize the Camaro/Impala SS/Roadmaster LT-1 and the Corvette LT-1 are NOT exactly the same engine. The Corvette got a 4-bolt main version, the others only got a 2-bolt main version. granted, not a big difference, but still different.
<img src="http://www.american-motors.de/en/pacer/history/pacerx75.jpg" width="400">
I pesonally have nothing against them. But when they came out, the press was very positive at first. Then 4 years later they couldn't sell them anymore.
Edit: Well, the pic is showing up as a red x to me. But it's a pacer, in case no one else can see it.
My Pacer memory: Pre-Three Mile Island. My babysitter's car. Tan with brown stripes. Riding in the vinyl backseat on a blazing hot day with ten acres of windows making the car so hot the air conditioner was useless. Babysitter leaving the windows rolled up because someone had told her it improved gas mileage. Sweat. Sweat. Sweeeeaaaaat.
I've hated them ever since.
<img src="http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/galleries/2010/autos/1002/gallery.cheap_collector_cars/images/amc_pacer_2.jpg" width=400>
So what have you got against sweet hot babysitters?
Ha! I'm a professional writer, and I hate those two words in print. Mix 'em up all the time.
Every time I go to use one of them I have to stop and make sure I'm using the write won.
Eye sea Watt ewe dun their!
Four years later? The honeymoon didn't even last that long. The Pacer sold well from mid-1975 through 1976. Sales plunged from 117,000 in 1976 to around 58,000 in 1977, even though the wagon became available in the latter year. Then it was 22,000 for 1978 and 10,000 for 1979.
The automotive press became very tepid about the Pacer right from the start once they got o hold of the car and road-tested it. Dad bought one new in 1975 – my older brother and I were stunned by his move. Terrible cars to drive, too – not much handling, old-groaner 258 six, notchy 3-on-floor stick, pretty crude feeling even by mid-'70s standards.
http://www.amcpacer.com/multimedia/print.asp
Four years later as in that's when they threw in the towel and stopped production.
I really wish GM's rotary project would've kept going. That's what these were designed around and intended to receive- when that project fell through AMC had too much money in the Pacer to give up, so they had to shoehorn in an ill fitting I6 (which really is a great engine, but the Pacer was just too heavy). I would have liked to see how this car would have ended up as originally planned.
The 258 wasn't a great engine, at least in the mid-'70s. It was coarse, gutless, and didn't like to rev at all.
I have one from 1980, and have no complaints. Of course, mine is de-smogged, so that might help… Plus, I'll bet that one was a 1bbl, which didn't help things either.
It's not real rev happy, but it develops it's torque so low that you still have plenty of low end power, and can get off the line pretty quick. I dunno, to each their own, but I like mine.
My mom's Rambler American qualifies. Looked kind of cute and it was her first new car. But it really wasn't much of a car.
Vector W8 was able to pick up quite a bit of great press up until the time the company started delivering a couple of cars to actual customers.
<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Vector-W8-Twin-Turbo-1992.jpg" width=500>
You have to see this:
http://karakullake.blogspot.com/2011/04/vector-w8…
The car is apparently in Spain now.
The Mini. They are sporty, fun and frugal, and I test drove 2 S's when they were new (one with an American flag vinyl on the roof), but now that they are on every street corner, they do nothing for me.
<img src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_7voWRpt7Li4/SJkkA237eCI/AAAAAAAAD-w/qm-4B2oPg9w/s400/2007_mini_cooper.jpg" width=500>
Not to mention that reliability has not been its strong suit.
Isn't that a whole part of the apeal? I mean it is a "British" car.
In fairness to the Mini, it's not a *bad* car – various reliability gremlins aside, they're fun drivers and fairly practical – it's just not the amazing car we all thought it was when it first came out.
Speaking of Mini… I saw one of these going the other way on the interstate yesterday.
<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/29/Mini_Van_001.JPG/800px-Mini_Van_001.JPG" width="400">
Made me want to turn around and chase it to get a better look. I'm not sure I've ever actually seen one before in person.
The Audi A4 line…
My first new car was a fresh-minted 1997 A4 1.8T quattro. At the time, it was (and still is) a great looking car. The A4 was so popular, the JET's A4 Page was formed from the fanaticism… that became AudiWorld. Good Lord- look at the goofball. I needed a haircut.
<img src="http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/12448_212087822852_531157852_4137420_2899420_n.jpg" width="450">
Then the B6 came… a little heavier, a little bigger… a little meh. But I had one:
<img src="http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/5296_146613112852_531157852_3419119_5810393_n.jpg" width="450">
Then the B7 was a warmed over B6 with more power.
<img src="http://www.fourtitude.com/news/uploads/Audi_News/audi_a4_b7_1.jpg" width="450">
B8: I never warmed up to. Just never looked as sharp as the old B5. I no longer aspire to own an A4 any longer.
<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2643/4216671324_bda93cf21d.jpg" width="450">
<img src="http://www.tanshanomi.com/temp/sport-t-buggy-small.jpg">
A very personal one. The mechanical rawness and unparalleled openness of the cockpit experience on the first drive was the pinnacle of my relationship with this car. It quickly devolved into an albatros around my neck. The ride was so harsh that my wife refused to ride in it after the first couple of neighborhood excursions, and the shoddy initial build and advancing decrepitude made ownership an increasingly contentious state. In the end, letting it go was bittersweet at best.
The Dodge Neon.
<img src="http://www.productioncars.com/send_file.php/dodge_neon_rt_white_1999.jpg">
It went from "that looks like a fun little entry level car, maybe I will get one when I get my license" to "what a pile of crap" fairly quickly, partially because the driver's ed teacher had one and it was all kinds of awful.
<img src="http://www.moparmagazine.com/assets/images/jan-feb_2011/heritage/neon_heritage_03.jpg">
The Neon seems more of an example of a car evolving to crap instead of being a car we forgot to notice was crappy from the start.
Take he knuckles off of the PT Cruiser Rob mentioned, and two negatives multiply to a positive, or something. Then you should be able to race a whole season regardless the math.
True, and it was really the second generation that was truly woeful, but on the other hand the first gen Neons in my town had an alarming tendency to lose all their paint.
Paint issues were pretty much the same across the board for 80's/90's cars built anywhere US EPA regulations were in effect, regardless of brand, especially on models with relatively inexpensive MSRPs.
That had nothing to do with the EPA, it had everything to do with the single stage paint/primer Chrysler decided to use on their cars.
The original engine and handling were excellent. I had a first-generation Sport Coupe with the DOHC engine and manual transmission, (though as it turned out, the difference between DOHC and SOHC wasn't really noticeable), and that little car was quite zippy, and a hoot to throw around in the twisties.
My biggest ownership problems were steering column vibration issues (third warranty replacement was the charm, and the dealer gave me a new set of factory alloy rims along the way), electrical gremlins (compounded by the meth-addled macaque monkey that did the soldering repairs, also under warranty at the dealer), frameless windows that weren't capable of lining up when closed (they were designed that way… bad from the start), and a head gasket failure at about 74k miles. Not long after the head gasket replacement, I got to test the crumple zones, and my Neon was replaced by a Volvo 850 turbo wagon.
<img src="http://media.ed.edmunds-media.com/pictures/VEHICLE/1991/Mitsubishi/1974/1991.mitsubishi.3000gt.7825-300×189.jpg">
The Mitsubishi 3000GT/Dodge Stealth twins weren’t so much Chariots of Fire as they were The Crying Game. Even though they were a marked improvement over the Daytona as Dodge’s competitor to the Supra, 300ZX, RX7, Camaro/Firebird, they were hiding a secret shame. It looked the part, until you opened the hood and saw a transverse engine. Don’t misunderstand me. It’s a fine car, and they certainly have a significant fan base, but for the intended market segment, wrong-wheel-drive is just unacceptable to me.
It would be nice to carry the The Crying Game analogy further, and say that my appreciation for the car was enough for me to overlook what’s hiding under the hood, but if there is rubber to be laid, I don’t want it done by a transverstite.
/laughing loudly and conspicuously in a generally quiet office environment
<img src="https://encrypted-tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ17yCSFdmQS6MAHiCdaZGCeuN0diBJuRbK3AGHhk66YwRrVcRz"> Awesome comment! But but but… it had active exhaust.
Don't we all?
Here's some fuel for the fire: the Mitsubishi Starion / Dodge Conquest was a RWD, butch-looking and fun pony car. As a follow-up to that, the 3000GT was an overweight, overcomplicated bore. 300HP at a time when cars were still able to be 3000lbs and under should have made for an impressively quick machine. Instead it was lumbered with 3800lbs and wore its tires off understeering its way round corners.
I have vivid memories of the Conquest sitting at the dealership when my mom was picking up her brand new Reliant. My passion for the car has waned slightly, not in small part to the drifting crowd molesting most remaining examples. That waning enthusiasm relative to my initial lust originally had me contemplating the Conquest as my Chariots of fire choice. But I couldn’t do it. Even though I no longer desire to own a Conquest, I couldn’t disparage a car that got so much right, so I went with its successor. Even the addition of AWD was little consolation when the primary architecture was of a FWD vehicle. (The same reason that I prefer the WRX to the EVO)
I see a lot of those things around.
300hp, AWD, 4WS…pretty crazy stuff for the mid 90s…yet generally they seem to get no love. Maybe that's because no one can stand to look at them with the hood up…
Continuing his Crying Game analogy, Jaye Davidson also never had much of a career.
I actually saw a Stealth for the first time in ages, and it's a fascinating design. I was tempted to write a detailed analysis of it just because it's so interesting, sometimes in good ways, sometimes in strangely sloppy ones.
You have to remember how good the RX-7 and Nissan 300ZX were at that time – they crushed the 3000GT in the fun-to-drive department. The 3000GT came across all douchey and seemed to attract that sort of person.
Not to mention that the 3000GT AWD Turbo developed a rep for chewing up gearboxes.
Sorry for the poor quality, but this is a cheesy 3000GT promo video.[youtube unHvK_7ql5s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unHvK_7ql5s youtube]
That almost makes me want one now. But they really did themselves a disservice by showing the Z32 in the promo. It really shows just how much better the 300ZX has aged relative to the 3000GT.
2 stories.
1. This promo was entitled Temptations, or something like that. Back when it came out, I was in high school and my friend was caught shoplifting. His very religious and very stern dad told him to watch this video. He thought it was some preachy video put out by the Catholic Church. He was pleasantly surprised.
2. There is a red 3000GT VR-4 in our office lot (belongs to an engineer). I'm tempted to ask the owner about the car. It has so many electrical doohickies and doodads!
<img src="http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j129/hoopd87/cbce343e.jpg" width = 500 >
I am actually using it in context.
This is my anti-Chariot Of Fire.
I either didn't notice them, or they seemed like a boring old person's car when they were new.
But now I really dig the lines of the Reatta coupe. They represent their origins well. They're not as ugly as an '80s Skylark, but they kinda got the same genes.
And a two seater coupe, with a separate trunk, and big cushy seats? What's not to love?
"We'll have to take your car, mine's a two seater"
"I'd help you move, but nothing would fit in my car."
It looks so sad with the lights open.
I saw one delivering pizzas today.
The guy running reminds me of Schmidt from New Girl.
I can't find my driving moccasins!
JAR!
I want to dislike that show so bad. But can't.
Agreed. I try to look away, but I can't. But that highlight reel really helped me to like it some more.
I'm over it.
<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c1/2006_Scion_xB_.jpg/250px-2006_Scion_xB_.jpg">
2010 Ford Mustang GT.
The 2011 model year came with the new 400hp Coyote.
I was hoping on a fire sale of the 2010's when the 5.0 was announced. It did not happen. Only the enthusiasts were too torn up about the 2010s. Everyone else didn't seem to give a carp.
<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/Common_carp.jpg" width="400">
I'll be honest, I didn't give any of these either.
<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/12/2005_Chrysler_Crossfire_SRT6_AeroBlue-right.jpg/427px-2005_Chrysler_Crossfire_SRT6_AeroBlue-right.jpg"> When it came out it was heralded as the triumph of the Daimler Chrysler merger of equals. Wikipedia even claims it was named because of that. It looked danged good, almost as good as the prototype. And ask PJ about how everyone tells him how well the SRT-6 model handles and chews-up tires. It was even the Playboy 2003 Car of the Year*! But quickly it lost it's powered by Mercedes-Benz/looks like a Marlin charms and Chrysler had to resort to selling all the left overs on overstock.com. <img src="http://cimages2.carsforsale.com/331273/1C3AN69LX4X011613_13.jpg" width="427">
* Polish edition http://www.samar.pl/__/3/3.a/2693?locale=pl_PL
PS: Hmm two nice ones sort of near me for sale at decent prices…
There's one for sale at the local consignment lot. Tempted to test drive it. I would never buy it though. Has anyone here driven/owned one? How different is it from the SLK?
Because of this comment of mine, I might go look at two Saturday. I never drove the SLK, but both my wife and I thought they were really neat, just not practical enough when we went to the dealership back when I had a sweet gig near SF. This is like a coupe version of that which looks more like a Volvo PV, great in my book. I've read the forums, people complain about the aggressive traction control and how quickly the rear tires wear. I am still waiting for two Volvo experts to get back to me about the issues a pretty nice/good price V70 I am interested in though first. Oh and I would not have a problem buying a Crossfire, loved them from the start the looks, luxury, with a pretty stonking motor to boot, only the coupes though.
Are you in the Bay Area? The one I'm talking about is at Buggy Bank. 2004. 3.2 liter V6. Manual 6 speed. 62k miles. $10,500.
I don't like the rear end for some reason.
<img src="http://bringatrailer.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/1962_Volvo_PV_544_Restored_Rear_1.jpg"> I do like them from the back, the hood bugs me a bit personally. 10 years ago I lived in Sunnyvale. I thought the '04s had a 5-spd manual, that might be an auto. Still it's a good price, you should drive it at least. I live now about an hour away from Chicago. Anyway my DD is a '67 Volvo, but all the car pooling/bike riding in the winter (thankfully a mostly warm dry one) is getting to me. Plus I want to put in an OD into the Amazon, so would be nice to have another car. Crossfire or V70 would either be great in there own ways. The V70 I could outright buy, the Crossfire would be a car payment, do I want one, still don't know, depends on how well my butt likes getting moved around in it I guess.
Image courtesy of BaT.
<img src="http://images.forbes.com/media/2009/10/16/1016_chrysler-300-dodge-charger_485x340.jpg">
Source: Forbes
Rewind to 2004-2005 and think about how mind-blowing a 340hp RWD V8 Mopar sounded. Hell, the 300C even had AWD available. …and I hear they're going to make one with an even bigger V8.
The combination of their ubiquity, delayed updates, really horrible bottom-spec models, not-nearly-good-enough-to-be-classy 300C interior and the general association with the DCX CF, Cerberus and prime examples of domestic OEMs "not getting it" as gas prices spiked, really took the luster off that initial enthusiasm.
The 300 lost it's appeal to me when it simutaneously became the car of choice for rappers and Air Force generals.
I swear, in 2005, if you were in the Air Force and wore at least 3 stars on your shoulders, you had a 300 as your staff vehicle. Turned me off of them forever.
I still like the sedans well enough, but I like the other two versions better.
<img src="http://www.newbestcars.com/data/media/12/magnum_rt_2005_1.jpg" width="500"/>
<img src="http://i847.photobucket.com/albums/ab40/ptschett/Challenger/DSC03920.jpg" width="500"/>
Those T-birds were just too expensive, but I really liked the interiors with the two colors, for example red to match the exterior, but then that got toned down as well! Here's a funny thing. First time I ever had a conversation with skaycog was when I said Ford had done the worst ever retro car. I only gave reasons, but was vague about the model. I cheekily meant the Thunderbird, she assumed the GT, and disagreed with me somewhat strongly for her.
I am going to try to sneak this one in, so's I don't lose all my points: the Ford Raptor. When it came out, I loved it. I still do like it, but it doesn't hold the appeal it did. It sure is an engineering feat, to be sure, and I love having one as my gravatar, but the dude-bro's that drive it will never take it to where it should be used, mostly because it is their primary vehicle. I understand that, but the Raptor has just lost some of its panache to me.
To make you feel a little better, the Raptors sold in my town tend to be caked in mud.
That does. Around here the Raptors are for city drivin'. Where my parents live (rural New Mexico) the dude-bro's that own them mortgaged their single-wide and hope that the oil/natural gas wells never go dry so they can afford payments. Both cases make me sad, but as long as there are awesome people out there, abusing their trucks in the proper way, well, that makes me feel better.
Dude that's just a sticker
I had the chance to talk to one of the SVT engineers who worked on this project while we kicked tires on the prototype. This was before they went into production, but after the project got the green light.
The guy's previous baby was the Ford GT. He told me the target market was the same for both vehicles–a dentist who takes another vehicle for the 9-5 grind, but who likes to have fun on the weekend behind the wheel of a machine loaded with performance right out of the box. That's probably a reasonable description of the GT purchasers, but perhaps not so much the Raptor demographic.
If I needed a fun weekend toy, and also needed a truck for hauling duty, the Raptor would probably fit the bill. I bet only a small percentage of Raptor buyers do so because of that.
Nobody has mentioned the Fiero? Come on! Best example of this ever!
<img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ePYVguG0YIA/TVQOAcWCyoI/AAAAAAAAAmQ/oP8nD34YHeI/s1600/fiero.jpeg">
Nah, the Fiero was a dog from the start and most people knew it. I test drove both a Fiero and a Honda CRX 1.5 on the same day in late 1983 – the difference was night and day. The Honda was cheaper, faster, 500 pounds lighter, smoother, better handling, better fuel economy, far better built, had one more gear in the stick shift, and had much more cargo room. I ended up buying a CRX without the slightest pang of regret about passing up the Pontiac.
Agreed. For enthusiasts at the time it arrived on the market with a dull thud. Hairdressers might have snapped them up by the thousands but everyone else knew they were crap. I got loads of seat time in all variations and never enjoyed driving them. The CRX and MR-2 were so much better that it's an insult to include them in a Fiero discussion.
Oh yeah, thanks for reminding me. The CRX definitely fits into the Chariots of Fire category.
Not even close, bub. The reputation of the CRX has only gained with time, mainly because Honda has never come up with a real replacement (Del Sol? CRZ? Don't make me laugh). Have you priced clean, non-riced examples lately?
Yep, Superbird, GTO, Boss 302, CRX…
<img src="http://lazyoptimist.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/why-so-serious.jpeg" width=250>
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/C0K9E.gif" title="Hosted by imgur.com" alt="" />
The year is 1997. The Fleetwood has just gone to the Great Denny's Parking Lot in the Sky, but Cadillac isn't giving up on rear-drive just yet. It's going to import the German-engineered, German-built Opel Omega as an entry-level Caddy to do battle with the likes of the BMW 3 Series and Mercedes C-Class. American driving enthusiasts are all keyed-up to get their hands on an American (by way of Deutschland) sport sedan…
<img src="http://www.ridelust.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/cadillac-catera.jpg" width="500" />
Then the specs were published. The only engine was a 2.8L V6 with as much pep as a gerbil with emphysema. The only transmission was a "NO INVOLVEMENT FOR YOU!" 4-speed slushbox. Reliability combined GM quality with German car parts prices. And, to cap it all off, it was pitched to the buying public with a head-scratch-o-riffic campaign that was a textbook example of the "Throw stuff against the wall and see what sticks" brand management regime of Ron Zarella.
Oh, what could have been…
<img src="http://www.chapeltech.net/zigduck.jpg"> Oh that's a good one! I can't believe how hard it is to find Ziggy and Cindy Crawford ad photos online. And that voice and music in some of them was pretty annoying.
Good lord- the duck.
<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9b/1984_Ferrari_308_GTB_qv.jpg/800px-1984_Ferrari_308_GTB_qv.jpg" width="600">
The Ferrari 308/328 and all of it's variants. Why? Well the performance is nothing to write home about (especially today when it can get smoked by a Cobalt SS) but the maintenance needs border on the absurd. The tires are Michelin TRX radials that were state of the art in 1978 but have long since ceased production. Thus you end up buying them from small producers like Coker and paying through the nose for the privilege. It's also the Ferrari of choice for people who can't really afford to own a Ferrari (or would that be the eyesore Mondial?) so it does carry a bit of a stigma. People with fast front drivers will not respect you because your car is slow and other Ferrari owners will not respect you because you own a "cheap" Ferrari. Everyone else in the world will look at you and think you want to relive Magnum P.I.
No way. It's beautiful and it sounds fantastic. The other issues are simply of the Italian-car-designed-in-the-seventies variety. There are almost no decades-old sports cars that would not get destroyed by a Cobalt SS – the seventies Aston Martin Vantage and Ferrari 512BB are among the very few.
And anyway, at the end of the day the Cobalt SS driver is driving a ho-hum boring looking Cobalt. And you're driving a beautiful Ferrari, no matter of the stigma with other Ferrari owners.
Plus, I don't think too many of us care about pissing off owner's clubs, considering the favorite Porsche on here is a toss up between a 914 and a 928.
944 Turbo!
No! 914EJ!
542!
Huh… well, I guess you win… Never knew that there was a Porsche designed Studebaker though.
<img src="http://www.autoweteran.gower.pl/concept/1954_Studebaker_542_by_Porsche.jpg" width=500>
Damnit I love my 924 Turbo.
All its variants? Seriously man? Have you not heard of the 288 GTO? Get out.
Chariots of Fire?
<img src="http://www.theferrarigroup.com/supply-chain-matters/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Burning-Ferrari-Paris_1-300×168.jpg">
<img src="http://www.theferrarigroup.com/supply-chain-matters/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Burning-Ferrari-Switzerland-300×187.jpg">
<img src="http://www.theferrarigroup.com/supply-chain-matters/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Burning-Ferrari-Costa-Mesa-CA-300×187.jpg">