What are the top 10 ugliest domestic cars in your opinion?
Good grief, do we have to go through this again? :banghead:
Here's my top 5 picks:
1) the 2005 Ford Mustangs - made to appeal to the redneck population in America and the #1 reason why people are buying great looking foreign sports cars like the 350Z and the RX-8.
2) Dodge PT Cruiser.
3) Dodge Magnum.
4) Dodge 300 series - not the slightest hint of a pleasant curve to this body style, then they threw a bunch of gaudy looking chrome on it to appeal to the homeboys.
5) Pontiac Grand Prix.
Relax, nobody asked you to reply.
Really? Are you sure you f*cking moron? Read your post. It's an open question. That means ANYBODY can reply with their opinion. Go crawl back under your rock, douche bag.
1. 05 Ford Mustang
2. 05 Chevy Avalanche
3. 05 Chevy HHR
4. 05 Chevy Uplander
5. 05 Chrysler 300C
Now this is purely opinion based and requires no evidence to support it...
I think a can of warms has just been opened. :laughing:
Edit: Oops scion isn't domestic. HEHE my bad.
I can read, probably better than you. I asked what people thought were the ugliest domestic cars on the road, I didn't ask for little homo's like you who live in their parents' basement to add stupid comments. If you don't want to reply to the post, then move on, loser. It's pretty simple. Go eat some yellow snow, faggot.
Yeah, but just curious. I think the whole retro body styling thing of late is just plain hideous, but these auto manufacturers most likely did their homework and these cars are selling, so someone likes them. I was just trying to put together a demographic on them of sorts. Underneath the ugly body styles though, are admittedly, some nice cars, performance-wise.
That really hurts coming from a twelve year old, Twinkie. The only stupid comment's I've read in this thread have emanated from your fingers. Does your teacher know you use her computer during recess?
OH ya... they are definitely selling... I’m not buying but someone
And more power to them... there’s definitely no accounting for style.
Like I love Chrysler, grew up in a Chrysler family (should have seen my dads face when I came home in a Fiero… lol) but that 300C is just horrible… who thought it was a good idea to make it look like it has a chop top? I’m not a fan of the chop top any way… so I might be a bit biased.
I thought that was my pet name... :cry:
No, actually I am 28 years old, but nice try. If your career as an internet chat room troll/addict falls through, you can become a 1-800 psychic I guess. And no, my teacher doesn't know because I built this computer myself. Peace out, shithead. :sleep:
I grew up in a Chrysler/Cadillac family. We had a New Yorker back in the
day. It was a really great car.
Even though I don't like the whole retro thing, I must admit, the new Camaro concept from the 2006 Detroit shows, looks great. But...it is just a concept. By the time it hits the dealerships, it will be a different car.
I am saving up for a new GTO right now. They look plain, but that is a welcome thing, considering the rest of Pontiac's models all have overly ornate, but non-functional bodies. I saw a concept car for the 2007 GTO, and as I feared, they are gonna go 70's style with the body too.
Experience on this forum tells me that when somebody throws their age out that fast, divide it by two and you have their real age. That means I missed the mark by two years. Woe is me. I hope you have a short stay here Twink.
Not me... he’s angered you... and that tickles me a bit.
If you think that you, him or anything on this forum angers me, you're even less intelligent than I gave you credit for. Unlike many of you here, this is not my life, this is just something to kill time. The only emotion I have concerning him is amazement... Because every time I think there can't be any more idiots left in the world to join, one more steps up and proves me wrong.
ya and there are never any anger undertones in any of your posts :roll:
Just because you don’t get along with someone doesn’t give you the right to call them stupid, and he doesn’t have the right to call you the names he did... though it was funny. Time to grow up, or leave... if you resort to name calling your argument becomes invalid, period!
Now... it was obvious he angered you because you resorted to name calling... which you do often. No mater how you’ve made me feel I’ve never resorted to name calling (he shouldn’t have either). Now both children need to go back to their real lives, get laid and come back once they’ve calmed down.
I wont be here… ill be working on my hobby car… but you boys play nicely.
I take it back; you wouldn't make a good psychic, or a good analyst for that matter. If I was 14 years old, I wouldn't even have a drivers license. If you don't have something intelligent to add to the discussion, please don't post; your immaturity grows annoying.
VWHOBO, your logic is circular, you are in serious denial, and you have no
alibi. You say that this forum is not your life, just something to kill
time, yet you are on post number 5900-something. You say that no one
angered you, yet you resort to calling others stupid, for no apparent
reason. For some reason, glass houses and stones comes to mind, regarding
I am new to this particular forum, so my post may be a repeat, but I searched the forum first and didn't turn up any similar results. Sorry if it is a repeat, but the solution is simple-- don't post on the thread I started. It's that easy.
If you are just here to sling insults and make an adolescent out of yourself, go take some anger management classes or something.
actually a little something I wanna throw out look at how long hes been here and well you have 12 post right now so that means your on like 12,000+ post if you were here as long as he was....hobo isn't going to change because of you, your new so either get used to it, ignore him, listen to him, or leave. He chose to respond the way he did, but your the one who retaliated and that makes you both at fault, but I agree with hobo as the last thread like this turned out well...not this again :doh:
True enough, but I have never believed in "offering him the other cheek",
so I will not choose any of your above options, thank you. He could have
just said, "this topic has been discussed already, check out the following
thread". Instead, he decided to be a child and start slinging mud.
Obviously, by reading his posts and mine, you can see which of us possesses the superior intellect, and knowing that is good enough for me. But I have never seen why it is wrong to not back down from a fight.
Anyways, has this topic always degenerated into mudslinging before? Sorry if the thread is a re-run, but I didn't find any similar ones with a quick search (perhaps the mods deleted the previous ones?). I didn't intend for this to turn into a smack talk session, I just wanted to chit-chat.
you mean this (http://car-forums.com/talk/showthread.php?t=19043) didnt
vwhobo may not be the easiest to get along with, but dont question his knowlege. that much i know is far superior to most on this forum, including mine.
you may say that whatever you said made him angry, but he's a person who see's in black and white, right and wrong, ignorant an intelligent. you missed that thread i pointed out that would have been 1st in the search if you had searched "ugliest cars", so i can easily see why he would get on your case for starting this thread.
you may be knowledgeable, i'm not going to discredit that, but i fail to see the logic in discrediting someone with as many posts as vwhobo here. he's not going to stay around that long by being a dumbass. picky, disagreeable, blunt, sure, but ignorant and a dumbass, no.
besides, his average is between 5 and 6 posts a day, i hardly say that makes this "his life".
You guys need to stop riding HOBO's cock.
He may see things in absolutes, but he always seems to see things in the absolute negative. I have seen in at least six other threads where he has copped an attitude with people that was totally unwarranted. It is cool to disagree with people and even point out their mistakes, but I'll be damned if he is gonna talk shit for no reason.
And, there's plenty of logic in discrediting someone with as many posts as him when a majority of them seem to be mostly trash-talk.
Does he know a lot about cars? Probably. My original post had nothing to do with knowledge though; it was simply an aim at starting some light-hearted conversation and it was COMPLETELY opinion based.
Is he still a dumbass? Yes until he proves otherwise. The guys that work at Midas may know how to change out brakes like no one else, but most of them couldn't even get through high school.
I'll say it again:
If my post was a repeat, he could have just said so. I just tried this site's search engine again and it turned up no threads with the word "UGLY*". As long as he wants to throw insults, I have plenty to throw back. I am not confrontational by nature, but if the need arises, I respond.
If he doesn't want to be insulted, then VWHOBO needs to learn some social skills.
seems to me your the one with someones dick so far up your ass you don't see anything but you being superior with the greater intellect. Your the one talking about social skills yet you still post comments unsulting other members.....good job...If you act like an ignorant child then you should be treated as one.
just because i'm countering your arguments doesn't mean i'm doing it
because it's you against him. same goes for all of us, i'd suspect.
and i've seen threads where people ask a question giving as much knowledge as they know, and vwhobo give them an answer they can appreciate, and learn from. even happened to me recently.
if you had said "all", then you'd have a point. most still leaves room for him to have plenty of knowledge about cars. which he does.
yet, if you had found the thread i reffered you to (with a completely obvious search keyword), you'd know that there's no way in hell this would be a light-hearted conversation.
so he's a dumbass untill he proves to YOU that he's not? nice logic there. what you mean to say is "do i still believe he's a dumbass?"
and when did being able to make it through an institution mean you're not a dumbass?
really? are you sure about that? a quick search with YOUR term suggests otherwise. take a look at my attachment
have a read: http://www.car-forums.com/talk/showpost.php?p=89218&postcount=79
Then why are you arguing with me? Were his actions not uncalled for? I
didn't start off by throwing insults. If you look, I have perfectly
respectful to the individual who posted in my thread for the sake of
So by your logic, if a rapist only rapes someone 25% of the time, but helps people the other 75% of the time, it's cool?
My search is not turning up this thread you sent me. Perhaps I need to adjust my internet settings or I am using a different keyword than you, either way, I didn't think I was coming on here to be personally insulted and to split hairs with VWHOBO and his minions over whether or not a topic has been seeded here or not in the past.
If I ignore your condescension, that observation is fair enough.
I DO STILL BELIEVE THAT VWHOBO IS A DUMBASS. Happy?
Since failure was considered a bad thing.
Thank you for the link, PIK_D. And no, my browser has not turned that up yet. That was all that was necessary in the first place.
Please have a look at:
After that, please have a look at: http://www.car-forums.com/talk/showthread.php?t=19139
You might learn some things.
Umm.. look again at who started the "intellect bashing". Your boy, VWHOMO
called me an idiot first. Why don't you go jump his shit instead?
And as long as you want to insult, me, I have no fears of adversity or of being outnumbered; I will retaliate.
Again, wipe the VWHOMO nut off your chin.
Thank you for the links.
Sorry this has gotten so out of hand. I don't think that VWHOBO's comments were warranted in the first place. I can admit when I am wrong, I just don't need to be insulted the way he originally did.
you're looking at it backwards. if someone is knowledgeable, yet they still
throw around insults, while not displaying that knowledge, does that make
them not knowledgable? the comparison should be that rapist is equal to the
knowledgeable person. you're the one saying the rapist is a cool guy.
funny. i used the keyword you used (did you even look at the attachment where i used "UGLY*", like you said, and then it turned up the thread i was talking about?
atleast it's not an incorrect statement.
i was talking about the fact that a diploma does not determine intelligence. seems you missed my point...
you obviousily didnt even open the link before responding. that link leads to something else. the link you "want", i gave you in the 1st sentence of my 1st reply, when i said this: "you mean this didnt show up?".
actually buddy you started it. It may have not been name calling, but it
was another form of trying to pick a fight.
because I agree with him, you are a Fu**ing moron :mrgreen:
you also started this also by saying "you guys need to stop riding hobos cock"
again with the insults, why don't you take your own advise and get some anger managment classes :thumbs:
True that; my bad.
I was using "ugliest" as a key word. The thread you mentioned spelled it "uglyest". A simple oversight on my part.
No, I didn't miss your point-- I was just being a dick because I am pissed off now. Again, my bad.
In the interest of good sportsmanship and being considerate, I am ending this thread. Sorry things got so out of hand. I do realize that two wrongs don't make a right, but I always finish what I start and I felt that his comments were uncalled for. I have just as bad a temper and as much self-respect as the next guy I suppose.
Perhaps you didn't read the comment he made that prompted me make my
Thus proving you are an idiot as well. :mrgreen:
Which I of course only stated when you all chimed in and ganged up on me, even though he started slinging insults first.
I did; they didn't help.
I just tried this site's search engine again and it turned up no threads
with the word "UGLY*".
huh? i STILL find that thread using "ugliest"... and which is it? "ugly*" or "ugliest"?
Look, dude. I think you are totally barking up the wrong tree. I made a
mistake-- I admitted that already. Maybe I spelled it wrong the first
time-- I don't know!!! My search didn't turn anything up initially. My
point is, I didn't spend a lot of time to make sure I spelled everything
right-- I didn't think this was going to be a point of contention for 12+
Before you continue shooting arrows at me, please read this entire thread from start to finish (it is kinda funny).
If you do, I am sure that you will see that I was not wrong in getting offensive at VWHOBO; you seem pretty sensible.
To make it short: I made a simple mistake and resurrected an old thread that apparently ended on a pretty negative note. My bad!!! VWHOBO responded with a smart-ass comment. I simply answered him with simple logic-- if you don't want to see this topic in a thread again or don't like the topic, then don't read it and don't post comments to it! Makes sense right? He responded with cussing and personal insults.
The other member who was posting in this thread, whom I was having a civil discussion,with, even questioned his reaction. VWHOMO responded by insulting that member's intelligence AND mine.
Who's wrong here?!!!
Read the thread from start to finish.
I never questioned VWHOBO's knowledge of cars so I don't even know why you guys went off on that tangent. My problem was the way he talks to other people.
I got pissed and responded with equally nasty stuff to VWHOMO (which is wrong-- I have already admitted that too) and then all of a sudden, I have you guys ganging up on my ass!!! What gives?
and yet you keep on posting, look heres some advise why don't you stop looking in this thread and let it be done with. You see a post aiming towards you then ignore it. Stop posting in this thread and the argument will be over. I'm way younger than you are and even I have the common sense of when to give up when something isn't going to progress anywhere. Your not going to change pik d's opinion and your not going to change my opinion and your definatly not going to change hobos opinion so why not just drop the subject and get it over with.
Well, when you're right, you're right, I guess.
Again, sorry if things got out of hand, whether you accept an apology or not. I've never been known for my ability to just let things go or for having much patience; I tend to take things to the extreme I guess, but I am quick to forgive and forget though.
I am curious, why did you two jump all over me? I definitely didn't draw first blood here or start with the cussing and insults; that was all HOBO's doing (or is that where you disagree with me?). I can at least expect an explanation, because I don't take to being ganged up on or insulted very well (obviously...LOL).
well I was trying to tell the new guy (you) how hobo is, but I guess I didn't do a good job. I also defended him a bit and then stated my opinion. As I recall I didn't actually say anything bad towards you. You are the one who told us to stop riding the cock...
Very true. My bad. Thanks for levelling, dude.
SteelSpirit, remember how in high school, mean kids always had a group of followers and yes-men? Its the same thing with Hobo. Its easier to agree than to get insulted.
Im going to take a shot out because im sick of this DODGE PT CRUISER??!?!
WTF man chrysler pt cruiser daimler cruiser is more on than dodge.
THE UGLIEST CAR THIS YEAR IS ANYTHING STEEL SPIRIT OWNS.
YOUR NAME IS RETARDED ALL IT NEEDS IS A COUPLE MORE X's
LIKE STEEL SPIRITXX yeah THEN YOU WOULD BE A BAD ASS.
IM SICK OF ALL THIS POINTLESS STUFF I COME HERE TO LEARN NOT ARGUE SENSELESS OPINIONS OF WHAT CAR LOOKS BETTER OR WORSE AND THERES NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT HOW CARS WORK BECAUSE YOUR PROBLY 12 AND WILL WORK AT UPS THE REST OF YOUR LIFE OR SOME OTHER WORTHLESS JOB.
AND OH BTW THE NEW MUSTANG IS AWESOME THE 300C is the best chrysler inovation in years!!! YEARS! you say the 300c is bad but lets compare to the other chrysler crap such as the K CAR and the Imperial.
You probly think civics are cool because they have 200 hp and low torque and torque makes you go slow so thats good heck A civic with a type R sticker has 300hp and that like 150hp per liter!!!.
Yeah and if i asked you you would say that if civic made a 5.0 car that it would have 750hp.
You would be wrong and wrong.
Jessica simpson is more knowledgable than you.
So have fun with your ugly car(its ugly for the shear fact that you own it, if you even have a car since you are 12)
I didn't write a dictionary like Vwhobo and ChrisV do but I think i got my point across.
Hahahaha, you sure did.
Thank You!!!! The new Mustang is definetly awesome and its because of this
that the other big car companies decided to bring back thier old school
hits starting with the GTO. Everyone followed up with what Ford did with
the Mustang because it OWNZ. And the Chrysler 300C (as much as I don't
like), it has a huge potential as far as customizing it. So whatever it is
your guys are smoking... let me hit that :smoke:
Oh, and as for the Fugliest domestic for 2006. The first thing that came to mind was this
Im going to try a different tactic in this thread...
I'll give you a little demographic on me, a PT Cruiser owner...
I've been playing with cars for 27 years. I've owned over a hundred, from most major manufacturers worldwide. I've also dabbled in most hobby genres, from sports cars and SCCA racing, to street rods, to 50's/60 customs, to musclecars, to lowriders, to mini trucks, to custom VWs, to sport compacts. I apprenticed in a shop doing vintage auto restration, doing a lot of work on the cars in the Harold LeMay collection. Then, for a decade, I had a shop building customs and street rods, and doing race and restoration work on sports cars. I'v ebeen an SCCA member since 1980, doing slalom racing, a bit of road racing, and autocross driver's instruction for both SCCA and BSCC.
For personal cars (not customer cars) I've built everything from a 600 hp autocrossing 460 powered Fox Mustang and a 400 hp V8 powered RX7 slalom racer, to a rotary powered MG midget, custom lowrider classic minitrucks, custom VWs bugs, restored Porsches, etc. Right now, besides the PT Cruiser, I've got the Fiat in my sig that I restored from a $100 rusty hulk, 2 Range Rover classics, and a 1963 Mercury Comet convertible that is becoming a full custom using a Lexus 4 liter DOHC V8 and Supra 5 speed custom adapted, sitting on a custom frame with air ride suspension.
This thread shows the cars I find the prettiest: http://www.car-forums.com/talk/showthread.php?t=19102
This shows the restoration of the Fiat: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/cvetters3/fiat_spider.htm
So you can see my automotive background and tastes.
I'm a trained graphic designer, and have spent decades studying what works as design and what doesn't, as I was paid to know. But cars have been my passion since birth, and there are NO cars I hate as a group. Maybe individual examples that have stranded me, but I woudn't even use that to damn a type, make or model.
I loved the PT when it was first introduced, but didn't want to pay inflated prices for the first couple years, since it wasn't going to be a limited edition car. I got my 5 speed Touring edition PT in April '02, and have put 68k miles on it, including a season of autocross (where it competed well with MINI coopers and the like). It has been comfortable for long trips (like the 17 hours to Orlando), versatile, carrying HUGE amounts of stuff. It has been perfectly reliable, more fun to drive than it needed to be, and even now, after all teh years of driving it, still as rattle free as new, and as solid as the day I bought it. I'm extremely impressed with the actual quality of construction that shows up in durability, not panel gaps.
And I love the style. The overtones of '37 Ford and Chrysler Airflow mixed with modern detailing and form. They make great basis for building customs from, and stand out from a sea of boring econoboxes and hatchbacks. As a designer and custom car builder, I find them far from hideous. And considering who else in the industry likes them (like Chip Foose, and I doubt anyone can accuse him of having bad taste in cars) I'm in pretty good company.
Yes, it's a tall, small wagon. That's what I bought it for, but it's been one of the best vehicle purchases I've had in the last 27 years, as far as a regular car goes. If it's not for you, that's fine. But don't be insulting about it as though it's stupid. Because that just says you're an ignorant, intolerant kid.
*cries* I love the dodge front end. If you must hate it, you must. lol - then again I am somewhat biased lol
Actually, my friend, you are wrong about pretty much everything. First
off, my user name is the same one I use on the Pittsburg Steelers forums,
as I have been a fan since since I was old enough to understand the concept
of sports and football. Talk about retarded names, what the hell is an
I 'm glad you think that my car is ugly without knowing what I own. You might be able to start your own TV psychic hotline someday with your instincts, man.
And yes, it is a virtually pointless thread-- but it would be fun to discuss as long as the thread isn't inundated with jellyfish-brained people like yourself. But if you come to these forums to learn and not argue about what cars are ugly, why did you even post on here? You seem to be suffering from form of inner turmoil.
And no, I am 28 years old and I actually work for a large Defense Corporation as a Windows/Unix system administrator, making more money in one month than you probably gross in a whole quarter.
The new mustang is hideous looking, in my opinion. If you took the time to read my earlier posts, you would see that I specifically stated that because I thought the cars were ugly on my list didn't mean that I thought they were shitty cars. Underneath that ugly-duckling of a body are some of the best vehicles Detroit has ever put out. And yes the 300C is uglier than sin, IMO.
And yes I do think the Civic is great car (and far more attractive than those hideous looking boxes that Chrysler calls cars). Motortrend, Edmunds, and most of Detroit seems to agree with me. I have never seen a Civic with a type R sticker, but the Civic Si does have a VTEC and a very low curb weight, which is why this little hatchback is able to attain the o to 60 times it has. How do you get 150 hp per liter? Did I catch you trying to think logically again?
Umm...no. There are no 5.0L cars that have 750 hp that I know of, but since you seem to have a kung-fu grip on the physics of automobiles (sarcasm meter pegs), maybe you can figure out how to manage that one. Let me know how it turns out.
Based on the automotive knowledge and brains you have shown in your post, you must hear that often.
Do the world a favor-- next time you want to say something...DON'T. Everytime you talk(write) you get dumber and dumber.
It's nice to hear from someone intelligent. Props to your extensive
devotion to cars. I feel the same way; I just don't have the time to put
into cars right now that I would like, with school and work.
No, I didn't say the PT Cruiser was stupid-- I just thought that it was ugly. I guess I am just biased because I just am not stirred by the old-style look. One of the reasons they stopped making cars that look like the retro styled cars of today is because Detroit was getting its ass handed by Toyota and other foreign car companies that were making smaller, more graceful looking cars (in laymen's terms).
But, no, many of these "ugly" cars aren't stupid by any means, I hope that wasn't the impression I gave; THEY ARE GREAT CARS.
I would probably love the Dodge Charger, Magnum, 300 series, etc. if they looked like a 350Z. Again, this thread was only to talk about aesthetics, not performance.
So just say it's not for you, don't use an inflammatory word like "ugly."
It'd be like me coming up to you and saying your girlfriend was ugly, when
I really mean, she's not exactly what I'd be looking for.
? the PT was patterned after a car from the '30s, way before there was any Japanese competition, and when ALL cars pretty much looked like that regardless of country of origin. The cars that the new retro cars emulate are all from the '60s and older, WELL before Detroit was getting it's ass handed to it.
The fact that the imports started kicking Detroit ass was build quality more than anything else. In fact, during the '70s, when Japan started building cars that more people bought, some of the more desireable were derivative of American cars, simply built better with better fuel economy. Cars like the RX2 (which emulated the '67-68 Camaro) the RX3 and Celica GT (which emulated the '69-70 Mustang) and others. In the '80s when Japan really started taking off, Detroit had long since given up on the stylish cars from the '60s and earlier, and were making boxes like the Ford Granada and Fairmont, Chevy Citation and caprice, and the like.
No, Detroit didn't stop making cars like the '70 Mustang, '71 Challenger, or '65 Lincoln because they wanted to keep up with the Japanese, they couldn't keep up with the Japanese because they stopped making cars like those. The instant success of the PT Cruiser, new Mustang, and 300C show exactly that fact to be true. Had they retained their distinct American style AND been built better, the Japanese may have found themselves in a real uphill battle for market share. I grew up in the 60s and '70s and saw this firsthand.
BTW, the Japanese and Europeans have also done many retro cars to good effect (though we haven't seen as many of the Japanese versions on our shores, like the Nissan Be-1 and Figaro, or the Daihatsu Mira Gino)
But then they'd simply BE Japanese cars. The point is they are distinctly NOT generic Japanese cars, and they garner critical praise and fanatical followings due to not being generic modern blandmobiles. If you WANT generic Japanese cars, they are available. They already exist. Buy one of them. But just because you are incapable of appreciating the design of them merely means that they are not for you, not that you need to start threads using inflammatory and insulting descriptive terms.
These are the cars that lost it for the domestics:
Not the cars that the PT, Mustang, 300C and Prowler emulate. Your reasoning is based on mistaken facts. Doesn't mean you have to LIKE the cars or buy them. But just try to understand them better before calling them ugly (which, as I said, is an inflammatory and insulting word, designed to denigrate not only the cars, but the people that designed them and bought them).
steelspirit, i've seen two mistakes you've made. one, you failed to find
the other thread about ugly cars. but we've talked about that, and we've
two, is you honored aondor with a response... he may have said one reasonable thing, this: "AND OH BTW THE NEW MUSTANG IS AWESOME THE 300C is the best chrysler inovation in years!!!".
and even then, i dunno about it being the best inovation, because i dont really keep up on chrysler's doings... point is, i dont see why you responded to something that idiotic and so blatently obviously not though out in the least...
other then that, :thumbs:
would it be acceptable to you for me to say "that car isnt visually appealing to me"? just trying to get a bearing on your thoughts.
I'd usually say, "I understand where the designer was coming from, but I might do something like this..." or "I like much of it, but I'd change this and this to suit my tastes."
And even to me, stock mass produced vehicles are rarely perfectly styled. They are usually compromises. Even the PT wasn't finished the way Brian Nesbitt originally penned it. And I'd change certain things about it were I to have the money to do it in MY style. The main thing is that it's actually pretty easy to say you like one thing better than another without saying the other is necessarily bad.
My gripe usually comes from people that really don't have much in the way of knowledge of automotive history taking a cheap pot shot at a successful modern car (often one with much critical acclaim for it's style) as the "ugliest car ever." To me it's more of a knee jerk reaction to popularity, like hating on any other thing that becomes popular. It's less about the thing itself but the person's relationship with popular culture.
I see your point.
Yeah, I was just making a very bland generalization in the interest of not writing a book.
Well, there is more to a car than the body style, I acknowledged that. A 300C wouldn't be a Japanese car if you put a 350Z body on it.
I have owned mostly foreign cars, but of late, I have decided to take a stand and only buy American made cars. Our national deficit grows annually and foreign cars definitely contribute greatly towards that end. But seriously, do you really think a PT Cruiser looks better than a Nissan 350Z or an RX-8? Neither of those cars looks anything close to bland, by any standards.
Yeah, I made some bad word choices in this thread.
Very true. I have been dreaming about the 2005 GTO that I am gonna purchase soon for some time and I have had to defend its look numerous times, coincidentally against friends who all own Acura TL's and Hondas. Granted they look like a cross between a Chevy Cavalier and a Mazda 6, and stock, look rather bland. In my mind though, I'll admit that muscle cars were never about looking futuristic or aesthetics, but to me, the GTO looks the way I would think that muscle cars should after another 30 years of evolution. It doesn't try to emulate something that was popular decades ago, but instead stuck to simplicity. But they look really good with some new front, back, and side fascias and some bling-bling rims.
Most stock car designs, performance-wise and aesthetically speaking are rather dull or sometimes compromised to try and appeal to the largest audience while not turning away others.
Very true, but not in my case. Regardless of popular opinion, I just thought that some of the new American made cars look as though ergonomics and aesthetics were not a factor in an attempt at making them look "tough".
But does someone have to know the history of a car to think that a car is unattractive or attractive?
Hey Twinkie. I know you're intellectually superior to everyone on this forum (at least in your own mind), so this should be real easy for you. Look at your two statements above, and tell us how you're contradicting yourself. Then entertain us with your tap dance attempting to justify why. This is just further proof that you are not what you claim to be, only a whiner and a post whore.
Well, lookie-lookie who is back for round 2! I should have known that you
don't have the minerals to just drop the whole stupid thing. You really
lack class, VBHOMO. I tried to bury the hatchet with you and give you
props where it is deserved, but I guess that was a premature decision...
I made an admirable attempt at being descent to you, only to have it thrown back in my face.
By the way, how's your kitty-cat? Do you two share the litter box or do you have your own with your name, VBHOMO, embossed on the side?
I could try to further entertain you but I must admit, I have no idea what you are blathering about this time.
Where is the contradiction in saying that I have been dreaming about having a GTO and am planning on buying one in the near future?
Where is the contradiction in saying that the popularity of foreign cars is partially responsible for the 40 trillion dollar national deficit?
Really, why do you insist on interjecting your mindless trash-talk when two people are being civil to each other and having an intelligent discussion? Do you suffer from Terrell Owens syndrome and get uncomfortable unless you are in the limelight?
Because you moron, your beloved GTO is made in Australia. The last time I
checked, Australia is not a part of the USA and is therefore a foreign
country. As much as I love my Australian friends, GM is selling a car to
simple minded individuals like you and passing it off as an American car.
Of course, someone of your supreme intellectual stature would be fully aware of that and would never buy such a machine based on the fact that it is NOT American made. So once again Twinkie, you have your own foot inserted deeply into your mouth. When you're done with that delicacy, perhaps you'd like to have what my kitty accidentally dumped on the floor for a second course.
I think it's time for you to spend less time typing and more time learning. That is unless you feel the need to peg out your post whore-o-meter and entertain us with more of your inane, ignorant, imbecilic and uniformed opinions. Come back and see us in a few years when you grow some pubic hair and your balls drop... Out of your mouth.
And again you are wrong, ****head.
The GTO is BASED upon the chassis of the Australian made Monero, which is where Pontiac derived its inspiration from. That and the body style is where the similarity ends.
The GTO however, was adapted in 2004 for America (adding the 5.7L LS1) and is manufactured in the US by PONTIAC which is in turn owned by GM (who is an American manufacturer last I checked).
Try again, VBHOMO.
And no, I don't auto-fellate myself, but I hear that in Redneck Hell, you
guys have family trees like telephone poles.
Besides get, things straight: you are the one who brought up intelligence first (reread the beginning of this thread). I have never used my IQ as a weapon in an argument unless some rat-****ed dickbrain like you brings that into the argument first.
Would you like some ketchup with that foot of yours? Oh wait, first you need to unbury your nose from Aondor's pubes.
What's wronq with you?...You were proven wrong...give it up:banghead:
Where was I proven wrong? Did you read my last post?
Then it would BE a 350z. that's teh point. There's already Japanes cars
that lopok lik eit. But even then, Japanes luxury sedans don't look like
350Zs, either. And to be honest, I prefer 240Zs to 350Zs. But 240Zs were
patterned after the great Ferrari front engine GTs of the previous
They are cars for a completely different segment of the market. One is a 4 door small tall station wagon, and the others are 2 seat or 2+ 2 sport coupes. COMPLETELY different things. Now, look at the Japanese style cars that compete with the PT: the Toyota Matrix, the Scion xB, and the like. Yes, I like the PT better than them, which is why I bought it. the criteria of the car when I bought it was a family sedan with easy ingress/egress from teh rear seat, teh ability to carry a lot of stuff in a small space, stylish, and inexpensive. The PT met all those needs. A 350Z would NOT have (and I already had a 2 seat sports car, as you can see in my sig). And the Japanese equivalents of the PT simply were lacking on one area or another (too slow, not enough headroom, too expensive, really small back seats, etc).
Are you looking at cars only through testosterone addled teenage boy eyes? Cars are far more than just sports cars and sports car styling. But in the realm of sports cars, I prefer cars like the 240Z, XKE, the Lambo Miura, the Ferrari 250 GT and 275 GTB over the 350Z. Hell, I preferred the original nissan showcar that was going to BE the 350Z to th eproduction one.
The problem you have is it's one style or nothing. I like ALL of them, from a '60s Falcon to a '90s BMW (and to be honest, now that we have two range Rover Classics, I'll be getting rid of the PT and replacing it with a '96-98 BMW 740i).
You mean this:
That's what made me post what I did post...unless you mean the post before that, which you said the GTO was only based on an Australian car, and not built on one.
Did you see the PM I sent you?...I can provide links, where it says the GTO is made in Australia...:doh:
...later in 2003 when GM introduces the all new GTO. Equipped with a 350bhp 5.7L LS1 engine, which some of us may remember from GM's Corvettes of earlier years, fully independent suspension, and an almost neutral front/rear weight distribution, the GTO is every bit as powerful as its decades old predecessors...
...While the body and chassis is loosely based on the Australian made Holden Monero, and the car looks remarkably similar to the European made VXR, this car is pure, Detroit muscle. It is expected to come off of Pontiac's assembly lines late in 2003...
Actually, the current GTO is built in Australia, at Holden's Elizabeth,
South Australia plant, and shipped up here. Go to the dealer and look at
In fact, it's caused some concern with the UAW.
The next GTO is supposed to be built in the US, based off the Zeta chassis and the sister car to the new Camaro.
But really concerning yourself where the headquarters of a car company are or where the "profits" are going is pointless. I mean, I'm sure the American exective will thank you for allowing him to purchase a Villa in the South of France, and the Japanese executive would thank you for his Condo in Vail, Colorado, but really, the bulk of the economic flow in the purchase price of a car goes to where the car is built. The economy doesn't see "profits" from the sale of cars. That money goes to a few high execs, and into purchasing new facilities out of the country or going into corporate buyouts. Where do you think the couple billion Ford spent for Range Rover came from andwent to? TO the US? How about it's purchase of Volvo? Or Jaguar? Or GM's purchase of Alfa (and the ensuing fiasco where they owed Fiat billions). If you think the profits that paid for all that went to help the US trade deficit, you need to go back and study economics.
Thanks for the clarification, dude (and Chris Knows, too) and for not being
a jackass about it.
So it doesn't matter that the GTO is owned by Pontiac, only that it was manufactured in Australia? That's kinda sick...I wonder how many people realize these things.
Well, if I am wrong, I am wrong, what the heck, but I definitely don't need VBHOMOboy screaming insults at me. I swear some folks just can't behave like civilized individuals.
I was under the impression (from several supposedly reliable sources like Motortrend and Edmunds) that whatever manufacturer owns the rights to the car determines which country the profits go to, instead of the country where they were actually assembled. This is not the case? That sucks.
Okay, I was wrong and misunderstood what I had read. Thanks everyone for
keeping me honest (LOL).
But....I still like the GTO and VBHOMO is still un uncivilized brute and has no class. :fu:
Actually, this type of thing is pretty common...I believe it was GM (not positive) who had plants in Mexico also, but they're doing this to save money (lower taxes)...
Profits don't go to any country. Period. Profits go to the executives and
shareholders worldwide, regardless of company. And even that is after
overhead and R&D comes out. And profits go to things like buying up other
MOST of the cost of the car is in material, labor, and the operating costs of the plant and tooling to build it. The people that work on the cars get money, the people that run the plants get money, the people that support the plants get money (i.e. food services, architects, plumbers, facilities people, janitors, electrical contractors, fire support, security, etc). The communities the plants are in get money both directly from property taxes and B&O taxes, but also indirectly from supporting the people that work in the plants. Also teh power that runs the plant, the garbage services and hazardous materials services, shipping companies, etc around the plant make money off of it being there. 4000 jobs at a plant equates into 10,000 jobs directly affected OUTSIDE the plant.
So when GM or Ford puts a plant in Mexico or Canada, America isn't helped out. But when Toyota or Honda have plants here, America IS helped out. Especially when they have started sourcing parts from local suppliers, and the raw materials (like the steels and aluminums) come from US sources. And the profits from Toyota may partially go worldwide, but they also partially go to increasing capacity right here in the US. Honda even builds cars here and exports them to Japan...
The best policy it to simply buy the cars you like. The market will sort itself out.
Thanks. When I took (was forced...LOL) ecomonics in college, I squeezed by with a C-, as you can tell.
It's a damn shame.