 | |
Worst Cars Ever
Miscellaneous UK car topics Other UK car topics (uk.rec.cars.misc)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#41
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: Worst Cars Ever -
11-08-2006
, 04:35 PM
|
Nate Nagel wrote: richard wrote: [A bunch of ignorant crap.] Obviously you've never had any of those cars Nate, the guy is an idiot not worth your bother. We both know the Edsel was as good as any contemporary Ford just as the Kasier was in its day among the independents. The Crosley was an odd anomaly I wouldn't begrudge showing up on the list while the second generation Corvair was, in fact, quite good. -- C.R. Krieger (Been there; done that) |
obvious rear suspension issue that's been beaten to death) and that was
the horizontal cooling fan with the two belt idlers tended to throw the
fan belt when engine RPMs changed quickly, as in a situation where the
car was shifted in an enthusiastic manner...
nate
--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
#42
| |||
| |||
|
#43
| |||
| |||
|
|
Carl Gibbs (cagmeister (AT) yahoo (DOT) co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying : http://www.uglycars.co.uk My exact car is on the front page. Bastard! Show's he knows nothing! Out of the five on there, one belongs to a good mate o' mine who sent the pic of his own car to the site. (and I owned one until a couple of weeks ago) - I quite like the other four, too... |
I may or may not have personal reasons for that...
#44
| |||
| |||
|
|
John S. wrote: PC Paul wrote: John S. wrote: It's easy to come up with a list of 10 pictures and no text whatsoever to support a dubious claim. Furthermore I do not understand the need to come up with such a list, other than to sell books. Pointless exercise. This is better... http://www.uglycars.co.uk But what is the point of sites like that. What can anyone possibly get from such simple minded comparisons of cars. Over the past 20 years I've seen several books listing the supposed worst cars or the ugliest cars. And they have all been on the 70% discount table at the local chain bookstore. One could come up with a list of all turquoise cars ever produced and have equally interesting material. You think all sites have to have a point? I think you're on the wrong Internet. |
book would have a point or reason for doing so. In some cases it would
appear otherwise.
Quote:
|
Somebody felt it had enough of a point (humour included - although I get the impression that might not count too highly in your ratings..) to produce it. |
a list to attract others into a group session of making fun of a
handful of cars seems immature at the very least.
Quote:
|
If you find microcars so fascinating, why not produce a website about them yourself to share your knowledge and experiences? Of course, I'd find a site like that pretty pointless. But there you go, it takes all sorts. And wouldn't it be boring if it didn't??? |
#45
| |||
| |||
|
|
I read a history of the Ford company around 15 years ago (don' t recall the title). I was also in the car market when it came out. The major problem with it was marketing. It was hyped for several years as the answer to the foreign cars before it was in production. I, for one, was eagerly awaiting it. When it hit the showroom it was seen as what it was. Just another Ford. IMO also ugly even by the standards of those years. Any market it had was stolen from the Ford and Mercury lines, not from any foreign ones. There were even very few true Edsals produced. Almost all of them were more of an 'assembled' car using Ford parts. |
from a Pontiac or a Buick, or a Desoto from a Dodge. I don't think the
Edsel was ever intneded as an "import figter." It was more of an
attempt to make Ford more like GM. I have heard it argued that the
Edsel suffered quality problems becasue there were no separate Edsel
factories. Back then, GM had separate assembly plants for every brand.
The Edsel never had these, so it was assembled in plants run my
executives who viewed the Edsel as another competitor. Today even GM
has given up on seperate manufacturing plants for the various brands,
but back then the various GM divisions fiercely competed against each
other.
Using your logic, there were very few true Buicks, Pontiacs, or
Oldsmobiles. Many of the major components were shared among these
brands. IN the 50's and 60's the GM brands did have brand specific
engines, but they shared suspension parts, transmission, differntials,
chassis, etc.
As for the Edsels looks. I don't get the complaint that they were ugly,
at least in comparison to other vehicles sold at the time. Have you
ever looked at a 1960 Plymount? How about a 1959 Chevrolet?
Ed
#46
| |||
| |||
|
|
I read a history of the Ford company around 15 years ago (don' t recall the title). I was also in the car market when it came out. The major problem with it was marketing. It was hyped for several years as the answer to the foreign cars before it was in production. |
divison for competition with GM. Maybe you are thinking of the Ford
Falcon which I do recall was aimed to take business away from imports.
The Edsel came online for MY 1958, falcon was midyear '59 I think.
#47
| |||
| |||
|
|
The Edsel was as different from a Ford or a Mercury as a Oldsmobile was from a Pontiac or a Buick, or a Desoto from a Dodge. |
#48
| |||
| |||
|
|
PC Paul wrote: Somebody felt it had enough of a point (humour included - although I get the impression that might not count too highly in your ratings..) to produce it. Humour is certainly a point or reason for doing so. But to just put up a list to attract others into a group session of making fun of a handful of cars seems immature at the very least. |
#49
| |||
| |||
|
|
After congitating again, I do believe that it was only the original concept that was supposed to fight on equal terms with the foreigns but that was soon dropped. |
small imports by offering a larger car with fuel economy etc...
Advertising for the base falcon claims something like 30mpg...
#50
| |||
| |||
|
|
Ed White wrote: Harry K wrote: I read a history of the Ford company around 15 years ago (don' t recall the title). I was also in the car market when it came out. The major problem with it was marketing. It was hyped for several years as the answer to the foreign cars before it was in production. I, for one, was eagerly awaiting it. When it hit the showroom it was seen as what it was. Just another Ford. IMO also ugly even by the standards of those years. Any market it had was stolen from the Ford and Mercury lines, not from any foreign ones. There were even very few true Edsals produced. Almost all of them were more of an 'assembled' car using Ford parts. The Edsel was as different from a Ford or a Mercury as a Oldsmobile was from a Pontiac or a Buick, or a Desoto from a Dodge. I don't think the Edsel was ever intneded as an "import figter." It was more of an attempt to make Ford more like GM. I have heard it argued that the Edsel suffered quality problems becasue there were no separate Edsel factories. Back then, GM had separate assembly plants for every brand. The Edsel never had these, so it was assembled in plants run my executives who viewed the Edsel as another competitor. Today even GM has given up on seperate manufacturing plants for the various brands, but back then the various GM divisions fiercely competed against each other. Using your logic, there were very few true Buicks, Pontiacs, or Oldsmobiles. Many of the major components were shared among these brands. IN the 50's and 60's the GM brands did have brand specific engines, but they shared suspension parts, transmission, differntials, chassis, etc. As for the Edsels looks. I don't get the complaint that they were ugly, at least in comparison to other vehicles sold at the time. Have you ever looked at a 1960 Plymount? How about a 1959 Chevrolet? Ed I was there. It was hyped as the answer to the foreign cars. IIRC it was even hyped as going to be a reasonably priced and fairly economical car prior to introduction. It drew a lot of laughs and many many yawns when it hit the floors. I do believe that I said "IMO also ugly even by the standards of those years." Granted beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Look at a 60 plymouth? 59 Chev? Did you miss the line where I said I was in the market back then. I bought my first car in 1953 and had been driving my old man's farm truck and cars for 10 yeares prior. So the answer is "yes, but I didn't happen to own one". Harry K |
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.