Age…they say it brings wisdom. In my case, it’s brought a fading memory, expanded girth, and an inverse ratio of head hair to ear hair. But it has done one thing; it’s allowed me to reassess some of the earlier judgments I made about vehicles in my younger, less informed days. So how about you? Was there a specific model that you absolutely hated when you first saw it, then realized later in life that you were completely wrong? Here’s mine…
My formative automotive period was the ‘60s and early 70’s. While I was a Ford guy, I was forced to admit GM’s beautiful designs, all styled under the supervision of Design VP Bill Mitchell, set the benchmark for everyone else. The ‘63 Stingray, the ‘63 Riviera, the ‘66 Toronado were all standouts, but even more plebeian models – the ‘65 Impala for example, was and still is, drop-dead gorgeous.
So I was drawn to these crisply styled, beautifully proportioned models. On the exact opposite end of the spectrum, was something older, still seen on the streets but mostly in the poorer sections of the city – the early ‘50’s Hudson Hornet.
The step-down Hudson – I think I wretched when I first saw one. What was this thing that looked like an overturned bathtub, with a semi-enclosed body that sloped in the back, making it look like some Giant Cock Roach that escaped from Alamogordo? It didn’t help that these were all at least ten years old and were rust-eaten, dented, and with fading paint. I thought they were the ugliest thing to ever haunt a driveway.
Well, time does bring some fresh perspective and hopefully a little more maturity. Once I outgrew my “nothing is any good unless it’s packing a 428CJ” period, I started to appreciate other aspects of automotive design and engineering. So in the ‘80’s, it finally dawned on me that the Hornet was a car driven to production not by the accountants, or the designers, but by the engineers. The step-down design significantly enhanced safety, handling, and interior space. The tub-like body was auto aerodynamics in its infancy. The big 308 cu in flathead six with dual “Twin-H” carburetors made as much power as the then new OHV V-8s.
So now, yes, I love the Hornet…what’s your “used to hate it but now I love it” story?
Believe it or not, the SAAB 9000. As a kid in the ‘90s growing up in a Volvo family, I always thought the 9000 looked cheap and dated compared to the Volvo 850. The 9000 didn’t have the quaintness of a Volvo 240 or a Saab “classic 900” (which I always loved BTW), it just seemed stale. I didn’t appreciate the potential of the 9000’s performance until much later, and it’s design has grown on me.
(I still like the 850 better.)
Ha. I’m kind of the opposite. I was a Saab guy (my parents had a model 95 2 stroke when I was a kid and I loved seeing the Sonnet brochures when it was (frequently) in for service). In comparison, Volvos – especially the wagons – were somehow both boring and so American. RWD? What is this, a Model A?
Now of course a red-block wagon would be a definite candidate for my driveway.
Corvairs. I used to think they looked awkward, sounded strange and-hey, American cars arent supposed to have an engine in the back!!!!
Now I’m a fan, especially the later ones. Monza please.
Gm fwd a body wagons. As a kid having to be crammed into one of those while my friends crused in spacious minivans was painful. Now in a crossover dominated landscape their simplicity and practicality appeals to me the way none of these modern utes do and has lead me to start looking at subaru outbacks which unfortunately has always lacked the 3rd row seat that the a body had.
And please dont call the outback a crossover. It is now what it always has been, a legacy wagon with 2 more inches of ride height and plastic body cladding.
Check out Ford Flex or Lincoln MKT.
Tesla Model S has a third row as well and used ones are somewhat affordable now.
The Subaru Ascent is not really that high off the ground either and looks like a slightly elongated Forester to me.
Jeep Wrangler.
As a kid I didn’t even consider it a car. It was a bucket on wheels suitable as Pat Brady’s Nellybelle. This was because I grew up in Chicago where Jeeps were rare and not considered cars. It was illegal to even park a pick up truck in your driveway or in front of your house in our neighborhood until just a few years ago. These were work vehicles, not daily vehicles to drive.
I attended university in Colorado where Jeep Wrangers were seemingly everywhere. They were still buckets on wheels, but they had a very entertaining purpose. They were work buckets that could reasonably be used as a convertible or a mountain vehicle. I discovered that they were completely different from what was driven all over the Loop in Chicago, but that wasn’t a bad thing.
Now the Wrangler has been domesticated to the point where it could be used as a daily driver. Yet now, I miss the old Wrangler.
Roy, Dale and Nellybelle
Oh, and Pat.
Perhaps with Buttermilk, Trigger and Bullet being stars, it was a natural for Nellybelle to become one too.
I’m with you on the Wrangler. When I was younger, I knew several people who had Wranglers, and I hated riding in them. Unnecessarily bouncy and uncomfortable, and it seemed to me that young guys bought them solely to look like frat boys. I hated Wranglers.
Now I love them. For one, my in-laws have a bare-bones 1995 Wrangler. They live in a very rural area, about 2 miles from a paved road — their Wrangler (5-spd., no a/c, no power steering, no rear seat) is well suited to their location. It gets them home in the worst winter weather, and has never let them down. And when I visit, I enjoy driving it… its simplicity is unrivaled on any modern car.
And I even like the more ‘civilized’ modern Wranglers now. I’d actually consider buying one because they seem less obnoxious than the vast majority of 2020 vehicles. And they’re fun, from what I understand. I can’t think of any car on which I’ve gone from hate-to-love more than the Wrangler.
Requiem for the 1996 Ford Taurus, Mercury Sable, and Lincoln Continental. If you see clean ones on the street next to modern Teslas, Hyundais, and Subarus they finally blend in to traffic. I don’t think that is necessarily a good thing because we all complain about the garishness of modern design. But at least the 1996 Fords were prophetic in terms of showing us all where design was headed. The later 2000-2007 and 2008-2009 bodies look older by comparison in todays traffic. I always preferred the look of the 1996 Mercury Sable sedan over the Continental and Taurus. I thought the rear-end of the Sable was much more cohesive and may have been a minor hit if it was offered with the SHO’s V8. At least some of the seniors that were looking at the Lincoln-Mercury Panthers could have been persuaded into a (easier to drive and park) V8 Sable sedan or Wagon if offered. Especially in the snow belt.
I have a soft spot for the 2000-2005 wagons, which have the newer, non-catfish front end and lose the goofy dashboard but otherwise retain the eccentric 1996 styling.
Add in that white ones look like Imperal Stormtroopers from behind.
Can’t think what an Imperial Stormtrooper’s behind looks like….. 🙂
Hands down, 1973 Olds Cutlass Supreme. Now I can’t see enough of them. My buddy had one, and we had an ongoing rivalry as to who had the better car. I was pleased as punch to watch his rot to rust in its prime, but now I love to recall the beautiful smell inside that it had, and that smooooth feel on the highway going 90 plus miles per back in the day as we went on road trips.
At the time, I did not carry that hatred to all Colonnades, as I loved the Malibu. However I disliked the Le Mans with its sharp ended design as stated before here on CC.
The ‘69 Camaro and a Firebird. At the time, I thought they were an awkward, overweight version of the clean and sharp ‘67-68 cars. Especially the awkward wheel arch details. Now, I think they’re the best of the first-gen’s, and to me, almost as appealing overall as the early second-gen F Bodies, and at least the equal of the later second-gens with their plastic ends and wraparound rear windows.
As a teenager, I was all into modding cars for performance, and was deeply influenced by the custom car magazines of the day. I also was influenced by Car & Driver, where traditional American luxury cars were treated with scorn. Cars weren’t worthy unless they had rock hard suspension, firm seats and noisy exhaust.
These days when almost every car fits that description, I appreciate the softly sprung, quiet, full -on Brougham experience. My commute on frost-heaved, pothole -strewn streets to my stressful job is eased by a smooth quiet ride. It seems almost no one makes cars to fit the bill, although some SUVs come close which perhaps contributes to their popularity.
Just about any 1965-1967ish GM full-sizer. Especially the Bonnevilles, Olds 98s, Electra 225s and Cadillacs. Bizarre, I know.
When I was a young kid in the early 70’s all of these were older used cars. On the roads of Northern NJ salt was king and hills and curves meant for cautious maneuvering. These big old beasts, usually rusty and dented, with hanging exhaust systems, rusted out mufflers, missing trim pieces and very often scruffy old curmudgeonly operators, seemed to prowl the back roads at glacial speed. They were often followed by a stinking plume of bluish smoke and a stench of mostly-burned fuel combined with a whiff of semi-burned oil. They were usually loud, belching, lumbering things, changing direction slowly and clumsily, dragging their rusted and beaten hind quarters over any bump or hump in their path. They were like angry dinosaurs who’d forgotten to go extinct. To a 5 year old they were downright scary, and anyone who operated one must be a special kind of creep, as far as I was concerned.
I have no idea if a specific encounter sealed this image in my young mind, but as an adult I obviously appreciate these cars for all of their charms. You’ve got to admit though, picturing a ’66 Bonneville, about 2 weeks away from the scrapyard, rear springs 4 years gone, no muffler, quarter panels rusted out until they’re literally a quarter of their former selves, dragging its droopy rusted ass along a back road in the hills of NJ….to me it was like a scene from Deliverance.
Older pick-up of the ’65 to ’85 period .They are masterpieces now , compare to the ridiculous mack styled one of today that requires a ladder to access it … & special automated tailgated .
There are a number of Subaru models I deemed ugly in my younger years that I now find attractive, like the 1997 Subaru Impreza, especially the coupe.
I don’t really tend to hate individual models unless they’re atrocious. I did harbor some segment wide prejudices before I worked at a dealership. That experience allowed me to sample many different types of vehicles.
Pickups trucks didn’t thrill me at all and I never understood why so many guys would buy one as a suburban runabout. Then I drove the new (at the time) F-150 and it all made sense. They were far more comfortable than I imagined and much more civilized than I expected.
And despite being a member of the demographic that gravitates towards hybrids, I didn’t understand what the fuss was about until getting behind the wheel of one. I instantly liked the smoothness and refinement of the powertrain and I’ll probably make a hybrid my next daily driver.
Citroën DS. They looked to me like something from outer space. The Hydrapneumatic suspension made it worse as sometimes you’d see one that had been parked for a while and the suspension would leak down leaving the car an inch off of the ground. I’ve gained an appreciation for them since.
+1. I first recall seeing one in 1983 when I was 8 or 9. It was chocolate brown and very low. To young me it looked like a cockroach oozing into the ground.
I have to agree also. Specifically for me, the CX had a sinister look. The 2CV was hideous looking and don’t even get me started on the Ami series. Growing older, I’ve come to appreciate the engineering and design put into these Citroens to the point of being tempted when one comes up for sale.
Seconded on the CX. The one dealership in the town I grew up in was a Citroën dealer, therefore plenty of Citroëns everywhere. The CX just seemed so sinister, unusual, and it’s front looked downright angry. Same for the early ’80s Saab 900 I passed on my way to school. Quite different from our friendly-faced Opel Kadett E! Only later did I come to appreciate them for both their advanced engineering and their futuristic looks.
1983 Thunderbird. “This isn’t what a T-Bird is supposed to look like.”
To my young adult mind, Ford had done a good job with the 1980-82 downsized ‘Birds. These days, I stop just short of making the Lurch noise if I see one.
I didn’t hate it, but that “Aero” Bird did seem quite strange to me when it came out.
By early 1984, there was an ’83 T-Bird in my driveway, and I’ve loved them ever since.
I had a similar experience when I first saw a 2016 Civic. It was just feakin’ weird. (I know, many of you still think it’s weird). Then its looks grew on me. Then a coupe version came out with much less weird looking taillights.
Now I have one, and I love it.
Now here is a classic example for me. I thought it looked odd but that was it. Then I drove a 2017 and I now hated how the car handled. It’s ability paled in comparison to Civics in the 90s.
Volkswagen Beetles. My parents laughed at me for years about the fuss I made as a 3-4 year old whenever I saw them. Now I like them well… especially the sound..
Mustang 2 took me many years to get over. I loved mustangs but those were a problem for me. Now I am at the point where they stir some idle curiosity whenever I see one. Not love, but no more hatred. It’s a slow redemption!
The first generation Sable. I used to think every detail that separated it from the Taurus made it look super ugly, but now I really love the almost sci-fi elements, and really appreciate just how extensively the differences are between it and the Ford outside and inside. I get genuinely excited when I see one on the road now, and first gen Taurus’ barely register unless it appears to be a SHO
05-09 Mustangs. Yes, I actually detested these despite many citing them as a “return to form” with their retro styling, improved ergonomics and refined chassis, but I liked the Fox/SN95 era and didn’t appreciate their reassessment in the Mustang lineage from “fans”, relegating to Mustang II lite status “we’re only glad those existed to keep the nameplate alive, so we’d get ‘real Mustangs’ again”. That attitude negatively colored my perception from day one, independent of actual merits of the car itself. But what I didn’t like about the car was how they deviated from the 2002 concept car, gone were the smooth lines, the wide Shelby-like taillights and roof pillar scoops, and in was a much blocker front end, clunky bulged out rocker panels, huge black plastic side mirrors, black headlight surrounds, quarter windows(yes, a nod to 66 Shelbys, but…), big blank hood and huge proportions/high beltline. And so many details weren’t even that retro, like the big fender flares(carried over from the “new edge” design) and wraparound front turn signals.
Now that the concept is a long forgotten pre-teen memory though, I’ve finally grown to see the inherent beauty in the production versions ten years later. It helps too that I still find the 10-14 restyle unfortunate and the current generation a mix of boring and ugly(except the rear end), the 05-09s now look so clean in comparison, and among today’s traffic the proportions I was uncomfortable with now fit in but it’s more pure classic styling elements make it stand out as a Mustang better than its current namesake, especially the GT with its big round fog lights.
The tail light design that you reference was stolen by Dodge when they brought the Challenger back. I liked that design on the Challenger better than the new design. To me, all of the new Challenger tail lights look misaligned. Like they are trying to fit a flush tail fixture on a concave base surface and it never really looked correct to me.
I wouldn’t say Dodge necessarily stole it (though the idea of bring back their only ponycar in retro form clearly was copycat move), the Challenger’s taillight design and fit was homage to the 1970’s full width lens, it’s proportions are just that much greater because the rear ends proportions are from the original. I agree, I don’t like the newer 71 inspired look as much, more so the gloss blackout of the surrounding panel (don’t like that on 2013-current Mustangs either)
It always surprised me given the Mustang’s huge aftermarket those lights never were produced. The GT-R concept used them too now that I think of it
I’ll take the opposite tack regarding the Mustangs, Matt.
I recall (being older than you) when the Fox Mustang first came out for 1979 thinking that it no longer looked like a Mustang. Gone were the pony emblems up front, and other visual clues making me think “pony car”. And four headlights? WTF???
Then as the eighties progressed, performance started to come back to these cars, and they grew on me. When I was younger, I liked the GT with all its cladding and other things… Now, my Fox preference is for a 1988 or so 5.0L LX. Simple, plain, but like the original in a lot of ways.
But we had them for 15 model years!!! – When the SN95 came out, I thought, ‘OK, it’s starting to look like a Mustang again’, and when the S-197 finally arrived, I thought ‘Finally, it looks like a Mustang again.’
In retrospect, I’d love to have an old Fox… I had a Fox body Fairmont Futura and 3 different Fox (Aero) T-Birds… but never a Mustang.
For me I was born when the Fox was still alive in its most refined form, and was a staple of my childhood. Those were the Mustangs I knew and I loved them. The SN95s I remember being disappointed by, because it wasn’t really a fastback like the old hatch (ironically now I like the notchbacks the best) and it actually took a while to grow on me, and the New edge reskin I remember liking instantly, and detail by detail they improved – Bullitt wheels, headlight blackout, scoop, better looking spoiler, and of course the Mach 1 and Terminator Cobra.
Thing is I was very excited by the retro 2002 Concept that directly predicted the S197, but there were so many production changes for the actual 05 model. Remember what the Camaro and Challenger concepts looked like vs their production models? Almost exactly the same! Additionally, gone was the SVT Cobra and Mach 1 in one fell swoop. It took two years for the GT500 to sort of replace them, but didn’t have IRS and carried a ludicrous price tag. And so much emphasis was on mere visual packages like the GT/CS, Shelby GT and Bullitt. There was actual effort put into the SN95 special editions, these just seemed to sport easy to install FRPP catalog items with unique paint or stripes. These were the things that bothered me about this generation more than the cars themselves. It all seemed like a reunion tour from an aging rock band playing only the old hits to old fans. Many of us liked the direction they were going before, and it took me until recently to realize I wasn’t at all turned off by the styling, just the shallowness of the packages that came with it during those years. If only the 3.7, Coyote 5.0, and track pack/brembo package had been around on the previous styling that was vastly superior to the 10-14(IMO)
1971 Ford LTD 🙂
You eventually came around, Paul… 🙂
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/auto-biography/thank-you-all-for-your-great-car-buying-advice-but-i-ignored-it-all-and-bought-this-pristine-1972-ford-ltd-instead/
BTW, this next link is one of the funniest things I’ve ever read on this site:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1971-ford-ltd-convertible-the-name-on-the-title-starts-with-the-letter-n/
Priceless.
And 1971 Marquis Brougham
I’m going to say the minivan. Like most kids, in my youth I just considered them to be dorky mom mobiles. As an adult I can at least respect their superb space efficiency and extreme versatility. A vehicle that can haul seven passengers, or sheets of plywood, or a piece of furniture, had got to be the most practical category of vehicle on the planet.
Looking back I’m surprised how little my tastes haven’t changed with two exceptions:
To my 6 to 17 year old eyes most Japanese cars from the late sixties – seventies had too much fussy detail, which apparently the Japanese loved, but looked awful to me. Driving a 1973 Toyota Corolla in the eighties turned my opinion around. Now that nearly all have rusted away especially in the Midwest those details look charming, but still a bit weird.
I was indifferent to the 1961-1963 GM BOP ‘Y’ Compacts. Reading CC has made me appreciate how innovative these monocoque body trio were and now I would love to own one.
Nope – I still hate everything I ever hated, and now hate some that I used to love, just for good measure. 🙂 Seriously though, it is far easier to think of cars I once considered beautiful which I now find seriously flawed. Another great QOTD for someone with more free time.
OK, I guess I will add the 1962-64 Plymouth and Dodge. I couldn’t stand any of them, but now find elements to appreciate in all of them, with the possible exception of the 62 Dodge Dart.
I also disliked the Fuselage Mopars – a lot. I eventually came to appreciate their styling (again, in most versions), despite what you may think after giving one the DS anti-award this morning.
I also hated the pillared coupe versions of the Studebaker Hawk. I would love one now.
I’d have an easier time with that question too. I thought I’d have a million answers to this QOTD but I actually had to think hard about it. I’m one of those exceptions to the rule that new things take time grow on you, I either instantly like cars or don’t and it rarely changes without a restyle or engineering change to incentivize it. But I’ve definitely noticed cars I used to like a lot diminish as years go by
Jim, I couldn’t agree with you more. As a kid in the fifties I thought there was nothing uglier than the step down Hudson. Looked like a strange spaceship driven only by weirdos. Never knew anyone who owned one and didn’t care to.
Then years later I discovered these beasts had once been king of the NASCAR circuit and had a six cylinder engine engine bigger and more powerful than most eights. Now I appreciate its trailblazing unibody construction, advanced engineering and vault like solidity. Also appreciate that Hudson didn’t feel like it had to build a car that looked like anyone else’s.
Close second was Kaiser-Frazer, but I have yet to see many redeeming qualities.
I just thought of another one – the Honda Ridgeline. I remember seeing the Super Bowl ad in 2005 – I was a teenager at the time, and my friends and I thought Honda building a pickup was the stupidest idea in the world. For years, I mocked the Ridgeline as a “minivan” and not a “real truck”, parroting every single car reviewer. At some point, I realized that not being a “real truck” is exactly the point of the Ridgeline – and what makes it great for many people. What’s wrong with a truck that drives like a sedan, fits in your garage, gets reasonable mileage, and has clever storage options? People that own the Ridgeline tend to love them for their uniqueness and practicality, and I’d seriously consider one if I needed a pickup I had to drive every day.
The Ridgeline is a great vehicle, for what it is. I would not say it rides like a sedan. It’s more of an open backed Pilot. And I cal the Pilot more of a Crossover than a SUV. I leave the SUV moniker for Tahoe, Suburban, the vintage Blazer, Bronco, Land Cruiser and Wrangler. Can you see someone taking a Pilot through the woods, I like that Honda does not try to be Ford. They didn’t try to beat the F-Series at their own game like Toyota and Nissan did. The Ridgeline would be an awesome second vehicle to balance my Honda Civic SI. Not every vehicle has to do ever thing.
For a long time I loathed…ABSOLUTELY LOATHED…Japanese cars. Everything ranging from the Daihatsu Cuore to the Datsun 240Z fell under my ire. The reason for this was because they felt like uninvited guests to a party made up of Europeans and Americans that I already liked. It wasn’t until I had the opportunity to inspect a 1969 Toyota Corona (one of the very early ones here in the U.S.) that I actually began to appreciate them. While I still would not own one, I no longer have any ill-will for them or their owners. The car community should be all about fun and games after all.
Apart from the Citroen DS (see above) I hated the Mk III Zephyr as a kid in the late 70s/early 80s. From the grille leering at me to the slabby sides to the evil pointy fins…quite awful to me – not ugly, they just had a creepy evil feeling. Oddly, I didn’t feel the same about its Zodiac sibling with its different roofline and additional side window. Nowadays I still prefer the Zodiac’s airier look, but Zephyrs no longer fill me with dread, and I’ve grown to like the styling. Pic from Wikipedia.
After the beauty of the 1955-57 Chevy, I thought the 58 looked horrible. The 59 was a whole new thing. The 58 was an orphan. I have now come to appreciate the styling of the 2dr cars. Remember that Ford came out with the lower 57. Mopar had the gorgeous low 57’s. GM had a third year restyle. It’s loved how, but you have to look at the 57 GM’s in the context of their time. I am not even sure if the 58 Chevy is structurally connected to either the 57 or 59. I don’t think so. Pontiac added too much clutter. The 58 Buick’s and Oldsmobiles are abominations. But some of the Chevy’s look OK to me now.
The Volvo 343/340. My folks had four of these between the late 70’s and the late 80’s. The Volvo badge on the grille was only a thin disguise for what was essentially a DAF; it sounded like a DAF (same howling transmission), it was slow like a DAF and it soon became mighty popular with DAF’s traditional clientele: old people…
I felt truly ashamed being carried around in a car like that.
Nowadays I kind of like the 343’s. They have become very rare and if can find a good one for the right price I might consider buying it.
Can’t think of a single car I hated as in couldn’t stand how it looked. There may have been some I might have hated to drive daily but based on the original question it would be none.
Actually take back my comment as I hate all SUVs. Although it is not any one model but the entire class. Never will my butt sit in one.
I never cared for ANY small car configured with a small engine/auto transmission/and A/C. If they had a manual transmission, then I could make allowances (except for maybe a Pacer!, LOL!). I just never had a liking for any car that “couldn’t get out of its own way!” Nowadays, due to scarcity, I would consider some of them, even w/ the auto! 🙂
For the most part, I still like what I liked as a kid. The GM colonnade cars looked odd to me then. I was born in ’71, so they were everywhere when I first became aware of how cars looked. I thought Monte Carlos looked silly, all that hood and little windows.
I kind of still think that in fact.
Never liked stacked quad headlights on anything in the 70s. Still mostly don’t.
I liked to see Datsun 240Zs, Mercury (in the U.S.) Capris, and full sized Chevy and Ford trucks.
I just thought of one! The C3 Corvette. Didn’t get the hullabaloo as a little kid, but I learned to appreciate bigger curves on cars and girls around the same time. 😁
A VERY good QOTD!
I used to really dislike the ’56-’57 Lincoln.
I’m not sure WHY now, as nowadays, I find them far more attractive than the bulbous ’56 Cadillac, and more attractive than the ’57 Caddies.
I could think of other examples, but I went with the first one that came to mind.
I was not too keen on the Fox Mustangs but by the end of the run began to appreciate them a bit. The SN97 1994 design was in my eyes a joke, it just didn’t look like a real Mustang. It almost looked Japanese to me. I knew many who had bought both designs brand new. In 1996 I was driving a black ’94 Cadillac STS. Now that was a real car!
In 2007 I bought a new V6 Mustang coupe mostly for my Wife to drive. It was good car and we still have it. I wanted a V8 Mustang for myself and started looking for an inexpensive Fox body. The cheap ones were all beat to hell and the nice ones were too expensive to buy as a hobby car. So I took a look at the ’96 4.6 cars. I did my research and found that this car was such an improvement over the old 5.0 cars. The engine was better built. four way disc brakes, five lug wheels, ABS, air bags, a stiffer body shell, and other improvements. Best of all the price was lower for a nice example.
In 2010 I bought my ’96 GT convertible. Over time I grew to appreciate the streamlined style and nicer interior. I realized that this was exactly what a Mustang should be. A smaller, fun to drive, personal pony car. The wedge shape doesn’t carry any real retro cues except the quarter panel air scoops and three element tail lamps. I like the “power blister” fenders that do tend to make the 16 inch wheels look a bit small. I’ve still got my ’96 and still like it.
I used to think that the 1953 Ford looked dull.Now I think it looks cool.
I used to not like the 1967 full sized Pontiac because I didn’t care for the headlights, now I like them just as much as the other full sized Pontiac’s built from 1965-70
I used to think the 1965-70 Cadillac’s were inferior to the 1971-73 Cadillac’s but in the past 2 decades I grew to appreciate the 1965-70 Cadillac’s more and now prefer them to the 1971-73 Cadillac’s (still not a big fan of the 1974-76 Cadillac’s.
Pontiac did a sort of slight of hand in 1967. It uglied up their mainstream models but totally put all of the makeup on their Grand Prix. That and the GTO.They were the Belle’s of the Ball.
1974-75 Chrysler Imperial/1976-78 Chrysler New Yorker Brougham.
I always thought they were overwrought land yachts, a giant retrograde step backwards from the ‘Fuselage’ era. (yes-count me as a ‘Fuselage’ person..). As I got older and my automotive interests changes, I started to like this body style. (seeing a lot of old-people survivormobiles coming out of the woodwork and up for sale contributed to my new-found interest in them). Make mine black, minus the vinyl top, 1974 Imperial preferred…..
Hate to Love are probably a bit extreme spectrum for me, but I have come to look at some vehicles differently over time. I didn’t really understand the 1962 big Dodges and Plymouths, but I appreciate their styling quirks now, and the underlying size proportions and their engineering were commendable. Reading a lot of love for these here at CC may also have something to do with this.
I really did hate the 1980 Lincoln Mark VI upon its arrival. It was a ’77-’79 Mark V with Picasso proportions that just looked wrong.
Seen 40 years later, with the Mark V no longer strongly imprinted in my brain, the Mark VI seems indistinguishable from the V, and looks completely normal to me, no longer affecting my blood pressure adversely……
When I was 7 or 8 years old it was Valiants, I thought the 1967 onwards cars were flat out the ugliest cars on the road, particularly the 2 door hardtop model, by the time I was 18, I had one as my first car and I loved it.
Because I loved the sleek, organic look of the 1962 Chrysler, I just couldn’t come to terms with the 1963-64 models. They struck me as too blocky and hard-edged. I appreciate them now, because I understand that’s what Chrysler designers were shooting for, a big, bluff design that shouted “premium car”. Wouldn’t I like a ’64 New Yorker in black now!
We baby boomers were in love with the ’55-’57 Thunderbirds. Well, of course, none of our parents had them, and my high-school parking lot–though much bigger than the faculty lot–boasted not a single one. It was something to aspire to, the coolest thing on four wheels. And then came the ’58. I remember the TV-ad jingle: “The most beautiful wedding of the year…the Thunderbird and the Galaxie”….AAAUGH!! Why did they ruin the car we all wanted? I thought at the time that the ’58s were the most hideous thing I’d ever seen, a crime against every one of us who loved the two-seater. So much cooler than the Corvette! Who needed that back seat, anyway? I know, I know; plenty of people did. The sales figures proved it. I still hated the ’58. But I’ve come to admire the square Bird. When you look at it beside what else was available that year, it’s clean, streamlined, and beautiful. Which is more than I can say about the bloated “personal-luxury” Birds that came along years later.
When I first saw the 2004 Titan I thought this was the ugliest new truck I ever saw. About a year later, one wound up in my driveway. I grew accustomed to its face quickly.
When I first saw the 2004 Titan I thought this was the ugliest new truck I ever saw. Less then a year later, one wound up in my driveway. I grew accustomed to its face quickly.
16 years later, still looking good (to me).
When I was a kid I hated stacked round headlights. Give me a ’64 GTO over anything between then and ’68, no other Pontiacs, Fords, Caddies, Plymouths, even Benzes. They just didn’t look right to me. Headlights had to be horizontal. I liked Chevys, Oldsmobiles and Buicks because none of them had stacked headlights.
Much to my relief, they were pretty much gone by ’68, which made me wonder later whether it was a regulatory issue. By the time the rectangular stacked lights came out in ’76, I was over it, as they really did improve the looks of the Monte Carlo at least.
1970-73 Camaro. I grew up a Mustang guy, my family bought Fords when they bought domestic, and generally thought GM was inferior. But these have grown on me, especially after reading Paul’s piece about them. The Mustang from that era, on the other hand, looks like a bloated donkey.