Taxiguy57 /PD – modified
When you’re a young auto enthusiast — whether or not you’re yet old enough to drive — you often develop dogmatic attitudes about certain cars or types of cars. Some you love, some you covet, and some you just can’t stand. Over time, some of those attitudes soften, while others only calcify into life-long grudges.
Hating the Dinosaurs
Starting around the time I was in high school, the two cars I most disdained were the G-body Chevrolet Monte Carlo, which by then was no longer in production, but was still a common sight on Midwestern streets, and the Fox-body Ford Mustang, which seemed likely to soldier on until the heat death of the universe. I grimaced every time I saw either of these cars. (I can already sense hackles going up throughout the CC commentariat.)
Bull-Doser / PD – modified
Looking back now, I think there were a number of factors at play in my disdain for these cars:
- They both had a strong poor white trash vibe. There was a level of classist snobbishness to this attitude that I’m not particularly proud of now; for instance, following a family trip to Indiana, where it seemed G-body coupes were everywhere, I began disdainfully referring to the Monte Carlo SS as “the muscle car of the discriminating redneck.” I had yuppie tastes when I was younger, and I was never so economically or socially secure that I felt I could approach things that were déclassé or trashy in a camp or ironic way of the sort the rich and glamorous can often pull off.
- I hated that they seemed so willfully antiquated. By the time I started paying attention to them, both the Mustang and the Monte Carlo were over a decade old, and they looked it. This was an era where the Big Three seemed determined to cling forever to designs that were never very inspired to begin with — aging K-car derivatives, the cheap and cheerless J-body Cavalier, the awful American Escort — but many of those were either not even remotely aimed at me (the late K-car had a decidedly geriatric image, as did the GM A-body cars) or were so obviously budget specials that they were safely beneath contempt. (By the late ’80s, there was no point hating a car like the Chevette unless you owned one.) But in the sporty coupe arena, a warmed-over 1978–1979 design just didn’t cut it anymore. I was especially vexed when I read that the Mazda-based Ford Probe had been intended as a new Mustang, only for Ford to change course at the last minute due to wailing from purists. That first-generation Probe had its weaknesses too, like alarming torque steer with the turbocharged engine, but to reject a more sophisticated modern design in favor of the homely ’79 Fairmont aura of the Fox-body Mustang struck me as a disagreeable corporate commitment to willful anachronism as well as perennial cheapskate-itis.
- Both seemed far too crude and deficient in stock form. I realized then, as I do now, that for many of the fans of the Fox-body Mustang and of the G-body Monte Carlo, part of the appeal was that they were endlessly tunable — not so much cars as cheap canvases for hooning. However, I’ve never had much taste for that sort of thing, and I object to feeling like it’s a requirement for decent all-around performance in a new car. A case in point was brakes: So far as I can think, all of the G-body cars had undersized rear drums, even on the absurdly fast Buick Regal Grand National and GNX, and all but a few rare iterations of the Fox-body Mustang did as well — the same mediocre parts-bin stuff that was barely adequate in the old Fairmont. I recall a Motor Trend “Bang for the Buck” comparison test (September 1989) where editor Jim Miller stubbornly defended the Mustang despite its inadequate stopping power and crude shift linkage, declaring, “I’ll talk to Steve Saleen about fixing the brakes.” Even at the time, I thought, “Why should you have to?” I prefer cars that are better-rounded out of the box, and I resented that Ford and Chevrolet were so stubbornly reluctant to meaningfully upgrade these aging platforms, even where they could have. (The much rarer Mustang SVO, out of production and seldom seen by this time, had better brakes and a variety of detail improvements that never made it to the quotidian LX 5.0 or GT.) The Monte Carlo didn’t even have particularly good straight-line performance to balance its other shortcomings, which was also true of the all-too-common base Mustang, with its rough, nasty, underpowered 2.3-liter four.
- Their anachronistic Detroit Iron vibe often correlated with some very unpleasant jingoism. This was the era when half of America still felt deeply threatened by the Japanese economic bubble, so about two-thirds of popular culture was littered with deranged Orientalist nonsense about ninjas and the Yakuza, and some quite prominent business leaders and automotive pundits felt no compunctions about spewing racist nonsense about the insidious Foreign Devils that could have come straight out of a Sax Rohmer pulp story. There were definite factions who needed little excuse to bend your ear about how they were never gonna drive one of them [racial slur] [racial slur] [term of reproach] ferrin’ cars. Since by this time a lot of Made in the USA products were downsized FWD four-cylinder cars intended to compete with the aforementioned Foreign Devils, this left the Mustang, the G-body Monte Carlo (and I suppose the contemporary Grand Prix, although I saw those so infrequently that they never registered), and the third-gen F-bodies as the most desirable remaining choices among newish American iron of the old school. This correlation was of course not always one-to-one, but spotting a Monte Carlo with Confederate flag stickers was definitely grounds for panic.
General Motors LLC
(If you’re wondering, my regard for the third-gen F-bodies was not a great deal higher than for the Mustang, and in some ways I thought they were even cruder. The difference was that the Camaro and Firebird/Trans Am were at least good-looking, in an impractical and rough-hewn sort of way, whereas the Fox-body Mustang looked like a rental car without the silly GT addenda, and clownish with it.)
Latter-Day Rapprochement
What do I think about these cars now?
I will never love the looks of the Fox-body Mustang, although I’ve come to feel there’s a certain honesty about the cleaner LX notchback that I can respect. As for its other qualities, I find the older Mustang’s strengths and limitations a good deal more palatable as a used car than as a new one. Once a car goes from “new” to “late-model” to just “old,” much of the former competitive pressure falls away. The cars I thought were better when I was in high school are also now “old,” and continuing to press the former rivalry would quickly start to feel rather sad. Also, while I’m still not one for aftermarket hoonery, Fox Mustangs are abundant and potentially very cheap, so there’s no compelling reason not to hop one up if that’s what floats your boat.
Beyond that, I eventually developed a fondness for certain other cars that I realized are not that different from the Fox-body Mustang in concept and appeal, like the AE86 Corolla Levin/Sprinter Trueno/Corolla GT-S coupes or the European Mk3 Ford Capri. The latter has a lot of the same strengths and weaknesses as the Mustang (down to the usually mediocre brakes), and since the Capri was based on the Mk2 Cortina of 1966–1970, it was if anything even more antiquated.
Mecum Auctions
As for the G-body Monte Carlo, a while before the pandemic, I spotted a well-preserved late SS parked on the street some blocks from here, white with aluminum wheels (not the car pictured above, but another ’87 just like it), and had to grudgingly concede that the basic shape did clean up pretty nicely. The LS is less convincing at hiding its 1978 roots, especially with the landau top, but the SS has aged well. I still wouldn’t want one — there’s nothing about the mechanical package that I find remotely compelling — but the kind of swagger the SS was trying to project is no longer as lost on me as it once was.
Long story short, I’m still not a fan of these cars, but I no longer sneer when I see either go by.
So, I’ll put it to the group:
What cars did you just hate earlier in life? Has time changed your mind, or only hardened your resolve?
GM’s Colonnade cars. They were a jarring change from the 68-72 A-body cars, bloated, heavy, and slow. I still am not a huge fan but I don’t hate them as much today as I did when they were new.
Aaron, you nailed it about the Monte Carlo with your comment “the muscle car for the discriminating redneck”, although I never thought of the Monte Carlo as a muscle car. More like a “fake luxury car for the discriminating redneck.”
I agree on both. I recall seeing acres of new emerald green Mustang convertibles with white tops at dealers and one too many at car shows while only a year old. Almost made me sick parking my sweet 66 coupe next to one. With the Monte, revamping the 78 compressed body of the previous generation helped, but the cheapo interior of that generation made me want to cry. The rarity of each in the wild now gives me a smile when I happen to see one. A few I’d like to add: The Mustang II, the reissued Buick Roadmaster in all forms, and any Cutlass Ciera.
Always have and always will HATE anything that is not an OTT excessively chromed upscale LAND YACHT. And that includes Trucks and SUVS and crossovers, masquerading as Luxury vehicles. 🤮. That’s the opinion of a Vintage Rolls Canardly (Roll down one hill and Can ardly get up the next) !
Have never “hated” a car. One, I never had a car that was so bad that I hated it. Actually never had a bad car. Two, while a car may not have been attractive, and maybe outright ugly, I would simply say that looks stupid. Now if you asked if I hated a genre of automobiles I could say yes. SUV’s and today’s massive trucks which encompass all manufacturers.
+1 well said.
At the time, I found the fuselage Mopar C-bodies totally ugly. Nowadays I can tolerate them much better for some reason. Not that I’m out looking for one or anything…
My list is way too long, but I really disliked the whole brougham era and its effect on cars’ styling and interiors. I was a Euro snob at the time, although its effect on European cars was also a reality.
Now I appreciate any and all survivors. It’s taken a while.
I still hate the Buick Rendezvous.
When I was in college in the early ’70s, GM’s bloated full-sized cars and the Colonnade cars were new. By the mid-’70s, these bloatmobiles were aging poorly. I saw so many, it seemed, with something oozing out from behind chromed window moldings, so many side rub strips with oozing adhesive, so many dashboards cracking already in the southern Arizona sun, and paint already beginning to fade (especially the metallics). The ones I see today I respect as survivors, but I still don’t like them. GM did a lot to redeem themselves with their downsized models starting in ’77, including apparently better materials.
I couldn’t stand the ’80-’85 Bustle-back Cadillac Seville when it came out. The styling just grated on me when I was younger. Now, I can at least look at them without making faces.
I absolutely hate all SUV’s. Without exception, from all brands.
It’s a deformation that is destroying the automotive industry as a whole.
At least 90% of today’s cars seem repulsive to me, horrible in design and shape .
The ugly old cars (even the ones seen in the photos in this thread) at least had more personality than any of today’s cars.
I disliked the R35 Nissan GT-R when it came out because I hated its styling (it looked like an obese caricature of earlier Skylines), no matter how amazing its performance was. I’ve warmed up to it since, and I’m sad to see it go away.
All 1970’s Fords. The Road Hugging Weight era, when they tried to make a virtue out of outdated designs. Nowadays, nostalgia has kicked in, and it’s great to see one in the metal.
One car that I always hated was the VW beetle. I especially hated the stupid exhaust note and clattery engine. I thought that they were ugly and ridiculous, still do. I would never own one, though I bought one for my oldest daughter. She liked it.
The second car was the Porsche 356, especially the early ones. Again ugly and ridiculous, with no power and an excessively high price. My disdain for the Porsche and it’s owner extended to later 911s, though I was a bit smitten with the 924/944.
Now I’ve come to appreciate the last of those models, especially the Speedster. Basic, simple. but now even more overpriced.
I used to hate the FWD replacements for all the old standard American cars. That started to change when I realized that the cars in my older used car vintages were now FWD coupes and sedans. They have started to look better to me over time.
I used to dislike SUVs, I thought that most were over the top and excessive. Now I really like the luxo models, and think that the smaller versions are much better and practical than most cars.
Happy Thanksgiving to all!
The RWD Monte SS handled well and was quick
(although I had a box Vic with some Police stuff that smoked one)
I ignored all those GM A-bodies at the time until I fell head over heels for a loaded Grand Prix.
At $14,000 I considered it both outrageous and beyond my grasp
I derided the Nissan Juke as a total that was rebuilt by someone who had never seen a car.
God help me I get it now.
I can be a little opinionated at times, I realize that and hate is a very strong word, but since you asked, here are a few:
AMC Pacer – Laughed out loud the first time I recall seeing one, and time hasn’t changed that. Just no. Even now knowing the history etc still hasn’t endeared them to me, I’ll look at one in wonder when they appear, but still find them hideous and unappealing in any way. Head shaker.
Chevy Nova, second generation – I used to dislike these with a passion (we had a ’77 Ventura 4door) but I’ve come around on them in a big way. If I had to have one it would be a later Chevy, the others do nothing for me really, but I like the style now. Probably a 2door, maybe the hatchback, too bad there was never a wagon.
Pontiac Aztek – I was there during the Detroit Motor Show public unveiling event and recall the collective gasp and step back from the assembled public when the sheet was pulled off the thing. That pretty much set the tone. Now I vaguely respect them as a minivan alternative but still find the execution, especially the interior plastics, to be an insult to the consumer. Hard pass, pretty much the Pacer of the new millennium. Breaking Bad did more for public acceptance of the thing than anything GM ever did which you kind of have to wonder about, given the show’s subject matter… A fitting metaphor for the car.
The last FWD Monte Carlo generation – horribly bloated design, cheap interiors, represents exactly as the 2door Lumina it is. Worse are the Dale Earnhardt signature editions, which while I get there’s a fan base and a sale is a sale, it’s just such a poor execution of a car that I can’t see Dale ever driving an actual one (of course once upon a time I’d probably have lined up for a Walter Röhrl or Hannu Mikkola signature package on any Audi were it offered, so there’s that…). Still, it’s one of the few cars that elicits a negative (and perhaps unfair) stereotype from me.
4th Generation Toyota Prius – Hideous initial design, a serious step back from the 3rd generation, but now I respect them and don’t even overly mind the looks (I’ve grown), especially after having ridden in a few. They do their job extremely well and while the new one is a looker, it’s also less practical than the ones before, which didn’t really have to be. The plug-in one has a different rear end which is somewhat more attractive, but that’s a difference without much distinction. For quality and value for money it’s hard to beat though and it’s far less offensive as the years pass.
There are more but those are the ones top of mind. At the end of the day every car suits a purpose and does something for someone, so who am I to judge…
The two Mustangs you pictured are probably the two exact ones I would choose if I had to have a Fox Mustang and kind of represent two that I looked at back in the day (different times, not against each other). The version with a trunk has a purposeful style, the later economy model doesn’t look *as* economy as the older ones, and the LX 5.0 with those 9-hole wheels is probably the peak of that generation of Mustangs stylistically, zero fluff. I didn’t buy either of them as the economy one was even more base than I thought they could be while the LX 5.0 was an ex-CHP that looked and felt like every mile it had on it and then some.
Those Monte Carlos you pictured are all about lipstickery on pigs to me, although I can appreciate the looks of the SS version, the later the better I suppose, and one made an appearance in a post of mine last year. I did enjoy seeing it, but the pic from across the street is the closest I needed to get to it. It somewhat reminds me of my LeSabre T-Type coupe but not as understated, I wouldn’t have bought it at the time that I did buy the LST.
While I didn`t exactly hate it, we had an `80 Chevette 2 door. An El Cheapo 2 door stripper in dull gray with a red vinyl interior. The only options it had were a 2 speed automatic and an AM radio. This was just a place holder until we got a better car, but for some reason I was embarassed to be seen in it.Even my dog (who loved riding in the car) hated it! However in the 7 moths we had it it turned out to be good, cheap and very reliable basic transportation. I almost hate to admit it, but it was fun to drive as it could zip in and out of NY traffic like a champ. It`s long gone by some 35 years, but in retrospect it still holds some good memories.
I also never liked the Volvo 240 much as a kid. As a 1983 car, fine, but as a 1993 car, why would someone buy this over a 1993 Camry or Accord, let alone a Volvo 940 or 850? I’ve grown to appreciate the 240’s simplicity with age and wouldn’t mind owning a 240 wagon, though I still don’t like the 1986-1993 headlights.
Ford Maverick and Granada. The Maverick mostly because it was cheap looking and lacked standard power. I remember a friend of mine who’s dad had a loaded Maverick (72) with the V8. It was laughable at best.
But the Granada- oh that drove things over the edge.
There he was in his office with perhaps a few designers, and Lido started by adding his obligatory vinyl roof.
Then, he must have shouted “ all aboard” as we watched Ford add cornering lamps, consolettes, lacy wheels, shag carpet, etc. All the while, they couldn’t make them slower, could they, using antique engines. Who cares that they were sluggish? Who cares that the fuel mileage aligned with a Grand Torino, or that they left the quality by the workbench?
To top it all off, they built the Versailles!
Do not think I’ll ever own either of these cars.
I do recall a neighbor, cash strapped, when her ( you guess the year) boxy looking Datsun retired.
She was about to secure an every level Granada with a floor shifter and heat for a price that she me made it possible for her to be paid off in half the time.
Happy Thanksgiving to all