The other day I was driving down the street and an old Chevy Nova caught my eye. It was a fourth generation car, a two-door sedan in grey primer and with a wonky trunk lid. Sadly, my first thought was, who’d want that?
Now, I realize that particular Nova represented one of the last of Chevy’s RWD platforms, and that the car was pretty good looking in its day. I still couldn’t stir any enthusiasm for it. It was just an old beat up car that didn’t generate any sympathy.
It seems that almost all old cars have their patrons, even the AMC Pacers and Twin-Stick Dodge Colts of the world. That’s why I’m wondering if there’s one old car out there that almost no one would be captivated by? What do you think is the least interesting old car there is?
Image: Wikipedia
Hooniverse Asks: What's the Least Interesting Old Car?
By Robert Emslie
Apr 25, 2016
Jeff Glucker 
https://cdn.classiccars.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/SP14_r264_0011.jpg
Cue the Regular Car Reviews “drngadrngadrnga” tune from every single Dairy Queen car show ever, and also those creepy crybaby things on the front bumper.
It’s not that they are not interesting, it’s that the whole nostalgia gestalt makes it a net negative. See also Corvettes.
I mean, you’re not entirely wrong, but a portion of it is proportions of representation. On its face, it’s just a common car with flashy styling and a big engine. That’s interesting enough, but there’s so many other cars of the era of a similar nature that haven’t become sickeningly iconic. Even of the tri-five Chevys, the ’55 and ’56 are much cleaner looking, and going a little later, the ’59 looks less bloated and more wild.
And then, obviously they were more expensive at the time, but what about the original Rocket 88 Olds, or the Chrysler 300? And for the common man, the ’49 Ford isn’t as cliche.
It’s like a show poodle. The poor thing doesn’t mean to be what it is; it just got roped in to something that has a momentum of its own, detached from its more elemental purpose, i.e. being a dog/big car with big engine.
That’s the thing, though – the car itself doesn’t necessarily have to be bad, just that it’s become so much of an obvious choice that it’s hard to get excited over it.
This is the sort of car where, at a car show, I’d look at it, say, “oh, OK, that’s neat,” and then keep walking down the row. There’s nothing wrong with it, but it’s something of a go-to choice and (likely in a large part due to that) has become something of a victim of its own popularity courtesy of the enforced nostalgia.
Oh, God, YES. And *especially* those creepy crybaby things.
On a related note, I stumbled onto [insert old car programme that I can’t remember the name of] this weekend. The segment that I caught opened with a 1948 Buick Roadmaster, which was promising… But it was accompanied by the 1950s ‘drngadrngadrnga’ tune. That was followed up by a ’50s car, a ’60s car, and a ’70s car, all in quick succession to the same decade-inappropriate music.
I changed channels. It’s a bad sign when your editors don’t even know how to get it right.
Where’s the fuzzy dice hanging from the rearview mirror? It must have the fuzzy dice!
That is sort of like the car equivalent of Leonard Cohen’s Hallelujauh. It’s played out because of the way it has become engrained in popular culture, but it’s actually still good if you can pry it away from the people trying to ruin it.
I still remember my dad talking about the first time he saw one back when it was introduced. “That was something special, you could tell even then” he insisted.
Someone should just go ahead and sell the 1957 Chevy Car Show package. Includes:
creepy cry baby kid doll
drive in tray with plastic burger, fries, and shake
Fuzzy dice
Hawaiian shirt for driver
Sound system that includes doo-wop music playing through drive in movie speaker on loop
Optional poodle skirt, saddle oxfords, and sweater for wife.
The fascination with these cars makes me wonder if fifty years from now there will be mass numbers of old guys cherishing their 2016 Impalas (or Camries).
It won’t be Impalas. I could see, I dunno, G35’s or something?
No. These cars were seen as something special at least as early as the early 1960s. This is according to my parents who started driving in the early 1960s.
Dodge Aspen/Plymouth Volare. Utter mediocrity from a sick Chrysler Corporation, and much worse than the Darts and Valiants they replaced. Even the Dodge Aries and Plymouth Reliant are more interesting.
That sort of goes into so uninteresting they’re actually interesting again. There was an old woman in my home town who drove an immaculate Volare (poorly, first time I noticed it she ran a stop sign) and it always made you wonder how and why she managed to run it so long.
If you have the right Fantasy, it could be quite Jolly.
http://www.imcdb.org/i001049.jpg
A Volare of this exact thinned out poo brown was for sale here in Norway for probably two years. It had some rust, but it was a driver. The last time I saw it, it was priced so now-we’re-talking-low that I didn’t close the browser tab overnight. Gone the next morning.
Plymouth Acclaim. The first few years of which are now eligible for collector plates in most states (I think that’s enough to qualify as “old”).
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/68/Plymouth-Acclaim.jpg/1024px-Plymouth-Acclaim.jpg
Now that I’m thinking about the contrast of an Acclaim with collector car plates, I sort of want one.
What is it with the name Acclaim?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ce/Triumph_Acclaim_August_1983_1335cc.JPG/1280px-Triumph_Acclaim_August_1983_1335cc.JPG
Although this is at least historically interesting (first Japanese car assembled in Europe).
Thus fueling the debate among automotive scholars for years to come about whether it is the best Triumph ever made, or the worst Honda.
Not the best Triumph, that was the TR-8.
But maybe Triumph’s best build quality.
Only if you accept that Britain is part of Europe.
Porsches, in general, hold very little interest for me; 911s particularly so. And few things are worse than having to deal with Porsche owners at car shows.
I would be tempted to agree with you, but with their racing past and the sheer number of fanbois out there, I could never say they were uninteresting to me. Porsche 911s always caused me more contempt (mostly because of the
stereotypical rabid Porsche fan, not the car itself), than apathy. However, ever since I watched Jeff’s gorgeous, stirring video about that powder blue, stripped-out survivo-mod 911, I would say that my interest has swung waaaay over on the plus side.
http://hooniverse.info/2015/05/29/1970-porsche-911-understanding-the-love-affair/
For the most part, I’m in agreement with you – and I remember watching that video as well. It didn’t really do much to sway my opinion one way or the other, but the subject was engaging enough that my opinion of the car involved was less important than the story surrounding it.
Ultimately, though, I don’t find myself drawn to Porsche. Even though I know that the cars are typically quite effective for their intended purpose, they just end up leaving me with the feeling that there are other, more interesting, choices out there. A very subjective evaluation, I’ll admit, but given the question it’s not clear that there’s another way to necessarily answer it.
I agree completely. To me, there’s nothing interesting with them precisely because mainstream car guys seem to be all over them. Priced into oblivion, and nothing new to learn for anyone involved.
I have never driven one though. My “Meh, Porsche”-vibe may thus be more fluid than it appears to be.
Dealing with 911 owners as a hotel doorman was worse. They all expect special treatment but rarely left a tip that was above average.
I’ve had the distinct pleasure of dealing with Porsche owners at nationality-specific car shows that don’t include ‘German’ as one of the featured categories.
“How much to put my car in the show?”
“Sorry, but this is a French / Italian / British show. We’re not admitting German cars.”
“BUT I’M IN A PORSCHE! DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH MY CAR COST?”
“Yes, as a matter of fact I do. I also understand geography, a subject at which you seem to be remarkably lacking in comprehension.”
This isn’t a 100% verbatim recollection, but is a representative sample of the sorts of things I’ve had to deal with. It usually ends with the Porsche driver storming off in a huff.
This ugly lump, with the face of an S-10 and the body of a manatee, somehow was the best selling car in the US in 1980 and won MT’s CotY that year (which it later regretted).
This ugly lump, with the face of an S-10 and the body of a manatee, somehow was the best selling car in the US in 1980 and won MT’s CotY that year (which it later regretted).
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6b/Chevrolet_Citation_II_front.jpg/1920px-Chevrolet_Citation_II_front.jpg
You had better hope an X-11 owner doesn’t read this.
Are there any? I assumed that every Citation, X-11s and all, had returned to the earth by now via neglect and natural processees.
MT’s CotY list can be a fairly humorous read.
It’s pretty chickenshit of MT to proclaim any regret for choosing the Citation. With the benefit of hindsight, we know a lot of its problems, but at the time, it was space-efficient, economical, and went where it was pointed. Reading contemporary road tests, it did do a lot of things better than what came before it, it’s just the X-body was hampered by Roger Smith-era GM.
It was a little more forward-thinking than the K-car (which was a similar success), but the K-car had fewer issue, and hung around long enough to get neat turbo variants, and was immortalized in song by Scarborough’s own Barenaked Ladies, and gets less of a bad rap.
Yes, I remember going to the Chevy dealer on launch day in 1979, and being somewhat awed by the Citation. The regrets came later, especially after my sister bought a brand new Citation club coupe (the notchback) with the 2.8 V6. What an awful car.
Bought one for my wife,in five years the only part it needed other than standard maintenance was an alternator.
But MT didn’t regret that check from GM.
This is like trying to think of the thing I think about the least. I’m not sure if it’s the absolute least interesting, but definitely in the top 5 (bottom 5?) has got to be the Mercury Tracer. Yeah, it’s a variant of the Mazda 323/Protege, which means it was probably half way decent to drive. However, it just isn’t interesting. Nobody seeks them out. Not even Hoons known for their penchant for the uninteresting of yesteryear.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/Mercury-Tracer-sedan.jpg
I can see that this is going to be a dangerous Hooniverse Asks. I just checked craigslist for a 323-based first-gen Tracer.
If only we got a turbo/AWD version of the Tracer similar to the 323GTX
The Tracer LTS had the Escort GT motor and 5 speed. Quite an interesting version.
Whatever it may be, from time to time it will be found in a faculty parking lot at the University of Waskington.
Or parked in the U-District in a manner that the owner considers ironic.
No, I keep looking, but pretty much the only old cars in that lot are mine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Tempo#/media/File:92-94_Ford_Tempo.jpg
Yeahbut… t-drive!
And hens’-teeth AWD!
Conor Dempsey (aka the infamous FordTempoFan from both here and Jolly Picnic) would strongly disagree with you. And it’s not just him. Yes, I think these guys are clearly unwell in the head for liking the Tempaz as much as they do, but the fact that THEY still find it interesting would pull it out of the top rank of this survey for me.
carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/2/3633/4201/21582100141_large.jpg
http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/4/378/4061/38444530044_large.jpg
carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/1/2836/3601/7089300012_large.jpg
http://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2128/2371540158_1561069a42_z.jpg
https://jordanmorningstarblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/mts_3846.jpg
I know it’s futile to discuss taste in this way, but with all of these cars I see a lot of work…and no improvements. Yikes. But to each their own – I’m happy there’s a crowd taking care of these.
Oh for sure — they all suck. Horribly. I was just pointing out that the fact that there’s an enthusiast community out there for these cars despite the fact that they really SHOULD be on this list makes them, somewhat ironically, rather intriguing after all.
What ever happened to that dude? Did we run him off somehow, or did he die of literal boredom from owning & driving & fanboying Tempos?
He’s doing good. Liking his F-150 these days.
He was a real person ! ?
Yes, he lives in Alaska and he’s also an avid trainspotter.
I miss his unique viewpoint.
Yup, definitely a guy I’d like to have a cup of coffee with. Not just because he likes a car that most others find boring, but because he can explain why it’s actually an interesting car (i.e. Ford’s first step into modern design/engineering pre-aero Thunderbird/Taurus).
Anything made by Audi. My pal asked me one time to name a “classic Audi”, one that fanbois go ga-ga over and I couldn’t. No Audi club ever met on the lawn of the Larz Anderson museum while I worked there. Where do they even come from? Germany? Russia? Some Slavic backwater? Indonesia?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1b/Audi_80_B1234.jpg/320px-Audi_80_B1234.jpg
Yeah Audi didn’t give us a lot to cheer about until Audi started making Lamborghinis.
We had to dig deep for something other than a sedan to love.
http://www.sportscardigest.com/wp-content/uploads/audi-513.jpg
Hey! When did you work for the Larz Anderson Museum?
During the Regan administration. I was a spotty teenage volunteer there when I only had a learner’s permit and a Yamaha Towny. By the time I left I was not only a paid employee, but I had bought a Kawasaki KZ650 and a Pontiac Grand Ville through the museum!
http://toyotanews.pressroom.toyota.com/images/toyota/photo//1998001_1980_Corolla_Tercel_sedan_bw-1-prv.jpg
First gen Toyota Tercel — and this is coming from someone who owned and drove one. It was a car so lackluster in every way, yet so admittedly competent at its intended mission of being practical, economical, no-frills transport, that the net result is a lack of any strong feelings of either admiration or contempt. Now that there are so few left, it has either fallen off people’s radar screens completely, or elicits nothing more than a passionless acknowledgement that it once existed.
Yeah, a useful car, with no character. I bought my girlfriend a used beige sedan… What she needed, and what I could afford that week.
I’m still trying to think, but for me it would have to meet the following criteria:
1, Only available as a 4 door sedan.
2, Only available as an automatic.
3, Never offered a sport or performance variant.
4, Never appeared in any TV show, movie, or any pop culture phenomenon.
5, No discernible innovative feature or quality.
This would be thoroughly slim selection.
The Lincoln Versailles that ConstantReader mentioned below?
1-3) Check, check and check.
4) IMCDb lists one “three star” appearance in a single obscure Hong Kong action flick, nothing else ranks above two stars (“Minor action vehicle or used in only a short scene”).
5) Check on “no discernible quality.”
So the only point up for debate is whether gaudy, faux-putain-maison styling is an “innovative feature.”
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0b/1977_Lincoln_Versailles_at_2015_Macungie_show_2of2.jpg/640px-1977_Lincoln_Versailles_at_2015_Macungie_show_2of2.jpg
I’ll allow it.
Although I have to point out that it was in a couple scenes in the often overlooked George Burns / Brooke Shields classic* Just You and Me Kid.
* slightly better than most early ’80s made for TV movies.
Going by that list of requirements, do you consider 1997 to be old?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/1997-1999_Oldsmobile_Cutlass.jpg
Well, even Chevrolet called it a Classic by 2004!
The 1966 Chevrolet Bel Air. It’s not the top end Impala or Caprice, so it’s not the best of the series, but it’s also not the bottom end Biscayne, so it doesn’t have the weird appeal of a base model. There’s nothing really wrong with it, so it doesn’t have the interest of some sort of scandal or interesting design flaw. It sold well so it was never rare, it was part of a long-running model range but roughly in the middle of its run so it wasn’t the first or last or best. I also think the 1966 facelift is a bit blander than the models before or after.
http://cdn.barrett-jackson.com/staging/carlist/items/Fullsize/Cars/88874/88874_Front_3-4_Web.jpg
Ford Grenada, Mercury Monarch and Lincoln Versailles. Three very forgettable vehicles and I still remember with scorn the Grenada commercial where folks confuse it for a Mercedes!
I might argue that the Lincoln Versailles is interesting. I’d never argue that it’s good, but the attempt to hide a Ford Granada mostly through paint and trim was so overwrought that the car winds up looking fascinating. It’s several decades of luxury car cliches piled onto a car that can’t carry them off.
Of course the car is terrible, but it’s terrible in an interesting way.
The 1960 Thunderbird is my favorite generation of the old bird, but it seems to be the least popular. (Sorry salguod!) I’ve never really understood what Ford was doing with the Thunderbird after they gave up on the 2-seater. They always had a T-bird in the lineup, but what was it for? Sports coupe? Personal Luxury? It’s like if you wanted something a bit different from the Crown Victoria the salesman would say, “How ’bout a nice Thunderbird?” and you’d pause maybe for a second before going across the sales floor and buying the Grand Marquis or god help you the Cougar.
You know what?. Ford. Ford is the least interesting old car. Ford is the Yellow Lab of car manufacturers. Sturdy, reliable, dull, gets taken out back and shot at the end of the book. (I really would rather have my 1970 F-250 than my current ’91 GMC, but not because it’s a more interesting truck.) The T-bird seems to be their most luster-lacking effort of all. Not very fast, not the most luxurious, stupefyingly non-innovative. Other than American Graffiti, which featured a 2-seater, I can’t think of a charismatic Thunderbird of the silver screen. (Ford Thunderbird, that is, not those other Thunderbirds.)
Ouch. 😀
The popularity of the Squarebirds has risen quite a bit in recent years. They are starting to get some respect and to bring serious coin ($45K+) for convertibles in top restored condition. Coupes? Not so much yet.
I’d say the least popular Thunderbirds have to be the 1980-1982 Fix body versions. Seriously, when was the last time you’ve seen one of these?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/1982_Ford_Thunderbird_Town_Landau_fR.jpg
Interestingly, this makes the 3rd car on this list so far (I’m not to the bottom yet) that I’ve either owned or driven regularly. Dad had a 5 door 1980 Citation 5 speed that I learned to drive a stick on and I drove a stripped 1993 Escort LX hatch (also 5 speed) for 11 years. I’m sure that someone has mentioned my college car (1980 Chevy Monza) below or my beater when the kids were little (1988 Celebrity coupe).
I find the styling of the 1960-era T-Birds to be the best of the bunch (1967 a close second.) It just seems the T-Bird was never great at anything. I also really like Fords in general, but not for the excitement factor.
What it was great at in the 60’s was style. That’s what it was about. Cramped interior, not much power and adequate handling but loads of style.
From ’58 through much of the 60’s, the Thunderbird was one of the most desired cars available. Definitely an aspirational car. Sometime in the early to mid 70’s it lost it’s luster and became just another mainstream car.
Interestingly, 1960 was the top sales year for the T’bird until 1978, the era of the personal coupe.
I’ve never actually seen the movie, but would imagine Thelma and Louise would count.
I had a Malaise Thunderbird in high school. I got a lot more compliments on it than I thought it deserved.
Not even the deeply tinted rose-colored glasses of my youth can make me ever pine for another one, and I can’t imagine anyone else would either.
http://blog.hemmings.com/wp-content/uploads//2013/06/16198382-770-0-700×524.jpg
Sharp edges – I like. Wouldn’t want to own one though.
But these did come with the infamous diesel V8, which makes them interesting. And they don’t look too bad in coupe form.
http://farm8.static.flickr.com/7126/7411604732_40da7f16c6.jpg
This is a really hard question, as I tend to see merit in everything just the price drops low enough. I’d even wax and shine a Volvo 300 if it didn’t cost me more than two days income. But if this is about pointing, I’d have to go with GM products. I know so many people who got burned with them, and they often carry (-ied) no advantage over their competition. So here’s a Vectra:
https://judeldihoo.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/5d504-opel-vectra-2662.jpg
Dang, it has, sort of, aged well, designwise. I don’t know if I can do this game.
I’ll give that specific one in the picture something of a pass, too – it’s the V6.
But, yeah, not the most exciting car in the universe though I do agree that the styling’s held up well.
It’s too cleanly and well styled to fit the criteria. I have my eye on a few.
The Tuesday answer: 1978-79 Honda CB400T Hawk I. Little improved over the CB360s, KZ400s and XS360/400s that came before it, uglier than any of them as well as the face-lifted Hawks that would come after it, and lacking the innovative ComStar wheels and disc brake of the more expensive Type II and Automatic versions sold at the same time. It was for people who wanted a motorcycle but weren’t willing to spend a single. extra. dime. The only bright spot was damn good reliability that only keeps them around like everywhere, like cockroaches, preventing them from becoming at all interesting due to rarity. The kind of bike you turn your head to check out, and then feel as though you’ve wasted an inordinate amount of physical effort.
http://thumbs1.picclick.com/d/w1600/pict/390469649800_/1979-HONDA-HAWK-I-two-sided-vintage-motorcycle.jpg
Ugh. I have a friend who keeps 4 or 5 of these barely running, cannibalizing a couple for parts as needed. He’s not right in the head.
Sidenote, the Yamaha XS360 was superior in just about every conceivable way to the XS400.
Here some stuff of huge desinterest, Mitsubushi Colt, Citroen Xsara, Opel Ascona, Ford Taunus. I considered posting the Renault 9 as well, but suddenly got caught by an interesting detail around the rearwheel.
But the two doors are rare
I don’t know, they all dissapeared from public roads, to dust, Africa or Eastern Europe?
Not as good as the cars that replaced them so no incentive to keep them going, and rust.
Amphicar – Triumph engine.
http://assets.blog.hemmings.com/wp-content/uploads//2015/04/SE82-Converts-AMPHICAR_FRONT.jpg
I give you the Plymouth Sundance America. Automotive ambiguity in it’s purest form.
My family had one of these for a short while. I borrowed it for a weekend and could not wait to give it back to them. Horrible. Basic transport box that grudgingly did what you needed it to do. It was like driving Eeyore.
What does it say about me that there’s almost nothing on this list that I don’t have at least a slight bit of affection for? The Sundance and Acclaim are the only ones. Maybe not enough to go buy one, but …
The reason is that they have nothing to offer. Styling that’s not even good enough to be called bland, no power, no handling prowess, no special features or trim levels and mediocre at best build quality. The Tempo/Topaz at least looked above average, the Citation was available in a pretty competent performance model as were the Aspen / Volare (OK, maybe not competent but at least interesting) and the Tercel was very reliable for the money.
Also, some seem to be answering a separate question – which pretty neat cars have been sullied by their fans?
Just in response to, “Also, some seem to be answering a separate question – which pretty neat cars have been sullied by their fans”:
I take your point, but (and I’ll use my Porsche example above for this): these are cars that I don’t particularly care about not so much because of the behaviour of some of their owners or fans (which, unfortunately, is inextricably linked with the name), but because I simply can’t look at them and feel any real connection with the cars. That’s not to disregard their engineering or accomplishments, but they just don’t do it for me.
Conversely, the Renault Alliance and Encore are cars that I find extremely fascinating. A large part of this is down to their overlooked significance within French motoring history as well as what they represented within the North American automobile market at the time; another part of it relates to the design and engineering of the cars. But I also understand why most of the rest of the universe refers to the Alliance as the Appliance. It’s all subjective.
Speaking of linking owner behaviour to cars: on two separate occasions, Dr. Jack Kevorkian left a deceased patient out front of a hospital in the same Renault Alliance. Story here.
Regarding power and special trim levels, keep in mind that the Dodge Spirit R/T was essentially an Acclaim with more power and a higher trim level, and a Shelby CSX was pretty much the same treatment (minus extra valves) on a Sundance.
Splitting hairs, perhaps, but those are the Dodges. The Plymouths are pretty much exclusively the least interesting versions of the Dodges.
The trouble with a classification like this is that it draws attention to cars that aren’t interesting. Once they appear on the list they become interesting by default.
Perhaps an illustration of this can be seen in the coverage of the Morris Marina on Top Gear
http://i0.wp.com/hooniverse.info/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/ado28bro_04.jpg
http://i48.tinypic.com/5vueeu.jpg
They are interesting for how abysmal they are. Too much attention.
Early seventies Dodge Monaco sedan.