Best looking Chryslers?

On Aug 25, 5:34 pm, Steve <n....RemoveThis@spam.thanks> wrote:
> >> It's curious how relatively often such a discussion crops up in this NG, and
> >> how many people wallow in the past...
>
> You say "wallow" in the past, I say GLORY in the past. Cars used to be
> works of art, but the wind tunnel makes everything look pretty much the
> same... and pretty bland.
>
>
>
> >> Does this mean that Chrysler has produced nothing attractive for most people
> >> in this NG in the past 30 years...?...
>
> In my case, it means NOBODY has produced a truly attractive car in that
> time, apart from certain niche cars like the Viper. Compared to all the
> others mainstream automakers, I like Chrysler products of the last 20
> years a lot (especially the LH series, the Magnum, PT Cruiser, and the
> Challenger). But none of them compare to, say, a '71 Plymouth GTX.

I disagree. Look at Jaguars. Maseratis. Aston-Martins. Mercedes
coupes and roadsters. Too expensive? Look at the Mazda RX-8 and the
new 6. Cadillac CTS.
 >> Stay informed about: Best looking Chryslers? 

Lloyd wrote:
> On Aug 25, 5:34 pm, Steve <n....DeleteThis@spam.thanks> wrote:
>>>> It's curious how relatively often such a discussion crops up in this NG, and
>>>> how many people wallow in the past...
>> You say "wallow" in the past, I say GLORY in the past. Cars used to be
>> works of art, but the wind tunnel makes everything look pretty much the
>> same... and pretty bland.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Does this mean that Chrysler has produced nothing attractive for most people
>>>> in this NG in the past 30 years...?...
>> In my case, it means NOBODY has produced a truly attractive car in that
>> time, apart from certain niche cars like the Viper. Compared to all the
>> others mainstream automakers, I like Chrysler products of the last 20
>> years a lot (especially the LH series, the Magnum, PT Cruiser, and the
>> Challenger). But none of them compare to, say, a '71 Plymouth GTX.
>
> I disagree. Look at Jaguars.

Bland, bland, bland. Look at 70s Jaguars for styling.

> Maseratis.

Fugly

> Aston-Martins.

Nice, but fall in the same category as the Viper and for all the same
reasons.


> Mercedes

Blander than an 85 Ford Taurus. Mercedes have always been blandly
styled, and the wind tunnel just makes it worse.

> Mazda RX-8

A little better than average, clever pickup-truck inspired rear doors,
but not a great looker that will endure the test of time.

>Cadillac CTS.

Everything bad about modern styling in one convenient package. Put that
drivetrain in something pretty, and I'd be ALL over it.
 >> Stay informed about: Best looking Chryslers? 

all the owners i talk to tell me the rx8 doesn't get that great of mileage
either, for a little 1.3 L



"Steve" <no.TakeThisOut@spam.thanks> wrote in message
news:8sudneB4_OtagCnVnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@texas.net...
> Lloyd wrote:
>> On Aug 25, 5:34 pm, Steve <n....TakeThisOut@spam.thanks> wrote:
>>>>> It's curious how relatively often such a discussion crops up in this
>>>>> NG, and
>>>>> how many people wallow in the past...
>>> You say "wallow" in the past, I say GLORY in the past. Cars used to be
>>> works of art, but the wind tunnel makes everything look pretty much the
>>> same... and pretty bland.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Does this mean that Chrysler has produced nothing attractive for most
>>>>> people
>>>>> in this NG in the past 30 years...?...
>>> In my case, it means NOBODY has produced a truly attractive car in that
>>> time, apart from certain niche cars like the Viper. Compared to all the
>>> others mainstream automakers, I like Chrysler products of the last 20
>>> years a lot (especially the LH series, the Magnum, PT Cruiser, and the
>>> Challenger). But none of them compare to, say, a '71 Plymouth GTX.
>>
>> I disagree. Look at Jaguars.
>
> Bland, bland, bland. Look at 70s Jaguars for styling.
>
>> Maseratis.
>
> Fugly
>
>> Aston-Martins.
>
> Nice, but fall in the same category as the Viper and for all the same
> reasons.
>
>
>> Mercedes
>
> Blander than an 85 Ford Taurus. Mercedes have always been blandly styled,
> and the wind tunnel just makes it worse.
>
>> Mazda RX-8
>
> A little better than average, clever pickup-truck inspired rear doors, but
> not a great looker that will endure the test of time.
>
>>Cadillac CTS.
>
> Everything bad about modern styling in one convenient package. Put that
> drivetrain in something pretty, and I'd be ALL over it.
>
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Best looking Chryslers? 

rob wrote:
> all the owners i talk to tell me the rx8 doesn't get that great of mileage
> either, for a little 1.3 L
>

Of course not, its a Wankel. Efficiency isn't the objective,
performance, light weight, and smoothness are. Wankels will never match
piston engine efficiencies, just because of the fact that the fuel/air
mix always has to sweep around the rotor chamber shedding precious heat
energy to the cooling system all the way, instead of sitting in one spot
and getting squeezed, burned, and expanded. Piston engines have gone
back to "undersquare" designs to minimize combustion chamber surface
area, the wankel effectively has a HUGE combustion chamber surface area
by comparison.
 >> Stay informed about: Best looking Chryslers? 

Aston-Martins bland?

What about some of the Alfa Romeos?

http://www.alfaromeo.co.uk/cgi-bin/pbrand.dll/NEWALFA_UK/controller/mo...s/model

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
---
 >> Stay informed about: Best looking Chryslers? 

Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
> Aston-Martins bland?

No, I agree they're anything but bland. But they, like the Viper, are a
very expensive niche vehicle.

>
> What about some of the Alfa Romeos?

Pretty nice, but give me an early '60s Alfa Duetto any day.
 >> Stay informed about: Best looking Chryslers?