Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

That's a nice car!


Recommended Posts

I found the Buick dealership across the street very interesting.  All car dealerships everyone soon moved to locations where they could have big showrooms, big service departments and big lots for lots of cars.

Of course that dealership would have gone back to the days when you test drove one of 4 or 5 models and then decided how you wanted yours built and then ordered it.

 

25742618-8245715-Above_three_young_women_enjoy_the_Southern_California_weather_du-a-34_1587590380160.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Moe Howard said:

Personal car or personal luxury car are classifications used by government bureaucrats and insurers. Not likely to find these terms in any  advertising or articles in car magazines. What you do find in them is verbiage talking about performance and handling, in other words, motor sports.

All my life I have heard  Mustang and Camaro owners -and mechanics- refer to these cars as "American Sports Cars". Now, I've been blessed when it comes to cars, I know a sports car when I'm driving it. I did not feel like I was driving a sports car in my 69 Camaro. The 2008 Shelby GT (Mustang) . . . maybe, it was pretty sporty. Other cars without question were sports cars, two seater Italian exotics, German coupes or British roadsters.

Question is, when does a four seater become NOT a sports car, is there a point where 'luxury' accessories and rear seats remove the sports car status. Is a 911 a sports car? Absolutely. Is a Panamera or a four seat Ferrari ? Maybe not, according to the logic behind the "personal luxury car" classification.

 

 

What about roadsters?

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, slaytonf said:

What about roadsters?

What about them? I mentioned British roadsters because those are what I’m familiar with. But there’s lots more from Europe and Japan. I hope everyone can agree these are sports cars.  Now if your talking about cars like the Plymouth Prowler, or old hot rod roadsters, it’s debatable. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2021 at 1:13 PM, Moe Howard said:

Personal car or personal luxury car are classifications used by government bureaucrats and insurers. Not likely to find these terms in any  advertising or articles in car magazines. 

 

That's kind of apples and oranges.  I was once the owner of two( but not at the same time) Oldsmobile Silhouettes.   But while GM classified them as "mini-vans",  Michigan's Secretary of State office(our version of the DMV) put them in the "Station Wagon" classification.  So did my car insurance co.   And was probably the same with the Ford and Chrysler vehicles of that fashion. 

And BTW;  I've often heard on TV car ads of certain models being "Personal luxury" cars.   Like listen to this :30-33 seconds in.  ;) 

Sepiatone

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sepiatone said:

That's kind of apples and oranges.  I was once the owner of two( but not at the same time) Oldsmobile Silhouettes.   But while GM classified them as "mini-vans",  Michigan's Secretary of State office(our version of the DMV) put them in the "Station Wagon" classification.  So did my car insurance co.   And was probably the same with the Ford and Chrysler vehicles of that fashion. 

And BTW;  I've often heard on TV car ads of certain models being "Personal luxury" cars.   Like listen to this :30-32 seconds in.  ;) 

Sepiatone

Not sure what you mean.

Apples="personal car" Oranges = "personal luxury car" ? I'd agree, quite different classifications. It wouldn't be surprising to hear the words "personal luxury" in a Caddie or Lincoln or Buick ad. It would be odd not to.

All I was pointing out is that the early two-seater T-Birds were sold as a refined sports car shown with women driving to exemplify just how easy they are to drive.  Other cars are more utilitarian, used to be called 'salesmen cars'.  I don't care what classification they are given for bureaucratic pigeonholing, it often bears little resemblance to what something actually is.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Moe Howard said:

Not sure what you mean.

 

Go back.  At about the 30 to 33 second mark the narrator refers to Lincoln's Mark IV as a "personal luxury" car.   And it wouldn't be surprising to hear the words "personal luxury" in a Cadillac or Lincoln TV ad.  Except to you, who on the 11th of this month claimed we're, "Not likely to find these terms in any advertising."     But I don't get your "bureaucratic pigeonholing" remark.  Which bureaucrats are doing the "pigeonholing"  and for what possible reason?   

Sepiatone

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

54 minutes ago, Sepiatone said:

But I don't get your "bureaucratic pigeonholing" remark.  Which bureaucrats are doing the "pigeonholing"  and for what possible reason? 

The terms were early classifications used for industry or government purposes. What tier or class of cars fit into this or that rate group for insurance purposes or regulation, taxing or census demographic info. See car classification.  

 

57 minutes ago, Sepiatone said:

Except to you, who on the 11th of this month claimed we're, "Not likely to find these terms in any advertising."

Yes. Advertising for performance cars, specifically the marketing/advertising for the original two-seater T-Bird which is what I've been talking about from the beginning. The term "personal luxury car" is claimed to have originated when Ford switched marketing its T-bird from performance ( the first ad I posted), to luxury (in the following ads). 

Now a days unless a performance car is built for the track it'll be loaded with the same pile of comfort gadgets any "luxury" car would have and you're certain to read about it in their marketing. Even homologation cars will usually have a few creature comforts like power windows etc. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Moe Howard said:

Not sure what you mean.

Apples="personal car" Oranges = "personal luxury car" ? I'd agree, quite different classifications. It wouldn't be surprising to hear the words "personal luxury" in a Caddie or Lincoln or Buick ad. It would be odd not to.

All I was pointing out is that the early two-seater T-Birds were sold as a refined sports car shown with women driving to exemplify just how easy they are to drive.  Other cars are more utilitarian, used to be called 'salesmen cars'.  I don't care what classification they are given for bureaucratic pigeonholing, it often bears little resemblance to what something actually is.   

Nope!  I don't think governments were classifying cars as personal back then.  May have been classifying as luxury, but T-Bird was a personal car.  As in a car for the driver to enjoy his commute, trips, etc., but not a sports car.  Sports cars were for racing and while there were some T-birds in races, not what Ford intended for them.

Advertising it's performance was not calling it a sports car.  Heck, most cars back then were sold as performance vehicles.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Moe Howard said:

 

The terms were early classifications used for industry or government purposes. What tier or class of cars fit into this or that rate group for insurance purposes or regulation, taxing or census demographic info. See car classification.  

 

Yes. Advertising for performance cars, specifically the marketing/advertising for the original two-seater T-Bird which is what I've been talking about from the beginning. The term "personal luxury car" is claimed to have originated when Ford switched marketing its T-bird from performance ( the first ad I posted), to luxury (in the following ads). 

Now a days unless a performance car is built for the track it'll be loaded with the same pile of comfort gadgets any "luxury" car would have and you're certain to read about it in their marketing. Even homologation cars will usually have a few creature comforts like power windows etc. 

 

Thunderbird is NOT listed under sports or sports performance car in your cite.

Marketing a car as a performance car does not mean the manufacturer considers it a sports car.  Look at the 55-57 Chevies, not a sports car in the lot, but all sold as performance cars.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, ElCid said:

Thunderbird is NOT listed under sports or sports performance car in your cite.

Marketing a car as a performance car does not mean the manufacturer considers it a sports car.  Look at the 55-57 Chevies, not a sports car in the lot, but all sold as performance cars.

This'll be the last from me on this subject.

As stated from multiple sources the original T-bird (and the Corvette) were produced in response to European SPORTS CAR offerings.  If I'm going to build something to counter their sports cars, what am I building. . . . . ?  Well if you're at Ford one thing you sure as hell aren't going to do is offer a sports car!

Motor Trend from the 55 T-bird road test:

The accusation that American car manufacturers couldn't build a sports car-even if they tried-is no longer valid. The first indication was the Chevrolet Corvette. And although Ford is the first one to deny it (Ford calls it a "personal car") they have a sports car in the Thunderbird, and it's a good one.

After pushing the car around the handling course a few times I soon got confident enough to begin taking the corners at 55-65 mph. With more practice, I felt sure that I could up the speed. That's how the car impresses you. The ride is unlike that which the diehard sports car addict has come to expect from a sports car. It's firm enough to prevent too much bobbing coming out of a dip or flying over a bump.

The Thunderbird will go with the best of them, even with the Fordomatic automatic transmission. In fact, with the Fordomatic, a hotter engine (198 hp) is used, compared to the stick shift's 190-hp engine. A time of 11.5 seconds is what we got for 0-60 mph, putting it into sports car company. Acceleration at passing speeds is impressive. We averaged times of 4.2 seconds to get from 30 to 50 mph, and 11 seconds from 50 to 80. That's enough to indicate that the 'Bird meets its advertised claims of "sports car...performance."

Again. The suits at Ford might call it a "personal car". So what! The suits at SeaRay call my boat a 24 footer. A 24 that measures 28 and with the twin mercs jacked up sticks well out of a 30 foot slip. I don't care what classification they want to lump the two seat T-Birds into, It's an F'n SPORTS CAR.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Moe Howard said:

 

The terms were early classifications used for industry or government purposes. What tier or class of cars fit into this or that rate group for insurance purposes or regulation, taxing or census demographic info. See car classification.  

 

Yes. Advertising for performance cars, specifically the marketing/advertising for the original two-seater T-Bird which is what I've been talking about from the beginning. The term "personal luxury car" is claimed to have originated when Ford switched marketing its T-bird from performance ( the first ad I posted), to luxury (in the following ads). 

Now a days unless a performance car is built for the track it'll be loaded with the same pile of comfort gadgets any "luxury" car would have and you're certain to read about it in their marketing. Even homologation cars will usually have a few creature comforts like power windows etc. 

 

My Lotus Elise (stock) has a few creature comforts:  power windows, A/C, stereo, remote keylock, and leather seats.  But that's about it...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Moe Howard said:

This'll be the last from me on this subject.

As stated from multiple sources the original T-bird (and the Corvette) were produced in response to European SPORTS CAR offerings.  If I'm going to build something to counter their sports cars, what am I building. . . . . ?  Well if you're at Ford one thing you sure as hell aren't going to do is offer a sports car!

Motor Trend from the 55 T-bird road test:

The accusation that American car manufacturers couldn't build a sports car-even if they tried-is no longer valid. The first indication was the Chevrolet Corvette. And although Ford is the first one to deny it (Ford calls it a "personal car") they have a sports car in the Thunderbird, and it's a good one.

After pushing the car around the handling course a few times I soon got confident enough to begin taking the corners at 55-65 mph. With more practice, I felt sure that I could up the speed. That's how the car impresses you. The ride is unlike that which the diehard sports car addict has come to expect from a sports car. It's firm enough to prevent too much bobbing coming out of a dip or flying over a bump.

The Thunderbird will go with the best of them, even with the Fordomatic automatic transmission. In fact, with the Fordomatic, a hotter engine (198 hp) is used, compared to the stick shift's 190-hp engine. A time of 11.5 seconds is what we got for 0-60 mph, putting it into sports car company. Acceleration at passing speeds is impressive. We averaged times of 4.2 seconds to get from 30 to 50 mph, and 11 seconds from 50 to 80. That's enough to indicate that the 'Bird meets its advertised claims of "sports car...performance."

Again. The suits at Ford might call it a "personal car". So what! The suits at SeaRay call my boat a 24 footer. A 24 that measures 28 and with the twin mercs jacked up sticks well out of a 30 foot slip. I don't care what classification they want to lump the two seat T-Birds into, It's an F'n SPORTS CAR.

As I noted several posts back, the Encyclopedia of American Cars stated that the Thunderbird was not a sports car, but rather a "personal car."  It was not created in response to European cars ( a popular myth), but rather in response to the Corvette, but more than a sports car.  Hence, the V-8 engine, automatic transmission, removable hardtop, convertible top that actually kept rain out, real windows, etc.  These were not generally available in sports cars in 1955, if at all.

"The Thunderbird was a 'personal car,' not a pure sports car'.....It was far more luxurious and practical....it relied heavily on passenger car components.....style recalling the early 40's Lincoln Continental."  The Encyclopedia has a section on the legend or myth of how the T-Bird came to be relating a supposed conversation between Ford GM  Louis Crusoe and styling consultant George Walker, but it did not happen.

Motor Trend in 1955 may have called it a sports car, but your quote clearly indicates "Ford calls it a personal car."  As a long time subscriber to multiple automotive magazines, I have learned that they are often incorrect or biased in what they say. 

Regardless, Ford Motor Company created the Thunderbird as a personal car, not a sports car.  Ford may have advertised it had "the performance of a sports car" as a marketing tool, but it was sold as a personal car.  Many 1955 American sedans had the performance of a sports car.

Bottom line, the Thunderbird was designed, styled, manufactured and marketed as a personal car, not a sport car.  Ford called it a personal car and since they gave birth to it, they knew what it was.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, txfilmfan said:

My Lotus Elise (stock) has a few creature comforts:  power windows, A/C, stereo, remote keylock, and leather seats.  But that's about it...

What year is your Elise?   Of course today's sports cars have much more than they did in 1955.  The Corvette was pretty bare bones until GM realized Americans wanted more on their cars.

Incidentally I have owned three pure sports cars:  Fiat 124 Spider, Nissan 300Zx and Mazda RX-7 convertible.  Have also owned performance sedans.

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, ElCid said:

What year is your Elise?   Of course today's sports cars have much more than they did in 1955.  The Corvette was pretty bare bones until GM realized Americans wanted more on their cars.

Incidentally I have owned three pure sports cars:  Fiat 124 Spider, Nissan 300Zx and Mazda RX-7 convertible.  Have also owned performance sedans.

2005.  Has about 9000 miles.  My current daily driver is a BMW 440i

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

And Moe has YET to clear up his claim that government bureaucrats  are involved with classifying automobiles.  And as far as the "personal" and "personal luxury" classing,, those would likely be only manufacturer's classifications, likely for pricing and attracting a specific demographic.  Insurance companies would consider something like the Lincoln Mark IV AND the Lincoln Continental as "luxury cars",  and insure them both at the same rate.  Possibly the same when it comes to DMV's and other states' licensing bureaus,  which have usually charged for plates and tags according to weight.  or ie;  the plates for a Cadillac  CTS and a less expensive(to a Cadillac owner  ;) ) Chrysler 300  would cost about the same.

Sepiatone

Link to post
Share on other sites

And speaking of sports cars! What's New Pussycat was on MGM HD early this morning. Rex Harrison is driving a baby blue MG. Later I watched, Monkey Business and there's another MG. I'm thinking Pillow Talk had one, so did The Killing complete with cheesy Jag hood ornament and out of tune motor, and in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood "Roman Polanski"  drives one. These things are all over. 

IMCDB has the MG Ts appearing over 470 times, not including replicas. That is impressive, especially considering it's probably not the result of any product placement effort. They are gorgeous and can still be purchased for well under $20k. This one is cheap at $29k.

5zd4Oz8.jpg

6saBCYr.jpg

F961kPW.jpg

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sepiatone said:

And Moe has YET to clear up his claim that government bureaucrats  are involved with classifying automobiles.  And as far as the "personal" and "personal luxury" classing,, those would likely be only manufacturer's classifications, likely for pricing and attracting a specific demographic.  Insurance companies would consider something like the Lincoln Mark IV AND the Lincoln Continental as "luxury cars",  and insure them both at the same rate.  Possibly the same when it comes to DMV's and other states' licensing bureaus,  which have usually charged for plates and tags according to weight.  or ie;  the plates for a Cadillac  CTS and a less expensive(to a Cadillac owner  ;) ) Chrysler 300  would cost about the same.

Sepiatone

I don't believe governments or insurance companies ever classified cars by personal, luxury, etc.  I remember speaking to my insurance company in the past when I have insured cars.  Often as not, it is the historical trends of how much it cost to repair one model vs. another.  Hence BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Lexus, etc. are going to cost more just because of the historic high costs of repairing them - or replacing them.

I do know insurance companies did rate cars by horsepower, types of equipment, repair records, etc..  Also likely they used the age of most purchasers and expected use of the cars.   Therefore, the muscle cars of the 70's got higher insurance rates than sedans with the same engines.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Moe Howard said:

And speaking of sports cars! What's New Pussycat was on MGM HD early this morning. Rex Harrison is driving a baby blue MG. Later I watched, Monkey Business and there's another MG. I'm thinking Pillow Talk had one, so did The Killing complete with cheesy Jag hood ornament and out of tune motor, and in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood "Roman Polanski"  drives one. These things are all over. 

IMCDB has the MG Ts appearing over 470 times, not including replicas. That is impressive, especially considering it's probably not the result of any product placement effort. They are gorgeous and can still be purchased for well under $20k. This one is cheap at $29k.

5zd4Oz8.jpg

6saBCYr.jpg

F961kPW.jpg

 

 

Yes, early MGs are nice, but I have have to say I've never been that much into prewar designed sports cars with running boards. Guess they're just a little too old school for me.

And yes, I feel the same way about Morgans. 

Give me an MGA any day of the week over any T-Type MG, if you please.

(...well, just as long as you ALSO give me enough money to take care of all the mechanical and electrical issues that are almost sure to pop up after you give it to me, anyway)  ;)

And, in order to keep this post of mine germane to slayton's thread's premise, here's a 1959 MGA that's featured quite a bit in 1965's Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!...

i011141.jpg

Edited by Dargo
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dargo said:

Give me an MGA any day of the week over any T-Type MG, if you please.

I understand. Whenever I look at those running board type cars all I hear is it rattling down the road. Still like the way they look. I'd clear a corner in the man cave for it.

That MG A will cost you a wee bit more which gets you close to Austin Healey 3000 territory like this one from The Pleasure Seekers from 1964. There's also a MG B in the movie. 

Side note. My first car at 15 was a MG Midget. I sold my horse to buy it.  Those British Leyland cars will make a mechanic out you in short order.

i441565.jpg

i441564.jpg

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, txfilmfan said:

This car was going to kill Julian Osborn (Fred Astaire) one way or another in On The Beach...

IMCDb.org: 1955 Ferrari 750 Monza Spider Scaglietti [0492M] in "On the Beach,  1959"

Gorgeous. I wanted to see a better pic but when I googled Lotus On the Beach movie, most of the pics are  . .  

bond-lotus-1-superJumbo.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If we're going to post cars from movies we are personally familiar with, in this shot from Herbie Goes to Monte Carlo, I get a three fer.

Way in back is a green 911, love 911s, probably the best all around sports car.  Peeking from behind flagman and the 917 kit car is Herbie, a VW Bug, love them too. Simple to work on, easily modded and parts are inexpensive. On the front row (only in the movies) is a 71 De Tomaso Pantera. Like that Raiderette I dated, I love the way it looks but it's a PITA. They are notorious for overheating in traffic and oversteering at speed, which is why they can go from the second pic to the third quickly if you don't treat the car like a loaded gun with a faulty trigger. The last pic is Vince Neal's crash that killed Razzel the drummer from Hanoi Rocks.

Ltnuv32.jpg

VpWP8hp.jpg

hJTPyq1.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Moe Howard said:

On the front row (only in the movies) is a 71 De Tomaso Pantera. Like that Raiderette I dated, I love the way it looks but it's a PITA.

LOL

Gotta say here Moe, I loved how you've taken the art of bragging (about some of the very cool cars you've owned AND some of the women you've dated) to such a high but still very entertaining level here, bro!  ;)

(...so, "Raiderette", eh?!...must have been during the time my favorite team to root against played their home games at the L.A. Coliseum, right?!)

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...