|The Forward Look Network|
| Are you as tired as I am about cars being cool when they are on the ground|
Jump to page : 1
Now viewing page 1 [50 messages per page]
|View previous thread :: View next thread|
|Forward Look NON-Technical Discussions -> 1955-1961 Forward Look MoPar General Discussion||Message format|
Location: Upstate NY
Ok, I am expecting a lot of flak here but I am an older guy who says I am tired of every car show talking about what older cars and trucks need is to be chopped to the ground with close to zero ground clearance as being “cool”. I admit that there are a few cars and trucks that look good low. We used to use fender skirts to accomplish the same look but whoa! Not everything needs to be lowered But yet every single show says that’s what they need??Some vehicles need a full stancev to look cool. Many forward look cars in my opinion need a higher stance and in fact look stupid sitting on the ground. Where is the variety ? Where is the open mindedness? Our forward look cars have class sitting high in many cases. Open your mind. I can agree on some low riders but the world is not all low and i Don’t believe the designers ever meant to have their designs sitting on the ground. Nor do I.
Location: Victoria, BC, on Vancouver Island, Canada
|I agree. The designers knew what they were doing (at least most of the time!!). They paid big bux to go to school to learn auto design. I just don't like lowered suspensions, chopped roofs and 20 inch wheels on vintage cars. To me the aesthetics are all wrong.|
Edited by imopar380 2019-06-10 7:00 PM
Location: northern germany
|I personally can't imagine that any car looks good at a high stance, especially not Forwardlooks. They look great lowered and that is why they were lowered in the brochures and ads. It enhances the long and low look and that is typical FL. I even like lowered old Pick-ups and COE Trucks. |
That said, IMO, cars sitting on the ground is too much lowering. They need to look driveable.
Location: Invermere B.C. Canada - Rocky Mountains
bbrasse1 - 2019-06-10 4:49 PM
I am tired of every car show talking about what older cars and trucks need is to be chopped to the ground .... But yet every single show says that’s what they need?
I didn't know that car shows could talk, but if you don't like what they are saying, don't listen. You have every right to your opinion but do not expect that should have to be anybody else's.
Age has nothing to do with it, .... I am 75 and I like them low.
Location: Branson, MO
|Yeah, I remember going to the dealer introduction shows with my dad when he was a dealer. The display cars were always lower than the way they were built and were for "display" only. I asked one of the show "caretakers" what the deal was and he said they all had about 600 to 800 lbs. of weight added in sand bags strategically placed. Keep in mind these display cars were for modeling and photos and the factory cars we could get into and feel were the standard production cars. The difference was quite obvious. The same thing went for the publications/brochures - the cars all looked lower in the pictures. Just marketing strategy even back then. |
But that was waaaayyy before today's slammers with 22" wheels, etc. My guess is these weren't even thought of back then.
|well the gassers are jacked up. |
I dont like the stupid low either though, tastefully lowered
Location: So. California
|I prefer them a little higher. To me it makes the car look shorter, which I like better. I've never liked the look of a long car. The really low look isn't appealing to me, and definitely not with the back end dragging on the ground like I see with many of the early 50's customs. Most of the time, fender skirts & continental kits make me want to puke. The first stance that got my attention as a kid were the drag cars with the back ends up higher to clear the big tires. Although I am not a fan of a huge rake, the high look with bigger tires does look better to me. But I prefer to keep them close to stock with bigger, wider wheels & tires on them.|
Location: WHEELING,WV.>>>HOME OF WWVA
imopar380 - 2019-06-10 6:59 PM
I agree. The designers knew what they were doing (at least most of the time!!). They paid big bux to go to school to learn auto design. I just don't like lowered suspensions, chopped roofs and 20 inch wheels on vintage cars. To me the aesthetics are all wrong.
but i do like a rake of about 2-3 inches at the rear bumper ----------------------------------------------------later
Edited by 60 dart 2019-06-15 4:52 PM
bbrasse1 - 2019-06-10 3:49 AM
Where is the open mindedness? ..... Open your mind.
I agree with this part.
Location: Parts Unknown
|Depends on the car in question. Fins already throw the rear silhouette high. |
Adding to that, and creating a large gap under the car at the back isn't my idea
of good aethetics, and it reminds me all too much of what every white trash
trailer park dweller did with these cars back in the day. Since finned cars have
become something people seek out and restore, the same effect occurs when
the owners overspring the rear leaf sets. As mentioned above, and this is largely
where I draw my preference of ride stance, is the sales brochures, where the studio
guys sandbagged stock cars to get them to squat a little. But they ride flat and
just a couple inches lower than how they were delivered.
As for ground hugger low riders, well, they've never been my bag. They seem
terribly impractical, but some pull off the look pretty well, in spite of being prone
to scraping bottom on anything laying in the street larger than a book of matches.
Current fashion of giant wheels and skinny little tires ..... sorry, you lost me there !
... but what to I care ?
|Jump to page : 1 |
Now viewing page 1 [50 messages per page]
|Search this forum|
Printer friendly version
E-mail a link to this thread
|(Delete all cookies set by this site)|