1963 Pontiac Grand Prix 4 Speed Transmition 389 Engine Power Radio Rare Blue on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Question of the Day: Most degraded car name?

When Ford came up with a not-so-sporty version of the Pinto and slapped Mustang badges on it in 1974, that was a low point for the Mustang name. When Chrysler applied the venerable Town & Country name on perfectly functional but unglamorous minivans, it saddened many of us. But perhaps the biggest demotion for a once-proud model came when, in 1988, General Motors imported a misery-enhancing Daewoo from Korea and called it the Pontiac LeMans. The original Pontiac LeMans was a great-looking midsize car with fairly advanced (for the time) suspension design and engine options including potent V8s and a screaming overhead-cam straight-six. The Daewoo-based Pontiac LeMans was a cramped, shoddy hooptie that served only to ruin the LeMans name forever, while stealing sales from the Suzuki-based Chevrolet Sprint. Sure, using the once-respected Monterey name on the Mercurized Ford Freestar was bad, but Mercury didn't have long to live at that point. I say the downward spiral of the LeMans name was the most agonizing in automotive history. What do you think? Related Video: This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. Auto News Ford Mercury Pontiac Automotive History Classics questions ford pinto names

GM Design shows what could have been and what might be

We periodically like to check in with GM Design's Instagram account to see what they're cooking up. Even better is when we catch a glimpse of an alternate history of what legendary designers from The General's past were thinking, though those ideas may not have made it into production. This week, for example, the account posted some illustrations from George Camp, whose career at GM spanned nearly four decades, from 1963 to 2001. One of the renderings is of what appears to be a 1971-72 Pontiac GTO Judge, but with two headlights instead of the production unit's quad beams. The rear departs from the canonical version most dramatically, with a massive integrated wing. Other bits that didn't make the production cut include large side vents, a gill-like side marker and rectangular intakes below the headlights that wouldn't be out of place on a modern design today. Amazingly, from what we can make out of the date, it appears that the drawing was done sometime in 1965, which makes it quite prescient.           View this post on Instagram                       A post shared by GM Design (@generalmotorsdesign) There's also a very aerodynamic interpretation of a Corvette ZR-1. To our eyes it splits the difference between the 1986 Corvette Indy concept and a fourth-generation F-body Pontiac Firebird, so perhaps parts of Camp's work on this sketch did make it into physical form. There's also a radical sports car concept from May 1970 that resembles the Mazda RX-500 concept from the same year, a Syd Mead-looking Cadillac coupe, and an Oldsmobile with a cool take on the company's trademark waterfall grille and elements of the Colonnade Cutlass at the rear. Other recent posts include a FJ Cruiser-like off-road EV, a sleek coupe with the Chevy corporate grille, and a rendering of a Silverado-esque pickup that looks far better than the current production version.           View this post on Instagram                       A post shared by GM Design (@generalmotorsdesign) It's pretty easy to lose hours in the account, but it's always fascinating to see GM's visions of what could have been and what might be. Related Video:

This or That: 2005 Chrysler Crossfire SRT6 vs. 1984 Pontiac Fiero

Welcome to another round of This or That, where two Autoblog editors pick a topic, pick a side and pull no punches. Last round pitted yours truly against Associate Editor Brandon Turkus, and my chosen VW Vanagon Syncro narrowly defeated Brandon's 1987 Land Rover. In fact, it was, by far, the closest round we've seen, with 1,907 voters seeing things my way (for 50.8 percent of the vote) versus 1,848 votes for Brandon's Rover (49.2 percent). Sweet, sweet victory! For this latest round of This or That, I've roped Editor Greg Migliore into what I think is a rather fun debate. We've each chosen our favorite terrible cars, setting a price limit of $10,000 to make sure neither of us went too crazy with our automotive atrocities. I think we've both chosen terribly... and I mean that in the best way possible. 2005 Chrysler Crossfire SRT6 Jeremy Korzeniewski: Why It's Terrible: Taken in isolation, the Chrysler Crossfire isn't necessarily a terrible car. In fact, it drives pretty darn well, and there's a lot of solid engineering under its slinky shape. Problem is, that engineering was already rather long in the tooth well before Chrysler ever got its hands on it, having come from Mercedes-Benz, which used the basic chassis and drivetrain in a previous version of its SLK coupe and roadster. Granted, the SLK was an okay car, too, but even when new, it hardly set the world on fire with sporty driving dynamics. Chrysler took these decent-but-no-more bits and pieces from the Mercedes parts bin – remember, this car was conceived in the disastrous Merger Of Equals days – and covered them with a rather attractive hard-candy shell. Unfortunately, the super sporty shape wrote checks in the minds of buyers that its well-worn mechanicals were simply unable to cash, though an injection of power courtesy of a supercharged V6 engine in the SRT6 model, as seen here, certainly helped ease some of those woes. In the end, Chrysler was left with a so-called halo car that looked the part but never quite performed the part. It was almost universally panned by critics as an overpriced parts-bin special, which, I must add, was damningly accurate. As a result, sales were very slow, and within the first few months, dealers were clearancing the car at cut-rate prices, just to keep them from taking up too much of the showroom floor. Why It's Not That Terrible, After All: I can speak from personal experience when discussing the Chrysler Crossfire. You see, I owned one. Well, sort of...