FormulaNova said..

gavnwend said..
The Mazda Roadpacer built by GMH.& yes powered by a rotary engine .rare as hens teeth now.

Are you sure they qualified as ugly? It doesn't look that way to me. Its just a HQ.

Oh yes it's ugly, well they were when they first came out, especially following the HG, but we had to buy them, had no choice if you were a holden fan. Then the looks grew on us. But it took a while.

Methinks love blinded you to its ugliness!

FormulaNova said...

gavnwend said..
The Mazda Roadpacer built by GMH.& yes powered by a rotary engine .rare as hens teeth now.


They were sold to Mazda & the Japanese denzo mechanics plonked a 1.3 litre
rotary in it they battled to get up hills .

Are you sure they qualified as ugly? It doesn't look that way to me. Its just a HQ.

The bit I read was that the rotary was at least equivalent to the 202 of the time. Even though some people call it a 1.3, the 13B was/is really more like 2.6 litres equivalent, and can rev a whole lot further than a 202.

I would be surprised if it were slow.

It a HJ, not HQ, would have been interesting to have driven one.

Did they have different variant names as well, similar to the commodore versus statesmans?

Belmont [base model]

Kingswood [more or less "regular family car" spec.]

Premier [a bit more upmarket]

Statesman [the bosses car]

Basically any 4 door sedan is an ugly car.
The "sedan" shape doesn't make any sense to me.
What is it for really ? From the old days when ppl had to keep the gerry cans in the boots during the oil crisises

Just do either hatch or s/wagon FFS

dmitri said..

Just do either hatch or s/wagon FFS

Oh no! That is so utilitarian as are sedans.

I prefer Saloon cars like Fairmonts.

dmitri said..

cisco said..

dmitri said..

Just do either hatch or s/wagon FFS

Oh no! That is so utilitarian as are sedans.

I prefer Saloon cars like Fairmonts.

The wagons are actually on the longer Fairlane floor pan.

For a hatch I really go for the MG B GT.

My dad had one of these, 1950's English Citroen. It was 15 years old when he had it and it really stood out. Good or bad,I'm still not sure.

rockmagnet said..
My dad had one of these, 1950's English Citroen. It was 15 years old when he had it and it really stood out. Good or bad,I'm still not sure.

Revolutionary car, the Traction Avant. Beautiful too. Whoever posted all the iconic cars of the previous century such as the beetle and the ds in the ugly cars discussion shouldn't ever consider a career in industrial design.

I owned a VW Beetle and drove them as a work vehicle in the 70's and let me tell you they were bloody terrible. They were gutless and slid out in the wet due to the rear engine. They leaked and the rain got in , the floorboards rusted and they were just terrible to drive at speed. So I think calling one of the worst cars I ever drove an Iconic car is pushing it. (which I often did.)

Adriano said..
This is fun.

I present Exhibit Y.

first car ........crap

My dad 1st car Auto Union that became AUDI that is the DKW 100s

............ 1000cc 2 stroke the smell in the car was challenging!

This is the ugly car thread isn't it? Look-away ugly this one. Two of them waiting opposite at the lights on the way to Bunnings. Dealer deliveries, still had protective glad wrap on them.



Chubby cheeked dealer closing a deal on a mobile phone. Those diagonal lights?? Look-away bright, then you have to look back, like a moth, way too bright. You drive a sports car to be looked at, why be talking on a mobile phone? And why are they diagonal? What's the purpose of them???

mr love said..
They are DRL's Daytime Running Lamps. Becoming mandatory equiptment, many car fleets will not purchase cars withou DRL's, OH&S stuff. So your car can be seen at distance by oncoming vehicles, LED's so they are long lasting and don't drain much power impacting fuel economy.

The problem with even more flashing lights and signs and reflectors and things, is that people just end up ignoring them. We have that issue here, with lights, road markings and signs ****ing everywhere... all being duly ignored.

And the new Mazda Roadster looks dog****.

Kamikuza said..

mr love said..
They are DRL's Daytime Running Lamps. Becoming mandatory equiptment, many car fleets will not purchase cars withou DRL's, OH&S stuff. So your car can be seen at distance by oncoming vehicles, LED's so they are long lasting and don't drain much power impacting fuel economy.

The problem with even more flashing lights and signs and reflectors and things, is that people just end up ignoring them. We have that issue here, with lights, road markings and signs ****ing everywhere... all being duly ignored.

And the new Mazda Roadster looks dog****.

Yep. When they have the 'safety light/message display' on the F6 freeway telling you that you can check out a website, you have to admit that they have missed the point. They are meant to be alerting you to dangerous conditions, not to give you useless information which is diverting your attention away from driving. The first time I saw this I thought there must be some poor guy that had the job of making the signs 'meaningful' even when there was nothing to say.

Day time running lights suck. They all look like the drivers are w@nkers, trying to stand out. The fact they always seemed to appear on prestige cars made me think this. I am probably wrong, but that's what I think.

It makes sense to run DRL in low light conditions, but bright daylight doesn't really require them. Of course, DRLs make no difference at all in bumper to bumper traffic when everyone is sitting 1m from each other... you can't see them, and the drivers are going to run up the back of each other regardless of how bright the lights are.