^^ Pretty sure that's actually a '60s custom. And other than that odd little kink in the bottom rear corner of the quarter window it's a pretty successful design. Hardly one that could be considered truly ugly.
That's the El Matador. Built in '60, had an olds motor and really wild but cool interior. It was destroyed in a fire in the 90's but it's been restored. Once again I'm disagreeing with you folks here but I think that car rules.
Having owned the car I am biased against your opinion. This was a car show stunner and bought and displayed by the top show car promoter in the day. It was also bought and toured by the leading model maker of the day. It was also displayed in the Ford Cavalcade of customs all across the country. In my opinion, a beautifully done styling exercise, built by a true craftsman named Bill Cushenbery. I love stock 40 coupes very much, but I also love customs and this was obviously my favorite.
Don't take it personally guys...it's just one man's opinion. I knew I would get blasted for bringing the El Matador into the conversation... I'm familiar with the significance and history of the car but I've never really liked the visual package that it brings.... I know I'm not alone in this conclusion.
this pile makes me want to poke my eyes out.....so much wrong with it! Oh I forgot we don't bash Hotrods on this site just Kustoms!
Not everybody likes the same things. And not everybody understands all the different styles ( past or present... ) Just like you dont seem to understand that with your overly dramatic posts, you turn people away from the very thing you are trying to argue for...
I've already posted somewhere on this Thread that, In My Opinion, cars like the Mark Mist, El Matador and X-Sonic do not belong on any Ugly Car Thread. But to be honest, there are cars on this thread that are more challenging for me to appriciate. In a way, Hot Rod builders have it easier. The Hot Rod's roots have to do with performance and racing. So if in doubt, the stopwatch will tell you if its right... It seems to me that a compe***ion in aesthetics is pretty much impossible, in any way that makes sense. But people have tried, with ( if I understand history correctly ) a points system that rewarded the number of modifications on a car, whether they made sense for that car or not. Pretty much guaranteeing the creation of some bizzare vehicles... But maybe what we need is some Tech and History Threads by the people that do understand these cars and their place in history.
That would be interesting. I always thought the show points thing started way after some of these cars that are considered overdone were completed. Remembering from when I was a kid, most of them were thought to be pretty cool. (Except for the one percent that were really ugly.)
I'm there too. I may not give a 100% p*** to all of it, but the overall car does indeed rule. A timeless favorite from the wild days.
I love the El Matador, have always loved the El Matador, and will always love the El Matador. When I first saw it in the early '60s, I loved the El Matador. Now I need a cigarette.
I stand corrected and don't know why Kiwi Kev's photo went away. That car is actually a 1952 Haller Taifun that was made in Germany. That curved back window sure looks like it could have been Starlight coupe gl***. I wonder how many of these were made and if there are barn finds in Germany.
Rear view: It was apparently rear-engined and based on VW and Porsche componentry: "There’s a very good chance that the Haller Taifun was powered by an Okrasa engine rather than a Porsche engine. The 40hp Okrasa engine with twin Solexes was a pretty hot set-up in ’51 and it would have been much more accessible than a low production and very expensive Porsche mill. In any event, we need to track it down!" http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/...chet-kelley-dream-cars-of-tomorrow-from-1953/
I don't spend that much time here any more, because there just doesn't seem much for the Kustom guys any more. Then the one time that I do find a lengthy new one its 13 pages of mostly watching people queue up to kick them hard in the nuts.Dreddybear,C-9,MitchelldeMoor, I'm with you guys. I think if I never see another thread about over chopping,air bagging, slamming and suede painting another shoebox or rockstar then my life would be richer for it. I'll keep you guys that do get it up to date when I make my truck ugly. Viva 52-64
Don't let it get to you Paul...opinions are like as...ehr...belly-****ons...everyone has one...and those that are putting their opinions on ugliness on this thread were born many decades AFTER kustoms were built for the street and for the shows...in their eyes nothing is sacred...and decades from now, there will be a new group of 'youngsters' calling all of those overchopped, flat black, slammed to the rockers '49-'54 Chevys and shoebox Fords ugly...trying to figure out why someone (anyone) would ruin a perfectly good automobile. However, you are correct -this is a hot rod forum...try as we might, we'll never 'fit in'...and I know you're joking about making your panel 'ugly'...keep the faith, enjoy your kustom and maybe some day they'll see the light...one can only hope...!!! R-
"I'm with you guys. I think if I never see another thread about over chopping,air bagging, slamming and suede painting another shoebox or rockstar then my life would be richer for it." "...and decades from now, there will be a new group of 'youngsters' calling all of those overchopped, flat black, slammed to the rockers '49-'54 Chevys and shoebox Fords ugly...trying to figure out why someone (anyone) would ruin a perfectly good automobile." ...........................Yep. I'm thinking the next Big Thing in the Custom World will be all about restoring "near stock height" to a whole lot of available, but outdated "early century custom cars"..... I am VERY thankful for one thing though....In the last 20 years or so, an awful lot of good cars were saved from the crusher because todays builders have resurrected and preserved them in at least a rolling form. That's a lot of cars that were destined for demolition and lost forever....That's a very cool thing. Any enterprising young guys who want to secure a future in this hobby should already be making plans to "undo" some of the things done today....Maybe, just maybe, we'll see a return to the glories of the Traditional "Mild Custom" again....In a world of excess in everything, it's hard to imagine that "less can actually be more" for many of these guys.....All those Little Books are still out there, they're just not being read. That's what the pictures are for guys..... Centurion9
I think that would be a great and positive contribution to this thread. History aside, understanding the subject is done by discussing the visual design of the cars. I had fellow alumni who invested 4 to 5 years of time and money to get their bachelor's degrees in automotive industrial design. They went on to work for the (back then) Detroit styling studios. I don't know if one could summarize years of visual design training into a thread of reasonable size. Kripfink, sorry to hear that, but I've also visited less.
Amen to that. When everyone building a "custom" uses the same 2 or 3 grills and 2 or 3 sets of wheelcovers, that isn't really too "custom." It's more like going to a show and seeing row upon row of '32 Ford roadsters, '64 Mustangs, '68 Camaros, etc.
Not to pick on you Fink, but I see more and more kustom guys complaining about the lack of customs on the hamb...but nobody contributes. The only one who complained but actually does something is Rikster...atleast he trys to contribute and educate, the rest of the guys take their balls and go home. Now so many guys got ****hurt because people called some of these cars ugly, only because they were built by someone famous. That was never the issue, the discussion is about good design and taste, something most of these cars lack. These cars were pure excess, yes they are traditional and built by the grandfathers of customs, but most were ugly because they were simpliy trying to out-do each other or show off what they can do, without putting much thought in the principals of design. Its funny because people get so damn offended if one of the grandfathers of customizing is criticized, without any consideration for the designer of the original car...and most of these 'ugly' cars that have been shown had much better design in stock form. A stock design is well thought out and refined by professional designers, guys with the knowledge and education on proper design (that doesnt mean detroit design studios havent made many mistakes themselves) but most of these customs throw all that work into the garbage and attempt to do it better...most fail. A good custom takes the stock design and makes it better...restraint is very important and most of these lack restraint.
I gotta disagree with ya a little. I'm one of those guys and I contribute. At least I think I do. I answer questions, give advice and made a build thread. I spent a **** ton of time harnessing every known thing about Holleys and stuck them in one place for people to easily find. Why? Cause I love this place and believe in it. I'm not offended or trying to start anything by the way, if anyone takes it that way then please disregard everything I say. This **** is supposed to be fun. Anyway, It's about range. Do I hate the cars you like becasue they aren't wacky customs? No. I appreciate period Hot rods and race cars as well as mild and restrained customs in addition to the wacky customs. My field of appreciation is wider I guess. I used to think the wacky cars were goofy and dumb lookin. I wouldn't be caught dead in one. Then I saw one. Then I rode in one. My appreciation grew. Now I love them. I'm absolutely bonkers for these things. Now I find it weird that you guys hate em. It doesn't make you wrong or right. It just is. I'm not trying to start ****, or bag on ya. I just think, like I originally said in this thread, that this was gonna be an outlet for people to draw a line of where ugly is, but that line isn't as etched in stone as you think.
no offence taken Dreddy, and I respect that you stick to your guns. I do appriciate the wacky customs, I really do...but that doesnt mean I dont think most are ugly. There are things on all these wacky customs we can learn from and appriciate...I'm just saying from a design standpoint most of them fail as a whole. I just think that some people get too offended when a car built by someone famous gets criticized, like its a mortal sin. I bet most of these guys built something they hate or something they wish they could go back and redo, and there is nothing wrong with that, hell Roth said he hated some of the things he did...but people who have never met these guys will defend them to the bitter end even when the builder himself says its ugly. There is nothing wrong with constructive criticism, even if it is a "master" we are criticizing, nobody is perfect. And to add to that a great craftsman doesnt necesarily make a great designer, or vice versa.
I don't know that I've seen too many on this thread i wouldn't take. Speaking as a guy who had ZERO exposure to customs, (Northern Indiana isn't exactly custom mecca) I can't get enough of them even if they do look a little Willy Wonka-ish. i think what people fail to appreciate is the labor. They look at a custom and see a treatment they don't care for and fail to look at the rest of the lines. If I could shape metal like most of these guys you all would be seeing what an ugly custom really is.
**** theres plenty of ugly cars that were built TODAY! people go out of their way to custoimize a perfectly good car just for the sake of custominzing it ie: taillights, headlights, bumpers, fenders, when some cars dont even need it!
Not necessarily true Ynotta...I haven't "gone home" and I still have my balls...!!! Ever read my thread...??? It's all about building a kustom : http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=329070&highlight=the+best+55+caddy+build That's strange, I don't recall the OP's mentioning all of them in this thread were built by someone famous...besides, we never see anyone posting a "The ugliest '32 Fords of the '50's ('60's, '70's or even this century...)...!!!" Personally, every '32 Ford on this forum looks the same to me...there's nothing "different" about them...and I'd rather be an individual in my kustom and not look like the next car in line. R-
The Jalopy Journal
