I'm Back

Hi all,

Thanks for keeping the ship afloat while I was gone last week. It looks as if there were some good conversations, and nobody hated the IMSA GTP feature too badly.

I'm completely buried today after that week away, so hopefully I can get some posts up starting tomorrow. Thanks for your patience everybody.

--Chris H.

Comments

[Mochi Mochi on June 16, 2008 at 03:34 PM]

Fresh meat tomorrow? cool! Meantime... anyone for suggestions of worlds most boring car? I'm thinking that the car that exceeds all expectations of what boring could be would be nearly invisible to the human eye. A kind of stealth car - and therefore useful for police and law enforcement.

In the novels of John Le Carre, British Intelligence agents would frequently "borrow" transportation by stealing taxis and mail trucks, useful for their anonymity and ubiquity.

I'm thinking the Nissan Sentra B14 (1995-1999) might be the least noticeable car on the planet. If I saw one I would be hard pressed to identify it. Even the lowly cavalier has specific styling definition that says "I'm a cavalier". The Sentra is so undefined that it is hard to notice any specific visual feature - except by virtue of their absence. "I can tell it's a B14 Sentra by a process of elimination - it is not anything else." Earlier or later versions are easier to peg as a specific car. The B14 is unusually generic.

Possibly the only competitor for the title would be the 4th or 5th Gen Toyota Tercel.

Welcome back Chris - hope you had a great week.

[David Colborne on June 16, 2008 at 06:27 PM]

Mochi, I'd have to lean towards any of the GM A Body cars (Is it a Chevy, a Pontiac, a Buick, or an Oldsmobile? You just don't know!) - I mean, it's seriously just a box on wheels.

If we're looking for something a little more contemporary, I'd lean towards the Ford Five Hundred. Every time I see that thing's rear lights, I think it's a Honda or something. It just doesn't look like anything.

[Nathan of Brainfertilizer Fame on June 16, 2008 at 06:57 PM]

Welcome back, Chris!

@Mochi-mochi,
Yeah, those Sentras were ubiquitous, which is strange because they weren't all that good. That was the time that Nissan was really feeling the crunch from their debt situation getting hammered by the collapse of the Japanese economic bubble, if I recall correctly.
The Sentra had pretty much the same shape as the Altima, so the only way to tell them apart was the front and rear fascia; and the only way to tell the difference between the Sentra, the 200SX, and the 240SX was by the chrome numbers, they were that similar.

But to me, just about the most boring cars were the mid-80s Japanese sedans. It was nearly impossible to distinguish an Accord from a Corolla from a Stanza from a 626 back then...maybe the Accord being slightly different. Heck, I don't think it was easy to tell a Corolla from a Camry, either.

They weren't especially thrifty on gas, not powerful, not nimble, and slightly cramped. They sold because they were:
a) cheap
b) more reliable than Detroit iron at that time, I think.

[Anthony Cagle on June 16, 2008 at 07:29 PM]

When Mochi mentioned the Sentra I immediately thought of my MIL's old late '80s Sentra. GAWD, how dull. Plain box. Worse than a box because it pretended to have styling. Completely unexceptional.

[Mochi Mochi on June 16, 2008 at 08:19 PM]

David:"GM A Body cars" Hmm... if these are the cars from the 60s-70's I'm not sure they are boring or bland enough, even if they are highly interchangeable. The thing about the Sentra B14 (1995-1999) is the utter lack of differentiation from any car ever made. It is featureless. You practically cannot see this car. You definitely cannot recognize it in any normal sense of the word. There have been perceptual studies of humans (mostly men because we care about what cars look like in significantly larger numbers than women for some strange reason). These studies have shown that men recognize cars by physical features in a manner similar to facial recognition. Men are very good at being able to identify a car even when only seeing a small part - a key feature.

The level of blandness that accompanies the Sentra B14 is unimaginable. It is like seeing someone's face and no matter how hard you try you can't remember what that face looks like. You'd never be able to recognize that person if you saw them again. You would have to work exceptionally hard to create a mental framework for remembering the face.

I think Nathan's right the First generation Altima (1993-1997) was also intensely bland and nearly unrecognizable. Strangely the early 90's Stanza was slightly more recognizable but only because it had hood creases.

[Brian on June 16, 2008 at 10:46 PM]

I think the winner should be the mid-80's Toyota Camry, or similar Japanese sedan. Just plain boring, and they all look alike.

[Mochi Mochi on June 17, 2008 at 12:08 AM]

Brian I think you have an excellent contender in the Camry. But the First generation (SV10) (1982–1986) Camry has way more personality than the Third generation (SV30) (1990–1994) Camry. Third Gen Camry is almost as completely transparent and featureless as the Sentra B14. But that's my opinion - it's based purely on my perception of a complete lack of any distinguishing features. The mid-80's saw a variety of sharp edges and distinctive grills. The blob cars of the mid-90's seemed be bent on erasing all the awkwardness of the 80s though pursuit of the remarkably and excessively bland. The distinction between a Camry and a Sentra is infinitesimally small but I do think it is there.

The Camry is an excellent call though. And I think it is appropriate that we are having this discussion under the heading of an article that is devoid of any content related to cars - the perfect setting to discuss the completely uninteresting.

[Cookie the Dog's Owner on June 17, 2008 at 04:52 AM]

I have a contender in my driveway, a 1998 Ford Escort wagon being held in reserve for the day when Son #1 gets his license. Performance is . . . um, adequate. It's styled to blend into the background and painted a nondescript shade of beige. It's mechanically quite reliable--well over 100,000 trouble-free miles--so it's not even "interesting" in the Chinese-curse sense.

[Steaming Pile on June 17, 2008 at 05:38 AM]

@mochi - It doesn't get any more generic than the Toyota Corolla - any year, but I think the late 90s/early 00s models win the boring contest.

Now, our '99 Accord (4 cyl.) was one that we often had trouble finding in the supermaket parking lot. We would find somebody else's car all the time, wonder why the key doesn't work, then find stuffed animals or chintz pillows on the back seat. "Oh, crap. This isn't even my car. My Accord's over there."

Both these cars share the same virtues/vices. Bland styling, near idiot proof reliability, decent but not outstanding performance, handling that can be best described as 'accurate,' comfortable but not overly cushy like most American cars of the period.

[Rob the SVX guy on June 17, 2008 at 06:24 AM]

I take offense to that. I have an 89 Accord Sedan in my driveway, and while it's a somewhat common sight, I think the design is anything but boring. It has wedge like styling, and crispy, clean lines. Great visibility, double wishbone suspension, and it's fun to drive. Now that it's lowered a bit and rolling around on prelude wheels, it actually looks pretty cool. They handle LIGHTYEARS better than any other generation accord, and I enjoy driving it as much as I enjoy driving my SVX. See for yourself:

http://www.cardomain.com/ride/3036523

@Cookie: 100k does not mean it's reliable. Any car can hit 100k without much trouble. 200k is fairly reliable. My subaru has 192k, my accord has 265k, and my prelude has 139k.

[David Colborne on June 17, 2008 at 08:34 AM]

Mochi: Wrong A-Body. I'm thinking of the FWD ones (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_A_platform_(FWD) ) - we're talking mid-80's Chevy Celebrity, Buick Century, Oldsmobile Cutlass, etc. They had all of the "charm" of a Chrysler K-Car without the variation between models... and that's really saying something.

Late '80s Japanese sedans weren't particularly interesting, but neither was anything else that anybody else was cranking out at the time. That said, one wonderful product of late '80s British "engineering" that I would love to see Chris riff on one of these days is the old Sterling 825. It was a "great" fusion of British quality control and late '80s Japanese refinement, all wrapped with a faux wood interior. I mean, take one Acura Legend, let the British build and support the thing, then sell it in the US... against the real Acura Legend. Uh... wait, what?

Ford Escorts are pretty bland, but they're at least moderately identifiable. That's the problem with a lot of Fords - they're so boring that they're "unique". I mean, if you see a car with minimal styling flair that looks like it was designed by taking a blocky Volvo and rounding the edges, it's probably a Ford.

[Cookie the Dog's Owner on June 17, 2008 at 09:46 AM]

Rob: In my formative years, my family was cursed with a succession of four-wheeled domestic-nameplate hand grenades. Thanks to that childhood trauma, I'm impressed by any US-built car that gets to six digits without a major engineering casualty.

Hondas, on the other hand--at 100k, they're just getting warmed up.

[Steaming Pile on June 17, 2008 at 09:53 AM]

@Cookie - Yep. 100K on a Honda is barely broken in. The aforementioned '99 Accord now has 156,000 miles of upstate New York brutality behind it, and it still drives like almost new. Doesn't look it, but it sure drives nice.

FTR, the key vulnerabilities of turn-of-the-century Honda products driven in the Northeast is the emissions control system, which has a tendency to rust, causing CHECK ENGINE failures. Get that stuff fixed, and you're good for another decade.

[Mochi Mochi on June 17, 2008 at 11:01 AM]

Rob I'm with you. The Late 80's Accord was a great car with modest but distinct styling. And your particular Accord looks like it's headed towards greatness.

On my commute to work this morning I looked for the most unidentifiable cars I could find. Certain generations of Escort were almost invisible. But there's a slight quirky edge that makes them unique. I agree with David. On the escort but it is a contender. But while the A-Cars cannot be distinguished from each other, they are clearly different than other makers cars.

Not so for some Japanese cars in the 90s...

From what I can see it is a really close call between Toyota and Nissan cars from the 90's. I have to look at their badges to figure out who made them. If I can't see a badge I have no clue as to what the freak that thing is. It's just CAR. I passed by a car this morning that was some sort of Nisyota, the rear badge was missing, and the grill was pushed in. I had no idea who made the thing. Even Saturns are more distinctive, though if the grill is gone you're done for. These cars remind me of the scene in Repo Man where they are eating generic food from boxes labeled FOOD.

Toyotas are slightly more recognizable because they have more badges and name plates. The Nissans from the 90s have almost no badging. Its amazing. If you ever need a completely unidentifiable car for some bank heist get a 90s Nissan anything. No one will ever be able to ID your car to the police.

I did some research and found that this seems to be more of a problem for cars of the 90s than the 80s. The farther you go back the more distinctive the cars become. 1st and 2nd gen corrollas are actually pretty cool looking - or at least odd looking and quite distinctive. All the early Japanese cars were in some way distinctive. The styling was really odd. Things got cleanest and trim in the Mid to Late 80s. Then the 90s hit and things started going south in to utter and unrelenting blandness. Honda got less defined in the 90s but retained a well crafted line until the current season which is horrible. The new Accords look like the mongrel offspring of a Dogde Magnum and a Sentra. I think the earlier designs from Japan had a more inward looking styling reference, in the 90s manufacturers were looking at the world market and trying to make world cars. Which meant they were incredibly bland and appliance like.

[Patrick on June 06, 2011 at 11:18 AM]

Saturns are pretty bland and un-remarkable, but quirky enough to stand out when compaired to a 90's Japenese sedan. How about the second gen Ford Taurus? Those REALLY blend in with everything.