It wasn’t just GM, it was all the domestics. They all just simultaneously gave up, it’s pretty amazing really, but mostly depressing.

Speaking from experience, Nissan pickups aren’t that great. The engines in the Hardbody are just ok, not legendary like the 22R and they’re kind of mushy to drive. That being said, they are stupidly fun. The early model Frontiers are booooooring and that 3.3 V6 is a cast-iron turd, not to mention the backseats are…

Goddamn I love the lines on these trucks. I don’t know if it’s a beating a dead horse to say this but Japan really was at their peak in the truck game in the 90's. To have a truck look so sleek, lean, and butch without resorting to flashy bullshit is amazing.

That guy in Europe with the V6 Mustang, even if he had hooked up I’m pretty sure the Twingo still would have beat him.

Man what a terrible time for Cadillac. Dumpy mid-size cars, a weird (but lovable) convertible, and a prosaic Fleetwood. I would still totally rock a Fleetwood or an Allante though.

Yeah I had ‘91 sedan as my first car. Great gas mileage, great dynamics, roomy enough, but it was an eletrical nightmare. It would randomly overheat, only send fuel to the injectors when it was in the mood, and the idiot lights would randomly light up for reasons not even related to what the light was for.

As shitty as the II was, the Mav was probably worse in the mechanical department. Equally strangled 302, prosaic suspension, tiny drum brakes for most cars, awful 3 speed column shifter, not exactly a sporty car. I do love them though...

This isn’t the truck itself but its the exact same model.

There’s that guarantee of it starting every time and not having issues in between. Yes you can buy a lightly-used Camry and it probably will run forever, but it’s not guaranteed it will. I mean by this logic there’s no point in buying any new car.

1. A 90s-00s grandma car. Buick, Mercury, Crown Vic, whatever it may be. Comfortable, roomy, modern enough to be reliable, not enough power or handling to get into any serious trouble.

My god, I would murder someone for that ‘65 Wagoneer, or a same year Gladiator.

Not gonna lie, I dig it. I wish it had a 5 speed so I could complete my truckin’ fantasies though.

God these cars are gorgeous. Ford may have faltered on the small things but the styling wasn’t of them.

Better yet, maybe even a Park Avenue. It’s an even nicer car for about the same money. I’ve always the the lines on these cars were pretty slinky too.

Call me boring, but for basic, cheap, usable daily transportation, it doesn’t get much better than a Ranger. You can get one in basically any combination you would want and they’re dirt cheap out there. That’s mainly why I love them, you can get one in basically any form.

I’ve never had much experience with either but I’ve heard the Bronco was a better built vehicle, just waaaay tipsier and frankly more dangerous. Not that the General’s engines were much better but the Cologne V6's were no paragon of reliability either. I still dig them though...

I disagree, the ‘79 was a great year for the Mustang. It got a clean, european body, a (finally) modern suspension set-up, some decent power to back up the 5.0 name, and even a turbo four, even if it was a turd of an engine. Compared to the drooping, sloppy, underpowered mess that was the II it looks pretty damn good.

It took me awhile to figure out the styling but it grew on me, it’s a lot more elegant and slinky than the 05-14 IMO.

I didn’t live in the era so I could very well be wrong, but in the only review I’ve ever seen of one they were testing one of the Chrysler R-bodies (can’t remember the name) and the amount of defects from the factory were just heinous. Like catastrophic, car-refuses-to-start kind of defects. I know it was common for…

I didn’t mean popularity as much as styling.