By on April 3, 2017

Plymouth Advertisement

Keeping things fresh and interesting (or boring and CUV) is what drives models to the top of the sales charts. As designs age out of the public’s collective (un)consciousness, they need to be replaced. And unless you have some Impala Classic soldiering on and breaking all the replacement rules, the standard consumer will expect a new generation of their vehicle every five to seven years. The Laws of Advertising mandate a claim of superiority be made about each new generation upon introduction, like in the delightful vintage Plymouth ad you see above.  Something to the tune of, “This new and redesigned Sportslife XLS is best in all things car!”

Sometimes, the OEMs get the new generation of a model just right, and really hit it out of the park compared to the prior version. Which of these generation gaps stands out most to you?

When you clicked through, perhaps you thought I’d leave you hanging with no example this time around. Sad! Take a look at my first generation relative fail.

1997 Acura 3.0CL.

After 1995, the quite expensive Legend Coupe was axed alongside its sedan brother, as the new 3.2 RL debuted the following year. This left Acura in a spot without a coupe model, and thus the CL you see above was born. Not intended as a direct replacement for the Legend Coupe (happily), the CL was instead a coupe version of the TL, which was — of course — based on the ubiquitous Accord. The first car built by Acura in the United States, it was screwed together in the Marysville, Ohio plant that still makes many Hondas today.

1997 Acura 3.0CL.

Equipped with a 3.0-liter V6, or a 2.2-liter inline-four for 1997 only, this first CL featured a very unique design, which I’ve decided is part of a design aesthetic known as “Shovel Face.” The front and back ends had their own shovel shapes. I didn’t like it when it was new, and I don’t like it now. It hasn’t aged well, and the CL is notorious for automatic transmission issues. Acura customers were stuck with this as their coupe option from 1997 to 1999. After that, Acura called it all off for a year, and took a moment to get it together.

2003 Acura 3.2 CL Type-S.

Then in 2001, the second generation CL came around. This time, styling was massively improved, and there was a much better 3.2-liter V6 engine. In 2002, the star-of-the-show Type-S model became available, featuring a six-speed manual transmission and limited slip differential. There was also a considerable jump in horsepower, from 225 to 260.

2003 Acura 3.2 CL Type-S.

In stark contrast, this generation CL got a lot of things right (but still not the automatic transmission). It looks great today, even though it drew its last breath back in 2003. It’s also still desirable on the used market, particularly in the more rare colors of Type-S trim.

2003 Acura 3.2 CL Type-S.

While I wouldn’t touch a first generation CL, a Type-S generation two is something I’d gladly have parked in my fantasy garage, driven only on nice days. Which cars do you see as standouts compared to the generation that came before?

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

162 Comments on “QOTD: What Vehicles Trumped the Previous Generation?...”


  • avatar
    OldManPants

    ’65s, pretty much everybody’s. The Greatest Generation of BOFs before gas crises, unibody, Malaise, Japan and bodies of highly-stressed pop cans.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      Disagree, OMP; the ’58 through ’63 were the best looking of the bunch. The mid-60s exaggerated the swoopiness of fastback design to the point that one car in particular carried the largest piece of glass ever (up to 30 years later) just to see out the back. Meanwhile, the ’59 Chevy was officially listed as “The Most beautiful car ever built”, to which I agree whole-heartedly.

      • 0 avatar
        OldManPants

        But this question is being asked of humans, not forest-dwelling quadrupeds who never bathe.

        • 0 avatar
          mcs

          Says the refrigerator in pants and a hat! :^)

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          OMP, I suggest you do a little research on those “forest-dwelling quadrupeds who never bathe.” It seems they do bathe and know how to rid themselves of lice and other parasites.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            “It seems they do bathe and know how to rid themselves of lice and other parasites.”

            Being able to lick yourself all over is something to brag about…. I guess.

            Rumour has it, that is how Ron Jeremy (pardon the pun) rose to fame.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Who said anything about licking? I said ‘bathing’, as in water. Foxes are not stupid animals, no matter what you want to believe.

            I suggest looking up the article, “Woodland Wizards”. You might just be surprised (both by what foxes are capable of doing AND that you found the article. It’s dated 1983, IIRC.)

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            I know they are smart but I don’t bother studying the behavior of animals that don’t see me as a food source :)

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            “I know they are smart but I don’t bother studying the behavior of animals that don’t see me as a food source :)”

            You should study them, because they help PROTECT your food sources.

          • 0 avatar
            Corey Lewis

            You all save your fighty energy for tomorrow’s QOTD, which is a flip of this one ;).

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Looking forward to it, Corey

  • avatar
    Adam Tonge

    Stop trying to make the CL cool. It’s never going to happen Corey.

    • 0 avatar
      Corey Lewis

      It is, and it has!

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      28 thought they were kinda cool. Almost looked at one retail in 2010 *shudders*

      But then of course, glass transmission in auto…

    • 0 avatar
      JohnTaurus

      Well, since I didn’t care much for the rear of the Accord coupe, I kinda like the CL gen 1 as far as styling. But above them all, I’d take a Prelude SH even if I had to go used (clearly that implies had I been in the market at the time).

    • 0 avatar
      suspekt

      I had a 2003 CL Type S 6MT and is still one of, if not, the favourite car I ever had.

      I currently drive a 2001 Corvette C5 Z06 for reference.

    • 0 avatar
      White Shadow

      I purchased a new CL Type S back in 2002. Dumped it after just three months because it was the most boring car I had ever owned. It wasn’t cool then and it’s certainly not cool now. That Acura is the only car that I ever owned that I truly hated. I replaced it with a manual transmission M3.

  • avatar
    Adam Tonge

    My answer is the 7th Gen (2008-2012) Chevy Malibu. It was so much better than the depressing 2004-2007 (and 2008 Malibu Classic for fleets only!) version.

    • 0 avatar
      Corey Lewis

      Yeah but MAXX.

    • 0 avatar
      Chris Ransdell

      I wholeheartedly agree. The Pre 2008 Malibu was the car you were afraid America would build. The 2008-2012 was at least class competitive in almost every way and had a bold (for its class) design.

    • 0 avatar
      Maymar

      I’d really push for the big improvement being the ’04 redesign, which was a considerably nicer car than the ’97-’03 Malibu, just very generic. The ’08 redesign brought about a couple worthy changes, but largely it was the ’04 car filtered through an episode of What Not To Wear.

      • 0 avatar
        Adam Tonge

        The 04 wasn’t a terrible car. It just looked depressing and I hated the interior. The 08 fixes those issues and added the High Feature V6 + a 6 speed transmission. It also added the longer wheelbase of the MAXX to the sedan. However, I’m a sucker for late 00s/early 10s GM and Ford midsized sedans with V6s.

        The 97-03 was an N-Body, so the Epsilon 04 version make have actually been a bigger improvement. I think the 08 is where everything came together though.

        • 0 avatar
          iantg

          The 04-07 had loads of issues – the electric power steering on that car was unbelievably problematic. My ex wife had a 2004 with the 2.2 ecotec that she bought brand new. I can’t think of a car that was a bigger piece of crap fresh from the factory. The N body Malibu had a better ride.

    • 0 avatar
      Thorshammer_gp

      Completely agree. I think the Malibu is representative of the frustration GM causes- the 7th generation was stylish and well-packaged, which, as you point out, was necessary after the previous one. And then, of course, they managed to throw that out the window for the 2013 model.

  • avatar
    Land Ark

    I feel like we did this fairly recently – or was that last one where we picked the best of all generations?

    Anyway, the 04-08 TL blew the previous generation out of the water.
    Pretty much anything made in the early 90s in Japan destroyed their previous generations.
    The current generation Focus is far better than the last.
    The 04-06 GTO was much better than the mid 70s trim package GTOs and, largely, better than the previous GTOs.

    Hey, if you’re going to keep trying to sell us on the CL, I’m going to keep trying to sell everyone on the Holden Goats.

    • 0 avatar
      S2k Chris

      “Anyway, the 04-08 TL blew the previous generation out of the water.”

      I mean, kinda, but the 99-03 TL was pretty great in its own right for its time. The real jump was the 2.5/3.2TL of 1996-1998 to the 1999 2G model.

  • avatar
    drmoomoo

    Current generation Colorado/Canyon twins. Light-years better than the awful ones from the 00’s (which were made much more awful by the fact that they replaced the plucky little S10/Sonoma).

    • 0 avatar
      CobraJet

      Agree. I see a lot more of the new Canyon/Colorado than I ever did of the previous model. Sales appear to be strong.

    • 0 avatar
      gtemnykh

      The truly surprising thing to me is just how well those 04-’12 Colorados/Canyons hold their value, considering how mediocre they are in terms of build quality and reliability. I do think they look great in Z71 trim, I actually much prefer them to the current awkwardly proportioned too-tall GM twins. A coworker in Mexico drove a Z71 Colorado company truck, the 4sd was inop due to solenoid issues, and it had the usual ABS/Check engine lights on. But it did drive pretty well, and got us out of a really tight spot when we were down there last time.

  • avatar
    chaparral

    The classic example is 1985 Ford LTD to 1986 Ford Taurus.

    Went from the end of a worn-out line to a completely fresh start for the company.

  • avatar
    PeriSoft

    In more recent times I’d say that the transition from the ’12 to the ’13 Fusion was a pretty big jump. I certainly see a lot more ’13+ Fusions than I ever did between ’06 and ’12, even though the previous one wasn’t exactly a dog.

    Also, the ’14 Hyundai Genesis to the ’15 Hyundai Genesis, which launched a new marque. The ’14 was frumpy and had a half-assed interior; the ’15 is a damn nice car by almost any measure.

  • avatar
    seth1065

    I would vote for the 2010 NG Saab 9-5, vs the older 9-5 generalion, now it helped the old 9-5 was first introduced by Honest Abe it seems, but they ran it forever and the NG 9-5 while few in numbers was a huge upgrade from the 09. My more obvious one would be the Toyota MR2 change from generalion one to generation 2, the first MR2 was a better fireo ( spell check be dammed) while generation 2 was a great looking and driving car.

  • avatar
    zoomzoomfan

    Mazda6. 2009 through 2012 was a bloated, sad, rental-car spec shell of its former small, lithe, and sporty self.

    2014+ is back to the car’s roots. A family sedan that can also be fun on a twisty back road.

    https://images.newcartestdrive.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/09-mazda6-hero.jpg

    http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2013/05/01-2014-mazda6-lt.jpg

  • avatar

    GMT-900s. Look at the gap in value between identical ’06 vs ’07 models.

    The ’94 Ram that replaced the…did Dodge even SELL a fullsize truck prior…?

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    I’ll agree with Flybrain on the 94 Dodge Ram, destroyed the previous generation – it was like a 10 year leap forward for Chrysler.

    ’76 GM B bodies vs ’77 GM B bodies. For once a vehicle actually lived up to the hype. (And they were still available in the first years with actually desirable engine transmission suspension combos.)

    Not a “generation change” but a change in engine and transmission combo that totally transformed the car 2011 Chevrolet Impala vs 2012 Chevrolet Impala when 300 hp and a 6 speed transmission became standard on all trims. That to me is the penultimate W-body. (The V8 SS model ate transmissions for breakfast.)

    • 0 avatar
      Corey Lewis

      “it was like a 10 year leap forward for Chrysler.”

      Bringing them well into the ’80s then? Ha.

    • 0 avatar

      I was going to say the ’77 B bodies, but you beat me to it.

    • 0 avatar
      CaddyDaddy

      Caddydaddy would agree that the GM B body from MY 76′ to MY 77′ was a top generational leap. A 79 Caprice with a 350 and Hydromatic with all the heavy duty option boxes checked was miles ahead of anyone, including the Germans.

      The Ford LTD to the Taurus, well how many low selling Fox body 4 doors do you see on the road compared to the once ubiquitous Taurus/Sable, its remarkable. The Taurus as far as design was miles ahead, engineering for durability ehhhhh… not so much.

      The Acura, actually more sleepy than a 99′ ‘Bu.

      • 0 avatar
        JohnTaurus

        By the end of the line, most Fox LTDs had the 3.Hate engine, which was a nightmare. You might see old Foxes, but they are probably earlier ones with the bulletproof Inline 6.

        The only durability issue the Taurus had was its overdrive automatic. The 3.0L V-6 was very durable and long lasting. Its when they put the 3.8 in it later where it all went to $hiГ. More torque shortened the life of the already fragile transaxle, and,of course it blew head gaskets like crazy. They also had lower-end problems, so if the head gasket didn’t kill it, bottom end noise did.

        • 0 avatar
          CaddyDaddy

          On the 3.8L, don’t forget about motor mounts, CV joints, rank and pinion, an inadequate cooling system and weak A/C’s. 3 transaxles in 100K. Last FWD car I ever owned. Heck our 4100 Devilles were better for durability, not by much, but were better. Next car was B body.

          The Taurus brought many people back from Japanese imports, and three years later sent them right back. Once they bought their ’90 Cam/Accord, they never looked back. BTW, My close and extended family is now 100% Blue Oval. We are very happy.

    • 0 avatar
      Zackman

      “Not a “generation change” but a change in engine and transmission combo that totally transformed the car 2011 Chevrolet Impala vs 2012 Chevrolet Impala when 300 hp and a 6 speed transmission became standard on all trims. That to me is the penultimate W-body. (The V8 SS model ate transmissions for breakfast.)”

      I wholeheartedly agree! :-)

  • avatar
    Kyree S. Williams

    I’d say the new Volvo XC90 absolutely qualifies.

  • avatar
    sutherland555

    1996-2000 6th gen Civic vs the 2001-2005 7th gen. Honda dropped the dual double wishbone suspension and made it look fat and bloated. 6th gen isn’t going to win any beauty prizes but at least it had a handsome (if conservative) semi athletic look.

    Edit: reading comprehension error, very much got the question backwards.

  • avatar
    Arthur Dailey

    So many possible ‘correct’ answers.
    1965 full size Chev.
    94 Ram.
    77 GM B body ‘downsizing.
    Original Taurus.
    Cannot disagree with any of them.

    Allow me to submit for your consideration the 2nd generation Honda Civic. Made Honda a major player in the North American market. Or the 3rd generation Accord which allowed Honda to compete successfully in the midsize market.

    Do have a soft spot for the ’04-’07 Uglibu. Great greenhouse and with 4 cylinder appears to have decent reliability. What shocks me is that the previous generation to the Uglibu, Malibu which didn’t receive much ‘love’ has aged quite well and that not a day goes by without seeing at least of a couple of them appearing to run and look quite well, except for the rust spot just below the fuel filler.

  • avatar
    sportyaccordy

    2015 Chrysler 200. *drops mic*

  • avatar
    mshenzi

    The B5 version of the Passat– (1996?)

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    Chrysler 200!

  • avatar
    Vulpine

    Adding two additional doors to the coupes destroyed their appeal. If it has four full doors, it’s no longer a coupe as far as I’m concerned. I’ll accept half-doors, as long as they have no external latch handles but I refuse to buy a four-door coupe that’s effectively indistinguishable from a sedan.

  • avatar
    tonyola

    The 1980-1983 Honda Civic was an evolutionary step from the original 1973-1979. Nice cars but not really groundbreaking. The 1984 Civic family was truly revolutionary in design, plus it spawned a tall wagon and the CRX.

  • avatar
    Zackman

    Corey, I acknowledge your strong opinions, though of course I disagree on almost every point, but I didn’t author the article.

    In my (who cares?) opinion, for me, there are a few models that were markedly better than the previous generation.

    1. 1957 Chevy.
    2. 1965 Chevy Impala.
    3. 1967 Mustang.
    4. 1969 Camaro – sorry, although I love them, and the 1970 1/2 model is regarded as best, I have to vote for the pillarless hardtop, because this is just me.
    5. 1977 Impala bent-glass coupe.
    6. 2014 Impala.
    7. Current Malibu.
    8. Current generation Corvette.

    That’s it.

  • avatar
    SaulTigh

    While I credit Flybrain with the win on his submission of the game-changing ’94 Ram, I would like to submit for your approval the 1991 introduction of the XV10 Toyota Camry. Many of you probably live on the coasts where Toyota’s and Honda’s have been a big thing since the 70’s, but I’m from the center of the country, and the 80’s still belonged to the big 3. I think the XV10 was the cherry on the sundae Toyota made with the introduction of the LS, and a huge leap forward from the V20 narrow body. That’s when I started seeing Toyota’s everywhere.

    I still vividly remember the first time I rode in a XV10, right around 1996. Prior to that, I didn’t know you could build a car whose suspension would not crash over bumps, or whose doors didn’t rattle when you closed them. I still see them on the road today, 25 years later. If I could go back in time, I’d get a better high school job and buy a stripper ’95 Camry and still be driving it today.

    • 0 avatar
      30-mile fetch

      I owned a second-hand cream puff 1996 and we had 1990 and 1984 Camries in the family and I agree with this. Like the Accord, the Camry was making large leaps between each generation and the XV10 is the pinnacle.

  • avatar
    30-mile fetch

    2008 Malibu

    2006 MKV Jetta/Rabbit

    2012 Ford Focus

    2012 Accord

    2015 Colorado

    2004 Prius

  • avatar
    01 Deville

    1991 Seville
    2014 Impala
    2010 Lacrosse
    2008 Malibu
    2004 TL
    If you are looking for significantly different and not necessarily superior than W220 S-Class vs. W140 and E65 vs E38 7 series.

  • avatar

    I’ll go with the GM Lambda platform – GMC Acadia, Buick Enclave, Saturn Outlook, and Chevy Traverse. Compared to the U platofrm Uplander/Venture/Relay/Montana mini-van that dated back to the early 1990’s, it’s a big step forward.

    GM basically quit the minivan market in favor of the Lambda CUVs, even though the Olds Silhouette was the “Cadillac of minivans” according to Chili Palmer.

    • 0 avatar
      Corey Lewis

      So which vehicle was the prior generation of the GMC Acadia? You’ve not yet answered the question – this is a *generational* question about the *same* models.

      • 0 avatar

        I don’t think GMC had a minivan after the Safari.

        If you are wanting an answer that conforms to the same models, I realize the U platform to Lambda platform doesn’t qualify. I assuming I also couldn’t make the argument then that the Uplander was a big improvement over the Venture (it’s not) because of the name change?

  • avatar
    DM335

    There are lots of strong possibilities. Sometimes it’s hard to distinguish between a better car and a better-selling car. The 94 Dodge Ram and 86 Ford Taurus mentioned above are certainly contenders. To that list I would also add the following:

    92 Toyota Camry – Light-years better than its predecessor. Arguably over-engineered for its segment.

    83 Ford Thunderbird – This sleek new design made the clunky, boxy 80-82 model obsolete.

    79 Ford Mustang – So much better than the Mustang II in every way possible.

    78 Ford Fairmont – We look at this car as a joke now, but it became the best-selling first-year car as a replacement for the Maverick.

    91 Ford Explorer – With a 4-door model, this Bronco II replacement opened up a new segment of SUVs.

    99 Honda Odyssey – This larger second-generation was so much better than the smaller version shared with Isuzu.

    98 Toyota Sienna – Even though this was small by current minivan standards, replacing the egg-shaped Toyota Previa with its buzzing 4-cylinder engine mounted under the front seats was a home run.

    There are so many possibilities from the 80s and 90s, because some cars were truly bad back then. It’s harder to imagine such quantum leaps now.

    • 0 avatar
      Corey Lewis

      These are good examples sir.

      • 0 avatar
        SaulTigh

        Agreed, but Ford has to lose some points for making the Mustang II so bad in the first place that the ’79 had a very low bar to clear, and that generation of Mustang didn’t really take off until the ’87 freshening.

    • 0 avatar
      gmialumnus

      For a car guy the FWD Sienna is a step backwards compared to the mid-engine RWD Previa. And I certainly wouldn’t trade my 100% reliable, never-been-to-shop ’97 with 384k miles for one. The supercharged, intercooled 2.4L may not be the quietest or most powerful or most efficient, but it gets the job done.

  • avatar
    prisoners

    Thanks for mentioning the Acura CL! My DD for the last 13 years has been a 2003 CL Type S with the 6 speed. (btw ’03 was the only year the 3-pedal was available). 208k and counting with only routine maintenance and I’m still not bored or unhappy with it.

  • avatar
    la834

    Previous-gen trumpers through the ages:

    – 1928 Ford Model A replacing the T, and the ’32 V8 replacing the A

    – 1951 Packard, though it really took until 1955 for these to flower. Bye-bye prewar bathtub.

    – 1955 Chevy. Birth of the Tri-Five. Birth of the small block Chevy V8. ‘Nuff said.

    – 1961 Lincoln Continental. Singlehandedly set the design paradigm for the decade, putting a boldface full stop on fishbowl glass, tail fins, gratuitous chrome filigrees, two or three color paint job, and excess ive length.

    – 1963 Jeep Wagoneer, replacing the Willys Station Wagon from the previous year. The modern SUV starts here.

    – 1965 GM full-sizers. Here’s an idea: let’s stop giving every GM division a completely different frame on which to put similar-looking bodies, and instead reverse that equation.

    – 1970 Datsun 240Z/Nissan Fairlady Z replacing the previous Fairlady

    – 1974 Golf/Rabbit effectively replacing the Beetle

    – 1979 Fox Mustang (we have a WINNER!)

    – At GM, the ’77 B/C – ’78 A – ’79 E downsizing troika was impressive. What happened?

    – At Ford, the ’81 Escort replacing the Pinto and ’86 Taurus replacing the LTD

    – The first several redesigns of the Audi 100 (gens 2 & 3 called 5000 in US) were all substantial leaps beyond their predecessors, a trait that would continue through when it became the A6.

    I’m totally conflicted about precisely which generations marked the rise and fall of the BMW 3 and 5 series.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al From 'Murica

      If we are going to really put the way back machine to use, what about the Duesenberg Model J? It eclipsed the A and became a legend to this day.

      Also, may as well throw the Ford model T in the mix. I would argue that as much as the 29 eclipses it that the leap for most people who got a new model T compared to their previous conveyance was likely unmatched in history since they likely had a horse and buggy prior to that.

      Honorable mention…C4 to C5 Vette.

      Modern wise the LTD to Taurus was mentioned and I think is huge. The Taurus became a huge leap for the entire US auto industry.

      I’ll also throw out the 97 F150. It was that truck that civilized the half ton. We got the now ubiquitous 5 foot bed and 4 door configuration. Attention was given to comfort, etc. Love it or hate it that was the truck that became the blueprint for pickups today and a drive in the prior model was agricultural by comparison.

    • 0 avatar
      jhefner

      You left out a big one — the 1949 Ford. With the death of Henry Ford, Ford was at last able to crank out automobiles that did not have the transverse left springs from the buggy days, as well as update their styling to the new bathtub design. It was also an instant sales hit.

      Along with the previously mentioned Model T, the new Ford designs of the 1980s (Taurus, Escort, Thunderbird, Mustang, Tempo,jellybean Crown Vic, Sierra in Europe), and moving to the “One Ford” designs (Fusion, Focus, Fiesta, Transit) starting in 2011 were major leaps for the company as well as the model years.

      Another major leap even though they were considered failures were the Chrysler Airflow models. While they were not successful, everyone adopted most of the design elements (unibody, engine over the front axle and seats between the axles, streamlining, integral headlights to name a few), in the years to come.

      • 0 avatar
        Corey Lewis

        Started reading Fordlandia yesterday. I didn’t get far yet, but Ford’s arrogance and “stuck in the past” nature is already clear by page 15.

        • 0 avatar
          jhefner

          He was obviously a blessing to the company in founding Ford and introducing the Model T; but after that, he became a hindrance. He sold the Model T well past it’s “sell by” date, and would have continued selling it were not the instance of others inside the company. This pattern continued until Henry Ford’s death; innovation came from others inside Ford; often against objections from it’s founder.

          PBS had a good show about Henry Ford a few years ago; it described how he grew Ford into a firm that destroyed much of the rural life he cherished; he spent most of his later years on his farm with his family.

          • 0 avatar
            Corey Lewis

            That’s where the book starts! Right as the Model A is being introduced, with Henry in a grimace about offering colors and interior options, and Edsel happy they had a new model to show to compete with General Motors.

          • 0 avatar
            jhefner

            Yes, by the time the Model A was finally introduced, the Dodge Brothers and Chevrolet were eating away at Ford sales while Henry insisted on sticking with the Model T; he also refused to adopt the electric starter, while the competition did. It was only when the sales force pointed out the sales losses that Henry relented and allowed design and production of the Model A to move forward. But even then, he continued to cause problems, I’ll let Wikipedia pick it the story from here:

            “Ford’s sales force recognized the threat and advised Henry to respond to it. Initially he resisted, but the T’s sagging market share finally forced him to admit a replacement was needed. When he finally agreed to begin development of this new model, he focused on the mechanical aspects and on what today is called design for manufacturability (DFM), which he had always strongly embraced and for which the Model T production system was famous. Although ultimately successful, the development of the Model A included many problems that had to be resolved.[15] For example, the die stamping of parts from sheet steel, which the Ford company had led to new heights of development with the Model T production system, was something Henry had always been ambivalent about; it had brought success, but he felt that it was not the best choice for durability. He was determined that the Model A would rely more on drop forgings than the Model T; but his ideas to improve the DFM of forging did not prove practical. Eventually, Ford’s engineers persuaded him to relent, lest the Model A’s production cost force up its retail price too much”

            Going back to my comments about the Chrysler Airflow’s influence, you can see it in the 1937 Ford, compared to the 1935 Ford that proceeded it. But all of the Fords in this picture have the transverse buggy springs; thanks to Henry Ford’s insistence:

            https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/18559038228/

    • 0 avatar
      stingray65

      I agree on the 1955 Chevrolet – it was truly an all new car versus the 54 and great in every way – fast, economical, good handling (for the time), well built, stylish, roomy. The small-block it pioneered is still being produced (crate engines), the ball-joint suspension was standard Chevy until the advent of FWD in 1990s.

      I might give honorable mention to the C2 Corvette – major improvement in every way than the C1 except the only place it wasn’t needed – the motor.

  • avatar
    Maymar

    Oh, perhaps not for longevity, but the LH sedans were a revelation over their K-derived predecessors, unless you had Lido’s sense of “style”.

    • 0 avatar
      la834

      late-’90s Chryslers had NO style. Don’t care if we’re talking LH, cirrus/breeze, neon, jellybean minivans. Interiors a grey plastic wasteland. (Jeeps from this era look good but they had AMC bones.)

      • 0 avatar
        cls12vg30

        Got to disagree with you on the LH cars and the Neon. Whatever else they were, they were significant introductions that were very different style-wise from what had come before, which I think makes them appropriate for this thread. The late-90s LH facelift cars looked like bloated bars of soap, but the 1993-1997 cars were very well-received, stylistically.

        My dad had a ’95 Intrepid ES when I was in college. It had its problems but it was absolutely gorgeous and handled like a much smaller car.

        • 0 avatar
          JohnTaurus

          I had an Intrepid and a 1996 Concorde LXi. They were HUGE leaps forward from the Die-Nasty and its twins. Reliability nighmare, but much better to drive and look at compared to the utter crap they replaced.

  • avatar
    CobraJet

    Here is one that is obscure and many won’t remember. The 54 to 55 Pontiac. An entirely new body and suspension, but more importantly, going from an old flathead 8 cyl engine to an new modern OHV V8 engine. That engine architecture served Pontiac up until the last Pontiac engine was built.

  • avatar
    Jagboi

    The change from the 1978 to 1979 full sized LTD to the Panther chassis. Also agreed on the 1996 to 1997 F150.

    A huge change was from the Jaguar E Type to the XJS.

    • 0 avatar
      Corey Lewis

      A huge change, yes. But was the XJS an improvement?

      • 0 avatar
        Jagboi

        I think the XJS was an improvement. I’ve owned both, although an early E Type and late XJS. The XJS was based on a shortened XJ body, which was widely acclaimed as one of the best cars in the world when it was launched in 1968, especially for ride, handling and refinement.

        The XJS is a much more comfortable car, and nicer to drive. It’s more refined, without giving up ability in the curves. Depending on the market and engine it could be very different (US vs Europe suspension, and V12 (4 versions) vs the later 6 cylinder (2 versions))

        Even comparing a 1975 E Type V12 to an early 1976 XJS, I’d give the XJS the nod because it had EFI. Gained some weight compared to the E Type, but a much stiffer body. Better aerodynamics for better high speed stability, Jaguar spent a lot of time in the wind tunnel to develop the XJS. It was designed in an era of no speed limits on motorways in Europe, but launched after speedlimits came in after the oil crisis of 1973. So it was designed for high speed cruising in a way the E Type couldn’t do as easily.

        • 0 avatar
          Corey Lewis

          A well-thought out response, as always. I guess I was not considering that though beautiful, the E-Type was really a product of the late ’50s, and was not at all modern.

          (And towards the end it had been ruined with those awful bumper pads.

          • 0 avatar
            Jagboi

            For it’s time (1961) the E Type was very advanced, considering it had full independent suspension and all disk brakes and an OHC hemi engine. Used aircraft ideas of having a unitized tub and the bolt on stressed tube frame to hold the engine and front suspension. By the standards of US cars in 1975 it was still advanced.

            Part of it’s problem was Jaguar totally underestimated how popular the E Type would be and never built proper press tools to make body panels. It’s lots of small panels welded together, it would have been a better car with fewer, bigger panels. And better heat insulation! The interior can get very hot on long drives with massive heat soak. I’ve had the glue melt on my shoes and the sole come off, as the exhaust is right under the drivers feet on a LHD car.

  • avatar
    whitworth

    Funny, I actually thought the first generation Acura CL was a really sharp looking coupe. But you never saw very many of them. The 2nd generation were everywhere.

    But Acura in the 2000’s+ just always had a cheap feeling when compared to a brand like Lexus. The original Legend though seemed to be built to a much higher standard.

  • avatar
    mojeimeje

    2002 Nissan Altima, not only did it trump the previous generation Altima, but it also trumped the Maxima which was a higher class car.

  • avatar
    dal20402

    3rd-gen (1986-89) Honda Accord. The 2nd gen was already a very good car, but the 3rd gen in fuel-injected form was a decade ahead of everything else on the market.

    2nd-gen (1992-96) Lexus ES. This was the car that separated the ES from its donor Camry in the public mind and brought Lexus mass-market sales. Pretty, refined, and very well built. I would rock one of these today as a fun car if I could find an impeccable one. The same generation of Camry is also a good answer.

    Current Ford Mustang. Finally we got real refinement to go with the amazing Coyote sound and all-American image. This gen changed the Mustang from semi-trashy hoonmobile to budget BMW.

    W221 S-Class. I’m kind of a closet fan of the W220’s looks, but let’s be honest: it was cheaper than an S-Class should be and not a very well-built car. The W221 changed that in spectacular fashion.

    While we’re thinking about Mercedes, the second-gen (2006-11) M-Class. The first one was just not a real Mercedes in terms of build quality or refinement. The second one was, while also being a lot more comfortable.

    • 0 avatar
      Corey Lewis

      I like the revised ES300 with the updated front end. I think those still look great today. This one with 43k miles is asking a lot, but it’s pristine.

      https://louisville.craigslist.org/ctd/6031055223.html

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        I don’t like that gen nearly as much as the previous one. It shows too much Strong Yen Era cost-cutting, and the shape looks plain instead of subtle.

        My favorites are the very first ones (1992-93).

        • 0 avatar
          Corey Lewis

          There’s no pleasin ya!

          (I looked for early ones first, there weren’t any that weren’t beat to hell.)

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            Yep, the apparently “best” one is actually right around here, at a scuzzy used car dealer in Seattle, and it has chrome wheel arch trim. Who knows what’s under there?

            All the others seem to be thoroughly clapped out.

          • 0 avatar
            Corey Lewis

            There be rust under there, and/or bondo and moss, or something.

            There was a pristine ES250 listed I think in Palm Springs a while back, in pearl. Has to be the cleanest one in existence.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            ES250 ya’ll.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            This is Seattle, so there’s moss anyway.

    • 0 avatar
      windnsea00

      I funny enough also do quietly like the looks of the W220 but no doubt it was a cost cutting model relative to the W221 which brought back the Mercedes luxury you expect.

      Totally agree on the Mustang as I wrote a few posts below.

    • 0 avatar
      iantg

      So, I tried the current Mustang. Holy crap. As someone who has leaned towards BMW for a number of years, the new Mustang absolutely blew me away. I was not expecting it to actually behave like a BMW. It’s a pity that the rest of the Ford lineup isn’t like that.

  • avatar
    suspekt

    1. 1997 C5 Corvette > C4 in everyway (LS engine anyone?)
    2. 2007 GM GMT900 SUV’s (LS engine anyone?)

    ***Funny enough, I own versions of both these cars and they are wonderful machines.

    3. 2002 Mazda 6 replaced the grotesque abomination that was the 2001 626 (which was a horrible follow up to the 90’s 626 ES).

  • avatar
    gottacook

    The 1968 GM intermediates made their predecessors seem suddenly very old-fashioned. We had a ’67 GTO and I remember first seeing a photo of the ’68. Wow! (Although I never did understand why the optional headlamp covers didn’t sit flush with the rest of the grille – something that was remedied for ’69.)

    Not just a matter of styling, either. The ’67s, being refreshed ’64s, were crude by comparison, with their nearly flat windshields, painted metal interior windowsills/tops of doors, and manual vent windows (replaced by cranked ones for ’68).

  • avatar
    Mn12Fanatic

    91 Caprice – The body was dramatically restyled even though the mechanicals were basically identical; nevertheless it was a winner especially since it got rid of those godawful bumpers on the 80’s models
    89 Cougar/Thunderbird – Some would say it was overweight, too expensive, etc. but the IRS and the supercharged v6 made this car a thrill to drive.
    2011 Beetle – Greatly improved styling

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      “2011 Beetle – Greatly improved styling”

      … lost a customer because of that styling. She bought a Fiat 500 instead.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      “…but the IRS and the supercharged v6 made this car a thrill to drive.”

      Lots of fun, but not so thrilling. Gobs of instant power, skinny tires and a very heavy 3,780 lbs (5-speed) for its day, gave the impression of “tearing up the road”, but mostly you were tearing up its tires.

      Great car for drifting though!

  • avatar
    tomLU86

    Ones that come to mind:

    1983 Honda Prelude (gen 2), from Quaalude to great car!
    1977 Caprice (and all GM full-sizers)
    1970 F-car (Firebird/Camaro)
    1982 and 1986 Honda Accord (Gen II and III)

    and 2008-2012 Chevy Malibu

  • avatar
    windnsea00

    Subjectively it would be the current Mustang, it is now a car I would consider previous to the solid rear axle and very cheap feeling prior generations. I rode in the very rare 2008 Super Snake 725 horsepower model a month ago, couldn’t stand the ride and it felt downright unnerving with the power. Now, the current Shelby GT 350 is one hell of a car! I get the impression Ford is capturing market share from non-Mustang people more than ever.

    The E21 3-Series to E30 3-Series was a huge leap forward. The 2002 prior to the E21 was a terrific looking and driving car, the E21 less so. The E30 generation continues its legacy to today for a reason, low mileage E30 M3’s are going for $100-200k.

    The 996 to 997 generation for the 911 was also a big leap forward. While fundamentally the car was evolutionary and not revolutionary, the package as a whole was far superior from going back to the bug eyed headlamps, distinguished interior, better reliability and stability, and so forth. The market speaks in terms of the value for these cars, I am on my 2nd 997 and they really aren’t depreciating anymore (the earlier ones) and the manual models are from what I can see appreciating. Admittedly, the 996 is one heck of a bargain for a track rat.

  • avatar
    Compaq Deskpro

    2011 Chrysler 300/Charger/Challenger

    Improved interiors even on the bottom end, improved reliability (especially brakes and suspension), Pentastar goodness, ZF 8 speed goodness.

  • avatar
    arach

    2010 Camaro.

    It was so far ahead of the previous generation, it was almost a joke. It re-wrote what a “muscle” car was, and battled legit sports cars. Compare a 4th gen and 5th gen camaro, and you wouldn’t even think they were at all related.

    Hyundai Sonata- yf

    sonata went from zero to hero, actually becoming a nice car. I certainly like the lf looks more (2015+) but the yf (previous generation) was a game changer compared to its previous generation, putting hyundai on the map in quality vehicles.

    1994 Dodge Ram 1500

    Ram literally changed the pickup truck game in 1998, going from Work horse to good looking lifestyle choice. The new Dodge Ram was an amazing game changer in the industry that had all the other players following suit. I know someone else mentioned it, but I had to also.

    C4 Corvette.

    C3 was sharp, but C4 was a true performance car that can hold its own even today. For its time, in the 80s, its amazing to see a car still manage to hold its own, but it does.

    Ferrari 360

    From engine out $10k service calls to $3k belt changes, the 360 made Ferrari affordable… for at least the wealthy. The 360 was leagues ahead of the 355 in many ways, and is still considered a competitive sports car today.

  • avatar
    Arthur Dailey

    Isn’t the 1960 Plymouth the model used as the taxis in It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World? They wrecked a lot of good looking vehicles in that movie.

  • avatar
    ArialATOMV8

    When I think of a vehicle that triumphed over its successor, I keep thinking of what Hyundai and Kia have done with their brands. Just look at the 2nd generation vs 3rd generation Kia optima. The 2nd looked just dull and with the top trim, just stick some leather and wooden center console… there never notice lol. With the 2011, even in the base trim, LX? it looks sleek and no longer like a poor mans ride.

  • avatar
    Big Al From 'Murica

    Chevy Citation beats the Beretta/Corsica. How those cars could be such a leap in reliability shows how terrible the X body was.

  • avatar
    Drzhivago138

    Dang it, somebody beat me to the 1983 T-bird. I’ll piggyback on their comment and add that not only was the ’83 model a breath of fresh air for styling, it was also when the T-bird decided it would be a technological halo car rather than just a blue-hair special.

    1980 F-Series, with one caveat. The 1980 model took all the great styling of the ’79 dentside and trimmed away all the fat, making it lighter and more manageable without shrinking the usable space. The one caveat is that for the ’80-81 models, they trimmed too far and put holes in the frame. That was fixed for 1982.

    • 0 avatar
      la834

      Unpopular opinion – the ’80-’82 T-Bird >>> ’77-’79 T-Bird.

      Yes, the ’77 was lithe and well-proportioned and attractive, and moderately priced compared to the ponderous ’76. But the interior reminded you you were in a facelifted 1970 Gran Torino, and so did the driving experience. The ’80 may have looked too boxy, but it now drove like the ’80s Fox Mustang GT it almost was (if you ordered the sport suspension) rather than a queasy ’71 Torino. The interior ambiance on the higher-end ’80-’82 Thunderbirds was also leaps and bounds beyond the ’77-’79, with a nice full-width two-level dash, luxurious loose-pillow seats (or optional Recaros!) and soft-touch door panels with full-length armrests. Ford’s excellent pushbutton truly keyless entry made its debut on the ’80 as well.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    No, it was the 1959 Plymouth Savoy in Its a Mad, Mad, Mad World and Peter Falk was one of the cab drivers. Spencer Tracy, the detective, was driving a 1962 Dodge Dart which was the low end trim for the full size 1962 Dodge (MY 1963 Dart became the redesigned compact replacement for the Lancer). The 1957 Chrysler products especially the 1957 Plymouth Fury were the cars that were a generational shift in the late 50’s. The 1957 Chrysler product designs were Ghia inspired. When they first came out they sold very well, but Chrysler rushed them into production with severe quality issues such as rust and component failure which led to a sharp decline sales decline by 1958 which was also a recessionary year in which American Motors launched their compact Rambler American which became a sales hit. Ford had the new Ford Fairlane which was a total redesign but it had rust and mechanical issues as well but not as bad as Chrysler (MY 1957 Ford outsold Chevy and Plymouth). The 57 Chevy was considered out of date and a sales failure but it is the most desirable of all the 1957 cars for collectors and it was among the most reliable. For MY 1957 Chrysler went to dual head lights and push button drive on automatics and torsion bar suspension. The 1957 Chrysler cars are among some of the best looking cars and Chrysler had some of the best of V-8s but the rush to get the cars to market compromised their quality.

    The Mustang was the generational shift car for the Baby Boomers. The GM intermediates were another important vehicle for GM from 1964 thru much of the 70’s and retained much of the market share for intermediate cars until the 1985 Taurus which was another generational shift with seismic impact.

  • avatar
    Hezz

    Second generations of the Ford Probe and Toyota MR2 both jump out at me as being pretty massive leaps forward.

  • avatar
    namstrap

    One of the best cars I ever had was a 1967 VW Beetle deluxe. It had the 1500 engine from the bus, 12 volt system, backup lights, and a little central dash defroster. The regular heater put out enough heat to burn feet in the back seat. It still looked like a Beetle though, with the older bumpers and no pollution control. The next year changed all that.

  • avatar
    gtemnykh

    Here’s a slightly controversial one that I think some will strongly disagree with:
    4th gen to 5th gen 4Runner

    I’ll start with admitting that the 5th gen in most trims regressed in terms of 4wd system: back to a part-time system with no unlocked-center diff fulltime mode for wintry condition on-road driving. The loss of a V8 option is likewise lamented by many (I’m sort of ambivalent).

    But here’s the bigger picture look at it as I see it:
    The 4th gen was a bit too civilized, and seemed to point to a future for the 4Runner where it might lose its solid rear axle and maybe even frame altogether. Worse clearance and angles, lost the rear locker option except for a unicorn-tier 2009MY-only Trail Edition, styling that went in the direction of softer and more aerodynamic.

    5th gen brought back a manual transfer case lever (on SR5s from ’10-12, and on all Trails), a substantial bump in ground clearance (back to 3rd gen levels), widespread availability of a trim with a rear diff lock, and after the ’14 refresh, some very decent approach/departure angles across both Trail and SR5 trims.

    A actually credit the Highlander’s success with the family shoppers as a way to allow Toyota to keep the 4Runner a “real” SUV.

    Of course in a perfect world, the 4Runners would have a multimode transfer case (with lever actuation) like they did for a few years near the end of the 3rd gen, but you can’t have it all I guess. Adjusted for inflation and feature content, the current generation for about $38kish for a Trail model is an absolute bargain compared to the $33k in 1996 dollars my Limited would have sold for ($50k today’s money).

    • 0 avatar
      30-mile fetch

      I want better paint and interior plastics for my $38K (at 6000 miles mine already has more scratches in and out than my 85K mile Jetta wagon did), and I prefer the exterior styling of the 4th gen, but overall I agree. Based on what I’ve seen online and in my own limited forays thus far, even the current SR5 is a very capable machine off pavement for a stock vehicle, the tall blocky styling maximizes interior space. Powertrain’s 14 years old at this point, but at least it should be reliable.

      • 0 avatar
        gtemnykh

        Yeah that’s something I’ve heard a lot of: thin sheetmetal and fragile paint. I love the paint quality and durability on my ’96, as well as the adequate sheetmetal thickness, lower plastic trim, and steel bumpers that combine to protect it pretty well from parking lot dings as well as trail damage from frozen snow and branches and such. The exceedingly few times I have run out of approach angle, the lower part of the front bumper is flexible unpainted plastic and can take a scrape and not really show it. In 21 years of use it has accumulated but a small amount of minor stone chips on the hood that never got through the galvanization. My wife’s ’12 Camry had stone chips that started to rust within 2 years of owning the car.

        In regards to powertrain outdatedness, thank goodness. God forbid Toyota even think about sticking the Tacoma’s sad-sack Direct injected 3.5L in there to replace the very proven and perfectly good 4.0L. An upgrade to a 6spd auto might not be a bad move however. It already does a 0-60 of about 7.5 seconds with the 5A, perfectly competitive (actually a bit faster) with a Pentastar Grand Cherokee with the new 8speed auto.

        • 0 avatar
          30-mile fetch

          I remember the paint quality on my 96 Camry. Miss that. The VW seemed similar. I don’t mind the 4Runner’s thin sheetmetal and hood that ripples in crosswinds on the interstate; the frame and structure feel rock solid and I’d rather have the weight savings. I opted for the hood and fascia protector and bargained the sales guy down to half price by telling him how thin and fragile I know the paint is on modern Toyotas. The plastic rear bumper is very scratch prone, but at least I know it won’t rust at the leading edges. I’m of two minds on the 4.0–it’s comforting to know it is likely one of the most reliable and debugged powertrains you are likely to find on sale now, and it does move the heavy 4Runner out pretty well, but I was shopping GTIs and used 328s and G37s prior to this and damn if I wouldn’t like 60 to come up in under 7 seconds and a few extra mpgs. Ford 2.7Ecoboost power with 1GR-FE proven durability? I wish! An extra gear in the transmission would be a good intermediate step.

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            Sticking in the 1UR 4.6L V8 would not give you the MPG bump you’re looking for, but it would certainly make for some effortless creamy-low end torque goodness, and is already installed in the Prado 150 chassis by way of the GX460, and I think MPG wouldn’t be far off from the 4.0L if offered with the lower-drag part time 4wd system. Aside from the upgrade to a 6A transmission, I don’t see a way to really improve MPG without hurting either reliability or real world performance (see torqueless wonder 3.5L in Tacoma). Toyota’s commitment to not neutering their trucks with low hanging air dams will always hurt highway MPG. Certainly a diesel motor would get the MPG, but with modern US emissions standards for diesels with where the state of emissions tech is right now, I wouldn’t touch one with a 10 foot pole, not even from Toyota.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      I agree wholeheartedly with your analysis. One of the good things about the CUV explosion IMO is that with CUVs taking the family hauler duties, those true SUVs that are left can become “purer” off-roaders because they don’t have to compromise their off-road ability for on-road performance.

  • avatar
    incautious

    1968 Charger!

    • 0 avatar
      la834

      I thought of that one, but decided against it. It was much better looking, at least on the outside, but the original ’66 Charger had such a cool interior with all the chrome and metal and folding rear bucket seats and full-length console and electroluminescent gauge lighting. Even on the outside there were cool things like the concealed headlamps built into the rear side of the covers – when turned on they do a 180-degree flip so the lights are still look nestled in the grille texture when exposed rather than by the usual gaping hole that usually surrounds such headlamps when they’re on at night (which is how they worked on the second-generation Charger). Mechanically, not much was changed on the ’68 cars either. If you can overlook the pretty sheet metal on the ’68-’70 – admittedly hard to do since it was arguably the best-looking Mopar ever – the ’66 was the better car.

  • avatar
    Pig_Iron

    I would say, within a genre, the original Volkswagen Scirocco gave a huge leap forward in the sports compact class over my favorite, the German Capri. In the snow belt, it gave year round drivability that the older rear wheel drives just couldn’t match. It in turn was displaced by the Acura Integra.

    I also maintain that the VW Squareback was the original soft-roader, especially with a pup utility trailer trundling behind.

  • avatar

    1970 Barracuda
    1968 Charger
    1968 GTO

  • avatar
    sgeffe

    Late to the party here, but 9th-Gen Accord (2013-present.). Only some cheapness in the interior lets it down; the switch to front MacStruts wasn’t as bad as I was afraid it would be, since the bloated 8th-Gen was too heavy to handle well, anyway.

    After having knocked the Accord out of the park, Honda “beak-ified” the MMC! Then after seeing the tepid Civic Si revealed this week (seriously, WTF were they thinking dropping the CR-V motor in there with a slightly higher tune instead of a detuned Type-R 2.0T), and knowing that the Accord will share platforms with the Civic henceforth (along with no spy shots of prototypes running around by now), I’m guessing the next Accord will likely be a stretched Civic with all engines being overworked, underengineered, four-bangers with hamster wheels attached (and the added cost of maintenance, plus the drivability disadvantages versus the weapons-grade TORQUE of the V6 all included), plus a drop in overall execution to Civic levels.

    If this comes to pass, and the new Camry V6 is available in the upper trims with a “normal” sunroof, and comes up to Accord levels of handling and drive quality, along with an increase back to expected levels of Toyota interior quality, one of those will grace my garage at some point, and Honda will lose a 23+-year customer!

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • FalconRTV: What a waste of a good truck. A once characterful truck is now soulless.
  • jkross22: These do nothing for me because I don’t tow. If you tow, sure, this is a good tool to get the job...
  • Whatnext: Yes I could but I have zero interest in one. It’s an oversized, stupid vehicle. It’s the Trump...
  • tankinbeans: After looking at the pictures again I see the RST badge on the tailgate. Since I’m not well versed...
  • Garrett: It’s not as ugly as the current generation face on the Silverado, but it’s close enough to where you’d want...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Matthew Guy
  • Timothy Cain
  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber