VW Vortex - Volkswagen Forum banner

Who hates the older-cars-are-gorgeous notion?

46K views 307 replies 123 participants last post by  BassNotes 
#1 ·
Sometimes, especially browsing these forums.. people just go crazy when an old 1946 VW blah blah, Cadillac blah-blah is posted. Now besides the obvious cars like the 'Cuda and Mustang and the hot rod's from the 30's.. it almost seems as if one HAS to love these older cars. No matter what it looks like at times..
Almost like a fad of some kind.

Does anyone agree that current cars just look so much better? :popcorn:
 
#47 ·
One factor is that older designs have had the benefit of time. In my opinion, it is virtually impossible to make any meaningful long-term observation about design (of any sort, not just automotive) that is still current. It is only with time, and the detachment it brings that fads can be separated from the sublime. The two are often near polar opposites while still contemporary.

So for this reason, yes, older cars are beautiful, because we mostly remember the best that past history has to offer. Forgotten are all the duds that accompanied them. For the same reason, much of what is built today, like all eras that preceded us, will be entirely forgettable. We can't know what will be the best of today until it is tomorrow.
 
#55 ·
The OP may be well advised to consider that he is imposing limitations on the enjoyment of something that should not have any limits. Is modern art beautiful? Yes, many times it is. Does this beauty negate Rembrandt, or Van Gogh, because the art is old? Of course not. The enjoyment and appreciation of aesthetic qualities of anything, including automotive design, has as much to do with appreciating the time, or era, they emerged from, as anything else. The cars from any period of the past are not the ultimate or last-word (although I could argue the Cord 810, but I digress...:)), but the really outstanding and/or interesting designs from a given period are just that, when taken in the CONTEXT OF THEIR TIME. Most here know of my love for design, and when I view, say, a senior Packard, or a European counterpart from the Great Depression era, for example, I'm not holding it up to today's standards. My mind adjusts to the time that car lived in, and suddenly, the succeeding decades don't even exist...they haven't happened yet. Then, the car I'm viewing takes on a whole new look and meaning, and it can be judged and assessed correctly and meaningfully.

Another poster observed that the "group photo" of cars in traffic above illustrates nothing but a herd of automobiles that were nothing more than copies of each other; relying on the fads of their time. That's partially correct, as it is for any other automotive era when it comes to design. Designers, with the exception of a precious few who had the "spark" of original thought blessed to them, WERE looking over each other's shoulders all through the history of automotive design, and incorporating the ideas of others into their own creations. That's still VERY true today(unfortunately, even moreso than ever). Again, though, another analogy...authors, even the greatest of them, write their prose inspired and influenced by the writers who preceded them, which the present author read and appreciated, and used to help shape their writing style. There's nothing wrong about that whatsoever; it's the way of creative thought.

I love old automotive design for similar reasons. It gives me the tools and the ability to put TODAY'S designs into their proper context, and thusly help me to enjoy and appreciate the latest creations, at least when they merit it.

This concludes my sermon. :)
 
#67 · (Edited)
IMO car design differed far more in the early 60s - mid 00s time frame. There was a model for every taste.
I'd never buy a late 00s/early 10s car because of its design. I don't like any single new model design-wise. And it's not because I'm old - I'm 24. ;)

Even a mediocre in its day Toyota still manages to look much better than present Toyotas:

Yep, that's a 78-82 Tercel! My favorite is the 2 door sedan:

 
#68 ·
Came into this thread with intent to agree with OP and hate on old cars.


But after looking at some of these pictures, my mind has been changed and i can no longer hate :(


(Although old boxy volvos and that boxy mercedez that TCL orgasms over dont really click it with me)
 
#71 · (Edited)
Same here. You need to look at a car head on, or straight from behind to figure out what the hell it is these days.

That's why the grill/headlight and the taillights are so damn weird/bold/angular. It's the only design anyone seems to have any control over.

It's like the prototype came out of the design studio and someone said, "Christ on a crutch, this is what our design team came up with?? A Camry???" And the front and rear fascia team said, "Not for long!"

-------

My latest pet peeve is the hood/fender/grill solution everyone seems to be following in order to comply with Europe's safe pedestrian regs. It seems like they are trying to have sweeping, sloping fenderlines, but the angle and height of the front fascia just ruins it.

They look decent from the front. Then you look from the side and it's like...

 
#141 ·
This is what it all boils down to no matter which way you look at it.

Pedestrian safety regulations don't allow designers to be free with their designs. I think instead of focusing so much on the cars safety, governments need to focus on the PEOPLE driving and being around the cars.

I bet the automotive industry can save millions and thousands of lives a year if people were to just become educated about driving and living with cars.

Technology in cars these days is focused in the wrong direction IMO. Instead of focusing soley on drivetrain(more powerful and efficient ones) everyone is jumping on the bandwagon of INFOTAINMENT which IMO is the dumbest aspect of new cars these days.

Of course it's entertaining and useful but there's just too much of it. People are always fiddeling around with their on-board computers, it's no wonder drivers are getting lazier and dumber by the year with all this bull**** stuffed in cars.

What does that all have to do with design trends? Well if people were more educated then there wouldn't be a huge need for passenger safety regs which will allow designers to be more free in their designs.

Also, another huge point is cost. Everyone is looking at saving a buck - which isn't bad but it comes at a cost of substance. Newer cars these days just don't have substance imo, they all look like jelly beans or melted appliances.
 
#90 ·
The best thing one can do is become a billionaire and order a new car with a brand new engine, airbags, air con in a retro-looking body (it'd differ a little than the original due to safety measures). Or buy a Nissan Figaro:


It has a late 50s / early 60s look; yet it's only 20 years old.
 
#97 ·
Take a little time and find out the whole story behind the smear. Perhaps that might be a good place to begin. :)
 
#100 ·
Wikipedia said:
Fuel tank controversy

Controversy followed the Pinto after 1977 allegations that the Pinto's structural design allowed its fuel tank filler neck to break off[8] and the fuel tank, in all too common occasions, to be punctured in a rear-end collision,[8] resulting in deadly fires from spilled fuel.
[edit] Allegations and lawsuits

Critics alleged that the vehicle's lack of reinforcing structure between the rear panel and the tank meant the tank would be pushed forward and punctured by the protruding bolts of the differential[16] — making the car less safe than its contemporaries.

According to a 1977 Mother Jones article by Mark Dowie, Ford allegedly was aware of the design flaw, refused to pay for a redesign, and decided it would be cheaper to pay off possible lawsuits for resulting deaths. The magazine obtained a cost-benefit analysis that it said Ford had used to compare the cost of an $11 repair against the monetary value of a human life—what became known as the Ford Pinto Memo.[14][17][18] This document was, technically, not a memo regarding the Pinto specifically, but a general memo Ford submitted to the NHTSA in an effort to gain an exemption from safety standards; it was also primarily focused on the cost of reducing deaths from fires resulting from rollovers, rather than the rear-end collision fires that plagued the Pinto. It was nonetheless submitted in court in an effort to show the "callousness" of Ford's corporate culture.[6]

An example of a Pinto rear-end accident that led to a lawsuit was the 1972 accident that killed Lilly Gray and severely burned 13-year-old Richard Grimshaw. The accident resulted in the court case Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co.,[19] in which the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District upheld compensatory damages of $2.5 million and punitive damages of $3.5 million against Ford, partially because Ford had been aware of the design defects before production but had decided against changing the design.
Exactly what else is there to know about this? In rear end collisions the Pinto was more likely than other vehicles to burst into flames.

Two word. Media hype, and you fell for it.:thumbdown:
....or maybe you're a fan of the car who refuses to believe that it had a problem. Ford admitted that it had a problem, but you won't?
 
#104 ·
Wikipedia said:
Schwartz paper

In a 1991 paper, The Myth of the Ford Pinto Case, for the Rutgers Law Review, Gary T. Schwartz[6] said the case against the Pinto was not clear-cut.[22][23]

According to his study, the number who died in Pinto rear-impact fires was well below the hundreds cited in contemporary news reports and closer to the 27 recorded by a limited National Highway Traffic Safety Administration database. Given the Pinto's production figures (over 2 million built), this was not substantially worse than typical for the time. Schwartz said that the car was no more fire-prone than other cars of the time, that its fatality rates were lower than comparably sized imported automobiles, and that the supposed "smoking gun" document that plaintiffs said demonstrated Ford's callousness in designing the Pinto was actually a document based on National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulations about the value of a human life — rather than a document containing an assessment of Ford's potential tort liability.

Schwartz's study said:

The Pinto Memo wasn't used or consulted internally by Ford, but rather was attached to a letter written to NHTSA about proposed regulation. When plaintiffs tried to use the memo in support of punitive damages, the trial judge ruled it inadmissible for that purpose (p. 1021, Schwartz study).
The Pinto's fuel tank location behind the axle, ostensibly its design defect, was "commonplace at the time in American cars" (p. 1027).
The precedent of the California Supreme Court at the time not only tolerated manufacturers trading off safety for cost, but apparently encouraged manufacturers to consider such trade-offs (p. 1037).
The Pinto was still ugly.
 
#109 ·
normal everyday cars....








those are Buicks, not Aston Martins, not ultra limited production Mercedes, just Buicks.

I can understand the statement that there are beautiful cars being made currently, or especially within the last 10 years, the Alfa 8C are stunning, but so is this





a 65 Chevy II is a good looking car, a Chevy Aveo is no, but they both hold the same place in the Chevy lineup.



Sporty GM intermediate from before



Sporty GM intermediate from a couple years ago







again, I'm all for Talbot and Cord and Auburn, but I agree that a modern Aston Martin is beautiful as well, I think the Corvette C6 Z06 is a good looking car, but I would sell both kidneys for a 63 Corvette Z06




also, pic whoring
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top