How come we don't get this excited about new cars anymore? (vehicles, fuel)

[Lije Baley]

"Design for Dreaming" from General Motors, 1956.

That woman must have drank an entire pot of coffee on an empty stomach before filming started!

[Retriever]

Ummmm...I am hoping you realize that this was a commercial, where reality always takes a back seat to merchandizing.

Ah yes--the 1956 GM products, whose major "contribution" to automotive engineering was hiding the fuel filler behind the tail lights.

Just imagine--If they had not spent all of that money on that type of ridiculous feature, then perhaps they could have actually put decent door latches (that did not spring open upon impact), or decent brakes, or perhaps even firmer springs and shocks on their marshmallow mobiles.

[Vinsanity]

Didn't the American public want mashmallow mobiles in 1956? Heck, didn't they want them until BMW brought over the 2002 to our shores?

[Deez Nuttz]

Probably the reason why we don't get excited about new cars is, with a few exceptions, anymore they're just mostly bland vehicles with no real excitement to offer.

[HandsUpThumbsDown]

I think you're hitting on a larger theme, which is that the sense of optimism that existed in the 50s has faded into grim hoping-for-the-best.

[Lije Baley]

Originally Posted by Retriever

Ummmm...I am hoping you realize that this was a commercial, where reality always takes a back seat to merchandizing.

I knew it was a commercial of sorts, but I guess I should have added a rolling-eye sarcasm emoticon to the post itself to indicate that - oops.

After watching that did anyone else feel the return to their own life was a huge letdown?

[CALGUY]

One thing for sure, back then ALL the cars were exciting to look at, especially the line of cars from Chrysler.
The cars being produced today all look alike.
Nothing stands out to make them different from one another.
Back in the fifties, one could never mistake an Oldsmobile for a Dodge.
Today, one can't tell one model from another, and for sure can't tell what year the model is.
Bob.

[wit-nit]

That commercial lost me after the first 30 seconds. Cars today are mostly clones. Cars of yore were exciting and fun to work on.

[jaypee]

What's the big deal? I wake up like that every morning.
My wife's getting tired of having to carry me around on her shoulder, though.

[Lije Baley]

As far as lookalike styling, I'm sure the accounting departments have a lot to do with that (cloning is much cheaper than specific styling for each division), but I also think the laws of aerodynamics play a large part.

Back in the 80s I remember reading about research done in the automotive industry that found that the optimum shape for a car turned out to be basically what looked like a fat sausage - that's what it looked like! - that was rather bulbous in front and then tapered to a rounded point in back. And no sharp corners or edges anywhere since these could cause, IIRC, small vortices that can all add up to a major source of drag.

When used as the basis to style an actual car intended for sale to the public, that shape usually resulted in the infamous "jelly bean" look that started appearing seemingly everywhere back then. I thought some cars looked pretty good, the Audi 5000 and original Taurus for example, and some I didn't like at all, like the 5th generation Celica.