Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So a Datsun 280Z looks like a Pontiac GTO? GTFO. You're BSing. Styling was a major difference. Look at the Datsun 280Z a popular 70s Japanese sportscar. Look at popular American cars of the time. They look nothing alike. Dodge Charger and a Mazda RX-3? Nissan Skyline GT-R and a Mercury Cougar? No and No. You have to be as blind as a bat. The Japanese were copying more of the European sportscars of the time.
If you look at the general run of cars that people bought, then Toyotas and Hondas and Mazdas looked a lot like miniaturized Chevies and Fords and Dodges.
You see, no one in their right mind anywhere would copy any non-Corvette styling from any American "sports" car from that era, because there were so few legitimate ones. "Muscle" cars are not the same as "sports" cars. Which is why non-American sports cars looked like sports cars and American sports cars looked like Casper the missing ghost.
We were talking about styling in general. Now you're trying to narrow it down so you can be right. Doesn't work.
So a Datsun 280Z looks like a Pontiac GTO? GTFO. You're BSing. Styling was a major difference. Look at the Datsun 280Z a popular 70s Japanese sportscar. Look at popular American cars of the time. They look nothing alike. Dodge Charger and a Mazda RX-3? Nissan Skyline GT-R and a Mercury Cougar? No and No. You have to be as blind as a bat. The Japanese were copying more of the European sportscars of the time.
I talk about shared styling cues. In a '50s car, it could be headlight trim, bumper placement and style, how the doors surround the windows, the thickness of the metal in the grillework and placement/proportioning of the headlights vs grille vs bumper. It's different on a '50s car than it is on a '40s or '60s car, but almost all '50s cars shared those cues.
Move up to your Datsun Z car example and look closely at windshield trim, door window trim, mirrors, how far the door glass sits in from the face of the door, handle shapes, bumper placement and styling, side marker styling and placement, body side contouring, etc. The overall form may be shared with cars like the '60s Ferrari 275, but modernized, but the detailing is very '70s and matches that of other cars of the early '70s. A '72 Datsun 240Z does not look like it came from 1980, does it? Nor does it look like it came from 1965. The detailing that is shared with other cars of the '70s plants it firmly in that era.
If you look at the general run of cars that people bought, then Toyotas and Hondas and Mazdas looked a lot like miniaturized Chevies and Fords and Dodges.
You see, no one in their right mind anywhere would copy any non-Corvette styling from any American "sports" car from that era, because there were so few legitimate ones. "Muscle" cars are not the same as "sports" cars. Which is why non-American sports cars looked like sports cars and American sports cars looked like Casper the missing ghost.
We were talking about styling in general. Now you're trying to narrow it down so you can be right. Doesn't work.
I'm not narrowing anything down. I'm using examples. Sports cars are vehicles which are supposed to demonstrate the ability of a brand. Average cars for the most part are built on a budget and are bought by people who aren't very car savvy hence they will spend less time on styling it and making it look nice. They will make it cheap and reliable. Even average cars like the Toyota Corolla and Mazda Capella look nothing like cars in the US. If you want to believe that then go ahead but a Mazda Capella Mark 1 looks nothing like an AMC Gremlin. So few legitimate ones? Some of the best looking cars of all time are American cars from that era.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merc63
I talk about shared styling cues. In a '50s car, it could be headlight trim, bumper placement and style, how the doors surround the windows, the thickness of the metal in the grillework and placement/proportioning of the headlights vs grille vs bumper. It's different on a '50s car than it is on a '40s or '60s car, but almost all '50s cars shared those cues.
Move up to your Datsun Z car example and look closely at windshield trim, door window trim, mirrors, how far the door glass sits in from the face of the door, handle shapes, bumper placement and styling, side marker styling and placement, body side contouring, etc. The overall form may be shared with cars like the '60s Ferrari 275, but modernized, but the detailing is very '70s and matches that of other cars of the early '70s. A '72 Datsun 240Z does not look like it came from 1980, does it? Nor does it look like it came from 1965. The detailing that is shared with other cars of the '70s plants it firmly in that era.
You're full of it. The 240Z is a 60s car (and was designed in the 60s) and it was probably inspired by the Jaguar E-Type. So either it really isn't 70s at all and you're just trying to be clever yet you're over-thinking it or it's an example that not all cars look like the cars in that era. It really doesn't look like a 70s car. It looks like a Japanese car. Timeframe really has no bearing and that is proof considering it was designed in the 60s.
I'm not narrowing anything down. I'm using examples. Sports cars are vehicles which are supposed to demonstrate the ability of a brand. Average cars for the most part are built on a budget and are bought by people who aren't very car savvy hence they will spend less time on styling it and making it look nice. They will make it cheap and reliable. Even average cars like the Toyota Corolla and Mazda Capella look nothing like cars in the US. If you want to believe that then go ahead but a Mazda Capella Mark 1 looks nothing like an AMC Gremlin. So few legitimate ones? Some of the best looking cars of all time are American cars from that era.
You're full of it. The 240Z is a 60s car (and was designed in the 60s) and it was probably inspired by the Jaguar E-Type. So either it really isn't 70s at all and you're just trying to be clever yet you're over-thinking it or it's an example that not all cars look like the cars in that era. It really doesn't look like a 70s car. It looks like a Japanese car. Timeframe really has no bearing and that is proof considering it was designed in the 60s.
Where did you hear they modified the old chevy? I'm very interested in this. This changes things.
50 years of auto safety engineering is impossible to overlook. A 59 Chevy had no seat belts and not even safety glass. A hard steel dashboard and doors that routinely popped open in a crash, ejecting the occupants. Today's vehicles have crumple zones, a myriad of airbags, structural features unheard of fifty years ago, brakes that don't send you into a spin at the first sign of trouble and tires that actually hold the road. Most of the cars of yesteryear had ill functioning wipers and headlights that cast a barely adequate beam. That doesn't even begin to cover AWD, traction control, stability control, blind spot warning systems...
I don't know if they modified that Chevy or not, but lets not overlook the fact that within two years the average fifties or sixties car on the road was already starting to rust significantly. Yes, mass has certain advantages, but I would cringe to load my wife and kids into a late fifties/early sixties car and send them off into a dark rainy night!
There is just no comparison.
I drove a 70 Cuda from the time I was 16 until around 26. It was a fun car for the times, but having a modern muscle car is soooo much better!
12GO, if what you said is true (about that video), all I have to say is that's pretty sad someone would compromise a car's structural integrity in an attempt to paint them a bad picture. Granted I know the safety features have come a long way since the non existent features of the 59.....heck at worse back then the driver probably would have been thrown thru the windshield.
Exactly why they did the frame changes. The previous ATTEMPS to do this crash was the dumby flying into and out the windshield. I WON'T DEBATE THE SAFETY features working in modern cars because they do, but to fake a video like this just to keep everything in a still camera position was wrong. Honestly the dumby would die in either case in the 59 chevy, but they shouldn't have made the chevy wad up more than it would have normally. The other aspect they were trying to promote which failed was they were trying to get the floor of the 59 to crush the dumbies legs to the dash. There wasn't any doubt the 59 driver would die if it stayed in the vehicle, (chance of survival went way up if thrown threw the windshield) but to make it worst appearing was wrong.
Where did you hear they modified the old chevy? I'm very interested in this. This changes things.
My uncle works for them and is part of the staging crew. The reason to wad up the chevy was multi point; Keep the dumbie in the car to absorb the full impact. Remember used to in these types of wrecks many people would be thrown thru the windshield and survive because of that and not absorbing all the crash energy.
By keeping the dumbie in the car, the cameras could all be stationary. No "chasing the ball" if dumbie went thru the windshield.
More info in previous post too.
Based on your screen name, the styling, the hood ornament and suicide doors, I would guess 1949-1951 Mercury Sedan. But, the side insignia is a tough call. It almost looks like it says, "TurnpikeCruiser", which while still a Mercury, was produced in the late fifties.
So, basically I am stumped. And I agree with your original point.
Based on your screen name, the styling, the hood ornament and suicide doors, I would guess 1949-1951 Mercury Sedan. But, the side insignia is a tough call. It almost looks like it says, "TurnpikeCruiser", which while still a Mercury, was produced in the late fifties.
So, basically I am stumped. And I agree with your original point.
Here's the image before the top was chopped and the car was lowered.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
