Old School Cars vs New School Cars (Civic, cost, Honda)
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.
A Nova was available in hatchback form, but no mid-sized or full-sized '70s American cars that I know of were. Much less common back then.
However, I don't see how anyone can claim that today's cars look just as different as '60s (and late-'50s and '70s) cars.
Below are images of a Jan., 1959 issue of Motor Trend magazine. Showing the 1959 cars. It's very easy to see which ones are American and which ones are foreign. Not a "broad generalization," just pointing out the obvious.
Other than the fact that the American cars are huge and have fins, and the Beetle looks like a Beetle, I don't see any major differences. If you're basing everything on that, allow me to just say
The foreign cars look just like American cars, except for the part that they're normal-sized. Clearly your reliance on size to differentiate cars has blinded you to subtlety.
Let me give you a couple of examples and see if you can tell me which is which without looking at the URL. I can. The differences are pretty obvious, even though you can't see the logos in these shots. Asian brands tend to have smoother, more flowing lines, but they tend to be swoopy. European design is much less swoopy, lines are a bit more blocky, slightly more muscular look. American brands tend to be broad-shouldered, with pronounced wheels and shoulder-lines.
Thank you for showing just how similar new cars look! You just posted the proof. Anyone who denies it should have their eyes checked! I have no idea what those "things" are which you posted. Now, if it was, let's say, a 1965 full-sized Chevy, Buick, Ford and Pontiac, it would be easy for me to identify them because they looked more different than they do today. You really can't see that a modern Chevy, Buick, Ford and Pontiac looks like a Toyota or Honda? (Not counting cars like the Camaro, Corvette, Challenger, etc). If you can't, let ME say... !
As for the 1959 cars, more than just the Beetle are shown.
Also, it's the 1959 cars which were normal sized (standard-size, as they were called back then). Those foreign cars were known as "small economy cars," of which very few people wanted, especially if they had the money to buy a large, stylish, smooth-riding, comfortable, spacious and powerful large car.
The only proof that had been posted is that you need to get an eye exam.
As Mr. Spock would say, "fascinating."
But I think you are joshing me.
Allow me to try again:
Here is a modern Buick...
It doesn't look much different than this late-model Nissan (which I had no idea it was a Nissan until I read the emblem). Or like a modern Toyota or Honda.
Now, here is a 1966 Buick...
And here is a 1966 Toyota. Obviously, it looks much different than a 1966 Buick...
Case closed! And don't forget to set an appointment!
I have to agree with Fleet on this one.
I absolutely could not tell you what make of car any of the above four are.
They all share the same basic style and shape.
Now, in the 50's and 60's, each camp, Ford, Gm, and Chrysler made cars that were nothing like the other camps offerings.
True, within their own camp the cars were very much alike, but one could NEVER mistake a Ford for a Chevy, or a Chrysler for a Lincoln, or Pontiac for a Dodge.
The cars being produced today, regardless of who makes them, all share the same body style.
That is why it is practically impossible to tell one from the other.
Case in point:
If I bought a new Lincoln MKZ, and stuck a Toyota Avalon badge on it, everyone would think it were a Toyota.
It is just that simple.
Stick a Lincoln badge on a Lexus, or even Toyota, and know one would ever think it was anything but what the badge says.
Try that with a 50's or 60's car, and one would know right away what you were up too.
Bob.
If you have old cars (which I do), you have to "resto-mod" them if you really want to drive them anywhere at all
disc brakes
modern front and rear suspension
modernize the engines
We get used to how easy modern cars are to drive, that we tend to forget about how terrible the old cars were in comparison. Try stopping a Super Bee with drum brakes. Feel that "smooth ride" of a 1940s or 1950s car.
My two boys have modern V8 mustangs which are pretty fun to drive - great handling, smooth stick, nice brakes and comfortable seats. They actually look pretty cool as well. I have a 48 woody, a 32 woody, and a 69 Super Bee, all of which have been converted to "resto mods"- now they can actually be driven anywhere without worries. "Original" is bad.
Um, no you don't have to "Modernize" everything. My 78 and 80 Trans Ams still have the HO racing springs and anti-sway bars from the early 80's under them. The 400 and 428 runs just fine with the 800 cfm Q-jet on the 400 and 1000 cfm Thermoquad on the 428, and they both get 20 mpg for the 400 and 428 gets 18 mpg when my foot is out of the secondaries. . With 255/60/15's on front, and 275/60/60's on back, I still handle as well as new cars. (1.02g left, .99 right). Now the 1 area I am going to upgrade is the brakes to 13" rotors on front and 11" rotors on the rear.
I have to agree with Fleet on this one.
I absolutely could not tell you what make of car any of the above four are.
They all share the same basic style and shape.
Now, in the 50's and 60's, each camp, Ford, Gm, and Chrysler made cars that were nothing like the other camps offerings.
True, within their own camp the cars were very much alike, but one could NEVER mistake a Ford for a Chevy, or a Chrysler for a Lincoln, or Pontiac for a Dodge.
The cars being produced today, regardless of who makes them, all share the same body style.
That is why it is practically impossible to tell one from the other.
Case in point:
If I bought a new Lincoln MKZ, and stuck a Toyota Avalon badge on it, everyone would think it were a Toyota.
It is just that simple.
Stick a Lincoln badge on a Lexus, or even Toyota, and know one would ever think it was anything but what the badge says.
Try that with a 50's or 60's car, and one would know right away what you were up too.
Bob.
Yes, it so obvious I don't even know why it's being discussed. Like I said, some here must be pulling my leg.
And, CALGUY, glad there is nothing wrong with your vision! You certainly don't need an eye exam.
I have seen a few Lincoln MKZs, and, as you said, if it had a Toyota badge on it, I would think it's a Toyota! The mid-to-late '50s through '70s (American) cars had, overall, unique and varied styling. Their own kind of styling.
If you have old cars (which I do), you have to "resto-mod" them if you really want to drive them anywhere at all
disc brakes
modern front and rear suspension
modernize the engines
We get used to how easy modern cars are to drive, that we tend to forget about how terrible the old cars were in comparison. Try stopping a Super Bee with drum brakes. Feel that "smooth ride" of a 1940s or 1950s car.
My two boys have modern V8 mustangs which are pretty fun to drive - great handling, smooth stick, nice brakes and comfortable seats. They actually look pretty cool as well. I have a 48 woody, a 32 woody, and a 69 Super Bee, all of which have been converted to "resto mods"- now they can actually be driven anywhere without worries. "Original" is bad.
One of my brothers drove a 1966 Plymouth Fury III (318 engine) with non-power drum brakes for over 20 years. A car which weighed a few hundred pounds more than a Super Bee. He never had any problems stopping it and he drove that car a lot and in many areas. It had a little over 250,000 miles when he sold it yet was able to brake okay the entire time he owned it (except when it needed new brake pads on occasion).
Mom mom once carpooled and one of the co-worker's car was a 1950 Buick. She said the car was very nice and very smooth-riding.
As the saying goes, "it is only original once."
Last edited by Fleet; 07-13-2013 at 01:22 AM..
Reason: Added words
It's really a joke that this debate is still going on, if people can't see how a 59 Cadillac Coupe Deville looks a million times better than a 2013 Cadillac XTS, CTS, ATS etc.. is seriously blind AF! You can't deny that many 50's cars were extremely artistic and detailed compared to just about every 2013 modern auto.
The cars built in the 50's-60's were built at a time when the government didn't have a whole lot of say on what should and shouldn't be designed into a car, and IMO, it was a great thing! Once they started getting involved, styling slowly started to suffer. The 50's and 60's cars were youthful, exotic, exciting, beautiful, high quality, and sleek, while the 70's cars were more stodgy, cheaper feeling, and less exciting to a certain extent when compared to the decades prior.
Stepping into a 50's-60's Cadillac, Lincoln and Imperial felt very different not only in the build, but the smells as well. You could literally tell what car you were sitting in by the strong odors of the materials alone, and just the way everything felt. Today, forget it, all news cars pretty much feel and look the same. They're all overly corporate, that they seriously lack true individuality as they share so many of the same components with other makes n models. I even heard that many of the Foreign and Domestic automakers have their interior components and materials supplied by the same manufacture/suppliers in the industry!
The classic American cars from the 30's-70's will always be so much more appealing and beautiful to see at car shows than any modern make, all that real chrome, high grade interior trim, heavy steel bodies and gorgeous shapes is impossible to duplicate in 2013 . Sorry, but this will be the truth in another 30 years or so as we will continue to see the artistic joys of the 50's and 60's cars dominate car shows, while a 2013 whatever will be in the crushers as worthless plastic junk by then. Modern cars are too overly disposable to be considered anything but appliances, maybe except for the higher end European exotics and luxury cars.
So regardless of how well a modern car might operate, and ride, they will never be as lavish, have the "WOW FACTOR" or ever be as attractive to something built at a time when America was at it's best, and the cost of materials were low.
Last edited by sdlife619; 07-13-2013 at 07:15 AM..
It's really a joke that this debate is still going on, if people can't see how a 59 Cadillac Coupe Deville looks a million times better than a 2013 Cadillac XTS, CTS, ATS etc.. is seriously blind AF! You can't deny that many 50's cars were extremely artistic and detailed compared to just about every 2013 modern auto.
I can, I do, and I will continue to do so. "Styling" does not involve gluing on overhangs and fins. Back then they were all the same size, with the same fins of varying heights. Even Dodge knows better than that now. People who complain that all current cars look alike are just missing the days of cars the size of tennis courts with built-in rudders, because that's what they like better. Luckily, those people are a small enough segment of the car-buying public that car manufacturers no longer design cars that way.
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.
And don't forget to set an appointment!
. With 255/60/15's on front, and 275/60/60's on back, I still handle as well as new cars. (1.02g left, .99 right). Now the 1 area I am going to upgrade is the brakes to 13" rotors on front and 11" rotors on the rear.
