Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Automotive
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Which generation do you prefer?
Old School 83 54.61%
New School 69 45.39%
Voters: 152. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-13-2013, 04:09 PM
 
Location: A safe distance from San Francisco
12,350 posts, read 9,627,178 times
Reputation: 13890

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdlife619 View Post
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.
Compared to this....
1965 Pontiac Catalina
they're already worthless plastic junk.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-13-2013, 05:32 PM
 
Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, Calif.
24,451 posts, read 33,116,977 times
Reputation: 7591
Good points, sdlife619 and CrownVic95.

I would also add that not all '50s American cars were the size of "tennis courts."

For example, a few comparisons:

Overall length...

1956 Buick Special--------------- 205"
1956 Chevrolet Bel Air----------- 197.5
1956 Ford Fairlane--------------- 198.5
1956 Hudson Wasp-------------- 202.24

1958 Chevrolet Impala----------- 209.1
1958 Ford Fairlane--------------- 207
1958 Plymouth Fury-------------- 206

Now compare with:

2010 Cadillac DTS---------------- 207.6"
2013 Cadillac XTS---------------- 202
2013 Lexus LS-------------------- 200.4 to 205
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2013, 06:22 PM
 
Location: Wappingers Falls, NY
1,618 posts, read 2,604,894 times
Reputation: 1098
So they were all in fact the size of tennis courts, just like the hugest of the huge sedans of today. Thank you for proving my point for me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2013, 07:08 PM
 
Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, Calif.
24,451 posts, read 33,116,977 times
Reputation: 7591
Anyone who can't handle driving a 205" long car shouldn't be driving at all! There is no "huge sedan" of today.

And anyone who thinks a 205" car is huge should probably never drive a 220-230" long car!

Also, a 1956 Chevy Bel Air, at 197.5" long is about the same size as my former 196.3" Dodge Dart GT. My Dart in no way felt or drove like a "huge" car.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2013, 08:32 PM
 
Location: San Diego A.K.A "D.A.Y.G.O City"
1,996 posts, read 4,741,684 times
Reputation: 2742
Yeah there isn't any true full-size luxury cars today, not even the largest modern S-Class and 7-Series comes even close to the gargantuan giant cars of the 70's, a Rolls Royce Phantom does though. The 70's cars were true super size luxury rides that used to be a standard for people that wanted the smoothest ride and an interior that didn't cramp a person over 6 feet tall since the leg room, and shoulder room is insanely generous in a full size 70's Cadillac or Lincoln.

You could really have a nice comfortable daily driver classic land yacht if one had the money and desire to modernize one with putting in a modern V8 with all kinds of new updated features, gadgets, for front and rear seat passengers could enjoy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2013, 09:10 PM
 
Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, Calif.
24,451 posts, read 33,116,977 times
Reputation: 7591
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdlife619 View Post
Yeah there isn't any true full-size luxury cars today, not even the largest modern S-Class and 7-Series comes even close to the gargantuan giant cars of the 70's, a Rolls Royce Phantom does though. The 70's cars were true super size luxury rides that used to be a standard for people that wanted the smoothest ride and an interior that didn't cramp a person over 6 feet tall since the leg room, and shoulder room is insanely generous in a full size 70's Cadillac or Lincoln.
Yes, and it's truly sad that the only way to buy a true full-sized new car is to buy a $300,000 Rolls-Royce! It's also interesting that a mid-'60s Chevy Caprice and Ford Galaxie was about the same size as a mid-'60s Rolls.

Quote:
You could really have a nice comfortable daily driver classic land yacht if one had the money and desire to modernize one with putting in a modern V8 with all kinds of new updated features, gadgets, for front and rear seat passengers could enjoy.
Right, I chose to use my '76 Cadillac Limousine, and before that, my '71 Fleetwood Brougham as a daily driver because my place of employment was only 4-5 miles away. And I'll tell you, it was great driving to work 5-6 days per week in limousine! It made it easier to get up in the morning. I mean, if I were driving a Toyota or something to work ( ), it certainly wouldn't prompt me to wake up any faster!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2013, 03:30 AM
 
Location: Louisville KY
4,857 posts, read 5,766,771 times
Reputation: 4341
Quote:
Originally Posted by npaladin2000 View Post
Mid-sizers of that time were boats. Full sizers were ships and land yachts, depending on the model.

The one good thing you can say about cars from back then is that NASCAR of the time actually used them rather than fake imitation shells on something else. However, they provided little downforce, and probably acted more like rudders. We don't need rudders these days, we have steering and suspension that actually work, and only need something to hold the car down.

You see, these days we want no overhangs, they serve very little purpose except to annoy people when they block the walkway with it. Push the wheels out to the corners and give us more stability.
No downforce? Are you saying the National Aeronautics and Space Administration know nothing about aerodynamics? The rear wing sits so high so the trunk can open.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2013, 09:08 AM
 
Location: Mishawaka, Indiana
7,010 posts, read 11,893,437 times
Reputation: 5813
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdlife619 View Post
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.
To someone like me, 24 years old, who grew up in the age of 90's and 00's cars, I'm very familiar with the cars of my era and telling them apart. To someone like me almost ALL the cars of the 1950's and 1960's look the same, it's very hard for me to tell them apart. I can pick out a few of the true classic cars that have some great appeal to me, like the Camaro, Mustang, GTO, Trans Am, and a few others. But the rest of the cars look extremely similar to me.

You're always going to have this argument that the old stuff was better, had more character, more design, more of everything. Just as my parents don't care for today's music, and my grandparents didn't care for my parents' music in the 1970's. Every generation is fixated on the stuff from THEIR era, the things that MADE them, the cars, the music, the fashion, the hairstyles. Things that can be associated with their youth and becoming who they are.

So I understand why people love the old cars, they were from that generation, it's what they grew up knowing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2013, 05:10 PM
 
Location: San Diego A.K.A "D.A.Y.G.O City"
1,996 posts, read 4,741,684 times
Reputation: 2742
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdAilment View Post
To someone like me, 24 years old, who grew up in the age of 90's and 00's cars, I'm very familiar with the cars of my era and telling them apart. To someone like me almost ALL the cars of the 1950's and 1960's look the same, it's very hard for me to tell them apart. I can pick out a few of the true classic cars that have some great appeal to me, like the Camaro, Mustang, GTO, Trans Am, and a few others. But the rest of the cars look extremely similar to me.

You're always going to have this argument that the old stuff was better, had more character, more design, more of everything. Just as my parents don't care for today's music, and my grandparents didn't care for my parents' music in the 1970's. Every generation is fixated on the stuff from THEIR era, the things that MADE them, the cars, the music, the fashion, the hairstyles. Things that can be associated with their youth and becoming who they are.

So I understand why people love the old cars, they were from that generation, it's what they grew up knowing.

Well I am not that much older than you (at 29 years old), so while you may feel that cars of the 50's-60's look the same ( I firmly disagree), you can't deny that they definitely had way more character and light years of better styling compared to what is being produced today, even compared to the modern era of car styling starting around 1990.

I grew up around the same cars you grew up with, and I am the first to say that our generation really got screwed over when it comes to being around great looking cars as the "Whale", or Egg shape styling came into effect during our days. Honestly the most reliable cars back in the 90's overall were Honda's and Toyota's from what I remember. American cars were terrible for the most part and I never really saw an 80'-90's-00 cars that truly has caught my eye as much as cars from the 40's-70's do. Of course the whole "tuner era" was cool and I did have a fascination over the Nissan Skyline GT and early 90's Civic hatchbacks, but not anymore. So I am not one of those "old guys" that might be on this forum that just think the older stuff was better. I've loved classic cars ever since I was a teenager, and I still believe to this day that even though they are more trouble prone in certain area's, they sure were EYE CANDY and that is fact!

Some older things were better made, (much older than us that is) and this goes for many things such as toasters, blenders, furniture, washers and dryers, stoves, water heaters..etc... The proof is in my home! I love old things, mainly pre 80's stuff.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2013, 06:18 PM
 
5,075 posts, read 11,002,933 times
Reputation: 4664
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdlife619 View Post
Well I am not that much older than you (at 29 years old), so while you may feel that cars of the 50's-60's look the same ( I firmly disagree), you can't deny that they definitely had way more character and light years of better styling compared to what is being produced today, even compared to the modern era of car styling starting around 1990.

I grew up around the same cars you grew up with, and I am the first to say that our generation really got screwed over when it comes to being around great looking cars as the "Whale", or Egg shape styling came into effect during our days. Honestly the most reliable cars back in the 90's overall were Honda's and Toyota's from what I remember. American cars were terrible for the most part and I never really saw an 80'-90's-00 cars that truly has caught my eye as much as cars from the 40's-70's do. Of course the whole "tuner era" was cool and I did have a fascination over the Nissan Skyline GT and early 90's Civic hatchbacks, but not anymore. So I am not one of those "old guys" that might be on this forum that just think the older stuff was better. I've loved classic cars ever since I was a teenager, and I still believe to this day that even though they are more trouble prone in certain area's, they sure were EYE CANDY and that is fact!

Some older things were better made, (much older than us that is) and this goes for many things such as toasters, blenders, furniture, washers and dryers, stoves, water heaters..etc... The proof is in my home! I love old things, mainly pre 80's stuff.
The unstylish junk from years past generally wasn't kept around. The things that are left from that era are either good quality and functional or pretty. Unfortunately, the old cars are pretty but not functional- at least not by modern standards. They're nice to look at, but not great for driving with few exceptions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Automotive

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top