Everybody's cars look like suppositories now

[hoffdano]

Originally Posted by Fleet

If it's so easy, why the range in years?

Here is another example. Cookie-cutter cars! Blah styling.

Do you think automakers can afford to change styling every year like they did in the 1960s?

[hoffdano]

Originally Posted by dkf747

I don't 100% disagree with you, but Ford has lost something in it's exterior designs. They used to be leaders. They built the Taurus and Tempo when everyone else still had squared off designs, including Honda and Toyota. Mulally, whom I think highly of, came in and openly started remaking Ford to be like Toyota. It shows in the designs out there now. Sure, if you know what to look for, you can tell them apart, but the influence of Toyota-like designing is obvious to me. I don't think that it's wrong, but it has taken me a long time to get used to it. When Ford changed, posters here started getting more positive about them. I still like Ford, by the way, even if I drive an older Dodge now.

I disagree about Ford. The Tempo was not only a terrible car, it looked a Ford Escort where a giant put his mouth on the tailpipe and exhaled. It was pillow. The 2nd gen Taurus was also awful, though I admit it was distinctive.

Ford has a distinct style today - the Edge and Explorer are clearly related. I think the Escape is a great looking compact SUV. And the Fusion stands out even if the grill is an Aston Martin ripoff. Lincoln unfortunately has still not sorted itself out.

[sdlife619]

Fords throughout history have never really truly been "stylish" vehicles except for a handful of models like the late 50's Skyliners, 50's-60's T-birds, LTD and Mustangs which is all they got going for them.

Lincoln was the only really stylish car Ford ever created. From the 60's-1979 were the best years for Lincoln if we are talking about great design and built quality.

GM had it all back then, styling, engineering, quality and huge diverse lineup of distinctive brands of cars.

Today Ford has improved greatly in making attractive looking rides. But Automakers now don't build a car to excite like they did in the 50's, lavish, and over the top will never happen again sadly. This is why all cars look so similar to one another. They eventually copy each others designs, when in the 60's you could easily tell the difference as unique character, the lines of the car, it's size, and distinct trim was much more easily identifiable unlike today since every car is so bloated and roundish. Even the smell of the interior, the metal used, and materials were all much more unique back then. Today it seems like the same company produces the interiors in every single new car regardless of the brand. They look and feel so generic and bland. Going from a Chevy to a Ford feels so much alike.

Back then, there were more sharp angles, some curvature but also some acceptable blockiness to enhance the image of a car and give it better porporations. We could say that the 60's was the better era when it came to diverse styling compared to the 50's. Both decades however produced cars that were works of art, like someone chiseled a masterpiece by hand in the wonderful amounts of chrome which is considered jewelry on a car.

Cars we see on the road today will never become classics in the future. I doubt in 20-30 years anyone is going to go nuts over a Mazda 3 or a Hyundai Sonata, a Honda Accord, an S-Class Benz, or whatever.

Old Detroit iron will always have the staying power including the classic 50's-60's Jags and Mercedes.

[Fleet]

Originally Posted by hoffdano

Do you think automakers can afford to change styling every year like they did in the 1960s?

No, they can't. Which is yet another reason my favorite decade for cars is the 1960s. Not as many bean-counters back then.