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.
I can't stand these newer designs. I guess there has to be a trade off and i can see it being done for safety purposes and aerodynamics but as someone else mentioned there seems to be more of a risk in hitting something in reverse now.
.
Late 60's/early 70's Mustang Fastback, Javelin/AMX, Corvette, Muira.... I'm looking at you! But back in those days, it didn't much matter what was behind you, about to be disappearing in the rear view. "Buh-bye now...."
Quote:
Originally Posted by attrapereves
I meant no offense to you. I was saying that the whole design BS is ridiculous.
Thank you for providing the info!
On the bright side, there are still a few vehicles which have decent visibility. Buy a Jeep Wrangler and remove the doors and soft top.
Yep!
My current ride, actually. IMO, the ultimate see-it-all, do-it-all, conquer-it-all vehicle. Granted, it doesn't have the comfort, efficiency, or safety of your new Mazda, but I just can't feel comfortable in the typical passenger sedan. Too many big truck and truck based SUVs on the road. Especially here in Texas.
I've been a car guy my whole life. Both passion and career. Driven vehicles counting in the thousands. Like you, I just can't get on board with modern vehicle design. The passion is nearly lost. Function has nearly consumed form. Is what it is I guess. Lament for the good old days, for they are all but fading. Between efficiency and safety regulations, we're not going to see a whole lot of inspired coachwork in the years to come.
I'm in new auto 'research mode' and I find this trend to be making my choices very restricted. I was at recent large national auto show and only 8 vehicles (not counting pickups and large suvs) that had decent sight lines as well as accommodate a taller person (6'2).
Jeep and Subaru had a couple each, Kia Soul, Maxda C5 and few others, so disappointing. I bet some manufacturer could make a big hit by designing a slightly de-featured base model small SUV / crossover with high visibility in older style. I guess the closest is the Soul or entry level Jeep (tin can).
Yes, the visibility on many cars has been quite bad for years now.
Years ago, it was easy to buy and drive a car with good visibility. Below are two examples ('69 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham and '66 Plymouth Fury VIP).
It was also easy to buy and drive a car with a big trunk with a big opening (and low clearance)... '69 Cadillac again:
^^ That's the kind of trunk I'm talking about. The trunk on my 1977 Mercedes is the same way.
Actually though, the trunks on newer cars are just as big, the problem is that the opening is so small, it's barely big enough to fit a box of girl scout cookies through the opening.
Instead of placing things in the trunk, you have to slide them through. This makes it difficult to retrieve things in the back without moving things in the front.
Yes, the trunk in that red car is a good sample of a mail-slot type of trunk.
I forgot to mention the trunk seen in the photo I posted ('69 Cadillac) has 20-cubic-feet of useable luggage space.
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.
