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.
Cars were art at one time- ARTISTS with a great creative eye would design shape .....if the artist was into space ships...The car would look like a rocket-- with cool fins....What happened with computerization and trying to lessen wind resistance - to make them more fuel efficient - wind tunnels and computers started to design cars------------strangely enough the rocket ship shape was replaced buy the box shape...so we all drive around in a boring box.
Cars were art at one time- ARTISTS with a great creative eye would design shape .....if the artist was into space ships...The car would look like a rocket-- with cool fins....What happened with computerization and trying to lessen wind resistance - to make them more fuel efficient - wind tunnels and computers started to design cars------------strangely enough the rocket ship shape was replaced buy the box shape...so we all drive around in a boring box.
Not totally true. We just found that the boring box offers us more utility and buyers demanded it.
There are still some cars designed for style over function. GM released the Solstice and Sky where design dictated the car's utility instead of the other way around. When people saw the finished product they loved the looks, but then didn't buy them because the interior was too cramped, visibility was poor, the trunk was infringed and unuseful due to a big box in it (which was the gas tank) and the lack of a spare tire (just no room).
Same reason 2 door cars are virtually gone (other than very low volume cars). Sure, a 2 door can be made to look neater, but everyone hates crawling over and through the front opening and seat to access the back seat... it is much easier and more convenient to open an back door and get in.
The more swoopy styling one carves out of a box shape, the smaller the box gets, and the less utility the box offers . Go too far, and your vehicle rots on your lot, because everyone bought the bigger box down the road.
I think a lot of people are forgetting how bad (and uncool) so many cars of the past were.
For every Challenger, we had twenty cars that sucked.
I think the mind plays games as you age and you THINK some old cars were cool. They are only cool because they are old and different.
The Challenger was also not anywhere near as good as some people seem to think.
My brother had a '71 Barracuda, which was mechanically identical to the Challenger, even though they shared no body panels. The cars were built in the same factory, and shared all mechanical components.
I have to say that his Barracuda had the absolute worst assembly quality that I have ever seen on a new car. Yes, much of the blame goes to the dealership for not inspecting and prepping the car properly, but--all the same--the assembly quality was like something manufactured in The Soviet Union.
There were so many components that had not even been screwed/bolted in properly that the car initially sounded like a bucket of bolts going down the road. Among these was the rear window defogger, which was a rear blower, rather than wires embedded in the glass. The blower assembly was literally dangling from one very loose bolt, with the other two bolts totally missing.
The paint looked like somebody had applied it with a broom.
There were lumps in the vinyl roof.
The trunk leaked badly.
The A/C compressor clutch grenaded itself right after the bumper-to-bumper warranty ended.
It never idled properly, and was difficult to start in the winter.
It handled...okay...but not great, and the ride was awful.
The seats were very uncomfortable.
It had a balance/fader switch for the radio speakers that essentially did nothing, and the dealer was supposedly never able to get a replacement part.
I don't recall the other numerous items from the original problem list, but suffice it to say that this car was...not good.
The Challenger was also not anywhere near as good as some people seem to think.
My brother had a '71 Barracuda, which was mechanically identical to the Challenger, even though they shared no body panels. The cars were built in the same factory, and shared all mechanical components.
I have to say that his Barracuda had the absolute worst assembly quality that I have ever seen on a new car. Yes, much of the blame goes to the dealership for not inspecting and prepping the car properly, but--all the same--the assembly quality was like something manufactured in The Soviet Union.
There were so many components that had not even been screwed/bolted in properly that the car initially sounded like a bucket of bolts going down the road. Among these was the rear window defogger, which was a rear blower, rather than wires embedded in the glass. The blower assembly was literally dangling from one very loose bolt, with the other two bolts totally missing.
The paint looked like somebody had applied it with a broom.
There were lumps in the vinyl roof.
The trunk leaked badly.
The A/C compressor clutch grenaded itself right after the bumper-to-bumper warranty ended.
It never idled properly, and was difficult to start in the winter.
It handled...okay...but not great, and the ride was awful.
The seats were very uncomfortable.
It had a balance/fader switch for the radio speakers that essentially did nothing, and the dealer was supposedly never able to get a replacement part.
I don't recall the other numerous items from the original problem list, but suffice it to say that this car was...not good.
I think you are surely correct. I never said the Challenger was a good or well built car. But it was cool. That's all.
I think you are surely correct. I never said the Challenger was a good or well built car. But it was cool. That's all.
Okay, I guess that we just have different definitions of cool cars.
To me, a car has to look good, perform decently, and not be a rolling disaster area in terms of its quality in order to be cool.
But--if you want to define cool solely as looking cool, then I guess that these cars qualified.
Oh yeah... you both are right. The Challenger was and is extremely cool imho.
But build quality? Detroit didn't get build quality right until what, 1995 or so?
Here's a current, cheaper car--a sedan!--which imho is very cool-looking.
Although I must grant that a lot of these are starting to look like lozenges!
from the past.are better looking.why can't they make a nice looking car anymore instead of eyesores
Because of Government mandates, requiring cars to deliver fairly high fuel economy, cars today are "aerodynamically designed" to provide the least wind resistance. Therefore, cars all have the same, basic shape, and after that, there are only so many ways you can make a "jelly bean" look unique.
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.
Cool cars
