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 are converging for a few reasons: Aerodynamics/fuel economy, maximum cabin space with minimum wheel base, safety.
Expect to see cars converge on the basic aerodynamic template, which is used to design airfoils:
A Mustang has the same roof profile as a Prius. Ends up being that way because it minimizes drag and maximizes stability. Hard to resist designing that way when your competitor adopts it and gets an extra 3-5mpg highway and better stability in a crosswind.
This!
Some people just want things to be different, even if these new car designs are objectively better.
Sigh...this again? This myth that all new cars look alike, and all old cars were unique and different, is just that, a myth.
It's not a myth. Body styles had huge variation back in the 50's and 60's. As has already been mentioned, fuel economy trumps styling choice most of the time. Which forces cars to look much the same. You will notice that in sectors where fuel economy does not matter, styles are more varied.
Lincoln on top Caddy DeVille on the bottom. They're pretty similar.
Chevelle SS top, 'Stang, and Camaro. They're not particularly unique.
Here's a 1960s car that looks totally unique...
Far more unique than Chevelle/'Stang/Camaro
That's complete speculation. I've already said that given those options I'd pick modern, unless the 58's were classic body on modern everything else.
Yeah, so, what you're saying is, that because people didn't really understand fluid dynamics we got some interesting designs, but now we understand fluid dynamics better form is following function.
Given those heavy doors reduced the vehicles acceleration I'd take aluminum skinned doors, or glass/carbon fiber. Of course being steel skinned meant you only needed to wait 5-10 years at the outside for them to weigh less, but without any structural integrity.
Yep, it was that way, and all that walnut and chrome would impact your face as you had a front end crash, especially with 1950s seat belts. Problem with comfort and rough pavement is, that when you're trying to do something other than go in s straight line, the things that make it comfortable make it handle like a whale. You cannot have good handling and have the suspension absorb bumps, the physics don't work out. Stiff suspension gives good handling, fast turn in and corner grip, but at the cost of a bumpy ride, soft suspension gives poor handling, slow turn in, and little corner grip, but has a smooth ride. I'll take grip and turn in, over soft suspension.
How they look is secondary to how they function. I can look at the Mona Lisa all day long, but I'm never going to drive it. I'm fine with cars looking cool enough, but driving well than looking totally cool, and driving like a whale. I've had more than my fair share of white knuckle rides in classic cars or on classic motorcycles, it's fun the first time, the second time not so fun, after that you can keep it, if I want to look at something I'll buy a painting, if I want to drive something looks are not my first priority.
And the point of the story being? You have your opinions and I have mine. BTW you didn’t show the 65 Cadillacs front end, only the side profile which looks nothing like the Lincoln.
64 Caddy
64 Lincoln
65 Caddy
65 Lincoln
The Cadillac’s and Lincoln’s of the 60’s looked nothing like each other inside and out. They were built very differently as well. One was unibody, the other a was body-on-frame design. Even we’ll into the 70’s they looked very different.
No modern Cadillac or Lincoln even comes close to the class, quality, styling, and pure elegance of the classics. And for its day they were pretty powerful cars.
The Caddy’s 429 engine made 340HP with like 485ftlbs of torque. By 68 they had the 472 engine that made up to 375 HP and 525ftlbs, basically hot rods in disguise.
The Lincoln’s 430 engine made 320 HP and 475ftlbs of torque.
Big heavy cars that really didn’t feel like it. All that torque made for some easy and stress free motoring.
Last edited by sdlife619; 04-30-2019 at 01:26 AM..
A spin off on the whatever happened to car colors thread.
What happened to car design? The American automobiles used to be works of design art.
I'm a big fan of the old black and white Perry Mason TV show. Filmed in the late 1050's, it is noticeable how beautiful the cars were. I suspect that the gorgeous new cars were "product placement" but even the background cars were well designed with balanced lines that flowed together.
Now, all the new cars look so much alike, I can't tell one brand of another and a big design breakthrough is a small change in the shape of the grill, and often not for the better.
American made cars used to be the dream car all over the world because of the outstanding design (and power).
I know what happened to the power, but seriously? All the best and brightest designers can't come up with a car that doesn't look like a box on wheels that looks like every other box on wheels?
Ralph Nader, Smog rules cloaking engines, CAFE and a million other stupid regulations basically killed all hope of the US domestic auto industry staying dominant by 1973.
By then also the bean counters took control at GM, Ford and Chrysler and sucked whatever was left out.
Also things like Cadillac went crazy and tried to out BMW BMW etc etc
But the 2 biggest design failures were the the awful shift to FWD drivetrains and the current SUV design malaise.
And the point of the story being? You have your opinions and I have mine. BTW you didn’t show the 65 Cadillacs front end, only the side profile which looks nothing like the Lincoln.
64 Caddy
64 Lincoln
65 Caddy
65 Lincoln
The Cadillac’s and Lincoln’s of the 60’s looked nothing like each other inside and out. They were built very differently as well. One was unibody, the other a was body-on-frame design. Even we’ll into the 70’s they looked very different.
No modern Cadillac or Lincoln even comes close to the class, quality, styling, and pure elegance of the classics. And for its day they were pretty powerful cars.
The Caddy’s 429 engine made 340HP with like 485ftlbs of torque. By 68 they had the 472 engine that made up to 375 HP and 525ftlbs, basically hot rods in disguise.
The Lincoln’s 430 engine made 320 HP and 475ftlbs of torque.
Big heavy cars that really didn’t feel like it. All that torque made for some easy and stress free motoring.
Great post! Proving your point succinctly and definitively.
And you taught me something. I never realized that the big Lincolns of that era were uni-body. I remember riding in a new '66 Continental and you sure couldn't tell from the ride quality. Incomparable smoothness and quiet. Of course, when I say incomparable I'm talking about my own experience. I don't recall ever getting a chance to ride in a '66 Sedan De Ville, but I'm sure they impressed at a similarly very high level.
I would say that throughout most of the 70s, Lincoln and Cadillac were even more distinct from each other.
Ralph Nader, Smog rules cloaking engines, CAFE and a million other stupid regulations basically killed all hope of the US domestic auto industry staying dominant by 1973.
By then also the bean counters took control at GM, Ford and Chrysler and sucked whatever was left out.
Also things like Cadillac went crazy and tried to out BMW BMW etc etc
But the 2 biggest design failures were the the awful shift to FWD drivetrains and the current SUV design malaise.
Yep, and yet the marketing people had the public eating out of their hands in about 5 minutes, having convinced them en mass that they urgently needed to dump their smooth, quiet, and stylish Impalas in favor of the new monstrosity called Citation. Everyone had to have FWD, after all. It was the new law and most obeyed blindly, as though they had just emerged from a neuro-neutralizer....all memories, sensibilities, and standards wiped from their minds.
I couldn't believe it even as I watched it happen before my eyes. And I still can't believe it, looking back. Surely it was just a nightmare....it had to be.
And the point of the story being? You have your opinions and I have mine. BTW you didn’t show the 65 Cadillacs front end, only the side profile which looks nothing like the Lincoln.
Because given my motivation level I couldn't find a public license image, did you check whether yours were copyright? Or rather did you confirm they were public license?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdlife619
The Cadillac’s and Lincoln’s of the 60’s looked nothing like each other inside and out. They were built very differently as well. One was unibody, the other a was body-on-frame design. Even we’ll into the 70’s they looked very different.
Don't care about construction, it has little to do with general appearance, would you know the BMW i3 and i8 are body on frame if I didn't tell you? In your opinion they look different, but its details that are different (front end...?) which is precisely the same issue leveled at modern vehicles, and it's completely understandable because even when cars were as aerodynamic as a brick, they still followed function.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdlife619
No modern Cadillac or Lincoln even comes close to the class, quality, styling, and pure elegance of the classics. And for its day they were pretty powerful cars.
The Caddy’s 429 engine made 340HP with like 485ftlbs of torque. By 68 they had the 472 engine that made up to 375 HP and 525ftlbs, basically hot rods in disguise.
Sure I get it, your girl is hot and classy. Which of course is again an opinion. No Cadillac ever came close to the elegance, class and styling of Ferrari, or 60s Jaguars so you're arguing whether 60s Caddys are 5th place or 6th or lower. Sure for their day they were powerful, but 340hp with 4000lbs of gvw isn't particularly hot rod-esque, its 170hp/ton in 1957 the Lotus Seven was pushing 140hp in 1000lbs trim or 280 hp/ton. Further with wallowy suspensions and relatively narrow rubber are not good at going around corners, which again the Lotus Seven wasn't guilty of.
Why would you want a hot rod in disguise? You got a fire breather why hide it? Was it so middle age dads could satisfy their mid life hot rod crisis, but not look like a douche?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdlife619
The Lincoln’s 430 engine made 320 HP and 475ftlbs of torque.
Big heavy cars that really didn’t feel like it. All that torque made for some easy and stress free motoring.
Yes they did feel big and heavy, I've driven 3/4 ton trucks that feel less sluggish and handle better. Torque, pft. Don't waste my time, the only torque that counts is rear wheel torque, what do you think the transmission does? It converts crank torque to wheel torque. Crank Torque is the statistic used by the clueless on the stupid.
And the point of the story being? You have your opinions and I have mine. BTW you didn’t show the 65 Cadillacs front end, only the side profile which looks nothing like the Lincoln.
64 Caddy
64 Lincoln
65 Caddy
65 Lincoln
The Cadillac’s and Lincoln’s of the 60’s looked nothing like each other inside and out. They were built very differently as well. One was unibody, the other a was body-on-frame design. Even we’ll into the 70’s they looked very different.
No modern Cadillac or Lincoln even comes close to the class, quality, styling, and pure elegance of the classics. And for its day they were pretty powerful cars.
The Caddy’s 429 engine made 340HP with like 485ftlbs of torque. By 68 they had the 472 engine that made up to 375 HP and 525ftlbs, basically hot rods in disguise.
The Lincoln’s 430 engine made 320 HP and 475ftlbs of torque.
Big heavy cars that really didn’t feel like it. All that torque made for some easy and stress free motoring.
Those cars essentially look the same, with different styling details. The overall shape and design cues are the same. They are less different than an Accord and Maxima.
Ralph Nader, Smog rules cloaking engines, CAFE and a million other stupid regulations basically killed all hope of the US domestic auto industry staying dominant by 1973.
By then also the bean counters took control at GM, Ford and Chrysler and sucked whatever was left out.
Also things like Cadillac went crazy and tried to out BMW BMW etc etc
But the 2 biggest design failures were the the awful shift to FWD drivetrains and the current SUV design malaise.
I think US auto will suffer big losses next few years as they cancel cars and keep trying to flood the SUV and Truck market.
More than likely they don't have the tech to beat Tesla at the EV game nor they have the investor confidence to keep at it.
They will go all in at a sinking market which is the Truck/SUV market if gas prices and market saturation hits them hard.
What happened to car designs? What happened to the American automobile? I'll tell you, competition! In the 40's-late 70's, I believe American car companies had a design/styling department that employed designers to capture the essence of a car. Interiors were expressions of style too.
In the late '70's, Japan came to America with a vengeance and Honda and Toyota introduced their cars. As each generation improved, so did sales. The Ford Taurus back in the day sold more cars than any other. But as time passed, the Corolla, Camry, Civic and Accord rose up and captured sales titles. As the American market shrank due to the success of the Japanese ( now Germany has taken hold of the luxury market), manufacturers started making designs that saved them money, increased their sales, and allowed them to compete.
Just my take. I don't think most manufacturers are designing cars to stir the soul. They are designing cars that are like others in a particular class to survive. I do think the Koreans are the best today at having some expressiveness in how their cars are designed over other companies.
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.
Proving your point succinctly and definitively. 
