To my eye, classic car designs were the creation of artists and visionaries with a sense of style and elegance. The car designs of today resemble a cartoonish exaggeration of the future dreamed up by an adolescent. The front of a 1978 Eldorado relays sophistication and luxury. Most car front ends today resemble Darth Vader at the start of a sneeze.
I couldn't have said it better myself. Lexus is the worst offender in the front end dept., it seems to me. Those grilles look like they are about to swallow a pedestrian, as Tyler Hoover put it.
There is also the cost issue. Makers use the same body for a DECADE whereas styles were changed about every three years prior to the 70's. They reduced the option choices for the same reason. Two choices for interior color, option packages instead of individual feature choices, etc. cars are built to a cost point with ease of manufacture the primary concern. Worked 19 years in auto assembly plant and saw it first hand.
I think the basic problem with modern styling is that there is too much emphasis on grabbing eyeballs by shocking rather than by pleasing the eye. The gigantic Lexus, Toyota, and BMW grilles are examples of this. Deep stamping fenders is alive and well in pickup trucks, witness the Silverado and the newest Tacoma. There are some decent, even if not adventurous designs in cars within the modern constraints. The Tesla Model S , the last Ford Fusion , the 10th Generation Honda Accord , and the current Cadillac sedans are all good designs done in good taste.
Many new cars lack the interior space, especially in the back seats, when compared to the living room sofa seats of some 1930s - 40s cars, and even many of the land yachts of the 60s and 70s. The "thousand shades of gray" interiors that are so prevalent, are just depressing. There's no "regulations" against colored interiors, but after the 80s, those seemed to have just disappeared, except on high-dollar makes. Granted, there are some decent-looking modern cars, but classic designs will always look better, IMO.
My guess is that it comes down to cost. Why devlop and manufacture all the interior components in multiple colors, when you can make everything in grey or black, and then offer the seats in grey/black or maybe tan. It helps dealers not have to stock as many cars (for example, a customer who comes in and wants a black car but with a red interior, but you only have a blue interior.) Now people just pick the exterior color and that's it. Less inventory management. Also helps with resale, again because you don't have to please the next buyer with two separate color options. It's a shame, because the color interiors were amazing!
Just a minor correction: the most important task of the thick and strongly inclined A-pillars is to distribute the immense forces over the entire body in the event of a frontal collision in order to keep the passenger compartment intact and ensure that the doors can be opened after a collision. Protection against a rollover is also a task, but a secondary one.
Besides the Low Profile Tires are more easily damaged by the high quality roads we have in Michigan. I had to be very careful when I ordered my 2019 Cherokee to get the Trailhawk as it had 17" tires, not I believe the standard 19 or 20". I do miss the days of my 31x10.50R15 tires on my Scout II.
You also have to be very careful when parking at a curb. The modern rims sometimes stick proud of the tire sidewall making it extremely easy to cause a lot of damage to the face of your rim. The thick tires of yore pushed the tire several inches out from the rim making it a lot harder to “curb” your wheel.
Great video! I came away from it feeling educated. One thing I've noticed about new car looks: Remember when the Pontiac Aztek was introduced 20+ years ago? Everyone talked about how homely it was at first, and they were right, but today it doesn't stand out as uniquely unattractive like it did back then. It blends in visually with other cars today more than it did in 2001. That's more a statement on modern cars than the Aztek.
The actual Pontiac factory Aztec CONCEPT looks much better and more coherent. I'd post a link, but UA-cam would take it down, but they're easy to find photos of the original Aztec concept with an online search. Very good looking, and not at all ungainly looking as what we wound up with. They took a gorgeous concept and beat it with an ugly stick.. terrible.
There are a lot of really good comments on this episode! I just sold my 15 Mustang Ecoboost (which I special ordered), and bought a beautiful 65 Corvair 4 door. I just love the styling of the late 4 door. And, if you want to talk about lack of safety, just look at my avatar, a 61 Corvair Rampside. If you get in a front end collision, your feet will be the first ones there! I'm retired, so I don't drive much, so I'm not too worried. t
You bring up many very valid points, Adam. I think that there are still some good-looking cars/vehicles being made today, along with plenty of turkeys. One thiing I've noticed about vehicle design over the last 10 years or so is this "me too" design of many vehicles, like that weird C pillar on a lot of Nissan sedans and other SUVs that looks like it is meant to invoke a flat separate roof piece from the side. One thing that I really wish would return is the two-door hardtop. I don't see why car designers/companies cannot execute and market such a car if they can design/market a convertible. Perhaps that is a good question for your and Marc to discuss on another episode!
I agree - on a 2-door car, the roof span isn’t that long. I believe that one thing that factors into this is that since the ‘80s, the vast majority of 2-door cars have had non-operable rear windows, and they’d have to bring back the cost of making them operable for a hardtop to really make sense.
I also miss the big coupes, two door hardtops were quite common, as were four door hardtops. Cars like the Cadillac Coupe de Ville and Buick Riviera were stylish and comfortable. The old big Pontiac Grand Prix, Oldsmobile Starfire Ninety Eight and Buick Wildcat.. great great cars.. Big V8 Performance was king in the 1960s, and nobody much thought about seatbelts. They weren't even mandatory until 1968 on all new cars, and mostly weren't worn until laws in the 1980s started demanding compliance.
Only 2 door hardtops available nowadays are the ultra expensive Rolls and Bentlyes. would like to see them produced again, after all some convertibles are still produced they can make hardtops again that meet today's safety standards.
For better or worse car companies have learned that coupes are just harder to make money on in todays market than they once were. A good modern recognition of this is Toyota turning to BMW to co-develop the then new Supra platform on the Z4, to the chagrin of both Toyota and BMW fans. But it was the only way to make the numbers work on vehicles that don't occupy the Rolls and Bentley space. A harsh reality realized.
Im a child of Eisenhower and I have no issue with the styling of modern vehicles. What I DO have an issue with is why all new vehicles are designed to BLIND all other drivers on the road with their super bright headlights. I think the USDOT regulators are a bunch of idiots in this regard. I know Im not the only one that feels this way.
It's all LED lights. Drivers don't have the option of a lights on/off switch; they burn in daylight and nightime. With LEDs, they are definitely brighter. I can only imagine when one burns out; probably a $250 part, plus labor. Ugh!
I don't think this is a new vehicle issue, but rather a vehicle maintenance or headlight height disparity issue. I share your frustration with being occasionally blinded at night, but I find that most of the offending vehicles have misaimed headlights, are pickups with obnoxious lift kits so their headlights shine directly into your rear view mirror, or have DIY aftermarket headlight modifications. I have a 2022 Volvo with matrix LED headlights, where part of the matrix turns off so as not to blind oncoming drivers. It also has auto high beams that turn off when they sense oncoming cars. These features are coming to more cars and makes driving at night safer and less frustrating. The wide and bright illumination makes them the best headlights of any car I've ever owned, and I wouldn't ever trade them for old halogens.
Now maybe this is due to the exuberance of youth but when I was a kid in the later 60’s and early 70’s, but I could barely contain myself when I went to an auto show of new cars. I remember going to the auto show for the first time in 1968. I would take virtually any new 1968 car over anything built today. I remember going to the Milwaukee, Wisconsin auto show in February of this year and thinking to myself “why do I bother?”
Very good point! I always looked forward to the car shows and after this past year, I doubt I will bother. The last show I went to had ONLY charcoal color SUV's with black interiors. Mimeographing is not dead!
Classic Mercedes (any generational chassis codes up to W124/W126) are the only vehicles which offer most (if not all) features of a modern passenger car, without any of the gimmicky excess, in an analogue package, which is infinitely repairable/maintainable/serviceable.
Thanks for this one, Adam ! Always good to enjoy auto design history and talk. I was a child in the early 1960s, and grew up with the most amazing car designs ever imagined.. I miss that era dearly now. Design got heavier, more bloated and more conservative starting in the 1960s.. Perhaps a reaction to the more free wheeling and expressive 1960s, that whole 'neoclassical' design ethos became deeply entrenched. One cannot imagine anyone today coming out with a 1971 boat tail Riviera, for instance. In the US only GM was big enough, and daring enough to pull that sort of thing off. Bill Mitchell era at GM saw some of the best car designs anywhere on Earth.
Hey, now! I have a BMW I3S and a Lincoln MkIV. 2 polar opposites can exist in one’s head. The I3 is a genius town car. And the Lincoln makes me feel connected to a time that shall not be forgotten.
Yes, I was told that by a guy I know that works for NHTSA. Trucks and SUVs have special pedestrian and bicycle impact standards which have to be tall and flat to avoid people getting thrown over or underneath said vehicles. The idea is they would 'bounce off' the flat surfaces. However the irony is now days cars and SUVs are all porkers, so the idea of 'let's use plastic and styrofoam to save weight' is laughable. They weigh as much as a 70s land yacht with little problem. I worked with a guy who was a designer at the later yrs of Saturn. He said "You're gonna see more and more car companies use bigger and bigger logos and emblems in the upcoming yrs, because everything looks the same, so 1 needs to know if they're looking at a Chevy or Buick.." That was nearly 20 yrs ago. As far as I'm concerned, with little exception, everything pretty much looks the same now days.
I'd like to know: 1. Why are there so few cars of any kind even being manufactured today (and by cars I do mean REAL cars, that is cars with gasoline or diesel engines)? 2. Why are there almost NO two door cars being made today? I grew up with 2 door cars. Lots of them. I never had a 4 door car until I was in my late 50s. 3. Why are there almost no REAL pickups anymore? I grew up on a farm, and to me, a pickup has 2 doors, a bench seat, and an 8 foot bed. To actually carry CARGO (gas or diesel of course) 4. The last thing is really 2 things, that seem to go together. Why do new cars sit so close to the ground that they are virtually undriveable on normal roads, with bumps and potholes? Some cars actually have to have a way to lift them up a bit to go over anything more than an inch high, like the C8 Corvette. I have a 1976 that can be driven pretty much anywhere any car can be driven. And second, why do almost all newer cars have those huge ghetto wheels with only a very thin strip of rubber wrapped around the outside? And most of them are black. These things are hideously ugly, to the point of being disgusting. This is a trend that started in the ghettos, where pimps, drug dealers, gang members, and any criminal with the financial means put them on their cars as a status symbol. Cars like that are called "donks", and for some reason the trend has found its way into mainstream society, just like baggy pants that you had to hold up with your hands, which also came from the ghetto. Again, these abominations make the vehicle virtually undrivable on normal roads, along with being disgustingly ugly. The only "late model" cars I will drive are still 2 decades old. I have 2 Mercury Grand Marquis, an '06 and an '07. They still have some resemblance to what a car should look like. Chrome bumpers would help a lot, but the basic shape is close. My other 2 decade old car is a 2003 V6 Mustang, in bright yellow. I wasn't looking for a Mustang specifically, I just wanted a 2 door rear wheel drive American car. It didn't take long to realize that a V6 Mustang was the only real choice in my price range. It came with 16" wheels, and the tires were fairly well worn, but the rest of it was a 9.5 out of 10. I found a set of 15" wheels from a 2000 Mustang V6 for it, so I could use normal tires, and have more sidewall. The bright yellow really stands out in a sea of black, white, and gray front wheel drive sedans, "crossovers" and 4 door trucks. My last non vintage vehicle, though it is getting close, is a 1993 Chevy truck, 1/2 ton, 2 door, 2 wheel drive, bench seat, V8/auto, with an 8 foot bed. I also have the restored stock '76 Corvette, and a '72 Plymouth Duster, that I built a hot rod out of.
@@MarinCipollina Compared to most of what's out there today, it just does not really offend my sensibilities much. It appears to be a proper sedan, and it has a nice paint color too.
Aerodynamics needs, pedestrian and cyclist impact standards, cheapened tooling for sheet metal, crash crumple zones, and generally the same form factor on SUVs and crossovers.
The beauty of those old cars is accentuated by rarity as a product of passing time, and nostalgia. We also see preeminence of artists and engineers replaced by that of bureaucrats and accountants.
I’ve watched dozens of videos of accidents recorded on dash cams and security cameras and I’m often amazed to see drivers and passengers escape serious injury in vehicles that look like they’ve already visited the crusher at the junk yard. Contemporary designs are certainly not as aesthetically appealing as in decades past but they sure are much safer in an accident.
Interesting video, I’d add another design constraint related to impact rules is the loss of lower “tumble home” (or “turn under”). This refers to older cars having the rocker panels and lower body panels being pinched inward relative to the widest part of the body. This lower tapering makes vintage cars look lighter and leaner and modern cars brick like . This was necessary to improve side impact resistance with much larger and heavier rocker panels as well as moving them outwards to increase the side crumple zone especially as related to leg injuries. In my opinion there were three major developments that destroyed the beautiful proportions of cars up to the very early 70’s. First was the 1973 5mph bumper laws that resulted in big ugly railroad tie type bumpers. Second was the roll over laws later in the 70’s that killed the beautiful lithe look of hardtop styling and instead regressed us to 1930’s style big bulky window framing. Lastly and probably most important was the switch to compact front drive drive units. This resulted in stubby droopy hoods and moved the front axle back till the front tires were almost under the windshield and front overhangs became very excessive. This destroyed the beautifully esthetic proportions afforded by minimal front overhang and front axles well forward creating a balanced athletic look compared to the wheelbarrow like proportions of todays stubby sedans and small SUV’s with so much of the visual bulk forward of the front wheels and a too short rear overhang.
I don't agree with the FWD portion of what you have stated. FWD Acura Legends looked just like rear drive Lexus models of the same period. "Tumble home" is a nautical term, and I agree with what you are saying, but I think they got away from the "round belly" style simply because this was an unnecessary loss of room. The Lamborghini Countach has two variants: The round belly and the square belly. The round belly has the tucked in tumble home that has been on every Lamborghini poster in the world, and the square belly is the silly car that Tyler Hoover has, the 25th anniversary model.
You got it! I agree. The whammy for American cars were the '74 bumpers plus performance killing smog regulations right when the first fuel embargo hit. The auto paradigm changed overnight. All you kiddies have no idea about the "fuel shortages" of the '70's. They made the wait at Costco gas seem like a breeze.
Designers have since made bumpers that are much less bulky than the initial responses to the 5mph bumper mandate. In fact I'd say we have the opposite problem now. If you look at most new cars, the bumpers are flush with the body, if you can even discern the bumper from the rest. My only guess is this helps with pedestrian collision safety, but not having a protruding bumper defeats the purpose of having a bumper at all.
I love vintage cars but modern vehicles are orders of magnitude safer, more practical and more efficient than older ones. It’s always been that way as technology has marched on. 30 years from now we’ll be loving the classic designs of the 2020’s lol. Great video!
My 1975 Toronado has an Aluminum structural beam behind the 5 piece chrome bumper. I had a good laugh when I saw this on a 4800 lb car. Engineers were definitely working in a strange world then.
A few observations: most of us are prejudiced towards our favorite era of cars, and think they have a wide variety of style and the best style, while, because we don't like another era of cars, we tend to think those all look the same. In reality, many, many cars of every era looked just like each other, and in the past, we fixated on little things like grilles and lights to distinguish what were, in fact, the same chassis or the one the other carmaker copied. There are actually many more models from each maker, and far more makers, than in the past. Some makers have 6 or even 8 different sizes of SUV! that's just silly. And yet it's true- almost all the makers take the me-too, keep up with the Joneses attitude of making their cars look like and have all the same measurements and specs as their competitors. This has been the case since WW2. Want the perfectly proportioned car? Not too low, not too high? 1955 Chevy- or Ford or Dodge. Ironically, they were the first cars to have a fully filled- out body without wasted space with huge fenders and hoods, but with more useful trunks and properly roomy wagons. After that, things went really long and low and wide, and all over the place from there.
I agree with some of your observations but disagree with others. There’s not much variety when certain brands no longer even offer sedans or traditional cars… only crossovers and SUVs.
Agree with your comment on prejudice, but not with the thought that cars of every era looked like each other. Certainly there was a lot more variety of styling and design in the 50's and 60's ... and probably the 70's. A quick glance and you could easily tell which company made the car without having to look at the badge, slightly longer, and it was obvious what year it was. Now days it's often hard to tell one brand from another, and with a few exceptions, very difficult to tell what year it is. The chassis is pretty irrelevant when talking styling and design.
I can tell you the make and model of hundreds of cars from the 50’s to 90’s (even ones I don’t particularly like) based on their styling. Today that is much harder. Vehicles are definitely becoming more and more ubiquitous. There are of course still exceptions but overall everything has very little brand identity and real style anymore.
Yes this video is spot on about regulations. One thing I could add is the SUV trend that is killing the styling of every vehicule. Most vehicules looks the same, so it blends all together and no vehicule pops out of the lot, except for the extreme. Also manufacturers exchange their brand in "alliance" between them, like the Toyota Yaris, that is in fact a rebranded Mazda 2.
I'm very glad you made this video. A friend and I we're just talking about this very thing a couple of weeks ago. It's hard to find a car today that has a comparable ride to some of the land yachts from the '50s, '60s, or 70s. Sure, a modern car can out handle any of those old land yachts, but I'm not taking my '60s Imperial around the Nuremberg ring.
My only issue with modern cars is the big pillars (not only for roll over safety, but also to make room for airbags). These pillars (A,B and C) are dangerous. I have at least one near accident per year because of dead zones in my view. Mind you my car does not have the modern warning systems yet and I am meticulous with having my rear view mirrors adjusted correctly. But still, it happens sometimes that I miss a cyclist coming from the right, or a vehicle when changing lanes.
Other concerns for the accountants is warehousing and transportation. As construction, real estate and transportation have dramatically increased in cost over the decades warehousing and space utilization has become a prime concern. Sheet metal with gentle curves and soft angles is not only cheaper to manufacture. It also nests more efficiently and stacks more numerously in smaller spaces. Every truckload, fork truck and square foot reduced is $ saved.
Another thing is that everything’s been done before. It’s getting harder and harder to do something truly unique. Add that to those aerodynamic and safety regulations
Thumbs up for your spot on presentation as is always the case, Adam. However, I would like to drive home something about the design of many of today's cars and SUV's that I believe is worth mentioning, and it is how their intrinsic aggressive styling seems to be subconsciously playing a role in ticking up road rage. Just as offensive blindingly bright headlight beams have become, there is something to certain modern cars' front end looks that seems to entice violence -albeit subconsciously- turning driver error into something misconstrued as intentional or menacing behavior, that would otherwise be taken as simple unintentional, non-provoking erratic driving on an otherwise friendly-looking car.
@@servicerifle16 Exactly, their style resembling angry birds who are out there to pick a fight with whoever comes their way. Unlike sportingly aggressive like 70's muscle cars for instance, that gave off a sportiness that pleased the eye.
Modern styling cues, such as the floating roof line, and lower headlight position, are a bit safer than what was done pre mid-70s. Also, with the use of 'air curtains 'to improve aerodynamics, have become more common. When those standards came out back then, it was a huge game of trial and error, in terms of what caught the consumer's eye.
Great episode, Adam! You mentioned a collision in old vs new - we often hear vantage car enthusiasts say “I’d rather have all that steel between me and them. Not these cheap new cars.” Would be interesting for a comprehensive timeline review of regulations and the kinds of collisions that compelled them (let’s see some twisted metal!) LOVE the old cars but I’d rather be in a collision in most any modern car than the fanciest old car - so much safer.
@@MarinCipollinaI don’t know if you are serious or going for a laugh with your comment, but the reality is one can be the best defensive driver on planet earth but still be involved in a serious accident simply by being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
@@Primus54 Although it may sound snarky, and maybe it is just a bit, but it also happens to be true.. The vast MAJORITY of auto collisions are avoidable.
In my opinion (and I completely agree that new cars are much less attractive than older cars), it comes from the desperation of corporate culture. The people who design modern products are very conformist, very much slaves of "trends", and very anxious to blow away the competition-- rather than creating valuable, satisfying, and discreet designs that would distinguish them. Thus this current malaise of design, where sheet metal is desperately overstyled into images of mockery and excess, and quite obvious messages of aggression. American carmakers are the worst in this way.
@@toronado455 You definitely could say so. It's an interesting debate to have. To me, what decides it is the sense of inauthenticity in our modern cars. Much of their ornamentation is brazenly fake. The old cars, while arguably overstyled, were at least exactly what they proposed to be. Just my sense of it.
Thank you for sharing your knowledge on this topic. One thing designers do now is squeeze down the roof lower and make the windows short. There are a few exceptions like the Subaru Forester, but just compare that car with, say, a Lexus NX.
IMO, the low roof and short windows (and high beltline) is because that’s what the car designers think looks better, more “sporty”, more differentiation between cars and SUVs. It’s unfortunate. Lots of consumers equate high beltline with better side-impact protection, which is not necessarily correct.
@@toronado455 I’m not sure what you mean with that example. The 1st gen xB had very elegant styling, but horrible crash test results. The 2nd gen was safer (just about anything would be), but ugly as all get out. I don’t specifically know if the beltline height changed much, but my guess is that it became higher at the same time safety was improved. So there’s an example where the change matched with popular perception of safety. IMO the real cause of the improvement was the doors being thicker in the 2nd gen.
Your in-depth video on this topic is so correct!!! All of the reasons that you mentioned why today's cars are not future classics is so spot-on!!! This is why modern cars lack a soul.
When GM redesigned their full sized SUV (Tahoe, Yukon, Escalade), they hit a home run. An enormous vehicle became sleek, capable, beautiful. Someday I will get one. The latest iteration, while boasting an independent rear axle and other tweaks, looks like a bloated design that could have easily been one discarded when the 2015 was restyled. But IMO, the ghastly, grotesque and ever growing flat black plastic wheel lip mouldings are outrageous. Let’s hope those go the way of the fins from the late 50s. Thank you for your thoughtful and insightful channel.
Sorry Adam, I don't buy the excuses. Look at Rolls, Bentley, The BMW 7 Series - these cars have block front ends, tasteful chrome. The BMW 8 Series from the 90's and the recent Mercedes S Class Coupes had no B pillars and are two of the most beautiful cars ever made. Nobody wants chrome railroad tie bumpers but tasteful split bumperettes in chrome are a great styling alternative. I lay the blame at recent generations of designers who have no sense or respect for history or heritage and couldn't design a modern classic for all the tea in China. GM showed the Elmiraj, The Escala and the Buick Avenir - all GORGEOUS vehicles - so where are they? They are pushed aside in favor of trucks and SUV's that all look the same. BMW in particular should fire and prosecute everyone in their design team under 40 for the garbage they have unleashed on the public, and pull the older generation out of retirement. They KNOW what a BMW should look like.
As someone who is 24, the 80’s is the cutoff point, maybe I’ll stretch it to 1991 since that was the last year of the boxy panther platform cars from Ford. Aerodynamics essentially murdered automotive styling, don’t care if it makes cars more fuel efficient etc, it just causes more issues since it eats into the interior, trunk volume. That explains why people have moved on from most sedans and hatchbacks, while smaller vehicles are practical in certain situations, how can a vehicle be practical when there’s not much space for rear seat passengers and luggage?
Good video, Adam. Agree with all points. However, one of the biggest issues with modern vehicles with transverse FWD design is the basic drivetrain architecture of placing the engine in front of the transmission. Causes the horrible, awkward massive front overhang, tucking the front wheel back near the A-pillar. Just awful in every way!
Inarguable. I think a couple of awful examples of this terrible front overhang that come to mind first are the current and prior Civic and the CX-5. They just look like they have a large amount of mass ahead of the front wheels, giving them awkward proportions.
The easiest way around most regulation restrictions is to design a LARGE TRUCK/SUV. First off big trucks are considered commercial vehicles so they get less fuel and emissions restraint along with many pedestrian exemptions. No person safely rolls over a 6" high truck hood.
I think I may have watched your channel too much, Adam .. So often, now, when I see something really snazz on an old car, instead of thinking how cool it is I'm automatically either "That would never pass crash standards, today" or "I bet a bean counter forced them to do that to save $0.74" .. lol .. Really appreciate these videos for all I've learned from you, sir
Cost is another really big factor. Uniqueness equals cost so keeping things a bit bland keeps the cost down. As well, there is the fact that buyers want one vehicle that does all jobs so if you're setting out to design something that has to be part sedan, part wagon, part SUV, part minivan, part theater, part day care, part office, part lounge etc, it's going to be very challenging to make the end product appealing, especially when you have to keep it under a certain cost ceiling..
Over on the autopian, they recently had a podcast with the lead designer of the Lucid Air which was I think your example of a stylish modern car. There is some good dialogue about making a clean sheet design. Also, you mentioned fender flares and the example of a BMW M3 came to mind. A really handsome modern car IMO, with stylish fenders. Thanks for all the great videos.
I was so underwhelmed with new vehicles I bought a low mile 81 AMC wagon with a stick shift instead, although I will be storing it during salt season. Manual brakes and windows, no stupid screen on the dash. My other daily driver option In the summer is a 74 VW beetle.
I had a new 74 Super Beetle. I had it as my only car. It was a horrible car. I lived in snow country. It was an underpowered death trap on interstates. There's a tight curve on I-91 in Springfield Mass. going north. I got blown out of my lane by the wind. I hit a truck. Only a small dent in the rear fender. A tiny scrape of paint on his painted bumper. He rightly called me an Ahole. A gutless wonder of a car. Same interstate on the final hill before Brattleboro VT. I'd be lucky to make 50 MPH. Mt Washington NH. There's a toll road to drive to the top. 6288 feet elevation. The car died from lack of air at about 5800 feet. It was a dirt road with no guard rails, paved now, still no guard rails. I was in a cloud bank. I coasted in reverse about a 1/4 mile until a spot I could at least turn around and face downhill. Still had to coast about another 1/4 miles before the engine was able to start. I literally thought I was going to die. I note that both of the things you bought are not winter rigs. So, while you are into the looks, you are not interested into actually using them for their original intent. Which was to use them everyday in every type of weather. Looks are for suckers if the vehicle cannot perform it's primary function.
Besides aerodynamics, crash safety, pedestrian safety, there’s also been a coarsening of tastes. The rise of the mean-faced, urban assault vehicle aesthetic. Enormous, chunky pickups that aren’t attractive the way cars used to be. Trucks have gotten as obese as the Americans that drive them. They were a way for GM, Ford, etc. to avoid the standards applied to cars.
Could you do a video on the impact of different regulations on design like the 5mph bumper and others? I think design peaked about 64-71, then regulations just kept cutting the legs out from underneath, 70's Ford and Iacocca Chrysler had some rough stuff on the eyes.
Also, I think they went away from the 5mph standard, which makes cars much more vulnerable to expensive damage in minor accidents, though much safer in major accidents due to the high speed crash standards. We should have kept both.
Good observation about weight perceptions. Non-car people routinely will comment that my 68 imperial must weigh soo much -even if they drive an SUV (several of which beat the Imperial by hundreds of pounds!) I prefer styling of yesteryear but admittedly modern cars are better…handling, braking, safety, economy of operation (but not repair).
At this point in car design I'm checked out. Thin LED light front and back and ovoid shapes outside, with two curved screens inside seem to be the trend, and it's just blah. There are some outliers, like the IONIQ 6 which is just stunning IMO. I really love the design of my own vehicle, a 22 Ford Maverick. To me it represents a cross section of the cars I grew up with and the current and future reality of car design/content. I think the designers did a great job with the most subtle of nods to the 80s/90s F150/Ranger, inside and out, while keeping it modern and fresh.
Agree with this. One of my buddies who worked for GM his whole career told me that everyone was pretty much limited to two designs for the front, because of federal regulations. Specifically the pedestrian issue you mentioned. Personally, I like the stiffer ride and handling of the lower profile tires, but that's me.
Thank you Adam for being a voice of reason amidst the "good old days" mentality on UA-cam car channels for whom today's car designs make no sense and thus are simply another sign of the collapse of society.😮
The trend, which really started before WWII, of using increasingly compact drivetrains to bring the front wheels closer to the firewall and to shorten the hood, while reducing bulk as well as weight, and greatly improving maneuverability, has given modern cars stubby, slug-like proportions that are hard to style in attractive ways. It's hard to make a cucumber on wheels into a "classic".
Thank You Adam. It was very interesting. It just seems the designers and engineers are limited by meeting regulations. I understand why classic cars have style and substance where modern cars lack this. In the attempt to meet all the regulations the cars are just not appealing as they once were. Some companies are indeed trying. I think this is why modern cars lack the individuality they once had.
Love the channel, love the old cars, agree with the appreciation for the classic styling…but…I have to admit to a guilty love for the i3 that is the thumbnail picture for this video. I think it looks great.
2005 Chrysler 300 is the reason we have low-roofed, tiny-windowed, oversized wheel arched vehicles now. The Audi S8 and A8 too but the styling took off with the 300 and we're still here 20 yrs later.
I’m just done with cars that have to look like they have to get through a zombie apocalypse. SUV’s and crossovers just have a clunky, non aerodynamic design. Most of the cars look good, with the exception of some big grills on bottom breathers. Great video Adam.
Having collected 1970s AMCs and some 60s and 70s Lincolns and Imperials for the last 20 years, I think a lot of the appeal of these cars has to do with the memories they invoke. For example, I don't think the 1974 LTD is a particularly imaginative design, and it's certainly no feat of engineering by any metric, but every time I see one, I remember my dad pulling into the driveway every weekday after work, or joking when I was a kid that LTD stood for "long term debt." Almost all of the classic cars we hold dear are far inferior to today's cars in almost every metric related to safety, efficiency, and engineering. I love driving my 74 Matador coupe, but when I get into my 2022 Volvo for my long commute to work each day, I breathe a sigh of relief, turn on the adaptive cruise, and give thanks for not having to commute in a 74 LTD like my dad.
True. I remember replacing mufflers, alternators. Oil leaks, etc. Cars stalled once in a while. Ive thought about that whenever I consider buying a vintage car like I had in the 70s. My 08 has 300,000 miles and has the original exhaust system,alternator, belt. Doesn't leak a drop of oil . Never had a tune up. Runs like new.
TBH, I miss the porch chats. That's what drew me in. Just a guy, talking, about interesting stuff. Your passion for the subject is what mattered to me.
Excellent, really enjoy the discussion of the manufacturing process and its interaction with style. I worked in the aircraft manufacturing business and certainly stampings, hot joggles, stretch form these things could make a car that almost no one could afford. While my favorite car is the tornado still if I were to be driving a car a lot I would really be thinking about safety, fuel mileage, environmental impact and all of those other mandates we complain about. Its a part of living in the modern world
Very informative! I also prefer the classics more but understand modern cars better now. When you think about it, it's just a logical evolution.Styling changes remind us time moves on.
Despite the very real limitations on designers that you describe, I still think that beauty is possible. But the goal seems to be a techno/aggressive/hyper-appliance/tough-guy aesthetic.
It's an American art form. Is this not why these vehicles are so cherished all over the worldnowadays? I saw this Russian guy on You Tube with a mint 68' or 69' T-Bird with a switched out Coyote engine. Can you believe it? I can, they probably don't have many 385 blocks laying around in Russian junkyards.
Last year I needed to rent a car-and got a Toyota Camry. It was quite an okay car and its rearview camera was great. That camera is indispensable because without it, the car would’ve been extremely hard to back up. My mom complained about the blind spots (wide C-pillars) in her 1967 Chrysler, but it might as well have been a convertible relative to new cars with their letter-slot windows. (Ditto my ’74 Town & Country wagon.) Considering how heavy the EV drive systems are, I wonder how heavy the wagon (about 5,000 lb as is) would be if I switched it from ICE to EV, like some have done to “green up” their classics.
Depends what you mean by modern. Cars from 2015 to now, have more styling similarites to 50-70s American cars. Than those from 1990s and 2000s. The use of chrome, angry overstyling, two tone roofs have made a come back. Just look at Hyundai and Kia as an example.
It's really simple actually. Manufacturer's once built cars for consumers. Now they build them for the government. Where does the government come up with all these requirements? They just pull them out of their ass. We are being ruled by MAGIC ASS regulation.
Regarding fastback styling and aerodynamics: The Saab 92 from 1950 supposedly had a drag coefficient of 0.30, which isn't bad even by modern standards, and it is very much a fastback style. It would probably have been lower if they had used modern glued windows and flush door handles.
Rear impact regulations tends to favor compact SUVs to sends because the beltline is raised so the rear is a crash bumper. Cameras and sensors are needed because of the reduced visibility
Purpose engineered electric vehicles have a fundamentally different proportion structure than ICE vehicles both old and new, and that is pushing designer to both innovate and experiment with mixed results. EVs can get by with very short overhangs (not classic styling friendly) and need to be relatively high to accommodate the thickness of their batteries (also not classic styling friendly). Really only the long wheelbases to fit the batteries align nicely with a more traditional styling paradigm. The big win is really the interior where you get huge space in much shorter vehicles and my "compact EV cross-over" has interior space that would make an 80's Buick Electra blush. I think designs will get iteratively better as the designers figure out what works well with this fixed proportions in things like Hyundai/Kia/Genesis E-GMP platform or GM's Ultium platform. Also, I think familiarity starts to breed comfort (I remember my parents reaction to the Taurus only for them to end up in a very round 1992 Town Car that they adored). I've actually been surprised by how many older folks just out in public comment on how much they like my Genesis GV60 which is about as far from classical/vintage design as you can get.
To my eye, classic car designs were the creation of artists and visionaries with a sense of style and elegance. The car designs of today resemble a cartoonish exaggeration of the future dreamed up by an adolescent. The front of a 1978 Eldorado relays sophistication and luxury. Most car front ends today resemble Darth Vader at the start of a sneeze.
I couldn't have said it better myself. Lexus is the worst offender in the front end dept., it seems to me. Those grilles look like they are about to swallow a pedestrian, as Tyler Hoover put it.
Want to buy a 78 Eldorado? 😂
There is also the cost issue. Makers use the same body for a DECADE whereas styles were changed about every three years prior to the 70's. They reduced the option choices for the same reason. Two choices for interior color, option packages instead of individual feature choices, etc. cars are built to a cost point with ease of manufacture the primary concern. Worked 19 years in auto assembly plant and saw it first hand.
I think the basic problem with modern styling is that there is too much emphasis on grabbing eyeballs by shocking rather than by pleasing the eye. The gigantic Lexus, Toyota, and BMW grilles are examples of this. Deep stamping fenders is alive and well in pickup trucks, witness the Silverado and the newest Tacoma. There are some decent, even if not adventurous designs in cars within the modern constraints. The Tesla Model S , the last Ford Fusion , the 10th Generation Honda Accord , and the current Cadillac sedans are all good designs done in good taste.
the model s is ugly
Maybe that’s one good reason for collision-avoidance technology. Driver thinks new Lexus is good looking = can’t see worth crap!
Many new cars lack the interior space, especially in the back seats, when compared to the living room sofa seats of some 1930s - 40s cars, and even many of the land yachts of the 60s and 70s. The "thousand shades of gray" interiors that are so prevalent, are just depressing. There's no "regulations" against colored interiors, but after the 80s, those seemed to have just disappeared, except on high-dollar makes. Granted, there are some decent-looking modern cars, but classic designs will always look better, IMO.
My guess is that it comes down to cost. Why devlop and manufacture all the interior components in multiple colors, when you can make everything in grey or black, and then offer the seats in grey/black or maybe tan. It helps dealers not have to stock as many cars (for example, a customer who comes in and wants a black car but with a red interior, but you only have a blue interior.) Now people just pick the exterior color and that's it. Less inventory management. Also helps with resale, again because you don't have to please the next buyer with two separate color options. It's a shame, because the color interiors were amazing!
It seems like the backseats of modern cars all look the same.
And designed for people with no legs, or small children.
Shortened wheelbase and weight reduction drove cramped back seats and puny doors and openings.
And comfort takes a....back seat.
Just a minor correction: the most important task of the thick and strongly inclined A-pillars is to distribute the immense forces over the entire body in the event of a frontal collision in order to keep the passenger compartment intact and ensure that the doors can be opened after a collision. Protection against a rollover is also a task, but a secondary one.
Besides the Low Profile Tires are more easily damaged by the high quality roads we have in Michigan. I had to be very careful when I ordered my 2019 Cherokee to get the Trailhawk as it had 17" tires, not I believe the standard 19 or 20". I do miss the days of my 31x10.50R15 tires on my Scout II.
You also have to be very careful when parking at a curb. The modern rims sometimes stick proud of the tire sidewall making it extremely easy to cause a lot of damage to the face of your rim. The thick tires of yore pushed the tire several inches out from the rim making it a lot harder to “curb” your wheel.
Great video! I came away from it feeling educated. One thing I've noticed about new car looks: Remember when the Pontiac Aztek was introduced 20+ years ago? Everyone talked about how homely it was at first, and they were right, but today it doesn't stand out as uniquely unattractive like it did back then. It blends in visually with other cars today more than it did in 2001. That's more a statement on modern cars than the Aztek.
The actual Pontiac factory Aztec CONCEPT looks much better and more coherent. I'd post a link, but UA-cam would take it down, but they're easy to find photos of the original Aztec concept with an online search. Very good looking, and not at all ungainly looking as what we wound up with. They took a gorgeous concept and beat it with an ugly stick.. terrible.
There are a lot of really good comments on this episode! I just sold my 15 Mustang Ecoboost (which I special ordered), and bought a beautiful 65 Corvair 4 door. I just love the styling of the late 4 door. And, if you want to talk about lack of safety, just look at my avatar, a 61 Corvair Rampside. If you get in a front end collision, your feet will be the first ones there! I'm retired, so I don't drive much, so I'm not too worried.
t
Love that Rampside, and probably inexpensive at the time.
Although no rampside option I like the early Ecconoline too with the 200 inline six.
You bring up many very valid points, Adam. I think that there are still some good-looking cars/vehicles being made today, along with plenty of turkeys. One thiing I've noticed about vehicle design over the last 10 years or so is this "me too" design of many vehicles, like that weird C pillar on a lot of Nissan sedans and other SUVs that looks like it is meant to invoke a flat separate roof piece from the side. One thing that I really wish would return is the two-door hardtop. I don't see why car designers/companies cannot execute and market such a car if they can design/market a convertible. Perhaps that is a good question for your and Marc to discuss on another episode!
There are a few hardtops, but they're too rare.
I agree - on a 2-door car, the roof span isn’t that long. I believe that one thing that factors into this is that since the ‘80s, the vast majority of 2-door cars have had non-operable rear windows, and they’d have to bring back the cost of making them operable for a hardtop to really make sense.
I also miss the big coupes, two door hardtops were quite common, as were four door hardtops. Cars like the Cadillac Coupe de Ville and Buick Riviera were stylish and comfortable. The old big Pontiac Grand Prix, Oldsmobile Starfire Ninety Eight and Buick Wildcat.. great great cars.. Big V8 Performance was king in the 1960s, and nobody much thought about seatbelts. They weren't even mandatory until 1968 on all new cars, and mostly weren't worn until laws in the 1980s started demanding compliance.
Only 2 door hardtops available nowadays are the ultra expensive Rolls and Bentlyes. would like to see them produced again, after all some convertibles are still produced they can make hardtops again that meet today's safety standards.
For better or worse car companies have learned that coupes are just harder to make money on in todays market than they once were. A good modern recognition of this is Toyota turning to BMW to co-develop the then new Supra platform on the Z4, to the chagrin of both Toyota and BMW fans. But it was the only way to make the numbers work on vehicles that don't occupy the Rolls and Bentley space. A harsh reality realized.
Im a child of Eisenhower and I have no issue with the styling of modern vehicles. What I DO have an issue with is why all new vehicles are designed to BLIND all other drivers on the road with their super bright headlights. I think the USDOT regulators are a bunch of idiots in this regard. I know Im not the only one that feels this way.
I agree with you 100% on that
It's all LED lights. Drivers don't have the option of a lights on/off switch; they burn in daylight and nightime. With LEDs, they are definitely brighter. I can only imagine when one burns out; probably a $250 part, plus labor. Ugh!
I don't think this is a new vehicle issue, but rather a vehicle maintenance or headlight height disparity issue. I share your frustration with being occasionally blinded at night, but I find that most of the offending vehicles have misaimed headlights, are pickups with obnoxious lift kits so their headlights shine directly into your rear view mirror, or have DIY aftermarket headlight modifications. I have a 2022 Volvo with matrix LED headlights, where part of the matrix turns off so as not to blind oncoming drivers. It also has auto high beams that turn off when they sense oncoming cars. These features are coming to more cars and makes driving at night safer and less frustrating. The wide and bright illumination makes them the best headlights of any car I've ever owned, and I wouldn't ever trade them for old halogens.
Right on! 👍
I think a big part of the problem are after market custom headlights that aren't compliant with regulations.
Now maybe this is due to the exuberance of youth but when I was a kid in the later 60’s and early 70’s, but I could barely contain myself when I went to an auto show of new cars. I remember going to the auto show for the first time in 1968. I would take virtually any new 1968 car over anything built today. I remember going to the Milwaukee, Wisconsin auto show in February of this year and thinking to myself “why do I bother?”
Very good point! I always looked forward to the car shows and after this past year, I doubt I will bother. The last show I went to had ONLY charcoal color SUV's with black interiors. Mimeographing is not dead!
In my mind, cars since 1995 are basically home appliances with wheels: all plastic, bland design and no way to fix it if broke
Classic Mercedes (any generational chassis codes up to W124/W126) are the only vehicles which offer most (if not all) features of a modern passenger car, without any of the gimmicky excess, in an analogue package, which is infinitely repairable/maintainable/serviceable.
The 92-96 Ford Trucks are still good looking and same with the 09-23 Dodge Challengers.
Yep just like appliances when then stop working after few years just throw it away get another one 😢
Nailed it
You got that right
Thanks for this one, Adam ! Always good to enjoy auto design history and talk. I was a child in the early 1960s, and grew up with the most amazing car designs ever imagined.. I miss that era dearly now. Design got heavier, more bloated and more conservative starting in the 1960s.. Perhaps a reaction to the more free wheeling and expressive 1960s, that whole 'neoclassical' design ethos became deeply entrenched.
One cannot imagine anyone today coming out with a 1971 boat tail Riviera, for instance. In the US only GM was big enough, and daring enough to pull that sort of thing off. Bill Mitchell era at GM saw some of the best car designs anywhere on Earth.
Hey, now! I have a BMW I3S and a Lincoln MkIV. 2 polar opposites can exist in one’s head. The I3 is a genius town car. And the Lincoln makes me feel connected to a time that shall not be forgotten.
I always liked the porch chats!
Me too 👍👍
Too many modern cars have "Gone Klingon" in search of safety and aerodynamics. 😔
gone Klingon is an excellent way to describe modern styling!
Yes, I was told that by a guy I know that works for NHTSA. Trucks and SUVs have special pedestrian and bicycle impact standards which have to be tall and flat to avoid people getting thrown over or underneath said vehicles. The idea is they would 'bounce off' the flat surfaces. However the irony is now days cars and SUVs are all porkers, so the idea of 'let's use plastic and styrofoam to save weight' is laughable. They weigh as much as a 70s land yacht with little problem. I worked with a guy who was a designer at the later yrs of Saturn. He said "You're gonna see more and more car companies use bigger and bigger logos and emblems in the upcoming yrs, because everything looks the same, so 1 needs to know if they're looking at a Chevy or Buick.." That was nearly 20 yrs ago. As far as I'm concerned, with little exception, everything pretty much looks the same now days.
I'd like to know:
1. Why are there so few cars of any kind even being manufactured today (and by cars I do mean REAL cars, that is cars with gasoline or diesel engines)?
2. Why are there almost NO two door cars being made today? I grew up with 2 door cars. Lots of them. I never had a 4 door car until I was in my late 50s.
3. Why are there almost no REAL pickups anymore? I grew up on a farm, and to me, a pickup has 2 doors, a bench seat, and an 8 foot bed. To actually carry CARGO (gas or diesel of course)
4. The last thing is really 2 things, that seem to go together. Why do new cars sit so close to the ground that they are virtually undriveable on normal roads, with bumps and potholes? Some cars actually have to have a way to lift them up a bit to go over anything more than an inch high, like the C8 Corvette. I have a 1976 that can be driven pretty much anywhere any car can be driven. And second, why do almost all newer cars have those huge ghetto wheels with only a very thin strip of rubber wrapped around the outside? And most of them are black. These things are hideously ugly, to the point of being disgusting. This is a trend that started in the ghettos, where pimps, drug dealers, gang members, and any criminal with the financial means put them on their cars as a status symbol. Cars like that are called "donks", and for some reason the trend has found its way into mainstream society, just like baggy pants that you had to hold up with your hands, which also came from the ghetto. Again, these abominations make the vehicle virtually undrivable on normal roads, along with being disgustingly ugly.
The only "late model" cars I will drive are still 2 decades old. I have 2 Mercury Grand Marquis, an '06 and an '07. They still have some resemblance to what a car should look like. Chrome bumpers would help a lot, but the basic shape is close. My other 2 decade old car is a 2003 V6 Mustang, in bright yellow. I wasn't looking for a Mustang specifically, I just wanted a 2 door rear wheel drive American car. It didn't take long to realize that a V6 Mustang was the only real choice in my price range. It came with 16" wheels, and the tires were fairly well worn, but the rest of it was a 9.5 out of 10. I found a set of 15" wheels from a 2000 Mustang V6 for it, so I could use normal tires, and have more sidewall. The bright yellow really stands out in a sea of black, white, and gray front wheel drive sedans, "crossovers" and 4 door trucks. My last non vintage vehicle, though it is getting close, is a 1993 Chevy truck, 1/2 ton, 2 door, 2 wheel drive, bench seat, V8/auto, with an 8 foot bed. I also have the restored stock '76 Corvette, and a '72 Plymouth Duster, that I built a hot rod out of.
That Lucid @1:11 is actually pretty darn decent looking!
You find that appealing ?
@@MarinCipollina Compared to most of what's out there today, it just does not really offend my sensibilities much. It appears to be a proper sedan, and it has a nice paint color too.
I think Adam threw in the shot of the Lucid as an example of a newer model that is actually good looking!
@@DanEBoyd I guess "inoffensive" and a striking design are two different things to me.
Aerodynamics needs, pedestrian and cyclist impact standards, cheapened tooling for sheet metal, crash crumple zones, and generally the same form factor on SUVs and crossovers.
The beauty of those old cars is accentuated by rarity as a product of passing time, and nostalgia. We also see preeminence of artists and engineers replaced by that of bureaucrats and accountants.
I’ve watched dozens of videos of accidents recorded on dash cams and security cameras and I’m often amazed to see drivers and passengers escape serious injury in vehicles that look like they’ve already visited the crusher at the junk yard. Contemporary designs are certainly not as aesthetically appealing as in decades past but they sure are much safer in an accident.
Interesting video, I’d add another design constraint related to impact rules is the loss of lower “tumble home” (or “turn under”). This refers to older cars having the rocker panels and lower body panels being pinched inward relative to the widest part of the body.
This lower tapering makes vintage cars look lighter and leaner and modern cars brick like . This was necessary to improve side impact resistance with much larger and heavier rocker panels as well as moving them outwards to increase the side crumple zone especially as related to leg injuries.
In my opinion there were three major developments that destroyed the beautiful proportions of cars up to the very early 70’s. First was the 1973 5mph bumper laws that resulted in big ugly railroad tie type bumpers. Second was the roll over laws later in the 70’s that killed the beautiful lithe look of hardtop styling and instead regressed us to 1930’s style big bulky window framing. Lastly and probably most important was the switch to compact front drive drive units. This resulted in stubby droopy hoods and moved the front axle back till the front tires were almost under the windshield and front overhangs became very excessive. This destroyed the beautifully esthetic proportions afforded by minimal front overhang and front axles well forward creating a balanced athletic look compared to the wheelbarrow like proportions of todays stubby sedans and small SUV’s with so much of the visual bulk forward of the front wheels and a too short rear overhang.
I don't agree with the FWD portion of what you have stated. FWD Acura Legends looked just like rear drive Lexus models of the same period. "Tumble home" is a nautical term, and I agree with what you are saying, but I think they got away from the "round belly" style simply because this was an unnecessary loss of room. The Lamborghini Countach has two variants: The round belly and the square belly. The round belly has the tucked in tumble home that has been on every Lamborghini poster in the world, and the square belly is the silly car that Tyler Hoover has, the 25th anniversary model.
You got it! I agree.
The whammy for American cars were the '74 bumpers plus performance killing smog regulations right when the first fuel embargo hit. The auto paradigm changed overnight.
All you kiddies have no idea about the "fuel shortages" of the '70's. They made the wait at Costco gas seem like a breeze.
Designers have since made bumpers that are much less bulky than the initial responses to the 5mph bumper mandate. In fact I'd say we have the opposite problem now. If you look at most new cars, the bumpers are flush with the body, if you can even discern the bumper from the rest. My only guess is this helps with pedestrian collision safety, but not having a protruding bumper defeats the purpose of having a bumper at all.
Yes. Miss hips on a car.
The fixed steering column on my '65 Bel Air would save me from hitting my head on the steel dash.
After it impales your chest.
I love vintage cars but modern vehicles are orders of magnitude safer, more practical and more efficient than older ones. It’s always been that way as technology has marched on. 30 years from now we’ll be loving the classic designs of the 2020’s lol. Great video!
My 1975 Toronado has an Aluminum structural beam behind the 5 piece chrome bumper. I had a good laugh when I saw this on a 4800 lb car.
Engineers were definitely working in a strange world then.
Excellent! Sadly, most cars look so similar today. I am sick of crossovers! I miss 60s styling.
A few observations: most of us are prejudiced towards our favorite era of cars, and think they have a wide variety of style and the best style, while, because we don't like another era of cars, we tend to think those all look the same. In reality, many, many cars of every era looked just like each other, and in the past, we fixated on little things like grilles and lights to distinguish what were, in fact, the same chassis or the one the other carmaker copied.
There are actually many more models from each maker, and far more makers, than in the past. Some makers have 6 or even 8 different sizes of SUV! that's just silly. And yet it's true- almost all the makers take the me-too, keep up with the Joneses attitude of making their cars look like and have all the same measurements and specs as their competitors. This has been the case since WW2.
Want the perfectly proportioned car? Not too low, not too high? 1955 Chevy- or Ford or Dodge. Ironically, they were the first cars to have a fully filled- out body without wasted space with huge fenders and hoods, but with more useful trunks and properly roomy wagons. After that, things went really long and low and wide, and all over the place from there.
I agree with some of your observations but disagree with others. There’s not much variety when certain brands no longer even offer sedans or traditional cars… only crossovers and SUVs.
Agree with your comment on prejudice, but not with the thought that cars of every era looked like each other. Certainly there was a lot more variety of styling and design in the 50's and 60's ... and probably the 70's. A quick glance and you could easily tell which company made the car without having to look at the badge, slightly longer, and it was obvious what year it was. Now days it's often hard to tell one brand from another, and with a few exceptions, very difficult to tell what year it is. The chassis is pretty irrelevant when talking styling and design.
I can tell you the make and model of hundreds of cars from the 50’s to 90’s (even ones I don’t particularly like) based on their styling. Today that is much harder. Vehicles are definitely becoming more and more ubiquitous. There are of course still exceptions but overall everything has very little brand identity and real style anymore.
Dont even get me stated on the color palette available in newer cars. One of a couple shades of primary colors and 27 shades of grey.
Yes this video is spot on about regulations. One thing I could add is the SUV trend that is killing the styling of every vehicule. Most vehicules looks the same, so it blends all together and no vehicule pops out of the lot, except for the extreme. Also manufacturers exchange their brand in "alliance" between them, like the Toyota Yaris, that is in fact a rebranded Mazda 2.
I don't get modern truck design because that GM you highlight doesn't look very aerodynamic from the front if you compare it to the old Lincoln.
I'm very glad you made this video. A friend and I we're just talking about this very thing a couple of weeks ago. It's hard to find a car today that has a comparable ride to some of the land yachts from the '50s, '60s, or 70s. Sure, a modern car can out handle any of those old land yachts, but I'm not taking my '60s Imperial around the Nuremberg ring.
My only issue with modern cars is the big pillars (not only for roll over safety, but also to make room for airbags). These pillars (A,B and C) are dangerous. I have at least one near accident per year because of dead zones in my view. Mind you my car does not have the modern warning systems yet and I am meticulous with having my rear view mirrors adjusted correctly. But still, it happens sometimes that I miss a cyclist coming from the right, or a vehicle when changing lanes.
Other concerns for the accountants is warehousing and transportation. As construction, real estate and transportation have dramatically increased in cost over the decades warehousing and space utilization has become a prime concern. Sheet metal with gentle curves and soft angles is not only cheaper to manufacture. It also nests more efficiently and stacks more numerously in smaller spaces. Every truckload, fork truck and square foot reduced is $ saved.
Wow, that Tornado is gorgeous!
That was the pinnacle of auto design. It's been downhill ever since.
Insightful and interesting video. Thank you Adam!
Another thing is that everything’s been done before. It’s getting harder and harder to do something truly unique. Add that to those aerodynamic and safety regulations
I agree and most of the "retro" designs lately just accentuate these regulations.
Oh yeah! My parents had a '72 Continental. Single digit mpg all day long! So comfy though.
I remember in 1975 buying gasoline in So. Cal. for 42¢ a gallon.
Which was OUTRAGEOUS, since it was 23¢ a gallon in the early '60s.
That 66 Toronado front end is unmatched in my opinion.
I also like the sister, 1966 Buick Riviera.
Thumbs up for your spot on presentation as is always the case, Adam. However, I would like to drive home something about the design of many of today's cars and SUV's that I believe is worth mentioning, and it is how their intrinsic aggressive styling seems to be subconsciously playing a role in ticking up road rage. Just as offensive blindingly bright headlight beams have become, there is something to certain modern cars' front end looks that seems to entice violence -albeit subconsciously- turning driver error into something misconstrued as intentional or menacing behavior, that would otherwise be taken as simple unintentional, non-provoking erratic driving on an otherwise friendly-looking car.
Like how Toyota's current front styling looks like an angry face?
@@servicerifle16 Exactly, their style resembling angry birds who are out there to pick a fight with whoever comes their way. Unlike sportingly aggressive like 70's muscle cars for instance, that gave off a sportiness that pleased the eye.
@@servicerifle16 Angry or just constipated?
Modern styling cues, such as the floating roof line, and lower headlight position, are a bit safer than what was done pre mid-70s. Also, with the use of 'air curtains 'to improve aerodynamics, have become more common.
When those standards came out back then, it was a huge game of trial and error, in terms of what caught the consumer's eye.
Your knowledge on cars never ceases to amaze me! Thanks
Great episode, Adam!
You mentioned a collision in old vs new - we often hear vantage car enthusiasts say “I’d rather have all that steel between me and them. Not these cheap new cars.” Would be interesting for a comprehensive timeline review of regulations and the kinds of collisions that compelled them (let’s see some twisted metal!) LOVE the old cars but I’d rather be in a collision in most any modern car than the fanciest old car - so much safer.
Become a better driver and not have collisions to deal with.
@@MarinCipollinaI don’t know if you are serious or going for a laugh with your comment, but the reality is one can be the best defensive driver on planet earth but still be involved in a serious accident simply by being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Yeah, I'll take airbags and all that over getting speared by the steering column any day.
Even in the '80s Jay Leno used to say that if you crashed in a '56 Buick like his they'd wipe you off the dash and sell it to the next sucker
@@Primus54 Although it may sound snarky, and maybe it is just a bit, but it also happens to be true.. The vast MAJORITY of auto collisions are avoidable.
I prefer old cars and enjoy your videos. Thank you,
In my opinion (and I completely agree that new cars are much less attractive than older cars), it comes from the desperation of corporate culture. The people who design modern products are very conformist, very much slaves of "trends", and very anxious to blow away the competition-- rather than creating valuable, satisfying, and discreet designs that would distinguish them.
Thus this current malaise of design, where sheet metal is desperately overstyled into images of mockery and excess, and quite obvious messages of aggression. American carmakers are the worst in this way.
OK, but wasn't the late 50s and early 60s also a period of overstyled excess?
@@toronado455 You definitely could say so. It's an interesting debate to have.
To me, what decides it is the sense of inauthenticity in our modern cars. Much of their ornamentation is brazenly fake.
The old cars, while arguably overstyled, were at least exactly what they proposed to be.
Just my sense of it.
Thank you for sharing your knowledge on this topic. One thing designers do now is squeeze down the roof lower and make the windows short. There are a few exceptions like the Subaru Forester, but just compare that car with, say, a Lexus NX.
I think that's not so much a choice of the designer as a necessity because of rollover protection regulation.
Notice that Tesla sedans actually have a low hood and beltline and decently tall windows.
IMO, the low roof and short windows (and high beltline) is because that’s what the car designers think looks better, more “sporty”, more differentiation between cars and SUVs. It’s unfortunate. Lots of consumers equate high beltline with better side-impact protection, which is not necessarily correct.
@@kc9scott Right. First gen vs second gen Scion xB for example.
@@toronado455 I’m not sure what you mean with that example. The 1st gen xB had very elegant styling, but horrible crash test results. The 2nd gen was safer (just about anything would be), but ugly as all get out. I don’t specifically know if the beltline height changed much, but my guess is that it became higher at the same time safety was improved. So there’s an example where the change matched with popular perception of safety. IMO the real cause of the improvement was the doors being thicker in the 2nd gen.
An important topic and well explained. Also, it seems like we are stuck with cars that are a combination, for the most part, of odd and ugly.
Your in-depth video on this topic is so correct!!! All of the reasons that you mentioned why today's cars are not future classics is so spot-on!!! This is why modern cars lack a soul.
When GM redesigned their full sized SUV (Tahoe, Yukon, Escalade), they hit a home run. An enormous vehicle became sleek, capable, beautiful. Someday I will get one. The latest iteration, while boasting an independent rear axle and other tweaks, looks like a bloated design that could have easily been one discarded when the 2015 was restyled. But IMO, the ghastly, grotesque and ever growing flat black plastic wheel lip mouldings are outrageous. Let’s hope those go the way of the fins from the late 50s. Thank you for your thoughtful and insightful channel.
Sorry Adam, I don't buy the excuses. Look at Rolls, Bentley, The BMW 7 Series - these cars have block front ends, tasteful chrome. The BMW 8 Series from the 90's and the recent Mercedes S Class Coupes had no B pillars and are two of the most beautiful cars ever made. Nobody wants chrome railroad tie bumpers but tasteful split bumperettes in chrome are a great styling alternative. I lay the blame at recent generations of designers who have no sense or respect for history or heritage and couldn't design a modern classic for all the tea in China. GM showed the Elmiraj, The Escala and the Buick Avenir - all GORGEOUS vehicles - so where are they? They are pushed aside in favor of trucks and SUV's that all look the same. BMW in particular should fire and prosecute everyone in their design team under 40 for the garbage they have unleashed on the public, and pull the older generation out of retirement. They KNOW what a BMW should look like.
As someone who is 24, the 80’s is the cutoff point, maybe I’ll stretch it to 1991 since that was the last year of the boxy panther platform cars from Ford. Aerodynamics essentially murdered automotive styling, don’t care if it makes cars more fuel efficient etc, it just causes more issues since it eats into the interior, trunk volume. That explains why people have moved on from most sedans and hatchbacks, while smaller vehicles are practical in certain situations, how can a vehicle be practical when there’s not much space for rear seat passengers and luggage?
Lincoln Town Cars until 1997.
Good video, Adam.
Agree with all points. However, one of the biggest issues with modern vehicles with transverse FWD design is the basic drivetrain architecture of placing the engine in front of the transmission.
Causes the horrible, awkward massive front overhang, tucking the front wheel back near the A-pillar.
Just awful in every way!
Inarguable. I think a couple of awful examples of this terrible front overhang that come to mind first are the current and prior Civic and the CX-5. They just look like they have a large amount of mass ahead of the front wheels, giving them awkward proportions.
The easiest way around most regulation restrictions is to design a LARGE TRUCK/SUV. First off big trucks are considered commercial vehicles so they get less fuel and emissions restraint along with many pedestrian exemptions. No person safely rolls over a 6" high truck hood.
I think I may have watched your channel too much, Adam .. So often, now, when I see something really snazz on an old car, instead of thinking how cool it is I'm automatically either "That would never pass crash standards, today" or "I bet a bean counter forced them to do that to save $0.74" .. lol .. Really appreciate these videos for all I've learned from you, sir
Summed it up well Adam. You've finally made the transition to 'honorary designer.' Congratulations !
When you drive a huge 70s Lincoln, the other cars are your crumple zone!
Ill have to use that one 😅
Cost is another really big factor. Uniqueness equals cost so keeping things a bit bland keeps the cost down.
As well, there is the fact that buyers want one vehicle that does all jobs so if you're setting out to design something that has to be part sedan, part wagon, part SUV, part minivan, part theater, part day care, part office, part lounge etc, it's going to be very challenging to make the end product appealing, especially when you have to keep it under a certain cost ceiling..
Over on the autopian, they recently had a podcast with the lead designer of the Lucid Air which was I think your example of a stylish modern car. There is some good dialogue about making a clean sheet design.
Also, you mentioned fender flares and the example of a BMW M3 came to mind. A really handsome modern car IMO, with stylish fenders.
Thanks for all the great videos.
I was so underwhelmed with new vehicles I bought a low mile 81 AMC wagon with a stick shift instead, although I will be storing it during salt season. Manual brakes and windows, no stupid screen on the dash. My other daily driver option In the summer is a 74 VW beetle.
I had a new 74 Super Beetle. I had it as my only car. It was a horrible car. I lived in snow country. It was an underpowered death trap on interstates. There's a tight curve on I-91 in Springfield Mass. going north. I got blown out of my lane by the wind. I hit a truck. Only a small dent in the rear fender. A tiny scrape of paint on his painted bumper. He rightly called me an Ahole. A gutless wonder of a car. Same interstate on the final hill before Brattleboro VT. I'd be lucky to make 50 MPH.
Mt Washington NH. There's a toll road to drive to the top. 6288 feet elevation. The car died from lack of air at about 5800 feet. It was a dirt road with no guard rails, paved now, still no guard rails. I was in a cloud bank. I coasted in reverse about a 1/4 mile until a spot I could at least turn around and face downhill. Still had to coast about another 1/4 miles before the engine was able to start. I literally thought I was going to die.
I note that both of the things you bought are not winter rigs. So, while you are into the looks, you are not interested into actually using them for their original intent. Which was to use them everyday in every type of weather.
Looks are for suckers if the vehicle cannot perform it's primary function.
Besides aerodynamics, crash safety, pedestrian safety, there’s also been a coarsening of tastes. The rise of the mean-faced, urban assault vehicle aesthetic. Enormous, chunky pickups that aren’t attractive the way cars used to be. Trucks have gotten as obese as the Americans that drive them. They were a way for GM, Ford, etc. to avoid the standards applied to cars.
Could you do a video on the impact of different regulations on design like the 5mph bumper and others?
I think design peaked about 64-71, then regulations just kept cutting the legs out from underneath, 70's Ford and Iacocca Chrysler had some rough stuff on the eyes.
Also, I think they went away from the 5mph standard, which makes cars much more vulnerable to expensive damage in minor accidents, though much safer in major accidents due to the high speed crash standards. We should have kept both.
Thank goodness for safety regulations. As has been proven, the car companies weren’t going to make cars safer on their own initiative.
A modern Dodge Charger weights more than a 1969 Dodge Charger
Man that’s a lot of plastic 😂
Good observation about weight perceptions. Non-car people routinely will comment that my 68 imperial must weigh soo much -even if they drive an SUV (several of which beat the Imperial by hundreds of pounds!) I prefer styling of yesteryear but admittedly modern cars are better…handling, braking, safety, economy of operation (but not repair).
@@mcy1122Have you heard of a restomod before mate
@@CJColvin Restomods are hugely expensive, and not an option for those of limited means.
At this point in car design I'm checked out. Thin LED light front and back and ovoid shapes outside, with two curved screens inside seem to be the trend, and it's just blah. There are some outliers, like the IONIQ 6 which is just stunning IMO. I really love the design of my own vehicle, a 22 Ford Maverick. To me it represents a cross section of the cars I grew up with and the current and future reality of car design/content. I think the designers did a great job with the most subtle of nods to the 80s/90s F150/Ranger, inside and out, while keeping it modern and fresh.
Adam, I had always hoped this channel would remain a T__la and Hy____i free zone. 🤨
Agree with this. One of my buddies who worked for GM his whole career told me that everyone was pretty much limited to two designs for the front, because of federal regulations. Specifically the pedestrian issue you mentioned. Personally, I like the stiffer ride and handling of the lower profile tires, but that's me.
Cars in the 30's were square boxes with large diameter wheels. Seems we've just gone back to that!
Great video & topic
Thank you Adam for being a voice of reason amidst the "good old days" mentality on UA-cam car channels for whom today's car designs make no sense and thus are simply another sign of the collapse of society.😮
The trend, which really started before WWII, of using increasingly compact drivetrains to bring the front wheels closer to the firewall and to shorten the hood, while reducing bulk as well as weight, and greatly improving maneuverability, has given modern cars stubby, slug-like proportions that are hard to style in attractive ways. It's hard to make a cucumber on wheels into a "classic".
Excellent video! Thanks for posting. 👍
no doubt vintage is better.
Thank You Adam. It was very interesting. It just seems the designers and engineers are limited by meeting regulations. I understand why classic cars have style and substance where modern cars lack this. In the attempt to meet all the regulations the cars are just not appealing as they once were. Some companies are indeed trying. I think this is why modern cars lack the individuality they once had.
Adam, this was very well explained and objective and rational.
Love the channel, love the old cars, agree with the appreciation for the classic styling…but…I have to admit to a guilty love for the i3 that is the thumbnail picture for this video. I think it looks great.
2005 Chrysler 300 is the reason we have low-roofed, tiny-windowed, oversized wheel arched vehicles now. The Audi S8 and A8 too but the styling took off with the 300 and we're still here 20 yrs later.
I’m just done with cars that have to look like they have to get through a zombie apocalypse. SUV’s and crossovers just have a clunky, non aerodynamic design. Most of the cars look good, with the exception of some big grills on bottom breathers. Great video Adam.
Having collected 1970s AMCs and some 60s and 70s Lincolns and Imperials for the last 20 years, I think a lot of the appeal of these cars has to do with the memories they invoke. For example, I don't think the 1974 LTD is a particularly imaginative design, and it's certainly no feat of engineering by any metric, but every time I see one, I remember my dad pulling into the driveway every weekday after work, or joking when I was a kid that LTD stood for "long term debt." Almost all of the classic cars we hold dear are far inferior to today's cars in almost every metric related to safety, efficiency, and engineering. I love driving my 74 Matador coupe, but when I get into my 2022 Volvo for my long commute to work each day, I breathe a sigh of relief, turn on the adaptive cruise, and give thanks for not having to commute in a 74 LTD like my dad.
You are so right. New cars are better in every way that really matters except styling.
😊LTD means Lead Tailed Duck.
True. I remember replacing mufflers, alternators. Oil leaks, etc. Cars stalled once in a while. Ive thought about that whenever I consider buying a vintage car like I had in the 70s. My 08 has 300,000 miles and has the original exhaust system,alternator, belt. Doesn't leak a drop of oil . Never had a tune up. Runs like new.
Start out with a Cyber Truck. That has to be one of the most hideous things I have seen in years. One thing I miss the most is the chrome on cars.
TBH, I miss the porch chats. That's what drew me in. Just a guy, talking, about interesting stuff. Your passion for the subject is what mattered to me.
Excellent, really enjoy the discussion of the manufacturing process and its interaction with style. I worked in the aircraft manufacturing business and certainly stampings, hot joggles, stretch form these things could make a car that almost no one could afford. While my favorite car is the tornado still if I were to be driving a car a lot I would really be thinking about safety, fuel mileage, environmental impact and all of those other mandates we complain about. Its a part of living in the modern world
Great classic car channel.
Very informative! I also prefer the classics more but understand modern cars better now. When you think about it, it's just a logical evolution.Styling changes remind us time moves on.
Great points made in this video!
Simple answer: Bloated government kills beauty in many ways. Thank you, Ralph “Darth” Nader.
Despite the very real limitations on designers that you describe, I still think that beauty is possible. But the goal seems to be a techno/aggressive/hyper-appliance/tough-guy aesthetic.
It's an American art form.
Is this not why these vehicles are so cherished all over the worldnowadays?
I saw this Russian guy on You Tube with a mint 68' or 69' T-Bird with a switched out Coyote engine. Can you believe it?
I can, they probably don't have many 385 blocks laying around in Russian junkyards.
Great channel
Last year I needed to rent a car-and got a Toyota Camry. It was quite an okay car and its rearview camera was great. That camera is indispensable because without it, the car would’ve been extremely hard to back up. My mom complained about the blind spots (wide C-pillars) in her 1967 Chrysler, but it might as well have been a convertible relative to new cars with their letter-slot windows. (Ditto my ’74 Town & Country wagon.)
Considering how heavy the EV drive systems are, I wonder how heavy the wagon (about 5,000 lb as is) would be if I switched it from ICE to EV, like some have done to “green up” their classics.
1:43 That Toronado could slice a pedestrian in thirds!
Depends what you mean by modern. Cars from 2015 to now, have more styling similarites to 50-70s American cars. Than those from 1990s and 2000s. The use of chrome, angry overstyling, two tone roofs have made a come back. Just look at Hyundai and Kia as an example.
Though EVs are now making us go back simpler designs again.
It's really simple actually. Manufacturer's once built cars for consumers. Now they build them for the government. Where does the government come up with all these requirements? They just pull them out of their ass. We are being ruled by MAGIC ASS regulation.
They are also built for the bean counters and stockholders. Cheap built for maximum profit potential.
The BMW i3 exists, yet people still insist on calling the Aztek the ugliest vehicle ever.
Regarding fastback styling and aerodynamics: The Saab 92 from 1950 supposedly had a drag coefficient of 0.30, which isn't bad even by modern standards, and it is very much a fastback style. It would probably have been lower if they had used modern glued windows and flush door handles.
Because they hire video game engineers instead of stylists, apparently. This doesn’t apply to Italy
Rear impact regulations tends to favor compact SUVs to sends because the beltline is raised so the rear is a crash bumper. Cameras and sensors are needed because of the reduced visibility
the sharp edge pure function styled cybertruck passed? the higher the hood the greater the chance of a fatality? Great show
At least some heavy duty trucks still have Chrome bumpers from time to time but they don't do that for MPG like in the past
If you look at those truck 'bumpers', they are just thin sheet metal.
Purpose engineered electric vehicles have a fundamentally different proportion structure than ICE vehicles both old and new, and that is pushing designer to both innovate and experiment with mixed results. EVs can get by with very short overhangs (not classic styling friendly) and need to be relatively high to accommodate the thickness of their batteries (also not classic styling friendly). Really only the long wheelbases to fit the batteries align nicely with a more traditional styling paradigm. The big win is really the interior where you get huge space in much shorter vehicles and my "compact EV cross-over" has interior space that would make an 80's Buick Electra blush.
I think designs will get iteratively better as the designers figure out what works well with this fixed proportions in things like Hyundai/Kia/Genesis E-GMP platform or GM's Ultium platform. Also, I think familiarity starts to breed comfort (I remember my parents reaction to the Taurus only for them to end up in a very round 1992 Town Car that they adored). I've actually been surprised by how many older folks just out in public comment on how much they like my Genesis GV60 which is about as far from classical/vintage design as you can get.
A early study in aerodynamics that looked great was the Brock cobra Daytona
Good points.