Today's automobile design

[Zeke]

I have always blamed much of the designs we see on the marketing depts of car manf'rs. From the fins of the 50's to the fish mouth of today, these folks do their best to outdo each other while not progressing style wise. They just don't want to get too far ahead of the pack.

While the styles of the 80's might look like heavy metal boxes in retrospect, I wonder if the angry eyes, wide mouth frown of the first years of the millennium won't look as silly as fins 20 years from now.

As an exercise, find a car that does not have this shape somewhere if not everywhere:

. ________
/............. \

Kinda hard to draw for me on a keyboard.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

I personally hate the "angry headlights" thing although it's appropriately representative of today's values. People today are rude, obnoxious, obsessed with their pseudo-tough-guy images and generally are obsessed with looking "badass" even if they're not. Everyone and their brother is a pierced, tatted-up wanna-be tough guy with a faux attitude. People buy pit bulls as accessories for this fashion and throw around expletives and tough-talk in conversation routinely to complete this image.

As we hurtle towards the world depicted in Idiocracy, it was only inevitable that this kind of angst-filled, faux tough-guy "attitude" be sculpted onto the vehicles of the faux tough-guy motoring public. It fits, even if only a zeitgeist trend.

All the more reason I like my 944s (no "face" anthropomorphized onto my car) and my 911 (smiley just to mock the faux tough guy idiots).

But to each their own.

[Jim Richards]

Except for the ride height, it still looked kind of cool.

[island911]

A big +1 P-O-P

The really sad thing is that even Porsche got sucked into that look (I'm thinking circa 2009 Cayenne here)

[Zeke]

Just the last 2 years have been the "big mouth" years.



The biggest:

[Heel n Toe]

+1 to what P-o-P said.

"Designer Funky" is the way I refer to "forward thinking" automotive design. It's designers trying to push the envelope and impress each other. That's okay, I just don't dig it.

Designs like the Ferrari 250 GTO and Shelby Cobra with their fluid lines will always be the most pleasing designs to my eyes.

Hey... here's a happy car:

[sammyg2]

"form follows function".
There is a reason why so many cars nowadays look almost identical in size, shape and appearance. It's because that design makes the most sense. They've evolved to the point where original design and artistic freedom have nearly gone by the wayside, unless you're talking about a car designed for spiky-haired teenagers (scion B, kia soul, nissan cube, etc).

Aerodynamics, MPG, crash testing, DOT regulations all that stuff means that all cars must meet the same rules and in order to do that they all the cars in the same class are gonna look alike if they're gonna be worth a darn.

[tcar]

Originally Posted by milt

I have always blamed much of the designs we see on the marketing depts of car manf'rs. From the fins of the 50's to the fish mouth of today, these folks do their best to outdo each other while not progressing style wise. They just don't want to get too far ahead of the pack.

IMO, the original Taurus was an exception, pretty ballsy move at the time. Even the next iteration of the big Audi followed them, then others.

It was very successful. Think it was actually the best selling car in the US for a couple years - beating out the Accord.

But in general, you are absolutely (and sadly) right.

[fastfredracing]

It is sad, rolling down the road, I cannot tell a Camry , from a Cadillac, from a BMW. They all look the same. I have not been excited about any of the new offerings for some time now.

[sc_rufctr]

Now &



Then

[dentist90]

What I lament most is the blandness of the colours for the most part. Silver, metallic grey and white everywhere. No individualism. I miss the gaudy greens, purples and oranges of the '70s.

Now:



Then:

[legion]

Don't forget the thousands of laws in the U.S. and abroad that manufacturers must now take into account when designing cars. Laws that didn't exist 40 years ago.

Why don't you see boxy much anymore? Fuel economy standards.

Why don't you see thin steering wheels or radical dashes? Interior crash standards.

Why do all cars seem to have a high back end and thick C pillars? Rear/side crash standards.

Why are all dashes big, soft, and close to the driver/passenger? To fit air bags.

Why are comparable cars 1000+ lbs. heavier than 20 years ago? Because of crumple zones, passenger safety cages, air bags (up the wazoo), ABS, traction control, stability control...I'm sure I'm missing at least a dozen other mandatory gadgets.

[RWebb]

high back end is also for better aero

I wrote R&T about wt. gains over time some years ago - they wrote that chassis stiffness was a big factor.

[pwd72s]

Originally Posted by legion

Don't forget the thousands of laws in the U.S. and abroad that manufacturers must now take into account when designing cars. Laws that didn't exist 40 years ago.

Why don't you see boxy much anymore? Fuel economy standards.

Why don't you see thin steering wheels or radical dashes? Interior crash standards.

Why do all cars seem to have a high back end and thick C pillars? Rear/side crash standards.

Why are all dashes big, soft, and close to the driver/passenger? To fit air bags.

Why are comparable cars 1000+ lbs. heavier than 20 years ago? Because of crumple zones, passenger safety cages, air bags (up the wazoo), ABS, traction control, stability control...I'm sure I'm missing at least a dozen other mandatory gadgets.

Bingo!

[Hugh R]

Now and then

[Porsche-O-Phile]

The most aerodynamic shape is a teardrop with the blunt end forward - having a big vertical drop-off at the back end is actuall one of the WORST things that one can do aerodynamically. Tons of drag created by that profile. Likely driven by govt mandated bumper heights, taillight requirements and market demand for visibility, higher-up seating to make vehicles easier for phat 'mercans to git in and out of, and increased trunk capacity to fit all their made-in-China crap they're shuttlin home from Wal-mart.

There is NO aerodynamic benefit to having a squared-off back end. Although if you live in one of the many areas where you spend 90% of your time stuck in traffic never going above 20 mph then perhaps it doesn't matter...

[Jim Bremner]

Originally Posted by Hugh R

Now and then

Hugh, That car is Stunning. I hope that it's new owner loves it the right way.

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

The most aerodynamic shape is a teardrop with the blunt end forward - having a big vertical drop-off at the back end is actuall one of the WORST things that one can do aerodynamically. Tons of drag created by that profile. Likely driven by govt mandated bumper heights, taillight requirements and market demand for visibility, higher-up seating to make vehicles easier for phat 'mercans to git in and out of, and increased trunk capacity to fit all their made-in-China crap they're shuttlin home from Wal-mart.

There is NO aerodynamic benefit to having a squared-off back end. Although if you live in one of the many areas where you spend 90% of your time stuck in traffic never going above 20 mph then perhaps it doesn't matter...

re squared-off back end - search up "Kamm tail" -- why do you think they got rid of the boat-tailed Alfas? it was not b/c the squared-off back end on the newer ones was prettier

you are also confusing an object in open space (the tear drop) with an object on the ground, and that wants to STAY on the ground -- moreover, you neglect the need for propulsion, air mgmt. for ventilation & cooling

[Heel n Toe]

Teardrop with a fin... the pinnacle of aerodynamic design...

[Heel n Toe]

Teardrop again...