Today's Cars Look too Much Alike?

[clutch-monkey]

I thought the huffington post was a joke site...

when someone first linked me to beck and o'reilly i thought it was satire.
imagine my suprise.

[henk4]

But lets leave it ( or by all means create a thread in misc and we'll ahve some fun ) and not take threads off topic !!!!

Any next post on news channels will be deleted.......

[Matra et Alpine]

UCP was mentioned on BBC news today

[Commodore GS/E]

UCP was mentioned on BBC news today

I saw that, too... pretty interesting coverage.

Massive lol.

[henk4]

UCP was mentioned on BBC news today

let's if they also do that on the second of April.

[Fleet 500]

...this is a good thing?

I'll take chrome over plastic any day. Plastic is cheap; chrome is not.

way to dodge the point about cars looking alike, changing to the even more subjective 'looks ugly'.
you are proving nothing in this thread except how out of touch you are, and stuck in your ways.

I'm not dodging anything; I was replying to Matra. If you think I am "out of touch" because only I think modern cars look more alike than classic cars, you are the one who is out of touch.

[Fleet 500]

Expect for Fleet's trolling pleasure I guess.

Instead of an attack, why not allow me to make posts without being called a "troll?" I have backed what I said with photos. I troll would not do that.

But maybe you are right. Maybe my Cadillac in the first photo is harder to identify than the cookie-cutter cars parked past it.

Or in the 2nd photo; that '62 Cadillac is "much" harder to identify than the other vehicles visible in the photo.

[Matra et Alpine]

Fleet, sorry as I use teh "troll" word for you sometimes, so let me share MY rationale..

You make a claim which others refute and show otherwise.
You say the same things.
Others then demonstrate WHY they dont share your claims for your points.
You say the same things.
Others TRY to explain a balanced view that acknowledges the possible reason you are skewed ref the rest of the opinion.
You about then ususaly switch to another tack - ie this time it was that their ugly.

THEN that post confirms all the claims.
You post a pic of your favrouties amongst a park of new cars and claim how easy it is to identify !
THAT is not what anyone said.
WHat we were saying is amongst a set of pictures of caddi's we'd not be able to identify them. That to eyes not interested in caddies they all "look the same".

So see, by changing the "rules" again then that is what internet trolls are famous for and why the name is used when you post like this.

So, to explain, the only difference I spot between the two cars you have in those pics are that ones got big fins. The rest looks "same ratio and similar shape". So to repeat ..... YOU know whcih had fins and which didn't and the same way that others can easily recognise the cars from modern factories.

Does that help you understand the "attack" ?
It's born from frustration as evidence is given and ignored and others personal experience and points are negated by you. As far as I can see from this post, NOBODY has said your wrong when it comes to caddies. Only where it's to do with cars you dont like and thus have little experience of study.

So, please dont walk and quack like a duck in these discussions.

SO conside the comment on the 2 photos you presented and explain the rationale for switching to spotting a 70s caddies among 2010 cars ??

[Fleet 500]

Ah Fleet. You are “old school”. I will admit I love some of the classic Yank designs. I also have to say I couldn’t tell a 57 Chev from a same era Pontiac, Ford etc etc. Much less the year. I can tell you every Holden and every year they came out. It’s what you know. Euro cars. No idea and I don’t care. This is why we are here on this page . We are enthusiasts. But like every hobby we have our likes and dislikes.
New cars? The mainstream new sedans from Oz and Asia (which is all I really see) to me seem to take a cue in some small way from BMW. I can tell a Honda from a Mazda from a Subaru but I still think there is not much that separates them. But take it back 60 years (wow…..) and it was all fins.
Funny thing now how “old school” is finding its way back into some cars i.e. Camaros, Mustangs, Dodge. I was not a retro fan too much but I still love those icons even though in Oz they were a fair bit rarer.
Hmmm. I don’t think I actually made a point…

Yes, that is kind of my point... if '60s/'70s cars look alike (which they certainly don't) why are car companies now trying to copy their styling?

Incidentally, a '57 Chevy looks much different from a same-era Pontiac and Ford.

[Fleet 500]

Latest gen Astra was the one I meant.

Dont think Fleet is trolling (really!) but jsut expressing his experience of exactly what you said of yourself there.

Thanks, Matra. I know some others here agree with me regarding '60s/'70s styling but are choosing not to participate in this thread.

He no doubt coudl spot the precise year of a Caddi from 100yards in the dark.
So all the differences are obvious to him.
To you the same with modern Euro cars.
For me, I struggle on quite a few now and the examples I gave.
You will struggle on fins and chrome 70s yank-tanks ( sorry Fleet )

Actually, there are no fins on '70s cars. Maybe a slight hint on the Cadillacs, but not really a fin. But there is no "struggle" on fins and chrome; I find them a plus, not a minus.

It all depends on what we know, what we experience and are exposed to
So I can see where Fleet can think that all EUro cars are just cut off blobs.
AND I can see why you can quicky differentiate the cars I listed that I find quite similar.
We are expecting to see different things .... and long may it stay that way !

fyi ... passed one of my model storage cabinets in the other room today and there were three rally cars. Focus, C4 and 206 ... and the similarities were striking - more than I'd have said between those three if asked !

Sadly, it's not just Euro cars which are cut off blobs. Many modern American cars are, too.

[Fleet 500]

Fleet, sorry as I use teh "troll" word for you sometimes, so let me share MY rationale..

You make a claim which others refute and show otherwise.
You say the same things.
Others then demonstrate WHY they dont share your claims for your points.
You say the same things.
Others TRY to explain a balanced view that acknowledges the possible reason you are skewed ref the rest of the opinion.
You about then ususaly switch to another tack - ie this time it was that their ugly.

THEN that post confirms all the claims.
You post a pic of your favrouties amongst a park of new cars and claim how easy it is to identify !
THAT is not what anyone said.
WHat we were saying is amongst a set of pictures of caddi's we'd not be able to identify them. That to eyes not interested in caddies they all "look the same".

So see, by changing the "rules" again then that is what internet trolls are famous for and why the name is used when you post like this.

So, to explain, the only difference I spot between the two cars you have in those pics are that ones got big fins. The rest looks "same ratio and similar shape". So to repeat ..... YOU know whcih had fins and which didn't and the same way that others can easily recognise the cars from modern factories.

Does that help you understand the "attack" ?
It's born from frustration as evidence is given and ignored and others personal experience and points are negated by you. As far as I can see from this post, NOBODY has said your wrong when it comes to caddies. Only where it's to do with cars you dont like and thus have little experience of study.

So, please dont walk and quack like a duck in these discussions.

SO conside the comment on the 2 photos you presented and explain the rationale for switching to spotting a 70s caddies among 2010 cars ??

Wait a minute, Matra... I am not really a Ford fan but I can still easily identify most '60s and '70s Fords. It's not just Cadillacs.

Yes, fins make it easier to identify, but the front end is also a way, along with the overall profile.

I posted my '76 Cadillac next to the other cars to point out the obvious (not the size, but that is does not look like dozens of other cars).

No ducking the discussions, just being rational about it.

[Fleet 500]

Can we put this to bed now ... please ?????

That was a typo. I meant to say cars of the '50s, '60 and '70s do not look similar, IMO.

[Matra et Alpine]

Read your words Fleet ... the rationale you use show the fact it's about the cars YOU knwo that you can identify. WHy you dont see how that translates to others in the flip side of this discussion. ie we can see differences in modern, but see the 70s ( dont give a shit who the maker is ) look the same ?

Re your not looking the same comment ... do you see hwo you IGNORED the point made that it's a pointless comparison ? It's liek putting a blue car in a car park of white cars and saying how the rest look the same and "your favoruite" looks different Silly argument !!

If you dont then it really is a trolling activity and that's fine as long as you dont mind being named it.

[Fleet 500]

Do you think, Matra, that you are taking this maybe just a little too seriously?

Anyway, here is more examples of chopped-off trunks and/or electric razor styling...

[clutch-monkey]

If you think I am "out of touch" because only I think modern cars look more alike than classic cars,

yes, correct. basically you've stuck to an era you like and refused to acknowledge or recognise any other since that point.