Today's Cars Look too Much Alike?

[Fleet 500]

I'm not siding with Fleet here because i think he's being narrow-minded (no offense) but initial reaction to the picture told me BMW M3. That is my complaint about newer cars, you really have to get closer to them to tell them apart, once i read the post and enlarged the picture, then i could tell it was a Volvo. But Henk i know exactly where you're coming from, i can tell the difference between '60s American cars but some '60s European cars are difficult because i hardly see them here

Looks like you are agreeing with me... welcome to the "narrow-minded" club!

[Fleet 500]

as usual you are twisting the argument. I never said that modern cars don't look alike, but the point was that for somebody who did not grow up around them, US cars from the 60-ties or seventies are not so easy to tell apart.

But all I am saying is that modern cars look more alike than U.S. '60s (and '70s) cars. On an absolute scale, not going by who is familiar with what car(s).

For you they are, for others less so. I could post european cars here from that period which for me are easy to identify, but I am sure you would have some difficulties in doing so, simply because you might not even know the brand.

I can identify many more '60s European cars than I can modern European cars. A few examples... Volvo, Mercedes, Rolls-Royce, Jaguar, VW of course, Citroen. A '60s Mercedes, for instance, had that distinctive front end/grille. Unlike modern Mercedes that one feature can't be mistaken for another car.

[Fleet 500]

In America. We rest of the world peoples have possibly never even seen one in person.

There are car shows (featuring American cars) in Europe and Australia, are there not?

I know of someone in Sydney, Australia who owns an '81 Cadillac Fleetwood (and is going to replace it with a '77 Lincoln Continental).

[henk4]

But all I am saying is that modern cars look more alike than U.S. '60s (and '70s) cars. On an absolute scale, not going by who is familiar with what car(s).



I can identify many more '60s European cars than I can modern European cars. A few examples... Volvo, Mercedes, Rolls-Royce, Jaguar, VW of course, Citroen. A '60s Mercedes, for instance, had that distinctive front end/grille. Unlike modern Mercedes that one feature can't be mistaken for another car.

you could have said that you THINK that modern cars look more alike than American cars from the sixties (fifties?). If you would have a keen interest in modern cars, (which you apparently only have in a sort of negative way), it is not unlikely that you would have come up with a different statement.

If only you could accept that there are people here who have more trouble identifying US cars from 40-50 years than modern cars in stead of trying to prove them wrong because that cannot be true on an absolute scale.

When I was about 8 or 9 nine years old in the fifties, my grandfather had bound volumes of the French Car magazine "France Automobile" from the years 1901- up to 1906. And guess what, after carefully reading those magazines several times, I was able to tell apart all those cars pictured in there. That capability has long escaped me, and the pre-edwardians now very much look the same to me, as I forgot all the distinghuising features.

And finally good for you that you can identify the European cars youmention there, but those are only brands that ever came to the USA. We had a little more than those...

[Cobrafan427]

Looks like you are agreeing with me... welcome to the "narrow-minded" club!

I meant narrow-minded about Europeans being able to tell classic American cars apart from one another, not about being able to tell a Volvo from a BMW

[LeonOfTheDead]

There are car shows (featuring American cars) in Europe and Australia, are there not?

Not in Europe, except for a few new Camaros every now and then.
Why should they bring here a car they won't sale?

I've seen a few American cars over here, even if they were not officially imported. I know there are 4 Paganis in the States even if they were not imported there.
What does that prove?

There are people very into submarines even if they were never aboard one of them, same with planes, helicopters and even postage stamps.
For other people all those objects just look the same into their own categories, yet the "enthusiast" can tell each of them apart. Do I care about postal stamps? No, and as a matter of facts, they all look like a stamp, and I don't even look at it when I have to buy one.

Am I into vintage Cadillac cars? No.
Can I identify them? No, yet I can tell each of their recent models from a reasonable distance, and only a few of them were imported here, and I saw just a handful of them on the street (there are still a few unsold BLS hanging around, if you know/care to know what that is).

On MY absolute scale, vintage Cadillacs looks like Mercurys,Fords, Lincolns and so on. Only a few of them are really known to my subconscious.
How does that sound? A narrow-minded subjective statement? Hmm...

The question is: do you care about modern cars? I guess not.

[clutch-monkey]

i can't tell an old cadillac or lincoln or mercury etc apart most of the time, like those four pics posted previously they just have that 'generic classic american car' look. muscle/pony cars are easier

[Fleet 500]

i can't tell an old cadillac or lincoln or mercury etc apart most of the time, like those four pics posted previously they just have that 'generic classic american car' look. muscle/pony cars are easier

I am sticking to my claim that modern cars look much more alike than classic cars.

A '60s Cadillac (and Lincoln) had their own memorable style(ing). Compare:
In the first photo, a 2010 Cadillac DTS. It shares the same basic styling with many other cars and in the second photo, a '69 Cadillac with it's unique styling.
If anything has "generic" styling, it's the newer Cadillac (compared to the older one).

[Fleet 500]

you could have said that you THINK that modern cars look more alike than American cars from the sixties (fifties?). If you would have a keen interest in modern cars, (which you apparently only have in a sort of negative way), it is not unlikely that you would have come up with a different statement.

If only you could accept that there are people here who have more trouble identifying US cars from 40-50 years than modern cars in stead of trying to prove them wrong because that cannot be true on an absolute scale.

When I was about 8 or 9 nine years old in the fifties, my grandfather had bound volumes of the French Car magazine "France Automobile" from the years 1901- up to 1906. And guess what, after carefully reading those magazines several times, I was able to tell apart all those cars pictured in there. That capability has long escaped me, and the pre-edwardians now very much look the same to me, as I forgot all the distinghuising features.

And finally good for you that you can identify the European cars youmention there, but those are only brands that ever came to the USA. We had a little more than those...

What I'm trying to say that to the casual American observer, '60s American cars are easier to identify than modern ones. It is obvious... almost all the modern ones have the same chopped-off trunk (rear end) and sloping front end. Many have the slot for "grille" and the bug-eyed headlights.

Some will agree with me and some won't.

I do find it amusing when there is some crime (no, the crime is not amusing) and on the news they will say the car was an early-to-mid '90s black 4-door. Shows how hard it is to describe one of those lookalike cars!

[henk4]

Fleet 500 = The casual American observer.

and do you really think that if the runaway car would have been a 1962 Tempest, it would have been mentioned in the news? (anyway 50% of current US car sales is pick-ups, so that would boil down to a very distinct description.....or not)

[pimento]

I am sticking to my claim that modern cars look much more alike than classic cars.

A '60s Cadillac (and Lincoln) had their own memorable style(ing). Compare:
In the first photo, a 2010 Cadillac DTS. It shares the same basic styling with many other cars and in the second photo, a '69 Cadillac with it's unique styling.
If anything has "generic" styling, it's the newer Cadillac (compared to the older one).

It's funny you use a new Caddy as an example, they're more distinctive than most other moden sedans.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here, as we're clearly stuck in our ways - I can't tell an old Lincoln from an old Caddy (or a 50s Holden from a 50s Ford for that matter) and you can't pick a new Focus from a new Kia. On the flip side, next time I want to identify an old Caddy, you'll be the first to know.

[Commodore GS/E]

I am sticking to my claim that modern cars look much more alike than classic cars.

A '60s Cadillac (and Lincoln) had their own memorable style(ing). Compare:
In the first photo, a 2010 Cadillac DTS. It shares the same basic styling with many other cars and in the second photo, a '69 Cadillac with it's unique styling.
If anything has "generic" styling, it's the newer Cadillac (compared to the older one).

The DTS isn't a good example for Cadillacs current design line. The CTS is a much better example (the STS, too, but not as much as the CTS) as it looks very distinctive.

[clutch-monkey]

I am sticking to my claim that modern cars look much more alike than classic cars.

classic cars, collectively as a group, are more distinctive when you see them on the roads because by definition there are far less of them on the roads than modern cars, and they stand out with their older styling.
distinguishing between classic cars is much harder, since like today, a lot of them were all built to do the same thing.

back in the 60's, people were saying the same thing about the mercury's, cadillac's, ford's and chev's rolling around in great numbers, in comparison to the pre-war stuff..

[Fleet 500]

classic cars, collectively as a group, are more distinctive when you see them on the roads because by definition there are far less of them on the roads than modern cars, and they stand out with their older styling.
distinguishing between classic cars is much harder, since like today, a lot of them were all built to do the same thing.

back in the 60's, people were saying the same thing about the mercury's, cadillac's, ford's and chev's rolling around in great numbers, in comparison to the pre-war stuff..

And if people back in the '60s were suddenly transported 40 years into the future, they would say, "My God, now the cars look all the same, especially compared to '60s cars!"

[f6fhellcat13]

And if people back in the '60s were suddenly transported 40 years into the future, they would say, "My God, now the cars look all the same, especially compared to '60s cars!"

Just as the vast majority of people would say if the inverse happened.
You and I have an interest in cars of that era so we can distinguish them, but even someone like myself (I consider myself pretty fluent in old Detroit iron) can get lost in all the platform sharing, badge marketing, and general unity of design. If I were taken back 40 years, I would definitely be overwhelmed.