Do you agree with Tim Allen?

[Equinox]

Are classic cars dead as history repeats itself?

Today's automakers prize function over form, and there are few if any cars being made that will be "classics" in 50 years, comedian and car buff Tim Allen said.

"I'm passionate about automotive art, and there isn't any," he said.

Many enthusiasts argue classics are in the eyes of the keyholders, but Allen's not the only collector noticing history repeating itself.

Chevy's new Camaro, Ford's Mustang and even Mercedes' AMG Gullwing harken back to designs popular five decades ago.

"It's not an art piece, that Gullwing; it just reminds people my age, 'Oh, the Gullwing,' " Allen said.

The 56-year-old actor said he'd like to see more designs like the 1962 Ferrari 250 GTO -- "the source of all cool cars" -- or the 1966 Shelby Mustang 350GT Hertz, which wasn't known for its handling....

Passion and handcraft are absent in today's cars, Allen said, and he yearns for more Shelbys and Scaglietti Ferraris, cars akin to those on display at Atlanta's High Museum of Art this month.

Check out the full article.

Are classic cars dead as history repeats itself? - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/personal/03/16/modern.classic.cars/index.html?hpt=Mid)

[Ferrer]

No I don't. He says basically "they don't make 'em like they use to" and then later in the articles he states he likes to modify classic cars because the sound, the performance or the looks aren't right?

He is not being coherent.

[cmcpokey]

he compares the 250 GTO to a camaro? why not compare it to an Enzo or that ilk. the areas that had unique cars 40 years ago still have unique cars. sure there may not be an equivalent to a 57 Bel Air in the modern car world, a mass produced interesting car, but the modern world is certainly not devoid of future classics.

[RacingManiac]

The run of the mill cars was not classic, not then, not now. The exotics, will be classic regardless because of the rareness.

[Ferrer]

I think a Fiat 500 (either of them) is definitely classic, and both were popular, basic, cheap transportation devices.

I also think that today there are interesting mass porduced cars. The Toyota iQ is one of them. The Nissan GT-R another. And there's always the über-Corrado.

[NSXType-R]

Is this Tim Allen the actor?

Home Improvement and all the terrible Christmas movies?

Or is this another Tim Allen?

[cmcpokey]

i read the article, and it really is such a stupid set of arguments. and not even that well written. they just seem to have just interviewed a bunch of people that had no intent to find modern cars they enjoyed. they like old cars, dislike modern cars, and probably don't have an awareness of the current crop of cars to see a potential classic. they said the enzo woudn't be considered a classic because it was too ugly. that is preposterous.

i think there are many cars that are on the road to classicdom: the ones that Albert mentioned are a good start, also some weird ones like the Maybach for its rarity, the caddy XLR-V for the same reason. and then an assortment of others such as the E30 M3 Evo, the V10 RS6, viper, alfa 8C and a bunch more.

[Ferrer]

I'd like to add the Lancia Thesis, the Chrysler 300, any noughties Alfa Romeo with the Busso V6 (especially if it's a GTA), the BMW Z4 (and M variants), the Tata Nano, the original Jaguar XK, the latest XJ, the Mk I Ford Focus and the list could go on and on and on...

Classic cars are very nice, but let's not forget that once upon a time they were new too.

[iwmakemh]

There are a lot of opinions on classic cars, it all depends on what kind of car buff you are. Myself and a few of my friends say the Toyota Supra is a classic, in no way it was rare, and it wasn't terribly expensive. It was fast and cheap and had good looks. I even think of rwd Toyota Corollas, Starlets, and Cressidas as classic cars. The same thing goes for the 1994 Ford Mustang in my books since it was the first mustang to have a streamlined look, as opposed to the ones from the eighties that looked like they were made with rulers. Some of my friends say that the Honda CRX is a classic, others the Chevy Camaro and other muscle cars alike, hell I even think the Ford F150 is a classic. It's all a matter of opinion if you ask me.

[Equinox]

Is this Tim Allen the actor?

Home Improvement and all the terrible Christmas movies?

Or is this another Tim Allen?

Yes, Tim Allen the actor. I was wondering the same, but in the article it shows him with his cobra, and another pic of him.

I agree cmc... The Enzo is a great car, and probably will go in the classic book some day. I remember alot of people saying how it looked to "Can't think of the word." But I loved it.

[NSXType-R]

Yes, Tim Allen the actor. I was wondering the same, but in the article it shows him with his cobra, and another pic of him.

I agree cmc... The Enzo is a great car, and probably will go in the classic book some day. I remember alot of people saying how it looked to "Can't think of the word." But I loved it.

Man, maybe they should have picked someone better.

Jay Leno perhaps? :D

[iwmakemh]

Man, maybe they should have picked someone better.

Jay Leno perhaps? :D

Jay Leno would have been a better person to interview, he would be one of my idols, but Jeremy Clarkson rules all! haha

[coolieman1220]

tim allen was better @ woody in toy story

jerry seinfeld is good to interview too!

[RacingManiac]

I think a Fiat 500 (either of them) is definitely classic, and both were popular, basic, cheap transportation devices.


Not sure if the new one is that cheap....or that basic for that matter. Same with Mini or the new Beetle(in general, the remake). The originals were classic because they were made with a premise(cheap, basic, affordable cars with clever engineering like wheels way out there in the corners and light weight), and the nifty handling and fun factor is a side effect. The remakes were made to emulate the effect, but not the philosphy and thus makes it artificial. If you were to say what was supposed to be the new "mini" or 500 in real term, it would be something like a Tata Nano, but you would never see that as a "good car" or a classic...

[henk4]

Perhaps good Tim should have a look at the Alfa 8C.

[Ferrer]

Not sure if the new one is that cheap....or that basic for that matter. Same with Mini or the new Beetle(in general, the remake). The originals were classic because they were made with a premise(cheap, basic, affordable cars with clever engineering like wheels way out there in the corners and light weight), and the nifty handling and fun factor is a side effect. The remakes were made to emulate the effect, but not the philosphy and thus makes it artificial. If you were to say what was supposed to be the new "mini" or 500 in real term, it would be something like a Tata Nano, but you would never see that as a "good car" or a classic...
I mean the 30's and 50's versions of the 500, but I get your point.

There are still small interesting cars that will be future classic. The Toyota iQ I mentioned is a classic case in point, and while not especially cheap it does follow the other principles quite well. The Smart will be a future classic too, if only because it was Mercedes attempt and failure at making a city car.

You may have point though in that cheap, basic, icons may be a thing of the past, especially since in the 50's Europe had just come out of wars and cars were icons not only for their abilities or charisma, but because they gave many people the chance to go to places and this won't happen anymore in Europe or the US. But the Nano, while probably not as able, could fulfill this role and become an icon 50 years on.

[TheScrutineer]

But the Nano, while probably not as able, could fulfill this role and become an icon 50 years on.

The Nano has the same appeal as the old 500, in cheap affordable transport. Great engineering, but dynamically they don't have anything on the original Mini.

[Ferrer]

True but then, the Nano is a tall, small wheeled, rear engined car. I'm not sure it'd be very safe, in either actively or passively sense, to push it to its limits.

To find the new Mini you've got to look at Toyota. The iQ is the new Mini.

[TheScrutineer]

To find the new Mini you've got to look at Toyota. The iQ is the new Mini.

Or you can pay over 3 times as much for the 'Aston Martin' Cygnet :D

http://www.acquiremag.com/2009/12/16/cygnet.jpg

[IBrake4Rainbows]

The Mini was designed to be space economical and relatively cheap.

The iQ is one of those things.

[Ferrer]

And sold at a loss.

[RacingManiac]

I think iQ will be a classic, it basically took the concept of Smart but done better. Nano, I am not so sure. The jury I think is very much still out on that one since in order to be remembered fondly it still has to be good.....It cannot be remembered just as the "cheapest POS I bought"....

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Nano will be fondly remembered but not in the western world - in it's home market it will become the 2CV or VW beetle of it's time - Cheap basic transportation that takes on a a character of its own through journeys made and experiences created.

the iQ is too cerebral I believe.

[TheScrutineer]

The jury I think is very much still out on that one since in order to be remembered fondly it still has to be good.....It cannot be remembered just as the "cheapest POS I bought"....

I think making a dirt cheap car thats actually reliable, drives okay and is available to the masses is a greater engineering achievment than some Yaris/Matiz cross that is the I.Q.

[Ferrer]

I think making a dirt cheap car thats actually reliable, drives okay and is available to the masses is a greater engineering achievment than some Yaris/Matiz cross that is the I.Q.
The iQ's achievement is the excellent packaging in such a small vehicle. Like the original Mini.

[TheScrutineer]

The iQ's achievement is the excellent packaging in such a small vehicle. Like the original Mini.

Can't visualise the I.Q winning the Monte Carlo Rally 4 times! Well, nor can I visualise it rusting or killing all its occupants in a 30mph crash :)

[RacingManiac]

Nor can I visualize a old Mini surviving in a crash....or even a Nano for that matter...

[Ferrer]

Can't visualise the I.Q winning the Monte Carlo Rally 4 times! Well, nor can I visualise it rusting or killing all its occupants in a 30mph crash :)
But those were the Coopers, which Isigonis hated. :)

[Timothy (in VA)]

I disagree. There are definitely cars around today that will be classics down the road.

Some good ones have been mentioned, but I'd like to add a few more to the list. First, the Pontiac G8 - a good car that sold in small numbers and could be considered the last great hurrah from a once-great brand. Second, the Hyundai Genesis (both coupe and sedan) - Korean cars are pretty much ignored by collectors today, but if Hyundai continues on their current course of success, then 30 years from now the Genesis will be remembered as the car that started it all.

Also, there are weirdos who will collect anything. I guarantee that 30 years from now there will be a Pontiac Aztek Club with owners that defend their unusual vehicles as passionately as Edsel enthusiasts do.

[wwgkd]

I think making a dirt cheap car thats actually reliable, drives okay and is available to the masses is a greater engineering achievment than some Yaris/Matiz cross that is the I.Q.

I would agree, if it actually met crash safety and emissions standards to be sold world wide. Since it doesn't, I think the reason it's cheap is that it shortcuts around many things that are required in other markets. Not really a great engineering achievement so much as a cost cutting one. Impressive, but it has to be taken in perspective.

The reason the rest of these cars don't meet your requirements is that they DO meet those standards, thus adding cost, weight and reducing interior volume. 50 years from now, what overweight overpriced monstrocities will be considered normal? Would make even the new Mini seem epic.

[Ferrer]

Original Mini: 3050/1400/1350mm, 2050mm WB

Toyota iQ: 2985/1680/1500mm, 2000mm WB. And conforming with all sorts of different regulations.

I'd say that as far as space efficiency is concerned, the iQ is quite remarkable.

[CapnBoost]

I think the only interesting things are happening at the radical ends of the spectrum. The hypercars and the ittybittycity cars & hybrids. Just about everything in the middle is boring.

I'm enthusiastic about the ponycar (and potentially import) wars. We'll see if anything good comes out of that.

[TheScrutineer]

50 years from now, what overweight overpriced monstrocities will be considered normal? Would make even the new Mini seem epic.

Im dreading the day!

But im dreaming of the day of the Tata Nano GTi!

[IBrake4Rainbows]

50 years from now personal transportation will, while still having the aspect of seperation, be of a very different form to whats currently on offer.

[clutch-monkey]

we'd better have personal jetpacks to make up for it

[Ferrer]

50 years from now personal transportation will, while still having the aspect of seperation, be of a very different form to whats currently on offer.
Cars, or vehicles, may be powered by all sorts of different fuels and means of propulsion, but we won't renounce to the personal freedom the car gives. In that aspect I think it may be different but it will still be the same.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Thus why I used Personal transportation - I agree it's too good a liberty to cede.

but It might not be in the form you expect.

[Ferrer]

It may not be a car, it may not have wheels, or whatever developments await us, but as you say the personal transportation won't be erased from the equation. I will still be a machine we will drive to places. In that sense then, it'll still be an automobile.

[TheScrutineer]

Some sort of electronically controlled automobile with no driver inputs or speed limiter.

[Ferrer]

I doubt that'll ever happen.

[TheScrutineer]

The FIA already want speed limiters in Europe. Max Mosley used to go on about them, Im not sure what direction Jean Todt will take.

FIA European Bureau . Speed limiters: reasoned opinions sent to two EU Countries (http://www.fiabrussels.com/en/news/archive/speed_limiters_reasoned_opinions_sent_to_two_eu_co untries.htm)

[Ferrer]

Well the speed limiters may happen, but I doubt we'll ever accept vehicles that work without driver input.

[Kitdy]

Well the speed limiters may happen, but I doubt we'll ever accept vehicles that work without driver input.

In 100 years? 200? 500? 1000? Why not?

[Matra et Alpine]

oh gawd, not anther "we dont make classics anymore" argument :(

MOST of the cars designed and produced an ANY era are not classics.
This idot harkens back to a handful of car designs at a time when there were thousands of different cars and variants.

So now he looks at todays hundreds of different cars and variants and expects to see lots of classics ? idiot. Should stick to comedy ... actually stick to "tool man" the only thing I found him funny in.

Typical application of hindsight in one case and complete LACK of intelligence in the other :)

[Ferrer]

In 100 years? 200? 500? 1000? Why not?
Because we humans like to be in control, we like to decide our destiny and manage our freedom as much as possible. And vehicles without driver inputs are the exact opposite of that.

[Equinox]

^ Yea, but thats not entirely true. I mean everytime we get on planes, we put our lives in the crew's hands. When we get on a bus, we put our lives in the drivers hands etc. etc. It would be the same thing if a computer was driving us around. There are alot of situations were we are not in control of our own lives. Even people who get driven around in a limo put their lives in the drivers hands. We have to face that we really don't have total control of our own lives.

People don't mind letting others drive them around. Computer driving aids (we have them now, but more will come,) or a car totally driven by computer will happen one day.

[Ferrer]

Certainly we can't have full control our of lives, by several reasons some of which have already been exposed. But that we can't have full control of our lives doesn't mean we don't want to have it. Without going to far into psycology, because I'm not an expert, I'd say that humans like power, control and freedom.

And this why the car is great. Yes, public transport is practical and cheap and planes and trains are convenient in terms of time employed in the journey. But the greatness of the car lies within the fact that whenever I want I can grap the keys of my car and go wherever I fancy.

I don't have to follow predetermined roads, nevermind railways, or comply with time tables or schedules. The car represents pure freedom. Which why, after all, we like ti so much. There are no constraints, no conditions, no anything. Just road, seat and ass.

I don't see this concept, wheter it's the car as we know it today or an evolution, disappearing any time soon.

[Equinox]

Yea, I agree that the car represents freedom. Thats why I think there will always be cars that we can drive ourselves (or like on IRobot, a car that drives itself, but you can also take control when you want.) But it could be the same with cars that drive themselves. It would still be freedom just your not driving.

But with a car that drives itself, you wouldn't grab the keys. Probably just voice command like some cars have now. But you would just tell the car were to go, or even tell the car where to go/ turn etc. It could be the same as we have now (the freedom to go where we want,) just instead of turning the wheel or pressing the fuel pedal, you tell the car to turn left at the next turn etc. So instead of physical commands like turning the car yourself, it would be voice commands to turn.

I'm just throwing stuff out there. I do agree with what you said though. The car is freedom, but I think cars that drive themselves could also be freedom, just in a different way (It could give even more freedom as you can sit back, relax, and look around.) Plus the fact alot of people get in their car when their upset and just want to get out, which can cause issues as their emotional etc. If a computer drove the car we wouldn't have to worry about some angry guy getting behind the wheel as he's just sitting there not driving, just relaxing. I will always prefer the cars we have now over a computer controlled car.

[Kitdy]

I think there are a lot of people out there that don't really care for driving and when the time comes would easily give up the steering wheel and pedals for a computer.

[wwgkd]

I think there are a lot of people out there that don't really care for driving and when the time comes would easily give up the steering wheel and pedals for a computer.

With all the stupid things I've seen computers do I have issues fully trusting them to drive me around, but we're slowly edging our way there with drive-by-wire and such. I suppose by the time they do bring something like this around it would have become more acceptable to most people. I look at how often adaptive cruise control thought we were going to die and slammed on the brakes because of a corner and wonder, though. I figure if they want to make a car beep at me becuase it thinks I'm asleep that's one thing, allowing it to brake is something else.

[csl177]

The public likes the IDEA of being in control, not the responsibility required of it.

Look around... the cars we have now already give drivers the impression of mastery, when in fact DSC/TC/XYZ is behind the curtain. Manufacturers will continue to provide features that support the conceit. :(

And when a primary control device develops problems, the public will call out the lawyers. Ask Toyota.

EDIT: Forgot to register my opinion of Tim Allen's pontificating, but Matra's covered it for me.

[henk4]

The public likes the IDEA of being in control, not the responsibility required of it.

Look around... the cars we have now already give drivers the impression of mastery, when in fact DSC/TC/XYZ is behind the curtain. Manufacturers will continue to provide features that support the conceit. :(

And when a primary control device develops problems, the public will call out the lawyers. Ask Toyota.

EDIT: Forgot to register my opinion of Tim Allen's pontificating, but Matra's covered it for me.

on another note, who would have guessed 50 years ago that a BMW 600 would receive the atttraction is obviously has got now.....

[TheScrutineer]

Because we humans like to be in control, we like to decide our destiny and manage our freedom as much as possible. And vehicles without driver inputs are the exact opposite of that.

We also don't like dying in car accidents.

[Ferrer]

We also don't like dying in car accidents.
Freedom has its risks, and I'm sure that they can't be eliminated fully no matter ho much technology advances. Maybe one day we'll have to make the choice, freedom or safety.

The public likes the IDEA of being in control, not the responsibility required of it.

Look around... the cars we have now already give drivers the impression of mastery, when in fact DSC/TC/XYZ is behind the curtain. Manufacturers will continue to provide features that support the conceit. :(

And when a primary control device develops problems, the public will call out the lawyers. Ask Toyota.

EDIT: Forgot to register my opinion of Tim Allen's pontificating, but Matra's covered it for me.
You've definitely got a point, but I think traction control, and the current array of electronic devices are very different from cars that completely drive themselves. In fact in normal driving those devices hardly affect you.

[csl177]

You've definitely got a point, but I think traction control, and the current array of electronic devices are very different from cars that completely drive themselves. In fact in normal driving those devices hardly affect you.

"In normal driving" those devices are always vigilant of when an operator may go beyond their skill or encounter conditions that upset the vehicle's dynamics. Buyers of everything from self-parking and crash-avoiding luxury sedans to active traction and stability controlled sports cars are happy to have the conceit of control, but in fact are only providing basic inputs. That acceptance is part of the psychology that enables a future with ever more technology sold as safety. Not a bad thing mind you, just something to consider when looking in the automotive crystal ball. Engineers can't help themselves, and the public loves gadgetry. Future cars will have more.

[Ferrer]

True, though as long as you can disconnect the electronics, all is fine.

[TheScrutineer]

Recalling great automotive moment when the 2007 S Class crashed while trying to demonstrate their radar-braking system :D

http://cache.jalopnik.com/cars/images/s_class_crash.jpg

[csl177]

True, though as long as you can disconnect the electronics, all is fine.

Until something happens and the lawyers are called. ;)

[Ferrer]

Well, we don't do such things. :)

[cargirl1990]

Don't agree at all.

[Buen]

Yes, i do agree. To some extent, cars aren't made the same way anymore, simply because the rules (very litteraly) have changed. Theese days the heap af regulations the good people building cars gotta follow is huge, which ofc. puts some restrictions on the creative liberty one can take.

Another reason I think the conditions have changed is the fact that building a car today (Because the strickt regulations) is rather expensive, atleast when compared to the huge behemoths that the the automotive industies, with their platform sharing and co-op developments. Yes, alot of people get to do it, but it usualy ends up being exclusive supercars like the Koenigsegg or the Pagani you don't really see newcommers who cater to the general public. (Atleast not in my(our?) part of the world)

I do believe that if we were to travel to more eastern seabearings we would come across a totally different automotive culture (Japan excluted) where classics are being born, which we might never hear of.

Allthough, thats not to say that classics aren't being made today. They are, they are just far in between. Imo the Ferrari 360 would be a good example, allthought at the moment i can't think of some cheap cars which might one day be classic. I might return upon further mindstorming.

[P4g4nite]

Yes, i do agree. To some extent, cars aren't made the same way anymore, simply because the rules (very litteraly) have changed. No. Just no.

Cars aren't made the same way because better ways have been developed. Cheaper, higher quality, safer, faster.
Nearly all manufacturers are trying to keep well ahead of minimum safely standards demanded by rules, people weren't deliberately buying unsafe cars in the past, nor were manufacturers producing them...they just couldn't do any better.


I do believe that if we were to travel to more eastern seabearings we would come across a totally different automotive culture (Japan excluted) where classics are being born, which we might never hear of.What? We have the internet, how do we not hear about them? Is there some secret conspiracy going on?


Allthough, thats not to say that classics aren't being made today. They are, they are just far in between. Imo the Ferrari 360 would be a good example, allthought at the moment i can't think of some cheap cars which might one day be classic. I might return upon further mindstorming.Instant classics have always been rare. Do you think the original Mustang was a classic from the get go? No, it was a cheap, slow, girl's car until someone slung a big vee ate between the front tyres and decades of nostalgia and a massively disappointing decade (1980's) pushed up demand.

Modern cars which might be future classics could be the Nissan 350z, the few Holden Monaros that made it to the USA, 4G63 powered Mitsubishi Evos, the Clio V6, BMW E46 M3.

[Ferrer]

Apart from the technology development though, he does have a point that cars are different. Not better or worse, just different. Theu rules have indeed changed, and not only the written ones. These days it's not only safety that matters, but also the environments and the fact that to break even you need to produce, and sell, a million cars.

That means several things, for instance the beautiful shapes of the past are gone forever. The new one will maybe be beautiful as well, but they will definitely be different. Adventures like DeTomasos, Isos, Jensens, TVRs and the likes are a distant memory, because you can't produce a mid-priced sportscar profitably these days unless you are a big multinational company. A result of globalisation and economies of scale is also the fact that experimentation is going down and uniformity is taking place. Altough with the new resurgence of petrol engines this may change partly.

In short, cars and rules are indeed different. Better or worse? I don't know, I don't think we can generalise. As in every decade there will be the good, the bad and the ugly.

[Revo]

Ferrer, what is wrong with you lately? You sound so rational and calculated, almost cold blooded...

In any case - your last post was really well written and you've put my thoughts on the matter into words far more succinct then I could have. Thank you.

[P4g4nite]

Apart from the technology development though, he does have a point that cars are different. Not better or worse, just different. Art is different, music is different, war and politics are the same but cars are -in every measurable sense- better.

Saying cars look different isn't a point inasmuch as it's a uselessly obvious observation with no single cause explaining it.


These days it's not only safety that matters, but also the environments and the fact that to break even you need to produce, and sell, a million cars.And yet, Ferrari, Porsche, Aston Martin and Lamborghini are now profitable companies although some were in danger of disappearing or were actually bankrupt pre modern pesky regulations era.

The practise of large companies accepting losses on high profile flagship models which are made up for in expected additional sales of economy models has gone on for a long time. Requiring large numbers of sales hasn't stopped interesting cars being made.


Adventures like DeTomasos, Isos, Jensens, TVRs and the likes are a distant memory, because you can't produce a mid-priced sportscar profitably these days unless you are a big multinational company. Hasn't stopped Farbio or Morgan or Artega from producing small numbers of new cars equipped to compete with the offerings of multinationals.
The companies you've listed may be history but many many others have risen to fill that void, their fates are more closely connected with the quality of their products, their business sense and the state of the economy than with any rules which have been introduced.


A result of globalisation and economies of scale is also the fact that experimentation is going down and uniformity is taking place. I disagree, there has never ever been a wider variety of good and different cars to choose from. Even a little Australian company has appeared out of nowhere with a new racer for the road (http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/evocarreviews/223542/skelta_gforce.html).


In short, cars and rules are indeed different. Better or worse?
Evolving taste, advancing production tech and the pressures of international competition being responsible for the lions share with rules responsible for what, exactly? The unlamentable loss of pop up headlights?

[Ferrer]

Art is different, music is different, war and politics are the same but cars are -in every measurable sense- better.

Saying cars look different isn't a point inasmuch as it's a uselessly obvious observation with no single cause explaining it.
Whya re they better? They may be better to you, but what if my concept of better is different from yours? Undeniably there are some areas, like safety and fuel consumption forn instance, where cars have undoubtedly progressed, but what about handling and performance? What about intangibles? Aren't those imporant too? The latest Abarth Punto is just a match for the original Uno Turbo as far as performance is concerned.

I'm not saying that old cars are better, as I said in my previous post there's good and bad in which ever era you look. Just like Tim Allen is wrong, don't make the misyake to dismiss old cars because they are old. Yes, they might not be as advanced in some cases, but that doesn't make them worse, just different and from their era. Because if they are bad, current cars are bad too because they will be worse than the ones made in 2067.

Let's just say that we should appreciate old cars for what they are and new ones for what they are too and not trying to say which is best, because in the best of cases best is a subjective attribute.

And yet, Ferrari, Porsche, Aston Martin and Lamborghini are now profitable companies although some were in danger of disappearing or were actually bankrupt pre modern pesky regulations era.

The practise of large companies accepting losses on high profile flagship models which are made up for in expected additional sales of economy models has gone on for a long time. Requiring large numbers of sales hasn't stopped interesting cars being made.
75% of car companies you listed are now part of large industrial groups, and the other one was until recently. As I said, though that doesn't make them worse, just different. Take the Gallardo, I may whine about it as long as I want, but it is a good car, just different. In the olden days what they would've done is take which ever engine they had in hand, cut off some cylinders, phone some carrozzeria down the road from Sant'Agata mate the design with some spare chasis they had lying around and voilà you had a new entry level Lambo.

Now, it'd almost certainly break down every 100 yards, have no visibility at all, be expensive to buy and run and have all sorts of designs faults. But it'd been unique. Objectively it was a worse car than the Audi Gallardo, but I personally preferred this approach.

But I'm not right or wrong, it's just a matter of opinion. And in the end what dominates is the trend. And what the trend says is that people want Lamborghini R8s, because they want the badge without the fuss that was usually associated with it. And there's nothing we can do with that, wheter we like it or not.

Hasn't stopped Farbio or Morgan or Artega from producing small numbers of new cars equipped to compete with the offerings of multinationals.
The companies you've listed may be history but many many others have risen to fill that void, their fates are more closely connected with the quality of their products, their business sense and the state of the economy than with any rules which have been introduced.

I disagree, there has never ever been a wider variety of good and different cars to choose from. Even a little Australian company has appeared out of nowhere with a new racer for the road (http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/evocarreviews/223542/skelta_gforce.html).
Morgan isn't exactly a new comer, and AFAIK you can't buy an Artega yet. I don't know much about Farbio because they are an UK-only operation and Skelta is just a racer with numer plates as far as I understand.

All the manufacturers I mentioned, and many others, used to build road worthy spoartscar and grand tourers that were usually moderately useable and moderately comfortable. As far as I can see this isn't possible anymore. Aside from the UK, which in any case should be considered as a different planet when it comes to cars, the market for small manufacturers which just want to build road cars has just disappeared. Unless you want to built a seven figure supercar, everything else is done more cost-efectively by large car companies, and this means there's nowhere to go for this small car companies because they can't compete, especially if they are upstarts.

Now I'm not discussing the market for racers and trackday cars, the big manufacturers haven't tackled those yet, but if you just want a normal car there's almost no way you can get it from a small company because it isn't profitable for them. If even Saab or Volvo are suffering imagine a car comapny that would barely sell a thousand cars a year.


Evolving taste, advancing production tech and the pressures of international competition being responsible for the lions share with rules responsible for what, exactly? The unlamentable loss of pop up headlights?
Diversity. Diversity is gone forever. It's been replaced by efficiency.

You see in 1743 the market for Lancias was the same as today, three people. But that was ok because then three was fine for the company to be profitable. Their return may only have been 1% over the invested capital but that was ok, because they didn't need more.

Today though if every year they don't see a 154690% increase in sales you are fired and dismissed as an incompetent. That means there's no longer a market for Lancias, Saabs, Volvos and many other manufacturers. And this is a great loss.

But fear not, because what this loss has given us is more volume for the surviving companies. And more volume means they can spread the costs of developing exciting new technologies over more units, therefore making the cost per unit lower and assumable for the companies. That has undoubtely made the car progress and get better as the decades passed.

Is this better or worse? Neither I would say. We've gained many things, such as safer, more frugal cars, better performance is some case and a lot of helpful technology. This has come, though at the cost of uniformity.

In the end it's up to each one of us which is better.

[Kitdy]

In the end it's up to each one of us which is better.

It's up to each of you to decide which is better, but we know what's best:

http://www.cartrucktrader.com/photos/675/500000675_1_b.jpg

[cargirl1990]

^ The new Chrysler Caravans look like that. Well, too me that is...