Why is the average Joe car so ugly and boring compared to pre 60s?

Maybe

- Downsizing and weight reduction including crappy materials

- Aerodynamics

- Crumple zones and pedestrian safety

- Lack of inspiration for designers

- Programmed obsolescence mindset by the manufacturers includes making the car look old and ugly in a short time so they buy another one?

- Cost reduction. Maybe the average Joe car half century ago was not so average? I mean fewer people could actually afford cars. Or maybe not as even popular cars like VW beetles, Citroen 2 CVs, Minis and even Ford Ts had some appeal.

Of course all of the above matter but which ones carry more weight in your opinion?

Erm...

[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/MHV_Ford_Anglia_02.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://www.mazda.es/upload/global/showroom/all-new-mazda6/overview/key-feature/mazda6-profile-2.jpg[/IMG]

Yeah, right.

However, I don't think that the beauty is the problem. It's the uniqueness and innovation. The car as we know it has been with us for more than 110 years so pretty much all concepts have been invented. Also thanks to the cost of developing a car, invents are forbidden for all but the most wealthy of car companies, and those tend (for the most part) to be quite conservative.

Like modern cars, I'm sure with all but the exceptional old cars that they enjoyed a period of looking good upon release because of their novelty, blending into the background, becoming an eyesore in their middle age, and then reaching classic, and again novel, status.
For the majority of my sentient life, the cars from the '80s have been those eyesores. However, now I am beginning to appreciate their simplicity and boxiness; hell, I even own one. The same is true of my recent post about the Honda Accord.

There was a period in time when Ferrari GTOs and '69 Camaros were being sold for almost nothing and now they're being sold for a quadrillion spacebux. It's all cyclic.

Take any given car from any given era and it probably won't look that great, we just don't make room in our memories for ugly old cars.

The 80's are the single best decade for cars. By then they had gotten reliable and fast and were mostly well engineered; they drive like normal cars. They are cheap to buy and run for the most part. And best of all they still had the uniqueness that has been lost today.

[quote=Ferrer;999432]The 80's are the single best decade for cars. By then they had gotten reliable and fast and were mostly well engineered; they drive like normal cars. They are cheap to buy and run for the most part. And best of all they still had the uniqueness that has been lost today.[/quote]

I can't agree with that. There were precious few sports cars then, almost everything American looked hideous, was underpowered and slow, and the cars still rusted like anything older. Also, well engineered? Only if you got something from Japan or Germany; Italian, French and British cars were usually had Airfix-like build quality, durability and reliability, and American cars were often little better... The 1960s and 1990s were much better.

[quote=Lukeno52;999446]I can't agree with that. There were precious few sports cars then, almost everything American looked hideous, was underpowered and slow, and the cars still rusted like anything older. Also, well engineered? Only if you got something from Japan or Germany; Italian, French and British cars were usually had Airfix-like build quality, durability and reliability, and American cars were often little better... The 1960s and 1990s were much better.[/quote]
We had a french car from the 80's which ran for 14 years and over 200.000km without a single fault. We decided to replace it because we were bored with it, if it was for the car it might as well continue running today...

Also, no sportscars?

[LIST][*]Mazda MX-5[*]Mazda RX-7[*]Alfa Romeo Spider[*]Alfa Romeo GTV6[*]Alfa Romeo SZ[*]Ferrari 308[*]Fiat 124 Spider[*]Fiat X1/9[*]Ford RS200[*]Honda CR-X[*]Lancia Montecarlo[*]Lancia Rally[*]Nissan Silvia/200SX[*]Opel Manta[*]Ford Capri[*]Porsche 924/944[*]Porsche 928[*]Porsche 911 Turbo[*]Alpine GTA[*]Toyota Celica/Supra[*]Toyota AE86[*]Toyota MR2[*]Triumph TR7 V8[*]Volkswagen Scirocco/Corrado[/LIST]

I'm sure there would still be some missing. And then there are the other great 80's cars that aren't sportscars, like the Cosworth Mercs, the Cosworth Fords, the rear wheel drive Alfa saloons, the turbocharhed Saabs, the Ferrari-engined Lancias, the Rover V8s, and the list goes on and on.

As for beauty, it is in the eye of the beholder, but nothing matches the prewar sculptures, so that argument, I'm afraid, it's out.

Also remember the 80s was when we busted through the 200mph barrier with supercars.

[quote=Big time;999416]Maybe

- Downsizing and weight reduction including crappy materials

- Aerodynamics

- Crumple zones and pedestrian safety

- Lack of inspiration for designers

- Programmed obsolescence mindset by the manufacturers includes making the car look old and ugly in a short time so they buy another one?

- Cost reduction. Maybe the average Joe car half century ago was not so average? I mean fewer people could actually afford cars. Or maybe not as even popular cars like VW beetles, Citroen 2 CVs, Minis and even Ford Ts had some appeal.

Of course all of the above matter but which ones carry more weight in your opinion?[/quote]
I'm not sure exactly why. Probably due to the reasons you listed above.

I do know that I find '50s-'70s cars, and car magazines, much more interesting than new ones.

See comparison below. For me, looking through some of the car magazines of years ago is almost like finding buried treasure. So much different (style) than now!

[quote=Lukeno52;999446]I can't agree with that. There were precious few sports cars then, almost everything American looked hideous, was underpowered and slow, and the cars still rusted like anything older. Also, well engineered? Only if you got something from Japan or Germany; Italian, French and British cars were usually had Airfix-like build quality, durability and reliability, and American cars were often little better... The 1960s and 1990s were much better.[/quote]

I wouldn't agree to that either.

If you really want to push the definition of the 80's car, the NSX was launched in 1989 for the 1990 model year, and it was certainly developed in the 80's.

Ferrer- you forgot the Honda Prelude too, which out slalomed a Corvette in some tests.

Then there was also the Mazda MX-6.

The Nissan Bluebird was pretty hot stuff especially when it came to rallying and the R30 Skyline had just come back after a long hiatus with the R32 Skyline rounding out the 1980s, which destroyed everything in the JGTC.

I dunno, Fleet. I love those old cars too, but most of those late-'60s American cars look pretty similar. They all share the F-100 Super Sabre-inspired full or nearly-full width grill, long hoods, and coke-bottle styling. They may all be sharing in the bounty of several successful styling formulae, but it does make them look awfully similar.

[quote=Ferrer;999452]
...Renault leCar...[/quote]
While I do love '80s cars, none of them are classically beautiful except the 308 of the ones you listed. The are all great industrial design but you really need curves for true beauty like cars from the '30s-'60s and '90s have. As charming as they are, they aren't objets d'art and thus are meant to be driven not looked at.
[quote]As for beauty, it is in the eye of the beholder, but nothing matches the prewar sculptures, so that argument, I'm afraid, it's out.[/quote]
The prettiest prewar cars are quite pretty, but as a whole most cars looked pretty dumpy back then, as they have continue to do. The prewar cars also suffer from a sameness of design that is worse even than among the generic late-'50s fullsize American sedans.

EDIT: Both NSX and Ferrer, the NSX, Miata, SZ etc... aren't really '80s cars in my book. They were released late enough in the decade and share more styling cliches and touches with '90s cars than their eighties compatriots.

[quote=f6fhellcat13;999493]I dunno, Fleet. I love those old cars too, but most of those late-'60s American cars look pretty similar. They all share the F-100 Super Sabre-inspired full or nearly-full width grill, long hoods, and coke-bottle styling. They may all be sharing in the bounty of several successful styling formulae, but it does make them look awfully similar.
[/quote]
What? The old ones sure look different to me. A few weeks ago, I mistook a Buick LaCross for a Toyota... it would have been impossible for me to do that with a '60s Buick and a '60s Toyota!

I could put a "Buick" emblem on a new Toyota and many people would think it's a "Buick." And vice-versa. But if I had a '60s Buick and switched emblems with a '60s Toyota, I don't think anyone would believe it!

[quote=Fleet 500;999494]What? The old ones sure look different to me. A few weeks ago, I mistook a Buick LaCross for a Toyota... it would have been impossible for me to do that with a '60s Buick and a '60s Toyota!

I could put a "Buick" emblem on a new Toyota and many people would think it's a "Buick." And vice-versa. But if I had a '60s Buick and switched emblems with a '60s Toyota, I don't think anyone would believe it![/quote]

compare a '60s Buick with a '60 Olds or Pontiac, and yes they may have different styling cues, but they are basically the same car. :)
And yes I have stopped trying to see differences in modern cars, but I also have problems in correctly identifying different modern Aston Martins when seeing them in isolation.

On top of that, releasing a car that would look distinctly different from anything in the market would not meet with favourable reactions from many people, as they prefer to drive around anonimously. And so will be the judgements of the general autojournos who will despise anything that looks remotely differentand does not meet German standards. The times of the Citroen DS19' immediate success (80000 sold before the introductory 1955 Paris Motor Show closed its door) are over.

[quote=henk4;999495]compare a '60s Buick with a '60 Olds or Pontiac, and yes they may have different styling cues, but they are basically the same car. :)
And yes I have stopped trying to see differences in modern cars, but I also have problems in correctly identifying different modern Aston Martins when seeing them in isolation. [/quote]

Right, they had enough difference in styling to make them easy to identify. I don't know if they are the same car; I would have to drive each one to know that for sure.

And, yes, I don't even try to identifying modern cars. For two reasons.... it's too hard and I am not really interested in most of them.

[quote]On top of that, releasing a car that would look distinctly different from anything in the market would not meet with favourable reactions from many people, as they prefer to drive around anonimously. And so will be the judgements of the general autojournos who will despise anything that looks remotely differentand does not meet German standards. The times of the Citroen DS19' immediate success (80000 sold before the introductory 1955 Paris Motor Show closed its door) are over.[/quote]

You may have hit on something there. Probably many people don't like to attract attention with the car they drive. Many also see a car as just transportation, nothing more.

[quote=NSXType-R;999492]Then there was also the Mazda MX-6.[/quote]
We had both a 1st generartion model (626 Coupé 2.0-16 GT) and a second generation one (MX-6 2.5 V6). Both lovely car, reliable, fast and good looking. Mine is the third Mazda in the family actually!
[quote=f6fhellcat13;999493]While I do love '80s cars, none of them are classically beautiful except the 308 of the ones you listed. The are all great industrial design but you really need curves for true beauty like cars from the '30s-'60s and '90s have. As charming as they are, they aren't objets d'art and thus are meant to be driven not looked at.

The prettiest prewar cars are quite pretty, but as a whole most cars looked pretty dumpy back then, as they have continue to do. The prewar cars also suffer from a sameness of design that is worse even than among the generic late-'50s fullsize American sedans.[/quote]
Although I find beauty in the purposefulness of the Delta HF Integrale squarely flared wheelarches I agree that for the most part cars in the 80's are not as classically beautiful as their forebearers. A quick comparison between the DB4 Zagato and the V8 Vantage Zagato illustrates the point easily. As a result I also I agree that there's no point in having a collection of 80's cars just to admire them, their main point is using them as they were intended on the road.

I disagree about the sameness of prewar designs though. Yes, there are bad looking cars and some generic ones, we could argue, but precisely because the motoring industry was at its beginnings you can find a lot of very different and interesting solutions. Cars like the Citroën Traction Avant, the Chrysler Airflow or the Tatra 87 are all different from each other and beautiful both for the styling and the technical solutions. Even the little lovely Topolino was cute.

This boldness of designs was maintained in the early postwar years, when icons like the DS, the 2CV, the Aurelia, the Saab 92, the Mini, the XK120 were launched, but slowly uniformity crept in and we have arrived at a time when pretty much all cars are alike and all the differences are almost reduced to the different badges on the grille.
[quote=f6fhellcat13;999493]EDIT: Both NSX and Ferrer, the NSX, Miata, SZ etc... aren't really '80s cars in my book. They were released late enough in the decade and share more styling cliches and touches with '90s cars than their eighties compatriots.[/quote]
Well, I agree it is pushing it, but they were developed and launched in the 80's and the Alfa has 70's underpinnings anyway.
[quote=Fleet 500;999494]What? The old ones sure look different to me. A few weeks ago, I mistook a Buick LaCross for a Toyota... it would have been impossible for me to do that with a '60s Buick and a '60s Toyota!

I could put a "Buick" emblem on a new Toyota and many people would think it's a "Buick." And vice-versa. But if I had a '60s Buick and switched emblems with a '60s Toyota, I don't think anyone would believe it![/quote]
You certainly wouldn't mistake a modenr Buick LaCentury Brougham Sedan with a Toyota Auris. Or maybe you would since they are now just Opels...
[quote=henk4;999495]And yes I have stopped trying to see differences in modern cars, but I also have problems in correctly identifying different modern Aston Martins when seeing them in isolation.[/quote]
I thought they were all the same car since 1996...
[quote=henk4;999495]On top of that, releasing a car that would look distinctly different from anything in the market would not meet with favourable reactions from many people, as they prefer to drive around anonimously. And so will be the judgements of the general autojournos who will despise anything that looks remotely differentand does not meet German standards. The times of the Citroen DS19' immediate success (80000 sold before the introductory 1955 Paris Motor Show closed its door) are over.[/quote]
But that's because car business has gotten so competitive and so complex that huge volumes are needed just to break even, and therefore car manufacturers can't risk to put new daring bold designs into productions just in case they are flops and the fail to meet the sales targets.

It is sad, but that's how it works. And that's also why car brands like Lancia, Alfa Romeo, Saab, Triumph or Citroën are either dead or little more than badges which up the price on products that are otherwise completely mainstream.

[quote=Ferrer;999498]We had both a 1st generartion model (626 Coupé 2.0-16 GT) and a second generation one (MX-6 2.5 V6). Both lovely car, reliable, fast and good looking. Mine is the third Mazda in the family actually!
.[/quote]
that 2.5L V6 goes very nicely in the mx5. should have been a factory option imo.