Today's Cars Look too Much Alike?

[henk4]

That's all very well Fleet, but the point was that for some people it easy to identify between different older US cars, while others find it more difficult. It that worth all the bickering?

And somebody had a 1963 Ford Galaxie 500 in the area where I grew up, and to us that really was a behemoth. I regularly see a Ford Galaxie participating in Tour Auto in France, and I can tell you it looks completely out of place on the small roads that are being used for that event.

[Fleet 500]

God it's ugly

I agree. It doesn't even look like a Chevy.
This 1970 "real" Monte Carlo, though, does. It was also available with a 454-cu-in V-8!

[henk4]

I agree. It doesn't even look like a Chevy.
This 1970 "real" Monte Carlo, though, does. It was also available with a 454-cu-in V-8!

OMG, that has an extended roofline and a chopped off trunk.....

[Fleet 500]

That's all very well Fleet, but the point was that for some people it easy to identify between different older US cars, while others find it more difficult. It that worth all the bickering?

That is true. However, I will stick with my answer to the original question ("Today's Cars Look Too Much Alike?") My answer: Definitely yes!

And somebody had a 1963 Ford Galaxie 500 in the area where I grew up, and to us that really was a behemoth.

Yeah, those were a full-sized car. About a foot shorter than a Cadillac or Imperial, but still big. It, of course, would seem to look even bigger in Europe. However, the Rolls-Royce and Mercedes 600 were also big. I see it as a good thing that in the '60s (and '70s) there was still a choice of owning an actual full-sized car (not the 207" "full-sized" Cadillacs of now).

[LeonOfTheDead]

Fleet, the Monte Carlo I've posted does look like a Chevy to me.
And, most modern Chevrolet, the small and mid size ones, are indeed designed in Europe or Asia.

Just admit you love the sixties and seventies, because to me the Monte Carlo you posted looks like just another muscle car or whatever they were called from the States. And that's because I've never payed attention to it.
Deal with it. You probably have no idea what a Fiat Ritmo is anyway.

[pimento]

Back in the '60s, a Chevy looked like a Chevy. Now (the compact and mid-sized ones) look like a European or Asian car.

That's probably because they are, most of them come from the remnants of Daewoo, right?

[henk4]

That is true. However, I will stick with my answer to the original question ("Today's Cars Look Too Much Alike?") My answer: Definitely yes!

OK, it seems we are finally getting somewhere. Now if you also accept that other people, slightly younger than me and you, have difficulties in telling apart different US cars from 40-50 years ago, let alone be able to identify them properly when seen alone, I think we finally have managed to settle the debate.

[Fleet 500]

Fleet, the Monte Carlo I've posted does look like a Chevy to me.

Not to me. But I remember when (as I said before) a Chevy looked like Chevy.

And, most modern Chevrolet, the small and mid size ones, are indeed designed in Europe or Asia.

I know, that's the problem. I liked it better when they were actually designed (and built) in the U.S.

Just admit you love the sixties and seventies, because to me the Monte Carlo you posted looks like just another muscle car or whatever they were called from the States. And that's because I've never payed attention to it.

As someone once said, "almost every '60s American car was an instant classic." He said that because although some shared the same platform, they each had their own certain style/styling.

Deal with it. You probably have no idea what a Fiat Ritmo is anyway.

Deal with what? That I think most modern cars look alike?
No, I have not heard of that Fiat. Have you heard of a 1966 D/Dart or a 1960 Cadillac Grande?

[Fleet 500]

oh those new fangled modern cars, they all look so alike









hell, these two are competitors, they must look exactly the same:




time to put down the rose tinted glasses, i think. there were just as many generic crap boxes then as there are now.. it's just that they are the generic boxes you grew up with, so you find them easier to differentiate.
to everyone else; it's just a big shiny american tank, in a sea of other big yank tanks at the time, with iconic cars like mustangs and camaro's standing out from the crowd.

Thanks for pointing out how ugly many modern cars are!
There may have been generic cars in the '60s, but even those had real chrome bumpers (not painted plastic) and chrome in general. And even an AMC Rambler had a real luggage compartment, not a mail-slot type luggage compartment which most modern cars have.

[Fleet 500]

OK, it seems we are finally getting somewhere. Now if you also accept that other people, slightly younger than me and you, have difficulties in telling apart different US cars from 40-50 years ago, let alone be able to identify them properly when seen alone, I think we finally have managed to settle the debate.

Sure some people have difficulties telling apart U.S. cars from 40-50 years ago. But you would be surprised how many people much younger than us can easily identify a '60s Cadillac or other car. See post #74.

It would be very interesting if there was some kind of study done on this. My bet would be that the '60s cars would be well ahead if there was a "name this car" test done on the general public.

[henk4]

Thanks for pointing out how ugly many modern cars are!
There may have been generic cars in the '60s, but even those had real chrome bumpers (not painted plastic) and chrome in general. And even an AMC Rambler had a real luggage compartment, not a mail-slot type luggage compartment which most modern cars have.

We know that YOU find them ugly, and that is probably why YOU have trouble telling them apart. (If you would really be interested to do in the first place) Others like them and have no problems to tell them apart, that is how it is, and you can continue to promote cars from the 50-60s as long as you want, it won't change a thing.

People who love cars from the thirties could easily say: look at these stupid cars from the fifties, no real fenders, just a vast horizontal piece of metal under which the engine is supposed to be. No even a side step to properly get into the car. And luggage was just tied to a rack at the cut off rear of the car or on top of a small rear trunk hatch...so no need to unnecessarily extend the length of the car.

It is all subjective, Fleet, and you may keep on proclaiming what your taste is, it is still not everybody's taste, which leads to differences in appreciating cars from different eras. And nobody has a monopoly for good taste.

[henk4]

It would be very interesting if there was some kind of study done on this. My bet would be that the '60s cars would be well ahead if there was a "name this car" test done on the general public.

If such a test was done by age category of the general public, you would see surprising differences in the outcome. If the same test was done in Europe or Australia or Japan, you would also see great differences with the outcome in the USA.

We all know that tests can be manipulated to show the outcome we like to see.....

[clutch-monkey]

.. and chrome in general.

...this is a good thing?

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.

[crisis]

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…

[Matra et Alpine]

Cheers Fleet.

Your words confirmed th point made

Just as computer aerodynamic modelling and pedestrian safety regulations are making cars of a similar shape now, the obsession with space rockets and oppulence made cars of the 50s and 60s ( and 70s ) look similar.

So cars of the 50s, 60s and 70s looked similar for the reasons I proposed and AS YOU HAVE NOW STATED.
Cars of 2010s look similar and not surprisingly of the 2000s, 1990s and 1980s.
THis is actually all just about your preference and need to affirm for yourself that your favourite cars are the best and must de facto be everyones favourite.
Wrong
Many have attested to you that cars of the 50s,60s and 70s looked the same.
You reply by trying to convince them otherwise with "facts".
I prefer to go with your opinion as you stated in the quote... adn I repeat

cars of the 50s and 60s ( and 70s ) look similar.

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