Today's Cars Look too Much Alike?

[pimento]

When I worked in distribution for the local chain pizza outlet I used to try and identify cars only by their head/tail lights. I got pretty damn good, and that was in late '03 so it was mostly 90s cars. With enough repetition and effort, anything can be learnt.

[LeonOfTheDead]

When I worked in distribution for the local chain pizza outlet I used to try and identify cars only by their head/tail lights. I got pretty damn good, and that was in late '03 so it was mostly 90s cars. With enough repetition and effort, anything can be learnt.

Did that myself when I was forced to take a bus every morning at 6.30 for 6 years...

[Fleet 500]

visibly aerodynamic and really aerodynamic are sometimes world apart

It had a Cd of 0.29.

IIRC, the Charger Daytona, in the NASCAR races, was 17 mph faster than the regular Charger with no increase in horsepower.

[henk4]

It had a Cd of 0.29.

IIRC, the Charger Daytona, in the NASCAR races, was 17 mph faster than the regular Charger with no increase in horsepower.

according to this quote I was a bit right....

"The 1969 Dodge Daytona had a drag coefficient (cd) of just 0.28, better than most cars made in the 1990s. It would have produced even less drag, if it weren't for the tall spoiler (added to keep the rear wheels on the ground at high speeds). But, despite its 200 mph speed record (set by Buddy Baker on March 24, 1970, at 200.447 mph around Talladega), the car didn't sell well, even for its limited production, largely — according to sages of the time — because people thought the aero look was ugly. The price was around $4,000, the engine was a 440 or Hemi, and the top speed was practically unbeatable in a production car. "

but is an amazing cd value indeed.

[Fleet 500]

according to this quote I was a bit right....

"The 1969 Dodge Daytona had a drag coefficient (cd) of just 0.28, better than most cars made in the 1990s. It would have produced even less drag, if it weren't for the tall spoiler (added to keep the rear wheels on the ground at high speeds). But, despite its 200 mph speed record (set by Buddy Baker on March 24, 1970, at 200.447 mph around Talladega), the car didn't sell well, even for its limited production, largely — according to sages of the time — because people thought the aero look was ugly. The price was around $4,000, the engine was a 440 or Hemi, and the top speed was practically unbeatable in a production car. "

but is an amazing cd value indeed.

What were you right about?

[Fleet 500]

the easiest cars to identify are the ones that one grew up with, and had a keen interest in cars. For me the US cars of the fifties and sixties arre not easy to tell apart, as there were so few around where I lived. You would have the same problem with European cars from that period. So it has nothing to do with specific designs but only with the place you were born and raised.

Look at it this way...

Put a, let's say, 1966 Ford Falcon next to a 1966 Plymouth Valiant. Easy to tell the difference if you are only vaguely familiar with them.

Now, put a 2011 Ford Focus next to any number of Asian cars. The only way I can identify the Ford would be to look at the nameplate!

In other words, '60s (and to a lesser degree '50s) American cars were easy to identify; today with the egg- and blob-shape which is common (along with the chopped off trunk), it is much harder.

[Kitdy]

This is a silly discussion.

[Fleet 500]

Here is an example. From a 1967 magazine, a contest "Spot-The-Cars."

See how the styling is different, especially the front end/grille?

(The cars are):
A. Pontiac
B. Mercury Cougar
C. AMC Rambler
D. Chevy II
E. Dodge Dart
F. Ford Fairlane

[pimento]

See, they look much more similar to me than the new Focus does to any number of Asian cars.

[Fleet 500]

See, they look much more similar to me than the new Focus does to any number of Asian cars.

Are you serious?
The Focus and any number of Asian cars have the chopped-off trunk (rear overhang), the slots for a grille and the plastic bumpers. Also the front end which slopes down.

[pimento]

Yes, but the grill and the headlights and the wheel arches and etc etc etc are different. It's all about familiarity - I've never seen any of the cars in your pictures before, yet I've seen modern cars a mooyan booyan times.

[Ferrer]

Indeed. And you could even argue that with contraptions like the previous Megane cars are more different. Altough I'm sure we can find weird 60's cars.

[henk4]

What were you right about?

that the (very visible) wing was not very helpful to reduce the Cd. In fact, it increased drag.

[Fleet 500]

Yes, but the grill and the headlights and the wheel arches and etc etc etc are different. It's all about familiarity - I've never seen any of the cars in your pictures before, yet I've seen modern cars a mooyan booyan times.

The grille and headlights and the wheel arches may be different (though many are similar), but the overall shape is very similar with most late-model cars. Not so with '60s cars.

No one with even minimal knowledge of '60 cars will not mistake a '67 Mercury Cougar with a Dodge Dart or a Pontiac LeMans! Or a '67 Ford Fairlane with a Chevy II.

[Fleet 500]

that the (very visible) wing was not very helpful to reduce the Cd. In fact, it increased drag.

But the overall shape did... the front "nose cone" and the back window which was flush with the pillar.

The rear stabilizer was not the only difference on the Daytona compared to the regular Charger.

There was another model, the Charger 500, which had a flush-mounted front grille and back window but no rear stabilizer, and that car also had improved aerodynamics compared to the regular Charger.

A good comparison would be to find out what the Cd of the regular Charger was.