Today's Cars Look too Much Alike?

[henk4]

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.

if one is not reallly interested in the specific cars it is very hard to tell the difference. Many people here are not really interested in the common bread and butter US cars from the sixties, and you are not interested in the bread and butter cars from this time and age. I for instance are unable to tell apart the current and very recent Aston Martin models because they all look the same to me and I really haven't taken the trouble to check where precisely they differ.
But if you would put say six Pinin Farina designed sedans from the sixties next to each other I would be able to tell you which is which, even if they are shown apart. Check also a Ferrari 250GTE and a Lancia Flavia coupe, especially looking from quarter rear.

And yes, when I look out of my window these days and see the small asian and european cars passing by, I can't tell you right away if I am looking at a Ford Ka, a Kia Rio or Hyundai i20, Mazda 2 or whatever have you. And that is purely because I am not interested. On the other hand, if occasionally an American car from the sixties passes by, I would also not immediately be able to tell you what it is, because I was not trained enough to tell them apart when I was a teenager.

So stop preaching that it is easy to tell US cars apart as a general rule. It is easy for you because you grew up with them. Many people here did not.

[henk4]

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.

It seems to be very hard for you to take a tongue in cheek remark for what it is.....I did go to the web yesterday to check about the Charger, because I saw something I did not know. And what I read there was that the rear wing increased drag. Your original picture showed the car from behind, prominently featuring this gigantic wing, so that triggered my remark that what is very visible is not always effective, even before I had read that the wing did indeed increase drag, sort of compensating for all the effective measures at the front end of the car. I also read that hardly anybody wanted to buy the car, and Superbee sales, although not very large in absolute terms were about a factor four greater.

[Commodore GS/E]

When I saw a Plymouth Fury III in Budapest, it took me several days to find out what it was... despite several shots. It had no badges. On the other hand, when I drove back from Berlin this weekend, I was able to recognize 80% of the cars on the autobahn (while it was already pretty dark). Today's cars don't give me a headache, but 60's and 50's do.

[Fleet 500]

When I saw a Plymouth Fury III in Budapest, it took me several days to find out what it was... despite several shots. It had no badges. On the other hand, when I drove back from Berlin this weekend, I was able to recognize 80% of the cars on the autobahn (while it was already pretty dark). Today's cars don't give me a headache, but 60's and 50's do.

What year Plymouth Fury?
People don't refer to late-model cars as "soap-dish" or "egg-shaped, or "electric razor" styling for nothing. Many (most?) do look like that.

As I mentioned, almost every new car has that chopped off rear end, whereas in the '60s it ranged from relatively stubby (Mustang) to very long (Chrysler New Yorker and Pontiac Bonneville).

The point I am trying to make is that in the '60s, a Chevy looked like a Chevy; a Cadillac looked like a Cadillac... they didn't look like European cars.

[Fleet 500]

It seems to be very hard for you to take a tongue in cheek remark for what it is.....I did go to the web yesterday to check about the Charger, because I saw something I did not know. And what I read there was that the rear wing increased drag. Your original picture showed the car from behind, prominently featuring this gigantic wing, so that triggered my remark that what is very visible is not always effective, even before I had read that the wing did indeed increase drag, sort of compensating for all the effective measures at the front end of the car. I also read that hardly anybody wanted to buy the car, and Superbee sales, although not very large in absolute terms were about a factor four greater.

I think we an both agree that the overall changes made to the Charger in creating the Daytona were not just for looks and that the Daytona was more aerodynamic than the standard Charger. The 0.28/.29 Cd shows this.

Many people, even Mopar fans, agree that the Daytona was not very good-looking. But it wasn't built to be pretty! It was built to compete against other cars on the track... especially the Ford Talladega.

It was built to satisfy the NASCAR requirements (at least 500 sold to the public); it was not expected to have large sales figures. The Plymouth Road Runner outsold the Dodge Super Bee by a large margin... doesn't really mean anything, either.

Here is a another photo of a '69 Charger Daytona from another angle...

[LeonOfTheDead]

What year Plymouth Fury?
People don't refer to late-model cars as "soap-dish" or "egg-shaped, or "electric razor" styling for nothing. Many (most?) do look like that.

As I mentioned, almost every new car has that chopped off rear end, whereas in the '60s it ranged from relatively stubby (Mustang) to very long (Chrysler New Yorker and Pontiac Bonneville).

The point I am trying to make is that in the '60s, a Chevy looked like a Chevy; a Cadillac looked like a Cadillac... they didn't look like European cars.

Honestly, American cars don't look like European cars at all. Really.
And as many other said we can recognize pretty easily cars from various periods, depending on when we started looking at them or which we do prefer.

I remember when I was a bit more interested in pre-WWII cars and my archive was much smaller, I was capable of at least getting the brand right at the first glance. It's a bit harder now, and that's just because I'm less focused on them. I could still say a Mercury I never saw looks like a Cadillac of the same period, or even a Chevrolet, as simple as because I don't know them. Then again I think I know basically all modern cars, especially those available in Europe and a big part of those available in the States. And that's because I've never been much interested into.

Of the four cars' pics attached above, I can of course tell the differences, but I can also say they were also wearing a very similar style and the same features. To the untrained eye, they could all be from the same car company. That's probably what you think about modern hatches.

[Fleet 500]

if one is not reallly interested in the specific cars it is very hard to tell the difference. Many people here are not really interested in the common bread and butter US cars from the sixties, and you are not interested in the bread and butter cars from this time and age. I for instance are unable to tell apart the current and very recent Aston Martin models because they all look the same to me and I really haven't taken the trouble to check where precisely they differ.
But if you would put say six Pinin Farina designed sedans from the sixties next to each other I would be able to tell you which is which, even if they are shown apart. Check also a Ferrari 250GTE and a Lancia Flavia coupe, especially looking from quarter rear.

And yes, when I look out of my window these days and see the small asian and european cars passing by, I can't tell you right away if I am looking at a Ford Ka, a Kia Rio or Hyundai i20, Mazda 2 or whatever have you. And that is purely because I am not interested. On the other hand, if occasionally an American car from the sixties passes by, I would also not immediately be able to tell you what it is, because I was not trained enough to tell them apart when I was a teenager.

So stop preaching that it is easy to tell US cars apart as a general rule. It is easy for you because you grew up with them. Many people here did not.

No preaching here... just stating a fact that '60s U.S. cars are much easier to identify than the new(er) ones. Just compare them; it's so obvious.

[Fleet 500]

Honestly, American cars don't look like European cars at all. Really.
And as many other said we can recognize pretty easily cars from various periods, depending on when we started looking at them or which we do prefer.

I remember when I was a bit more interested in pre-WWII cars and my archive was much smaller, I was capable of at least getting the brand right at the first glance. It's a bit harder now, and that's just because I'm less focused on them. I could still say a Mercury I never saw looks like a Cadillac of the same period, or even a Chevrolet, as simple as because I don't know them. Then again I think I know basically all modern cars, especially those available in Europe and a big part of those available in the States. And that's because I've never been much interested into.

Of the four cars' pics attached above, I can of course tell the differences, but I can also say they were also wearing a very similar style and the same features. To the untrained eye, they could all be from the same car company. That's probably what you think about modern hatches.

Of those four cars you posted photos of, note that the rear of each are completely different? Not so with modern cars.

The fins on each of those old cars are very different.

[Ferrer]

Of those four cars you posted photos of, note that the rear of each are completely different? Not so with modern cars.

The fins on each of those old cars are very different.

Yes old American cars are better at everything. Including being different.

We get it.

[clutch-monkey]

those four cars look the same bar some trimmings and fins.

[kingofthering]

No preaching here... just stating a fact that '60s U.S. cars are much easier to identify than the new(er) ones. Just compare them; it's so obvious.

To you, perhaps. While we may have more-or-less the same idea as to what a "car" is, we are better at identifying certain kinds better than others. Bird experts, for instance, will use more specific categories for birds than non-experts who just see "a bird" whereas an expert sees something really complex and rare.

For those of us who grew up with cars from the last 20-or-so years, we can identify the differences between an Audi A6 and a Toyota Camry. While I cannot remember the exact research behind this, essentially, it is why you, an expert of 1960's cars will see them as distinctive and identify each one as opposed to we, who are experts at identifying these "jelly-bean" cars will just have a rather vague, generalized idea of what a '60s American car is.

[pimento]

Remember when it was funny to say that all [inset ethnicity here] people look the same? Same thing.

[Fleet 500]

Yes old American cars are better at everything. Including being different.

We get it.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I made no such claim.

Thank you.

[Fleet 500]

To you, perhaps. While we may have more-or-less the same idea as to what a "car" is, we are better at identifying certain kinds better than others. Bird experts, for instance, will use more specific categories for birds than non-experts who just see "a bird" whereas an expert sees something really complex and rare.

For those of us who grew up with cars from the last 20-or-so years, we can identify the differences between an Audi A6 and a Toyota Camry. While I cannot remember the exact research behind this, essentially, it is why you, an expert of 1960's cars will see them as distinctive and identify each one as opposed to we, who are experts at identifying these "jelly-bean" cars will just have a rather vague, generalized idea of what a '60s American car is.

No, not just "to me."

I was driving by a Jr. High School (known these days a "Middle School") in my black '69 Cadillac. There were a group of students, about 14 years old, in the front of the school (running/walking during P.E. class). I drove by two kids and I heard one say to the other, "Cadillac."

Another time, I was driving near my neighborhood in the same car, about to make a right turn. Two kids, again about 14 years old, were on the corner. One said to me, "Nice Cadillac."

And yet another time I was driving by a different school, this time a grammar school (grades K-6). I was driving my '76 limousine and there were many kids at and near the school because it was just after some event. Yet again, I heard one of the kids say to another as I was driving by "limousine."

More teenagers know about '60s cars than you would assume. So I will stand by my original answer to the question in this thread... yes, I definitely think that today's cars look too much alike.

It may be easy for some people to identify modern jelly bean cars, but it sure was easier for me when they didn't have cookie-cutter styling. I can't tell you how many times I mistook a modern Ford or Chevy or Buick for a Japanese car.

[Fleet 500]

those four cars look the same bar some trimmings and fins.

The taillights also looked different. Also the front ends. And in most cases, the bumpers. In some cases, the overall shape... a '57 Chrysler looks a lot different than a '57 Ford!