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

[Big time]

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?

[Ferrer]

Erm...





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.

[f6fhellcat13]

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.

[Ferrer]

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.

[Lukeno52]

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.

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.

[Ferrer]

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.

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?

• 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

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.

[f6fhellcat13]

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.

...Renault leCar...

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.

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.

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.

[Fleet 500]

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.

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!

[NSXType-R]

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.

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.

[pimento]

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

[Fleet 500]

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?

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!

[crisis]

60s, meh. 70s for Oz cars was pretty cool. Also the 70s BMWs were nice. 70s US Muscle cars looked cool. There are a lot of absolutely gorgeous modern cars though.

[f6fhellcat13]

An interesting take on the whole shebang (from the American perspective): My mother claims cars were more recognizable 60 years ago. I analyze decades and disagree (Part 1) - Newark Classic cars | Examiner.com

Fleet, comparing domestics to imports from the '60s is apples and oranges; they weren't selling in the same market class. The Japanese sold compacts and the Americans sold anything but. Saying that they were easy to tell apart back in the day is a bit facile; a Suburban is still easy to differentiate from an iQ. In the years since the '60s, the Japanese and Germans have seen greater penetration in the American market and have started making cars in the larger classes that were previously only made by American companies. American companies have also gone smaller to meet the market, so now you have all those companies who previously made differently-sized cars co-mingling in the same market classes.

[kingofthering]

Maybe

- Downsizing and weight reduction including crappy materials

The great big American cars of the '50s and '60s came about because we didn't know what we now know about materials science and mechanical engineering. So your average Joe Engineer would just design a car based on data from a book and toss in a heavy safety factor, and presto change-o, you have a hulking mass of candy paint and steel.

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.

I half-agree. Like Lukeno52 said, the '90s represented the maturation of the dreams of the '80s. Look at the Audi Sport Quattro, for instance. It had hideous turbo lag and atrociously violent handling, whereas the Lancer Evolution and Impreza WRXs that came a decade or so later were less brutal yet still performed about as well.

Plus Japan's awesome bubble economy kicked into high gear towards the cusp of 1990. What the Japanese didn't spend on property they spent on motorsports so we ended up with Honda Civics running high-revving VTEC engines, Toyota Corollas with twenty valve engines, Le Mans winning Wankel rotaries, and all that other really good stuff. The offerings in the '80s were nice, but the stuff in the '90s was better.

[Ferrer]

I half-agree. Like Lukeno52 said, the '90s represented the maturation of the dreams of the '80s. Look at the Audi Sport Quattro, for instance. It had hideous turbo lag and atrociously violent handling, whereas the Lancer Evolution and Impreza WRXs that came a decade or so later were less brutal yet still performed about as well.

Plus Japan's awesome bubble economy kicked into high gear towards the cusp of 1990. What the Japanese didn't spend on property they spent on motorsports so we ended up with Honda Civics running high-revving VTEC engines, Toyota Corollas with twenty valve engines, Le Mans winning Wankel rotaries, and all that other really good stuff. The offerings in the '80s were nice, but the stuff in the '90s was better.

I can see your point and agree to an extent, there are many excellent (early) 90's cars, amongst them pretty much all the Group A homologation specials, which come to think of it was a brilliant way of getting terrific road cars. Also, many of those were the brainchild of 80's ideas.

However, in terms of uniqueness, differentiation and plain preposterous ideas with some of the most annoying quirks and reliability faults ironed out, the 80's are hard to beat. Think of those:

• CX vs XM
• 75 vs 155
• Classic 900 vs NG 900
• Rear wheel drive V8-engined SD1 vs Front wheel drive Honda 800-series
• Light and agile MR2 vs Heavy and bloated MR2
• 205 GTI vs 206 GTI
• Golf II GTI vs Golf III GTI

All of the 80's examples were better than their successors, they were more faithful to their roots and more different from each other, while the 90's cars tend to be soulless front wheel drive boxes which are fat and slow.