patrick.net

They will go back to curvy.

Because real designers and people how know how to run a business and engineer a product, like to say inappropriate shit, and grab women's asses. And fuck their insubordinates when nobody is looking.

Find out who that mother fucker is that keeps designing the Cookie Cutter for everyone else to use. It's probably Rin's Office hero.

I would feel absolutely no upgrade what so ever between that Cadillac Crossover and my wife's Mazda X5.

Not all new cars are bad. Your examples are valid though of not so good looking cars.

I'm biased because I own one (well an older model), but I dig the new Nissan Armada look for a large SUV.

My first set of wheels. I was 17-years-old and worked part-time after school.

jvolstad says

My first set of wheels.

On a site on Facebook called Malaise Motors about cars from 1972 to 1995, someone posted a thread called How Did This Become This and the first This was a '67 Chevrolet while the second This was a stumpy modern Chevrolet Impala. For some reason, '67 seems to be the high point of automotive design--clean lines and great proportions along with power trains, accessories and air-conditioning systems developed to perfection, then all went downhill once government regs and gas mileage mandates came into effect. '67 is actually the first year for a few minor safety changes over '66, but for the most part everything is much as in '66. I've always thought the '67 Buick Wildcat was one of the most gorgeous designs ever:

LOL, finally an apolitical topic we can all agree on.



In '99 Mazda refreshed the RX-7 line, but only in Japan. Coming back to the states in 2000, I actually had to get a Miata version of that but man I wanted the real thing.



^ ug - ly (new Supra)

They're designed by cock craving cunts or by cunt starved park possums.

That Civic is absolutely insulting to look at. I can't believe Japanese designers are this bad. They have ruined Lexus.

Another thing that makes them so ugly is a lack of color. Even in the recession 1970's, there was still a nice palette available--here are paint chips for the 1977 Mercury Marquis:


Here are "colors" for the 2017 Honda--"polished metal" or "modern steel" for example:

anonymous says

They're designed by cock craving cunts or by cunt starved park possums.

Hurrr Durrrr.

You are absolutely right, many cars today are absolutely revolting

Blurtman says

Why are cars so ugly?

Safety regulations. Many design choices are dictated by safety requirements. Look at greenhouses for example. Cars need small windows, high belt line, and thick pillars to meet side impact and rollover standards. Looks like I"m keeping my old suburban and bmw e32 forever if I want decent size windows. It carries through to many other design areas as well.

The main reason? Government pedestrian impact regulations have raised the hood heights for cars, which in turn raises the beltline, which in turn shrinks the greenhouse (or just turns the car into a crossover with a taller roof). We have so many doofy looking cars as a result. Don't get me bitching on crossovers.

The second reason cars are so ugly is they are designed by wind tunnels, so the body sides go straight down (tucked under like the old days reduces MPG) and the rear of all cars now sits higher with rear rooflines styled like hatchbacks. Every car now looks like a square blob with its ass is in the air as a result. See also #1 above and higher beltlines forcing higher rear deck.

The third reason is the last 10 years we have to design everything like it's an aggro-Transformers racing machine. So much ugly Predator and faux-Lambo styling on grills, headlights, gratuitously sculpted hoods and body lines. And the prime offender of this bullshit aggro styling is the stupid 20" wheels and rubber band tires everybody has to have for that pick-up truck feel and reduced gas mileage, but hey, those wheels look rad and God forbid you have normal tires on a car that were actually designed for road handling and ride performance.

Colors are licensed now, and there's a whole design consortium that decides what colors are going to be hot and available in any given year or not.
That's why when Honda comes out with a weird Turkey Shit Green, Mazda has Duck Shit Sage that looks just like it.
It's no accident that new dish set uses the same colors as the Bed Spreads in the Martha Stewart collections. She has to license every color.
If you use this years sanctioned colors it's affordable. To make all Red or all Yellow cost as much as 5X more than using the sanctioned colors.

P N Dr Lo R says

I've always thought the '67 Buick Wildcat was one of the most gorgeous designs ever:

One has to pony up a lot of cash to get that sweet pillar-less coupe look nowadays.

Blurtman says

Why are cars so ugly?

So they can make a better looking version later for you to buy.

Obligatory:

Because of clamoring for moar safety from stupid fucks who can't drive or be bothered to look up from their phone screen before crossing the street on foot.

anonymous says

One has to pony up a lot of cash to get that sweet pillar-less coupe look nowadays.

And as pointed out in posts 13 and 14, government regulations would preclude the beautiful elements of the '67 design--the "C" pillar wouldn't survive a rollover and having no "B" pillar again reduces roof strength. The solution is to not roll over.

We need to look good while driving & pumping CO2 into the environment.
Failure to see beyond what our eyes see. CO2 in invisible.
Love your car just like everyone else,how's that slow/stopped traffic working.

947,080,000 passenger cars
Interactive chart
https://www.statista.com/statistics/281134/number-of-vehicles-in-use-worldwide/
You can't fix shallow minds.It's terminal.

It's ugly because you're driving the wrong car. This is my ride. Proudly American made right here in Fremont, CA. I'm no longer supporting OPEC!

Yes, but the Challenger is a re-make, which should be the way US manufacturers go, considering their loss of any style sense (except Tesla.) But the original Challenger looks a little better. Doesn't have that honking big front/air dam, for one, and isn't as wedgy.

P N Dr Lo R says

anonymous says

One has to pony up a lot of cash to get that sweet pillar-less coupe look nowadays.

And as pointed out in posts 13 and 14, government regulations would preclude the beautiful elements of the '67 design--the "C" pillar wouldn't survive a rollover and having no "B" pillar again reduces roof strength. The solution is to not roll over.

Mercedes S Coupe has it still. That car is just really pricey.

My second car, right after graduating from High School.

HEY YOU says

We need to look good while driving & pumping CO2 into the environment.

Damn right. Styling while polluting is important. Thanks for pointing that out.

jazz_music says

Studebaker

Was first out of the factory in 1946 with an all new, modern looking model when other brands force-fed the highest priced warmed over '42 models to a car-starved public until about 1949 or 50.

These confused me when they were new, I thought they were some kind of sports car they looked so unlike anything else in the 50's:

Cars?? What type of real man drives a car today? Ones that wear skirts Or aprons?

The giant fat bumpers of today are required because when cars strike people the survival rate of the person hit goes way up if the front of the car has a higher bumper / hood. the cool pantera style or gt40 fronts look great but they are no longer seen due to requirements.

https://jalopnik.com/the-ten-worst-government-mandated-automotive-technologi-1556899133
5 mph bumpers and pedestrian impact regulations = fugly cars.

Mick Russom says

required because when cars strike people the survival rate of the person hit goes way up if the front of the car has...

Can you please cite any evidence for those two assertions, i.e. the alleged requirement and the alleged safety data? At most, I found this:

"A minimum of 20 mm (0.8 inch) of clearance is required between the underside of the hood and the highest part of the engine or any other hard point such as the windshield-wiper motor or the HVAC plenum. This raises not only the front of the hood but also its trailing edge by at least 0.8 inch."

Your jalopnik link shows a photo of a low slung Ferrari, and those cars remain on the road. In general, a higher impact point (e.g. an SUV hood) poses a much worse risk to children, and probably adults also.

Philistine says

pedestrian impact regulations have raised the hood heights...

by 2cm. Compare a Tesla and an SUV, and you'll see (a) both are legal and (b) the SUV hood is much higher and thus much more dangerous (especially to children).

curious2 says

Mick Russom says

required because when cars strike people the survival rate of the person hit goes way up if the front of the car has...

Can you please cite any evidence for those two assertions, i.e. the alleged requirement and the alleged safety data? Your jalopnik link shows a photo of a low slung Ferrari, and those cars remain on the road. In general, a higher impact point (e.g. an SUV hood) poses a much worse risk to children, and probably adults also.

As I understand the requirement is not for the absolute height of the hood over the road but for the amount of vertical space between the hood and the engine. The rationale being that at certain collision speeds pedestrians tend to hit their heads smack in the middle ofthe hood. The remedy is either to have a hood which automatically shoots up (some cars do that) or simply higher hood which provides the necessary "crumple zone".

Sports cars can get away with having lower hoods because they either have engines in the rear or tucked inside the wheelbase.

Mick Russom says

when cars strike people the survival rate of the person hit goes way up if the front of the car has a

Can you please cite any evidence for that, and these alleged regulations? I looked at your jalopnik link, which showed a photo of a low slung Ferrari. Those cars remain legal. In general, a higher impact point has a worse survival rate, especially for children, who risk getting hit in the head by an SUV.

My First ride pulled a whopping 15mph max up hill in the Mountains of South Carolina. It would be maxed out balls to the wall pedal to the metal.
The T Gear shift would be rattling and banging back and forth making such a hell of a racket, you would instinctively reach out to turn the radio down when you were talking to the passengers.

Booger says

The things a black man has to do in the south to be accepted.

It's hard to believe the bumper thing contributes anything to Lexus' fugly predator grill. That's just some misinformed "designer."

I might buy that aerodynamics play a much greater role today when trying to squeeze out MPG or performance out of smaller displacement and fewer cylinders.

Tenpoundbass says

My First ride pulled a whopping 15mph max up hill in the Mountains of South Carolina. It would be maxed out balls to the wall pedal to the metal.

The maybe you should have waited until you could afford a better car than a model t