Are the world’s automakers all smoking from the same pipe?
Let’s break for a quick minute from the classics to ponder the modern sedan. Chrysler unveiled its new 200 sedan recently, and what a visual upgrade it is from the frumpy and dumpy 200 on sale now. But wait… haven’t I seen that look somewhere before?
Oh, yes, of course – on the midsized Ford Fusion, which went on sale in 2013.
And on the new-for-2014 full-sized Chevrolet Impala.
These cars have a lot of common design elements: high beltline, tall nose, aggressive grile, dramatic side creases, roofline flowing smoothly into the decklid, and large, round wheel openings. But the signature design element they share is the rounded six-window greenhouse with a kick-up at the tail.
Did Chrysler steal this look from Ford and GM?
Or maybe they stole it from Toyota. Here’s the full-sized Toyota Avalon, which debuted in 2013.
Even small cars are wearing this basic design. Here’s the current Nissan Sentra, which was new in 2013.
The compact Dodge Dart, new in 2013 could be the Chrysler 200′s little brother. But given that they’re made by the same company, I’m sure that’s no coincidence.
But it must be coincidence that Buick’s smallest car, the Verano, has worn the same basic look since 2012.
Ford’s small cars wear similar six-window greenhouses, although the rear-window kick-up is far less dramatic. Here’s the current Focus, which debuted in 2012.
And here’s Ford’s Fiesta, also new in 2012.
Finally, even Honda’s compact crossover, the CR-V, got into the act in 2012.
We’ve discussed endlessly how the major US automakers spent decades building cars across their makes that wore similar or even identical styling. GM was king of this for decades. But I don’t think I’ve ever seen so many similarly-styled cars from so many different manufacturers. I find this six-window styling to be plenty attractive – but I guarantee that ten or fifteen years from now when these are all cheap wheels on the used market, we’ll all look at them and say, “That styling is so mid-2010s!”
Don’t forget the Nissan Altima. And I know there’s more…
I racked my brain trying to think of them all! But I’m confident that any more I missed will be flushed out in these comments.
Actually Nissan sedan anything Skyline, Bluebird Sylphy, Altima, Maxima all look the same and just differ in size and powertrain
Yeah that Mondeo/Fusion and the Chrysler look very similar only the corporate grille seperates them its a generic shape/look that all aspire to now nobody is doing design anymore and havent for some time
Ford locally went alone on a design once the ill fated AU model it was so unpopular they hastily redesigned the front and rear to look more like a Commodore and sales resumed.
Noone is game to take that chance again.
I read that the AU styling was forced upon them to fit the global “New Edge” design philosophy. “Global” didn’t seem to apply to the US though! Aussie designers did the best they could with the parameters that were set by foreigners who didn’t understand the Aussie market.
The HD Holden suffered the same disease styled in the US it was a sales and durability disaster the restyled HR was a sales winner
With so many safety mandates that have to be built into each car, it leaves little room for styling extremes. Also, with life cycles of 5-6 years or more on body styles, auto makers have to be extra careful to build something that can be lived with for so many years. Prior, designs were on a two year total redo with one year updates. If you built a dog it could be completely changed in no time
I can think of 2 reasons.
Those are mid-size family sedans, the bread and butter of the American car market. Its a proven design that sells cars to people that don’t care about cars. Cars aren’t the source of pride of ownership that they were 40 years ago and as they become more and more appliance-like, the fewer emotional bonds their owners will have with them.
Government Regulations. Side impact standards. Bumper standards. Rollover standards. Crumple zones. Doesn’t leave a lot of room to work with for designers that are constrained by budgets.
I think the safety standards that have the most direct impact on current styling are the European pedestrian safety rules, which tend to force the leading edge of the nose to be higher and more bluff. I think what we’re seeing with some of these designs is an attempt to get around that visually by kicking up the tail and making the beltline descend as you move forward. It’s trying to make the nose look wedgier than it is.
The other weird tension going on right now is that in a lot of Europe, trying to sell a three-box sedan that doesn’t have an Audi, BMW, or Mercedes-Benz badge on it has become very difficult. Notchback sedans may be bread and butter here (and I guess in China), but definitely not in Europe, where that market has been absolutely decimated. A lot of the six-window thing is an effort to contrive a coupe-like side profile without making the interior look like a cave.
You’re absolutely right about Europe. When it comes to the non-German brands people either go for a compact hatchback or for a bigger wagon, they completely skip the sedans. Or they shop for a taller wagon, which is called a CUV I believe.
Two 2014 sedans I really, REALLY like (I won’t go that far that I say “adore”) are the Maserati Quattroporte and the smaller Ghibli.
The Maserati Quattroporte:
And the Maserati Ghibli:
I think youre right on target.
They all look like an arch, that’s what they have in common.
Look at that Fiesta, it has pretty big rims, but those wheels still look silly. And its wedge shape is too much for a small sedan, the shape works fine on the hatchback model. The sedan looks like a budget car from the old Eastern Bloc.
A few early arch-shaped sedans.
The VW Passat B5
1st gen Volvo S60
It became pretty extreme with the 2004 Mercedes CLS
I’m a huge fan of all three of these designs… the first time I saw a CLS I nearly drove into it! And I think most of the cars pictured in this article are pretty good looking too, especially the Impala.
Boyd Coddington had a CLS. Well, it does look like a chopped~hot rod S-class. (And I really like it too)
That Volvo was also a looker when it came out, it sold very well.
Tough sound with (Volvo’s own) 5 cylinder diesel engine !
Wish we had gotten that one – the last diesel Volvo sold in the US was the Volkswagen inline six in the 240/760. We did get the S60R, however, and I’ve wanted one of those since I first laid eyes on it!! Actually, I wish I could get all the S60R stuff in a car that looks just like the one you posted. They look much better without the bodykit, IMO, but I could put up with it for the 300hp Inline-5 under the hood.
Oh yes, VW’s inline 6, a truck engine. Not capable to run fast in a car.
Inbetween that engine and Volvo’s own 5 cylinder diesel engine was Audi’s 5 cylinder 2.5 TDI engine.
One of the pioneers: 1987 Nissan Arc X
Interesting, was that car on the road in those days ? It looks like some sort of concept, pretty modern for 1987.
Strictly a concept. But one that caught my attention (and memory) at the time, and was quite predictive. It marked a very key change from the flat (horizontal) roofs almost universal up to that time.
It directly influenced certain Nissans, like the 1989 300ZX, and the Pulsar (gen2).
It’s making me think of the 1st generation “cloud cars” from Chrysler.
I’ve never seen this concept car before. I learned something new today.
The Fiesta sedan is a N.A.-only model and it’s hard not to get the feeling it was an afterthought.
I’ve noticed that since Ford facelifted the Fiesta and cut the price premium for a hatchback to $500 rather than something more like $1000 over the sedan, the sedan seems to have died off.
Aerodynamics say to take a teardrop shape in free air, but near the ground with wheels, it’s flattened down and chopped out back. Leaving an arch.
VW XL1, lowest production drag coefficient so far.
They all have the same unpleasant expression on their headlights. What happened to timeless round headlights?
They proved to be somewhat less than timeless.
The 90’s ruined them.
>The 90′s ruined them.
Hmmmm. Yep.
I can clearly see how this car ruins round headlights.
This one was even worse:
überholprestige
The high beltline helps to meet truck centric side impact regs and makes the top look chopped ala the 300c, the high front end meets ppedestrian crash standards and makes the car look more substantial and the flowing roofline and raised short rear deck are an attempt to eek out another .1 Mpgs by making the car look like a dog trying to take a poo, and also a lazy attempt at striving for a four door coupe look. The grilles and side filligre are the last place designers can go nuts and boy do they.
Mazda 6 looks same as the others. A six window greenhouse allows a more straight across rear door upper opening without the car looking too tall or boxy. Audi was one of the first imports to do this well, on the C2. Makes getting in and out of the rear seat easier.
Regulations have nothing to do with it. The auto manufacturers are like a school of fish; one turns, they all turn. One car has a successful styling element, then they all have it. Tail fins, cab forward, coke bottle waist, six windows, they all chase the latest style.
Not to mention aerodynamics play a larger role now(How many of you can tell a 737 apart from an A320?). Plus, there’s a lot more market research going on, and as another poster mentioned, conservatism rules the day in this segment.
Yes aerodynamics are a big part of it with the faster windshields and backlights. This has led to eight window designs on sedans like the Prius. If you try to do that kind of upper without the extra windows (which cost more) you get the black filler plates like on the Elantra in the rear end on the previous Sentra in the front.
modern cars are so dang boring i will never own anything from the 21st century there round soulless cookie cutter fuel injected plastic robots! boxy is foxy!
I’ve always wondered why designers try to eek out another .07 in drag coefficient on their cars- making them all look the same, when any auto design, even the old blocky 300, was way more aerodynamic than any of the trucks that sell over 300,000 units a year.
The high prow of current trucks is a contemporary version of the 16th century codpiece. Were it not for customers demanding this look, trucks would probably get 5% more miles per gallon.
Why do so many 50’s/60’s/70’s sedans look so alike? Cars have always looked exactly the same.
This is not a new concept, but it does feel to be more prevalent now than before.
I’m guessing you grew up in the 80s or later?
You have a valid point to some degree, inasmuch as some American cars looked pretty similar, especially those that shared body shells from one manufacturer, like many of the Big 3’s cars did.
But there are big exceptions. I don’t think you can apply that to say the 1960 Corvair, Falcon and Valiant. These three key new compacts looked decidedly different in every way.
And European cars mostly looked quite different from American cars. There was no mistaking a Peugeot or Mercedes or Citroen for a Fairlane or such.
I think the 80s might have had some of the greatest diversity, as GM stuck with its blocky, vertical rear-window look while Ford pioneered the aero look. And the Japanese were still quite distinctive, with their own original ideas in the 80s, quite edgy and blocky. Meanwhile, the Europeans were defining their own look, which would soon be co-opted (along with that of the Taurus).
Things started to converge more so in the 90s, slowly at first. And while trying to stay objective, I really do think that the recent past/present has the least amount of styling diversity, since the early 50s, at least.
One factor is that some of the design diversity of past bread-and-butter cars was really not rewarded — the 1960 Valiant did indeed look quite distinct from the Corvair or Falcon, and one need only look at the sales numbers to see how well that went over.
Still, I think in any single era, a lot of stuff tends to look very similar. We get a skewed perspective of older cars because when we see them on the road now, they stand out more than they necessarily would have when new, even if they’re pretty bland, workaday products.
the first Valiant looked like a Studebaker Lark
61 Cadillac, Imperial, Lincoln Continental – hugely different. But then Engel moved over to Chrysler and… And neither Imperial nor Lincoln were rewarded, at least in terms of sales, for being “different.”
I was born in 1974, so I grew in the 80s and 90s. I think the same thing, but mostly for me, 40s and 50s cars.
These cars also have one common design feature that definitely marks them as being of the 2010-era: the headlights. Current cars (and even vans and trucks) almost always have very large, clear headlights elongated towards the windshield that you can look “into” from above when standing next to them. I don’t find this to be a very pleasing feature of modern car design. In fact, I think contemporary car design is pretty forgettable with a few exceptions.
I agree. Something like this really does look better, doesn’t it.
Peugeot had those HUGE headlight units on all models, all the way to the A-pillar it seemed. But the latest models have improved a lot compared to their predecessors.
Indeed, the 159 is actually one of the few recent car designs I like. And even that one’s out of production.
Best looking sedan of the last 15 years, IMO!
Heh, it’s like a modern Edsel.
It does have an Edsel vibe, I also see a touch of 77 Firebird on the edges of the fenders and in the grille.
The grille on current Alfa Romeo models is in fact a retro element. They used it in the past, as you can see on this 1957 Alfa Romeo for example. (Photo: The Gallery, Brummen)
Maybe Daniel M. can put an Edsel grille on one of the current Ford models.
Let’s see how that looks. 🙂
Cant help but notice that Alfa looks very much like a 56-59 Audax Minx or more accurately the Singer Gazelle version all cars look the same.
You can have a closer look at this Alfa here Bryce. Lots of pictures and a video.
http://www.thegallerybrummen.nl/en_EN/autobedrijf/collectie/1948988/details.html
Why did you take a picture of my car Johannes?
I’m a bit clairvoyant. (although I had to look up that word)
Let’s see what we’ve got here:
2007 Alfa Romeo 159 with a 1,910 cc diesel engine, it weighs 1,510 kg.
You’re driving it since may 21, 2010.
How about that ?
correct.
Bought it with 30000 kilometers, one owner car for approx half the new price
Most popular cars of aqny era echo eachother in styling, every now and then theres been a standout, Citroen DS for example but successful stand outs are rare, unsuccessful ones are well noted like the Airflow Chrysler going against the norm didnt always pay off.
I can’t stand the kick-up (I assume you mean on the rear quarter glass). The Optima’s is awful. I’d like a little extra visibility please!
The Optima is awful all over, its like one of those dime store COLBY discount stereos that tries to look expensive.
You are dating yourself, Carmine – they are all Dollar stores, now. 🙂
You didn’t mention the Sonata, the one I feel started all this bulbousness when it came out in early 2010 for the 2011 model-year. I loved that design when it was new. I sort of think it was the trendsetter for the new designs…
Six windows like on the Sonata generally look more elegant. Four windows like on the Optima generally look sportier. Hyundai/Kia did a nice job differentiating those two cars.
I have to agree. They also did a good job of making them different than all the other cars listed above.
Oddly enough, the Camry’s roofline is more distinguishable than the Dart, Passat, Fusion, etc.
I loved that design when it was new (reminiscent of the first CLS); however, it has aged poorly over the past four years, to the point where I think Hyundai is advertising a “certified pre-owned” program whenever a Sonata commercial comes on.
As long as modern cars continue to improve in terms of cost of ownership, reliability, mileage, safety and durability, I can accept their growing homogenous look. We have come a long way, in many ways, at the expense of automotive design/styling personality. But I will happily accept that tradeoff, if my daily transportation is a better car. If the trade-off is that it is more appliance-like, I’m cool with that.
An average subcompact today may be as comfortable as many larger cars from 20 years ago. And most likely is better-built, more reliable, safer and cheaper to operate. Some greatly styled cars of the past, were pieces of junk.
If one has the economic means, I suggest picking up a favorite classic car as a weekend hobby car, to enjoy. If it’s a car that will appreciate in value, even better. You could even choose to make it your daily driver.
We can romanticize about old cars having more character and uniqueness, but I’ll live with a modern, less distinct car if it’s cheaper to run, safer, and more reliable on a daily basis. Too many memories of old cars, with serious issues!
Thank you for playing devil’s advocate here. I’m assuming you’re about the same age as me, which is to say, at least 20 years younger than the average CC’er.
In terms of visibility, reliability, safety, and good looks, I’ve always thought cars from the late-90’s to early 2000’s are the best bet for a DD, as long as you don’t mind an interior with varying degrees of plasticky-ness.
…Yes, I drive a car from 2002, what of it?
Fooled ya David! I’m in my early 40s. Never assume and associate a view, with someone’s age! Or someone’s age, with a view!
You have to remember that this website is a comfort zone for a lot of people that love cars. Especially older cars. Many have strong brand loyalties and allegiances that attaches them to a specific car maker, car model or era in cars. I don’t possess that level of alliance, but I completely respect it. As it’s a great quality in owners, that car makers have taken for granted sometimes.
Personally with cars, I have no set in stone brand alliance, and will pass out kudos and knocks to any car maker I think deserves them. Cars have come a helluva long way. I don’t think cars today look bad at all. Given the elongated egg shape works so well for packaging and aerodynamics. When you consider how much better cars are in so many ways, and the restrictions upon designs. I’ll give up distinctive bodywork, for the great improvements in every other way we’ve seen, any day.
Besides, it’s easy enough to get an old Miata or Mustang, as a hobby car.
I really do feel bad for those readers that own cars like say the mid 70s Gran Torinos, or the 1980s GM cars, with the formal roof lines. They really do get a hard reception here, whenever they are posted. When those cars may have provided wonderful experiences for those individual owners.
Having driven many poorly engineered old cars. I’ll take modern cars in most design forms, any day. The only thing I somewhat strongly miss, are more airy greenhouses. I do like an open feeling interior.
I know most people don’t care, but I hate the idea of a car as nothing more than an appliance. I couldn’t bear to own a car that was basically fungible. I’m very particular about my vehicles, and I do drive old vehicles by choice. It’s a pretty safe bet that I’ll never own any of the above that Jim has featured. I’m 38, but a couple of my cars are older than me by almost a decade.
I don’t think it’s a matter of not caring. Perhaps with some buyers. If you gave me a choice of a nicely styled car, with a less than stellar repair history. I’ll take the less attractive car, with the better reliability record any day. It’s certain not because I don’t care what it looks like.
To me, it’s one way that the consumer is highly empowered. Forcing that first manufacturer to make a great styled car but to also make it reliable too.
The Japanese used to make some bizarrely styled cars in their early years. While their build quality was earning them compliments. Even if they ultimately rusted as much as North American cars.
Equally, the domestics had to improve their build quality, closer to Japanese standards. Even if the domestics made better styled cars.
Look at how Chrysler’s poor build quality in 1957, ultimately gave them so much long term grief. Especially since competitor’s customers switched to Chrysler, specifically because of their styling.
I really think most people don’t care that much about car styling, and are fine with their cars all looking fairly alike. I also never said that one must choose reliable vehicles versus stylish vehicles. Why can’t we have both?
In a sense, I think the retro styling movement was a good effort to get away from the sameness. On the other hand however, it suggested that car designers have run out of good fresh ideas, so they needed to resort to the best of the past. I’m still disappointed that Chrysler didn’t really go retro with either the Chrysler 300 nor Dodge Charger.
In the “early years”, Japanese quality was not good. If you lived in the rust belt, they rusted out even faster than the domestics. The difference between them and most of the Europeans was that the Japanese stuck with it, and learned to make vehicles that would survive in our climate. It seems that they also spend more time engineering their vehicles so customers buying first-year models of a new design don’t get stuck becoming beta-testers.
That was basically the problem with Chrysler build quality in the early Forward Look cars. Management pushed the schedule ahead to get them to market for 1957, when they should have had another year of engineering work before going into production. This has been a common problem, auto manufacturers foisting vehicles on the public before they’re really ready, but Chrysler really bet the farm on the Forward Look by adopting it across the board.
“An average subcompact today may be as comfortable as many larger cars from 20 years ago.”
I’ll give you the other stuff, but my Bonneville and Electra are still awesome highway vehicles compared to a Sonic or Rio. It’s not even a contest.
Well, I can’t and… I won’t.
Out of dozens and dozens of new cars, (100’s in recent times), there are only 2 that I would even consider spending money on and driving for years… A new CTS Coupe, or the 2014 Grand Cherokee Limited / Overland. And that’s about 70-80% leaning to the Jeep. It would replace my 1 owner, 53K 15yo GCL (@ $20G in custom mods to engine, suspension, interior)
It’s sad really, all my life, growing up and as a young man, then adult, I lusted after dozens of cars yearly. From about 22yo to 34yo I bought 5 new cars, besides all my toys and project cars, I was a good customer, but wont spend a dime on these cars. Now, for so many model years, inside or out… I have no use for any of these new look-a-like, socialist clone-mobiles.
I have no use for any of these new look-a-like, socialist clone-mobiles
Mark, I’m giving you a friendly warning here. Typically, I’d just be reminding you that CC is strictly a politics-free zone. But in this case, I’d also like to point out that CC is also an ignorance-free zone, and prides itself on the high level of knowledge of its commenters. Anyone who would use the word socialist like this is obviously utterly clueless about its actual meaning.
I’m giving you a chance to redeem yourself, but as penance you need to read wikipedia’s article on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism, and there may be a test afterwards. Just to get you in the right frame of mind, here’s the first (and key) sentence:
i>Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy.
Now if you can properly explain how the cars shown in this article are the product of “an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production“, I will give you a pass on this required reading.
But if you bring either politics or ignorance back here again to CC via your comments, be prepared to accept the consequences. From the other commenters, not me. And they can be brutal 🙂
Clear indication of Marketing dept driving product development.
Because the design departments have given up and the design schools have lost their imaginations. There are far too many non car people involved in the designing, building and selling of cars. The ONLY target now is money and as much of it as you can get with as little effort as possible.
And all the interiors are the same color too I bet – beige/tan, grey or black.
Cars are an appliance now, like a refrigerator. Style is a lost art.
And there were plenty of “appliance” cars 30, 40, 50 years ago…we have just forgotten about them.
…mostly forgotten, except on this site. 🙂
I think there is more appearance design thought going into my refrigerator now than my car. Perhaps we as a society are looking at automobiles differently today?? I don’t know. Are the designers leaving it to the aftermarket guys?
I have to agree, there are a lot of attractive appliances out now, but not very many really attractive cars, at least from the factory. So many “Squished egg with a whale shark mouth” looking cars. Some look ok, except the front end or back end, or both, ruining it. The “electric razor” look of some recent cars is worse than the “whale shark” look, IMHO.
I can’t really say I like all that many modded up cars either though.They often go too far, and I guess it’s due to my senior status, but wheels over 20″” just look like crap. Always.
There is just something in me I cannot explain that does not like aftermarket anything on my car and I’m not a senior, but one day hope to be as it beats the alternative:)
However, refrigerators today are far less reliable and long-lasting than decades ago. Cars have moved in the opposite direction.
especially when you purchase them from “Home Cheapo”. I know from experience.
I’d say that in 1973, a Plymouth Valiant 4 door with a 225 slant six, auto, AM radio, all vinyl interior, cop car hub caps and no options, but power brakes, would be pretty close to an appliance back then. Plus they filled the roads, like Ford Fusions today.
I still find that cars do have unique personalities today. Sometimes you have to live with them for a bit, to see it. I’ve rented a few current cars, and I find that has helped me discover that two similar looking cars, can drive and behave very differently.
Today’s appliance is tomorrow’s original survivor.
^^^^ This.
In regards to the Chrysler 200 and Dodge Dart, doesn’t the 200 ride the same CUSW platform as the Dart (which is itself a stretch of the current Alfa Romeo Giulietta platform)? My understanding was that the 200 was that platform stretched about as much as it would bear. Sharing most of the same hardpoints as the Dart on a wheelbase only 1.7 inches (42mm) longer would tend to make it look similar even if they hadn’t adopted similar design cues.
I believe you’re right; they share a platform. But I have to think that Chrysler could have used different minor styling details if they wanted to — i.e., making it a four-window sedan. But afaik they are going after a corporate sedan look here.
This is a common complaint for every era. I can remember my father saying the same things about the cars from the 1960’s!
Oddly, those who care (like folks who frequent this site) STILL manage to be able to tell one from the other, for the most part. Most folks in the car buying space want something that looks nice, but not TOO different from the rest of the cars.
Regulations, trends and styling fads all dictate what cars will look like. I’m surprised no one called out the Hoffmeister Kink (the little kick up in the back window) by it’s real name, it’s been a styling feature on BMW’s since the 1960’s.
When all of the cars looked the same, at least according to my dad…
Which is why I like my Aztek… 😉
I like the Aztek, too, my friend.
Completely agree. If someone is a car aficionado, they’ll spot the uniquely styled cars or classics in any era. And the copycat cars. Truly distinctive cars are rare in any given era. You still see original designs, on a regular basis. And if it is a good design, it will be surrounded by similar designs, soon enough.
It was popular in car media several years ago to make fun of the Aztek’s styling. When it was packaged quite well. I thought they were cool. And kudos to GM for trying something different.
Since the early years, cars have been as much about status and fashion statements, as they have been basic transportation. So, it adds to increased expectations of a car, for some owners.
Which is why I like the Fiat 500 and 500L. Unfortunately the 500 is too small to suit my needs and the 500L transmission/engine combo is a little too flawed. I would totally rock an Aztek based on its unique looks alone, but am afraid that Walter White has ruined the affordability aspect of that particular Curbside Classic!
Why do almost all of today’s cars look the same? Well, why do almost all OLD cars also look the same? Answer: Styling trends.
While you’ll probably not see the variety of styles from 1957-1972, I like the styling of many cars now. At least they have style! I, for one, am quite fond of the new Impala… it does have my name all over it!
+1 If a car in any given era is particularly well styled, and well received, it may be unique for a year or two. Then eventually, it will have competitors from other manufactures adopting similar elements besides.
Of course there are many benefits to taking styling risks. But they’ve often led to great failure too.
Sedans all look alike because theyre all the same, pretty much. LT Dan had it right: The only type of person who a sedan actually ‘appeals’ to is likely someone who isn’t even into cars. They probably look for a car the way most of us look at a refrigerator or microwave. Whatevers cheap reliable, does the job and I don’t have to think about it. Im ok with that, really. What I really DO have a problem with is the disappearance of variety. Style, performance and handling for those who want it, don’t want or cant afford a Porsche or other exotic. Back in the ’60s and early ’70s that was the golden era. Sure, they had ‘transportation devices’ back then too, and a 4 door Valiant or Chevy II looks pretty stylish compared to a bunch of camacordundais but back then, you knew what a sedan actually MEANT.
In the 60s and early 70s a person who bought a sedan was making a statement, which is ‘family guy/gal, old guy/lady, or total square’. You could buy big power in a 4 door in those days, but they weren’t ‘performance models’. The good stuff was reserved for the Chargers, Mustangs, Chevelle coupes etc. AND the average person with any kind of decent job could afford that car. If you were a young or young-ish single guy you wouldn’t be caught DEAD in a sedan unless you were a bit of a nerd or oddball. A nerd or oddball with taste could always pop for an import sporty car however.
Personally, I find the 4 door sedan to be the most pointless, useless and unacceptable vehicle ever cooked up.
–First off–and this is a PURE matter of my opinion–the look is absolutely terrible. A lumpy profile clunked up with extra body panels and extra window divisions looks absolutely horrendous. Its such a bland, generic and style-less thing and boring is the equivalent of fugly to my eyes. On one hand, I like the traditional muscle cars, sports cars, shortbed pickups, open top SUVs and performance cars that youd expect a young(ish) single gearhead to fall for. On the other hand, if its quirky and odd, misunderstood with lots of neat advantages, then Im a fan. The Honda Element, Subaru Baja, PT cruiser, Aztec, etc….All of these are rides I can appreciate for being different and cool.
–Second a sedan offers no distinct advantage whatsoever. Think about that for a second. Can anyone name even one thing a sedan does better than any other bodystyle? Looks and style aside, a coupe offers some unique advantages over a sedan. Less holes in the body mean a stiffer structure. Stiffer is stronger, more durable and will handle significantly better. Less doors are less moving parts, less to rattle, clank and fall apart. The coupe counterpart of a sedan is generally a bit shorter overall. The longer doors are beneficial to tall, broad builds like my 6’1 250 pound chassis. But you give up a bit of back seat room/access and a traditional coupe/2 door sedan is stuck with a trunk which means you sacrifice some utility. Sedans might have that in the bag, right? Nope! A wagon or 5 door hatch takes any advantage a sedan might have and ups the ante with a much more flexible and roomy cargo area. Even though a hatch might have a smaller cargo bay on the front end, once the seats get folded or even removed as some can do, even a sedan with folding seats gets its ass handed to it. Most related hatches and some related wagons these days are even slightly lighter than the sedan version. Subaru Impreza comes to mind. Sure you have the added doors so you lose that stiffness of the coupe or 3 door hatch but the significant advantage in utility makes up for that. Again, its opinion but hatches or sporty wagons such as Audi Avants, Impreza 5 doors and Dodge Magnums just look sportier or more aggressive than the comparable sedan. If youre a hot rodder or modifier like myself, I cant help but think that any tricked out sedan is just a hand me down from granny or aunt edna and the owner took it to Auto Zone. A slammed, blacked out Magnum with flowmasters is a badass muscle car in the vein of the old surf wagons. That’s a ride with style AND utility!
I really think all the auto manufacturers are either intentionally or subconsciously trying to push off sedans as ‘acceptable’ for even young men. This is a HUGE problem for me, since I feel that Im being shortchanged and my choices are being dumbed down. It takes much less effort and imagination to pen the design for a sedan. If it moves when you turn the key, it will sell. A coupe on the other hand, you have to wow your customer. It takes talent, an eye for style and imagination to pen something that stands out and appeals to the discerning gearhead. And you have to keep it fresh and new. Its a path of least resistance thing. That’s why all SUVs except the Wrangler are getting to be the same. Fans of that rig are VERY different from CR-V or Explorer buyers.
Oh and those who have paid attention know Im a card carrying Mopar fanboy, for what its worth. I wasn’t fooled by that half ass attempt of hawking a hot-rodded Neon sedan as some kind of true performance car. Yes, the SRT-4 was fast, but its a fail since they didn’t go all in. The Charger generated even more backlash among muscle heads, although in their defense, they did find a whole new market. Still, a family car with a big engine is NOT competition for the Mustang. Much as I dislike GM, and especially Chevy, they got the Cobalt SS right on target: Coupe got first a supercharged model, later a high pressure turbo model, no slush box offered. The sedan got a version for someone who is stuck getting 4 doors but wants more zip: Lower pressure/output turbo and a slushbox standard. The the HHR for an even different style, high out put engine, wagon and panel bodies, auto or manual trannys. I wish those both could have been Chryslers or Dodges!
The shorter doors on the sedans can be nice in tight parking situation and for people that aren’t as large as you. Plus, the easier rear seat access.
Versus the hatch/wagon, having a separate, enclosed cargo area can be nice because you don’t hear what you are carrying when driving around. This can be very nice if you are transporting things that tend to rattle like zippers on a suitcase or glass dishes.
I also occasionally prefer the look of the sedan to the wagon or coupe. The last gen Cadillac CTS being one example.
The quiet thing I’d never even thought of till I bought my sedan a couple months back. My last few vehicles were wagons, and I’d gotten used to packing everything to be quiet for long trips, tucking zippers in etc… In my sedan, I throw it in the trunk, and go.
I still have an old Outback for my “dirty” needs, but I have to agree about my primary motivation for purchasing a sedan as a single man was primarily style, or more image, really. I’m an attorney, with my own firm, and I’d looked into purchasing another Outback, or possible an XV Crosstrek, or 500L or something else with a hatch that’s also good for transporting the dogs. But when it came down to it, a mid to full sized sedan has that “professional” appearance clients expect. There’s no logical reason, but I would also think less of a lawyer driving a hatch than a sedan too. “What, did he not make enough for a real car, is he bad at his job, etc.” I could make do with a coupe, but there’s not really an “adult” coupe that looks professional under $45k, so a nice new sedan fit the bill perfectly for me.
Looking specifically at the Outback, its’ Rubbermaid plastic trim and the fact you can stick a softball between the fender and the wheel make it a lot more “unprofessional” looking than its’ wagon rear body does. Too bad they don’t offer the regular Legacy wagon anymore.
The Audi A5 is right around that $45k mark…not the higher performance models. Its just professional looking enough, if you went for a more muted color like white or grey…or it can be downright aggressive in red or that cobalt blue.
But you make a good point: The cars we choose reflect a bit of us. Your profession and demeanor necessitate a more professional theme and that’s all good. Personally, I feel EXTREMELY uncomfortable when I have to put on a shirt and tie for any reason. Gimme a black rock t-shirt and a leather jacket and Im in my zone. My choices in wheels fall right in step with that!
Most hatches/wagons have some kind of blind or cargo cover to help alleviate the prying eyes issue. The out of sight out of mind thing has always carried more weight with me than a little rattling or noise, but hey to each his own! The package shelf that the PT Cruiser used is WAY cool. It has 5 positions, one of which is a sort of picnic/tailgate friendly setup. Its a sturdy formed plastic unit, so it has some amount of sound deadening too.
“Faceless Squashed Blobs of Plastic WIth Wheels and Four Doors”
That’s pretty much all I see when I look at a “modern” sedan.
There’s no real distinction between brands of car, or models within a brand, any more. I used to love learning all the new models of the different brands of car every year, when I was growing up in the ’60s…when we’d take trips, I’d have a legal pad and pencil made out with all the brands and models and years, and I’d make hash marks for every car I saw on the trip.
I could tell you which was what with just a quick glance. A grille, a fin, the headlights…each one was distinct and different from the others. And I’d even delineate between 2-door sedan, 2-door hardtop, 4-door hardtop, 4-door sedan, wagon, convertible, etc…
Now all there is are faceless/soulless/design-less squashed blobs of plastic with wheels, and they all have four doors. I think there’s nothing so ridiculous looking than some kid that has “hopped up” a 4-door plastic blob with huge rims and tires only an inch thick, and the little 4-cylinder in it sounds like a blender and a lawnmower had a love child. No “cool kids” would be caught dead in a 4-door sedan in the 60s and 70s…4-doors were for moms and dads and grandparents.
I sound old. I know. But I just don’t understand it. You have to look at the logo or whatever symbol the company uses to tell what’s what now…they all look alike to me.
And the “sporty cars” all look like some 80s-kid’s “transformer” toy. Too much plastic.
I was thinking yesterday: just when did the 2-door option for most models of car just completely disappear from the face of the earth?
Used to be if you wanted a Bonneville or Impala or Fairlane, any other car, you had your choice of 2-door or 4 door, and each of those was available in either sedan or hardtop and sometimes convertible. Somewhere down the line, the 2-door car just disappeared, except for the so-called agressively styled “transformer toy” cars…80s kid toys.
OK…I’ll shut up now 😉
2 doors disappeared when people stopped buying them. People used to be ok shuffling people along in a 2 door car, both our family cars were 2 door cars when I was growing up, and no one complained.
Mandatory child seats.
Child seats are part of the blame, plus the nanny state requiring you to keep your children in them until they are ready to go to college,requiring ever larger car seats which now look like mini racing seats.
Plus, you have to place the “little dears” in the rear to protect them from the airbags that “we consumers” demanded to protect us from accidents only to discover that they were dangerous now too.
No don’t! Well said, Beebs. I am right there with you. “Faceless/soulless/design-less squashed blobs of plastic with wheels.” I have given up on today’s cars. You cannot distinguish one from another. There is no cachet in a Cadillac or Lincoln anymore, you might as well drive a Ford Fusion or a Honda or a Toyota for all the difference there is. The mindless alpha-numeric naming of cars today, too, exacerbates this feeling. 200s, 300s, XLRs, CR-Vs, MK-whatevers, who knows what cars they belong to? Guess I’m old, too, I think I’ll drive my ’03 Thunderbird forever, someone here referred to it as “lame” recently, but at least it’s fun and has individuality and gets looks wherever I go. Retro is good!
I’ll agree that most sedans today look samey. But I think that’s sort of the point. I would argue that a lot of the hatchbacks look different from eachother. A Golf looks nothing like a Focus, which looks nothing like an Impreza. Probably has something to do with the size of the markets (more niche, compared to mainstream).
The general front styling and overall look all of these cars was inspired by the Aston Martin Vantage, first shown in 2003 and put into production in 2005. The new Vantage was simply a “blow your socks off” styling exercise, swoopy as all get-out from stem to stern. To this day, I stop in my tracks and stare when I see one, they are simply gorgeous. Jaguar picked up many of the styling cues for their flagship cars, too.
But the average daily drivers are shorter in length, narrower in width, and taller cars all around. Most of them need to accommodate a back seat with real hip and head room. So the styling compromises abound, all trying to visually lower, lengthen, and give shape to the “blob”. The Aston Martin did not need to deal with those issues.
First off the Fiesta in that guise debuted in Europe in 2008 and the USA in 2011 so that may or may not change the thought of whether it’s looks were copied or it copied some other car’s looks.
I have heard folks say that the Ford Fiesta cribbed the 2012 Kia Rio’s looks but the Rio with that look came out in 2012 while the current Fiesta came out in 2008 in Europe and was officially brought out in the USA in 2011 so I think Kia cribbed the Fiesta’s looks thinking that the Fiesta would never be offered in the USA but wound up getting a shock when not only was the Fiesta going to be coming to the USA but got there a year early then the new Rio.
I still think Toyota swiped the look of the 2011- Sonata and widened and stretched it and gave it a Toyota grill and poof out comes the new Avalon(but to be fair to Toyota, why spend so much money of a redesign of the Avalon when nobody is really buying the thing anyway. Those in the market for this type of car from Toyota ether buy a top of the line Camry or buy a Lexus EX(Toyota did not learn their lesson from the 1990’s when they started offering the Lexus ES and saw the sales of the Cresida flat line)
I also want to add that the fact that SILVER has been so common only helps make the cars look alike. I love looking at the parking lot of the Fiat dealership (sorry, Studio) with all the different colors. Yes, I know it’s probably due to $, but at the expense of creativity. As a kid, I loved the 1970 Challenger in Plum Crazy….now that was a color!!!!
Non-distinct 4 wheeled appliances, nothing more, nothing less. With few exceptions, these are the dark ages for automotive design. No more Bill Mitchell’s, Chuck Jordans, Dick Teague’s, Just a set standard of parameters established by some committee: here the passenger capsule will have so many cubic feet, the trunk so many cubic feet. Rear seat headroom requirements that have resulted in nearly every manufacturer creating a roof line so similar to each other that one can be lifted and grafted onto another with minimal body work required.
But it stops not only at the copy cat exterior; the same could be said for the interiors and the now near patented term “Center stack”.
Just as well. With exceptions here or there, the mass consumer of today cares not about styling, but features like sound systems, computer access, cell phone/satellite radio features. The day of the backyard mechanic has been put to rest, replaced by a Service Advisor who will write up your ills for the Service Technician to troubleshoot and evaluate and make repairs, all for about 90 dollars an hour. Incapable and lacking basic mechanical aptitude, we collectively have lost the ability to change our own oil and filters, to do basic maintenance. We have collectively allowed ourselves to be dumbed down to where we are dependent upon someone else to do our bidding.
The anonymous cookie cutter blob on wheels suits us well. It surrounds us in 6 air bags, 4 wheel anti lock brakes, blinding HID headlamps lighting the way in front of us. EFI and computer controlled engines, axles, brakes all combine to allow us to use our cars as weapons should anyone be slow in moving out of our way. Never before has the driver been so pampered and isolated from the road and fellow drivers by these modern vehicles. And never before has the driver been so aggressive and arrogant, thanks to these modern machines and their quick acceleration, sure brakes and sticky handling.
Welcome to The New World Order: Automotive Design and Technology.
> the mass consumer of today cares not about styling, but features like sound systems, computer access, cell phone/satellite radio features.
I agree. I read about this all the time, and I got to experience it recently. My wife’s vehicle is a 2006 CR-V with a 2.4L 4-cyl engine and the 5-speed stick. The throttle is drive-by-wire on these, but it still has good throttle response. It’s certainly not a sports car, but when you drive this vehicle, you feel “connected”. I like driving, and I like driving this.
A few weeks ago, the CR-V was in the bodyshop because it lost a fight with a big tree branch. The rental we got was a new Ford Escape with the 1.6L turbo EcoBoost engine. This is a mobile entertainment center which also happens to get you places.
The steering wheel had two D-pads, one to change the display in the instrument cluster, and one to control the stereo. There were also buttons to control your cellphone, paired to the vehicle via bluetooth. The “center stack” was also full of buttons, many of them to control the stereo, which also had a satellite radio receiver.
The Escape was also constantly hunting for the right gear, which was annoying. Whenever it could, it would shift up so the engine wasn’t running much above an idle, which had to be well below the torque band for such a small engine. Any hint of acceleration would cause it to downshift. If the fuel mileage it told me is accurate, it doesn’t do any better than the CR-V for all that effort either…. 10L/100km.
It seems worse now than ever because if you want a “car” bodystyle a sedan is it. Cars may very well looked similar in the past(I don’t share that notion) but there were a lot of different rooflines and shapes for those individual bodystyles. Safety and aerodynamics pretty much solidified the current shapes forever and predict the grim future for years to come.
Demolition man best predicted the future better than any other future movie to date. Just look at the cars.
They were mostly GM concept vehicles (Wait a minute, they got something right?) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demolition_Man_(film)#Production
Before we get going too much on this subject (a bit late, am I?) there was a two-page spread from Life Magazine in the winter of 1939 on the 1939 cars (thought I still had the picture, apparantly I erased it). And exactly how many stand out?
Well, there’s the sharknose Graham (big failure), the Hupp Skylark (big failure), a Willys (not exactly a sales success) . . . . . . . and everything else can be lumped together under the “they all look alike” to the reader who isn’t a die-hard automobile fanatic.
It’s not a new thing. You could easily do the same to post WWII cars before 1955. And mid-60’s cars. Don’t even start on the 80’s when badge engineering went crazy.
This isn’t a new phenomenon. And, the average (non car crazy) buyer prefers to drive something that isn’t too radical.
Disagree. GM intermediates of the 60’s/70’s80’s looked nothing like their Mopar and Ford and AMC competition. Nothing remotely resembling what’s going on now.
The cars of today share near identical body structures, to the point of being .25 inches or less away from each other in wheelbase, width, height, seat room, etc.
I walk my Beagle every morning through a development. I always stop to pause and look at 2 late model cars in neighboring driveways. One, a Japanese 4 door sedan (Toyota), gold metallic in color. Next door in the driveway is a gold metallic Chevrolet Malibu. Same color hue, same body shape with the exact same roof line ending in the exact same kink at the rear side window. The Chrome trim on the side window glass looks like one can be exchanged for the other. The same can be said for the window glass itself. There is far too much similarity going on in this class of automobile for one to think it all occurred by coincidence. I think it’s more a cop out by the manufacturer’s thanks to government standards for safety, amongst other variables.
This is not badge engineering. These are cut throat competitors who’ve all somehow stumbled onto making the exact same automobile, which I find very interesting. Modern cars bore me, with the exception of a few daring designs, the VW Beetle, the retro muscle of Camaro and Challenger. Any new Corvette. The Mini and Fiat 500. The rest of ’em look like pissed off insects from a bad Japanese 60’s Sci Fi movie, what with their slanted and angry looking headlamps posing as the eyes and the gaping maw of a grill ready to eat the nearest pedestrian.
All that’s lacking are some fangs posing as air deflectors inside those grills. There’s always hope!
Late here, but I have only 2 words to add: CAFE and NHTSA/Insurance Industry crash tests. OK, that was more than two words. But the need to score highly in both of these criteria takes away an awful lot of stylists’ flexibility.
Even within a similar genre, there are well-styled and poorly styled cars. Chrysler 300C vs. Ford Five Hundred.
The boxes-on-wheels, oops, I mean SUVs, ushered in the era of “who cares what it looks like”. Once carmakers realized these sold, styling was out. Euronannies have definitely made a negative impact with the pedestrian impact regs.
Won’t somebody please bring back the formal roof line, with rear doors you don’t bang your head on and a trunk opening larger than a mail slot!? One reason I chose my Mark VI Jetta was the classic conservative styling that ignores the current swoopy trend.
Totally agree. A straight across rear door opening makes getting in and out much easier. It takes a six window profile to pull that off and even then it’s sometimes hard. The Volvo 740 looked awkward to some so they slanted the rear window more with the 940 freshening. As a four window the back of the sedan would have looked like the back of the wagon, which shared the same doors.
Now if you can get away with a formal roof line you can have a straight across door opening with four windows like on an 80s Fleetwood. Pulling up the rear fender line helped make an otherwise overly boxy shape look elegant. Trunk is super easy to load.
I credit the 60s Thunderbird Landau and Rolls-Royce for bringing back the formal roof but it was GM in the 70s and 80s that popularized the look. It was one of the few shapes that went well with 5mph impact bumpers. Sometimes you just get lucky.
On the modern Chrysler 300C, which is pretty straight cross, they pulled up the entire beltline to make things look nice.
I like the new Cadillac CTS but the low door openings (a problem in front too) make it hard to get in and out.
Six window sedans have a greenhouse shape not too unlike a crossover. This is a big reason everything is starting to look the same and why I like the shape of the Optima so much.
Great discussion, I wish I wasn’t late to it as it’s one of my favorite topics. I think there are some legitimate reasons why cars look so similar, but I wonder if they have to look as similar as they do, and whether the things being done to distinguish them have much value. (Apologies for the wordiness.)
Aerodynamics and safety are the two biggest determinants today in the physical appearance of cars. No one is going to produce forward leaning headlights, squared corners, or long flat rear trunks because those features are aerodynamically inferior to the jelly bean wedge. And as we drive more at highway speeds than we used to, this has become more important… air resistance increases as the square of the increase in speed (I think I’m saying that right).
Re safety, we know that A, B, and C pillars are thicker to provide rollover strength. But also of consideration is the fact that an arched roofline can increase rigidity in front and rear impacts.
Beyond this, it’s undeniable that some ways of doing things are inherently better than others, and therefore manufacturers have converged toward a similar execution of many details that once distinguished cars from one other. The complex curves, fins, and moldings of cars of the 1950s and early 1960s created places for water to pool and rust to live. So they’re gone. Some other examples of convergence: side mirror shape and placement, window edge detailing and sealing, and lower trunk liftover height, which has tended to push the rear lights out to the corners.
As for the decreasing popularity of sporty coupes, most basic sedans today can outperform the mainstream sports cars of our, or at least my, childhood. And if a present day 2-door coupe has more structural rigidity than an equivalent 4-door sedan, the fact is that the 4-door is still plenty rigid. And doesn’t the silhouette of today’s 4-door sedan generally approximate that of a sports car (e.g., extreme windshield slope, fastback roofline)? So why buy a “true” sports car when it would mean less luggage space, more difficult ingress/egress, etc.? BTW, I think BMW in the 1980s removed much of the uncool stigma from the 4-door sedan.
All that said, I dislike the similarity of today’s cars. I equally dislike the lazy, arbitrary tricks designers use to try to create distinction, such as meaningless character lines and silly headlight shapes. Look at the three competing character lines on the side of the new Impala—they’re horrible. No visually critical person could find them appealing. Those on the Mercedes E-Class are hardly any better. Such things make me wonder how the people who put them there ever got jobs designing cars. But I think what’s happening is that designers now have limited opportunity to express themselves, so they feel they have to cut it loose on the things they are allowed to play with.
Right now, I think Cadillac is the only manufacturer distinguishing itself from the pack, and I’ve never been a Cadillac Man. It will be interesting to see if Cadillac moves more toward the jelly bean wedge, or if other manufacturers move away from it.
On the E-class those lines refer to the past, like on this 1960 model.
(Photo: Wouter Bregman)
Indeed–in the same way that line on the 1960 references the separate fenders of yet earlier models. But look at the way the fender-y character line on the newer model competes with the character line that runs through the door handles… they’re too close together. This is the kind of thing that tells me a designer is not really paying attention to what he or she is doing.
Here’s the 2014 Impala… character lines out the ying yang. It’s even worse when you allow your eye to take in the body seams, which nowadays are a type of character line. This designer did not have a full awareness of what he/she was trying to do or was accomplishing. The Impala looks even worse in person.
There are certainly a lot of lines to discover…
To me one of the worst offenders of the “character lines because we can” school of design is the current Hyundai Sonata. In fact, they are more than character lines; I think you could set things on them. When this topic came up a while back, a poster called it “tortured sheet metal”.
The funny thing is that its platform-mate, the Kia Optima, is actually a rather good looking car.
Good examples. The Kia is overall a good shape. Main flaw is the busyness around the C-pillar… It seems the designer didn’t trust the basic good moves to be good enough, so a chrome accent band was introduced. Combined with the rear door opening, rear window, etc., there are too many seams too close together. Other flaw to my eye is the odd overhang of the taillights when the car is viewed in direct side profile.
The Sonata character line is effective in that it is used to organize the door handles and taillights. But it does seem heavy handed.
Best execution of this shape is probably the Tesla, which I don’t think has any character lines. I’m not opposed to character lines, but if the overall shape is well executed, they might not be necessary.
Buick, BTW, has some of the best and subtlelest character lines today.
Well its all in how you define ‘cool’ or ‘uncool’. In the 80s it was ‘cool’ to be a preppie or a yuppie. Just how now its ‘cool’ to be a hipster. Now, if being 6′ tall, but pasty and gawky, unable to bench press a fork, wearing your grampas clothes is ‘cool’, then I guess Im not cool.
I say theres hope in the rockabilly crowd that has embraced rat rods, old ’70s custom vans, muscle cars, bobtail 4x4s and other such easy to maintain rides with character. They don’t have to be the polished and perfect street rods that never get driven which is even better. That crowd ranges from guys and girls in our late 30s, on down to late 20s. Anyone who goes against the grain of the current emasculation of America and instead chooses to drive and work on older cars, prefer V8s, drink whisky and beer, cuss, smoke camels and listen to rock and roll will ALWAYS be the real definition of ‘cool’.
Anyone who goes against the grain of the current emasculation of America and instead chooses to drive and work on older cars, prefer V8s, drink whisky and beer, cuss, smoke camels and listen to rock and roll will ALWAYS be the real definition of ‘cool’.
Oh god, give me a break… this whole schtick is the same type of bullshit posturing that you’re criticizing the “hipsters” for.
One point that hasn’t been brought up is that both the typical lifespan of a car and the length of the loan have gotten steadily longer.
Part of the dominance of silver on black is that few buyers want to take chances on a color that might scream its’ datedness in a few years, and between the increasing cost of a good repaint and the increasing durability of factory paint the idea of changing the color is increasingly outside the scope of the average non-enthusiast.
Resale too. Much, much easier to dispose of a black, silver or white vehicle. And, yes, I think a lot of punters who are not necessarily car people consider this facet before purchase, given the capital-intensive nature of the transaction.
If you’d ask me which car has opened a new door in the car world, has pushed the boundries and has been innovative as well as affordable, I can only come up with one car : The 1992 introduced Renault Twingo, only available in LHD and mainly in Europe.
That car, or concept ( a mini-monospace) has opened the door for Volkswagen’s Up model, the Toyota Aygo and its Peugeot Citroën clones or sisters.
When Citroën -finally- launched the C6, this in their long tradition of building large comfortable avant-garde front wheel drive autobahn cruisers, it was dismissed by us.
We also did not understand the rather controversial Lancia Thesis in Europe, another car that went against the stream of automotive “einheitswürst”(bland sausage will probably be the best translation for that German word)
But, it is our fault, because we did not buy them.
I drive the Alfa 159 Diesel.
I love it.
I love it coz it is different
I love it,not because it drives particulary better then its rivals, but it is unmistakenly an Alfa Romeo.
I love the three gauges placed in the center console, like its pre-decessors had like the 1750 saloon my Uncle Jacob had, those gauges impressed me as a kid!
I love its distinctive nose that says I am an Alfa and nothing, nothing else.
Underneath a lot of technology is shared with GM’s Opel, but I do not care.
Let us face it , all nice against the stream individualist’s brands are disappearing like melting snow, Lancia died and Alfa will most probably be next.
Then I’ll have to turn to Subaru, coz Subaru with its own way of technical approach, it’s own way of lay out it’s against the stream reliable barking boxer engine will be the only thing left for me.
I guess most European manufacturers have literally missed the boat in not becoming global brands, and the global market wants a bland vehicle, the ‘friend’ of everybody.
And all the brands that are disappearing simply were not.
I like the 159 and not because I’m partisan Alfa. They make triple ‘headlights’ work. Really good looking car, esp. the wagon. Can’t believe what they’re replacing it with, but then again Alfa have a spotty history with saloon design.
Unsurprisingly, old people also think music was better when they were young, women were more attractive and flavor was more poignant.
I’m younger and think music from the 60’s to the late 80’s is far better than the crap today. Conversely I think people are more attractive today and dress better than the gaudy clothing of the 70’s and the weird long hair that guys sported during the 80’s. I also think car styling really went downhill during the new millennium starting with plain boring to look at full sized 7 series Bimmers. From that point forwards everything lost most of there exterior trim, chrome and bling and the same basic sedan and window treatment with plain slab sides has been the order for the day for years now along with colorless black tan and gray interiors. For this reason I get much enjoyment looking at and driving an older classic, if anything for there interior color and comfort and there unique personalities.
Cadillac XTS and Lincoln MKZ also have fallen into this automotive styling archetype. Every so often, a particular look will assert itself. This one more strongly than others.
One reason is today’s buyers are more into standard features, value, and interior design/layout. They are shopped as electronic equipment, not just ‘looks’.
In the 50’s most new car buyers were first time on the market, after not owning one during Depression and WW2. So, Big 3 were pushing ‘newest looking’ as what one ‘must own’.
Other is aerodynamics for best MPG. There’s no magic carburator to enable a ’57 Chevy, that common people like to look at, to get 100 mpg (yet)