|
|
|
|
|
|
Do good cars come in cycles? Are the cars from one era better than those from another?
I do not have a high opinion of today's cars. In my view while from some perspectives such as comfort and interior fittings, and even reliability on some components they have never been better, they are pretty uninspiring and not as well engineered as their manufacturers would like you to think.
Uninspiring because they are with a very few exceptions almost exactly the same mechanically as well as being more indistinguishable styling wise now than ever.
A few decades ago you could buy lots of different types of cars. Front engined, mid engined, rear engined, FWD, RWD, transverse engines, in-line engines, independent suspension, live axles, torsion bars, rubber cones, Hydroelastic, leaf springs, coil springs, the list was endless and gave an amazing diversity and choice.
Nowadays it seems that unless you want a BMW, a Smart or one of a few small production mid-engined cars you only have the choice of a FWD transverse engined car with coil spings and McPherson struts at the front and semi-independent coil spring trailing arms at the rear. It means they're all a pretty good package but they're all the same pachage and it's more than a little boring. And that package has been taken from its simple and well-engineered 1970s roots in cars like the Golf and Fiesta to a no-user-serviceable-parts nightmare of built-in obsolescence that really makes you wonder whether buying a Chinese car and throwing it away after 3 years doesnt start to seem like a good idea.
Styling wise it's no better either. Cars that look a little different don't sell so on an extreme generalisation most modern cars look a bit like a Focus, a Vectra or a WagonR depending which size bracket they are in. I've proclaimed my love here for the Renault VelSatis but it seems in the country at large I'm the only one. Try to come up with a few genuinely different looking modern cars and you'll not run out of fingers.
But before I mumble further doom and gloom into my pint, I have to ask myself, was it ever thus? Were cars so good in the past and if so when? And when were they bad and will the good cars come back in the future?
I can only go on what I've seen over my lifetime. So I cant really comment on 1940s cars or earlier because when I were a lad the old cars were from the 1950s. My impression of the '50s cars I knew at the time was that they really werent very good. They werent built for 1970s roads so they were slow and not very reliable, the styling while sometimes adventurous was often rather alarming and lets face it - they rusted like it was going out of fashion. See the Vauxhall Victor in a scrappy someone posted today on another thread for a typical example of how I remember 1950s cars. True I never knew them when they were new but 20 years of looking at restored examples hasnt made me respect their engineering any more.
To me, one of car design's golden ages was the 1960s. You had the magical combination of engineering innovation and really good styling coupled with some remaining decent build quality and materials and in my view some of the century's best and most beautiful cars were built during that decade.
So what went wrong in the 1970s? The answer is, nothing specific. There were still plenty of awesome cars built in the '70s and they set the scene for the '80s. But in my view the '70s were not the high point of the century's automotive endeavour because the build quality and styling went downhill resulting in some cars that while they have a dedicated following today were truly awful even when they were new. I'd offend people on this board if I mentioned models but two of them were made not far from where I'm sitting now in Oxford and a few more were made somewhere north of London. 1970s cars rusted like no cars before them and though they were quick when you wanted them to be most of them had woeful brakes and handling so perhaps going quickly wasnt such a good idea.
If the '70s cars were so bad, why were the '80s cars so good? I think the answer is that the FWD package had been perfected without the bloat of the '90s and the build quality problems had been sorted resulting in the direct platform ancestors of some of the cars you can still buy today. It's funny that the car most of us would hold up as the ultimate 1980s car - the Sierra - is a mix of old and new being RWD but having the jellymould styling that ushered in the era of the bland.
From there in my opinion it's been a steady progression downhill. All cars are good these days. There are no bad cars any more. But so few are memorable and most are just downright boring. Will the good times come back? I hope so. But I'm not buying just yet.
What do you think?
|
| |
Last Edit: Nov 4, 2006 16:09:23 GMT by herald948
"Jeremy Clarkson, a man we motor enthusiasts need on our side like Lewis Hamilton's F1 car needs a towing ball and a Sprite Musketeer" My motor |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In all honesty (with maybe a few notable examples) I think the car really has had its day in that sense. The current trends and likely future of transportation certainly lead me to think so anyway. I have no real interest in anything built after around 1990, they are bland and utterly uninspiring. Look at a new BMW 3 series and it looks like a Mitsubishi. A Mk5 Golf looks like a Peugeot 307. Even the one saving grace of an ugly car, fun handling, isnt there to save the day as modern cars are so utterly predictable. We live in an era of 'beige motoring' and its not even the cool sort of beige that comes along with a vinyl roof. Modern 'cool' design simply steals from a bygone era (Challenger/Mini etc) and modern technology is taking more and more from the experience of driving. Personally, I don't want PAS/ABS/TC etc ... I want to feel the road, and have 'actual' control of the vehicle. Perhaps I'm just old fashioned. Sure, you can throw a modern 'hot-hatch' down the B roads, but theres absolutely no fun involved. Its just soulless motoring. Part of my interest in retro cars is also that you can maintain/modify them yourself, unlike modern cars that require laptops and thats assuming the engine is even accessible in the first place. Was it ever thus ? Yes I believe so. In days gone by (despite poor QC and ever present rot) cars were built that were good to look at (I stand by that ... after all I am a retro car enthusiast) and were a real challenge to drive. RWD, leaf springs and relatively high BHP ensured that. Today, even a one armed monkey could 'tame' a supercar with the help of its numerous driver aids. Technology has taken so much from the driving experience, and has also done the same for motor racing to be honest. Of course, each generation has its thing. In 30 years time the kids of today will be paying 'scene tax' on Skylines and Saxos, assuming motoring hasnt been banned by the government as 'anti-environmental' or some such balls. Perhaps its just the generation I grew up in, but I simply cannot get excited about FSI 'performance' or alternative fuels. Theres no substitute for a growling 6cyl or V8 engine and although I'm still young I have no interest in 'moving with the times' ... I suppose its natural to desire the cars you wanted as a youngster but couldnt drive. The next step in transport is surely alternative fuel vehicles that drive themselves. To be honest, having driven plenty of new cars, I cant help but feel we are all but there already.
|
| |
Last Edit: Nov 4, 2006 16:47:47 GMT by superden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
......which is why my cars 23 years old and not 3 years old ;D
|
| |
 once again rocking with 1117cc and 4 gears! |
|
Hirst
Posted a lot
This avatar is inaccurate, I've never shaved that closely
Posts: 3,930
|
|
|
|
|
I would say the biggest problem with new cars is due to the heavy weight, because if they don't build them heavy they come out badly in NCAP tests which for some reason the general public really fusses about.
As an example, take your average hot hatch which is now very lardy and heavy weight indeed. By heavy weight, I mean the Citroen C2 VTS weighs 1083kg!! How on earth can you class that as a hot hatch when it weighs that much, what did they do, fill the floor with cement and bricks?
Obviously if the chassis is heavy, to make it respectably fast you have to increase the power and (usually) the size of the engine which can weigh it down even more. Hence why you don't see many 1.0L small hatchbacks anymore with the base model gradually going up to 1.2-1.3L etc. A heavier car will be less nimble than a lighter one (obviously saying if they were both well set up, not saying all lightweight cars could beat all heavyweight cars) so it'll be harder to steer in the first place, but then because some idiot in the design room has given the car cavernous arches you have to fit 15/16/17" wheels where you may have had 13" ones before, compromising the handling even more. Also a fun thing they like to do is make the gear ratios huge probably so they get good mpg stats for the adverts, which compromises the design of the car even more!! Then they start chucking all the features like aircon and huge radios onto the car, blah blah etc.
Why don't they just make cars lighter, surely that would make them exciting again.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why don't they just make cars lighter, surely that would make them exciting again. But they would still look bloody awful. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 A prime example of the comments from Hirst is the Favorit and Felicia. Basically the same car, but the Favorit Mk1 is a far better car to drive than the heavier and catalysed Favorit Mk2, which itself is better to drive than the even more bloated Felicia. The Felicia is basically a facelifted Favorit, the suspension,chassis and basic mechanicals are the same!
|
| |
Last Edit: Nov 4, 2006 17:34:11 GMT by daverapid
|
|
Hirst
Posted a lot
This avatar is inaccurate, I've never shaved that closely
Posts: 3,930
|
|
|
|
|
I think a bulk of the bad design is down to the big wheelarches, meaning if they have small wheels they look ridiculous in the big arches, and if they have big wheels they look like a rollerskate.
I don't think all new cars are ugly though, just the vast majority of them. And they all seem to look melted at the moment.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Its mainly the smaller cars that look terrible I reckon, cars like the Mazda 6, current Honda Accord, Laguna etc still look pretty good and look different from each other. Anything below that and its hard to find anything remotely attractive. Really good looking cars have been legislated out of existence, `60s and `70s cars looked good because someone drew a nice picture and the company made it, now there are so many constraints - aerodynamics, pedestrian safety etc.
I think the best all round cars (for anyone, not people who are into cars) are from the early-mid nineties - look at the last Cavaliers - cruise all day at 100, got a few toys, safe and sturdy, reliable, not bad to look at and relatively simple to work on, 20- minute clutch replacement, apart from the lambda sensor no real ECU nightmares, that was all to come later, and it feels like a car, a nice comfy car but a car all the same.
If you want a more interesting example what about the Peugeot 306? Looks fantastic (if you don't think that now wait till they're all gone) and the standard 1.8 is absolutely delightful to drive, GTi must really be something special. They don't rust either, even L-reg ones still look rust (if not dent) free. Theres all sorts of others - Fiesta Zetec S, Mazda 323F, Honda Civic EK, early nineties 3 and 5 - series, that I can see having a following in years to come.
I don't think the retro car scene is played out yet but the lid is on - I really cant see anyone missing the Renault Modus when its gone but you never know, compared to what they`ll be churning out in 20 years it might have character in abundance.
That coment on wheelarches hits the nail on the head - cars virtually don't have front wings anymore, it affects the smaller cars the worst - big fat clumsy, dumpy bodies on big wheels that just fit the arches, they look like kids Duplo cars or something. 20 years ago the idea of a normal car on 17s with low pros would have seemed cool, now that every stiff and Which magazine reading pringle wearer has a Toyota D4D tedious MPV crossover with huge fancy alloys it just makes me want to fit castors to the XR.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That coment on wheelarches hits the nail on the head - cars virtually don't have front wings anymore, it affects the smaller cars the worst - big fat clumsy, dumpy bodies on big wheels that just fit the arches, they look like kids Duplo cars or something. Playmobil.  ;D |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's interesting the point about light weight. It brought to mind one of the best 1990s cars I've seen, the Peugeot 106 Ralye. DatsunCherry of this parish has one, a small car with no frills whatsoever and as a result a fantastic package. Has the current small Peugeot got the same charm? I've never driven one so I don't know. (I'm a bit hazy on models - am I thinking of the one that's also a Toyota Aygo?)
Maybe I'm a bit harsh on modern cars. Most of them are pure blandness on wheels but there are still manufacturers prepared to make cars that look a little different. Renaults for instance may have scary mechanics but they look great and the scary mechanicals bit was ever thus - just ask someone who like my mother owned a Renault 4 with the electromechanical gearbox in the 1960s! And I have to admit to a sneaking liking for the FIAT Panda, to name but one. The car as we know it may have run its course but perhaps all is not completely lost.
|
| |
"Jeremy Clarkson, a man we motor enthusiasts need on our side like Lewis Hamilton's F1 car needs a towing ball and a Sprite Musketeer" My motor |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Playmobil. ;D if someone made a car like that the silly thing is that on the road it would genuinely look a bit different. Maybe not exciting but out of the ordinary |
| |
"Jeremy Clarkson, a man we motor enthusiasts need on our side like Lewis Hamilton's F1 car needs a towing ball and a Sprite Musketeer" My motor |
|
Snoozin
Posted a lot
Toyophile
Posts: 1,557
|
|
|
|
|
^^^ Looks like a Smart to me.
I've often thought the same way regarding the design of contemporary cars. A decade or so ago (and that's a large portion of my life to date... me = youngun) you could pick out cars at a distance, ie. "look dad, there's a Cortina/Victor/Corolla" now car design has become so homogenised that you really have to do a double take to pick out a given car at a distance. There are a few exceptions of course...
Everyone is putting 5-sided grilles on, everyone uses the same high waistines, everyone uses the same dull black/grey plastic interiors.... and even they're becoming similar amongst manufacturers, I sat in a 147, then a Toyota Caldina, then a Mazda 3, and the interiors were all so similar....
|
| |
|
|
Seth
South East
MorrisOxford TriumphMirald HillmanMinx BorgwardIsabellaCombi
Posts: 15,538
|
|
|
|
if someone made a car like that the silly thing is that on the road it would genuinely look a bit different. Maybe not exciting but out of the ordinary They do!  |
| |
Follow your dreams or you might as well be a vegetable. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
if someone made a car like that the silly thing is that on the road it would genuinely look a bit different. Maybe not exciting but out of the ordinary They do! Ah, the Reva Simultaneously my kind of car and not my kind of car, a very promising start for useable and readily available electric cars but with such a desperately disappointing spec. As it happens I think electric cars are one way out of the moribund state the automobile finds itself in as they are so much less complex than what the internal combustion engine has become. I would dearly love my next new car to be electric but I hope it wont be like a Reva. I'd prefer lithium ion batteries, an aluminium body, 70mph top speed and 100mile plus range, all very technologically achievable these days. |
| |
"Jeremy Clarkson, a man we motor enthusiasts need on our side like Lewis Hamilton's F1 car needs a towing ball and a Sprite Musketeer" My motor |
|
|
|
|
|
|
  Whoops...misread the title. Thought it said "do cycles come in good cars? ;D |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Its styling and brand loyalty that sell cars really. Dynamically most cars are much of a muchness withintheir market, whether thats a brand new Vectra vs a Mondeo or a 105E Anglia vs a HA Viva.
Styling goes in cycles just like clothes and interior design or anything else. And this is down to tastes. A chap I was talking too said the worst period for design was the late 1970s and early 1980s "everything was just a square box back then". personally I have difficulty with a lot of 1990s cars, they are all so bland (Mk1 Mondeo, Audi A4, Citrroen C5 etc) I actually think there are some good looking cars about now, in the last few years the auto makers have got on a proper run with some quite handsom cars. Renault Vel Satis, Avantime, Vaux/Opel Vectra, Chrysler 300, Dodge Charger, Alfa 147, Alfa 166, VX220, Pontiac Solstice, Cadillac CTS, SRX, Mazda 3 Mazda 6, RX8, and a load of others that don;t spring immediately to mind.
|
| |
1941 Wolseley Not Rod - 1956 Humber Hawk - 1957 Daimler Conquest - 1966 Buick LeSabre - 1968 Plymouth Sport Fury - 1968 Ford Galaxie - 1969 Ford Country Squire - 1969 Mercury Marquis - 1970 Morris Minor - 1970 Buick Skylark - 1970 Ford Galaxie - 1971 Ford Galaxie - 1976 Continental Mark IV - 1976 Ford Capri - 1994 Ford Fiesta
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That all makes a lot of sense, and I agree with your examples of new cars that look good, but they are all either biggish cars or sports cars, these classes seem to be spoilt for choice with nice looking cars, but I think the days of good looking small cars like the Pug 106 are gone - just look at its replacement. I can confirm that the 107 drives horribly as well, so not all modern cars are predictably good they can still drop clangers when they want.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe. I don;t much like small moderns anyway. I don't like the way they look or drive. The Ka is about the only exception. Looks fun and drives a lot better thanmost of the other cack out there.
I'd hardly have called the looks of the 106 an outstanding achievement in styling. The 107 is fugly incarnate though.
They will be someone elses retro dream in 20 years time though.
Kinda like Renner 4s and NSU Prinz are now.
|
| |
Last Edit: Nov 6, 2006 15:22:31 GMT by akku
1941 Wolseley Not Rod - 1956 Humber Hawk - 1957 Daimler Conquest - 1966 Buick LeSabre - 1968 Plymouth Sport Fury - 1968 Ford Galaxie - 1969 Ford Country Squire - 1969 Mercury Marquis - 1970 Morris Minor - 1970 Buick Skylark - 1970 Ford Galaxie - 1971 Ford Galaxie - 1976 Continental Mark IV - 1976 Ford Capri - 1994 Ford Fiesta
|
|
|
|
Do good cars come in cycles?BenzBoy
@benzboy
Club Retro Rides Member 7
|
|
|
The 107 is fugly incarnate though. They will be someone elses retro dream in 20 years time though. Kinda like Renner 4s and NSU Prinz are now. I reckon you've hit the nail on the head there. I think a lot of modern cars are well styled, and like the original post said, you can't buy a bad new car these days - they don't build 'em. Dynamically, they can be dull, and I find a lot of the "regular" (by that I mean non-sporty, attainable) moderns have really anaesthetised handling. I've felt more involved at the controls of a Playstation. But retros can be dull and samey too, particularly when they were new. The Landcrab, for example. Austin / Wolesely / Riley... look all the same to me. And ugly b@stards at that. I'd own one now, but back then it'd be a different story. And think how many cars used the round sealed-beam headlights... it looks different now, but back then I think I'd have had a problem with most cars having the same shaped headlights.  |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The 107 is fugly incarnate though. They will be someone elses retro dream in 20 years time though. Kinda like Renner 4s and NSU Prinz are now. I reckon you've hit the nail on the head there. I think a lot of modern cars are well styled, and like the original post said, you can't buy a bad new car these days - they don't build 'em. Dynamically, they can be dull, and I find a lot of the "regular" (by that I mean non-sporty, attainable) moderns have really anaesthetised handling. I've felt more involved at the controls of a Playstation. But retros can be dull and samey too, particularly when they were new. The Landcrab, for example. Austin / Wolesely / Riley... look all the same to me. And ugly b@stards at that. I'd own one now, but back then it'd be a different story. And think how many cars used the round sealed-beam headlights... it looks different now, but back then I think I'd have had a problem with most cars having the same shaped headlights. I agree with you entirely Benzboy - for a given period you could argue that 'all cars look the same', its just that they followed the trends & styles that are popular, with only detail features to distinguish between the models. There are always exceptions obviously. I reckon that the cars today are as interesting today as ever - especially when you consider the tight restraints in which the designers have to work. I can think of a car from pretty much every manufacture that currently build a car, that I think is outstanding, be it down to its styling, innovative features or simply that it does the job for which it was intended so well. As a case-in-point - we had a bit of a get-together down in Newquay over the weekend. Our steed for the 480-odd round journey was a '03' plate Focus TDCi estate. I honestly cannot think of a better car for the jouney - it was spacious, comfortable, quiet and economical, yet at the same time it has great steering, good road holding & handles pretty sweetly too - so could be quite fun should the mood arise ;D Having previously done the trip in a Mini - an Anglia & my T25 van, where the jouney seemed to take forever, the drive in the Focus seemed to just pass us by & we were at our destination before realising it  ....... now thats progress. However once in Newquay - it would have much cooler to have had either of the aforementioned retros to cruise about in  |
| |
|
|
|
|
A prime example of the comments from Hirst is the Favorit and Felicia. Basically the same car, but the Favorit Mk1 is a far better car to drive than the heavier and catalysed Favorit Mk2, which itself is better to drive than the even more bloated Felicia. The Felicia is basically a facelifted Favorit, the suspension,chassis and basic mechanicals are the same!
Whoops...misread the title. Thought it said "do cycles come in good cars? ;D
....... now thats progress.