Are you really looking forward to the future?

[Cap'n Jack]

I'm quite looking forward to the future. I like the more sharp modern shapes that some of the current concepts are taking. I really like the luxury cars of late, hopefully they're an indication that they're only going to get better too.

 

[harrytuttle]

I think this decade is very much a transitional one in terms of car design, in that it's reflecting the transition to more efficient, eco-friendly powertrains. We had a similar "ugly" period in the 70's, which was the last major energy crisis, and we came out of it okay. This was followed by a long stagnation period in the 80's and 90's, which was far more evolutionary than revolutionary.

The manufacturers are still experimenting. Some of this will succeed, most of it will not. Most experiments end in failure anyway, but it's the successes that people remember.

 

[a6m5]

I disagree with Duke on JCE's cars. On the Camaro, I wasn't a huge fan of the original either, so that maybe why. One of the few cars from that era that doesn't quite do it for me. I love the Firebird version though. Audi and Evo is gorgeous IMO. GT-R, not so much in that paticular photo.

80's boy

That obvious, eh?

 

[Pupik]

This was followed by a long stagnation period in the 80's and 90's, which was far more evolutionary than revolutionary.

If anything, the 1980s were revolutionary to the auto industry to an extreme: Lighter, smaller, and/or more aerodynamic cars appeared; engines became far more fuel efficient, emissions and engine control equipment were no longer holding power outputs back to a significant degree, interiors were beginning to become more user-friendly. Perhaps the only three troubles for enthusiasts in the USA were:

1) Many cars switched from rear-drive to front-drive drivetrain layouts. This wasn't necessarily a bad thing, especially for many American cars, since many of the rear-drive cars weren't sporting to begin with, and the shift to front-wheel drive meant far lighter, and resulting suspension re-designs meant better handling cars anyhow.

2) Convertibles nearly disappeared from the radar in the first half of the 1980s due to crash testing and safety regulations.

3) Certain imports (Fiat, Lancia, Pininfarina et al) brought here in tiny batches disappeared by the mid-1980s.

Sure, you could find a car or two in any manufacturer's lineup that perhaps took a step back, or remained stagnant, but for the most part, every car took a leap in some sort of forward direction for enthusiasts in the 1980's, except perhaps the Citroen 2CV and Mini (since they were already icons dating back to the 1950's).

The 1990's were perhaps more evolutionary, with aerodynamics being prominent (though the aero craze seems to have reached its peak in the mid-1990s for most cars), lighter parts, more power, handling and ride improvements, safety regulations. More improvements on existing themes was the theme of the past decade.

 

[YSSMAN]

More or less, depending on what kind of car you like largely depends on how you view the '80s in terms of design, performance, quality, etc. Being a product of the '80s and '90s, I fondly remember the cars of yore, back when they were lighter, more "simple," and arguably more fun to drive. But times change, and I'm sure that those were fond of the so-so '70s models hated the changes of the '80s, and so on.

I think, at least to me, back then it was a game of where you had to prove something to be counted, somewhat different compared to today. Back then, nobody really "wanted" (at least, not as I recall) a Toyota Cressidia or Camry, a Honda Accord or Prelude... They had to prove their cars were superior to others, and quite frankly, it took a lot for them to do so. Fast-forward 20 years, Toyota and Honda sell on name alone, much like how Chevrolet and Ford used to. Back then, you bought a Taurus because they were made in Atlanta, and you were proud to drive an American car... But then again, the Taurus was a good car when it first came out.

If we were to look at post-WWII decades in terms of cars, its a bit different every few years.

- 1947-1959: Classic decadence, restoring confidence, building relationships, setting the stage for an increasingly prosperous American market. Style was more about beauty, and engineers just began to understand where power came from.

- 1960-1969: Automotive renaissance across the world, western economies booming, home to many of the "late great" models. Style was more sexual in nature, and power came into fruition, more so than most had expected.

- 1970-1979: The start of the decline, or what I occasionally refer to as the "hangover," where companies got cocky, and knew they could sell on name alone. Cars were big, stupid, and looked it in many cases. Thus we saw the Japanese emerge.

- 1980-1989: The coming age of computers pushed for purpose-built design, and generally split the market into decidedly old-school products and the rather different new-school design and engineering models. Power figures were back up, and performance (in some cases) was not matched or exceeded again until the 21st century.

- 1990-1999: For America, I'd call this the largest case for "The Fall," for the rest of the world it was a major boom. Those companies who had been proving things since the '60s and '70s won-out, and we see the after-effects occurring right now. More or less, purpose gave out to emotion in some products, while in others purpose evolved into "attractive necessity" with rather boring, but somewhat nice-looking cars.

- 2000-2010: Personally, I'm calling this the new renaissance. Why? Power, style, performance similar to this has been exceptional, from nearly every automaker, and by the close of the decade, we will likely be seeing the best of what everyone has. With every company continuing to one-up each other year after year, after year, products are stellar.

...IMO, there is plenty to look forward to, the only problem is, what you are looking forward to will likely be addressed by a single company, and it may or may not be the one you like as of now.

 

[High-Test]

Question..

Who in the hell is going to find a "Intelligent parking system chip" for an LS460 in 25 years?

 

[TopHat]

Answer:

No where. See Lincoln Mark VIII.

 

[a6m5]

No where. See Lincoln Mark VIII.

And when they are available, they cost almost as much as the car itself is worth.

 

[harrytuttle]

1) Many cars switched from rear-drive to front-drive drivetrain layouts. This wasn't necessarily a bad thing, especially for many American cars, since many of the rear-drive cars weren't sporting to begin with, and the shift to front-wheel drive meant far lighter, and resulting suspension re-designs meant better handling cars anyhow.

I remember this as taking place rather quickly, and staying pretty uninteresting until the late 90's. You can pretty much map it all out on the lifespan of the Corvette C4. Honda and Toyota had already done their "front-drive revolution" thing by 1976, and Nissan/Toyota/Mazda didn't get hardcore into sports cars until the mid-90's anyway. That left the predictable Germans, plodding along until the acquisition phase of...the late 90's.

2) Convertibles nearly disappeared from the radar in the first half of the 1980s due to crash testing and safety regulations.

3) Certain imports (Fiat, Lancia, Pininfarina et al) brought here in tiny batches disappeared by the mid-1980s.

Thus adding to my impression of stagnation. Ferrari & Lamborghini were cool too look at, but nothing forced their hand until the NSX debuted. The absence of convertibles is un-fun by any standards.

This view is very US-centric, of course. Looking back at how Europe was evolving, they leaped far ahead of the US market with their front-drive demon-hatches, AMG & M-Division's rise to prominence, and WRC. All of that was all but absent from North America until 1993. That leaves a good 15 years of the wasteland that was the USDM.

 

[YSSMAN]

Well, it isn't as though everything sucked in that period of time.

- GM had a good thing going with the G-bodies (Monte Carlo, Cutlass, Regal, etc), the B-bodies were pretty decent (but ancient) cars, but if we're talking strictly compacts, GM didn't get that sorted out until recently (say, 2005).
- Ford still had the Fox Body to play on, and we know how that worked out. Otherwise, the Thunderbird was still an impressive car in most circles, and we always forget that the Taurus changed the family car game for everyone.
- Chrysler however floundered like most others, although the K-Car and the Minivan are ultimately what saved the company in the era after the blunders with Renault and AMC/Eagle. Sport models altogether were few and far between, and as I recall, most of the "good" ones were actually Mitsubishis.

In total honesty, America really didn't catch onto things until a few years ago. It was like a vacuum tube from 1973 to 2003, 30 years of otherwise sub-par models with very few stand-out vehicles. But lets be honest, the American "change" these days is mostly due to the fact that they've realized that its better to act as a GLOBAL company that they are, and take the good things from Europe, Asia, Australia, and America to make their cars better around the world.

 

[Pupik]

You can pretty much map it all out on the lifespan of the Corvette C4.

Ah, but the Fox-body Mustang stuck around for so long, there is a geological epoch* named after it.

This view is very US-centric, of course. Looking back at how Europe was evolving, they leaped far ahead of the US market with their front-drive demon-hatches, AMG & M-Division's rise to prominence, and WRC. All of that was all but absent from North America until 1993. That leaves a good 15 years of the wasteland that was the USDM.

Actually, a little bit here and there was missing from our markets, usually in the form of hatchbacks (save the VW GTI), and a handful of exotics. The real lunacy was the mid-to-late-1970s, when many cars were going though their teenage years of getting fat and/or ugly, and sitting around on the sofa all day instead of outside playing sports or getting some fresh air. Damn EPA.

You can't say we had a wasteland, as you could find sports cars of all types; it's easy to look at most cars from the 1980s and think about how underpowered they were compared to today -- nowadays, Car and Driver seems to feel that any car with 0-to-60 times of over 7 seconds is slow -- but they were the norm for those days.

* = Not quite true. But since the Corvette C3 is a sub-epoch, why not?

 

[Bram Turismo]

Are we looking forward to the future?

Let's make some comparisons:

No we aren't...

 

[Orion]

The NSX just keeps getting worse.

 

[Duke]

The NSX just keeps getting worse.

With all due respect, if you think that picture represents even slightly what the new NSX is going to look like, I have some waterfront property in Florida and a nice little money-maker in Brooklyn I'd like you to see.

 

[harrytuttle]

In total honesty, America really didn't catch onto things until a few years ago. It was like a vacuum tube from 1973 to 2003, 30 years of otherwise sub-par models with very few stand-out vehicles. But lets be honest, the American "change" these days is mostly due to the fact that they've realized that its better to act as a GLOBAL company that they are, and take the good things from Europe, Asia, Australia, and America to make their cars better around the world.

I think that's part of it. The other part is learning from the brands they had purchased/partnered with in the 80's and 90's. But having lived through the entire run from before the "stagnation", I view the proliferation of sports cars (or muscle cars, as it were) as the canary in the coalmine of automotive evolution. When manufacturers are in a horsepower/performance battle all sorts of good things happen for them. People get excited about cars in general, money starts to pour in due to increased sales on more expensive models, and new ideas come faster than in other periods in order to compete or even keep up. This may not be the direct cause of the creation of revolutionary cars like the Mini, but such cars appear during these periods.

Granted, I've only got about 120 years of history to work with, and only 3 real eras of performance cars, so the data's a bit fuzzy right now. The pattern fits, though, especially when you look at the 1955-1970 era.

And, uh, I don't think 25 years of the Fox body can be considered proper evolution by any standard.

Actually, a little bit here and there was missing from our markets, usually in the form of hatchbacks (save the VW GTI), and a handful of exotics. The real lunacy was the mid-to-late-1970s, when many cars were going though their teenage years of getting fat and/or ugly, and sitting around on the sofa all day instead of outside playing sports or getting some fresh air. Damn EPA.

Yeah, I think just about all of America had its head in the sand from the 60's on through to the early 80's when it came to the environment (although you could argue it still does). This was the real crux of the problem. So much effort was spent just trying to figure out how to bring excitement to cars while still meeting the new raft of environmental and safety regulations. Sure, they could have spent the first half of the 70's doing that while they still had money before the recession (another sure cause), but where's the fun in that?

Again, having experienced it all first-hand, it was just not a good time to be a car guy. There was some fun to be had with the Golf and CRX et. al., but the interior on those then-new cars looked and felt at least 10 years old. That made any progress seem non-existent. Cars like the Caravan and the Taurus were hardly revolutionary; their couterparts existed years before in the VW Microbus and Toyota Camry. The Caravan & Taurus were necessary just to survive. Miraculously, they weren't total crap.

 

[YSSMAN]

And, uh, I don't think 25 years of the Fox body can be considered proper evolution by any standard.

No, not really, but you can consider it a testament to how pig-headed we can be about our cars in America. Funny thing is, I have a Motor Trend in my room at my Dad's house from 1993 that was calling for the Fox Body replacement, 12 years before anything happened.

Again, having experienced it all first-hand, it was just not a good time to be a car guy.

I wasn't alive for much of the '80s, but from what I do remember, it wasn't a very good time. My judgment of these cars usually comes based on old Maximas, 626s, and the long-lived Prelude Si that we still have to this day. They weren't stellar cars by any means, but they were pretty good cars for the time. But then again, when it comes to sentimental feelings, the '80s will always be remembered by the '81 Chevrolet Caprice Coupe my father had. The car sucked by today's standards, but we loved it, and my Dad is still kicking himself for selling it.

Cars like the Caravan and the Taurus were hardly revolutionary; their couterparts existed years before in the VW Microbus and Toyota Camry. The Caravan & Taurus were necessary just to survive. Miraculously, they weren't total crap.

Again, very true. But the Microbus (as well as the Vangon) never had the kind of penetration in the market as the Caravan did, and generally speaking, really didn't do much to shape the entire marketplace. There had been vans for decades, but the Caravan made it a reasonable way of doing things for women and thereby families, which may have been the biggest key to its success.

As for the Taurus, its hard to say. When it debuted in '86, it just blew everything out of the water. No, it wasn't a significantly better car really in many respects (keep in mind, most were convinced it would fail), but the size and FWD made it an instant success. It made Honda move the size up on the Accord, and furthermore, set the standard for the class well into the '90s (1996 being the last "good" year for the car before losing out to Toyota).

===

The question of the future largely has to be about how a car company can revive, or follow-up on a great car, or how they can screw it up. The Taurus is an excellent example, which went from a tour de force in the industry, to a total flop by the time it died earlier this year.

And is a re-badged Fivehundred going to save it?

No, probably not.

But then you look at companies like BMW, who generally tend to make their products better, and better, and better (depends on who you ask), and you've got to wonder when that train ends. People thought the same for Toyota with the Camry, but we're already seeing that tipping on the tracks...

 

[Turbo Lag]

I reckon all the new car designers are trying to make all cars look more muscley. If you get what i mean. Look at the Evo to see what i mean.Its looks sharp and "big". If i say the new Evo was sharp, i would say the old Evo was blunt (In a good way). I like both designs but i like the old one better 👍

 

[Orion]

Before:

After:

The Lotus Elise used to be my favorite car, everything was perfect for this car IMO, and it was more lightweight.

But now it just looks like some type of bug from another planet, and it weights more than the Opel Speedster Turbo.

 

[picklesam]

being a merc fan i nearly cried when the new s class coupe came out...
my fav which is the 80s coupe:

to this ugly new one...

but i think they've done well on the new c class..much more handsome than the last gen..

from this:

to this:

 

[Prosthetic]

No we aren't...

Um... yeah, to bad that is a concept and not a production. And most future car pics that you guys have been showing are concepts. And the NSX in a S2000 body, thats a test mule for there new engine. Maybe you should read about them before you just go to google images. The new Skyline is beutiful, and I would have to say that a lot of new sports cars that are coming out in the next couple years to do.

 

[Bram Turismo]

Um... yeah, to bad that is a concept and not a production.

http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/features/0608sccp_2008_nissan_gtr/


Um....yeah, too bad

 

[Speedster502]

In answer to this question, I am not sure. There are a few designs that I do actually like as an example the Aston Martin Rapide which is a way better design than the Lagonda which was Aston's last 4 door. But then there are others that are well...urm....disgusting. The Nissan Skyline is definitly one of them, but then again I never liked the Skyline in the first place. So I am a varied kind of person at this stage.

 

[TopHat]

The new GTR looks cool! I don't think that most of you would mind anyway, it should perform with the best. Thats what matters.

 

[Orion]

The new GTR looks cool! I don't think that most of you would mind anyway, it should perform with the best. Thats what matters.

I disagree... The new GTR just clobbered the GTR series IMO, and not in a good way. The R32 was a classic, bringing back the Skyline fanbase, and making noise worldwide. The R33 was cool, and the R34 was even better, well then again, not many skyline whores would be into the R34 if it weren't for the 2F2F movie. I'm not talking about performance, but just late a good look at each of the Skylines.

 

[Duke]

I repeat:

 

[Wolfe]

to this ugly new one...

The AMG version looks a lot better, because it gets rid of the dopey grin:

 

[jammyozzy]

Okay, let's take a step away from all the awesome-but-ugly cars for a second, and take a gander at a couple of 'regular' cars. The Ford Mondeo for example has gone from being a jelly mould:

To not bad:

To "Oh my god I want one."

So yes, I'm looking forward to the future of some cars.

 

[Sage]

My dial-up hurts.

You know what I’m beginning to realize? It’s all because of the Germans. Almost every significant flaw in auto design today is because of the Germans (then copied by the Japanese). BMW and Audi in particular have done a really good job of leading the car design world astray.

 

[Wolfe]

My dial-up hurts.

You know what I’m beginning to realize? It’s all because of the Germans. Almost every significant flaw in auto design today is because of the Germans (then copied by the Japanese). BMW and Audi in particular have done a really good job of leading the car design world astray.

You're just now realizing that everyone always copies the Germans? It's been that way since 1886.

I disagree with the idea that BMW and Audi are leading everyone astray, though. The A4, A5, A6, A8 (and S/RS variants), Mk.2 TT, and R8 all look fantastic, and everything that BMW makes that isn't an SUV ranges from "acceptable" to "incredible." These days the 1-series coupe in particular is really growing on me.

Of course, BMW's proposed additions to the X-series range and the Concept CS are awful, so maybe the future isn't so bright in München.

 

[harrytuttle]

The question of the future largely has to be about how a car company can revive, or follow-up on a great car, or how they can screw it up. The Taurus is an excellent example, which went from a tour de force in the industry, to a total flop by the time it died earlier this year.

And is a re-badged Fivehundred going to save it?

No, probably not.

But then you look at companies like BMW, who generally tend to make their products better, and better, and better (depends on who you ask), and you've got to wonder when that train ends. People thought the same for Toyota with the Camry, but we're already seeing that tipping on the tracks...

I don't think it's going to save the name (or the company) either. It may tarnish it somewhat, like a poorly remade movie, but mostly people just remember the old one and ignore the new one. What all American companies need to do (you know what I'm going to say here...) is to consolidate their product line and simplify their operations. That not only reduces their expenses, but could bring some truly great cars to the US from abroad, and vice-versa. Well, maybe not so much "vice-versa".

If Ford has any common sense, the Taurus will exist in name only for this year, and next year will be placed on Europe's Mondeo. If there's anything that can counter the blandness of the Accord and Camry, it's the new Mondeo. Now that would be a good remake.

I disagree with the idea that BMW and Audi are leading everyone astray, though. The A4, A5, A6, A8 (and S/RS variants), Mk.2 TT, and R8 all look fantastic, and everything that BMW makes that isn't an SUV ranges from "acceptable" to "incredible." These days the 1-series coupe in particular is really growing on me.

I don't think they're leading anyone astray, but people are copying them and getting lost along the way, totally on their own accord. But this is not to say that the Germans are doing the right thing every time anyway. The S-class is not quite as graceful as before, and BMW has been struggling to gain acceptance for its image for years now...not that it held back sales or anything. What I do think is good about all of this is that it's forcing people to try; to be somewhat daring. Other manufacturers, particularly from Japan, need a good kick in the butt to try something new, something not egg-shaped. They still need work, though. Daring needs to be tempered with talent....

Of course, BMW's proposed additions to the X-series range and the Concept CS are awful, so maybe the future isn't so bright in München.

Yeah, I don't know what people are seeing in the CS. It's awkwardly proportioned, clumsily detailed, and while it looks shark-like, it has exactly none of the grace found even in common nurse sharks. It's a stinker.