What Car Designs Have Stood the Test of Time?

In reply to rslifkin :

I have looked at several.  I'm torn because the iL sport is a fantastic ride, but a bit hard to find in a not-wasted condition.  My other option is the X308.  The bimmer is a better whip, but I'm not sure I can afford the upkeep compared to a Ford-era Jag

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

The iL sport is just an appearance thing, blacked out trim, M-parallel wheels, seats and steering wheel. The short wheelbase also got the lower final drive ratio and suspension package to go with it.

My dad bought an 01 740i Sport used off lease around 2004 and it was a pretty special car. We did a track day with it through the dealership right after he got it and that big car was so balanced and capable out there at the cost of the tires lol.

Unless my ancient eyes are deceiving me, I see no mention of one of the most timeless designs of all, the Z32 era 300ZX, of course I'm somewhat prejudiced here, but come on, it's still great looking after all these years, and especially compared to all the later Z's ( including the phantom 400). It's a car I can sit in the garage with a cold adult beverage and stare at for hours. Even better when sitting inside it looking out whilst navigating winding back roads.

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

Adam has it right that the short wheelbase sports got the best goodies.  Maintenance wise, they're not that bad.  Other than the timing chain guide issue.  Beyond that, just keep an eye on suspension parts for wear, don't ignore the cooling system and keep up with any maintenance it wants.  They're not awful to work on and parts cost isn't terrible either.  It's the labor cost on some jobs if you don't DIY that's the killer.  I've DD-ed mine for 2.5 years and it hasn't tried to eat me alive yet.  And it's been only slightly less reliable than gravity.  

I have a different take on this whole thing.  First off we need to define what "Standing the test of time" means. 

Google was helpful and defined it as: "To remain useful or valued over a long period of time; to last a long time. "

That has me going Hummmm.. . . .    Most of the cars proposed in this thread are certainly valued but are they still useful?  And that begs me to ask Useful at what?  As being a car that can be used in the modern sense?  Most older cars are not very useful if you use that definition.  Cool?  Absolutely!!!  But useful?  That made me ponder things.

I think saying a car is has stood the test of time can be applied to a specific element of a car. Take the Jag Collin posted up.  The body design of that car has absolutely stood the test of time.  I mean I would by a modern car that looked like that today.  The driveline on the other hand not so much.   I realize that this is extremely subjective. But with all the cars people has posted up I would argue that many have not stood the test of time.  They are many "cool cars"  There are many cars that "set the bar" for something at that period in time.  Many could even be considered "Iconic".    But if a car has to be "useful or valued over a long period of time" that weeds out many of them. 

I think an easier better standard for cars to meet is if they are Iconic.  Cars that for some reason made a statement or were unique or cutting edge or moved the bar in some aspect of automotive design.

The problem is that many cars that I would like to say have stood the test of time really have not.  They are cool cars (take the 944 or the first jen rx7) and they are both Iconic and really cool but they really have not stood the test of time.

In a weird way my current DD, a 9 year old Mercedes I think at the moment you could say it has stood the test of time.  It was the first year of the last design.  It still performs as good or better than most modern cars.  It still is useful (I drive it every day for work) and it is as useful as any modern awd sedan on the market today.  It even looks current and could be mistaken as a much newer car.  So at the moment my car has stood the test of time very well.  BUT I bet in another 5 years things will be different.  Mercedes will probably be on to another generation of design and the ground pounding V8 will now be looked at with distain as the modern cars will have some form of electric propulsion that will probably greatly surpass its performance.  It will probably be safer and generally easier to drive.  At that point my car will not have stood the test of time.  So this leads me to another question with "standing the test of time"  How much time defines standing the test of time?       

Anyway I have rambled on long enough.  I thought it was an interesting thing to ponder and take a deeper dive into what is the definition of and what is the litmus test that a car has to meet to be considered to have stood the test of time.

I will go a little newer but also point out this is 14 years old...
 

I figure my definition of "timeless design" is different, because there is not one picture yet, other than the Audi just above, that looks new.  All of them are very, very different when compared to anything modern, so, not timeless.  Just looking at them, it is easy to assign an age, or an era.

I still like lots of them listed, so I guess they are attractive, or could still be driven as a regular vehicle, but not my definition of timeless.

An American Standard toilet in white is timeless.  There may be other, newer or older designs, but you have been able to purchase a standard, white toilet for a very long time, and it would take a critical eye to tell the age of one.  Pink, or olive green toilet?  Not timeless.

Miura

GT40

Citroen DS

Jeep 

Mini

In reply to Streetwiseguy :

I agree there's a difference between "still looks good" and timeless.

On the other hand is a design timeless because a manufacturer is stubborn, like the 911?

I think the DB9 is one until they added LEDs later on.

dean1484 said:

I have a different take on this whole thing.  First off we need to define what "Standing the test of time" means. 

Google was helpful and defined it as: "To remain useful or valued over a long period of time; to last a long time. "

That has me going Hummmm.. . . .    Most of the cars proposed in this thread are certainly valued but are they still useful?  And that begs me to ask Useful at what?  As being a car that can be used in the modern sense?  Most older cars are not very useful if you use that definition.  Cool?  Absolutely!!!  But useful?  That made me ponder things.

I think saying a car is has stood the test of time can be applied to a specific element of a car. Take the Jag Collin posted up.  The body design of that car has absolutely stood the test of time.  I mean I would by a modern car that looked like that today.  The driveline on the other hand not so much.   I realize that this is extremely subjective. But with all the cars people has posted up I would argue that many have not stood the test of time.  They are many "cool cars"  There are many cars that "set the bar" for something at that period in time.  Many could even be considered "Iconic".    But if a car has to be "useful or valued over a long period of time" that weeds out many of them. 

I think an easier better standard for cars to meet is if they are Iconic.  Cars that for some reason made a statement or were unique or cutting edge or moved the bar in some aspect of automotive design.

The problem is that many cars that I would like to say have stood the test of time really have not.  They are cool cars (take the 944 or the first jen rx7) and they are both Iconic and really cool but they really have not stood the test of time.

In a weird way my current DD, a 9 year old Mercedes I think at the moment you could say it has stood the test of time.  It was the first year of the last design.  It still performs as good or better than most modern cars.  It still is useful (I drive it every day for work) and it is as useful as any modern awd sedan on the market today.  It even looks current and could be mistaken as a much newer car.  So at the moment my car has stood the test of time very well.  BUT I bet in another 5 years things will be different.  Mercedes will probably be on to another generation of design and the ground pounding V8 will now be looked at with distain as the modern cars will have some form of electric propulsion that will probably greatly surpass its performance.  It will probably be safer and generally easier to drive.  At that point my car will not have stood the test of time.  So this leads me to another question with "standing the test of time"  How much time defines standing the test of time?       

Anyway I have rambled on long enough.  I thought it was an interesting thing to ponder and take a deeper dive into what is the definition of and what is the litmus test that a car has to meet to be considered to have stood the test of time.

I appreciate your literal input, but I think the timbre of the discussion was simply design-related.  Which cars' appearance and visual design has endured.  I linked to a DB4 and a MkIII Triumph.  Neither of those have any practicality, reliability, nor real-world drivability, but I think the appearance of those cars is just as sexy now as it was then.

I understood the implication of the post to be "what looked good then, what still looks good now."

So to extrapolate from the definition you found:  To remain useful or valued over a long period of time, I don't think that we're talking about the practical, reliable, or functional use of the vehicle itself, we're discussing the aesthetic of the vehicle's appearance.  "Useful" in this context means, "does it still make our hootus tingle," not "will it be a practical choice for a DD."

We're not asking if the CAR remains useful, we're asking if the ART still plays to our hearts.

Streetwiseguy said:

I figure my definition of "timeless design" is different, because there is not one picture yet, other than the Audi just above, that looks new.  All of them are very, very different when compared to anything modern, so, not timeless.  Just looking at them, it is easy to assign an age, or an era.

I still like lots of them listed, so I guess they are attractive, or could still be driven as a regular vehicle, but not my definition of timeless.

An American Standard toilet in white is timeless.  There may be other, newer or older designs, but you have been able to purchase a standard, white toilet for a very long time, and it would take a critical eye to tell the age of one.  Pink, or olive green toilet?  Not timeless.

Most of the designs posted here don't look new, but you can look at them and still think they look good.  Unlike, say, a 1997 Taurus.  You look back at that design and are left thinking "wow, what were they thinking back then?"

I dont think stood the test of time means that it still looks new. I think it just means it still looks good, even through todays eyes and fashion/design trends.

Think about it in terms of art. You have timeless art thats still appreciated today but it doesnt look new

One test is if people bothered to take good care of the cars. For instance, when was the last time you saw a Ford EXP or a Chevette? (Might be a little different in redneckville)  Yet while I often see older BMWs, I rarely see roached out ones.  

The Usual Timeless: FD RX7, 65/66 Mustang, 69 Chevelle, 510, Landcruiser  FJ40, Shelby Cobra, 90s Supra

Personal Quirks: Bumpside/Dentside/OBS(94-97) Ford Trucks, 86 Z31(zenki taillights with the smooth fenders), Willys CJ3B, Conquest/Starion, Lotus/Locust 7s

In reply to Colin Wood :

Are race cars included?  How about Curtis Race cars. Both Midgets and sprints?  
    

When I first read this "design that stood the test of time", I had one thought.

While not a huge fan myself, I think the '65 Mustang fits the bill in that the proportions and design theme has been carried through with continuous use even up to today's models.  Discard the Mustang II and the new Mustang EV and one look at any Mustang and you know its a mustang. A strong design theme/influence for 55+ years.

RustBeltSherpa said:

In reply to Tom1200 :

Totally agree.

How about some Euro picks

Obvious: Lamborghini Miura, DeTomaso Mangusta/Pantera, Mercedes 230/250/280SL, C111-C1,C2.

Not so obvious: Fiat 124 coupe/roadster, Ferrari Dino, Alpine 110, Alfa Romeo Montreal. It's a Gabriella vs. Sofia thing. 

the 124 looked so good it came back as a modern car.

I am sorry, I know everyone drools all over the E-type, but there are some areas on that car that ruin the whole design for me.  The Cockpit area on the roadster leaves a lot to be desired and for me the whole car looks to be about a foot too long.  I would take an Austin Healy over an E.

Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:

One test is if people bothered to take good care of the cars. For instance, when was the last time you saw a Ford EXP or a Chevette? (Might be a little different in redneckville)  Yet while I often see older BMWs, I rarely see roached out ones.  

There's one in excellent condition that I occasionally see running around my town.

Doesn't mean it was a great or timeless design. And there are plenty of crapbox E30's and other BMW's out there.

The argument above stating that old cars can't be used as daily drivers is false. They just require more maintenance. And guess what. They did when they were new as well compared to modern cars.

It just depends on if the owner can live without modern conveniences and more frequent stops at the repair shop/weekends spent wrenching.

1969 Camaro is timeless.

And still looks great with modern wheels/suspension.

Chuck had one of these.  He never got to finish it and get it back on the road.  :-/

In reply to BigIron :

Nah... 70 RS/Z28 for me.  Split bumpers rule.

For something to be truly timeless, it has to avoid any styling cues unique to the period. Take Johnny Carson, a sharply dressed guy, but clearly from the 70's. Could not wear that today.

Now how about this suit from the 1920's?

Yep, could still wear that today. I would argue that no car can be truly timeless, they are affected by technology, safety regulations, materials, manufacturing know-how and so much more. All you can hope for is a car that people look at many years later and think, "that still looks good" and "I'd love to drive that." By that criteria, I think most of the cars on this list hit the mark.

My addition is the Lotus Elan

It was so right that Mazda just kept it going:

I also think that the S2000 has a classic shape with clean lines that betrays its age well.

I dont think the Viper has been mentions. Specifically the early GTS and the last gen styles

There is only one that has tested time and is still being built, the 911.