Why are cars so berkeleying ugly?

I'm angry with cars right now. Not all, just newer cars that can carry four full size people, don't cost an arm and a leg (can be found used for under $20K), and don't suck the life out of you ever time you climb in. They are all so uninspiring to look at. Yes, if you are looking for an aerodynamic shape, you eventually arrive at all cars looking pretty much the same. I get that. It sucks.

I like my MINI, but it's not working all that well as my kids get bigger. And it's slowly falling apart as they are wont to do. BTW, I don't think it's gorgeous, but at least it doesn't look like everything else (save for the Ford Flex, which looks like a giant MINI).

On a high note, I did see a beautiful Aston Martin over the weekend while on a walk with my fiancee. Made me want to weep. Great sound too.

Just venting. Thanks.

Cars are no longer designed by people who love cars. It's bean counters and contract engineers that were building soap dispensers last week.

I somehow doubt beancounters were what got that gorgeous wagon up there released to the public. At least in V trim.

I got into a discussion last night about cars with a couple of women. They both said how cool they thought the Juke was. By the end of it all, I damn near wept.

A lot of the reason why a lot of cars are so ugly these days is because of this:

Since there was no real requirement to make SUV safe for collisions with car, cars had to adjust. Yes, that's right, another reason why...

SUV's suck.

In reply to aircooled:

Pedestrians suck too.

Grizz wrote: In reply to aircooled: Pedestrians suck too.

Troof. Say what you will about pedestrian safety, I'd be willing to bet we need more front impact safety simply because we've all become fatasses.

Automotive styling was perfected in 1965:

It's been downhill ever since.

The new high bumper rule doesn't help ascetics. But hey now if you get hit by a car you only break a femur, hip, tibia and fibula instead of just the tibia and fibula.

There was a joke back in the 70's about how the '73 Monte Carlo came to look so ugly (It really doesn't look that ugly to me now, but after the '70-72 version, it sure did then). Rumor had it that GM had done all this customer research, focus groups, etc.... And the car ended up that way because they tried to please everyone. This just ends up in a disjointed design, instead of a flowing, elegant design like the Riv two posts up. Maybe that explains the Juke...

Trans_Maro wrote: Automotive styling was perfected in 1965: It's been downhill ever since.

That is nice, but there were some earlier cars that are, IMNSHO, just as awesome

Out of those three, the Riveria is the only beautiful one to me. The Caddy is an over the top styling exsercise, certainly a classic, and would be fun to tool around in, but to my eyes not beautiful. The 40's cars can be interesting, but nothing beautiful about that thing either to me. I realize this is a totally subjective thing here.

Trans_Maro wrote: Automotive styling was perfected in 1965: It's been downhill ever since.

It depends which brand you're talking about. Everybodies peak was at different times.

Why are cars so berkeleying ugly?

Because people who buy them do not demand beauty in exchange for money.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

Why are cars so berkeleying ugly?

Because people who buy them do not demand beauty in exchange for money.

Ah... so the same reason there are ugly hookers.

I think Ford heard you, especially the Aston Martin part:

A call to the Tire Rack away from being pretty hot:

ThePhranc wrote:

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

Why are cars so berkeleying ugly?

Because people who buy them do not demand beauty in exchange for money.

Ah... so the same reason there are ugly hookers.

Indeed. Those that do demand beauty expect to pay handsomely. Especially if it is also a truly inspired ride.

pinchvalve wrote: A call to the Tire Rack away from being pretty hot:

Agreed. Now if they'd just give me a luxo-package turbo car with a man pedal.....

In reply to pinchvalve:

For everyday cars, Kia is my current favorite in styling. At least the Optima and Forte.

pinchvalve wrote: A call to the Tire Rack away from being pretty hot:

I think thats decent just the way it is.

Mazda had it with the 1st gen 3 as well. They went ahead and screwed it up with the joker nose- but I think if the cx-5 is any indicator, we're heading back in the right direction.

ThePhranc wrote: The new high bumper rule doesn't help ascetics. But hey now if you get hit by a car you only break a femur, hip, tibia and fibula instead of just the tibia and fibula.

I think the bigger concern is they're trying to take away the "chop block" action, which throws your head into the (engine) head... The higher up they can get the point of rotation (up towards pedestrian Cg) will reduce the turning motion...

JoeyM wrote:

Trans_Maro wrote: Automotive styling was perfected in 1965: It's been downhill ever since.

That is nice, but there were some earlier cars that are, IMNSHO, just as awesome

That '41 Willys Americar takes me back.

My dad was a dealer.