Have at it. I'm too drunk to contribute right now but this has been inspired by a '72 Buick trunk lid. 
Have at it. I'm too drunk to contribute right now but this has been inspired by a '72 Buick trunk lid.
Steel costs too much. Imagine how heavy modern cars would be if the doors were made like cars in the 70's AND you had modern crash beams AND power everything AND modern sound deadening. I'm always amazed at how incredibly light the skin on a modern car is compared to old ones.
Mandated fuel economy and mandated crash standards.
The manufacturers have to make the cars as lights as they can for economy, but still also meet crash standards. It's quite a balancing act. Then throw in emission standards on top of it all.
Cars have insane weight involved in all the electronics so, weight must be saved somewhere. Plus, in all honestly, a 72 Buick isn't remotely as safe as a modern car, if that is where you're headed. And weight directly affects fuel economy.
I feel this is less a questioning of weight and efficiency, more of a looks question.
Why can't we have a car that 'Looks' like a direct copy of the original copy (any car would suffice, I'm partial to the lines of a 67 Impala 2 door) but built to present safety and efficiency standards?
I get that the Camaro, Mustang and Challenger all have the 'retro styling', but why only apply this to pony/muscle cars? Why is the Impala for example a round jellybean of a car when it could be built to 'look' retro as well.
At least, this is were my thoughts go to when I look at older cars after a few drinks.
I get the safety and economy standards, but I have yet to find a car that is as comfortable as a mid 90s LeSabre with leather seats. Also the trunk space! Too bad all the ones I can find are more dead than not these days.
retro is cute and all that, but I find vehicles that build on that to be better. Cars like the Corvette and the 911 where you can clearly see an evolutionary link to their forebears. If I wanted a car that looked like a 72 impala, I would buy a 72 impala.
Aerodynamics. Superbird and Daytona aside, cool looking classic cars were rarely aerodynamic. Pushing a barn door cost gas, and your average appliance buyer wants MPGs.
In reply to DjGreggieP :
honestly out of all the cars on the market that could be retro but aren't, the only one i think would do better would be the impala. a retro styled impala with an optional v8 & RWD would probably steal a lot of wind out of the charger.
Honestly I miss body on frame and SLA suspensions. I have yet to drive a strut suspended unit body that rides worth a damn. Way too harsh. I like when you throw one of those big old beats into a corner and everything kinda lurches over until it takes a set. Why can't modern cars ride worth a damn?
I'm just always amazed that a modern 2 door weighs more then my station wagon. Then again the stock fox chassis isn't the most rigid thing built.
Nick Comstock said:Honestly I miss body on frame and SLA suspensions. I have yet to drive a strut suspended unit body that rides worth a damn. Way too harsh. I like when you throw one of those big old beats into a corner and everything kinda lurches over until it takes a set. Why can't modern cars ride worth a damn?
mostly because people do not want a "waterbed on wheels" as my mother used to refer to my father's grand marquis and towncars. She, like myself, much preferred the tauter ride of european like ride.
In reply to mad_machine :
So your saying I'm not people? Cause that's exactly what I want out here in the land of the terrible constructed roadways and arrow straight, flat roads. My answer would be different if I lived somewhere that had decent quality roads that has bends in them. Although I still prefer the driving experience of my old 64 Electra 225 to anything I've driven built since 1980.
MazdaFace said:In reply to DjGreggieP :
honestly out of all the cars on the market that could be retro but aren't, the only one i think would do better would be the impala. a retro styled impala with an optional v8 & RWD would probably steal a lot of wind out of the charger.
What generation of Impala would you pick? There have been ten generations of them so far, going back to 1958.
In reply to Nick Comstock :
You'd be good friends with James May.
In reply to ThunderCougarFalconGoat :
I'd like to think so
markwemple said:Cars have insane weight involved in all the electronics so, weight must be saved somewhere. Plus, in all honestly, a 72 Buick isn't remotely as safe as a modern car, if that is where you're headed. And weight directly affects fuel economy.
The electronics CUT weight a lot of times. Having everything networked means you only need a couple thin gauge twisted-pair wires running around from here to there. Compare to, say, a mid 80s 928, which had the passenger footwell literally filled with a junction box full of relatively heavy gauge wires feeding into connectors, because every module that needed access to a switch or sensor had to get it directly, and the window switches passed current directly so there were heavy gauge wires running to and from the doors, and so on and so forth. And the wiring diagram was three dimensional, a feature that I grew to appreciate.
IIRC, Lexus dropped 100lb from the LS400 when they started networking, just from wiring.
Appleseed said:Aerodynamics. Superbird and Daytona aside, cool looking classic cars were rarely aerodynamic. Pushing a barn door cost gas, and your average appliance buyer wants MPGs.
Your average appliance buyer doesn't give a crap about MPG, which is why your average appliance buyer is buying a truck.
In reply to Nick Comstock :
My R63 is pretty damn close to a waterbed on wheels while retaining some semblance of steering feel. Proper heavy cars that don't have payload needs (so trucks/SUV) can be remarkably plush. I've really only been in modernish Mercedes for any length of time, but I wonder if the new generation of Chrysler 300 might be like that? Do any of the new big Japanese super luxury cars have it?
mazdeuce - Seth said:In reply to Nick Comstock :
My R63 is pretty damn close to a waterbed on wheels while retaining some semblance of steering feel. Proper heavy cars that don't have payload needs (so trucks/SUV) can be remarkably plush. I've really only been in modernish Mercedes for any length of time, but I wonder if the new generation of Chrysler 300 might be like that? Do any of the new big Japanese super luxury cars have it?
Cheat mode.
"Comfort" feels like a LeSabre with worn out shocks. "Sport" feels like a proper European car, firm but pleasant. (we don't use "Advanced" until summer. You can feel the snow tires' tread blocks hitting the ground)
Given the state of tech with magnetorheollogical dampers, I would EXPECT this kind of driver-defined ride to be more common, but it doesn't seem to be.
stuart in mn said:MazdaFace said:In reply to DjGreggieP :
honestly out of all the cars on the market that could be retro but aren't, the only one i think would do better would be the impala. a retro styled impala with an optional v8 & RWD would probably steal a lot of wind out of the charger.
What generation of Impala would you pick? There have been ten generations of them so far, going back to 1958.
I am a sucker for the 67. The first model car I properly built was a 67, just something about it has always been in the back of my head of its visually just 'right'
In reply to DjGreggieP :
exactly the bodystyle i had in mind. great minds think alike
I have often wondered how sales would have been for the mustang, camaro, and challenger if instead of retro styling, they would have done an exact exterior copy of the cars they were trying to emulate. Sure there would have been aero disadvantages costing some fuel mileage, but the people buying these cars aren't doing it because they are practical.
Knurled. said:Appleseed said:Aerodynamics. Superbird and Daytona aside, cool looking classic cars were rarely aerodynamic. Pushing a barn door cost gas, and your average appliance buyer wants MPGs.
Your average appliance buyer doesn't give a crap about MPG, which is why your average appliance buyer is buying a truck.
They sure are hell aren't buying Buicks and Camrys for looks. Are they? !?
gearheadmb said:I have often wondered how sales would have been for the mustang, camaro, and challenger if instead of retro styling, they would have done an exact exterior copy of the cars they were trying to emulate. Sure there would have been aero disadvantages costing some fuel mileage, but the people buying these cars aren't doing it because they are practical.
The irony is years before the retro craze, custom builders were trying to make the old iron look modern . That's the reason for tweed interiors and monochromatic paint jobs of the 80s/90s.
The retro cars just met them in the middle.
You'll need to log in to post.
