Why can't we build cars like that anymore?

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? 

The newest and most luxury Japanese car I've driven was my FIL's Toyota Avalon. While certainly better than most it's Nowhere near the ride quality of any of even the lowly mid 70's GM A bodies I've owned. The wife's new Lincoln MKC is way too harsh for me. 

Appleseed said:

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? !?

Buicks no... 2018 Camry SE & XSE? Yes, surprisingly enough.

In reply to nutherjrfan :

I owned a 1972 Buick Rivera. beautiful looking but it was a drunken foul mouthed commode kissing trouble making Bit-h.  

Appleseed said:

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. 

Great.  Now I am picturing a late model Challenger with a tweed interior.  And I'm digging it.

In reply to Knurled. : I'm leaning a modern Challenger with the interior from a "not actually a Challenger" Challenger. White exterior with dark red accents to boot. 

In reply to Grizz :

I LIKE it!!!

The 2018 Toyota Yaris iA (the rebadged Mazda 2) weighs 2400lbs. Don't tell me that light modern cars aren't possible.

If the stylists quit making ugly cars that looked like bad sci-fi projects or anonymous blobs maybe I'd go into debt and buy something new.

Get rid of all this tech crap (or at least make it optional) that the marketing folks push and the companies spend billions to make. (and drive up prices)

Why is nearly every new car interior like riding in a plastic bucket? Back in the 70'-80's even the cheapest Chevette had padded armrests and vinyl door cards.

Given the amount of bitching on this forum about how heavy new cars are now, can you imagine what it would look like if we still built cars like that?! 

Ohh look a car built before fea.  It’s going to be overengineered because that was the only way to build something without good data. 

Fueled by Caffeine said:

Ohh look a car built before fea.  It’s going to be overengineered because that was the only way to build something without good data. 

Read up on prewar and WWII aircraft engine development.  They might not have had FEA but there certainly WERE methods of getting good data.  My favorite technique, that is GRM-able, was painting engine components with brittle lacquer, running them on the dyno, then pulling it apart to see where the lacquer was cracking - that is where the parts were stressed.

For automotive engines, weight isn't much of a penalty, but for aircraft, throwing mass at the problem doesn't work.

Chrysler recently had this same idea.  Then GM had the same idea all over again.  And all we got was the PT (past tense) Cruiser and HHR (heritage high roof).

My question is, how come automakers just don't get it?   Bob Lutz is maybe the only guy who has a lick of sense.  The other tens-of-thousands are obviously inept.  

In reply to Knurled. :

I worked for Pratt and Whitney for a time.  Those engines are still massively over engineered.  

on the ride and comfort point, I have driven multiple vehicles from multiple decades with multiple suspension setups.  Shocks hardly make the most comfortable suspension.  A properly suspended unibody will be more comfortable than a body on frame, handle better, and weigh less.  it's all about design.  

DjGreggieP said:

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'

 

One of my older cousins bought a new SS427 Impala in 1967, it looked just like the one in your picture.  As a car crazy 11 year old, I was very impressed.  

I'm imagining that impala with an impact safety mandated high beltline, the massive A pillars for airbags, 4 doors because that's what people buy, and you know what?it's pretty much a 2006 Dodge charger

I would rather be behind an over engineered engine, than one that was paired down to the Nth degree. So would most other pilots. The edge of the envelope is littered with dead aviators.

Appleseed said:

I would rather be behind an over engineered engine, than one that was paired down to the Nth degree. So would most other pilots. The edge of the envelope is littered with dead aviators.

The part that I like is that type certification was for some ridiculously long period of time at max power.  1000 hours?  Been a while, but I remember being shocked by it. 

Really, really neat stuff.  And then jet engines were figured out and prop engine development went by the wayside.

OEM build cars people will buy (that they think people will buy).  Expectations of vehicle buyers are very different than 1972. Regulations are different. That's why they don't build the like they used to.

I feel like designed obsolesence is also a factor.  If a company builds a crappy plastic door handle then when it breaks the consumer will have to go to the stealership for a new one.  If enough little things break, they will just go get a new car.

Knurled. said:

Appleseed said:

I would rather be behind an over engineered engine, than one that was paired down to the Nth degree. So would most other pilots. The edge of the envelope is littered with dead aviators.

The part that I like is that type certification was for some ridiculously long period of time at max power.  1000 hours?  Been a while, but I remember being shocked by it. 

 

Really, really neat stuff.  And then jet engines were figured out and prop engine development went by the wayside.

 

 

with the new mandates for electric airplanes, we may start seeing a lot of interest in props again

Jumper K Balls said:

I'm imagining that impala with an impact safety mandated high beltline, the massive A pillars for airbags, 4 doors because that's what people buy, and you know what?it's pretty much a 2006 Dodge charger

But with redline tires 

There we go.

Pattyo said:

I feel like designed obsolesence is also a factor.  If a company builds a crappy plastic door handle then when it breaks the consumer will have to go to the stealership for a new one.  If enough little things break, they will just go get a new car.

An old boss of mine got rid of his Mini ( German one ) for just that reason. Another got rid of an Infiniti crossover for the same little problems. Funny. I would have taken either. For free.

yes, but you can do the work yourself. Most people would take it back to the dealer and once the warranty runs out.. it's a hundred here and a hundred there just to fix small things. It adds up fast in money and time to go without a car

Pattyo said:

I feel like designed obsolesence is also a factor.  If a company builds a crappy plastic door handle then when it breaks the consumer will have to go to the stealership for a new one.  If enough little things break, they will just go get a new car.

Problem with that is they do go get another car if enough things break, but not of the same make, which means the manufacturers that make them don't necessarily benefit from the designed obsolescence. So I really don't think that that's it.