You know you are getting old when:

[LizzieMaine]

Fifty years ago few would have mistaken a Jaguar sedan for a Ford, or vice-versa. Not anymore.

Few Americans fifty years ago would have ever *seen* a Jaguar unless they went to the zoo. I wouldn't be able to identify one of any vintage unless I walked right up to it and read the nameplate.

Luxury cars have always been a breed apart. The cars ordinary people drive have always looked pretty much the same as every other car on the street in their era -- perhaps not to devoted carspotters, but to the average person in the street. Small details of design don't change the fact that most cars you saw in 1940 looked like an endless procession of hard-shelled beetles rolling down the highway, most of them black or dark blue, with a few greens, maroons, tans, and greys livening things up. You didn't see too many Duesenbergs in the Free Parking lot at the First National.

I think also the ability to spot cars depends on how interested one is in the cars of a particular period. I can recognize most mainstream 1930s American cars, but other than the ones we owned while I was growing up, cars of The Fifties and sixties all look pretty much alike to me -- most fifties cars remind me of something Godzilla might fight in a Japanese horror movie, and sixties cars of middle-aged men sitting around outside Dunkies trying to convince twenty-something women that they're sporty.

As for the jellybean styling, well, we don't live in a world of thirty-cent-a-gallon gasoline anymore, and never will again, but that doesn't mean the Boys have given up. Look at the ridiculous "aggressive" facial expressions on cars of the last decade, with the scowly headlights and sneering lower grilles, like the sort of thing a frustrated fourth-grader might doodle in the margin of a math worksheet. It's the same idea as the monster-face Buicks of The Fifties. Automobile design as an outlet for repressed aggression knows no era.

 

[tonyb]

Few Americans fifty years ago would have ever *seen* a Jaguar unless they went to the zoo. I wouldn't be able to identify one of any vintage unless I walked right up to it and read the nameplate.

Luxury cars have always been a breed apart. The cars ordinary people drive have always looked pretty much the same as every other car on the street in their era -- perhaps not to devoted carspotters, but to the average person in the street. Small details of design don't change the fact that most cars you saw in 1940 looked like an endless procession of hard-shelled beetles rolling down the highway, most of them black or dark blue, with a few greens, maroons, tans, and greys livening things up. You didn't see too many Duesenbergs in the Free Parking lot at the First National.

I think also the ability to spot cars depends on how interested one is in the cars of a particular period. I can recognize most mainstream 1930s American cars, but other than the ones we owned while I was growing up, cars of The Fifties and sixties all look pretty much alike to me -- most fifties cars remind me of something Godzilla might fight in a Japanese horror movie, and sixties cars of middle-aged men sitting around outside Dunkies trying to convince twenty-something women that they're sporty.

As for the jellybean styling, well, we don't live in a world of thirty-cent-a-gallon gasoline anymore, and never will again, but that doesn't mean the Boys have given up. Look at the ridiculous "aggressive" facial expressions on cars of the last decade, with the scowly headlights and sneering lower grilles, like the sort of thing a frustrated fourth-grader might doodle in the margin of a math worksheet. It's the same idea as the monster-face Buicks of The Fifties. Automobile design as an outlet for repressed aggression knows no era.

Nah. Plenty of furrinbilt cars around back then. Certainly were in the places I lived.

I don't recall when I couldn't distinguish a Ford product from a GM from a Mopar at a glance. But that was then. Studebakers and Ramblers stuck out like sore thumbs, which, especially in the case of the latter, is a fitting metaphor.

As to the imports ...

VWs of a half century and more ago wouldn't be mistaken for anything but another VW. Not so now. The little British sports cars looked like nothing but little British sports cars, there on the side of the road with their bonnets propped open and puddles forming on the pavement beneath them.

I could go on.

I don't dispute that car stylists took cues from one another. Even most casual observers could correctly guess an automobile of any vintage's date of manufacture within half a dozen years or so. Part of that is a reflection of the technology of any given era, and part of it is pure marketing. Car buyers expect a car to look a certain way, because that's what they've been shown.

 

[Fading Fast]

Few Americans fifty years ago would have ever *seen* a Jaguar unless they went to the zoo. I wouldn't be able to identify one of any vintage unless I walked right up to it and read the nameplate.

Luxury cars have always been a breed apart. The cars ordinary people drive have always looked pretty much the same as every other car on the street in their era -- perhaps not to devoted carspotters, but to the average person in the street. Small details of design don't change the fact that most cars you saw in 1940 looked like an endless procession of hard-shelled beetles rolling down the highway, most of them black or dark blue, with a few greens, maroons, tans, and greys livening things up. You didn't see too many Duesenbergs in the Free Parking lot at the First National.....

Growing up in a basic town an hour-plus outside of NYC, I'd see Cadillacs and Lincolns here and there as the owner of the bank or local oil company or a "big" doctor would have one, but they were a bit special to see as everyone else drove Fords or (maybe if they had a little more money) a Mercury or one of GM's not-Cadillac brands (with a Buick Electra 225 being pretty special to see). Of course, there were one-offs - some foreign cars, VWs, etc., but the majority were Fords, Chevys, etc.

However, when I went into New York City, it was like a car festival. In the '70s, you'd see Rolls Royces, Bentleys, Porches, Jaguars, Lamborghinis, Mercedes, BMWs and on and on. And it wasn't that you "spotted" one here or there - they were everywhere. I wasn't a car-nut kid, but I liked them and going into NYC was like looking in the best candy store's window. It was one of the things that made me, as a kid, realize NYC is different.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Oddities are the exception that proves the rule, I think. A VW in 1960 was an oddity that stuck out among the vast bulk of overstyled sameness that characterized the cars of that era -- which to the non-car-people of the time, without the romanticization of nostalgia, is what it looked like, as attested to by the media of the time. There's only so many ways to vary a low, flat body shell, a wraparound windshield, a four-headlight grille, and superfluous tailfins -- you can encrust it with different types of chrome, but it doesn't hide that it's still the same basic design. One big part of why people bought Volkswagens in those days was to consciously rebel against such standardization -- a lot of early VW drivers were the kind of people who listened to Jean Shepherd, bragged they didn't own a TV, read Kerouac, and played the bongos. But in 2018 a VW is a mainstream American-made car, not a funky import, it's driven by people who work in office parks and own smartphones, and it looks like all the other mainstream American-made cars.

British sports cars were not common here when I was young, so we never saw such things -- nobody in their right mind would try to drive one here in the winter, and the summers are so short that they don't have a whole lot of practical use. I think the first time I ever saw one was in 1982, when I went for a ride in a 1962 Sunbeam Alpine with a guy I knew. The ride ended just as you describe, when the oil pressure gauge suddenly went to zero and we looked back to see a long trail of 10W30 extending all the way to the rear horizon. Fine craftsmanship indeed.

 

[Trenchfriend]

However, when I went into New York City, it was like a car festival. In the '70s, you'd see Rolls Royces, Bentleys, Porches, Jaguars, Lamborghinis, Mercedes, BMWs and on and on. And it wasn't that you "spotted" one here or there - they were everywhere. I wasn't a car-nut kid, but I liked them and going into NYC was like looking in the best candy store's window. It was one of the things that made me, as a kid, realize NYC is different.

Same thing in old, former "world-cities" like Leipzig, Germany. I liked cars much much more than boring sport-events.

One time in the late 90s, I was in Leipzig with my parents and we were visiting the central city, which we did seldom. I was totally astonished how much red Ferrari were around (F348, F355, Testarossa and so on) there and how much of my beloved Porsche of all decades !! Especially Porsche 944 in all colours. Of course, most of them were already aged cars at this point, but still looking classy.

 

[tonyb]

I gotta believe that the largest point in owning an expensive car is that it looks like an expensive car. But these days, EVERY car is expensive, leastwise relative to what they cost in my early driving years. In my late teens a serviceable car could be had for a hundred bucks. Five hundred got you a pretty darned spiffy set of wheels.

The real big shots rarely get around in conspicuous cars. Limos are for Kings and Queens for a Day.

 

[LizzieMaine]

That brings up another good point. Who, today, buys a car on the basis of style? Everybody I know buys the car they can afford to buy, regardless of what it looks like. Style is at the very bottom of the list of considerations unless you're made of money -- new money, that is. I know a lot of "old money" people, and to an individual they drive the most undistinguished sorts of vehicles you could ever imagine. I once saw one of them drive by in a dirty VW Rabbit.

You can still get a five hundred dollar car here, but the ad will describe it as "GOOD STICKER THRU SEPTEMBER -- WILL RUN."

 

[tonyb]

Flashiness of any sort -- cars, clothing, jewelry, etc. -- is for people who wish to be noticed.

I see the occasional outrageously expensive car. Well, more than occasionally, actually. Pretty much every day, come to think of it. Yesterday afternoon I spotted one of those Audi Sexonwheels cars, which cursory research indicates are base priced at $165K.

We all pay for such extravagance, one way or another. I gotta carry liability insurance sufficient to cover the cost of such a car, or the bulk of it, anyway.

 

[Edward]

One of my great joys in life is living in a city with reliable, affordable, 24-hour public transport. It's a very nice position to be in. I appreciate cars still, to some degree - though I'll never run one again unless I come into a ridiculous pile of money. (I am planning a motorcycle next year, though that's probably as much midlife crisis as anything else. Anyhow.) Self-drive cars I rather like as a concept, though I'm also wary of them on the same basis as I detest just how many jobs these days are being sacrificed on the altar of superfluous automation which does nothing other than put one group of people out of work, degrade the quality of service offered to others, and raise the bottom line of a very few. Undoubtedly, there was very much a level of stylistic conformity with 90% of cars built in the era, even if it wasn't quite as extreme as it is now with so many wind-tunnelled jellymoulds on the road that I start to sound like my mother when describing cars - "What types was it? A blue one." That said, I've also noticed a number of machines which buck the trend - the PT Cruiser, the revived Fiat 500 (rather more successful than the new Mini in terms of capturing the spirit of the original), the new VW Beetle (even if it's no Beetle at all, rather a Golf in a party dress that looks like it's made of lego), even, a while back the Ford Ka (designed to appeal particularly to women, apparently), oh - and the Smart cars. None of them will appeal to the stereotypical insecure petrolhead ho needs a big car to protect his fragile masculinity, but it's nice to see people actually designing pleasing shapes again rather than running a blancmange through a wind tunnel...

There are some wonderful cars in the Old Gas Stations thread, have you noticed how cars today have a very similar appearance, and nothing stirs the blood like the chrome covered bling of yesteryear.

I'd swap chrome for stainless steel every time, but yes, the bland factor of current cars is certainly exacerbated by plastic bumpers, plastic interiors... no wood, no steel, nothing natural..... In terms of safety, I'd rather trust a pre-war chassis than any crumple zone! Course, they also manufacture cars to be able to over-perform now. Why on earth does anyone who doesn't race have any need of a car that can do double the road-legal speed limit?

Me, I'm looking forward to the non-polluting, self-driving car that comes to me when I call it. I doubt I will find it as romantic as the head-turning cars of our younger days, but then, "our" cars never had the soul of a horse. Just ask great-Grandpa.

The turning point will be once it's easy to get cheap and fast electric recharges for cars most anywhere, and batteries are small and portable enough to have half a dozen available for long trips. I'd even make peace with the concept of an electronic motorcycle in the right circumstances (I'd dearly love to see all cars banned from central London - with exemptions only for black cabs and disability allowances, and more emphasis on lower emission, two-wheel traffic that takes up less parking space.)

Fifty years ago few would have mistaken a Jaguar sedan for a Ford, or vice-versa. Not anymore.

Fifty years ago a Jag was a thing of beauty that stood out from the average. Now they, and cars like them, are just hulks of the same plastic and crassness, except with a more expensive logo.

 

[GHT]

Yesterday afternoon I spotted one of those Audi Sexonwheels cars, which cursory research indicates are base priced at $165K.

Audi sex on wheels, I love it. It's true though, big car equals big phallus, or so the driver would have you believe. One thing that I do remember, those that could afford it had to have a James Bond Aston Martin, those that couldn't stuck bullet hole transfers across their cars.

I'd swap chrome for stainless steel every time, but yes, the bland factor of current cars is certainly exacerbated by plastic bumpers, plastic interiors... no wood, no steel, nothing natural..... In terms of safety, I'd rather trust a pre-war chassis than any crumple zone! Course, they also manufacture cars to be able to over-perform now. Why on earth does anyone who doesn't race have any need of a car that can do double the road-legal speed limit?

Edward, have you noticed that almost every car tested by some motoring journalist has figures quoted such as fuel consumption? The one figure that they all quote is how many seconds it takes the car to get to sixty from a standing start. I don't know anyone who gets into a car and tries to reach 60mph within the figures quoted. There's just not enough room on our roads to do it.

 

[Trenchfriend]

Audi? = Four rings and one ....... .

 

[GHT]

Audi? = Four rings and one ....... .

 

[GHT]

he little British sports cars looked like nothing but little British sports cars, there on the side of the road with their bonnets propped open and puddles forming on the pavement beneath them.

We are a little island with little roads, we even have little semi-trailers:

 

[scottyrocks]

The one figure that they all quote is how many seconds it takes the car to get to sixty from a standing start. I don't know anyone who gets into a car and tries to reach 60mph within the figures quoted. There's just not enough room on our roads to do it.

It's just a standard performance measure.

 

[scottyrocks]

I'd swap chrome for stainless steel every time, but yes, the bland factor of current cars is certainly exacerbated by plastic bumpers, plastic interiors... no wood, no steel, nothing natural..... In terms of safety, I'd rather trust a pre-war chassis than any crumple zone! Course, they also manufacture cars to be able to over-perform now. Why on earth does anyone who doesn't race have any need of a car that can do double the road-legal speed limit?

Crumple zones have their purpose. A more gradual slowdown is better than a sudden stop, and a passenger compartment that keeps its shape is better than one that deforms.

The downside to crumple zones is the damage incurred by the car in an accident, even at very low speed. I drove underneath and bumped into an SUV with my Civic a couple of years ago and destroyed stuff back to and including the radiator support. At 2 mph! Contrary to that, in the early '90s someone with an early '90s Olds 98 bumped into the back of my '67 Chevy Impala at 10 mph and destroyed the entire front end of his car. Literally nothing there in front of the radiator. My car? An almost imperceptibly dented bumper.

But I love driving. And don't love crowds. So cities for me, at least to live in, are a big uh-uh.

 

[Edward]

You can still get a five hundred dollar car here, but the ad will describe it as "GOOD STICKER THRU SEPTEMBER -- WILL RUN."

Reminds me of the episode of Happy Days when Richie buys a car that is guaranteed for "nineteen good starts!"

That and the Harold Lloyd short where he buys a car that is guaranteed for five(?) minutes and has to get back to the dealer in time when it breaks down....

Edward, have you noticed that almost every car tested by some motoring journalist has figures quoted such as fuel consumption? The one figure that they all quote is how many seconds it takes the car to get to sixty from a standing start. I don't know anyone who gets into a car and tries to reach 60mph within the figures quoted. There's just not enough room on our roads to do it.

Yeah, it's all part of that raw performance thing. Never got it at all. I'd much rather have something with a small, efficient engine that could run rings around the big, heavy stuff at usable speeds. Same with motorcycles, really.

 

[Harp]

Rare is the automobile of recent manufacture that stirs my soul, either.
Neither a late-model Alfa Romeo nor a Jaguar does much more for me than a Hyundai or a Toyota.

I picked up a '94 Jaguar XJS convertible for fun and it was a blast to drive. A former ride, the Pontiac Sunbird also had bucket seating and proved enjoyable.

 

[tonyb]

I picked up a '94 Jaguar XJS convertible for fun and it was a blast to drive. A former ride, the Pontiac Sunbird also had bucket seating and proved enjoyable.

I got my eye on the Pontiac Solstice roadster. It would be a toy, mostly, and I've yet to see one at a price low enough to justify the expenditure. Give it a couple more years, maybe.

I went through a '60s-vintage British sports car phase, lasting from the early 1980s until just recently. Had a couple Triumphs and my fave, a '64 MGB, which was a blast to drive. Just about any low-end four-door built in the last 20 years outperforms it by most any measure. But for just tooling around on a sunny day, it had few rivals. You always knew where it was and what it would do under most any circumstance. No blind spots with the top down. Parking a snap. Hell, when I spotted an open parking space on the opposite side of the street, I just looked to make certain there were no cops and did a mid-block U-turn.

BMW Z3 roadsters can be had at prices I might consider, and to my eye they're considerably more attractive than their successor, the Z4. But I hear that repairs can be frightfully expensive. I'm hoping that's among those bits of conventional wisdom that just ain't so.

 

[green papaya]

you know your getting old when the neighbors call the police to do a welfare check on you because they havent seen or heard from you in a few days, checking to make sure your still OK.

like the old lady that lives in a house in your neighborhood with 50 cats that hasnt been seen in a week.

 

[Harp]

But for just tooling around on a sunny day, it had few rivals. You always knew where it was and what it would do under most any circumstance. No blind spots with the top down. Parking a snap. Hell, when I spotted an open parking space on the opposite side of the street, I just looked to make certain there were no cops and did a mid-block U-turn...

I once turned inside my apartment bldg lot at 04:00AM to find some cops prowling around checking Illinois license plates.
My Jaguar was due plate renewal, a $99 fee, which had not been sent in-my fault entirely. I went to traffic court, argued my own case,
and the magistrate let me go. The cops were like bees buzzin honey thereafter: license plate and windshield sticker renewal hawks,
and I occasionally parked over at a Protestant church lot; often to no avail since the Jag stuck out like a sore thumb, and the cops were wise to "shennanigans."