I think that's a very good point. But there are still some distinctive
cars, whether one personally cares for them or not. The new Cougar
doesn't look much like previous Fords, although it is starting to attract
imitators. The new Celica is "different", if IMO hideous. The Chrysler PT
Cruiser doesn't really look like anything since 1952. So I think some
manufacturers are trying to distinguish their offerings, despite being
hampered by regulations.
Look at it this way -- it goes in cycles. Detroit cars of the
early-mid-60s were extremely stereotyped, with very little distinguishing
character (except for the Sting Ray, and later the Mustang, which started
a trend towards more design flair). The "neo-classic" formal-look sedans
of the late 70s were also almost indistinguishable. But the wild fin era
cars of the 50s were much more diverse, and the late 60s-early 70s
spawned all sorts of oddities (the "boattail" Riviera, the "beaknose'
Thunderbird, to name two).
I am personally somewhat disappointed in the new Japanese roadster
designs. The Honda 2000 and the MR2 seem very bland and slab-sided, and
do not compare favorably even to the much older MGF. They both remind me
somewhat of that Lincoln-Mercury Capri roadster that was made in
Australia. But personal response to styling is always very subjective.
Geoffrey Gallaway had this to say:
>Ive always wondered if the current safety and other regulations that are
>all currently imposed on new cars limits auto-makers flexibility in the
>appearance. Bumpers must be a certain height, size and withstand a certain
>impact; seat belts have to come to a certain height; lights have to be at
>a certain height and position; a car has to be a certain range of heights
>from the ground, etc. Is it getting impossible to make a trully unique
>car?
>
>Geoff
--
Max Heim
'66 MGB GHN3L76149
If you're near Mountain View, CA,
it's the red one with the silver bootlid.
|