Cars Are Too Much alike-Would 1940's Styles Be Of Interest?

Assuming I had the funds to do so, very likely. I agree that older-style cars were much more visually interesting than current ones.

If it wasn’t for fuel economy, price, and upkeep (and now safety, which I hadn’t considered), I’d definitely want an older-style care for looks.

Though, these days, you can get your “different” fix just by picking a color. Even red will make your car not look the same.

Hell…maybe in the future, flexible flat-panel displays will be cheap and durable enough that they could cover the outside paneling, and you could use a “normal map” to give the appearance of a differently-shaped body while still retaining the cheap/fuel-efficient/pedestrian-safe frame.

It might make your eyes bleed from looking at the thing, tho’. The DoT might be a buzzkill about that. :smack:

There’s some truth to that, but read about the Kammback. It’s a truncated teardrop style, developed in the '30s, that’s very efficient but wasn’t used much because people didn’t like how it looked. It may be finding its niche in hybrids, though; The Toyota Prius and Honda Insight are Kammbacks.

As to the OP, I don’t think cars now are any less distinctive than they ever were. It’s just that the identifying characteristics have changed. If you came of age in the '40s or '50s, you learned to identify cars by the chrome, the portholes (or was that just the 1954 Buick), tail fins, etc. Guess what, that’s not how to tell cars apart anymore. Now there are things like the shape of the grill opening, the headlights, turn signals, rooflines, and such. If you see the Hofmeister Kink in the C-pillar, it’s probably a BMW.