To those who feel the need to take the industry to task with regard to style, I’ve got this to say. The choices available to consumers today are so varied that a comparison to times gone by is unfair. The OP claims to be all big into car design, and then goes and uses a model that is not among the fondest of the Mustang line as an example. Thirty years ago, the only cars available were squared-off land barges with two or four doors. Today we have all form of body style and size to choose from: compact, midsize, large sedan, wagon, truck/SUV, and increasingly, the “crossover wagon”. To turn this into an argument for or against hybrids is also silly, as this will be a segment that will trickle down into a drivetrain viability for every vehicle regardless of its segment within the next ten years. We have more choices now than at any point in history, and unless your tastes lie in the excessively overweight, underpowered, oddly-proportioned, committee-engineered sticker appliqué rust buckets of the 70’s and 80’s, there’s little reason to argue against modern styling. Today’s stylists and engineers take so many more variables into account than they did back then. Everything from interior ergonomics to drivetrain packaging to platform versatility (for spanning multiple models from one core platform design) is examined to allow manufacturers to get best utilize their R&D dollar. Engineering partnerships exist between every major manufacturer. GM is in bed with Toyota (Pontiac’s Vibe is virtually identical to the Toyota Matrix), Ford is leveraging investments in both Mazda and Volvo (several new Ford designs have been spawned from Mazda platforms, including the next Focus), and Dodge has a long-standing relationship with Mitsubishi (all kinds of engine technologies in many models). And it doesn’t all go one way, either, because the Big 3 give these foreign makers a breadth of engineering resources to serve as the canvas for their partnerships. It’s really disgusting when people bicker about the nuances of the car industry that they clearly aren’t in the know about, because the car industry today is more a case of “you scratch my back, I scratch yours” than it ever has been.
I know I’m only repeating what’s been said, but thirty years ago, the domestic car industry didn’t know what to do to stay afloat. The beloved second-generation Mustangs so amorously mentioned in the OP were nearly killed off as victims of circumstance due to their size and weight. Ford wanted in on the muscle car wars and tried, rather unsuccessfully, to get the Mustang to go up against the likes of the other big-blocks: GTO, Cuda, Charger, 442, Duster, etc. It ended up looking more like the Torino (of Starsky & Hutch fame) than the first-gen Mustang because it had strayed from its original concept: a lightweight secretary’s car with some nice engine and tire packages. The only thing that really allowed the Mustang to survive 40 years was the [Mustang II](http://www.tocmp.com/pix/Ford/images/1975 Ford Mustang-II Models art_jpg.jpg), which was a hideous thing whose only purpose was to keep the name alive long enough to survive to the Fox body Mustangs of the 80’s. Despite the fact that domestic standards of quality design and engineering have improved significantly, those cars will never be dearly beloved classics to those who suffered through them. Those years just bring out deeply-engrained memories of suede mouse-fur interiors, vinyl tops, wood-grain paneling, body-colored wheels, poor fitments, bad fuel economy, terrible reliability, etc. Big cars got smaller and small cars got bigger while the whole industry became a proverbial landscape of squared-off, cost-cutting sameness. That’s how the imports got a shoe-in despite not being harbingers of any real style themselves. They were different and found a good place in a struggling market.
For the OP to use the second-gen Mustang as a reason to lambast Ford and Volkswagen for modern design practices is ridiculous. Not only must manufacturers abide by modern expectations for any number of design factors (safety, ergonomics, and efficiency chief among them) but they must strive more than ever to keep up with a product onslaught from import manufacturers which evolves very quickly. Model lifespan has decreased from 6-7 years to around 3-4 years to stay competitive and computers have certainly contributed to the decreased development time for new models. Today we have increased interior space, smaller exterior dimensions, and more convenient access to storage. Thirty years ago, we just got a trunk the size of a piano and yards of steel to wrap ourselves with. Sure, that era has a romanticism to it, but comparing the design process then to what it is now is almost apples and oranges. Back then, the market was slow to react and stubborn to change, and we had no computer-aided design to ease the process. This resulted in a lot of big design failures, much more so than you see today when the occasional “Pontiac Aztek” hits the market. Sure, taste is subjective, but designs today are “polarizing” because a love-it-or-hate-it design is better than a bland one. Sales numbers have proven that there is a market for something different like a Honda Element or VW Beetle whereas in years gone by, choices were limited to names like the Taurus, Impala/Lumina, Century/LeSabre, Intrepid, etc. and manufacturers are willing to take the risk in making product to suit the tastes of such buyers. As a result, the Big 3 are realizing that their run-of-the-mill sedans need a shot in the arm, and are beginning to consolidate dated designs into more modern ones. Nobody has pointed out that the very modern and sharp-looking Ford Fusion has supplanted the Taurus, or that GM has consolidated Buick’s lineup of four rather boring and dated sedans (Century, Regal, LeSabre, and Park Avenue) down to two very modern ones (LaCrosse and Lucerne). I’m big into the industry and automotive design, and yes, I like the idea of Buick as a premium mid-range luxury sedan for an affordable price (and I’m 26 years old), but even I couldn’t tell the difference between those four old and tired designs. Now THAT is what I would call poor design strategy, and GM knew it too. I am very impressed with how they’re really trying to revive Buick with fresh new products. They also have a new midsize SUV called the Enclave on the way which is incredibly handsome and a surefire shot across the nose at the Lexus RX330.
I’m also particularly impressed with the level of quality that Hyundai and Kia have been injecting into their products in just the last year or two. While most car enthusiasts would gladly attest to having zero interest in these brands (myself included), I can’t help but notice how they have notched up quality and style in this year’s models. The new Hyundai Santa Fe is very handsome and sleek compared with the old model, and the interior is truly a step above anything they’ve done so far. I sat in one and was floored. The interior quality and ergonomics have gone from keeping up with Honda and Toyota, to meeting and perhaps even surpassing them, although that is up to interpretation. Perhaps when you weigh the value for your dollar into the mix, you’ll see just how quickly the Koreans are encroaching on the Japanese. The new Kia Optima has a very sleek exterior and a tightly executed interior that caused me to do a double take. Design influences from the Nissan Altima and Infiniti G35 are obvious and well-received. Not sure what Kia’s slogan was before, but I think it changed recently to “The Power To Surprise” and I must say that it rings true to me. The Kia Amanti, however, is another story. It looks right at home in a market like China where European design influences are commonly ripped off as cheaply as possible, and without any shame. The results are often horrific. Most of them look like mid-term abortions of the cars they are trying to emulate. Just do a google image search on “Chinese cars” and have a look around. You’ll find more ugly cars than you ever knew existed. Their industry is plagued with proverbial hand-me-downs from other manufacturers’ markets and they are struggling to expand their industry both at home and abroad. It won’t be long before you find Chinese cars on our shores that will take up the budget end of the car-buying spectrum formerly occupied by the Korean manufacturers.
There are a few aspiring Chinese brands which are looking to come here. One of them, named Chery, has faced legal action from GM due to the name being so close to Chevy, when in fact they should be facing legal action from Nissan for copying the Maxima. They do, however, have a cute little design called the M14 which seems to be their attempt at a smaller, cuter Mitsubishi Eclipse, but the design thievery isn’t as blatant. Hell, the Chery logo looks like a design cocktail whose ingredients include Toyota, Lexus, and Infiniti. I only hope that China’s design standards continue to improve, or we’ll be facing a whole new onslaught of horrid-looking little communist knock-offs.
