Beautiful car. My parents have one and if they pass it down to the kids, my siblings can have everything else.
Ford revived the Thunderbird in 2002, with styling inspired by the original 1955-57 model. Sales never met expectations, and the model was discontinued again after 2005
I disagree about Mercedes. The CLS is beautiful.
My two cents: You don’t drive the outside of a car; you drive the inside of a car.
Yeah, flair looks good when you see it driving by or sitting in a parking lot. But if it’s your own car, you spend 99% of your time with it on the inside, not being able to see the flair. Subconsciously that has to make a lot of difference. Why pay extra for something that other people will get most of the value of? Most houses are equally boring, but people don’t live on the outside of a house either. They put their money into the interior styling.
As with all generalizations, a small percent of people will be exceptions. They can buy sport cars or the Pontiac Aztec. 
Another example where the car was a dog. It looked pretty, sure, but they gave it a fairly modest engine for such a big car, and paired it with a really poor automatic transmission. I don’t even think there was a manual option. It drove like a worn out land yacht, not the sports car it was pretending to be…
At the end if its life, they were practically giving 'em away to Ford employees, just to clear out the inventory.
Actually I was thinking about the CLS when I wrote the above. It is the exception that proves the rule. If they can design a car that looks as great as that, what excuse do they have for the rest?
I think the '02-'05 T-bird looked a lot more like a '53-'55 Corvette than an old T-bird, especially from the front.
The problem I think is the market size. As mentioned above, several interesting body designs - Tbird, PT Cruiser - sold well initially but faltered later.
For a while about 15 or 20 years ago it seemed that Honda was doing innovative (as opposed to retro) designs; the CRX-type cars come to mind. I got the impression they were using limited runs as tests for concepts - remember the 4-wheel steering design - that lasted what - a year?
This is the problem. Cars with certain looks have a limited appeal and a small market. One misstep can doom sales - as mentioned, the lack of power in what’s supposed to be a peppy design. Similarly, some designs involve a bit of compromise in what would otherwise be a standard round box. It seems the car companies either dont have the will to be innovative, or more likely innovative limited-run lines cannot compete with the general mass-market vehicle.
When the latest blandmobile sells for 30% or 50% of the designer car price, you cut into the market. If someone has to pay as much for a limited run fake 60’s car as for an entry-level prestige car, they may likely pick the prestige car. So unless you can keep the price down, you lose market. However keeping the price down with a strategy like smaller engine defeats your purpose and loses more sales.
Part of it is construction cost and interchangeability on the line. You want to use as many components and construction tools throughout the lines and body styles. A fancy aerodynamic car would not be useful for a sedan, but would for sporty car.
Boxy construction is easier to do .
One throw away line from some MST3k episode in response to a 1950s movie scene of 1950s vehicles with big, garish grills.
[Crow, I think] “Cars of that era sure looked angry” (and Tom Servo did a ‘grrrrr’ sound for emphasize).
Interestingly enough, decades later, they did a study on Angry-Faced Autos
Go back and really look at the cars from the 50’s. Other that those that achieved status because of new styling (for the period), most are butt ugly.
Isn’t pedestrian safety also a major factor for front-end design?
Along the same lines as the “you spend your time on the inside of the car,” there are certain shapes dictated by maximizing interior space, which is largely responsible for the “pregnant roller skate” shape of especially compact cars these days.
I think the problem with the Flex isn’t the styling but the pricing. I bought a Honda CR-V two years ago, just before the Flex hit the market. The loaded Honda was $25,500. About a year ago I was at a Ford dealership and the base model of the Flex was about $27K, and the loaded one was about $42K. Sure, it’s a little bit bigger than the CR-V, but $16,000 more expensive comparably equipped?
I like the Flex, but no way am I trading in the CR-V for the Flex.
On the other hand, I wanted a Chevy HHR, but the wife hated the styling. I really liked the styling.
I think there’s no one here that would say the Aztec was a nice-looking car, but using it as an example is kind of defeating to your own point. People avoided them because they were ugly on the outside. They were absolutely fantastic on the inside. Amongst the poor suckers that actually bought them, they had the among the highest percentage of customer satisfaction rates for GM cars. Problem for GM was, their salesmen couldn’t get enough close enough to one to even notice the interior.
I saw a guy driving one of those the other day. He looked like he was hitting puberty right when the originals came out. Which is really the market for this retro styling: baby boomers. And they’re slowly dying off. Apparently, in the classic car market, a Model T is easier to get than an old Mustang, because nobody still alive grew up wanting a Model T. But the guys who wanted a 69 Mustang are hitting their peak earning potential.
I just bought an Accord for its reliability and value. But I do very much like that it looks kind of mean.
No kidding. I didn’t drive for almost 15 years, and in the period between stopping driving and starting again, this “cab-forward” design came into vogue. When I decided to get my license back a few years ago, I borrowed my mom’s Ford Focus to take the driving test, and damned if I could parallel park that thing. The total inability to see the front of the car made trying to parallel park almost terrifying; I was sure I was going to crunch the parked vehicle I was trying to park behind. I just barely missed passing that driving test for that and a couple other reasons. On my second attempt I used an '86 Chevy Cavalier, and parallel parking was a piece of cake.
I like modern design. I commented a couple years ago that, compared to the cars that were coming out in the 1980s, todays cars — even the sedans — all look like freakin’ sports cars.
ETA: BTW, I thought he Aztek was about the coolest-looking thing ever.
I want…chrome.
And tail fins.
<sulks>
Unless I’m sorely mistaken, its got nothing to do with “aerodynamics” – come on, designs that will sell will always trump a tiny aerodynamic benefit. The bottom line is, car manufacturers don’t believe that people will buy cars styled in the same way as…XYZ. And they’re almost certainly correct – there are plenty of cars from the past that I love, but I love them for their unusual, striking design. Everyone loves the Chevy Bel-Air from 1957, right? Could you actually see this succeeding on the mass market, today? I don’t; its just downright unusual-looking, and if it was mass-marketed, it’d lose the uniqueness factor.
Still, bring back the early-to-mid-60s Impalas. 
You’re sorely mistaken.
CAFE standards have had the effect of promoting aerodynamic performance over styling. Auto manufacturers simply can’t afford to sell non-aerodynamic designs.