Why have car styles stunk since the early 1970s?

I wanted to post this in GQ, but then I decided that it wasn’t factual enough. Even so, I would like a factual-style respone if possible (insider information, etc.).

Thesis: The average car until 1973 or so looked pretty neat. I’m not even talking about 50s-style fins and whatnot. Your basic 60s Galaxie or 70s GTO had something special. Cars started looking really bad in the mid-70s, and it wasn’t just American cars. Cars from every country started looking really boxy and boring.

Oh sure, there were exceptions. Le Car was late-70s, kooky, and fun. The 80s had to be the dullest decade ever for cars–there were some OK sports cars, but any good sedans or wagons?

The 90s were a little better. Certain Lexuses and Infinitis could be decent. Same for the Zero Era.

And we should also notes that the basic Beemer and Bentz looks haven’t really changed since the 60s–which rather strengthens the original observation, I should think.

Feel free to share your opinions, but I would be especially grateful for any information as to WHY all (or part) of the above is true. Thanks!

Cost-cutting, fuel-efficiency/safety requirements, and, mostly, lack of imaginations.

  1. It’s cheaper and quicker to build vehicles w/o interesting or unusual styling details. Also it’s even more economically advantageous if a vehicle “platform” can be the (a) kernel of entire “series” made up of essentially the same car changing bolt-on parts and accents, and/or engines, and (b) root of a future evolutionary growth of spinoff models. Thus the 1980s Chevy Cavalier/Buick Skyhawk/Pontiac Sunfire/“Cadillac” Cimarron. The Renault 5 LeCar, OTOH, was cute and quirky… and pretty much all you were gonna get out of that design. Then there is also a greater use of cross-platform standardized parts – it’s more cost-efficient, for instance, if every car a company makes in a size category uses the same size rear window glass panel, rather than ordering up 17 different ones for each model line. This, BTW, is also partly behind the death of the non-“sport” 2-door models in “family” cars – if a majority of the market segment buys the 4-door anyway, why bother with the 2-door?

  2. A wind tunnel will tend to give you the same solution over and over again for a given interior space/engine size/trunk volume/wheelbase for a given X coefficient of drag. Thus the 1990s Camry, Accord, Mazda6, Malibu: pretty much the same. Also, if the primary criterion for designing the sheetmetal is that it have a consistent controled crumple you go back to wanting to make nice standard-engineered panels and components with minimal “styling” variations.

  3. This one is key. The designers, from the late 70s through the 80s into the early 90s, were at a loss as to what to do, having been raised and trained to design cars that were now obsolete. When fuel/safety considerations first became a Big Deal in the 70s, the first attempt was let’s just put some of our smaller engines into a lighter, but more structurally sound shell – the solution being, a box; and let’s make the assembly line more efficient by cutting corners. This led to such wonders as the Dodge Aspen and Chevy Citation. After that, they decided, “OK, we need some more mpg, let’s lower drag – let the wind tunnel design it for us. But let’s still not make it too weird, OK? People won’t buy “weird” cars…”. And that’s another element: you don’t want to be radical and lose money.

Only lately have designers born-and-raised with the current vehicle-design priorities retaken some of the ground. STILL, you notice, new, original ideas are few and far between.

Just look at the New VW Beetle, the New Mini Cooper, the New T-bird; or Chrysler’s pseudo-retro-rod-styled Prowler and PT Cruiser. All more stylish than the average car out there, but all trying to harken to the “old days” (And in that sense --even thought the New Beetle could have stood alone as a modern vehicle, I get the feeling the buyers would not have been as interested had it not carried the banner of the old Bug). It’s entirely possible that until there is a major technological change that allows, for instance, the engine to stop being in a large compartment mounted at one fo the ends of the vehicle, there will be little incentive to do anything different.

I believe it has something to do with the fact that around that time cars started to
be computer designed with the best gas milage in mind. Cars all started looking the same, because aero-dynamically these designs created the least amount of drag, an thus improved gas milage. This was at the beginning of the Arab oil embargos, etc. , as gas prices wen’t up. I am enjoying this new resurgance towards more unique looking autos again (PT Cruiser, Beetle, Mini’s) At least they don’t ALL look the blinkin’ same.

Thanks thus far.

Oh. My. God. I am so glad that someone else is bringing up this subject. I have encroached many a light conversation with this very same subject, only to be answered by blank stares. It feels so good to know that other Dopers have noticed the same thing as me. And, you know what? I’m not a big car buff. So if this has annoyed me, well…

And, with the huge price of these cars, even after all of the cost cutting measures, you are still paying a huge price for something that has no style at all. It is simply a utilitarian object, like a toaster or lawnmower. But the car commercials always play up the snerk fabulous new style of their cars.

I’m convinced that I will never own a new car. I will just leapfrog from a '90 Honda Accord, to '83 BMW, etc, for the rest of my life.

Like most every other manufacturer, you go with what sells.

Look at Ford in the mid-80s - the Taurus was a runaway success. Now look at nearly all of Ford’s other vehicles after that. They all look like Taurus variants. My '94 Escort Wagon looks just like a Taurus wagon except about 2/3 the size.

Look at BMW now - most of their models have the “eyebrow” headlamp treatment and that hideous trunk lid.

A few years ago I was in a parking lot marveling at the similarity between mid-sized sedans. You could almost exchange body parts between totally unrelated brands. There was considerably less similarity between late 60s GM mid-sizes (Malibu, Tempest, Skylark, and Cutlass) than between a Toyota and a Nissan.

And car companies can’t understand why nobody thinks of cars as romantic anymore.

Umm, it’s actually the other way around. Japanese cars, starting in the late 70s and peaking in the 80s look great. Later imitated by American cars. The “sat out in the Sun too long” look of some models in the 90s sucks. (Actually the Taurus started that, which goes back to ?mid 80s?) Then the newer “retro” crap is just plain bad, bad, bad.

The post-tail fin American cars have all the appeal of pink flamingos in the lawn. It’s a definite trailer-trash type look.

I so agree…we have noticed that the low end Mercedes, and the Jaguar, and some of the other more expensive cars all look the same as a standard American car - but they cost $1000’s of dollars more.

Very few cars actually make me stop and see who makes it and what model it is.

Also, car colors seem to be getting blander and blander over the years…white, black, grey…come on people, it doesn’t have to be screaming red or canary yellow, but please - give some real color options here. I still have my 94 Saturn that came in a really cool Aquamarine - but now it seems new car colors are all dull and limited in options.

HELL yes! I started thinking about this a while backmyself. I sat at an intersection (in Columbus Ohio) for a while and checked out the colors. Nothing but basic variations on red, dark blue, and black, with the occasional green. It was depressing. No bright orange or yellow or purple.

I’m pretty sure this is all about greed. Offering fewer options saves more money for the manufacturers,and they sure aren’t passing all those savings on to new buyers.
There’s also the matter of a “full-size” sedan today being the size of a “mid-size” sedan of 20 years ago. Smaller car = less materials used = cost savings. It’s just like packing 3 ounces of tuna in a can instead of the usual 3.5, but keeping the price the same.

Lizard,who will stick with his 1983 Volvo, thank you very much. Silver colored and shaped like a brick, it’s still got more personality (not to mention headroom) than anything I’ve seen made within the last 10 years.

Well, the lower-end models of Jaguar ARE rebadged Fords. One of them IIRC is at the same time the Lincoln LS and its mechanicals are those in the Neo-T-bird. Originally Euro-Fords, sure, but nowadays a lot of the Euro-Ford designs ARE being used domestically.

Yeah, Jag really seems like a status symbol now that FORD makes 'em. Bwah hah hah!

The Ford group also produces Volvos and Aston Martins. Perhaps you you might laugh at the guy driving a V12 Vanquish, but I’d be looking for bills to fall out of his pocket.

Since I have from time to time painted model cars for dioramas, I’ve found you really need only 6 colors for modern vehicles - White, Black, Silver Met., Dark Green, Dark Blue, and Burgandy. This covers the majority of vehicles out there today (Sporadically you see oddballs like Sand and light Green, and retro vehicles like the Beetle, Mini, or erstwhile T-Bird would come in brighter colors like yellow, Bright Red, etc).

I laugh at currnet car commercials where people reposition security cameras or napkin holderes (or red-light cameras follow) to see their generic looking luxury looking sedans - guess they are easily amused. (Although I do like the commercial where the woman customer says “I’m going to put down a figure, scribbles something on a pad, and then hands the salesman a schematic of a twisting mountain road”)

Hmmmm, not sure I agree. I can’t think of any decade since the 1960’s when there hasn’t been a slew of bland repetitive models available, then some interesting models (not necessarily premium brands either) and some makes that have had good looking cars throughout their range.
I can think of many UK/European firms that have managed to do this. If someone could specify I could easily differ, there are so many fine looking European motors available from the 1960s’ to the 2000’s.

My often expressed opinion on this subject: What happened was the Mustang.

Take a look at cars pre-Mustang and afterwards. Ever since the late 60s every car maker has been making nothing but Mustangs. Short, hopped-up trunk, long hood. Nobody’s come up with anything more innovative in all these years. Even the PT Cruiser is a throwback to 1940s design.

It’s like car designers and the Hollywood crowd all work on the same principle: Everyone wants to be the first to do something second.

My experience is the opposite on the car color issue. In recent years looking at new cars, I have found that none of the models I was interested in came in blue. Dark or light. The most popular color in the USofA and I can’t get a car that color?

Lots and lots of very strange colors.

And teal isn’t blue, it’s green. Got that Honda?

Mrs. FtG’s Toyota is a green-blue chameleon. Depending on light and angle, it’s one or the other. When she gives rides to people, it freaks them out. They left a blue car in the parking lot but she takes them back to a green car later. “Hey, this isn’t your car. Yours is blue!” (Or vice versa.)

Well, personally I don’t mind some of the styles of the 80’s and 90’s, but I agree that most mid and late 70’s models sucked ass. I don’t mind boxiness to an extent, in the right kind of car. For instance, get a cool sports car, with a touch of box, and it can look awesome. I guess I don’t mean boxiness so much as sharp angles. I don’t like most “smooth” cars of the 90’s and 00’s. I give you my example:

Bam.

Of course, that’s just my opinion, and most people tend to disagree.

I agree that the smooth styles of the 80s and 90s are pretty faux. Inifiniti, however, is fairly decent.

I disagree to some extent. I would say mid 70’s to mid 80’s was a lean decade for style and that may be due in part to the mad scramble for fuel efficient cars. From the Mid 80’s to present there have been a lot of stylish cars:

Mid 80’s Monte Carlo (clean mean look)
Present Monte Carlo (looks like it just drove off the track at Taladega)
87/88 Thunderbird TurboCoupe
Various 90’s Mustangs (the lines on the current one are too hard)
The new Mustang that’s coming out (hmmm, it’s a retro look so does it count?)
The rear wheel drive Impala SS
Buick Grand National X
The new Chevy convertible truck (a car with a REALLY big trunk)
Viper
PT Cruiser
Prowler
Crossfire
Ford GT-40 (OK, its a $150,000 update of an earlier model)
Grand Am’s (nice lines on most models)
Porshe Boxter
BMW Z4
Maxda rx7 turbo
Toyota Supra

I will agree that there is a smoothing of the lines on most cars due to air flow considerations but there are still cars out there that are drop dead gorgeous.