# Why were cars in the 80s so boxy? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [December 6, 2013, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-cars-in-the-80s-so-boxy/675680 "2013-12-06T15:40:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![andrewm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c57346/32.png) [@andrewm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andrewm)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-cars-in-the-80s-so-boxy/675680/41 "2013-12-10T01:13:30Z")
Relevant Jeremy Clarkson segment: [Why 1970s American Cars are Awful | Jeremy Clarkson's Motorworld | Top Gear - YouTube](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjzpx_jUUA0) ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-cars-in-the-80s-so-boxy/675680/42 "2013-12-10T02:18:05Z")
I saw a 944 on the way to work this morning. I _tried_ to find its styling terribly outdated. I just couldn’t. It’s still a good-looking car. ---
**Author:** ![Enola\_Gay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ab097/32.png) [@Enola\_Gay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enola_Gay)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-cars-in-the-80s-so-boxy/675680/43 "2013-12-10T05:59:22Z")
[Boxy](http://top-10-list.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Shoulder-Pads.jpg) was the fashion of the time. Car style and couture have gone hand in hand for decades; at least that’s the way I see it. ---
**Author:** ![MostlyClueless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@MostlyClueless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MostlyClueless)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 9:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-cars-in-the-80s-so-boxy/675680/44 "2013-12-10T09:30:26Z")
I’d imagine that the then-current state of computer graphics had some influence. All they could handle were boxes, sharp lines and simple polygons, but were in the minds of people as “cutting edge”. ---
**Author:** ![JKellyMap](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jkellymap/32/15880_2.png) [@JKellyMap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JKellyMap)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-cars-in-the-80s-so-boxy/675680/45 "2013-12-10T12:20:02Z")
> [@MostlyClueless](#): > > I’d imagine that the then-current state of computer graphics had some influence. All they could handle were boxes, sharp lines and simple polygons, but were in the minds of people as “cutting edge”. Interesting point. Early versions of AutoCAD, for example, did indeed favor designing with straight lines and pre-defined (often right) angles. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-cars-in-the-80s-so-boxy/675680/46 "2013-12-10T14:05:32Z")
Part of the magic of '80s designs is that they _appeared_ boxy, but they were actually full of curves. If you take a straight edge to a lot of cars that you think are boxy you’ll find they there’s hardly any flat panels on them. It really was all about the style rather than manufacturing limitations or aerodynamics. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-cars-in-the-80s-so-boxy/675680/47 "2013-12-10T14:35:42Z")
> [@MostlyClueless](#): > > I’d imagine that the then-current state of computer graphics had some influence. All they could handle were boxes, sharp lines and simple polygons, but were in the minds of people as “cutting edge”. Umm… all I can say is good combination of user name and post. What on earth makes you think the primitive 3D imaging of the era had anything to do with car design? (Did [Saoutchik](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saoutchik) and [Loewy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Loewy) have copies of Pixar software that fell through a wormhole from 2010?) Or that the polygon renderings of CAD then, or Battlezone, drove public perception? > [@JKellyMap](#): > > Interesting point. Early versions of AutoCAD, for example, did indeed favor designing with straight lines and pre-defined (often right) angles. Umm… what makes you think that AutoCAD was any major part of designing cars in the 1980s, or that its ease of drawing straight lines was peculiar to the era? In the T-square and ink era straight lines were easier to draw. (I was there.) In the monochrome era of CAD it was easier to draw straight lines. (I was there - I bought an expensive 8087 for my PC-XT to speed up rendering.) Using the most sophisticated software on today’s market, it’s easier to draw straight lines. I assure you that I was drawing complex, curved shapes in ACAD ca. 1987 and if a young, self-taught designer could do it, I am pretty sure anyone Ford or GM was paying could do so. > [@steronz](#): > > Part of the magic of '80s designs is that they _appeared_ boxy, but they were actually full of curves. If you take a straight edge to a lot of cars that you think are boxy you’ll find they there’s hardly any flat panels on them. It really was all about the style rather than manufacturing limitations or aerodynamics. Bingo. The look of 1980s cars was the _style_. No more, no less, no technical explanation needed. They could have been as round as jellybeans if that was what was perceived to be customer preference. Technical forming techniques don’t have much to do with it. About the only real change in recent years is the “deep draw” forming process that allows very deep, sculptured sheet metal to be formed at production speeds - GM showed it off with the fenders for the [SSR retro-truck](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_SSR). But round, square, curved… the limits of body forming were pushed past simple forms in the 1930s. ---
**Author:** ![MostlyClueless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@MostlyClueless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MostlyClueless)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-cars-in-the-80s-so-boxy/675680/48 "2013-12-10T18:04:12Z")
Amateur Barbarian: [Chevrolet Corvette 1984 commercial (us) - YouTube](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CP7ijUkgc-4) ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-cars-in-the-80s-so-boxy/675680/49 "2013-12-10T18:23:02Z")
> [@MostlyClueless](#): > > Amateur Barbarian: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CP7ijUkgc-4](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CP7ijUkgc-4) Advertising using vaguely video-gamish imagery (helllooooo, Night Driver!) in 1984 is not especially noteworthy and doesn’t say anything about the design of the car - process or public perception. Ads come years and years after car design - moreso in that era. Remember that the [del]'82[/del] [del]'83[/del] '84 Vette was so long in the pipeline that GM ended up continuing the prior line an extra year and then skipped the '83 model year. It was almost certainly designed on paper and its curves come from clay modeling bucks, not AutoCAD. I doubt anything in that ad came from a computer, either - even two years later, “computer graphics” had to be simulated in animation for\* Max Headroom\*. (Oh, and the “computer controlled transmission” probably had one of the first simple electronic modules in it, up from plain switches. I guess that’s close enough to a “computer” for the ad guys. 😃 ) Easy to forget that computers haven’t always been around, and how late real (= meaningful, not trivialities or demos) computer-based design and graphics came along. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-cars-in-the-80s-so-boxy/675680/50 "2013-12-10T18:45:06Z")
People forget that cars of the 1930s had curving lines. And the 1930s saw the Chrysler Airstream, which was aerodynamically styles. These cars were body on frame construction, which made it easy to change body styles. Now, cars are all monocoque construction, which makes it more expensive to alter body styles easily. The ultimate aerodynamic car was the 1952 Citroen DS-21…I think it had a very low Cd. Curiously, that style has never really been used again. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-cars-in-the-80s-so-boxy/675680/51 "2013-12-10T18:56:40Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > The ultimate aerodynamic car was the 1952 Citroen DS-21…I think it had a very low Cd. Curiously, that style has never really been used again. Maybe because it’s… how does one say it in French? Butt-ugly. 😃 The second-generation Dodge Intrepid and kin have a very similar banana shape with a wasp waist, just a prettier rendering of it. While the Citroen had very low drag for its era, I think a number of modern cars exceed it. By having a lower coefficient, I mean, which doesn’t really fit with “exceed.” You know what I mean. Many of them don’t look particularly aerodynamic, at least not so obviously so. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-cars-in-the-80s-so-boxy/675680.md?page=2)