Thread 28455718

It's hilarious to see how outdated a 1978 car looked in 2001. Yet nowadays a car from 2002 doesn't look nearly as outdated. When did this change happen?

70s cars are much rarer than 2000s cars. you're still used to seeing 2000s cars. when they're mostly rare, you'll feel the same way about them in 2040. in 2000, a 70s car didn't feel nearly as outdated.

>>28455732
That Buick Skylark was as old back in 2000 as a 350Z is now. And a 350Z still looks pretty modern to me.

>>28455718 (OP)
Different for every car.
/thread

1984
Molded bumpers and Polycarbonate headlight covers. Prior to this cars has exposed, chrome bumpers and standard Wagner glass head lights.

>>28455742
but you're not looking at a buick skylark from 2000, you're looking at it from the year 2025. 350z are still common. 70s cars are a lot more rare, now.

>>28455750
Nta but shut up retard. Looking from the year 2000 those cars looked ancient.

>>28455750
It looked old in 2001 too.

>>28455732
>in 2000, a 70s car didn't feel nearly as outdated.

Lmao how children perceive history is unreal

The bubbly era of cars started in the mid 1980s By 2000 a car from the 1970s looked ancient as fuck

>>28455755
>Looking from the year 2000
you can somehow channel how you perceived the world without the biases embedded in you currently from over 20 years ago? shut up, nigger.
>>28455756
same for you.

>>28455765
>how children perceive history is unreal
i agree, we have nigglets ITT who weren't old enough to drive in 2000 talking about how outdated something was before their brain was even half developed.
>The bubbly era of cars started in the mid 1980s
uh, no they didn't. everything was still boxy as shit in the mid 80s. the car you posted is from 92, and isn't even "bubbly". its still more square than anything.

>>28455769
I remember watching the film for the first time, yes. Integrated bumpers changed a lot, and 70s cars already looked very old by the millennium.
The zoomers just don't know.

>>28455732
I don't think that's entirely it. Progression in technology (or at least easily perceived progression) has slowed down, so older cars still look fresh. See the E92 3 Series, 2nd gen XK, Viper SRT10, or first gen R8 which are all 2 decades old at this point. It's kind of like watching a 90s movie in full HD like Fight Club, it doesn't look old and shitty because it looks basically as good as what we have now. And if cars don't change much by 2040, we'll still see 2000s cars as decently modern.

>>28455750
bro you're actually being retarded now. Do you think that everyone replying to you was born in 2007 and thus never saw a car from the 70s in the 2000s?

>>28455804
We have reached a plateau in design and culture. See it in automotive, fashion, music, computing. There is nothing new since 2000. We've peaked.
And quite honestly BMW has been slow to change. My E90 vs wife's 2024 330, profile has remained essentially the same from normie perspective. Pulled up to work the same time as IT guy, we both step out. He looks and asks, did you get a new car? It's an E90, I say no, paid off years ago. I see it a lot, normies think the E90 is a newer car than it is. Surprised when I tell them the year.

>>28455718 (OP)
1985 Ford Taurus.

If the government wasn’t so concerned about safety, then cars today would look completely different from cars made 30 years ago.

>>28455718 (OP)
We solved aerodynamics for consumer cars around 2000. Hence they have not changed radically in design since then.

>>28455984
This, my crappy old Honda has the same 0.3 drag coefficient as a brand new one.

>>28455955
1984. Peugeot Quasar. Alpine white.

>>28455718 (OP)
>70s
Cars looked outdated coming off the factory floor back then

Manufacturing techniques improved, more formed plastic components, CAD engineering. It changed sometime in the 90s to more bubble shaped cars instead of square shaped cars.

>>28455718 (OP)
00s cars already look dated except for some BMWs which set the styling standard for the next decade. You're looking at it with rose colored glasses.

2000 super duty right now? Looks old AF even though they're common.

>>28456617
Luckily the Super Duty from 2000 wasn't actually updated until 2017, so it's really a front clip away from looking like a late model truck. You can't do anything similar with any of the '90s "OBS" trucks from any manufacturer, on the other hand. Throw a set of Ebay headlights at it with LED strips that resemble the newest model, and now you're fooling normies into thinking your 25 year old truck is ~5 years old.

>>28455718 (OP)
~1995. Picrel is thirty years old. A thirty year old car in 1995 was comedically ancient, while picrel is passably modern, in both driveline and interior/exterior qualities

>>28456730
Picrel didn't send ???

>>28455746
>standard Wagner glass head lights
Only in the US lol because the daddy govt said so

And then there are some cars like the crown vic which looked outdated brand new in 2011 lol

>>28456721
Honestly it looks dated. 2011 was 14 years ago now. It doesn't follow the current truck trends of having bed steps either.

Either way the point was a car from an equivalent age to ops example looks absolutely dated in the current year. Every generation has its exceptions of course. Imo the e90 series that pioneered the fireform crease design still looks relatively recent even though you can tell it's not a current generation.

>>28456721
>fooling normies into thinking your 25 year old truck is ~5 years old
>worried about what normies think
NGMI

>>28455718 (OP)
Its because the car industry hasnt been advancing as quickly as it used to. Modern cars are technologically not all that different from 90s cars, while cars from the 70s are just dinosaurs compare to them. CAD-designed everytbing, aerodynamically shaped bodies, computers, sensors, fuel injection-they lack all of that and as a result look out of place. A 90s or 00s car still looks kinda sorta up to date because it is.

>>28456721
A real one would do the reverse; a '99 fasica on a '16

>>28456910
>2011 was 14 years ago now
2016 was 9 years ago.
>It doesn't follow the current truck trends of having bed steps either.
It's only after '23 or '24 that the F250 had the side-bed steps become standard. We're still talking making a 25 year old truck look 20 years newer here.
My real point is that, compared to taking a '70s car and making it look "modern" circa Y2K, you can now take a 20 year old car, rice it out with LED projector headlights and a carplay head unit, and aside from other carfags as long as your shitbox doesn't have peeling clearcoat people will think it looks new.
>>28456918
I don't do this, I enjoy driving my old shitboxes for the era they were built in. A huge reason Americans even buy new cars, let alone optioned-out crossovers and trucks is because they just want to "keep up with the Joneses". You see this a lot with late model cars, luxury models in particular.
Picrel is a 20 year old Lexus IS with a shitty, Temu-tier facelift that gives it a spindle grille and LED headlights, for instance. Riced out as hell, but your average normie will be impressed by your "expensive" luxury car that looks no more than a few years old in their eyes.

>>28455825
That's because BMWs always use the most uninspired, generic sedan profile as the final draft of their cars

>>28456848
>Parts standardization is... Let bad!

>>28457127
What?

>>28455718 (OP)
What's funny is that its now a bit harder to tell part shithole countries that used to exclusively drive old bangers like in Cuba. Cars from 20 years ago look normal today.

>>28455750
Are you retarded or pretending to be?

A few things I can think of:
>huge difference between mandated round/rectangular headlights and modern clusters.
>huge difference between huge lumps of chromed steel as bumpers and having the protection hidden behind the painted plastic front body panel in modern cars.
>once computer design became commonplace (I believe the nissan 300zx z32 was the first car to be designed with computer software) complex curves that used to be rare because the norm. it's difficult to explain but you can look at blueprint drawings from cars from the 50s and all the lines are easy to draw, no matter the view, because they were drawn by humans in the first place
>aerodynamics are king nowadays. every looks closer to each other and the the previous gen and unlike 70s cars because they all go after the same aerodynamic efficiency. you look at a side profile of a modern 911, mustang, mercedes amg, nissan gtr, aston vantage, etc and they are all basically the same car. 50 years ago they were all very distinct different shapes, full of character but now known to be inefficient and antiquated
There hasn't been a revolutionary tech that made 2000s cars look super old. LEDs in headlights. Bigger wheels. It's too minor.

>>28457148
You can ALWAYS tell a pic is from Iran though
No other country is littered with 206 sedans like that

>>28455718 (OP)
1993

>>28455742
>And a 350Z still looks pretty modern to me.
Because Nissan was still selling basically the same car until a few years ago

>>28455718 (OP)
Cars started being more aero when machinery was better able to make smooth curved parts.
And as it turns out, function IS form.

>>28455955
>concerned about safety
Actually car regulations and regulations for most everything are put there by major corporations to make it difficult if not impossible for independent brands to emerge in the market, creating a soft monopoly.

>>28457125
Delusional

>>28455718 (OP)
When the entire design became dictated by computers.

>>28455825
We're in a plateau due to political reasons
You can't be seen having the "wrong" opinion or friends
There is not going to be anything spicy until the general populace stops being hysteric idiots

>>28455750
yeah if you had a 10 year old car in 1990 you were a poorfag. a 22 year old car in 2000 was ancient histoary

>>28456925
EFI was the last major paradigm shift, electric will probably be the last. when EVs are perfected in a few decades those cars will be the same as what we will be driving 5000 years from now

>>28457125
TRVKE

>>28458100
It's not a Monopoly if there's multiple competing parties.
If anything it's a cartel

>>28458104
You could not make a more generic car profile if you tried.
The only things that stand out is the antenna cover and the spoiler in the trunk

>>28457144
>Smugly quips about government requiring standardization in an industry
>Acts retarded when confronted

>>28462894
>government requiring standardization
Not how it's called and not the point. Standardization means implementing technical standards. There are standards regarding headlights now, even more of them than in 1980s, so the area is standardized. But the headlights look different because there's no requirement to use the specific designs. There were no requirements like that probably anywhere besides the US, and my initial point was that >>28455746 is the unique US-specific image.
>Parts standardization is... Let bad!
>Smugly quips
For someone calling actions of other people retarded you're assuming too much.

>>28455718 (OP)
we've mostly been stuck in millenium-era aesthetic since the 90s. 70s cars have obvious aesthetic roots in the 50s, but the 80s were an awkward transitional era from "classy" chromed out cars to bubble millenium ones. newer cars do have a lot of harsh angles but generally they are super rooted in what our perception of the future was in the 2000s.

>>28463373
>There are standards regarding headlights now
bro at least in the us, sealed beams were the only headlights allowed and only in four different sizes

>>28463380
Could you please read the post you replied to a bit further? Like one and a half sentence further.

>>28463381
o rite

>>28455718 (OP)
we are stuck in bubly car era but it's also evolving

Everything that isn't suv feels "old" to me

Not like "old, destroy it" but "old, comfy good times"