Why do modern cars seem so bloated?

Safety.

It's all about safety regulations. Aerodynamics for fuel economy to a degree as well, which is why angles are dead.

>>14324113
*pedestrian safety

>>14324113
So are you saying that even by some act of god Chrysler decide to tool up to make a 70s era car, it wouldn't be legal?

>>14324118
It wouldn't.

>>14324115
yup.
>>14324118
And honestly, I don't feel too bad about it. Cars from that era were pretty dangerous when you're a pedestrian.

Now if only they started making cars again that don't look angry all the time.

>>14324109
depends how you mean bloated
the size it's mostly to do with the trend towards big wheels
the lack of sharp edges and certain dimensions is pedestrian safety
the fat looking sides is partially a styling choice but sides do need to be deep for side impact absorption (can be hidden, just make it smaller inside)
there's no technical reason why the new miata couldn't have looked like a scaled down version of the new challenger

>>14324455
>the size it's mostly to do with the trend towards big wheels
sorry slightly misworded there but certain proportions will be determined by the wheels
as for the challenger it was always gonna be a big car
it's what it's supposed to be.

File: 1441915212130.png (23KB, 1105x597px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 1105x597px

>>14324431
>Cars from that era were pretty dangerous when you're a pedestrian.

Good, maybe people should learn that strolling in the middle of a road is not the best idea they had in their short life.

File: 1412548174148.png (34KB, 641x361px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 641x361px

>>14324455
here's your reply

>>14324754
>>14324763
>implying drivers 100% of the time stop for traffic lights and pedestrian crossings

Buy a motorcycle.

>>14324818
>taking the green light as absolute and never looking both ways even in a one-way street

>>14324109

Look, man, I'm a huge Mopar guy. I always dreamed of owning a Vanishing Point Challenger, but could never find a proper 70 with the Hemi. I looked into the new ones and wound up buying a '12 R/T.

I regret nothing. It's a beautiful car, even if it isn't as charming as the classic. It's more comfortable and economical than a real big block Muscle car from the Golden Era. It isn't a queer Mustang or hillbilly Camaro.

It's faster than bench racers make it sound and better than pretty much every 2 + 2 Coupe on the market in terms of comfort level. It's not perfect, but it improves on the idea of the classic Challenger being almost a luxury car. It's a 60k, at most, fire breathing, honest to god monster than will give you everything you've ever wanted and more.

Test drive one. It'll sell itself.

>>14324989
>lel they should just look both ways!
>i can't imagine any scenario where it isn't the pedestrians fault at all

I prefer older styling to, but what you're basically saying is: "i want cars to be super cool looking, and i want people to die for it." Regulatory agencies don't give a shit about cool cars.

File: babushka stack.jpg (46KB, 719x382px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 719x382px

>>14324109
if the proportions remain the same you get this effect
see new mini new beetle and new 500

In the case of pony cars they tend to be wider and lower than modern equivalents

and aside from what others have said there is a standard hight for head lights

getting an old piece of shit would be settling for less

>>14325005
>hillbilly camaro
>owns a challenger
Wew lad

>>14325069
>it's old so it's a piece of shit
Go away normie

>>14325091
old cars are objectively shit

>>14325095
subjective>>>objective

>>14324109
Side impact protection, crumple zones, aerodynamics.

If you don't want to die in a fire when some cunt in a crossover rear-ends you, a 70s car is not good.

>>14325107
looks doesnt make a car not shitty

>>14325095
Right, that's your opinion. Now an actual auto enthusiast appreciates a classic. They know that technology has improved making today's cars better and safer, but that doesn't matter, they appreciate the classics for what they are, and were.
None of this should matter to you, nobody considers shitbox Honda civics a classic anyway.

>>14325131
appreciating a car doesnt make it not shitty

its not an opinion its a fact that old cars are garbage

>that hypocrisy at the end

Im sure you appreciate your parents but they raised a faggot

see how it works

>>14325118
>looks are the only subjective aspect of a car
nocar detected

>>14325152
theyre objectively shit

if you enjoy something outside of aesthetics you just have horrible taste (though you probably like ugly cars too so eh)

>>14324118

A Toyota from 2000 wouldn't be legal to make any more. New cars have high belt lines and gigantic roof pillars because of crash and rollover safety rules.

File: Pug-205-GTI-2.jpg (184KB, 1557x1000px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 1557x1000px

>>14325158
>if you enjoy something outside of aesthetics you just have horrible taste
toplel

>>14324109
It's a combination of safety standards and aerodynamics that are needed for better fuel economy

I will live and die by older vehicles. But i am jelly of the idea that i will never have a solid steel, simple to work on old muscle car that matches the 500hp and 35mpg of my friends 2015 ss camaro.

>>14325143
Without comparing it to something 50 years newer, how exactly are all old cars shit?
>I remember when I was a teenager and thought I knew everything

>>14325242
how are they not shit

standards change

if you think old cars are fine then you have low standards

>>14325274
>how are they not shit
That's not an answer. I'll ask again, without comparing them to something 50 years newer, how exactly are they shit?

>>14325305
but how are they not shit

with nothing to compare to you cant say anything is good or bad

old cars are worse than new ones in just about every way its always been like that

if old cars were good companies wouldnt bother making them better

I really really hope anyone in this thread saying "muh angles, having muh dangerous car is worth risking lifes, shitty a-pillars" dies in an horrific car accident because you fuckers would rather risk peoples life for driving a more squared vehicle. Im not saying destroy all old cars cause I also like classics but what im saying is shut the fuck up and understand why cars are going into the direction they are going. Its to protect YOU and everyone ARROUND YOU.

File: 21-buick-riviera.jpg (61KB, 440x305px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 440x305px

>>14325343
Fuck you, cunt. I don't want protection I want angles and chrome

It's all to do with pedestrian and driver safety restrictions imposed by the MAN.
Nothing more.

>>14325555
>MAN
What has the Maschinenfabrik Augsburg-Nürnberg got to do with this?

>>14325343
those who give up a little liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety

>>14325343
How the fuck do MY A-pillars protect others, and how the fuck is MY safety not MY own business?

>>14325569
It's a fucking car, not a civil right. But as I said, buy a fucking motorcycle and shut the fuck up. If not, shut the fuck up anyways and go change your tampon.

>>14325054
We could much more easily make the roads safer by reducing the speed limit to 30mph, or ban overtaking. It's all a balance.

File: photo %282%29.jpg (2MB, 2592x1936px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2592x1936px

>>14324109

The challenger is way better looking that the mustang or camaro.

>>14325158
Nah, I like power too. And not having catalytic converter's. And not having any emissions testing. And the mechanical simplicity. And the ride (seriously try riding in a Torsion Aire car, it's super comfy). And the fact old muscle will appreciate as new muscle plummets.

>>14325622
The sloppy steering. The 60's fuel economy. The 60's material and build quality. The constant need for maintenance. Old muscle cars are cool but they're only good when they get modern components in them.

>>14325622
>I like power

they have no power compared to modern cars

>I like destroying the planet

disgusting

>the mechanical simplicity

who cares about that

>And the ride

old cars ride like shit and are awful to drive

>And the fact old muscle will appreciate as new muscle plummets.

thats because theyre now more collectors items than cars

looks like youre one of the people who dont like cars and just see investment

>>14325622
Carbon monoxide is about a hundred times more toxic than carbon dioxide. Cat opponents are some of the most retarded people in the auto community.

>>14325581
buying what you want isn't a civil right?

>>14325324


>If old cars were good companies wouldnt bother making them better

You realize there are things such as cafe laws, safety regulations, and such right? Hell, its going to be mandatory for a car in 2018 to have a backup camera, does that make a 17 without one shit? Is the 6.0 powerstroke better than the 7.3 because it made more torque? Look, I see where you are going with your argument: You are justifying your new shitbox by trashing anything older as shitty. I'll say a 60s barge is better than a Mitsubishi Mirage in every regard except fuel economy and it is true on an objective and subjective level. If you want to make a sweeping statement that new is better than old, that's fine but dont expect someone to believe the bullshit you are spewing.

>>14325648
Get the fuck out of here, faggot.

File: tmp_25931-citroen_ds23ie_1875197645.jpg (81KB, 620x332px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 620x332px

>>14325648
>old cars ride like shit

>>14325635
that's just muscle cars. mostly only american cars have improved over the past decade
you cant say a current 911 has the steering and agility of a 996
you cant say a modern e class has the build quality of a w124.
german car quality as a whole has dropped like a stone in the past decade.
modern car service schedules might be less intensive but then the car is dead after a few years if you follow it.
modern steering is terrible compared to most comparable things in the 80s and 90s

>>14325674
also modern fuel consumption and emissions figures are a load of bullshit

>>14325622
>And the mechanical simplicity
I prefer reliability.
>oh but they're complicated so they must be unreliable!
Even if that was true, modern electric cars would beat the ever living fuck in reliability due to them being stupid simple.

>>14325648
>Only see them as an investment.


LOL. so that's why I took out a numbers matching 440, 727, and 8.75 and swapped in a 512 stroker, a built trans, and a StrangeS 69

>>14325682
>all modern cars are all electric
>nothing ever breaks besides the powetrain

>>14325671
fine

your Cadillacs Buicks and Lincolns everyone acts like are great ride like shit

how the fuck can you like a completely disconnected floaty feeling

I have no experience with Citroen

>>14325685
sure

that could be in some malaise era shitbox

who cares

>>14325690
Yeah, basically. Often times the only issues with modern cars are cosmetic.

>>14325702
a floaty feeling means it rides well my busriding friend.
might not handle but that's not the point

>>14325710
that means it rides like shit

>>14325648
lol this is bait.

>>14325714
nope

>>14325702
>Malaise Era
I didn't know that 1966 was malaise era.

And ride quality and handling capability are not the same thing, though they can go hand in hand. Most new performance cars sacrifice quite a bit of ride quality for handling ie any new pony car or sports car.

Anyone calling older cars shit because they're older either
>a.) doesn't like cars period
or
>b.) has never had the pleasure of driving/daily driving an older car

There is clearly something in and of older vehicles that newer models just can't ever capture fully.

>>14325956
Older cars tend to be more lightweight.

Car manufacturers seem to have an obsession with continually enlarging the last model, until it's the same size of the model up (a modern 3 series is now larger than an old 5 series), then introduce a smaller model, and the cycle continues.

And they always manage to increase the weight in the process. What was the last time BMW made a sub-1000kg car?

>>14325566
kek