what era of cars is your favorite? why?

All eras of technological innvoation. So basically all eras up to and including the '60s. Afterwards nothing of meaning happened. They spent the '70s on emissions, the '80s on safety, and all following decades on useless electronics.

File: a110-alpine.jpg (123KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1000x667px

60s

because all the small cute European sports cars before things went ugly af and wedgy in the 70s

>>16587888
maybe if you only like burger shit

the rest of the world advanced considerably in the 70s

>>16587898
>the rest of the world advanced considerably in the 70s
In what way?

>>16587932
gee I wonder

turbos became more mainstream and better utilized
fuel injection did the same
developed new engines utilizing newer tech instead of dropping compression and running a shit tune on existing engines
Europe (or at least Volvo) was continually advancing safety

theres a reason the US auto industrys reputation still hurts from the 70s while Japan is still going strong on it

there has been more technical advancement in the past few years than the 60s ever produced anyway hell Id say the 70s and 80s were better too

>>16587859
Wow, someone else who knows what a Matra Djet is. My uncle had one, it was awesome.

>>16587981
Turbos and electronic (!) fuel injection were both first used in volume production in the '60s, as you said they were only refined later on

And I already said that I don't consider the adherence to emissions and safety mentionworthy technological milestones. They didn't make cars better, they only made them less damaging and safer for idiots to handle. Also the cornerstones of safety weren't even thought up in the '70s, there were far earlier pioneers of the mindset like the Tucker 48, Citroen DS or NSU Ro 80.

And don't even begin to argue about advancements of the last couple years. It's all worthless fucking appliance functions like remote controlling your home coffee maker from the car.

>>16588015
>its irrelevant because I dont like it

not how it works

cars have come farther in the past 15 years than the 70s-90s combined

File: stupid shitlord.jpg (382KB, 1024x1536px) Image search: [Google]

382KB, 1024x1536px

>>16588040
No wonder your argumentation is garbage if you think there's a greater difference between these two cars than there was in the previous three decades.

>>16587888
Mazda is introducing hcci next year.

>>16588057
no wonder youre retarded if you think 2 generations of a car generalizes the entire automotive world

>>16588082
Feel free to point out the innovations.

File: pagode.jpg (2MB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2048x1536px

>>16587859
I like my cars like I like my music, 60's & 70's.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldW8jtV2jG0

>>16588015
>fuel injection were both first used in volume production in the '60s, as you said they were only refined later on
There really isn't any comparison between modern fuel injection and what was available in the 60s. The processing power or a modern ECU is greater than anything that was even available in the 60s.

There is a reason a modern 3.5 liter engine puts out more power than anything available in the 60s.

>>16588092
electric turbos
them fancy electronic differentials
direct injection
free valve engines
mass produced EV tech
mass produced DCT
electronic stability control
hybrids
electronics in general especially media and monitoring
autonomous cars are quickly becoming a thing

>inb4 some of that existed earlier

no shit

I aint getting into pointless discusions with anons that think cars are at its prime today.

They where godmode in the 60's & 70's like I said before, anyone claiming anything else never visited a museum. This counts for eurocucks & murifats.

>>16588131
>electronics in general especially media and monitoring
Oh boy my life has gotten so much better now that I can play my Led Zeppelin albums over a touchscreen instead of a CD player, and thank God for reverse cameras because you can't see out of cars anymore! So much innovation!

>>16588144
modern cars are better

that is an undebatable fact

in no objective manner are old cars better

glad you mentioned visiting a museum because that is where the relics belong

>>16588147
better than the old days for sure

now you get a car that has built in internet with radio and everything

>>16588160
Fuck you and fuck your internet car. It's worthless.

>>16588166
every car is worthless

some are just less convenient like old ones

File: LincolnContinentalMarkIV.jpg (148KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 800x600px

70's, era of the landboat.

File: Citroen-15-six-10.jpg (22KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 600x450px

>>16588169
Tell that to the people restoring pre-war or post-war classics. Let's see someone restoring your Ford Focus in 70 years.

File: IMAG0193.jpg (1MB, 4224x2368px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4224x2368px

>>16588160
In French they have a saying:
les gout et les couleurs on discute pas.

If you like plastic and jersey shore thats good for you anon.
Let's agree to disagree.

>>16588182
people have been wasting money on stupid shit since money was invented

people restore 90s and 2000s cars already and yeah people are going to be doing it to modern cars too

>>16588186
I have a saying too

liking something doesnt make it good

old cars are objectively bad

>>16588199
Liking new cars doesn't make them good.

>>16588203
nope

but them being objectively better than cars before them does

>>16588203
>>16588182
>>16588186
>>16588166
>>16588147
>>16588144
>>16588092
>>16588015

Boomers get out

>>16588215
>objectively
>because muh internet connection and some millionaire hybrid supercar

>>16588245
because pretty much everything

>>16588077
And I'm interested to see how it works out. Would be applaudable if they manage to get this compression out of such high mileage engines. So far it's only been possible on permanently rebuilt race engines or test beds.

>>16588199
you are the center of your own universe anon, and I can discuss things with arguments, but i cant change what you like.

So this is pointless

>>16588261
this isnt about what I like

this is about old cars being worse than new ones by every objective measure

ffs the 60s are my favorite era

>>16588268
>every objective measure
>objective

you dont know what that means do you

>>16588268
You can't even define worse or better. The fact of the matter remains that old cars had far more of an impact on the engineering in their eras as modern cars have. Back then every few years saw a new groundbreaking innovation, be it fuel injection or double wishbone suspension. All the innovation we get nowadays is Apple Store connectivity.

>>16588286
>(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

yeah that is how Im using it

>>16588288
this is wrong

I already made a list but your autistic fucktarded self can only pick out the stuff you dont like while being blind to everything else

the innovations were much less than what they are now

>>16588309
>the innovations were much less than what they are now
Which is still completely incorrect. Everything, absolutely everything worthwhile has been thought up far earlier, it only sees renewed interest now because of advances in technology in general, not because of car-specific innovations. Electric cars are a hundred years old, the only thing that changed in the meantime was battery technology.

>>16588316
coming up with ideas and failing to execute them are hardly innovations

thats just putting the idea there

when the means for the tech to become practical is when its an innovation

>>16588131
>These are all "objectively" better

>>16588333
Electric cars were practical a hundred and ten years ago when petrol cars were still a shitfest.

>>16588345
and omg wouldnt you know it modern innovations make them practical today

File: projecting.png (110KB, 273x185px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 273x185px

>>16588309
> autistic fucktarded

A U T I S T I C F U C K T A R D

U

T

I

S

T

I

C


F

U

C

K

T

A

R

D

>>16588351
yeah we get it

only an autist would cherry pick that hard

>>16588349
Not really, still half the range and hundredfold the recovery time of petrol cars (except for Tesla Superchargers which are so high powered that they're harmful for the batteries if used regularly).

>>16588356
yeah nah 265 miles is plenty practical

the fuck are you doing road trips every day?

>>16588363
No, but when I do I don't want to be stuck recharging for ten hours every 200-and-change miles.

>>16588356
Even with supercharging it's like 1/100th of the recovery time

File: tK9edkm.jpg (151KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 1024x1024px

I liked 90's Japanese cars. A lot of great vehicles were made during that era.

>>16588372
265/30 = 8.8miles/minute
30*10 = 300 miles/minute
sorry i was wrong, it's 3/100th the recovery time

>>16588369
nah remember when a Tesla drove cross country on about 12 hours of charging

>>16588387
Yeah but how badly would you rek your batteries if you supercharged them regularly?

Also you can drive cross country on an hour of refueling.

'90s
-varied choice of styles and engines (at least in europe)
-thin doors, narrow a pillars (cars were generally lighter)
-tecnology still up to date

30s and 60s for European cars
50s for American cars
90s for Japanese cars

File: 832895D90F163.jpg (401KB, 1140x584px) Image search: [Google]

401KB, 1140x584px

>>16587859
80's-90's
Because the introduction of Computers into cars made some original rad as fuck ideas

>>16588399
from what I found a 6% drop on a 88k mile car that uses a supercharger twice a week

and its only going to get better tho

I mean damn the EV1 couldnt even do 100 miles and now even Chevy has a "cheap" EV that can do 240 miles now

Tesla or at least recent battery tech is the greatest automotive innovation of recent years imo

>>16588428
Until demand exceeds supply and prices for battery resources skyrocket.

File: 2017-Chevrolet-BoltEV-033.jpg (413KB, 1580x873px) Image search: [Google]

413KB, 1580x873px

Today's cars are my favorite.

They're the safest, have the lowest NVH, and have the most semi-autonomous features like adaptive cruise control and automatic emergency braking, with full autonomy right around the corner.

It's amazing how just a few years ago, I remember thinking, "Cars are so good now. How will they possibly get any better?" Now here we are, and cars from 10 years ago seem ancient in comparison.

>>16588316

Electric motors today are smaller and lighter than they ever were before.

>>16588488
>They're the safest, have the lowest NVH, and have the most semi-autonomous features like adaptive cruise control and automatic emergency braking, with full autonomy right around the corner.
Implying these are good things

>>16588519
they are

only a fool would disagree

>>16588529
not really , it just encourages people to be even shittier drivers because hurr my car will warn me before i kill all the CHILLUN, or it will warn me before i choose to veer into the other lane like a cunt

80s or 90s.
I love homos and 80s had Group B cars while 90s had GT1 cars.

late 60's - early 80's, specifically muscle cars.
Being a yuropoor, closest I've come to one was to see it in a museum, but the sharp angles and straight lines will always appeal to me.

>>16588147

Backup cameras have a larger field of view than rear view mirrors in cars with no roof at all. Before backup cameras, the only way we were able to see directly behind our back bumpers was with those corner mounted blind spot mirrors like cargo vans and busses have, but even those only show one corner at a time.

>>16588539
if we have full autonomy that wont be a problem at all now will it

its good

>>16588539

Studies show that the rate of accidents has dropped since the implementation of electronic aids. I can find the source if you're interested.

>>16588609

Whoops, wrong aides.

File: silberpfeil.jpg (94KB, 729x486px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 729x486px

>>16587859
I realy like 30s racecars, giant engines, superchargers and up to 200mph fast.
With insanely high tire diameters and a streamlined body.

File: o.jpg (1MB, 2400x2100px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2400x2100px

>>16587859
I'm too lazy to think of an answer.

>>16588569
sorry that you're not able to parallel park
sorry that you have such severe health issues that you physically can't turn around and the only way to see what's behind you is the center rearview mirror
sorry that you need to be babbied in your vehicle

>>16588648
sorry that you're such a whiny cunt goddamn

>>16588529
Or someone who actually likes to feel like they're part of the driving experience

>>16588647
..although I can say that Japanese cars ended in 90's for me.

>>16588641
Fuckin' Kazoo cars.

>>16588840
>he doesn´t want to drive 300km/
>he doesn´t like the inline 8 engine
>he doesn´t like open cockpits

what is wrong with you?

>>16588858
>doesn't

Implying.

>>16588858
Also no seatbelts, men back then had huge balls driving those.

I really like them but damn, it must be scary hitting 300km/h with one of these.

>>16587859
Mid 60's to mid 70's my dad always had muscles except a 260z and a 510, whenever it was just me and him he'd drive like a maniac and I loved it, so I got the muscle fag mentality driven into me

File: 7534875893475894738957348957.jpg (291KB, 800x500px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 800x500px

>>16587859
90s because I'm a generic weaboo fag.

File: Ferrari-330-P_19.jpg (251KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 1024x683px

For american and european cars I'd say 50's and 60's because it's when companies started to experiment more and post-war tech was starting to make way into the popular car.

Also because I like curvy cars and headlights like these give me instant boners.