modern car design

You can skirt regulations with limited build quantities, like the DeLorean, but then you've eliminated your economies of scale and the car will be snapped up with demand driving price through the roof. Otherwise, no, it's pretty fucking hard to get around all the new laws. Just look at the ass end of the newer Dodge pony cars. That's the kind of shit you have to pull these days to approximate old styling.

>>16757644

It's possible, but would make the vehicle very heavy.

The problem is with the legislation. It was put into power by people who have no idea how motor vehicles work. Emissions, safety, and fuel economy regulations need to be reworked completely to have a true modern equivalent to the pic related.

The price of the vehicle will go up, the more expensive the materials used are. Usually lighter and stronger is more expensive. Price becomes a huge factor when you're just trying to stay at a certain price point. CAFE has horrible bias towards light truck classification vehicles. The IIHS and NHTSA are always looking for new ways to fail vehicles for crash safety, like overly specific testing (small overlap for example), which forces vehicles to have extremely heavy crumple zones.

so yeah, if it was affordable, it would be done. Otherwise, no. You can't have a sexy 60s body with the passenger safety of a modern car, all because of shitty legislation.

File: 2018-chevrolet-camaro-zl1-1le-001.jpg (90KB, 780x518px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 780x518px

modern cars are better
get over it
>inb4 muh SAE gross hp muh boomer styling

>>16757737

The proportions on a lot of modern cars are fucking hideous. However, the performance is undeniable.

If changes to the legislation were made, we could have better looking Camaros.

>>16757737
Who cares if they perform better when they look like uncreative trash? Regulation and mindless consumerism has ruined any ingenuity and creativity in automobile design. It's almost more practical to modernize an older vehicle model so you have both the reliability of new and style of old than it is to try and find a decent looking modern vehicle.

>>16757933
Are you a homosexual gay?

>>16757976
No, which is why >>16757737 looks like trash to me.

>>16757976
No. But judging by your reply you might want to check the FAQ for the rules. This is an 18+ website.

>>16757933
>>16757989
>>16757991
le wrong generation going hard

>>16757644
It can definitely be done, but to do it properly is very expensive. It's all the small detail of older cars that are different. Wipers, switches, handles, glass frames, lights. Those chrome bumpers would have to be fake plastic ones though.

>>16758024
Thinking that kind of SO MANY FACETS WOW SO AGGRESSIVE styling looks good only makes you look retarded.

>>16758084
this kind of thought makes u look 12 and mentally disadvantaged

>>16758093
And your phone posting doesn't? Your shift key and punctuation broken? Modern car styling is juvenile and edgy as all fucking hell. None of them look good. Do you not see the terminal fucking underbite that thing has? Disgusting.

>>16758107
lmao

muscle cars have always been immature garbage its just upholding tradition

maybe one day we will have time travel so u can live in the generation u were meant to be

>>16758124
>muscle
They ALL look like that you double nigger, have you seen the current goddamn fucking Prius? It only gets fucking worse as you move to cars that are even worth a damn. The new S2K looks horrific.

>>16758146
muh generalizations

>>16758163
How is something from a previous generation being superior consitute a yerning to be a part of that generation? What you are saying is that you HAVE to like what is modern just becuase it's new and you're not allowed to like anything else. What a weak argument.

>>16757737

t. bubble aesthetics aficionado

>>16758347
nothing superior about previous generations

just objectively worse

what a tard lmao

File: 1487093865054.jpg (29KB, 400x450px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 400x450px

>>16758373
>nothing superior about previous generations
>t. Arrogant child

>>16757665
>>16757714

What is it about that current laws that makes it difficult to make the sleek body shapes of old cars? Is it shit like "your car must be this thick and this rounded to make it safer for pedestrians" or something?

>>16758392
so are u old or just a wrong generation fgt

u dont have any excuse tbqh

things are better than ever

>>16758401
>My opinion is better than yours and you are (insert ad hominem).
I refuse to believe you had enough brain power to acquire a dribers license.

>>16758400

You're on the right track. There are specified regulations (like front having to be more pedestrian safe) and there is vehicular footprint that would categorize it into a certain class, changing its target values.

>>16758411
im not talking about opinions u cockwrangler

its fact

ur the 1 who THINKS old shit is worth anything compared to today

aka ur opinion

btw whats a "dribers" license

>>16758420
>I'm not talking about opinions, I'm talking about your opinion.
What?
>dribers
It's called a typographical error. Here is a Wikipedia article in Simple English for you. If you have trouble understanding it I can find a simpler explanation.
https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typographical_error

>>16758436
except old shit is shit thats worse than new shit

wowsers how dumb are you

>>16758442
You do know ad hominem is a logical fallacy, yes? Your argument is unstructured filler fitting of your overall ignorant nature. You have not given me one, not a single point to support your topic.

>>16758457
u know that thinking calling something a fallacy discredits it is a fallacy 2 you hypocritical fucktard

just lmao now ur gonna sit and cry about arguments

nothing to argue

ur wrong

>>16758464
More filler? It's obvious you can't even speak like a normal human being. How do you expect me to take you seriously when you continue to destroy your own ethos.

>>16758468
aka u dont know shit so you can only dance around like a namby pampy fgt

new is better than old

not refutable

>>16758473
Nice Logical Fallacy Fallacy. You are concluding that my argument is false simply by my attempt to make this a more civil dialogue. Again, you eill get nowhwhere by simply throwing empty words at me.

>>16758485
lol

ur still wrong

u cant even make up an argument so you dance around

>>16758489
Subjective arguments are not actually arguable. There are no emperical facts to make points from. In fact, I have no idea why you keep replying to me.

>>16758496
yeh I already won to the point u cant even defend urself lol

its just sad at this point guess Ill stop before u kill urself or something

>>16758507
Okay. Sure you did. I'm going to go find a sane individual to have real dialogue with. Enjoy your victory champ. You sure showed me. Anything made after 1985 is for cock sucking faggots btw.

>>16758468
>>16758519
HEY FUCKING IDIOT NEWSHIT
Don't respond to no-punctuation no-caps guy. He loves getting replies. He doesn't actually believe what he's saying. By all means we need more articulate people like you on /o/ but don't fall for this guy he usually pops up in stance threads too.

Would an old 70s car be as safe as a modern car if you added a massive roll cage ot it?

>>16759994
Of you roll it, yes, if you crash it probably even worse, cage bars might deform or brake and cause even more harm to occupants.

>>16758903
my very own stalker :3

>>16759994
no

that easily makes it less safe that it already was when ur head smacks into it

File: no.jpg (55KB, 680x439px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 680x439px

>>16758401
>>16758024
>>16757976

Is strawman the only argument you can make?

>>16760084
lmao

there is no argument to be made

previous generations are worse

>>16760077
ur lit a carbon copy of me lol

>>16758903
im the true stance thread lurker this doofus is a phony

btw stance is still cool lol

>>16760088

okay everyone ignore him. I don't know why you fucking retards reply to him.

>>16757644
It has more to do with pedestrian safety, which is more affected by the shape of bodywork.

>>16760120
I dont see why u scrubs cant handle facts

its not bait because u dont agree with it