So these guys have a dealership near me, and it got me thinking...

>>16875939
Well you can still buy the Dodge Challenger or the beetle and they both look good.

File: Chrysler_PT_Cruiser_front_20071211.jpg (454KB, 1605x1197px) Image search: [Google]

454KB, 1605x1197px

>>16875939
>regulations make it impossible for cars to actually look like they did in the past
>every time a manufacturer tried, it looked like shit, was shit, and sold like shit.

File: Volkswagen_New_Beetle_Germany.jpg (61KB, 758x435px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 758x435px

>>16875964

>>16875959
Fair enough.

>>16875964
>regulations make it impossible for cars to actually look like they did in the past
Is it actually impossible to build a more safer and fuel efficient version of a '60s land yacht?

File: beetle2012301530.jpg (80KB, 700x429px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 700x429px

>>16875971
The new one looks good with these wheels

>>16875939
>How come I can buy a modern motorcycle with GOAT mid-20th-century aesthetics, but not a car with the same?
You can also post boipucci

File: 1200px-Chevrolet_SSR-e1400522918781.jpg (83KB, 640x434px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 640x434px

>>16875971

File: caterham-seven-160-11a.jpg (54KB, 1040x693px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 1040x693px

Because Americans are cukced by federal standards for production cars. Enjoy your mandatory backup cameras starting next year.

File: Plymouth_Prowler_23.jpg (1MB, 3185x2119px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3185x2119px

>>16875986
And finally, the prime example.

I want to find the place where they get fake classic car bodies for movies so they can crash them.
>inb4 they use real ones
Dont tell me that darkness.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (115KB, 1279x720px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1279x720px

>>16875939
Because no one actually buys new cars that look old. Also those motorcycles aren't old designs, they are completely modern. Pic related 1/2

File: 006.jpg (84KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 800x600px

>>16876159
2/2 THIS is what an indian looks like. If you think that's the same as OP pic you are a tard.

>>16876167
Where did I say it was?

>>16876183
>How come I can buy a modern motorcycle with GOAT mid-20th-century aesthetics, but not a car with the same?
All these motorcycles are just modern motorcycle design. They aren't "mid 20th century" design. The fact you can't see that tells me you don't understand design or design limitation.

>>16876195
I'm not seeing "mid 20th century design" in that quote, bruv.

>liquid cooled
In the trash it goes

>>16875939
Because women and fags drive cars and not bikes, so bikes are left only for the enthusiasts.

>>16876195
Or because bikes are death traps no matter what so it'd no point in complaining

>>16875939
Because the engine technology is ALSO stuck in the 1940s.

>>16876147
They do.

>>16875939
Aerodynamics and pedestrian safety. Attempts have been made, but they all look complete shit.

>>16876147
They use old ones that look right but don't run, but are fixed up to run just well enough, or hauled on a cable.
Or they just mock it up themselves.

Hell, the Dukes of Hazzard broke a Charger literally in half every time they filmed a jump, because of the lead ballast in the back to counterbalance the fuckhuge engine and stop it nosing in. Literally snapped chassis down the middle.

>>16876485
What are you talking about?