What are some examples of non-super cars whose designers didn't

lotus cars are pretty much it

File: image.jpg (49KB, 600x289px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 600x289px

>>17640333
Anything pre 1972.

Designs that disregard safety today?

Cant think of anything the throws safety to the wind for fun. If it doesnt meet certain standards then it doesnt get sold.

Its more likely to find manufactures cheating on performance killing emissions standards than to fuck around with safety.

>>17640386
I'm talking about cars made in this century, anon.

>>17640391
Oh, super low production kit car makers like superperformance and factory five are all I can think of. New Delorean maybe?

I guess TVR. They're bare bones on creature comforts but still have decent safety.

>>17640333
The Jeep TJ isn't made anymore but I would count it. It was basically a 1960s-era design with some minor tweaks to meet the federal minimum regulations. Thin doors, folding windshield, no side airbags available, etc. The JK did away with all this because it's just a minivan with a Jeep-esque body and locking diffs stuck on top.

>>17640391
This century? Ford Crown Victoria.

>made up to 2011, 2011 model was virtually identical to a 2003 model
>which in turn was a refresh of a 1992 model
>which was running on 1970's technology
>safety? fuck you, it's big and heavy and we'll be damned if we add anything else to it
>ABS is optional
>two front airbags, eventually, to hell with everything else
>gas tank explodes if you get rear-ended, ford's answer is to put a tiny piece of plastic on the rear axle and call it fixed
>tiny pillars, big windows, flat beltline, even as every other car got bigger and bulkier and more like a cave on wheels
>crumple zones? what are those?
>everyone still thinks they're safe because they're 4000lbs of steel, most of which will end up in your lap

File: 2003_Ford_Crown_Victoria_--_NHTSA.jpg (97KB, 1268x748px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 1268x748px

>>17640445
But anon, it's fucking ugly.

Defenders are just about the only cars which meet your criteria

If something doesn't meet standards, it doesn't get sold, so there's no money in producing it, so nobody produces it. Not to mention you wouldn't be able to legally drive this mythical magical "Pure design with no safety input" car you're thinking of.

How do you get around this?

Use an old VIN/Chassis.

Plenty of companies rebuild old cars (E types, MGBs, 911s) with modern components and whatnot, that's as close as you're going to get really.

>>17641251
This, but Defenders got killed by EU regulations. Last one rolled off production lines in May 2016, and now they're worth more than gold. I'm talking €15.000 for a 20 year old Defender with 280.000km.

>>17640445
The crown Vic was one of the safest cars for a long time. It's a shining example that the safety standards constantly move goal posts to stay relevant. It went from 5 star front and back and acceptable side impact to completely obsolete not allowed to make in ONE year. The 2003+ Crown Vic also was designed to withstand a 75mph rear ending for police safety as well as the only production car with an optional fire suppressing system.

>>17641268
>This, but Defenders got killed by EU regulations.
Exactly, except they got killed by US regulations years before they did for the rest of the world.

>>17641326
Naw, they just stopped selling them here.

File: 1965-shelby-cobra-replica-front.jpg (391KB, 2048x1340px) Image search: [Google]

391KB, 2048x1340px

>>17640333
Big american V8
2200lbs
no traction control/abs/stability control
no power steering or brakes

The SyTy gets a mention too. Lets's make an awesome but almost useless truck that can out accelerate a Ferrari for shits n gigs.

>>17641329
They stopped selling them because the US regulations demanded passenger airbags, so they just stopped selling them.

Mustangs.

They decided it would be a good idea to make the fuel required to run the car the blood of on looking bystanders.

File: dorito.jpg (548KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

548KB, 1920x1080px

"In Japan, sales were affected by the fact that this series RX-7 no longer complied with Japanese Government dimension regulations, and Japanese buyers were liable for yearly taxes for driving a wider car compared to previous generations."

>>17641218
You're fucking ugly but we still keep you around, don't we?

I wouldn't call it ugly. Plain, moreso. It's not particularly bad looking, or angry-headlight-faced, or covered in weird vents or angles or soapbar-rounded, it's just... a car.

Any sportsbike.