Good disc brakes and wider/larger tires/wheels will give far more safety improvement than anything else you can do. Driver visibility for avoiding accidents IS superior in our old cars, so that helps you.

Lou

_________________
Home of Slant6-powered fun machines since 1988

H'mm. Kind of like parking a 1966 Valiant, Dart, Nova, Falcon, Comet, Lark, and American together: All boxes on wheels, largely indistinguishable unless you happen to care enough to notice the details.
Yeah, that happened when the daring, controversial, swoopy styling of the 1962 Valiant and Lancer gave way to the boxy, conservative, bland styling of the 1963 Valiant and Dart. Result: Sales took off skyward.

But as for there being no more daring styling in today's cars...are you sure about that? Are you really sure?
That is very, very much still the case. Spend a little time learning about the art of the car designer, which is quite alive and well.

Most people who look at a painting or sculpture and say "That's not art!" really mean "I don't like that" or "I don't understand that". Same thing here.

_________________
一期一会
Too many people who were born on third base actually believe they've hit a triple.

I enjoy a thread over on the HAMB that features regular aerial and long shots of parking lots from the '20s, '30s, '40s, '50s, and '60s.
At any distance long enough to see more than 20 or so cars most U.S. makes are so alike as to induce yawning. In the later stuff Brits and Beetles stand out conspicuously.

Other than the mix of decades in the later eras it's pretty generic, but at least really easy to pick out anything unique.

_________________
Sex, drags, and rock & roll.
Dick, 225% crazy.
Hobby (cars, that is) Photos link

But would you rather be lost in a sea of late 50s and early 60s monotonous cars or a sea of late 2000s and early 2010s cars? Rocketships or wads of chewed gum?

ABC gum, of course. Tasty.

Actually, I'm more of a '20s fan.

_________________
Sex, drags, and rock & roll.
Dick, 225% crazy.
Hobby (cars, that is) Photos link

Doesn't matter…either way I'd be lost.

_________________
一期一会
Too many people who were born on third base actually believe they've hit a triple.

My opinion is I would rather be lost in something that is interesting to look at as opposed to being lost in something that is deathly dull, i.e. if I must be lost somewhere, I would rather be lost in the woods than lost at the county auditor's office.

My two cents:

Monkey see, monkey do school of automotive school of art & design is alive and well celebrating its 105th year. Previous to about 1910, standard auto design, was, there was no standard design. As various layout of controls, configuration of drivetrain, type of engine, auto bodies morphing from hundreds of years beast of burden powered coach design went out the window.

By 1925 most manufactures followed each others designs, and engineering making for standardization of the industry. There were some mass market exceptions such as steam powered vehicles, and Ford's Model T which Henry joined the herd in 1928 with the very conventional looking and driving revolutionary all metal body Model A. It has been a game of leap frog since 1886 when the first Benz hit the road.

So you guys unhappy with this week's design cues wait about six years something new looking will surface.

_________________
67' Dart GT Convertible; the old Chrysler Corp.
82' LeBaron Convertible; the new Chrysler Corp
07' 300 C AWD; Now by Fiat, the old new Chrysler LLC

Cars have looked the same to me since the late 80s. Seriously. I haven't been able to quickly or easily discern makes since then. New cars all look either like insects or blobs of gum. Personal tastes differ, so maybe some people like them.

CUT! No, no, no. Where are you getting this? Let's not ad-lib; let's stick to the script. Your line is "Hey! Git offa my lawn, y'damn kids!"



(I happen to agree with you that most modern cars look like they've been through some large animal's digestive tract. But that's a reasonable price to pay for the vastly improved safety, efficiency, durability, dependability, economy, and vastly reduced pollution, of today's cars versus yesterday's.)

_________________
一期一会
Too many people who were born on third base actually believe they've hit a triple.

********************************************************
Gotta disagree with this one, Dan. I'd be willing to bet that if an automaker put thier minds to it, they could reproduce a ('41 Plymouth, for example), with exactly the same protections in it as modern cars, and the same powertrains as modern cars. I strongly believe they don't want to risk it in order to keep the profit margin high for thier investors.

What was the last risk to take place? Mopar's new Challenger on the modern platform. Thye did a great job of producing a retro 70's muscle car, while GM had an epic fail with the Camaro. (It was supposed to look like a modernized '69, but I don't see it.)

Who's with me? Would you rather buy a '41 Plymouth/Dodge with a modern powertrain and safety system, or tomorrow's newest, uninteresting raindrop?

But I digress. This thread is starting to take a tangent that doesn't help the OP. Maybe we should get back on track.

Roger

styling....

I drive a 1951 DeSoto. In its day the styling was very polarizing. I thought it was cool then....many didnt.

Now everyone thinks its cool. This means any polarizing or cutting edge credits are thrown to the wind. What was once avante garde is now a nice old car.

_________________
Yeah....Im the one who destroyed this rare, vintage automobile.....

Well, no. Too many aspects of the '41 Plymouth's design are incompatible with the safety and fuel economy needs of today. They could make a car with a lot of the styling and design themes and lines of the '41 Plymouth (see for example today's Challenger vs. the '71-'74 item, or today's Camaro vs. the '67), but it could not be an exact replica.

And while there's a hot market at the moment for muscle cars that feed into our nostalgia for the '70s (i.e., pretense at remembering what the '70s were really like), there's probably not much market for cars that look like '41 Plymouths. That idea's been done already (PT Cruiser). Vintage hot rod? Yep, that's been done too (Prowler). And much though you and I might run right out and buy one, a 2016 car that looks like a '62 Valiant almost certainly would not sell in enough volume to justify its production.
That's what corporations are legally obligated to do: maximize shareholder returns.
You might not like the car, but sales figures of the present Camaro don't support your idea that it's an "epic fail" or anything like it.

It's not a conspiracy theory, it's just hard reality: those of us on this board have automotive tastes that are well off the bell curve.

(As for this thread going off topic: Yes, but the OP already has his answers)

_________________
一期一会
Too many people who were born on third base actually believe they've hit a triple.

Yeah, but they only think that 'cuz it's true.
Yup. Even a '63 Valiant, which in its day was so conventional and forgettable and un-daring in its styling that it got lost in a crowd of one.

It's worth remembering that people have been bellyaching about how today's cars are all boring lookalikes, not like back in the old days when cars had style...for at least half a century.

_________________
一期一会
Too many people who were born on third base actually believe they've hit a triple.

Just goes to show, put big enough rims and tires on, with a lot a rake, and anything will look good to somebody. Bathtub Rambler Americans come to mind...