>>12469 Part of what has changed design over the years is changing safety standards. The relevant regulatory bodies mandate that cars have certain safety features. The main reason pillars have gotten so much fatter is because in the mid/late 2000s the NHTSA or whoever it was, decided to require that a car's roof be able to support the weight of the car in the event of a rollover. Pedestrian and crash safety standards have dictated the general shape of a bumper, as they have for many years, but they have become more intrusive in the last 25 years. Airbag requirements have increased the mass of a car. Part of the reason we got things like 50s American cars, and the M1 and the Countach is that regulations were fairly lenient to nonexistent, so the designers could do whatever they wanted - and they did. This changed when regulation increased in the mid 90s, which gave us cars that looked like the Supra and the EH Civic and the last generation Escort. I'm not very good at explaining this part because I'm not totally clear on the idea myself: Another part, in some cases anyway, is that the context in which cars are designed affects their design. This rule can be applied to the above - the reason cars look like the way they do is due to today's regulations. It's more than that though, because the regulations don't dictate exactly how cars have to look. I don't know what made pop-up headlights so popular in the 80s and 90s, but it was something that isn't present today - otherwise we'd still be making pop-up headlights. A good example of context is American cars in the 50s. We had a lot of wide, open roads, and WWII just happened. We were prosperous and powerful, and car design reflected that. Cars then were gigantic and gaudy.

Because muh safety. Though i see no reason why the designers can't take a design straight from 80s, copy-paste it, reinforce some parts so it passes safety crap, and sell it. I bet my liver that pics related, but new, would sell like hotcakes.

>>12472 >Cars then were gigantic and gaudy. >implying they aren't today

>>12474 >implying weight behind a car isn't a good thing in the first place

>>12476 I'm not, I'm just saying that size isn't a 50's thing.

>>12474 >>12477 The Suburban, and the few other cars like it, have and always will be exceptionally large cars. The 50s are significant because cars got progressively smaller and more conservative looking through the 60s and 70s, until most people were driving mid-size or compact cars like they are today. Most cars now are bigger and heavier because they have to be able to fit all the required safety tech and meet pedestrian and crash safety regulations.

>>12498 that's an Escalade but ok, I agree with that.

>>12504 Oops, I thought it was a Chevy badge from the thumbnail… They are the same platform anyway.

Short Answer: Government mandates Long Answer: Between pedestrian crash standards and CAFE, manufactures have been bent over a barrel and fucked hard, no lube or condoms. In a effort to meet these ludicrous demands manufactures have to meet the best possible engineered solution for MPG and hitting some fuck who think he can dance in the street. So to answer your question as to where car design has gone? Out the fucking window, that's where.

>>12510 Pedestrian safety should have been the other way around where pedestrians are given or mandated to wear safety gear in case of vehicular accident. Think of all the tax revenue and fines that could be had!

>>12472 >>12473 >>12510 >>12533 Can't you just whine to Trump about this? I mean, he'd probably just roll regulations back to pre-obanabo standards, but it'd be a start, at the very least.

>>12552 I would be surprised if he cared at all. I don't even know if he can do anything about it. Maybe in a year when he's fulfilled all his campaign promises and is bored, he'll stumble upon a tweet about pedestrian lawsuits and make some noise about it.

>>12556 He's made a real stink, recently, about climate change being bullshit, whilst forming an economic advisory for the EPA, under industrialist Scott Pruitt. Perhaps with factory deregulation, there could also be some automotive deregulation, if someone were to nag at him enough about how it would bring back the age of the muscle car, and save the rust belt, as he had also promised. A petition, maybe? If I recall this correctly, /k/ managed to rack up enough signatures for a possible repeal of the NFA. Wouldn't hurt to do the same, with the 1974 vehicle emissions standards, and so on.

>>12510 >third image I understand why but it's a load of shit. I had five niggers jaywalk in front of me in the last month without even caring to look around them till they had the deer in the headlights look. I need to buy a dashcam already.

>>12568 >I need to buy a dashcam already. Get a bullbar fitted while you're at it. Sounds like you'll need it.

>>12533 It's already illegal to hit someone with a car. We shouldn't coddle idiots who don't get out the way of giant rolling slabs of metal, or forced to drive potatoes because of a few inattentive (and most likely drunk) assholes ran over some people. >>12552 Funny you mention Trump, looks like your wish, has been granted. archive.is/KjRsu

>>12587 Amazing! One can only wonder what automobiles could become, if such rollbacks are pushed even further! I hope the lot of you are ready for the media to make a special case report on DEADLY ASSAULT CARS within the coming years.

>>12469 >most cars now-a-days pretty much all look like shit and look the same. I'm interested in how and why this shift occurred. Jews, anon, Jews.

>>12596 >Why do you need such an angular car? It's clearly designed to murder children! >You don't need more then two cylinders, plenty of vehicles get by with two cylinders! >The Colour Black triggers me and reminds me of Newtown, Columbine, and the Somme! >Why do you have to drive a white car you racist >You drive a truck? Terrorists drive trucks. And they litterially kill polar bears The good news is Prius sales are gonna plummet and gas will continue to drop in price.

>>12610 >implying the prius won't suddenly pull a reverse-shitbox and turn into a big block full-size sports coupe

>>12617 Nah, the Prius would die off and Toyota would stuff a very de-tuned V8 from their NASCAR program into a Camry or Avalon or a new Mark II or Crown

>>12654 >NASCAR V8 >not 3JZ >Mark II >mfw they will never make a Mark III with a 3JZ >mfw even if they made it they wouldn't send it here >mfw even if they did send it here it would come as an overly edgy Lexus

The Mark II is more a trim name then an actual model designation. Though you're probally right about them not sharing like all the good land barges they didn't bring over for some fucking reason. Though it should be noted that Toyota and BMW did partner to make the Not-Supra so a new Toyota inline seems fucking inevitable. You don't partner with BMW and not do an inline 6 for a car famous for it's inline 6, especially after the FR-S had a boxer which is a lot more work then an Inline. Though hopefully Lexus does unfuck it's design phylosiphy. They somehow made a car that looks worse in person, which isn't how that works normally. And it's not even the large grill is a bad idea, it's just everything is incongrous and looks like the clay sculpt melt. Early Lexus's were perhaps bland, but bland is better then awful.

>>12659 Lexus cars are just ugly. They look like plastic niggermobiles

>>12659 >straight-six FT1 is inevitable I want to agree but I wouldn't put it past them to fuck it up somehow, considering the boxer in the 86. We'll just have to see. >Lexus ugly I like the earlier ones. I don't know who infiltrated the design team in the late 2000s but they have completely fucked almost everything.