I'd argue these are more so.

>>13029 I'd agree. If futuristic means unnecessarily edgy as fuck, Toyota is definitely the most futuristic. The future looks like shit, too.

>>13033 The problem is it's the only direction I can see any sort of evolution in car design. Most new cars made today are repeated rehashes of designs that were introduced between 2001 and 2009. Take the Civic in OP for example. Debuted at the 2005 Geneva Motor Show in March of that year which means it was most definitely designed in 2004 if not earlier. The current Mustang, Camaro and Challenger are all based off of concept cars that came out in 2006. The Huracán is just an evolved 2003 Gallardo, and the Aventador is just a much more widespread production version of the 2007 Reventón. The last Mitsubishi Evo which finished for good a year or so back is almost identical visually to the 2007 model, which in turn was built off of a 2006 concept car. The Insignia/half of Buick's current models? Introduced in 2008. The current Nissan GT-R was designed to an almost finished form by 2001, with the most significant revision occurring 4 years later. The car itself has been in production since 2007. The Juke is based on the Qazana, a concept from 2009. The Qashqai, although receiving yet another facelift, is still quite clearly the 2005 original with a different chassis and some new body panels, much like how the old Renault 5 was when it got semi-replaced by the Supercinq. Audi's lineup has basically looked the same since 2006. Even the mighty R8 came out in 2007, based on a 2003 concept car. Most of today's Mercedes can trace their origins back to the 2004 CLS and SLK models, with the rest of the lineup approaching their present-day form around 2009. Most of today's BMWs can trace their origins back to the original Bangle Bulbification project that begun in 1999 with the Z9 concept and concluded in 2005 with the major update of all the existing Series cars. Volkswagen's current Golf and Touareg models still look like the 2004 ones to a degree, even though it's apparently been a couple generations between them now. I can keep going but I think you get the point. "New" cars haven't looked truly new for well over a decade by this point.

>>13034 I don't think new =/= better. Most, if not all of my favorite cars were designed in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. Unfortunately we can't go back to cars that look like that with today's crash and pedestrian safety standards.

>>13034 >>13039 Why can't they at least go back to low belt lines? No matter how cool they try to pretend high belt lines are, they look gay and leave you with only a thin slit of a windshield. The new Sentras are taller than my old Frontier! They don't need to "evolve". They need to give me a cool looking chassis on a longitudinal drivetrain with a solid axle. That's all I want.

>>13041 I believe the shift is due to pedestrian safety standards. Higher belt line usually means larger bumper. However, it seems like concept cars had high belt lines before pedestrian safety was pushed, so maybe it's because a higher belt line just looks more "futuristic."

>>13042 Looks more autistic than futuristic. And I mean the screaming and flinging feces around a padded room type of autistic. Both legislators and designers ought to be ashamed of themselves.

This right here was a glimpse of the future we should have had. The future that was aborted by Jews and pussies so they could put us in emasculating bars of soap with 70 safety features that will all fail because the retard who bought the thing is too stupid to avoid hitting a wall. Regulations need to be gutted big time.

>>13044 But even then, you can still see some of the earlier regulations in effect. If Nissan truly had their way, the 300ZX would have had pop-ups and the Diablo never would have resorted to using the Z32's headlights from the spare parts bin.

>>13045 Why exactly safety regulations dislike pop-up headlights?

>>13046 IIRC, same reason as to why you don't see that many badges above the grille anymore aside from Mercedes and Rolls Royce; due to the propensity of them impaling whoever you might hit when at speed. Also unnecessary costs + labor if the motor in them dies and you need to prop them up.

>>13043 I agree completely. >>13044 >300zx lol I agree with what you're saying, but that is far from the best looking car of the 90s. >>13047 >Also unnecessary costs + labor if the motor in them dies and you need to prop them up. I think it's more due to this + just going out of style than regulation. Pedestrian safety has only been a priority for the NHTSA since 2008 or so.

>>13045 I like those flat headlights exactly as much as pop-ups and would take either >>13049 You're right. Here's the best looking car from the 90s.

>>13049 I like that MR2, but I still like SW11 more.

>>13125 The AW11 ended production in 1989 (not a 90s car).

>>13143 I know it's a 80s car. I still like it over the AW20

>>13046 >>13047 Pop-ups were crash safety, not pedestrian. Cause they interfering with crumple zones. Also cost.

>>18114 Congrats, you replied to a 2-year old post. Though I actually was one of the anons in this thread I posted >>13034, >>13045 and >>13047 since the information containing post ids got corrupted or whatever

>>18117 And now you were given the chance to be reunited with your old posts once again, ain't that romantic. Board's too slow, might as well reply to any unanswered question. Nothing wrong with reviving old threads.