Things you like and dislike about modern car design

  • Thread starter Thread starter AlexGTV
  • 172 comments
  • 10,928 views
FWD is more safe even though it might be more boring for experienced drivers. Driving my Corolla, the few times I accidentally stepped hard on the acceleration i only experienced mild wheel spin and torque steer. In my friends 3-series the one time he stepped hard on the accelerator he spinned 180 in the middle of the road. Thankfully that happened in the city, just imagine that in a highway!:scared:
 
Ohh look Plastic trim in my $40'000 car, ooohhhh look more, oohh more plastic... Plastic, plastic, plastic....

Front Wheel drive is rampant, some models you cannot get standard anymore (at least here in North America,) and the turbo charger is becoming all to common. Manufacturers seem to like making smaller engines and smacking a turbo on :/
 
Weight
Unnecessary Complications
Unnecessary techno-gimmickry
Excessively large wheels
Growing reliance on forced induction engines
Gradual reduction of diversity across the board
Growing obsession with "lap times" which are largely irrelevant for street vehicles

All of the above is why I find the new GT86/FR-S/BR-Z such an incredible car. I hope to buy one of the first ones.

I also find there is not much in the way of genuine innovation these days. When is the last time we had a technical marvel like the Citroen DS? It can't be really considered a game changer, because the game stubbornly refused to change, but oh man what could it have ushered in?

1973CitroenDS23_01_700.jpg


4894932441_a7d70ca1e5.jpg


292208154_269a3a92ff.jpg


Oh how I wish I lived in France sometimes...
 
Dislike:
-The "inflated" appearance. Cars are just too damn fat because of all those pedestrian safety requirements.
-That "plastic body" looks. You know, when the car's lines gently round under it's floor. Today they look like it was just cut straight.
-Weight. Again, it's safety's fault. I don't need 20 airbags. Have you seen how much the new Civic weights? 1,5 friggin' tons! That's the weight of a WWII tank!
-Electronic everything. I'd rather have an Elise with normal handbrake, no cameras and monitors, less than 20 speakers, no systems that tell the driver how to drive and what to do.
-The interior of most cars is just wrong (Hyundais, Ford Fiestas)

In general, the worst thing about todays cars is that anyone can drive. If I could change it, I would forbid all the electronic aids and automatic gearboxes. Then only people who actually can drive would be on the roads. Not the people who think that cars work with magic and drive only 'coz it's cool n stuff n I can text ma grandma while drivin' ma SUV that mah parents bought me.

There were days when driving required talent. Nowadays, because people are getting more and more stupid, cars fix the driver's mistakes and then park themselves, even if the driver has no idea how many wheels his car has. Natural selection doesn't work anymore and we get things like Jersey Shore.
3cd8a33a.png
 
The rampant use of CVT transmissions, Automatics in general, and Front Wheel drive.

Modern automatics are way ahead of manuals technologically, especially when you consider the new double-clutch gearboxes. The DCT offer the benefits of a manual, with the convenience of an automatic and shift times that surpass a human's ability.

FWD is better than RWD for a majority of cars out there. Having FWD means the vehicle can have more space in the cabin and makes a vehicle easier to drive in poor weather conditions. They also tend to be cheaper to produce. You have to remember a huge portion of people who buy new cars just don't care which wells are powered, so it makes sense to give them the cheaper, safer option.

I agree a FWD Ferrari probably wouldn't be very good, but small, FWD cars can be very sporty and fun to drive, The Abarth 500 is supposed to be a blast to drive and I can vouch for the fun-factor in a JCW Cooper. The list goes on though.

I used to dislike CVTs as well. After riding in one in the streets though, I changed my mind completely. For a performance car, CVTs are a no-no, but for driving around town, CVTs are great! Ideally, manufactures should have CVTs, autos, and manuals all as options.

I used to be the same way when it came to CVT's but I'm coming around to them now. My mom's Fusion Hybrid has a CVT in it and it's not that bad and works quite well with the hybrid system. Older CVT's though were just awful, I remember I got a 2006 MINI as a loaner car once with a CVT and it sounded like a dying camel.

And manufactures should offer whatever transmission sells. A majority of the people buying new cars want automatics and until these "Save the Manual" people start buying new vehicles with manual transmission, manufactures won't offer them as an option.

Everything, too much plastic, FWD, not enough V8s, no chrome, just UGLY in general.

Plastic on the outside of vehicles makes them a little more forgiving if you bump into something. You'll scratch the paint, but depending on how hard you hit something there might not be a dent either. Modern plastics can also be lighter than metals, and cars are fat enough already.

V8's are becoming irrelevant, we can now make a V6 have just as much, if not more power than a V8 equivalent. Take the GT-R for example, it has a 3.8L V6 which produces something like 550hp, the Corvette Z06 has a 7.0L engine that produces 505hp. Both are big horsepower number but the GT-R produced more on an engine that almost has half the displace as the Z06's. Or if you'd rather use something more real world the F-150 is an example too, the 3.5L EcoBoosted V6 has 365hp/420lb.ft. whereas the 5.0 V8 has 360hp/380lb.ft. It wouldn't be a hard decision here, the V6 makes more horsepower and torque.

As long as a vehicle performs well there isn't a reason to put a bigger engine in it. If it is possible to do more with less than I don't see why that's a bad thing.

======

As for stuff I don't like...

The horsepower wars that are going on right now between all these different manufactures. It's a great marketing tool and sounds cool when automotive journalist go on and on about the power figures, but it doesn't really do anything else. Sure, I think a 600hp Mustang is cool, but at the same time I don't see a point to having one or having Ford sink R&D resources into building it. Also these car with incredibly high horsepower numbers aren't exactly the friendliest cars to live with. Not everyone will have a problem, but when the divorce lawyer who's only ever driven Cadillac thinks he suddenly need a 600hp Mustang to relive his youth goes out an buys one, he will probably be in for a big surprise when he floors it coming out of the dealership.

Cars that are inspired or tuned for the Ring. A vast majority of cars that are built with the Ring in mind will almost certainly never see the track, let along Germany. But it is a good marketing tool as well.

Features for the sake of features annoys me too. I'll take the Focus for example, why on Earth does Ford need to offer it with the ability to park itself? Or even have a rear view camera? The car is fairly small, if you can't park it then perhaps a refresher drivers ed course is in order. I'm oddly OK with gimmicky things though, they give the car a bit of character despite being useless.
 
I like the new head and taillamp technologies that allow stylists to make their lights more unique in shape and design. I also like the move from somewhat boring car design to good looking vehicles. like the fuel efficiency of new cars, but it could be better. I also like the amount of power you can get in new cars. For $30,000
You can buy a Mustang GT with 412 bhp. The 1986 Ferrari testarossa made 390 bhp and cost $102,500, an equivalent of $212,000 today.
Styling-from this:
chevrolet-celebrity-9.jpg

to this:
2011-kia-optima-3.jpg


On the other hand, I don't like the usage of chrome as a design element, and I wish more engine options were available in the US. Of course, there are some really ugly cars today, because designers have more freedom. and lack of manual transmissions is bad.
 
Last edited:
Like:
- POWER! :dopey:
- New sculpted shapes, where aerodynamics are important.
- Overall neater packaging
Dislike:
- Manual transmission is going out
- Some cars are way overdone in terms of details
- Obsession on engine downsizing
- Cars becoming heavier
 
Ohh look Plastic trim in my $40'000 car, ooohhhh look more, oohh more plastic... Plastic, plastic, plastic....

Front Wheel drive is rampant, some models you cannot get standard anymore (at least here in North America,) and the turbo charger is becoming all to common. Manufacturers seem to like making smaller engines and smacking a turbo on :/

Because smaller, turbocharged engines are more efficient and cleaner...
 
Like:
- POWER! :dopey:
- New sculpted shapes, where aerodynamics are important.
- Overall neater packaging
Dislike:
- Manual transmission is going out
- Some cars are way overdone in terms of details
- Obsession on engine downsizing
- Cars becoming heavier

That's not necessarily a bad thing. Car manufactures need to continue to create more fuel efficient and environmentally-friendly engines because we will run out of oil someday.

-From a car enthusiast
 
That's not necessarily a bad thing. Car manufactures need to continue to create more fuel efficient and environmentally-friendly engines because we will run out of oil someday.

-From a car enthusiast

Implying that fuel effiency is any better now than it was 20 years ago. We had a '94 Dodge Van that got 22mpg when most get that about now.
 
Likes:
-Doing more with less. My new car gets better fuel economy, better torque, and more power than my old one, and it has a 1.4.
-Edgier designs. Designers are let loose with their designs (as long as all the cars in the fleet have the same nose), and it shows.
-Electronic power steering. It's gotten to the point where it feels almost the same as hydraulic and frees up some power.

Dislikes:
-Harder to work on. Since nearly everything is electronic, you need a computer to diagnose almost any problem, and even the simple oil change isn't so simple anymore.
-Eleventybillion airbags in everything. Give my body a little space and I don't need my car to become a damned balloon in a crash.
-Designs that are retro solely for the sake of being retro. Challenger, I'm looking at you...
 
Implying that fuel effiency is any better now than it was 20 years ago. We had a '94 Dodge Van that got 22mpg when most get that about now.

Vehicles produce more power and are easier on the environment now, it's not all about mpg, there's more that goes into better engine technology. 20 years ago we did not have direct injection, hybrid technology, variable vane turbos or 4 and 6 cylinder engines that are more powerful than a V8 on mass production vehicles. Now it's not uncommon to see that stuff.

My Blazer was a perfect example, it had a 4.3L engine that produced 190hp, The MINI Cooper S does 181hp with a 1.6L, that's only 9hp less with 2.7L less of displacement and about 20 more mpg in fuel economy.

And you might have gotten 22mpg in a Ram Van if you never moved the accelerator all but a little bit. Even on the highway they were only rate, at best 18mpg, 15mpg for the city and these are the 3.9L V6 figures.
 
I agree with a couple of points others have already mentioned, they are: 1, huge wheels.. for me, anything that is over 18"(maybe 19", at a push) is excessive and looks a bit daft imo.

2: huge mouth cars.. (Peugeot, Hyundai etc), this along with cars that try too hard to look aggressive, with regards to the face (grill and light combo), i find them quite comical looking at times... which i'm sure isn't the designers desired intention, having said that, it works both ways (happy smiley face cars), but i seem to find them less comical for some reason.
 
It may sound weird but modern cars are too good, everything is too clinical and neat. There isn't anything that makes the car exciting....its hard to explain.
 
And you might have gotten 22mpg in a Ram Van if you never moved the accelerator all but a little bit. Even on the highway they were only rate, at best 18mpg, 15mpg for the city and these are the 3.9L V6 figures.

He didn't say Ram Van.

Would've been a Caravan getting those numbers.
 
You can always buy a Dacia. The true essence of driving.

There are few cars I would consider aside from any BMW, and Aston Martin V8 Vantage Lemans, Rover 220 Turbo Coupe and Land Rover Defender Twin Cab flat-bed pickup with snorkel and winches, .. but one of them is a Dacia...

Weird.
 
I don't really like how big everything is getting. SUV's, trucks, minivans, more SUV's. I understand a need for practicality and comfort but there are ways of doing that without making it big, tall, and wide.

I understand plastic, it sheds weight, increases efficiency, can't rust, and is cheaper. It may feel cheap but it's worth it to me on a lower budget car. If I want to spend more money I'll get a car with more substance to it.

I also hate that oil companies do everything they can to prevent alternative fuels from becoming more practical and affordable for common public use. I know we have companies like Tesla but I'd still like to see more work being done with hydrogen power and other non-petroleum based fuel sources. Even making electricity power easier to use and better to manufacture (short charge time, no environmentally harmful processes for getting the lithium, nickel-cadmium, whatever is in the battery packs). (Don't get me wrong, I'd not an eco-freak and I could care less about 'saving the environment' by buying a damn Prius but we're going to run out of oil sometime. The amount we're pulling out of the ground hit a peak in '08 and has been going down ever since.)

audi-rs6-avant-hofele-design-text_1.jpg


^^That's what we need more of: sporty, looks good, and still practical.
 
Do you happen to own a fleet of SUVs in your home? 👎

Whilst the Blazer and Scout are awesome designs, for the most part I hate SUV's almost as much as minivans. :yuck:

I don't understand the hate for FWD? I think they are massive amounts of fun.

ZOMG CANT DRYFT

Too much plastic I'll agree with but nothing else.

FWD cars can be great fun and if you want to take a RWD car up the mountains here have a good time involuntarily drifting the whole way up. Scary stuff in my girlfriend's Mustang the few times we did it...

Not enough V8s??? Why do you need one? My V6 is plenty fast enough for me and it's one heck of a lot better on gas than a V8. Again my girlfriend's Mustang ate gas just starting it up let alone driving anywhere.

Lots of chrome is never a good thing.... Ever. Doorhandles and around the windows looks good but nothing more.

Rear wheel drive is better for towing, that & RWD are less crowded under the hood, makes it easier to work on as everything isn't crammed into one area. & I honestly don't think I would want to tow an Airstream with a V6.

What's wrong with chrome? It never rusts, doesn't crack like plastic.
 
Last edited:
I hate people who drive big SUVs around town; takes up all the space and is bad for the environment.

I also hate people who drive SUVs that can't be used off road like the BMW X5 and Mercedes ML. As I see it, there are two reasons for buying an SUV. One, because you need to go off road, and two, because you need the extra space. But cars like the BMW X5 and Mercedes ML can't go off roading. They're designed for road use only and that sort of makes me wonder why they've bothered with it at all.

If you want a large car for hauling stuff around, get a crossover, like a Subaru Outback, which can go off roading, and is much more economical. Not to mention is much cheaper to buy.
 
Displacement downsizing: Apparently cubic inches are the enemy now, but I'm not buying it. The worst part is the so-called enthusiasts who actually want more of this: a smaller engine must work harder to achieve the same power level as a larger one, all other things being equal. This means more turbo lag, a narrower powerband, and more risk of overheating or piston-to-valve contact, not to mention lower overall potential. Also, to people who say V8s are becoming irrelevant: no. Just no.

Electronic aids you can't shut off: Do I really need to explain this one?

Feature creep/gizmology: I would prefer a car that does not park itself, just as an example. Just how many stupid gimmicks can they stuff into a car? Seems to me that with all the other crud they're adding to cars, such as iPod connectivity, parking assist, lane assist, traction control, stability control, and OVER 9000 airbags, they're running out of space for the engine. Not literally, of course, but you get my point.

Hybrids & electric cars: There are certain things in this world that lend themselves to dangerous levels of smug. "Green" cars are the worst of them. Enough said.

Fastback SUVs: It's as if someone at a car company said "Hey, here's a great idea! Let's combine the stupidity of an SUV that can't go offroad with the impracticality of a sedan that only seats four. People will love it!" Then they did it, and people started copying them. You'd think, with everyone shouting about peak oil and global warming, that these collosally useless, ridiculously ugly wastes of everything would be the first to go. Guess not.

Crossovers in general: A crossover is a station wagon with bigger tires and higher suspension so the driver can feel high up and in control. Get rid of them. Seriously.

CVTs: VRRRRRRRRRRRmwahhhhhhhhVRRRRRRRRRRRRmwahhhVRRRRRRRRRR...

Chic: I already have enough reasons to hate the Chevy Cruze, but the styling "lyke ttly" seals the deal. Plus, it was promoted on Glee. Come on, guys, set your standards at least a little higher than that. And the continued existence of the VW Beetle and new Mini proves that this isn't an isolated phenomenon.

Maybe more later?
 
Last edited:
Antonisbob
Rear wheel drive is better for towing, that & RWD are less crowded under the hood, makes it easier to work on as everything isn't crammed into one area. & I honestly don't think I would want to tow an Airstream with a V6.

What's wrong with chrome? It never rusts, doesn't crack like plastic.

I've never felt the need to tow anything with my car so just because of towing you don't like FWD? I don't own a trailer nor do I need one so why would that argument apply? I honestly don't think I want to be that idiot in the BMW I pushed 4 times just trying to get down the mountain last weekend.

Some chrome is okay, more chrome than plastic and we have some issues. Too much chrome looks cheap, looks cheesy, and looks like a 17 year old kid got to go to town on it.
 
Displacement downsizing: Apparently cubic inches are the enemy now, but I'm not buying it. The worst part is the so-called enthusiasts who actually want more of this: a smaller engine must work harder to achieve the same power level as a larger one, all other things being equal. This means more turbo lag, a narrower powerband, and more risk of overheating or piston-to-valve contact, not to mention lower overall potential. Also, to people who say V8s are becoming irrelevant: no. Just no.
Many American cars in the past have giant 7 liter engines that produced barely 400 HP and terrible MPG. An M3 today for example uses a N/A 4.0L V8 that produces more power than that.

McLaren MP4-12C: 3.8L Twin Turbo'ed V8 produces 592 HP and does 25 US MPG.
Electronic aids you can't shut off: Do I really need to explain this one?

In the interest of safety, I suppose. But I agree with this.
Feature creep/gizmology: I would prefer a car that does not park itself, just as an example. Just how many stupid gimmicks can they stuff into a car? Seems to me that with all the other crud they're adding to cars, such as iPod connectivity, parking assist, lane assist, traction control, stability control, and OVER 9000 airbags, they're running out of space for the engine. Not literally, of course, but you get my point.
Again, there's nothing wrong with improving a car's safety, so nothing wrong with traction control and stability control. But otherwise, parking assist and all the other stuff you mentioned are things that can worsen a driver's skill level. So yes, get rid of park assist, lane assist, etc.
Fastback SUVs: It's as if someone at a car company said "Hey, here's a great idea! Let's combine the stupidity of an SUV that can't go offroad with the impracticality of a sedan that only seats four. People will love it!" Then they did it, and people started copying them. You'd think, with everyone shouting about peak oil and global warming, that these collosally useless, ridiculously ugly wastes of everything would be the first to go. Guess not.
You mean like a BMW X6?...
Crossovers in general: A crossover is a station wagon with bigger tires and higher suspension so the driver can feel high up and in control. Get rid of them. Seriously.

I don't see what's wrong with them? :confused:
CVTs: VRRRRRRRRRRRmwahhhhhhhhVRRRRRRRRRRRRmwahhhVRRRRRRRRRR...

Have you driven one? Or even rode in one for that matter. For normal city day-to-day driving, they are extremely smooth and does up fuel economy.
 
audi-rs6-avant-hofele-design-text_1.jpg


^^That's what we need more of: sporty, looks good, and still practical.
It doesn't look good. In fact, it looks like an angry hog. Obviously, it's all about taste but seriously, it's somewhat boring and vulgar at the same time.

I don't want to turn this thread into a discussion whether some cars are good loking or not so, I'd like to second some opinions:
- I hate MASSIVE wheels with tyres that look as if they were painted on them (look at that Audi)
- SUVs - what are they all about?
- matte paint finish, I know it's a detail in terms of design but in my opinion matte cars look like they weren't painted properly.
 
Fastback SUVs: It's as if someone at a car company said "Hey, here's a great idea! Let's combine the stupidity of an SUV that can't go offroad with the impracticality of a sedan that only seats four. People will love it!" Then they did it, and people started copying them. You'd think, with everyone shouting about peak oil and global warming, that these collosally useless, ridiculously ugly wastes of everything would be the first to go. Guess not.

Crossovers in general: A crossover is a station wagon with bigger tires and higher suspension so the driver can feel high up and in control. Get rid of them. Seriously.

Complaining about fastback SUVs and crossovers as modern car design problems?

chris81eaglesxsport.jpg

AMCEagle_1.jpg



How 1979 of you.



Many American cars in the past have giant 7 liter engines that produced barely 400 HP and terrible MPG. An M3 today for example uses a N/A 4.0L V8 that produces more power than that.

You aren't the only one doing this in this thread, but I'll respond to you since you are the one who said it just now:

Don't get engine size and fuel economy mixed up, and definitely don't parade hp/l around like it means anything.
 
Indeed it is. BMW is the only "gas guzzler" in the comparison and emits more than the muscle cars. It also requires premium gas (the Challenger is the only American to do so), while the Camaro and Mustang will work fine with regular (and with Alaska's 90 octane "premium").

As for the Eagles, those cars have always been easy targets anyway, so...

As for the BMW X6, that's pretty much the exact car I had in mind.

As for the MP4-12C, it's not really fair to use that as an example. True, a 230 cubic inch (give or take, since I don't know the exact figure) V8 can produce that level of power with twin turbos and a lot of technology, but it's not really practical or cost effective for a car that normal or "semi-normal" people are intended to buy. It'll also be harder to tune than a larger, simpler unit and may have lower overall potential. Those are two things the Chevrolet Corvette, with its "huge" engines, has that the McLaren probably won't: it can easily be tuned to produce truly massive power output, and it's cheap enough (in most versions, anyway) that an average citizen could hope to obtain one by smart money management or just buying used.
 
Last edited:
The thing i would say IS


Design for example today's cars usually Be more rounded more than the previous generation and lack of soul



Engine: Every time they do new generation The engine is smaller and i mean suburbans for that matter why i'll tell you the 1980and90's suburbans and early 2000's usually have 5.7 litre engine but no they began using 5.3 litres and what GM Is planning is to do 4.o litre engine Why Do they reduce it ?


And chevy cruze's ' aveo's and optras also epica are actually daewoo's so they are korean they don't deserve to be called chevrolet's and the 2000 to present Lumina and caprice Are actually are aussie holdens


And for the Dodge dart in the 1960's it used to have RWD And now they began to let it FWD


And Crossovers they must be destroyed why because for example the ford explorer Since it has appeared it was a true SUV Now the generation It's an ugly crossover So manufacters are trying to killoff SUV'S And offroading
 
Back