oldest new looking car
Discussion
M1C said:
The Sagaris does not look old fashioned in the slightest or hark back to 60s cars etc!
You are talking arse. The rear haunches and arch bulges are pure E-Type, as used on just about every front engine rear drive coupé since the 60's, and the bonnet and kamm-tail are a take-off of the Shelby fixed-head.Not denying it is pretty and a take on a classic design, but the E-Type, AC and Ferrari 250 GTO set the template for all the cars that came after. All the Sagaris does is swap the tapered oval nose for a droopy snowplow.
Bet you think flip-phones are still cool too.
Edited by r11co on Tuesday 26th April 20:39
m3jappa said:
I had my Tuscan painted in a shade of essex white a couple of years ago and I still think that is this was released today it would still create a stir. Perhaps apart from the lights a very modern looking car. If they were drl, bi xenon turbo led all round then would look even newer 
That thing looks absolutely fantastic
r11co said:
M1C said:
The Sagaris does not look old fashioned in the slightest or hark back to 60s cars etc!
You are talking arse. The rear haunches and arch bulges are pure E-Type, as used on just about every front engine rear drive coupé since the 60's, and the bonnet and kamm-tail are a take-off of the Shelby fixed-head.Not denying it is pretty and a take on a classic design, but the E-Type, AC and Ferrari 250 GTO set the template for all the cars that came after. All the Sagaris does is swap the tapered oval nose for a droopy snowplow.
Bet you think flip-phones are still cool too.
Edited by r11co on Tuesday 26th April 20:39
And no, I dont think flip phones are cool.
My suggestion is vastly better than the majority on here of cars that look hugely out of date now.
I think you could put a 16 plate on a Sagaris and it wouldn't look out of place.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one.
What's your suggestion?
M1C said:
Who the hell do you think you are, talking arse? Its my opinion...
..which everyone is entitled to, but the point was made a page back that opinions are subjective, so when there is a clear brief the opinion should be backed up with some evidence to be credible....M1C said:
...and (IMO) it applies to the criteria and doesn't look dated at all!
I gave you my reasons why its design is dated (circa 1960's). Give us your reasons why it isn't (which will be kind of hard, unless you can prove the 250GTO, E-Type and Shelby didn't exist and that TVR invented the kamm-tail).
Banging your fists and insisting isn't giving reasons BTW.There seems to be two main problems with this thread. One is that people of a certain age are remembering designs that were 'out there' and the height of fashion at a time when they themselves were impressionable, and those designs and the image they had at the time have stuck with the people now proposing them as still 'new looking'. Almost all of these suggestions have actually dated quite noticeable (CRX, Diablo, 959, etc.)
Others are proposing cars that are ancient designs that soldiered on because they were niche (G-Wagon, Beetle etc.). By default these cars do not fit the criteria because while they may have influenced imitators the imitations have died out and moved to more modern designs.
Edited by r11co on Wednesday 27th April 14:37
r11co said:
M1C said:
Who the hell do you think you are, talking arse? Its my opinion...
..which everyone is entitled to, but the point was made a page or two back that when there is a clear brief, the opinion has to be backed up with some evidence to be credible....M1C said:
and (IMO) it applies to the criteria and doesn't look dated at all!
I gave you my reasons why its design is dated (circa 1960's). Give us your reasons why it isn't (which will be kind of hard, unless you can prove the 250GTO, E-Type and Shelby didn't exist and that TVR invented the kamm-tail). Banging your fists and insisting isn't giving reasons BTW.An effective aerodynamic shape is pretty fundamental to recent car design, so it's a little naive to suggest that a car using well established aerodynamic research principles that date from the 30s is simply copying the styling of cars of the 60s. Perhaps those 1960s cars are copying some of the racing cars from the 40s?
I suspect you'd also claim that anyone using a spoiler is just 'copying' Porsche from the early 70's? (that's the earliest use I'm aware of for a spoiler on a production car, but I'd be interested to see earlier versions)
Modificata said:
Gotta be a G Wagen. Picked up my 2006 G55 AMG 2 months ago with 20k miles on the clock and doing a facelift next week to 2016 look. Car looks the damn same since 1979!
I will see you your G Wagen & raise you a Defender.Not that either vehicle is eligible for this thread.
Earliest spoiler? That thing on the Dodge Challenger/Plymouth Road Runner has to be a contender.
M1C said:
Who the hell do you think you are, talking arse? Its my opinion and (IMO) it applies to the criteria and doesn't look dated at all! I can see what you mean ref the references but it doesn't date it at all.
And no, I dont think flip phones are cool.
My suggestion is vastly better than the majority on here of cars that look hugely out of date now.
I think you could put a 16 plate on a Sagaris and it wouldn't look out of place.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one.
What's your suggestion?
You don't get to say we have to respect your opinion but he doesn't get to have his. And no, I dont think flip phones are cool.
My suggestion is vastly better than the majority on here of cars that look hugely out of date now.
I think you could put a 16 plate on a Sagaris and it wouldn't look out of place.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one.
What's your suggestion?
OwenK said:
M1C said:
Who the hell do you think you are, talking arse? Its my opinion and (IMO) it applies to the criteria and doesn't look dated at all! I can see what you mean ref the references but it doesn't date it at all.
And no, I dont think flip phones are cool.
My suggestion is vastly better than the majority on here of cars that look hugely out of date now.
I think you could put a 16 plate on a Sagaris and it wouldn't look out of place.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one.
What's your suggestion?
You don't get to say we have to respect your opinion but he doesn't get to have his. And no, I dont think flip phones are cool.
My suggestion is vastly better than the majority on here of cars that look hugely out of date now.
I think you could put a 16 plate on a Sagaris and it wouldn't look out of place.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one.
What's your suggestion?
I did ask him what is his suggestion on this was just a few posts ago, i haven't seen it yet (although i haven't been back through all the pages of this thread for a few days, admittedly, i may have missed it)
Ultimately we are never all going to agree on the answer to this styling is subjective but from the criteria:
'oldest new looking car'
and the more recent suggestion that the vehicle should have been:
'out of production for the last 10 years'
to apply to this which i thought was good as some of the suggestions are either still in production or not long out of it.
It is on these point that i think the TVR Sagaris is a good choice and is my choice (unless something else
comes up that i haven't seen/thought of yet and i will happily agree!)
The other car that i think is a good shout is the Infiniti FX. Although reading up, that was in production until 2008.
r11co said:
M1C said:
Who the hell do you think you are, talking arse? Its my opinion...
..which everyone is entitled to, but the point was made a page back that opinions are subjective, so when there is a clear brief the opinion should be backed up with some evidence to be credible....M1C said:
...and (IMO) it applies to the criteria and doesn't look dated at all!
I gave you my reasons why its design is dated (circa 1960's). Give us your reasons why it isn't (which will be kind of hard, unless you can prove the 250GTO, E-Type and Shelby didn't exist and that TVR invented the kamm-tail). Banging your fists and insisting isn't giving reasons BTW.There seems to be two main problems with this thread. One is that people of a certain age are remembering designs that were 'out there' and the height of fashion at a time when they themselves were impressionable, and those designs and the image they had at the time have stuck with the people now proposing them as still 'new looking'. Almost all of these suggestions have actually dated quite noticeable (CRX, Diablo, 959, etc.)
Others are proposing cars that are ancient designs that soldiered on because they were niche (G-Wagon, Beetle etc.). By default these cars do not fit the criteria because while they may have influenced imitators the imitations have died out and moved to more modern designs.
Edited by r11co on Wednesday 27th April 14:37
It looks like a TVR, (but a bit more crazy) (which at the time is exactly what it was).
I dont see any visual links to old cars on there, hence it being my choice, it looks current.
Anyway its just my opinion and it's clear that we disagree so there is no point me going on about it any longer.
I think you might classing me as being in the first part of your 'two main problems with this thread'.
I'm 32 and it's clear to me that the Diablo, 959 and CRX are all dated now...it's just that i think the Sagaris isn't really, at all, hence it being my choice, some agreed a couple of pages ago so i'm not completely on my own about it.
I would ask again, what is your opinion, which car do you suggest?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff