Nostalgia

"Steve is equipped with Electronic Fool Injection" (itsalwayssteve) 03/05/2014 at 12:01 • Filed to: Rants. malaise

1

14

From the Greek words meaning, "pain from wanting to return home," it afflicts most people. It's the reason so many are willing to neglect factual information for the comfort of the familiar. It's the reason that people think that the world is falling into a hellish, violent apocalypse, despite the fact that a lower percentage of people died by violent means in the 2000s than in any decade in history. Also, violent crime has been reduced by half in the US since it peaked in the early 1990s.

It's the reason we romanticize the high-maintenance, unsafe, inefficient, and underpowered cars of yesteryear, despite the fact that today's cars are faster, more reliable, more efficient, and far safer than those manufactured even two decades ago.

I know that Jalopnik has an unhealthy obsession with the malaise era. I don't understand it, and it really makes me question your sanity, but I know it's there. To love a car that has less interior and storage space than my '13 Kia, despite being three feet longer, a foot wider, and 700 pounds heavier, and shaped just like a box, is unreasonable. note- I understand love is unreasonable. That's why it's love and not sensibility.

Yes, my Kia Soul doesn't have Corinthian Leather like your '82 Chrysler New Yorker, but it also makes more horsepower (albeit with less torque) than your lean-burn 318 and does so using less than 1/2 the gas. It's even far more reliable than your car was when it was new.

Here's a common complaint that I see on Jalopnik: "All these modern cars are just jellybeans that all look alike."

Guess what: It's always been that way. As American cars go, (with the exceptions of early 60s Chrysler products whose designers must have been part of the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! psychedelic drug experiments in the 50s) most volume production cars have followed similar styling tropes throughout the life of the automobile. I present these examples:

1910s:

1918 Chevrolet:

1918 Dodge:

1918 Ford:

To the untrained eye, these cars look mostly the same, right?

It was the same in the 1960s, when muscle cars ruled. Sure, there were a few oddballs like the Corvair and Beetle, but most cars followed a similar formula:

1967 Ford Falcon:

1967 Dodge Dart:

1967 Chevy II Nova:

Once again — these vehicles look very similar. Someone who doesn't know cars could easily confuse them.

For the most part, it was like this across every market segment. In the early 60s, Chrysler products looked insane.

In the 80s, Honda turned things up a little by offering pop-up headlamps on the family-sedan Accord.

Side note, if any Opponauts know where I can find a bone-stock, well kept 86-89 LXi hatch with a 5-speed, preferably with factory alloys, for a reasonable price, let me know.

I understand nostalgia. But that 1977 Buick Skylark sedan your neighbor is selling, with its 190-hp-when-new 350 V8, 3-speed auto, leaky valve seals, bad rings, and green-over-green-leather is better off sold for $300 to a LeMons team than restored.

My Grandfather had this exact car, in that exact color, with those hubcaps and that vinyl top, when I was a kid. He traded it in on a brand new 84 Mercury Grand Marquis: Two-tone blue over blue crushed velour.

In the interest of fairness, then, let's look at a GM product that offers the same level of equipment: Power windows and locks, Leather, Air conditioning, and roomy interior.

To get there, I went to the 2014 Regal, which has all those features standard.

Now, the Regal is considerably smaller but is still in the same market segment and can still seat four adults.

Let's compare:

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

My point is that most mass-market cars will continue to look the same. Cars today are far better than they once were. It's OK to romanticize the past, but don't get so caught up in romantics that you lose touch of reality.

N/A POWAAAHH > Steve is equipped with Electronic Fool Injection 03/05/2014 at 12:07

0

very well thought out

BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires > Steve is equipped with Electronic Fool Injection 03/05/2014 at 12:10

0

An interesting little psychological mechanism: people remember the good parts of their past better than the bad parts.

That's part of the reason why people always tend to think that things were better before x happened, or just when they were younger.

It might have been shit apart from one or two things, but you won't necessarily remember that.

Also, I think part of the love for the malaise era is that it had some cool cars. Not good ones, not tasteful ones, but cool ones. Different than anything produced today.

McLarry > Steve is equipped with Electronic Fool Injection 03/05/2014 at 12:45

0

Déjà vu, (/de vu/) from French, literally "already seen", is the phenomenon of having the strong sensation that an event or experience currently being experienced has been experienced in the past, whether it has actually happened or not.

;-)

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > Steve is equipped with Electronic Fool Injection 03/05/2014 at 12:46

2

I think a more solidly stated complaint than "all cars look the same" is that the current jellybean era has lasted longer than most, and that sharply punctuated generational changes in styling as 40s/50s, 50s/60s, and 60s/70s seem to have mostly passed away. It is also the case that while most decades had monolithic conventions, the variability within those decades between marques fluctuates somewhat - the variations on a theme of "fins'n'chrome" in the 50s are very sharply demarcated between Chrysler, Ford, and GM offerings even without considering the bit players, and you see the same frenzy in the early 70s before petering out in the face of the oil crisis. '39's an interesting model year as well, because while the sheet metal was fairly flat across brands, manufacturers were desperately trying to strike out in search of the "new thing" in front ends and interiors.

Your comparison is also affected by the fact that toward the end of most generations, styling blends together far more than at the outset - the early 60s contemporaries of your compact selections for example were far more distinct. Does this mean we're near the end of this styling generation? That might be nice.

As to why I romanticize previous eras for different things, the feel of a car arising from its balance of priorities is sometimes more important than the sum of what those priorities produced. Do I realize a '78 Caddy may have shorter interior lifespan than a modern Acura, and significantly less ergonomic seats and poorer control arrangement - leaving aside any other factors not contributing to luxury? Of course, but the one has opulence written into its soul, and screams it as a state of being, the other not as much. An early 60 compact Mercury is more spartan than a modern Fiesta and carries only a fraction the convenience - objectively worse pretty much across the board. However, in the Comet, the spartan nature is a pleasure all its own, felt in overall lightness, and delivered in elegance.

The most cogent support of a complaint about modern cars looking alike I can deliver is that sure, old cars were all alike somewhat when modern, but *it depends on when they were modern*. Because of the ability to pick a decade, or even 2-3 year period to cherry-pick inherent in buying an "old car", there is an objectively better chance of finding a car whose balance of priorities is "you".

In other words, to ignore that old cars offer a dazzling selection of zeitgeist s to choose from is to miss the point entirely. Is your problem perhaps that you just haven't found the right one to understand the *why* of it? Give me the '77 Skylark, I bet it has a bitchin' bench seat. Green leather? GIMME

tapzz > Steve is equipped with Electronic Fool Injection 03/09/2014 at 17:54

1

Yep, they certainly did look alike back in the day. I'd challenge even experts to tell apart mid to late '20s sedans. Unless it's Pierce Arrow or Duesenberg or some other exotic, they'll look practically identical.

With regard to nostalgia, though, it needs to be borne in mind that there are two very different classic car audiences: the old boys reliving their youth, and the preservationists. For the first, nostalgia is indeed the beginning and end of it, for the second, it's something else: a desire to preserve something unique, flaws and all, and also as a reminder of how we got here from there.

Also, every car is a compromise, and for every advance in safety, performance and features, you lose something else. On a societal scale, that's worth it, but it is very interesting to experience machines that were built under different constraints.

A Ford Model A, for example, is potentially lethal, dog slow and has no features compared to modern cars. But that makes it so simple that anyone can repair it, it also makes it nearly immortal, because remanufacturing new parts is comparatively easy and it allows a driving experience that is much more involving and direct.

If your priorities aren't for a fool-proof motorway mile eater, that may be a reasonable compromise no modern car could offer.

lecobb > Steve is equipped with Electronic Fool Injection 03/09/2014 at 20:27

1

I have to raise a point or two with you Steve. I agree with you about reliability and safety being much better. But styling? No, it's not any better in general across segments. First, you bring up the T model and look-a-likes, there really was no styling here. It was a basic machine fitted with a horse carriage passenger compartment. And people copied Ford because it was easy to do. And copying success is standard business practice. It's cheap to do.

Another thing that I would bring up is the round sealed beam headlight. Now, unless you do some fancy, expensive, metal work, there is not a whole lot you can do with them. Add to that four doors and full width chrome bumpers on the low end family sedan, you aren't going to get much style there either. But, as you point out, the 60's would open up style differences between makers. And I would say that continued. I don't think anyone has confused a Mustang with a Camaro. And, I don't think one would confuse a Impala or Chevelle with an LTD or Cougar or a Magnum.
Be that said, I think of what was capable of being done, with the materials available, there was more styling differences at the high point of America auto style then there is today.

lecobb > Steve is equipped with Electronic Fool Injection 03/09/2014 at 20:56

1

If this had ever been produced, AMC would still be in business.

Steve is equipped with Electronic Fool Injection > lecobb 03/09/2014 at 23:22

1

Or, they would have been bankrupt much earlier and Jeep would be a GM product.

yourworstfukingnightmare > McLarry 03/10/2014 at 08:21

0

Deja Vu is actually a Beyoncé and Jay Z video.

I would lose the red socks.

And think about quitting the day job.

McLarry > yourworstfukingnightmare 03/10/2014 at 11:49

0

Not sure I follow...

V8-aholic > Steve is equipped with Electronic Fool Injection 03/10/2014 at 17:46

1

In leaping from 1918 to 1967 you have conveniently left out the era which allowed for the most differentiation in car design.

Styling was not really a thing until the late 1920's. Cars like the model T were designed to fulfil a purpose. It was enough to have a car for a low price, the appearance was secondary to the function and the manufacturing costs. Thermosyphon cooling dictated the high radiator and the rest followed from there.

During the 30's to 50's styling became a point of differentiation between cars. Separate chassis meant that bodywork changes were relatively simple and annual model changes were possible. It was easy to tell from a distance the difference between a '59 Ford and a '59 Chevy - or for that matter between a '58 Chevy and a '59.

As you move into the 1960's, unit body construction made changes more expensive and additional government regulation started to homogenise designs.

I drive a 50's car regularly. It's not as reliable as a modern car. It doesn't have as many (any) safety features. It uses a hell of a lot of gas but the point is that it makes me smile.

Steve is equipped with Electronic Fool Injection > V8-aholic 03/10/2014 at 19:03

0

I would say that the mid-late 50s to the early 60s were the only time there was any major styling differentiation between the big three. Sure, there were some oddballs from Studebaker and so on, but the rest stayed homogeneous. Even in the late 50s most cars followed the same formula for their mass market models.
The fat-fender era from the late 30s-late 40s was pretty much the same. If you look at a '39 or '46 Ford, Chevy, or Dodge, you get the same thing. the point I was making was that styling trends lead to everything looking the same.
Shifting gears, I did see a '58-60 Ranchero today. I thought it was a t-Bird until it passed and I saw the tailgate.

Pennsyltucky Dreams of America > Steve is equipped with Electronic Fool Injection 03/11/2014 at 15:01

0

So just how bad is the 1984 Chrysler Laser I want back so badly?

Goliath182 > lecobb 03/11/2014 at 18:54

0

I would beg to differ, maybe for those of us who are more into cars they look different, but I know plenty of people who think they look similar especially in the side view