"Golden" age of vehicles
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /o/ - Auto
You are currently reading a thread in /o/ - Auto
What do you consider to be the golden age of cars? Style, performance, features, technology and "feel" wise taken at a relative perspective.
I consider the 90s to be the high point. Unnecessary technology wasn't a problem, performance gains were big thanks to tech. On top of that, designers finally learned to make cars look good after a decade of dealing with regulations of the 80s.
If I was rich, if I could collect cars, 90% would be from that era. American, Japanese and Europan.
Nostalging on an old ass PS1 game I played in the 4th grade.
https://youtu.be/tuOOuarA7xA
>>14748071
80s-90s
after 2002 everything just got fucked up but now some cars are coming good i think anything made after 2017 will be a future classic as well.
>>14748071
Feels pretty Need for Speed in here.
But anyways, right now is the golden age of vehicles. You can always buy older cars, but you can't make a future car appear in front of you. Like that old 90s jap box? Buy it. Nothing is stopping you except your poorfaggotry.
Mid 80s to 2000.
Everything this millennium is shit.
>>14748088
82-99
>>14748087
Cars look like shit today. On top of that new regulations only make them stupider and uglier.
>>14748071
It was the golden age from the start until they started putting shitty ipads in the center console.
>>14748071
Right now, power is back up from emissions and v8-v12s are still around.
>80s-90s for styling
Pffffff blind nostalgia. For analog driving maybe.
>>14748071
1991 GMC Syclone. Always wanted one. Got to drive one a couple years back. It was fun.
>>14748071
I don't think we've had it yet thb, if we ever will.
>>14748071
Sure golden, but only if you had the $$.
All those cars in the pic are NOT cheap
Right now would be pretty amazing too if you had the $$.
I don't this there ever was one. Not sure there will be one.
Every generation has its faults, lots of them. You just have to choose what faults you'd rather live with.
>>14748087
Its not golden age, after 50 years I won't be able to find an MR2. But I will be able to find a shitty old prius. BOY GOLDEN AGE IT IS.
tfw there will probably never be another car developed with the spirit of a zero fighter
1955-1972
90s nostalgiafags a hilarious
>>14748087
You're right that now is the golden age for buying used/modifying, but I think OP' talking about new designs.
>>14748071
this is a great picture
Let's be honest. The golden age is now. Styling is subjective, and there is a lot of unnecessary technology, but in almost every way current cars are objectively better than old ones. The only real negative is that they're all pigfat... but we have powerful, efficient engines to push them, and all that pigfat is what keeps you alive in a crash.
>>14750368
but you see this is every car ever
newer ones are always better than old ones
maybe 2010-2025 will be known as the last golden era for performance or some shit in the future
The 80s were nice if you liked boxy designs and cheap plastic interiors, 90s were nice if you liked soft curvy designs and cheap plastic interiors.
The 00's had the most variety in design while being enjoyable to drive and not so bogged down with electronics like cars are in the 10's.
It was all nice until Nvh engineers fucked everything up now a 2016 Sentra isolates the road like a Lexus from the 1990s
Good bye road feel.
>>14750368
>but in almost every way current cars are objectively better than old ones.
Cars now are 90s cars with electronic driver aids. I know this is going to be hard to grasp for somebody born post 2000, but technology hasn't progressed much.
50s-73 for American cars
90's obviously. Literally every manufacturer, except for American ones but lol who cares, were making their best sports cars, some new ones were born even.
>>14753996
This. American cars were nightmares in the 80s and 90s.
Japan had its glory years in the 90s. Practically every brand churned out great sports cars and reliable sedans.
80-90s was the golden age for Imports.
2006+ is an age of muscle and sports cars
600+ horsepower cars under 50K
50's-60's were the Golden Age. little safety or emissions regulation, cars were free to go crazy with design, were mechanically simple, no unnecessary features unless it was a purposefully luxury car. cars had power. the American Muscle car is born (and arguably dies) in this era
80's and early 90's were the Silver Age.
after the hard times of the 70's, with the oil crisis and safety regulations tightening, and questionable design practices, cars once again were let free in design and power thanks to falling oil prices, new technology and in general a revitalization of the industry that had gone stagnant in the 70's. the Muscle car came back, and many of the 80's gen Musclecars are still popular today (Third gen Camaros, Firebirds, Stangs) by the tail end of the 80's you had modernism in designs as well. Flush headlamps started becoming a thing as headlamp regulations softened. You had cars like the Taurus, which was considered so futuristic they made it the cop car in Robocop because of it's looks.
mid-late 90's were Bronze Age.
you still had good designs, and improvements in making the bodies of cars allowed for more rounded smooth designs, along with flush headlamps, which allowed for more futuristic designs, although the industry was hit fairly strongly by the early 90's recession, and the outsourcing of the American industrial Sector started, resulting in a lot of cheap plastic interiors and the disconnect between the engineers and the plants began to take it's toll on design. By the early 00's, we entered the modern Auto era.
>>14748086
/thread
Love my 02 spec v
>6 speed Manuel
>no abs (had no idea that was allowed in 02)
>no traction control
>helical lsd
It's you and your car, no bullshit in between. Well, except for e throttle
>>14750350
> popups are dead
> apex seals folded over 1000 times
I want a dorito
>>14748125
>Right now, power is back up from emissions and v8-v12s are still around.
in higher tier cars maybe. but you do know that once upon a time V8 was standard in american cars right? when nowadays if an automaker wants to make a V8 they have to pay the govt a fine?
>>14750348
>tfw in 50 years you'll still be able to find Crown vics and Town cars
>>14755919
>once upon a time V8 was standard in american cars
6 cylinder engines have always been popular too
>>14755970
popular, yes. but you didnt have car companies trying hard to shill Turbo V6 as a replacement for V8's
>>14748071
1920s up through the 1960s, ending just before the muscle car.
There was a generational shift, that saw the best designers in history all retire off, and be replaced by a bunch of kids who'd never worked n the shop & had no experience with form, proportion, tooling, & how it all balances. Cars have looked like shit ever since.
>>14755988
I would argue that the 20's-40's were actually the Platinum age. We weren't quite at postwar consumer car culture yet, but the foundations for design and the culture were there.
>>14755988
>all those custom coach-builders
>no regulations
>simple mechanicals
>no fucking computers
>natural materials
>ornate metalwork
>pure artistry
>pure driving experience
>hnnnnng
Yeh, there's no substitute for the level of design, & craftsmanship in design, that those companies put into cars back them. Dodge molding a few computer drawn plastic trim pieces and tacking them on to a neon body doesn't really compare to a team of experienced blacksmiths with years on the bead roller & English wheel.
I think it's pretty much a generational thing and what people grew up with
>>14756048
im pretty sure it can be looked at objectively though.
you cant seriously consider 2014 a golden age compared to the 50's for example, when you compare the regulations and culture and environment that created both era's cars. the 50's had space age futurism inspired cars, they were very big on design, and there were no emissions regs, meaning you could have a stronk engine that didnt give no fucks, while now engines are choked and design is strangled by safety. you cant have wedges anymore, for example, because of pedestrian sfaety laws. you cant have sleek cars because of side airbag regs, etc etc.
while TASTE is subjective to when you grew up, it says something when even Millennials will look in aw at cars from the 50's-70's, and it's not just because of Boomer Parents
>>14755919
And now we can make more power with 4 cylinders than we could with V8s. While using half the fuel.
>>14756580
>now we can make more power with 4 cylinders than we could with V8s.
>implying the power potential of even the most advanced modern production 4 cylinder compares to even a run of the mill ten year old junkyard LS truck engine pullout.
>implying there aren't big blocks from the 60's capable of making over twice as more power than even the most hotly tuned modern 4 cylinders.
>>14756877
>muh mods
kek no one cares
nice job not mentioning fuel consumption either
>>14756877
That's not anon's point.
It's not power potential but what came from the factory.
>Toyota 70 series still being sold brand new
>implying we are not still in the golden age
>>14756887
Run of the mill truck V8's produce more power than the vast majority of performance 4 cylinder engines.
V8's have better specific consumption (the only measure of efficiency) at power levels that matter for situations that require lower specific consumption at higher power levels.
This is why you don't see any 400hp 4 cylinder tow vehicles.
>>14756891
Even from the factory, performance 4 cylinders are far behind the power produced by performance V8's.
He is wrong no matter which way you attack it.
>>14756913
no one cares about torque and truck engines
>>14756917
no hes not you tard
hes talking about ow old v8s are garbage compared to modern 4 cylinders
>>14756924
I'm not talking about torque. He contended that modern 4 cylinders make more power and are more efficient than "we ever could with V8s"
This is completely and factually wrong.
V8's make more power in non performance applications than most of even the best performance 4 cylinders.
Likewise V8's have better specific consumption at higher power levels than equivalent power 4 cylinders making them more efficient in the efficiency metric that actually matters.
>>14757026
except 4 cylinders are more efficient
there is no goddamn debating that
I love how everyone focus's on engine efficiency ITT, yet forgets that because these new cars keep getting heavier and heavier due to stricter safety standards transmission technology has had to progress as well in order to achieve and maintain the mileage figures that have been set by boards like CAFE, 20 years ago I never would have thought there would be 6,7,8, or even 9 speed automatics in production cars, hell even the DCT is was something that was unthinkable 20 years ago, so keep on chiming about this engine or that but recognize that they wouldn't be anywhere near as efficient without trans tech evolving as well
>>14757033
>except 4 cylinders are more efficient
You have no idea what you are talking about.
You don't even know what efficiency means.
I bet you only think this because most 4 cylinder cars get more miles per gallon than most 8 cylinder cars.
I bet you don't even know what brake specific consumption is.
Shut the fuck up.
>>14757369
4 cylinder have half the cylinder
it consumes half as much
holy shit its not that hard
>>14748071
Early 70's - late 90's.
I'm not saying that there are no good cars after 2000 but something went wrong.
>>14756924
>hes talking about ow old v8s are garbage compared to modern 4 cylinders
This was my point, thanks for the back up.
>>14757062
That and aero and even lighter materials. Because if they didn't these cars would be even heavier.
>>14757369
I know what brake specific fuel consumption is but I think that's not what's being argued here. It's real-world mileage which is more governed by the car that it's in.
ie
Weight
Aero
Number of gears
Rolling resistance
Driver habits is probably the biggest make or break factor of good fuel economy
>>14757423
>1977
>aerodynamic and good looking
>comfortable and practical
>durable and safe
>145 hp
>0–100 km/h in less than 9 sec.
>Top speed 197 km/h
>>14748071
>90s to be the high point.
Your opinion is already wrong.
>>14750352
This. 55-72 for muscle cars 60 and down for cars in general. Everything made after 1980 is garbage. No one is going to want to collect a 2011 Chevy Impala thirty years from now.
Cars are faster today, but they just don't feel as engaging to drive. Turbos have flattened out the torque curve, and DCTs have automated gear selection to the point of numbness. Pushing buttons just don't do it for me. Technically excellent cars with no soul.
That said, I plan to pick up an M2 this autumn and take care of it. We may be near the apex of internal combustion vehicles. Sure, electrics may end up faster, but they'll also be heavy and have an even more unengaging drivetrain.
>>14757412
>4 cylinder have half the cylinder
>it consumes half as much
Please tell me you are trolling and you're not this stupid.
The 90's were where it was at, disregarding US manufacturers that is (not like they were worth any sort of regard in the first place). So many gorgeous cars, last hurrah of pop up headlights, turbocharging makes it's way into the hands of consumers and enthusiasts alike. A ton of great engines were born in the 90's RB26, 2JZ. LS1,
MOD >>14758267
RB26 was actually born in the 80s champ
>>14758267
>RB
>JZ
>Born in the 90's
lel no
