Why don’t car manufacturers produce classic car designs?

[-]

Kurotan@reddit

They made a electric mustang suv.....just why. What. Why.

Make a 1970s body mustang with an electric engine. Or and other 70s car. They will sell. Make a new deloran with modern features and electric engine. Not a new design. The 80s design. It doesnt have to have a stainless steel body, something lightweight and more durable to elements would work. Current modern cars are ugly.

[-]

Automatic_Mulberry@reddit

The engineering that goes into meeting safety standards really does change the look of a car, much more than you think. Door beams for side impacts, high beltline ditto, heavy pillars to house airbags and to pass roof crush tests, high hood for pedestrian protection.... The list goes on and on.

Maybe you could build a more retro car, but there is also the factor of how many they would sell. Through clever engineering, maybe it would look the way you like it, but most people really don't want older-looking cars. They don't even really like cars, really. They only have a car as a transportation appliance.

[-]

sonofeevil@reddit

How does a high hood protect pedestrians? Isn't that the opposite?

[-]

dordonot@reddit

Yes, it’s the opposite

[-]

AlwaysBagHolding@reddit

It’s not. They aren’t talking about massive trucks. Cars have much higher hoods than they did 30 years ago specifically for pedestrian safety. Get hit by an 86 accord and it’s impacting you in the shins and you’re going headfirst into the windshield with the vast majority of the energy left. Get hit by a new one, and your torso crushes deep into the hood to absorb energy before you impact the windshield.

[-]

nathanb131@reddit

What I'm hearing is that if you have to jump from burning building, aim for the hood of a car.

[-]

Novogobo@reddit

it doesn't. it's an unintended consequence of a badly conceived rule. in previous eras, there were a few notable (at least in automotive engineering circles) of manufacturers developing vertically short vertically engines that allowed for particularly low hoods. like subaru using flat fours in front engine cars, the slant six, and several hondas most typified by the 3rd gen prelude. subsequently there was a study done on pedestrian collisions were the person goes up and over the car, and a major statistical factor in fatalities was the amount of space between the top of the hard part of the engine and the hood, essentially a dorsal crumple zone. so a rule was made for such a dorsal crumple zone expecting all the manufacturers to make vertically short engines. but instead they didn't change the engine designs and just made the hoods taller, and made the rest of the vehicle taller as well, which not coincidentally had the effect of greatly reducing the likelihood of struck pedestrians from going up and over the vehicle.

[-]

AlwaysBagHolding@reddit

High hoods on cars do, they’re designed to catch the pedestrian and crush to absorb energy instead of just hitting legs and launching them into the windshield. Compare a modern civic to an early 90’s one for a good example of a high, bulbous hood designed for better pedestrian safety.

Trucks, the hood is so high that your chest just slams into the core support instead, which is why they’re so deadly compared to cars in pedestrian impacts.

[-]

sonofeevil@reddit

This doesn't really pass the engineering/physics sniff test.

Pushing the pedestrian up and over is GOOD it's why those god awful American "trucks" are so bad.

It's not the location of impact that is the problem it's that it when the impact is above centre of gravity the pedestrian goes down under the car instead of over.

Going over is a deflection of that energy rather than an absorbtion of it. means you impart less into the poor human.

Designing the front of a car to cushion a pedestrian impact would make it cheese in a vehicle on vehicle accident or a vehicle into solid object collision.

[-]

AlwaysBagHolding@reddit

I think you’re misunderstanding that when I and the other commenter are talking about high hoods, we’re talking about high hoods relative to an early 90’s or earlier car when pedestrian safety wasn’t a concern. Not vehicles so high where you impact straight on and get ran over.

Here’s a good example of a high hood. The dummy hits and crushes the hood and the head doesn’t hit the windshield. The hood being high and deformable doesn’t negatively impact crashworthiness when the car hits something more solid.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tNRHB75NiIc

[-]

HappyChandler@reddit

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1123098/

This is what I found that predated the ubiquity of light trucks that only said that the trucks are deadly.

Bumpers above the knee are far more damaging to lower legs. I didn’t see a recommendation for raising the level of impact, just to have more under-hood space to make that a softer landing.

[-]

DankBlunderwood@reddit

Also CAFE standards. Those old cars had lots of drag which kills fuel efficiency.

[-]

Middle-Gas-6532@reddit

In the US market it doesn't matter much. You have a lot of low efficiency SUV's.

[-]

alphamammoth101@reddit

A lot of them get around the standards because they are so big.

[-]

bridgefour_@reddit (OP)

You’re right, I definitely underestimated what it meant. Appreciate the response!

[-]

ReasonableRevenue218@reddit

Designing something that isn't boring coast money. Car companies now are ALL about profit only.

[-]

Vecspeed129@reddit

If you want a car that still looks like the first generation that was made it still exists. Just buy a Porsche 911. 911

[-]

VikingLander7@reddit

Put a new one next to the first gen 911. Huge difference, yes styling is similar but the size is way different.

[-]

MortemInferri@reddit

Thats part of the modern safety features. You really cant escape that.

Part of the issue of trying to make new what is old...

[-]

Maple-4590@reddit

But is it really so far-fetched to believe they couldn’t slightly alter a classic design to meet those regulations?

Yes.

There have been modern cars styled to clone retro designs as closely as possible, like '98 VW Beetle, '02 MINI Cooper, '08 Dodge Challenger and '21 Ford Bronco. Some have maintained styling continuity like Porsche 911 and Jeep Wrangler. Others are highly retro-coded like '99 Jaguar S-Type, '02 Ford Thunderbird, '04 Ford Mustang, '10 Chevrolet Camaro, ...

In every case, the newer cars bear a strong resemblance, but are easily distinguishable.

The various regulations really do impact styling: A-pillars (rollover safety), crumple zones, pedestrian safety, aerodynamics (mpg), lighting, etc.

[-]

bmonkey1313@reddit

Counterpoint... look at the ineos grenadier. That car actually authentically looks like a 90s range rover, though is compliant with modern standards. It is a doable feat

[-]

MortemInferri@reddit

Yeah... sometimes. Not every classic car coincidently was designed that it can accommodate modern requirements

[-]

bridgefour_@reddit (OP)

That’s a good point. Also reminds me how cool I thought the look of the new Nissan Z was, and yet I’ve maybe seen one on the road, ever. So even if they make it look cool it might not be worth it to the manufacturer. Thanks!

[-]

slamallama@reddit

You also need to keep in mind that online car enthusiasts make up like, <1% of NEW car buyers.

People that love older cars tend to buy .. older cars.

This means they are instantly not a market OEMs will bother catering to. OEMs are solely interested in selling new vehicles.

[-]

Rum_Running_Sailor@reddit

I agree with you. Look how well received the Dodge Challenger was when they brought it back.

[-]

SaoirseMayes@reddit

I think the Challenger is a great example, regulations are so much stricter now that it looks nothing like an old Challenger.

[-]

Oak510land@reddit

You just gave the reasons in your post. To make a first gen Camaro meet modern safety standards you need more steel in the pillars for rollover protection and more steel for side impact. And then there you have it a ugly ass modern Camaro.

[-]

Shadow_ninja714@reddit

Here's where I always ask the question: why do we allow motorcycles then? Why is there an ultra-high standard for cars when a motorcycle has been much less safe?

At that point, why do the safety standards matter, when literally anyone can get a bike and be less safe than in even the most ancient of cars?

[-]

stu54@reddit

Because the auto industry is a cartel. Motorcycles will never be safe, convinient or practical enough to compete directly with the auto industry.

Cars must be regulated so Crazy Bill doesn't start an EV company in his shed that starts rolling out super cheap cars right when a recession hits, and eating a big share of the captive market.

[-]

firstthrowaway9876@reddit

Motorcycles also don't as many riders as cars do drivers. Those riders will typically own a car that they put more miles on than their motorcycle. Most motorcycle accidents are single vehicle. The pressure from insurance companies to motorcycle manufacturers is not there. Motorcyclist typically have more rigorous training and or licensing requirements than cars. Motorcycles have always been treated as inherently dangerous by riders and lawmakers. Car have been considered inherently safe since like the 70s. America is a wild place with lots of money that can dictate vehicle design all over the world.

[-]

No_South_9912@reddit

How many bikers do you see texting while they ride? 🤔

[-]

firstthrowaway9876@reddit

Too many. But they usually stop once they've seen or been told that the light has turned green.

[-]

Stock-Swing-797@reddit

Yep this. Just add in giving you the bird and tearing off like you're the asshole for daring to honk at them...

[-]

Novogobo@reddit

ok, so one thing you're missing about america or adult life in general is the difference between pretense and reality. there's the way "we" say things are, and there's the way things really are.

with motor vehicles yeah we care about safety, so there's all these rules for cars to make them super safe. but motorcycles and "trucks" don't have to abide by those rules. so we get the reputational benefit of caring without having to pay the practical price of genuinely caring. this sort of thing exists in a million different aspects of human society.

[-]

robo_robb@reddit

Motorcycles got grandfathered in. If motorcycles came out today they would 100% be banned (in the U.S. at least).

[-]

rdkil@reddit

They'd have CAFE applied to them. They'd start as small light motorcycles and within 10 years they'd be the size of a pickup truck.

[-]

endlessnamelesskat@reddit

CAFE laws only create bigger vehicles because anything considered a light duty truck is exempt from these laws which SUVs, pickups, and crossovers all count as.

There’s not really much reason to apply CAFE laws to motorcycles since they already get gas mileage comparable to hybrid vehicles even when they’re running on an ICE engine

[-]

KillerKittenwMittens@reddit

CAFE goes based on footprint too

[-]

No_South_9912@reddit

CAFE standards apply to light trucks. Got to hit 3/4 ton to be exempt. 3/4 ton no hybrid, cylinder deactivation, auto start/stop, gas engine turbos, etc. Just plain large V8 engines getting 12MPG.

[-]

rdkil@reddit

shrug I was trying to make a joke about how CAFE is why we have modern day tanks instead of useful and practical small trucks.

[-]

Adventurous-Depth984@reddit

Fact. They’re trying to ban e-bikes in New York before they get a proper foothold in society.

[-]

Traditional_Can_3983@reddit

There's little to no taxation in ebikes and they completely change mobility.

You have to give a pound of flesh to have convenient travel in New York. A bikeis slightly inconvenient but allowed because it sucks. A bike woth a motor however. That's just too easy.

[-]

GlitteringPen3949@reddit

You don’t hear of whole families killed while riding a motorcycle.

[-]

Lopsided-Public8205@reddit

Its an exception, requires a separate license endorsement, and some states require wearing safety gear.

Texas is a bit funny on this. The law states you must wear a helmet or carry half a million in life insurance. Obviously cops aren't pulling ppl over checking life insurance. They are just saying "If you die, it's your own damn fault."

[-]

Super_Direction498@reddit

Motorcycles require extra licensing and training in almost all states.

[-]

dordonot@reddit

Because people care about safety in cars, anyone riding motorcycles acknowledges they’re forfeiting that safety

[-]

metaphysical789@reddit

Money, simply put

[-]

ScaryfatkidGT@reddit

I just want something that looks like it slightly more than the 5th Gen… then make the interior more retro they did the gauges but that’s it, should have done the air vents and the door pull handles along with the little Camaro badges on the door card…

[-]

robo_robb@reddit

like this?

[-]

nizzoball@reddit

Wow that’s gorgeous

[-]

Garth_DeWayne@reddit

Watched some dude on YouTube do the same thing with two similar generation mustangs. Would be a nice project if I had the space.

[-]

Oak510land@reddit

Sounds like you got a project lined up for yourself

[-]

ScaryfatkidGT@reddit

I want a Challenger R/T classic with the shaker hood painted black… idk how or if it was offered but pair that with the pleated seats… only thing is the 15+ dash looks more retro than the 2009-2014 one…

[-]

HiTork@reddit

One of the biggest changes that would need to be made for these old RWD cars is fuel tank placement. Up until the '90s, it was common practice to place the fuel tank on RWD cars behind the rear axle as engineers didn't have to deal with the drive shaft, making things simpler. Of course, this is a dangerous position when taking into account rear-end collisions, and virtually all modern cars and light trucks have their fuel tanks mounted ahead of the rear axle.

On a '60s Camaro, so much would need to be changed with the floor pan to accommodate a mid-mounted fuel tank, and that is on top of everything else that would be needed to be changed.

[-]

jaymansi@reddit

That can be mitigated by a reinforced tank similar to what NASCAR has had probably since the late 70’s.

[-]

OperationMobocracy@reddit

Couldn’t you just use a safer style of fuel tank, like a racing fuel cell?

I get that “we could use special parts/tech to make this happen” also means that auto makers wouldn’t be able to make a profit/sell it for less than $500k, though I’d kind of like to see a breakdown on the possible alternative parts needed to make a new classic car more or less work to modern standards. Fuel cells, high strength steel alloys which would allow for classic lines, etc. It’s still probably not a price point that your average “classic car dreamer” could afford.

[-]

imthatoneguyyouknew@reddit

Even a fuel cell with "high strength steel alloys" is getting demolished in an accident. To make a fuel cell that would offer crash protection equivalent to moving it in board of the rear axle and frame, you would be looking at significant amounts of weight.

Racing fuel cells aren't designed for safety in the way you are thinking. Especially since most race cars dont have to worry about getting rear ended at a stop light. The weight required to get that crash protection from a fuel cell would be completely unnecessary compared to just moving it to a safer spot. And thats before you look into all the other required things like crumple zones, rollover protection, etc

[-]

jondes99@reddit

Or a New Beetle, modern Mini, PT Cruiser, Chevy HHR, Fiat 500, etc. All bloated facsimiles of much older designs.

[-]

bridgefour_@reddit (OP)

😂 fair enough, but because I still don’t understand, couldn’t they put more steel in a sexier design and it still look the same?

[-]

Thereelgerg@reddit

Where ,exactly, would that extra steel go if the car actually looked the same?

[-]

not_a_burner0456025@reddit

It isn't just safety either. There are also fuel efficiency standards too. Those older cats were designed with looking good as one of the biggest priorities as aerodynamics weren't well understood. Now fuel efficiency guidelines and customer expectations require car designers to prioritize aerodynamics over appearance to a certain degree.

[-]

metaphysical789@reddit

Dodge sold 17 dodge vipers in the year they decided to stop production. Yet that was not the reason they stopped. The Dodge viper could no longer meet federal safety regulations pertaining to air bags in the a pillars. And that's all it took to stop one of the meanest cars on the planet at the time.

[-]

mregression@reddit

And man did those cars look good.

[-]

metaphysical789@reddit

Especially the ACR version, a straight American muscle car monster that broke numerous track records. And just an beautiful example of engineering teamwork for different companies to build such and American legend that Is the Dodge viper.

[-]

ScaryfatkidGT@reddit

I want to see a new one so bad… a V10 like that could probably easily make 700hp with modern tech… then either a better manual or a 8-10 speed, it would be setting records again.

[-]

metaphysical789@reddit

One would think but efficiency in combustion engines made it possible for 3 liter motors you can carry in your arms the more practical and very performative way to go. And then there's the always on and just enough torque that is the electric car. But we did at least get a very fun run of the Dodge demon to send the muscle car era off in the end.

[-]

ScaryfatkidGT@reddit

Chevy still has 6.2’s and Dodge 6.4’s… I just don’t think it would be a Viper without a V10, even if it was smaller displacement.

[-]

metaphysical789@reddit

Oh it most certainly would not. A viper without the legendary v10 is just a tougher looking Corvette

[-]

bridgefour_@reddit (OP)

Woa, I didn’t know that. Makes more sense though! Thanks for sharing

[-]

jaehaerys48@reddit

It would look ugly. You start messing with the proportions of the car, and it starts looking "off." Plus, they'd have to mess with it in various other little ways to comply with safety regulations (modifying bumpers and whatnot) and buyer taste (make it bigger, basically). All these changes in isolation might not alter the design too much... but add them all up, and you've got something that looks very different. The retro throwback designs of the 2000s really are a genuine attempt at capturing the feeling of older designs in cars made for the 21st century.

[-]

Oak510land@reddit

I mean that's what all manufacturers try to do. Figure out how to make a good looking car that meets all the standards and make it affordable to produce. Notice how all modern cars look basically the same with the high body lines and chunky rear pillars and you need a back up camera because you can't see shit out the tiny back windows? That's to meet the standards.

I don't care for it and still drive cars from the 90s which are basically tin cans compared to say my wife's modern BMW.

[-]

bajajoaquin@reddit

There’s another reason beyond safety and emissions standards. The market.

Let’s say you build a new ‘65 Mustang. How much would that cost? Keep in mind that you need to make the tooling all over again. No Falcons being produced to share the cost. Let’s say it would cost $50,000 each to make a run of them.

For $50,000, you can get a pretty nice original ‘65 mustang. And it’s an original with the authenticity they bring.

With a very few exceptions, any car you want can be had cheaper than building a new one. For those exceptions, people are already making clones.

Tl;dr the market has priced in the number of people who want to buy one.

[-]

SignalMaster5561@reddit

Appreciate the edit, and agree 100%

However a nice restmodded classic with modern power/steering/suspension is a great alternative.

Keep on learning OP 😎

[-]

mr802rex@reddit

They cant, for such obvious reasons. Every manufacturer would just start making their 90s models again of they could. It would cost zero R&D, they likely have most of the tooling stashed away and they know they would be reliable AF and would fly out of dealerships. They literally cant or they for sure would, it would be like printing money to them.

[-]

daan944@reddit

They do! Some examples:

Fiat 500
Mini
Jaguar S-type

But they all look very different to the real old models.

Also, what era would be leading, commercially? In the example of the Camaro, I like the first gen, don't like the 2nd gen, but love the 3rd one. And everyone has a different opinion..

[-]

New_Breadfruit8692@reddit

Domestic auto production is all about volume, markets of scale. Classic car design is a huge gamble and rarely profitable.

[-]

Heavy_Importance2491@reddit

“it wouldn’t comply with modern safety and emissions standards.”

And yet you can buy a new Morgan.

[-]

Ok_Application_2292@reddit

Emissions. BUT with EV makers they could easily bring back some classics or start something that continues the magic

[-]

RemoteVersion838@reddit

Safety regulations drive a lot of modern car design. Lights have to be visible from certain angles and a certain height, bumper heights, crash protection. A and B pillar's have to support a rollover, etc. Even windows sizes are part of the safety requirements. It doesn't leave much room for creative design.

[-]

bitzzwith2zs@reddit

OK OK hear me out: if you want a 1st gen Camaro; get a 1st gen Camaro

[-]

TROGDOR_X69@reddit

guberment wont allow it

which is really crazy

like you allow motorcycles. yet all of a sudden my car is unsafe

yea bullshit.

[-]

Richard_Thickens@reddit

The difference is kind of obvious to me. Motorcycles are inherently more dangerous, typically require an additional endorsement, and literally could not be safer than a car in almost any case. The point being that there are increased risks inherent to motorcycle operation that can't reasonably be mitigated by newer safety technologies.

That said, you can still drive older cars. You can still assemble your own kit cars that resemble those older cars. There are just safety standards in place for newer mass production cars.

[-]

TROGDOR_X69@reddit

ok but what about KEI trucks

Why can't I register or drive one

even if for "residential" streets only. Its complete BS

[-]

Richard_Thickens@reddit

This is a really common thing with JDM and other import vehicles. Depending on the state, you can make it happen if it meets all of the other standards to be on the road. My state permits them.

[-]

TROGDOR_X69@reddit

nope. i live in Lovely "liberal?" NY

never understood how a state thats so Liberal bans outright so much

like window tint. and these KEI trucks

really makes me want to move out west where I can be Free in Murica!

[-]

slamallama@reddit

So move west? If it's so great out there go for it.

Except people like the big economies and culture of those "liberal" places.

[-]

endlessnamelesskat@reddit

Nothing says liberal like heavy regulations.

This isn’t a jab against them, it’s just part of a double edged sword with that sort of ideology. Safety regulations save lives but also have the potential to restrict personal freedom and make life boring

[-]

TROGDOR_X69@reddit

yea and NYC does much of this "heavy lifting" for the entire state

lets punish everyone because we need to make Manhattan safe.....

like i get aggressive window tint laws IN THE CITY. but let us Upstate and Long island people have window tint. or fire works or whatever.

[-]

Richard_Thickens@reddit

You should move out past the power lines in Montana. That'll show 'em.

[-]

slamallama@reddit

You can though, once they're old enough to be classics. You can't do it with new ones because they don't pass crash tests.

The government isn't doing this for no reason. The rules exist because a lot of people died and the public decided they wanted cars that didn't impale you on the steering column.

[-]

Unusual_Steak@reddit

Cars being safe are probably why motorcycles are allowed lol. You pose minimal threat to a car full of people on a motorcycle. Government doesn’t care to limit your freedom to kill yourself on a bike outside of requiring additional training and license endorsement.

Government does care if you accidentally rear end a minivan in your car and kill a family of 5. Government doesn’t care if you accidentally rear end a minivan on your motorcycle and splatter yourself across I95.

[-]

oIVLIANo@reddit

Here's the thing, with those government regs. They are applied to the MODEL YEAR design , not the specific year of manufacturing.

In fact, when the diesel regs changed in 2007, many companies continued making 06 year models well into 07, until they could develop the changes necessary to meet the new requirements.

What's stopping Ford from making a 1964 model Mustang, today? The real answer is the market. Would enough people buy it to make the tooling costs to produce them worth it? That answer is a resounding no.

[-]

greyHumanoidRobot@reddit

Dodge Challenger (3rd generation starting in 2008) was a retro look.

[-]

Louis_R27@reddit

A lot of design elements from classic cars would be non compliant with modern safety standards, and to adapt them into compliance the interior would feel cramped as passive crash safety designs would lead to thicker pillars and doors.

[-]

LivingGhost371@reddit

I mean, when it comes down to it, how many buyers do you think want a rear wheel drive coupe that looks like a '57 Chevy as opposed to a AWD crossover SUV that can fit a bunch of kids and IKEA furniture?

[-]

tuanies@reddit

They don’t because enthusiasts are very vocal, cheapasses that don’t buy new cars. Every time an enthusiast says they’ll buy x car if a company makes it, they don’t, when the company actually makes it (see Pontiac G8, Chevy SS, Genesis G70 manual, etc…)

Manufacturers follow the money and produce vehicles people actually buy, not those that bitch and moan about them. Enthusiasts complain about BMW styling and everything, yet the sales numbers don’t reflect that and they see annual growth and sell so many more vehicles than the “good old days” of the E30/E34/E38 generations.

The feelings of enthusiasts online are not a good reason to spend billions of dollars on R&D, that’s why you don’t see anyone selling retro design vehicles.

[-]

Sp00nD00d@reddit

Also, when they DO make those relatively authentic retro designs, there's about a 10000:1 ratio for people who say they want it vs can afford or will actually buy it.

If you ask people what they want in a car, no one describes a Camry or a generic crossover, then they all go buy a silver Camry when it comes time to buy.

[-]

Accomplished-witchMD@reddit

Welcome to classic car ownership. Better get handy or have mechanic money. Kit cars and restoration mods are taking classic looking cars and putting the engine and interior and other features you like in them(within reason). I drive an older car but not yet classic I dump TONS of money in her keeping her up to modern regs. As soon as shes classic. Fuck that. If I die I die.

[-]

Able_Software6066@reddit

I'm not sure about all classic cars, but the first generation Mustangs are tiny with a low roofline. Car buyers today want spacious interiors. The wind noise is also loud. An afternoon road trip will leave your throat sore from yelling at your passenger.

[-]

CompetitiveBox314@reddit

I think the answer is much more simple. While you may like retro styled cars, most people don't. People prefer modern design and function. They want modern functionality instead of compromises to look cool.

Personally, I despise retro styled cars. I think they look like caricatures instead of truly inspired style.

I used to love old cars but now when I go to classic car shows, I am always thinking how homely, incoherent, and disjointed most look.

[-]

freeski919@reddit

Go read up on the 2002 Thunderbird.

[-]

RunningAtTheMouth@reddit

The HHR, TP Cruiser, and Thurnderbird were all retro styling efforts. Retro designs that met modern standards.

They simply didn't sell well enough.

[-]

More_Pineapple3585@reddit

The PT Cruiser sold \~1.4 million cars and is still considered a massive success.

[-]

Professor_Iron@reddit

Ummm... they do. There's the Fiat 500, Land Rover Defender, Honda CR-Z just to name a few from various categories.

Problem is many of these models often end up flopping. What's the message of a nostalgia design? 'Look, this new car is just like the old one that you remember so fondly'?
To successfully resurrect a classic name and shape first you need to have a model people loved (meaning young brands that lack the heritage cannot chase this strategy).
Then you have to live up to the expectations. That's a high risk - low reward scenario, unless you can really nail it. The Chrysler PT Cruiser, VW New Beetle or the Ford Thunderbird couldn't live up to it's fame. So for a company to pull it off has to really trust it's design team - something that is rare in the corporate world today.

[-]

More_Pineapple3585@reddit

PT Cruiser was a massive success, they sold \~1.4 million cars.

[-]

Honest_Road17@reddit

Bob Lutz gave you the PT Cruiser AND the HHR. You all just laughed and made mean jokes.

[-]

More_Pineapple3585@reddit

While I agree about the mean jokes, the PT Cruiser is still considered a massive sales success, they sold \~1.4 million units worldwide. It supports OP's question more than anything, proving it can be done. The HHR a bit less so, but even it was considered a moderate success for GM with over 550,000 units sold during its five-year run. I think the HHR just arrived late to the retro party.

[-]

VegaGT-VZ@reddit

Might as well just buy the actual old classic car you want

[-]

Limp-Plantain3824@reddit

Of course the companies could make new models that look a lot more like the old ones. With newer materials and construction methods you probably wouldn’t need to add all that much steel weight, but there would be other costs.

If the companies believed they could make more money doing that then doing what they are doing then guess what they would do?

[-]

KW160@reddit

There are a lot of reasons. But a big one now is that everyone wants SUVs. The market for coupes and sedans is largely gone.

[-]

lobsterpockets@reddit

5th gen camero was ugly af. Modern Mustang, challenger etc were all re'imagination of classic designs. Companies are making what will be future classics. Some recent corvette zl1, grand sports etc...Bmw Z4M

[-]

RadRimmer9000@reddit

People will say "safety regulations", but a fucking motorcycle it legal and has zero safety features. So that's a bullshit reason if you're going to use basic common sense.

I can see the logic on emissions, but I would assume they would put a newer engine in the car anyways so it would meet the requirements. I don't think many people will buy a 2026 first gen Camaro with the original engine with whopping 140~ HP, when a factory 2026 Corolla comes with 169 HP.

[-]

thehomeyskater@reddit

It might be possible to market a new version of a classic car as a motorcycle, but then it would require a motorcycle license to drive it, most jurisdictions would require wearing a helmet, and many jurisdictions now have restrictive graduated licensing schemes (in my province until you’ve had your motorcycle license for three years, you can’t drive after sunset or have a passenger, for example).

I don’t think the demand for a “this is technically a car but it doesn’t meet safety regulations so we’re calling it a motorcycle” contraption would ever be very high, no matter how nice it was.

[-]

Admirable_Nobody_771@reddit

New Ford GT40, Fiat 500, Renault 5, Alpine A110, VW New Beetle, are just a few of the classic designs in a new car. They are not perfect replicas, because they need to meet new safety standards at least, but if you squint, you can see the resemblance with the classic designs.

[-]

TuzzNation@reddit

Won't pass safety check and it cause cancer in California.

[-]

RadRimmer9000@reddit

Just living in California causes cancer. Just need to break them off into the ocean and wish them luck.

[-]

gonzal2020@reddit

I really wish people would stop dissing on California. Maybe you don't know this but CALIFORNIA HAS THE FOURTH LARGEST ECONOMY IN THE WORLD.

It contributes to much of the USA's wealth, and to our high (well not so much anymore) standards of living. Does it have issues? Yes, but as one of the most populous states we are going to have some problems.

[-]

RadRimmer9000@reddit

I lived in Cali for 19 years of my life, I grew up there. It was a fun place to grow up at, but the politics fucking suck.

Criminals get more rights than citizens.

possession of a stolen file arm and killing someone you can walk free

Such a great state 🙄

[-]

TuzzNation@reddit

Unless they make these cars with paper straw

[-]

Saute_and_Pray@reddit

As a Californian, please break us and our massive economy off. Peace out.

[-]

Way2trivial@reddit

read ecotopia.

[-]

Honest_Road17@reddit

As long as I don't have to support the Federal Government, cool.

[-]

seajayacas@reddit

My simple take is that the majority of car buyers are not all that attracted to the classic designs.

[-]

gonzal2020@reddit

People say it's because of safety standards and what not, but that is not entirely true.

The bigger picture is that most car designs are made by computer aided design (CAD) programs - such as SolidWorks or Blender. These programs are geared to creating wind tunnel efficiency designs first and foremost. This is why we are are getting so many vehicles that look similar to each other even across manufacturers.

The next issue is that once a design is created it can take months to build a full size working model, set up the manufacturing lines to stamp all the sheet metal parts and secure all the components needed to make a complete car.

Because of the time and cost involved in making a model, manufacturers want to get the most out of them profit-wise that they can.

Could they make models that look more closely like the classics of old? Of course, but there is so much that goes into making a car, and there are no guarantees that everyone will love a design enough to buy all (or most) of the models that roll off an assembly line, so manufacturers have to use their resources as best as they can.

All that said, there are now smaller manufacturers that either purchase actual bodies and retrofit them or purchase the dies from original manufacturers to build complete models from scratch.

A few examples - Factory Five Racing (FFR) and Superformance are two companies that build Shelby cars from the 1960s. FFR builds fiberglas bodies on steel frames; they are original builds but designed almost exactly like the original Cobra and Daytona Coupes made by Carroll Shelby. Superformance builds new "continuation" cars using the original stamps, and fully endorsed by Shelby, and Chevrolet in the case of their Corvette Grand Sport.

There are others getting into the game too. I recently saw a company advertising a Land Rover Defender from the 1960-70s that they are manufacturing. Over in England a company called MST is buying and rebuilding the 1970s English Ford Escort MK2. For legal reasons they can't call it a Ford Escort, so it's an MST MK2. If your are not familiar with this car, look it up. If one of Ford's most successful models ever, but was never sold in the USA by Ford. The US Ford Escort sold in the 1980s is NOT the same car.

In the case of the Camaro, personally I line the new design, and same with the Dodge Charger and Ford Mustang, but I will concede that making these even closer to the original classic designs would be just awesome. These cars had character, and unmistakable looks, something mostly lacking in today's models.

[-]

411592@reddit

If Chevy would restyle the Camaro closer to the 60’s , it’d print money

[-]

ButchDeanCA@reddit

Well, apart from regulations that have already been explained several times over, there is also the thing that a car is not a “classic” until it is out of production and respected for one reason or other. This means that modern cars can’t be classics yet anyway.

Classic designs on the other had have tried to surface with a modern twist, the PT Cruiser comes to mind, and look how that monstrosity turned out. Others, like the VW Beetle have been more successful but eventually fell out of production too. Plus, the people who would really appreciate classic cars are largely dead now, and those that came after simply don’t understand.

[-]

rzugorzyt@reddit

Some manufacturers tried to recreate classic design in modern cars. Almost all of them failed miserably - Renault with 5, BMW with Mini, Plymouth with Prowler, Chevrolet with SSR etc.

Only Fiat managed to create a real masterpiece (500), which is great example of how hard is such task.

[-]

Rough_Cancel7265@reddit

This is why. Car guys want new cars that look like old cars, performance like new cars and also COST what old cars do. And they're very fickle. But also a reality that I think most car guys don't really think about is that old cars are well, old. Which sounds stupid when you say it out loud. But I don't think the actual age is thought of.

Let's say you're 25, and your dad had you at 25 just to keep the numbers round. That means when your dad started driving, say 16, it was 1992. The last of the 60s muscle cars were done over two decades before he got his license.

[-]

pm-me-racecars@reddit

They tried that in the early 2000s.

Ford Thunderbird. Plymouth Prowler. Chrysler PT Cruiser. VW New Beetle. Chevy SSR. Dodge Challenger. etc...

[-]

Impossible_Safety_36@reddit

You can only recreate a classic and the do try

[-]

PckMan@reddit

You more or less listed the main reasons. Old designs cannot really be put on the roads today due to various regulations and even if you do make the closest approximate they don't sell well because people are ultimately suckers for trinkets and love the idea of being seen in a new car.

However there are exceptions, but it proves why there isn't a big market for it. Some of the most notable are the Mercedes G wagon, which is one of the few successful such cases. More or less unchanged design, though in more recent years they are getting revised interiors and electronic doo dads. Another example is the Toyota 70 series. Super popular though Toyota is keeping production batches small and that makes them expensive. You have to wait for years to get one and it has hand cranked windows.

Many Russian brands are still keeping alive older designs like the Lada Niva. Same for motorcycle companies which can grandfather in models as long as they maintain continuous productions, at least in some markets.

Royal Enfield motorcycles are an example of making brand new bikes while still trying to stick as close to the old school inspiration as possible.

[-]

Due_Attention_4886@reddit

I think people are completely full of shit when they say:

“it wouldn’t comply with modern safety and emissions standards.”

Take a look at the modern Porsche and the BRZ--they both have tiny A pillars and low hoods.

Emissions standards don't affect the way cars look, for the most part. Besides, they make a lot of very powerful cars these days that have relatively low MPG.

People claim that cars need to look like blobs to meet aerodynamics requirements but the Mercedes W124 had a drag coefficient of 0.29.

Most of what they're doing is to increase profit margins IMO. They also hire and promote shitty designers.

[-]

bridgefour_@reddit (OP)

Yeah I guess manufacturers just make more money selling the same looking bland SUVs. I have a BRZ so you won’t find any disagreements from me

[-]

Due_Attention_4886@reddit

I drove one for a few years. They're great. NA engine with enough horsepower. Good fuel economy. Manual available. It's both port and direct injected so probably doesn't have the same issues as cars that only do direct injection.

It bucks a lot of the horrible trends in contemporary car design.

[-]

KostyaFedot@reddit

FIAT 500 and latest Twingo are close looking to original. Miata isn't far either.

[-]

NoPersimmon7434@reddit

I'm offended by the disrespect toward the 6th gen.

[-]

bridgefour_@reddit (OP)

No disrespect intended! It’s still a sick car

[-]

NoPersimmon7434@reddit

You are forgiven.

[-]

kreygmu@reddit

It’s been happening in Japan and Europe, especially with EVs. The Honda E and new Renault 4,5 and Twingo are great examples. Mini is the other obvious example.

[-]

bmonkey1313@reddit

I've been saying this. The first company that decides to "remaster" car models will make a fortune. I think of all the 90s Japanese cars from Nissan and Toyota that are still so sought after. Imagine being able to buy those new

[-]

Tool_junkie_1972@reddit

You should go read some of the modern requirements, then go back and read your question. Pick a single item- headlights for example, and read the entire listing of requirements.

[-]

bridgefour_@reddit (OP)

Wow, yeah I had no idea. I just opened 49 CFR Part 571 and there are hundreds of rules about just the headlights.

[-]

Tool_junkie_1972@reddit

And this is why cars of certain classes all resemble one another so much. Only so many ways to meet such detailed regulations.

[-]

Ok-Lavishness-7904@reddit

What we like to see and what we’ll buy are two different questions. But I see your point. For me, I think of VW; they had a great run with the New Beetle, they missed the mark completely with the new van, but for the life of me I can’t understand why they don’t have a small car/SUV and calling it the Thing

[-]

Unlucky_Employee6082@reddit

They couldn’t figure out how to make something uglier than a Cybertruck

[-]

miamiBMWM2@reddit

because every new designer wants to leave their own mark. it's petty & unfortunate that it's primarily down to huge egos, but i've looked into it & that's pretty much all i could find.

[-]

Ballamookieofficial@reddit

Restore an old one and add bracing to the structure?

[-]

ScaryfatkidGT@reddit

You don’t like the 6th gen?

That late 2000’s retro revival kinda fizzled… non were really that retro either unless you got all the specific packages… like the Challenger you needed the R/T Classic pack…

Old cars were so cool I love the late 60’s gauges like the 66+ Toronados rolling vertical speedo…

Now everything’s just screens

[-]

bridgefour_@reddit (OP)

I definitely agree. And I don’t hate the 6th gen, in my opinion every new car looks the same. Like they tried to make it look futuristic and in the process made it tacky. But that’s just my opinion

[-]

ScaryfatkidGT@reddit

It’s kind of made to look like a chop top, but it’s 300lbs lighter than the 5th gens and the Mustang and like 500lbs lighter than the Challenger

[-]

Legitimate-Duty-5622@reddit

I agree with you and most people say that a 1950s truck is amazing looking. It just has a tiny interior no AC no creature comforts whatsoever. Could you put them yes but it would still be a tiny interior that barely fits three people. There’s not enough people who want a classic car and would put up with the shortcomings of space size, etc. The market is just too small. They want to sell 1 million cars not to enthusiasts. I don’t disagree that a first GEN Camaro, especially convertible with the backseat is just about the right size car for sporting fun fast.

[-]

reptifishv8@reddit

Retro styling was big for a while. You had the retro camaro,mustang and chargers all made to look somewhat like the classic versions. You even had the pt cruiser that was made to resemble a hotrod based on a 30's body style sorta if you squinted.wasted oppurtunity not stuffing a hemi in that imo.But you can only keep a body style going for so long and can only make so many changes before the resemblance is lost.

[-]

AdInternational6902@reddit

Aerodynamics, crash and pedestrian safety, emissions, etc. Its impossible to make a classic that meets all of those especially Aerodynamics

[-]

Dom29ando@reddit

A body style like a 5th gen Camaro could probably be reworked for modern safety regs, a first or second gen couldn't. The big issue with GM/Chevy specifically is that it's more profitable to just do pick-ups since they get better tax breaks due to them being classed as work vehicles, and Corvette covers their share sports car market.

[-]

bridgefour_@reddit (OP)

Gotcha, that explains the “money” comments. Thanks!

[-]