I was talking to some young friends of mine (in their) mid thirties) who were commenting about how they really dislike their new cars. Their biggest complaint was the high sides with their narrow window slits and the lack of rear visibility that necessitate rear view cameras. All three said they feel their new cars fell claustrophic and would love to go back to their airier BMW three series of several years back. What do you think, do you like the feel of the current fad in auto design or would you prefer a lighter feel with better visibility?
I think the current designs are more dictated by Crash standards, aerodynamics and pedestrian safety more than any actual design fad.
There will probably have to be new engineering, building techniques or changes in material to change the current designs.
GM wise I remember watching something with Ed Welburn talking about some new GM break through that will allow thinner Pillars on future GM Vehicles.
Not a fan. Both my 69 and 77, and even my Eldo, are all way easier to see out of and to drive than my DTS. And yet my DTS is way better than any of the new cars out there. It just seems the cars get more closed in every year.
I embrace modern car design as a good change. Most of the 90's cars had the bloated, jellybean look that was terrible then and still terrible today. I like the sleek look of new cars and really think the new Cadillac design language is impressive. I also like how BMW redesigned the 3 and 4 Series. Chevrolet's new Impala is an impressive looking car and I would have no problem driving a new Buick product.
I love the styling of the 2014 Impala, but since I haven't driven one, I can't assess the visibility. It's probably not nearly as good as what I have with Betty.
By contrast, consider this 1960 Impala I saw in Portland yesterday:
I like how that's supposed to be a great off-roader. Kind of impossible to maneuver when the visibility is so piss poor and its hard to judge the front and rear corners of the truck. Plus its way too wide to fit down a lot of trails.
I can put up with crappy visibility if its some radically styled, cool looking sports car like that CTS-V pictured. In your ho-hum sedan or SUV, this new high beltline, small window, poor visibility crap sucks. Worst offender is the Ford Taurus. For such a big car, it feels VERY clausterphobic inside. The previous 500 sedan was the same size but a lot bigger inside with huge windows.
Worst offender has to be the H2. It feels like you're riding in a chop top with 1ft wide A pillars. On top of that, the interior seems to be made of giant legos.
Visibility is an exercise in futility. Drivers today just focus on their smartphones when they drive. Cars just need good forward vision so you can watch out for them.
The new cars look cool, but I like my daily driver wagon. I have 360 degrees of mostly uninterrupted view.
I miss big chrome bumpers for those distracted drivers....rubbing is racing...
But yes I don't care for 95% of the designs currently coming out, blah blah blah all look the same for the most part.
I miss being able to look out over your hood and SEE the edges of your cars. Also I miss the visibility. My caddy and lesabre have awesome visibility. The equinox has very poor side/ rear visibility (the second row seats block the entire back/ cargo side windows....makes backing out nearly impossible....so I leave them folded down). I think its blind spots are worse than the conversion van.
Out of the cars I've driven, the one with the best visibility has to be my Vigor. The doors are short, so the glass starts low. The dashboard is VERY low, as is the hood. The A pillars are super thin, the windows are frameless with a thin B pillars, and the rear window wraps around, taking up space that the C pillars would normally occupy.
Visibility is excellent in all directions. In comparison, modern cars have portholes, lol.
I like the looks and the safety they may bring. But indeed the view out is impractical up to dangerous. Especially the fatter A-pillars that block out complete cars at intersections or crossing pedestrians and bicycles.
^But with that, the terrain just conforms to you lol. Don't think that accidentally backing into that tree you didn't see is really going to matter with that beast. With the FJ, that's going to leave a good battle scar.
All I'm saying is the FJ is the closest thing Toyota sells in the US market to a Jeep Wrangler. And its a pathetic pile IMO compared to a Wrangler. A last gen, reg cab, 4wd Tacoma is a much more capable vehicle off-road than anything Toyota makes now.
I miss the old late 80's/early 90's Suzuki Samurai. That was the last real Jeep Wrangler competitor.
You're right about the FJ. But I doubt Toyota sells the FJ as a hard core off-roader. I thought it just got some love from Retro-lovers after they presented this as a concept and went ahead for production.
In one of the Top Gear episodes Richard Hammond drives a red one and goed havoc on a parking lot, through walls and terrain (staged).
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Cadillac Owners Forum
4.8M posts
369.7K members
Since 2002
Cadillac Forums is the perfect place to go to talk about your favorite Caddys including the ATS, CTS, SRX, Escalade, LYRIQ, Vistiq, concept and future Cadillac models.