I heartily agree modern cars look horrible. My daily driver looks horrible and it is by many considered to be "great design" (an Alfa Giulietta QV).
However, I grew up with SAABs. I hated the things. :-)
When I was a kid it was the only thing that made me car-sick, and when I started driving I couldn't stand the horrible front end feel. It felt like driving an old man's boxer shorts.
I love old cars though. Especially old Alfa Romeos. I currently have a homologation special from 1987 (The 75 Evo) and I've owned several 75s and a GTV from 1982. Yeah, old Alfas aren't reliable. And stuff just stops working for no good reason. In fact the dash of my Evo has a reset button. It is worn. Every time I brake hard the warning lights go into 1970s disco mode. You know what? I don't mind. Because it smells like a car, sounds like it means business, looks like a car, handles like a car, and it doesn't have opinions on how it is supposed to be driven. (Well, the Evo tries to kill you with its crazy 80s turbo boost, explosive horsepower delivery and no toys to rein it in, but hey, it makes you feel alive!)
The problem is that most cars have lost their distinct personality due to brands consolidating into large conglomerates, and subsequently developing platforms to reduce costs.
I love old brands with models that stood out, and it's a shame that originality in engineering has been mostly replaced by assembling components together plus some minor aesthetic tweaks. I guess the situation is fairly similar to programming, where SICP has been replaced by gluing libraries together in Python. Perhaps it's a sign of maturity, but I miss some stuff from the past.
It’s sad. Every new car today looks like the same identical “bar of soap with wheels.” They are differentiated visually by small things like grille shape and lighting clusters. Everyone blames it on fuel economy and safety features but I think that simply no manufacturer is willing to be daring anymore, and they have trained their customers to like boring design. Even colors: you rarely see anything but white, black, gray, red, and blue.
> due to brands consolidating into large conglomerates
Worse, it's more like cowardly "risk aversion". Stay in the lines, don't take design chances. What color? Something conservative, maybe desaturated, maybe metallic....
You mean the Renault 5 or the Megane? I happen to like both. I've driven the Megane on two of the coolest tracks in the world and the spicy versions are a hoot and a half.
> When I was a kid it was the only thing that made me car-sick, and when I started driving I couldn't stand the horrible front end feel.
I got easily carsick as a child but don't see the same effect in my kids. I am wondering if it is partly the result of more conservative uses of vinyl as an interior material. The smell of that in the summer would make my hair stand on end...
How do I understand you. I kept a girlfriend for a long time because her father lent us his Alfa 75 Quadrifoglio. I have never driven anything more wonderful. The pleasure of those carburetors. The driving precision. I live in the mountains, every trip was a driving orgasm
Yeah...Our family changed from Saabs to BMW at some point (back when BMW was still cool and not something literally everyone owns), and I started getting less carsick.
The Saab was pretty cool but they really didn't need to do everything different only to be different. Some things were just plain weird.
I once owned a bright orange 1975 Alfa Sud, it was absolutely beautiful to look at but hell to maintain. I got a flat once, jacked it up and the chassis just bent. I've had a few Saab 900s over the years too and loved everything about every one of them.
I totally agree with the point about all new cars looking completely ridiculous. I have never understood why there isn't a low cost automaker that has only the bare minimum - the style barely ever changes and looks decent, manual everything, bare minimum heat/ac, minimum radio that can easily be replaced, as cheap as possible - is the only reason this doesn't exist because of ever increasing regulations?
Dacia does this in Europe, their lowest priced car that has exactly zero features comes in at 9999EUR with an optional spare wheel for an additional 150EUR.
If you want AC and a radio you’re looking at about 12k EUR, which definitely isn’t terrible. It’s a Renault subsidiary and you see a fair amount of them driving around.
So yeah, it’s not like offering an affordable bare-bone car isn’t possible in mature markets, it’s more likely that Americans just don’t have an appetite for them.
The affordable car is definitely being tested though. Renault discontinued the Twingo last year, which was their smallest car. Audi discontinued the A1, claiming there’s just no money to be made in their lowest segment.
It’s looking pretty bleak for the utilitarians among us, as electrification happens and safety features such as lane assist and emergency stop systems become mandatory, base prices will consistently be higher. You can only drive down the price of components so much.
The Audi A1 was over $30,000. That's not "testing the affordable car"! Honda HR-V and Honda Civics are selling like crazy (<$25,000). Ford Maverick at $20,000 sold out a YEAR before the vehicles had even been manufactured. America has a completely insatiable demand for <$20,000 vehicles but no one makes them.
Dacia is so cheap that they even omit features that you might not think of as "features".
The base model Dacia Duster doesn't come with height adjustment on the driver's seat or with a glovebox light, you need to upgrade to the Comfort package for those. It does interestingly come with a radio these days, back in the day that used to require one of the upgrade packages.
The problem with Dacia is that it is not just simple but also a cheap car. I would be happy to buy a simple good quality car, but Dacia saves money on plastic quality, noise insulation, engine power and seat comfort too (among others).
> So yeah, it’s not like offering an affordable bare-bone car isn’t possible in mature markets, it’s more likely that Americans just don’t have an appetite for them.
I do not think it is that simple. I think regulations also restrict how simple a car can be. Top of my head, breaks, lights, light colors, emissions, transmission (go figure), fuel storage, fueling features, and so on. All these add to the cost.
No one wants to drive a car that has no or minimal creature comforts.
> safety features such as lane assist and emergency stop systems become mandatory
I've got a cheap $0 lane assist and emergency stop system called "paying attention and not tailgating" that came stock in my 2003 Ford Ranger. I've been using it consistently for 35 years now on different makes and models of vehicles and it hasn't failed once.
Let's say you make a "bare minimum" car and after all of your design costs, you can get the MSRP down to say $13,000. The problem is that once I'm already paying 13k for a "bare bones" car, I'll probably think, well, why not just pay $15,000 to get a car with sound/speakers, adjustable seats, air conditioning, automatic windows, etc. Behold, that's basically what a Chevy Spark costs (before supply chain crunch). If I'm really trying to save money beyond that, I'll just buy a used car.
What would be nice though is a car that doesn't get redesigned every few years. If I know that redesigns will only happen every 10 years, then that means cheap parts will be abundant and maintaining the car will be much cheaper.
I always drive old cars from 10,15 years old.
For example driving an Infinity FX35 from 2003 for about 7 years now. Never had a single issue. Bought the car for 8k.
One reason I don't see mentioned here is the perverse incentives to manufacturers to make larger cars due to CO2 emissions regulations differing depending on the size of the car. So instead of making more efficient engines to hit the targets (no doubt the intent of the regulations), they just stop making small cars.
A few years ago (2013/2014?) there was a bare bones Toyota Yaris I looked at. Cheapest 'new' car on the lot, decent mpg, etc. But... no power windows or power locks, no automatically adjustable seat. And... it was, IIRC, around $15k. For $15-16k I could get something else used with more amenities, and similar mpg/economy. Or possibly even something else new at that time with better amenities. For something with so few amenities, I would have preferred at least a 20% discount compared to other options.
I purchased a Yaris iA (a Mazda2 in Toyota drag) for $12.5K new in CA in 2016 because it was a white manual transmission. Dealer didn’t even have a salesperson who could drive it.
Deals exist on unwanted vehicles for sure. The iA always sold cheaper than the actual Toyota Yaris in my experience despite being a far superior car.
I bought a Yaris as my first car to go as cheap as possible. Even electrics were more expensive despite the tax breaks. My Dad felt like a new one would break down less than a used one too which is why we avoided used.
Yaris worked well in general. I'm not surprised it's popular with college kids. It was pretty bothersome, though, how at the lowest trim level they even disabled things like cruise control. I'm three times older than any college kid and it made my ankle ache on long drives.
This is how both Hundai and Kia started (in USA) Then both moved up-market. And Ford and GMC can't figure how to step back.
Edit: my first truck (1986 Toyota) was $6k. Manual everything and didn't even come with a radio. Most of the stuff was fixable at home (if you're handy). Didn't even have EFI. I feel like Honda used to have some of these simpler models - not just cause it was the 70/80s but also because that was a longer lasting/simpler product.
We've replaced longevity with bells/whistles as the key-feature.
You used to be able to shop for a "work truck" or van from Ford or GM which would be bare-bones. Manual transmission, manual windows, no AC, no carpet, simple vinyl floor and upholstery.
Similar features may be available in an SUV or sedan but I've never seen one; would probably be a special order or maybe only available to fleet purchasers.
I haven't bought a brand new car in over 20 years so I don't know if you can still get cars like this. Rear cameras are now mandatory, so all new cars will have a screen. And if they have a screen anyway, adding more features to it is likely to happen.
Probably because, like software, everyone has a different idea of what the "bare minimum" looks like. For instance, I don't think that a radio is necessary in my "bare minimum" car - but I do want a battery charge indicator, which you didn't mention.
So, an automaker can either include neither of those two features (and neither of us will want that car), both of them (which makes it more expensive, and if you adopt the policy of "take the union of all of the bare minimums" then you have a normal car), or just a subset. You lose every way.
Minimalism it tech is pretty pointless. Every simple specialty thing seems to invariably cost way more than a common complicated thing, and usually doesn't have much better reliability.
It's philosophy pretending to be engineering. Real engineer requires deep analysis, not just assuming that simple is more reliable.
Reminds me of a friend who bought his Volvo 240(?) brand new. Manual transmission, but without a tachometer because that was like $200 extra. After buying the car, he headed over to the Parts department and bought a tach for $50 then went home and installed it himself.
Dacia is next on my list (currently have a 17yo ford that's beginning to get too expensive). several of my colleagues have them.
Having just filled a Diesel tank that went from €60 (last fill c600km ago) to €80 (today), 1.4l engine, my bicyle is looking even more low cost.
Because there isn’t any money in designing a no-frills car. Designing a brand new car and starting a brand new brand is crazy expensive so it makes sense to target the luxury market since sales will be limited.
Not to mention, when most people look at a car with manual everything and realize for $10/month more they can have power everything... they go for the car with power everything. So, dealers order their inventory accordingly.
Most of the cost of producing a car is in the design, sheetmetal tooling, dies, employee training, etc.--i.e. it's not all from just some circuit boards, knobs, and servo motors that drive all the fancy accessories. So a brand new designed and built from scratch hyper minimal car with no accessories would still cost $15k+ and be extremely hard to sell to the public.
In reality someone shopping for a car on a budget is just going to buy a few years used instead of cutting out all the accessories in an attempt to scrimp. So the unfortunate truth is that there is no market and no profitability for a purposefully minimal car.
The closest you will find are rental market and commercial fleet vehicles like basic sedans (Chevy Malibu), pickup trucks, and vans where the automakers know there is such high demand and guaranteed income that they don't need to pad them with extra frills.
> I have never understood why there isn't a low cost automaker that has only the bare minimum - the style barely ever changes and looks decent, manual everything, bare minimum heat/ac, minimum radio that can easily be replaced, as cheap as possible - is the only reason this doesn't exist because of ever increasing regulations?
No, it's because people who buy new cars don't want this.
I don't think people know what they want when they buy a car. Manufacturers sell turd crossovers like the Equinox or Highlander in high numbers. Most of them aren't even AWD, and the ones that are AWD have shit systems in them that are barely capable in light snow and rain. They literally have no redeeming qualities, and somehow they fly off the showroom floors.
Yup. I have a 2002 Chevy Express 3500 cargo van who's only luxury is AC. The radio was an AM/FM I replaced with a mechless unit that died so there is no radio. The windows are hand cranked. I honestly miss nothing from a modern vehicle when I drive it save for less noise.
I also have been shopping for a new car and the selection out there is miserable what with all the stupid option games, horrible butt-ugly design, and everyone insisting that cars need more microchips than CERN for whatever reason. When I find something interesting I always run into some gotcha that turns me off.
My latest disappointment was Ford's bait and switch manual transmission Bronco (I love driving manuals)- it's only available paired with the anemic turbo I4 instead of the more powerful V6. No one is buying a 5000 pound vehicle with an I4 in it. I read an article which stated that a ford rep explained this is because manuals are unpopular so they didn't pair it with the more powerful engine option - the engine option that people like me who spec manuals want to order. Of course the manual wont sell if its paired with garbage you idiots.
I would argue stuff like electric adjustable mirrors, seats, good AC, parking sensors, rear view cameras, even automatic transmissions are essential safety features these days. If you put a modern person in a car lacking modern features they're going to be a hazard on the road.
I do appreciate electric mirrors and air conditioning, but the rest of this list is pretty hard for me to buy. I think I'd be called a 'modern person (and one of my cars even has most of these things!)
Those cars don't have huge profit margins. They require selling in bulk to make a ton of money on them. That's why SUVs and trucks reign supreme here in the US. They're cheap to build, have less safety and emissions requirements, and people pay ridiculous money for them here. There's a reason Tesla started with premium cars, because they make more money. Same reason Ford and GM have stopped selling regular cars here. The day of the cheap car is long gone. $45000 is the average sale price here in the US for a car right now. I dunno how so many people can afford a $700+ car payment... but it's pretty normal.
Outside, I think the teslas are very interesting with respect to minmalism.
Nothing sticks out, they are completely smooth aerodynamically.
(I do think the aero model 3 wheels may be functional but are not attractive)
Inside the car, I think tesla's minimalism has gone too far.
The telsa model 3 without a dashboard in front of the driver is cheap, not minimal. They also reduced the stalks and overloaded the controls.
Then the recent model S/X changes went further to outright dangerous. There are no stalks at all on the steering column, and turn signals, horn and high beams are touch buttons in the middle of steering wheel. When you move, the car guesses which direction you want to go, there is no gearshift stalk. There are gearshift buttons at the bottom of the console, but no dedicated buttons for other critical functions like defrost. sigh.
Teslas are aesthetically minimalist, but they ship with hardware to cover an eventuality that the car might not last long enough to utilize. That's the opposite of minimalist from a product perspective.
I would hardly classify Tesla as “as cheap as possible”, at least not in terms of the sticker price. Certainly not “manual everything” with all the touch interfaces.
Tesla has elevated cost-cutting-as-a-virtue to the highest art form. I'm impressed. But they're also making a run at the "only evolve, never redesign" mantra for their cars. This may change with time as more competition enters the EV market.
It's cool how Tesla and his companies in general seem to really understand the idea that things should be computers first, and not have anything that could have been software.
Have they redesigned the rear end yet? I drove Hondas for over 20 years but went with a VW Golf because no one over 30 should be driving the Civic with how it looks(ed) in 2018.
In general, if you want the most basic, low-opex car you can find, just look at what rental car companies are buying (though rental companies have been desperate for anything, so this currently doesn't apply.)
Regulations and fuel economy standards absolutely influence design. The reason most euro cars/SUVs have a sloping hood (compared to the "RAWR I AM AGGRESSIVE" square front on most American SUVs) is to meet pedestrian Euro-NCAP standards. High door sills are to provide better side impact protection, smaller windows are to lower heat/AC load for fuel economy.
"All cars" are not "looking completely ridiculous." He cites some of the most infamously ugly cars (Toyota Camry and Prius) while ignoring, oh, the entire rest of the market. There are loads of conservatively styled cars out there. Toyota intentionally dramatically changes their styling almost every year because underneath those changing body panels and tail/head lights is the stuff that's actually expensive to change. They're intentionally garish because they want the design to look exciting now, and like aged dogshit in 3 years. They also want to push their more conservative buyers into Lexuses.
Lots of decent looking cars out there.
VW's current "narrow line" design language looks like ass, but go back one or two model years and I think they're pretty fantastically well-styled cars.
I don't get what the author is on about with the current F150. It feels like Ford is really in stride; usually they're a shitshow of fugly, awkward curves and proportions, but they seem to be making designs that not only look good in the present, but are holding up longer.
Yeah, I feel like most of the overdesigned cars in the past decade or so have come from Japan. Notably Toyota, which in my opinion has produced some of the worst car designs of the past twenty years. The pinched grill that started with their Lexus line and is now on Toyotas as well is a matter of taste I guess, but it's always reminded me of the alien's mouth in Predator, which in turn is reminiscent of an anus. I think some of the most recent Lexi pull it off, but throughout most of its history, I think that grill has been pretty awful. Honda lost its design mojo a long time ago, and its most recent Accord is ok only because it resembles a BMW. The past 20 years has been a series of mostly very forgettable Honda designs. Nissan has also produced a lot of atrocities the past couple of decades since the genuinely striking tail treatment on the 2002 Altima. The Maxima has been particularly bad. Then there's Hyundai, which has been hit or miss but who went through a very organic look for awhile that made all their cars look like they were grown in pods. They were beautiful in their own way, but like a lot of their Japanese siblings, just overdone in my opinion.
If you look at cars from their inception until about the 80s, most cars, even lower end models were aesthetically very pleasing. That's not true of most cars today. The ones you've cited are all luxury sedans and are rare to see on the road (at least where I live). Also, the cheapest is $40k. That's not practical for most people, and that's not even including operating expenses.
Because brands like that suffer from poor reputation ( poor people's car), so people prefer buying second hand - it was the case for Dacia in Europe for years, and is among the reasons the Tata Nano flopped.
I suspect the car market will move to similar form as phones. Fewer models and if you want it cheap you buy the few years older one - either direct from the manufacturer/refurbed/second-hand.
>is the only reason this doesn't exist because of ever increasing regulations?
Pretty much. They preclude that car from actually being cheap enough that people would buy it over a nicer used car and as the new car market skews higher and higher end the used car market skews likewise making the competition stiffer.
>about all new cars looking completely ridiculous.
The front body work is bounded by pedestrian safety requirements in the EU and aerodynamics. The rooflines and beltlines are bounded by US safety requirements. It's no surprise that the designs all converge.
Airbags, active suspension systems, ABS, backup cameras, etc all increase the cost of cars. Though I dont know how much of that is tied to increasing price of used cars - that seems to have more to do with Cash for Clunkers taking a huge amount of used cars out of the used car market, while it put a bunch of people in new cars, it also skewed the pricing for used cars higher - it took an entire generation of used cars out of the market - which continues to effect pricing today.
because the servicing costs are determined by workshops/companies who charge ridiculous amounts of money at will and inevitably make older cars not worth repairing. personal example: for the same repair in my home country (EU country) would normally cost 350-450e but i was asked from 1000e to 1500e in the EU country i currently live
Do you earn more money in your current EU country vs the home one? Certainly in the UK a lot of cars get purchased for scrap value taken to a cheaper country for repair (or just used for spares)
I don't think manual everything is really practical these days, automatic gear box and windows is something most people would want even in a basic car. Even in Europe these days people move to automatic gears. But something like mid 2000 corolla or civic would be a good and reliable basic car, the question is how much it will cost to manufacture such car, if it will be around the 10k mark it will be a viable option.
Saabs were great cars because they did practicality with a little bit of zest and elan, pure IYKYK. The death of physical buttons and simple interfaces in car interiors is an enormous safety issue. I suspect this serious issue is widely disregarded by industry because it costs less to produce and modify a software interface than a hardware interface.
I hope that cars reach a point where self-driving is real but we aren't there yet, and interfaces that require people to take their eyes off the road to navigate to basic functions are not appropriate for cars.
Don't get me started on touchscreens in planes during turbulence...and yes I am a brown station wagon with a manual kind of person.
I used to feel that way, then noticed my friend driving a Tesla. He had this neat use for the LCD that showed a map of where all the cars around him was as output from the sensors. Yes, theoretically, on a traditional car you can adjust the mirrors so you have no blind spot and check them all religiously before lane changes and the like - but I still felt he had more awareness of who was in what lane than someone in a traditional car would have.
I'm not hating on ADAS or even screens, FWIW I will not purchase a car without radar-based adaptive cruise control, it's a game changer and I know it's better than I am at maintaining attention over a long period of time. Nor would I begrudge anyone satellite navigation or a simple music interface.
What I am talking about is the habit burying all simple functions in menus or on touchscreens. Temperature control, vent direction, volume, fwd, back on music, basic menu navigation. Inevitably these cumulative seconds of searching add up to enhanced risk for pedestrians, cyclists and other motorists.
For those that don't want to watch the video, the answer is "press the correct spot on the far corner of a touch screen exactly the right number of times, or look at it to see what color it has turned". This is a function that occasionally needs to be done in an urgent situation, potentially also one where the "autopilot" has given up (low visibility).
A hifi head guy showed me an old SAAB part, unless he's misguided they used pneumatic actuated user panels long ago. Felt insanely overengineered .. but pretty sexy at the same time.
For what its worth, up until 1970-71, vacuum operated things in cars (locks and and I think windows) were not uncommon, even beyond that, up until basically the start of the current era (2010), vacuum operated air conditioning systems (to change the flow of air) were the norm too (I suspect they still are on ICE cars). In addition, most cars with concealed headlights used vacuum motors to open and close them.
Furthermore, windshield wipers were not infrequently powered by the power steering system, rather than electrically driven. High torque electric motors in a small enough package and affordable enough didn't exist until the late 60's.
Not a mass-market product, but another fantastic anomaly in automotive engineering is the hydraulic system used to power the accessory systems in the Mercedes 600; the classic chariot of late-20th century despots and celebs.
It ran on mineral oil at a nominal pressure of IIRC 3200 psi. Could cleanly slice a finger off if poorly maintained & it sprung a leak in an inopportune corner of the system. All this to ensure that the auto's accessories operated with all the smoothness and silence that befitted a head of state.
Yeah ... and some (like my 99) had alterations made at the U.S. point-of-entry. The added A/C system was so cold it would freeze your body parts. Since the air-ducts were routed through the glove box (who doesn't want heated gloves in the winter), this also resulted in having ice-cold Cokes in the summer :)
I'm pretty sure my 1982 SAAB 900 Turbo (bought used in 1988 with about 94k miles on it from original owner) had pneumatic actuation for the dials...but it's long gone and i can't check now.
The one I'm working on was originally somewhere between lime and avocado green and was wrecked with about 70K miles on it in 1975. It's been in a garage ever since. The downside of a fiberglass body is that it shatters in ways a metal body wouldn't. The upside is that repairs can be as smooth and as strong as the original.
how worried should I be about Saab 900 ('78-'94) and its manual transmission reliability? I adore this car (and its lovely seats) so much I'm tempted to buy one but I hear its manual tranny is fragile.
My 900 had the automatic transmission which turned the car into a real dog. It had the same engine as my 99 but was a heavier car. My Father-in-Law had a special edition 900 with the standard transmission and it was an amazing car. It had very few mechanical problems but was unfortunately claimed by rust caused by our central PA winters.
I may be the only commenter here with a Saab as my daily driver (9-5 model). The appeal for me is partly design, as this article notes, but many other factors as well: it's fun to drive the manual turbo, a sedan with great cargo capacity (e.g. the skis easily fit in the trunk with pass-thru to back seat), known safety record, durability (yes things need to be fixed but they are generally not terminal issues), tows the trailer/boat fine with 3500# tow ability, good in snow (not AWD but gets the job done), etc. It's a labor of love but I think next step for me is a small utility pickup which won't be anywhere near as fun to drive.
You're not the only one. I still drive a 2005 Saab 9-5, but the station wagon. It is really comfortable to drive compared to other cars (I've driven mostly new Volvos, especially V40 and XC40 and I prefer the Saab any time).
I'm Swedish though, and my mom used to work at Saab back in the day when I grew up (as most of the people in that town did then).
Chiming in here from Finland as another 9-5 owner, 2001 model. Also a station wagon (or "farmari" as the Finns like to call it).
Definitely a much-loved model, I get appreciative comments regularly from middle-aged men whose formative years were clearly spent in Saabs. When I went to the Mercedes car dealership last weekend (thinking about upgrading to an electric vehicle), the salesman was in such raptures over my Saab he nearly forgot to try and sell me a new car.
While the article was a nice read and I do love some older cars from the 80s/90s, those cars are gone. Cars look the way they do now and days because of the increased safety standards and airbags everywhere. I would much rather be driving a car today than from the 80s if I wanted safety.
That being said, there are still plenty of cars that are unique looking now, Miata, Supra, GR86, BRZ, CT5-V, CT4-V, Stinger, Taycan, and plenty more!
I don't get the Saab obsession. I can't speak to anything mechanical about them, but I've seen plenty and they look like many others on the road at that time. Like, what exactly is so aesthetically interesting? a different grille design? You could make the argument about many older cars - like the Nissan Fairlady/Z - but not really the Saab.
Guilty. I've owned three Saabs in my life (1982 99, 1987 900S, 1997 900T). It's a completely irrational aesthetic addiction. I'll admit it. But as an industrial designer, I admire good design, and Saab has that in a way BMW and Mercedes do not, although Volkswagen is of the same ilk.
I'll try to answer specifically. For me it is the body shape of the 99/900. It feels organic and part of the road, the mushroomed shape makes me feel like I'm part of a natural outgrowth of entire automotive ecosystem: map + city + road + car + driver + civil engineering. The interior is also minimal and of the school of Bauhaus or Dieter Rams. The late 900's and 9-3 lost this charm and became more conventional.
There's no logic behind it, it is simply shape and form that appeals to certain people. I know people who are nuts over early BMWs, or 1950's VWs, everyone has their thing.
I don't know what my parents liked about Saab but they swear up and down about Volvos' safety ratings. My dad is a swedish car nut nut and his Saab always seems to be in a state of repair.
Then he had the nerve to criticize for buying a Corolla, after teenage me got sick of dealing with auto shit after going through no less than three old, cheap Volvos that seemed to constantly need work of some kind. (Two of which had a habit of stalling at the most inopportune moments, like driving 60+ MPH on the freeway. It took years to feel safe driving again!)
I don't get it either. But they are unique looking and hatchbacks. You know a SAAB when you see one. Although cars were a lot more unique back in the day.
I drove one, it was fine.. (Un-remarkable, but at the time I had a 1989 GTI, that was pretty fun...)
I remember having trouble removing the key from one (Its next to the shifter... And it needed to be in reverse or something.).
Good features for the price, decent pickup speed, gears are smooth, heated leather seats, interesting features like headlight wipers and night panel. Fun to drive and look great.
They are quirky and aesthetically distinguishing, especially all the orange and green.
Love my '95 Saab 900 SE turbo and will most likely never part with it if I can avoid it.
The quest for better fuel mileages also makes a big difference. Cars looks like jellybeans for aerodynamics. It’s also difficult to get a 6 cylinder engine compared to the past.
> It’s also difficult to get a 6 cylinder engine compared to the past.
Most of the V6's of the past were also garbage, so no loss there.
But there are still quite a few 6 cylinders out there, they just aren't necessarily cheap. Mercedes has a 3.0L V6 they love to stick in all their "midrange" AMGs for example (C43, GLC43, etc..), BMW still likes their I6 in for example the M3, Z4, and Toyota Supra. And of course Porsche still loves that flat 6 in the 911. There's also still a V6 for the Camry and a V6 Camaro among a few others.
What did mostly die is the "V6" as a generic "more power" upgrade for things like the Accord or most other midrange, midsize sedans. But the modern turbo I4s are so much better than those were, so it's not really a loss. And there's plenty of affordable V8s that are just fantastic as well.
The article seemed to be lashing out at "overly" designed card such as most modern Toyotas (and I would lump the Supra in there myself). But there are still plenty of clean, conservative, visually simple cars out there. Sadly they pretty much only come from luxury brands: BMW 2, 3 and 5 series, most Audis, Volvo S60, S90 and their wagon counterparts, several Genesis models, Golf GTI and R, etc.
My dad had a couple of SAABs that I fell in love with as a young adult. After working for a few years, my car died and I was excited to get my own SAAB. I switched to BMW after my SAAB was written off by a distracted driver and SAAB was no longer in business.
BMW has a lot of similar design objectives and delights, but it was still missing a couple of characteristics that made SAAB unique. Then I went to Volvo, who hired many of the SAAB engineers and brought over some of SAAB's character, such as the center console mounted ignition (which SAABs had as an homage to their fighter jet history).
Volvo is doing a good job at their mission of safety and style, but they still haven't captured that same feeling that SAAB did (nor do I think they intend to). I feel like BMW is the closest experience I've had to a SAAB. I wish their quality was better, and/or they were priced similar to SAAB, but their engineers seem to want to delight their buyers in the same ways that SAAB did: thoughtful design, nice materials, and fun. FUN! Most people buy cars to get from point A to B -- it's a "tool". That's fine, but it's hard to find "tools" that are also fun; yet, it's magic when you do.
I personally grew up with Volvo 240's (1 GL and 2 Turbos) and bought a Saab 9000 for college. I thought Saabs were one of the best used cars at the time because they lost their value so quickly off the lot and that value just continued to plummet every year.
Not sure I'd personally point to Saab when it comes to design so much as cult appeal. I've definitely noticed the old Swedish cars are starting to surge in price as they become nostalia items though.
Readit News
However, I grew up with SAABs. I hated the things. :-)
When I was a kid it was the only thing that made me car-sick, and when I started driving I couldn't stand the horrible front end feel. It felt like driving an old man's boxer shorts.
I love old cars though. Especially old Alfa Romeos. I currently have a homologation special from 1987 (The 75 Evo) and I've owned several 75s and a GTV from 1982. Yeah, old Alfas aren't reliable. And stuff just stops working for no good reason. In fact the dash of my Evo has a reset button. It is worn. Every time I brake hard the warning lights go into 1970s disco mode. You know what? I don't mind. Because it smells like a car, sounds like it means business, looks like a car, handles like a car, and it doesn't have opinions on how it is supposed to be driven. (Well, the Evo tries to kill you with its crazy 80s turbo boost, explosive horsepower delivery and no toys to rein it in, but hey, it makes you feel alive!)
I love old brands with models that stood out, and it's a shame that originality in engineering has been mostly replaced by assembling components together plus some minor aesthetic tweaks. I guess the situation is fairly similar to programming, where SICP has been replaced by gluing libraries together in Python. Perhaps it's a sign of maturity, but I miss some stuff from the past.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1LxlZ8pTRg
Worse, it's more like cowardly "risk aversion". Stay in the lines, don't take design chances. What color? Something conservative, maybe desaturated, maybe metallic....
Is it? Lol, they're about the only new cars selling for under MSRP around here these days.
I was drooling over a beautiful white 1967 Duetto spider the other day though. What a pretty old thing that is, and sounds so nice too.
However, the Renault 5 Turbo 2, now that is a thing I desire: https://youtu.be/B2HjCrnr-NE
I got easily carsick as a child but don't see the same effect in my kids. I am wondering if it is partly the result of more conservative uses of vinyl as an interior material. The smell of that in the summer would make my hair stand on end...
The Saab was pretty cool but they really didn't need to do everything different only to be different. Some things were just plain weird.
If you want AC and a radio you’re looking at about 12k EUR, which definitely isn’t terrible. It’s a Renault subsidiary and you see a fair amount of them driving around.
So yeah, it’s not like offering an affordable bare-bone car isn’t possible in mature markets, it’s more likely that Americans just don’t have an appetite for them.
The affordable car is definitely being tested though. Renault discontinued the Twingo last year, which was their smallest car. Audi discontinued the A1, claiming there’s just no money to be made in their lowest segment.
It’s looking pretty bleak for the utilitarians among us, as electrification happens and safety features such as lane assist and emergency stop systems become mandatory, base prices will consistently be higher. You can only drive down the price of components so much.
The base model Dacia Duster doesn't come with height adjustment on the driver's seat or with a glovebox light, you need to upgrade to the Comfort package for those. It does interestingly come with a radio these days, back in the day that used to require one of the upgrade packages.
I do not think it is that simple. I think regulations also restrict how simple a car can be. Top of my head, breaks, lights, light colors, emissions, transmission (go figure), fuel storage, fueling features, and so on. All these add to the cost.
No one wants to drive a car that has no or minimal creature comforts.
I've got a cheap $0 lane assist and emergency stop system called "paying attention and not tailgating" that came stock in my 2003 Ford Ranger. I've been using it consistently for 35 years now on different makes and models of vehicles and it hasn't failed once.
That's a shame. I'm driving A1 2020 model, and it really is the perfect little car even in the most basic of trims.
What would be nice though is a car that doesn't get redesigned every few years. If I know that redesigns will only happen every 10 years, then that means cheap parts will be abundant and maintaining the car will be much cheaper.
One reason I don't see mentioned here is the perverse incentives to manufacturers to make larger cars due to CO2 emissions regulations differing depending on the size of the car. So instead of making more efficient engines to hit the targets (no doubt the intent of the regulations), they just stop making small cars.
Deals exist on unwanted vehicles for sure. The iA always sold cheaper than the actual Toyota Yaris in my experience despite being a far superior car.
You're probably getting more than 20% in reliability/maintenance.
Yaris worked well in general. I'm not surprised it's popular with college kids. It was pretty bothersome, though, how at the lowest trim level they even disabled things like cruise control. I'm three times older than any college kid and it made my ankle ache on long drives.
Edit: my first truck (1986 Toyota) was $6k. Manual everything and didn't even come with a radio. Most of the stuff was fixable at home (if you're handy). Didn't even have EFI. I feel like Honda used to have some of these simpler models - not just cause it was the 70/80s but also because that was a longer lasting/simpler product.
We've replaced longevity with bells/whistles as the key-feature.
Similar features may be available in an SUV or sedan but I've never seen one; would probably be a special order or maybe only available to fleet purchasers.
I haven't bought a brand new car in over 20 years so I don't know if you can still get cars like this. Rear cameras are now mandatory, so all new cars will have a screen. And if they have a screen anyway, adding more features to it is likely to happen.
So, an automaker can either include neither of those two features (and neither of us will want that car), both of them (which makes it more expensive, and if you adopt the policy of "take the union of all of the bare minimums" then you have a normal car), or just a subset. You lose every way.
It's philosophy pretending to be engineering. Real engineer requires deep analysis, not just assuming that simple is more reliable.
In Europe we have Dacia which is exactly that.
*will still get a Dacia for necessity, though.
https://www.mitsubishicars.com/cars-and-suvs/mirage
One problem with this class of cars is that they do not compete favorably with used cars.
In reality someone shopping for a car on a budget is just going to buy a few years used instead of cutting out all the accessories in an attempt to scrimp. So the unfortunate truth is that there is no market and no profitability for a purposefully minimal car.
The closest you will find are rental market and commercial fleet vehicles like basic sedans (Chevy Malibu), pickup trucks, and vans where the automakers know there is such high demand and guaranteed income that they don't need to pad them with extra frills.
No, it's because people who buy new cars don't want this.
I also have been shopping for a new car and the selection out there is miserable what with all the stupid option games, horrible butt-ugly design, and everyone insisting that cars need more microchips than CERN for whatever reason. When I find something interesting I always run into some gotcha that turns me off.
My latest disappointment was Ford's bait and switch manual transmission Bronco (I love driving manuals)- it's only available paired with the anemic turbo I4 instead of the more powerful V6. No one is buying a 5000 pound vehicle with an I4 in it. I read an article which stated that a ford rep explained this is because manuals are unpopular so they didn't pair it with the more powerful engine option - the engine option that people like me who spec manuals want to order. Of course the manual wont sell if its paired with garbage you idiots.
Nothing sticks out, they are completely smooth aerodynamically.
(I do think the aero model 3 wheels may be functional but are not attractive)
Inside the car, I think tesla's minimalism has gone too far.
The telsa model 3 without a dashboard in front of the driver is cheap, not minimal. They also reduced the stalks and overloaded the controls.
Then the recent model S/X changes went further to outright dangerous. There are no stalks at all on the steering column, and turn signals, horn and high beams are touch buttons in the middle of steering wheel. When you move, the car guesses which direction you want to go, there is no gearshift stalk. There are gearshift buttons at the bottom of the console, but no dedicated buttons for other critical functions like defrost. sigh.
Sadly a lot of the other stuff is less awesome.
It won’t help you on the minimal features and replaceable radio though.
In general, if you want the most basic, low-opex car you can find, just look at what rental car companies are buying (though rental companies have been desperate for anything, so this currently doesn't apply.)
Regulations and fuel economy standards absolutely influence design. The reason most euro cars/SUVs have a sloping hood (compared to the "RAWR I AM AGGRESSIVE" square front on most American SUVs) is to meet pedestrian Euro-NCAP standards. High door sills are to provide better side impact protection, smaller windows are to lower heat/AC load for fuel economy.
"All cars" are not "looking completely ridiculous." He cites some of the most infamously ugly cars (Toyota Camry and Prius) while ignoring, oh, the entire rest of the market. There are loads of conservatively styled cars out there. Toyota intentionally dramatically changes their styling almost every year because underneath those changing body panels and tail/head lights is the stuff that's actually expensive to change. They're intentionally garish because they want the design to look exciting now, and like aged dogshit in 3 years. They also want to push their more conservative buyers into Lexuses.
Lots of decent looking cars out there.
VW's current "narrow line" design language looks like ass, but go back one or two model years and I think they're pretty fantastically well-styled cars.
The Audi A6 hasn't been an ugly looking car in at least ten years. Current model: https://www.topgear.com/sites/default/files/cars-car/image/2...
Want something more "fashion forward"? Volvo's S90 is a work of art inside and out: https://www.media.volvocars.com/image/low/171020/2_2/1
If you want a sporty sedan that looks like sex on wheels and have a big wallet, the Alfa Giulia: https://media.ed.edmunds-media.com/alfa-romeo/giulia/2022/oe...
Want something a bit more conservative but sporty looking? BMW 3 series https://media.ed.edmunds-media.com/bmw/3-series/2021/oem/202...
I don't get what the author is on about with the current F150. It feels like Ford is really in stride; usually they're a shitshow of fugly, awkward curves and proportions, but they seem to be making designs that not only look good in the present, but are holding up longer.
Deleted Comment
Pretty much. They preclude that car from actually being cheap enough that people would buy it over a nicer used car and as the new car market skews higher and higher end the used car market skews likewise making the competition stiffer.
>about all new cars looking completely ridiculous.
The front body work is bounded by pedestrian safety requirements in the EU and aerodynamics. The rooflines and beltlines are bounded by US safety requirements. It's no surprise that the designs all converge.
Airbags, active suspension systems, ABS, backup cameras, etc all increase the cost of cars. Though I dont know how much of that is tied to increasing price of used cars - that seems to have more to do with Cash for Clunkers taking a huge amount of used cars out of the used car market, while it put a bunch of people in new cars, it also skewed the pricing for used cars higher - it took an entire generation of used cars out of the market - which continues to effect pricing today.
Unfortunately, it doesn't look like Suzuki sell cars in the US?
Deleted Comment
I hope that cars reach a point where self-driving is real but we aren't there yet, and interfaces that require people to take their eyes off the road to navigate to basic functions are not appropriate for cars.
Don't get me started on touchscreens in planes during turbulence...and yes I am a brown station wagon with a manual kind of person.
What I am talking about is the habit burying all simple functions in menus or on touchscreens. Temperature control, vent direction, volume, fwd, back on music, basic menu navigation. Inevitably these cumulative seconds of searching add up to enhanced risk for pedestrians, cyclists and other motorists.
For some cars with touch screens (like Tesla) this is an imagined problem that does not exist in reality.
>The death of physical buttons and simple interfaces in car interiors
A lot of people also falsely imagine this issue exists as well, when it doesn't. There are plenty of buttons in cars with touch screens.
For those that don't want to watch the video, the answer is "press the correct spot on the far corner of a touch screen exactly the right number of times, or look at it to see what color it has turned". This is a function that occasionally needs to be done in an urgent situation, potentially also one where the "autopilot" has given up (low visibility).
AMA
0. http://saabworld.net/wp/1970-saab-sonett-iii-heritage-collec...
Furthermore, windshield wipers were not infrequently powered by the power steering system, rather than electrically driven. High torque electric motors in a small enough package and affordable enough didn't exist until the late 60's.
It ran on mineral oil at a nominal pressure of IIRC 3200 psi. Could cleanly slice a finger off if poorly maintained & it sprung a leak in an inopportune corner of the system. All this to ensure that the auto's accessories operated with all the smoothness and silence that befitted a head of state.
What does that mean?
I'm Swedish though, and my mom used to work at Saab back in the day when I grew up (as most of the people in that town did then).
Definitely a much-loved model, I get appreciative comments regularly from middle-aged men whose formative years were clearly spent in Saabs. When I went to the Mercedes car dealership last weekend (thinking about upgrading to an electric vehicle), the salesman was in such raptures over my Saab he nearly forgot to try and sell me a new car.
That being said, there are still plenty of cars that are unique looking now, Miata, Supra, GR86, BRZ, CT5-V, CT4-V, Stinger, Taycan, and plenty more!
I'll try to answer specifically. For me it is the body shape of the 99/900. It feels organic and part of the road, the mushroomed shape makes me feel like I'm part of a natural outgrowth of entire automotive ecosystem: map + city + road + car + driver + civil engineering. The interior is also minimal and of the school of Bauhaus or Dieter Rams. The late 900's and 9-3 lost this charm and became more conventional.
There's no logic behind it, it is simply shape and form that appeals to certain people. I know people who are nuts over early BMWs, or 1950's VWs, everyone has their thing.
Then he had the nerve to criticize for buying a Corolla, after teenage me got sick of dealing with auto shit after going through no less than three old, cheap Volvos that seemed to constantly need work of some kind. (Two of which had a habit of stalling at the most inopportune moments, like driving 60+ MPH on the freeway. It took years to feel safe driving again!)
I drove one, it was fine.. (Un-remarkable, but at the time I had a 1989 GTI, that was pretty fun...)
I remember having trouble removing the key from one (Its next to the shifter... And it needed to be in reverse or something.).
They are quirky and aesthetically distinguishing, especially all the orange and green.
Love my '95 Saab 900 SE turbo and will most likely never part with it if I can avoid it.
Most of the V6's of the past were also garbage, so no loss there.
But there are still quite a few 6 cylinders out there, they just aren't necessarily cheap. Mercedes has a 3.0L V6 they love to stick in all their "midrange" AMGs for example (C43, GLC43, etc..), BMW still likes their I6 in for example the M3, Z4, and Toyota Supra. And of course Porsche still loves that flat 6 in the 911. There's also still a V6 for the Camry and a V6 Camaro among a few others.
What did mostly die is the "V6" as a generic "more power" upgrade for things like the Accord or most other midrange, midsize sedans. But the modern turbo I4s are so much better than those were, so it's not really a loss. And there's plenty of affordable V8s that are just fantastic as well.
BMW has a lot of similar design objectives and delights, but it was still missing a couple of characteristics that made SAAB unique. Then I went to Volvo, who hired many of the SAAB engineers and brought over some of SAAB's character, such as the center console mounted ignition (which SAABs had as an homage to their fighter jet history).
Volvo is doing a good job at their mission of safety and style, but they still haven't captured that same feeling that SAAB did (nor do I think they intend to). I feel like BMW is the closest experience I've had to a SAAB. I wish their quality was better, and/or they were priced similar to SAAB, but their engineers seem to want to delight their buyers in the same ways that SAAB did: thoughtful design, nice materials, and fun. FUN! Most people buy cars to get from point A to B -- it's a "tool". That's fine, but it's hard to find "tools" that are also fun; yet, it's magic when you do.
That's SAAB.
I personally grew up with Volvo 240's (1 GL and 2 Turbos) and bought a Saab 9000 for college. I thought Saabs were one of the best used cars at the time because they lost their value so quickly off the lot and that value just continued to plummet every year.
Not sure I'd personally point to Saab when it comes to design so much as cult appeal. I've definitely noticed the old Swedish cars are starting to surge in price as they become nostalia items though.