>it's a mid-century car ad where they always exaggerated the proportions to look huge and imposing compared to how big it was IRLglad they stopped doing that once actual photos in ads became the norm instead of artist's renderings
Next you're going to say you prefer AI images over real photos, mr baiter.
>>28769071My European brain can not comprehend this.
heh, more liek ChevroGAY, amirite?
>>28769071Youre dumb.Thwy were actually that fucking big.Go be retarded somewhere else
what a dumb thread.
>>28769117No they weren't, giga retard.
>>28769124The interwar cars were, at least vertically. The postwar cars weren't, but they were drawn that way in ads because 1. it looks cool and 2. something something elongated horizontals give an inherent sense of speed. Before the new models rolled off the line in '49 (or thereabouts, depending on manufacturer), the 'cars' were genuinely truck sized behemoths because that's just how things were and no one had thought about dropping the floor and the beltline unless you were a weirdo like Cord.Pic related is a '47 Buick on the left and a '53 Chevy on the right- just look at the hood and roof heights.
>>28769157Photos never quite convey these cars accurately, you have to see them in person to appreciate the dimensions.
>>28769163True. Standing next to a sharknose Graham in person years and years ago, even behind a museum tape-fence, was one of those things that made me really go, "Oh." Even pic related makes it look way too squished and that's with a wider-than-standard lens as it was.
>>28769087I like this one
>>28769163Any car, reallyThe two most notable examples I've come across are the 77-79 thunderbird (good) and the cyber truck (bad)The thunderbird is much, much wider in person than it appears on camera, and the cybertruck looks inflated/bloated in person instead of sharp/boxy
>>28769124>1947=/=1955Do you practice being a retard or does it just come naturally?
SHE GOT TWENTY NINE CADILLACSTWENTY NINE SABLES FROM SACH'STHEY CAME FROM TWENTY NINE FELLAS WHO NEVER HAD THEIR ARMSAROUND THE LADY FROM 29 PALMS
>>28769221one of those cars which was clearly designed as a 2 door. the sedan looks ugly and blocky.
>>28769214Ooh, goalpost moving. My favorite.
>>28769214What is it about the term "mid-century" that's got you so confused?
>>28769252mid-century means nothing in the car world. the 40s, 50s, and 60s all had wildly different designs and manufacturing going on.
>>28769266>40sRWD leaf springs I6 or V8>50sRWD leaf springs I6 or V8>60sRWD leaf springs I6 or V8Even the contemporary buff magazines lamented the staleness of automotive design.
>>28769269Only Chrysler's poor ass was hanging on to leaf springs by the 60s
>>28769293My '69 Camaro has leaf springs.
>>28769071This was back when women were actually hot
>>28769269except for emissions hardware the 70s was just more of the same
>>28769304F-body is the Chrysler of GM
>>28769269what exactly did the 'contemporary buffs' want? for joe sixpack going to work, a straight six and leaf springs were perfectly fine. normal people didn't care about buick/olds's turbo zaniness or pontiac transaxles or toronado FWD or any of the other dozen tech leaps GM made, Ford tried to catch up to and Dodge had no budget for. hell, radial tires alone were a huge jump for everyone
>>28769338>and Dodge had no budget forChrysler were making tons of money in the 60s but the retarded Lynn Townshend management didn't invest in new products and let everything run on autopilot until SHTF in the 70s.
>>28769269all the while Europeans were moving to FWD, fuel injection, fully independent suspensions, and four wheel disc brakes while Amerifats had this utterly barbaric hardware
>>28769349>it took europe 30 years to catch up to the Cord 810
>>28769349Detroit didn't really compete with anything but themselves and there was no motivation to try anything different until the OPEC era.
>>28769221>>28769269Stuff was still advancing though. That 47 Cadillac had a wheezing flathead V8 with a manual transmission and was only designed for around town driving, not until the late 50s could most cars handle modern highway speeds.
This one is actually honest and doesn't exaggerate the car's size.
>>28769397back then i guess using a celebrity to sell cars actually worked. i don't think it would work too well if Taylor Swift was trying to sell you a turbo EV cuckbox.
>>28769397>this bad boy can last 200k milesAs if. They had 5 digit odometers for a reason.
>>28769401Shit oil contributes like 75% of that. Old flatheads especially were so understressed that they're practically bulletproof with modern oil.
>>28769412they didn't have good air filters either
>>28769187Kek
>>28769397Chrysler's junior makes were all six cylinder in this time. Dodge and DeSoto had debuted I8s in 1931 but they sold poorly in the Depression-hit market and were dropped in 1933 and 34 so that neither had an eight cylinder engine again until the 50s.
>>28769412the engine in the 36 Dodge was 87 hp so yes it's not overly stressed
>>28769425unsubscribe
>>28769398Dodge used Bing Crosby in some ads as well.
>>28769228fordors generally weren't popular prior to the 1960s, because in an era before seatbelts or power door locks the only way to stop a kid from throwing themselves out of a moving vehicle was by putting them in back seat of a tudor where they physically couldn't reach the doors.
>>28769333it was the newest platform GM had when it was introduced, based on the Chevy II.
>>28769349all of those were invented in America, goon.
>>28769944Not actually true, it's survivor bias because classic car shows mostly have 2 door cars and nobody saved or restores sedans.
>>28769952Lol, no. Fucking delusional mutt.
>>28769246Moving the goalpost?!?!OP is L I T E R A L L Y a 1947 model. (I posted a 1948, which is the same platform with different trim for the new model year, because it had a person standing next to it for size reference).The "gotcha" pic that replied to me is a 1955 model and has absolutely nothing in common with the OP vehicle. Thats like comparing a 1967 mustang and a 1975 mustang.Go be a fucking retard somewhere else.
>>28769349Fwd is gay, and most of that tech was for the wealthy. The last 2cv was sold in 1990 (!!) because there was still demand for it in nineteen fucking ninety.
>>28770127Use of EFI and discs (both front and 4 wheel) were 100% first in the U.S.Mechanical injection was experimented with in Germany but U.S. was first to use in production.4 wheel independent is debatable, depending on if youre talking about swing axles or double wishbone.Europe had garbage swing axles first, U.S. had full A-arms first.FWD is highly debatable, dating back to steam cars.And this is not an impressive benchmark. It was to streamline production and reduce costs. Whoever it falls under is a tick in the L category.
>>28770155>It was to streamline production and reduce costsFWD has many advantages including>lower production cost>safer to drive>less weight>better fuel economy>better in winter weather
>>28770163and more interior room without having a driveshaft tunnel
>>28770163>more difficult to work on.>less safe than a 4wd in winter weather.>torque steer making it handle worse.>poor weight balance making oversteer more common in emergency situations
>>28770163Downside to FWD is mainly reduced reliability due to more weight over the front end components and the fact that it's unsuitable for a V8.
>>28769071>>28769124>>28769117>>28769157>>28769183>>28769184>>28769187why can't we have nice looking cars again?
>>28770299>and the fact that it's unsuitable for a V8fuck the police
>>28770299Ford had to try a transverse FWD V8 in the 95-02 Continental to prove why it was a bad idea.
>>28770642safety and emissions standards
>>28773095why can't we get rid of these stupid standards?
>>28769183i fucking love this art deco car like you wouldnt believe
>>28770125it is true, nobody was going out of their way to save Model A Victorias. many cars of the 30s and 40s weren't even offered as a four door. You can look up the production figures, they're not hard to find. it wasn't until around 1955 or so when fordors started to overtake tudors in sales. then wagons overtook fordors sometime around 1973.
What a fucking autistic thing to dedicate an entire thread to
>>28775383why do people act like creating a thread is such a huge amount of effort?>a thread died for this blah blah blah etc. etc. etc.
>>28775389I didn't say this
>>28775383Beats retarded frog posting. Muh bright headlights!
>>28769401Odometers were meant to be reset at every service interval
