By on March 28, 2012

Go online to Pinterest, the newest social network for sharing photos and other content and you’ll see. The automobile is far from dead – even on a site supposedly dominated by females. Economy cars are largely absent. Exotics, luxury cars and most importantly, classic cars make up the majority of the posts, or “pins”. BMW 2002s, vintage Ford Broncos, Porsche 356s, muscle cars of all types and stripes and of course, the ineffable coach-built Ferraris of the 1950s and 1960s comprise a substantial portion of the automotive photos being shared on Pinterest as well as Tumblr, another content sharing service.

This isn’t completely off-base. Generation Why is hopelessly aspirational. And if you can’t have luxury goods, the next best thing is “vintage”. A substantial subset of young people have reverted back to the styles of the past, whether it’s the shaggy hair, beards and Wayfarers among the stereotypical “hipster” or Mad Men-themed parties. Nostalgia, and a nagging feeling that life was simpler and better despite unprecedented advances in quality of life, health, socioeconomic mobility and technology, are the perpetual themes among youth. Vanity Fair recently ran a multi-page essay on this phenomenon, and how it remains manifested in our consumption of goods with aesthetics rooted in the past, claiming that we are “consuming the past, instead of creating the new.”

In the automotive space, our latest high tech, fuel efficient cars inspire little enthusiast among youth. But ask a random sampling of young people, and I promise you that they will have a strong reaction to the Chevrolet Camaro, the Ford Mustang or the Dodge Challenger. The Mustang has decades of interrupted history on its side, the Camaro has the (un)fortunate tie-in with the Transformers movie and the Challenger looks like it stepped out of Dazed and Confused. Do young people know about Hurst shifters or Hemi V8s? Not necessarily. But they’re such a radical departure from the apologetic, self-concious, eco-friendly amorphous blobs of hyper-connected socially networked subcompacts that people can’t help but take notice – and harbor some kind of desire. Young men naturally see them as symbols of virility, masculinity and a throwback to another era. Women tend to regard them with the same fondness as they do for vintage fashions – and going for a cruise in a ragtop Camaro or Mustang has a unisex appeal that makes one suspend all rational decisions about wasting expensive gasoline or incurring penalties for moving violations.

Part of the whole “young people buy used cars” phenomenon is likely a bargain between the desire for a classic and the practical realities of vintage cars; they don’t accelerate, brake, steer or corner anywhere close to a modern car, and their utter lack of crash safety, while scoffed at with a devil-may-care attitude amongst peers, is a very real concern in private. Something from the 1980’s, like a Fox Body Mustang isn’t as much of a death trap compared to a ’65 ‘Stang, and cars from the Reagan era are now being looked upon with rose tinted glasses by a generation that was in diapers when Vanilla Ice rolled in a 5.0 The other side of the coin is that when every kid with wealthy parents can buy the “aspirational” luxury car (whether it’s a 3-Series or an M3, depending on how spoiled they are) the vintage car becomes a way of establishing one’s high status by subverting the traditional hierarchy of luxury in favor of something unique (excuse the sociology professor lingo) that’s the antithesis of contrived luxury, ostentatious wealth. Young people are starting to grasp that the techno-laden cars, like their beloved electronics, are in danger of “bricking” and becoming useless talismans of waste. Older cars, even those from a decade ago, are seen as far more resilient. A friend of mine who is close in age and fortunate enough to drive a brand-new Audi A8 spoke of his desire to get someone older next time around “In 30 years, you’ll be able to fire up your Miata in a storage warehouse,” he said. “Do you think my car will be able to do that? Hell no. None of the computerized crap will be working.”

Today, Jeep unveiled two concepts in advance of their annual Moab Safari, which I feel will resonate very strongly with Generation Why. The first, called the Mighty FC Jeep, is loosely based on a Wrangler, but modified to look like the Forward Control Jeeps built from 1956 to 1965. It’s a rather outlandish, Unimog-style vehicle that has little hope of production. But the second car, the red J-12 Concept, dubbed by the engineers as the “Old Man’s Truck” has some legs. Using a stretched Wrangler Unlimited with a pickup bed, the J-12 adopts a very 1950’s looking fascia, dog dish hubcaps and an interior that blends vintage design with modern details like an in-dash LCD screen.

A variant of the J-12 would likely be easy and cheap to produce, due to the commonality of Wrangler components and could be sold at a slightly higher price point than certain Wrangler models. The Wrangler is already very popular with younger buyers, and I am confident that with such distinct styling, not to mention the benefits of a modern car, Jeep would be able to sell every example they made. Of course, retro design leads to an inevitable trap of making it difficult to evolve the product, but the point is to get them to move up from a J-12 to a Grand Cherokee.

Note that the above picture, supplied by Jeep, seems to have been taken with Instagram, a popular iPhone photography app that takes crisp, digital pictures and applies filters to make them look like they were taken with vintage manual film cameras, complete with oversaturated colors, dark vignetting and Polaroid-esque borders.  (Edit: Turns out it was taken by another journalist, Automobile Magazine’s Phil Floraday. My mistake. DK)

Old man, take a look at our lives, we’re a lot like you were



Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

51 Comments on “Generation Why: Jeep’s Old Man Truck, Pinterest And The Millennial Obsession With Vintage Cars...”

  • avatar

    Wow ! I like. Talk abot the real deal. They make an SUV look like a wussy minivan.

  • avatar

    The old man truck looks like a derivative of the old AEV Brute kit with a front end styled to look like the ancient Jeep pick ups/military vehicles/Wagoneers–but in the halfassed execution of new and old that seems to be the rage, it looks more like someone grafted a old Jag front end onto a Brute pick up.

    Whenever some modern engineer tries to revisit a retro design (Beetle, T-bird, FJ40) and imbue it with a modern styling sense, the car becomes some bastardized monstrosity–something that looks like a bad kit car built in a garage by someone wanting to modernize a classic.

    At least the unimog ripoff tends not to look that way–but that’s much less of a styling exercise.

  • avatar

    I don’t think Jeep is necessarily a brand that needs to worry about ‘evolving’. Like the Wrangler. Sure they have new product and the GC is fully modern, but people won’t mind a Jeep that’s somewhat utilitarian. I think they SHOULD make the FC. It’s fantastic! And it should have a DIESEL (i know, a favorite TTAC request). A small, very capable truck with a bed and solid 4×4 underneath; I can’t see how that wouldn’t realistically have a market here. Especially if you can replace the bed with a camper body or something similar.

    If keeping old, mechanical things alive is something the younger generations embrace, I’m all for it. I don’t really want a future where everything I own, buy, or use is a disposable electronic gadget. And yeah that includes cars.

  • avatar

    I really don’t think the “Generation Why” mentality applies to Jeeps. The Jeep culture has always been interested in the roots and older styles of the brand, this is nothing new.

  • avatar
    Educator(of teachers)Dan

    So to be cool I should go buy the 1992 to 1996 Cadillac Brougham that I’ve been obsessed with since they debuted? :P Thanks.

    • 0 avatar

      My friend doing the G-Body project just picked up a mint condition 1998 DeVille Concours for his daily driver. White on elephant grey. Very cool. I say do it.

    • 0 avatar

      Yes. I’m tempted to buy the one down the street from me, but it won’t fit in my garage…

      • 0 avatar

        Look up the procedure for replacing Northstar head gaskets, including drilling out all of the head bolt holes in the block and installing steel thread inserts (hint – you have to drop the motor out to do the rear cylinder bank).

        That did it for me!

        A former coworker had an absolutely beautiful STS with the pearlescent white paint that had a seeping head gasket and the resulting overheating issue, and I could have gotten the car for almost nothing. Initially . . .

      • 0 avatar
        Educator(of teachers)Dan

        @ redmondjp, Know your car facts. Fleetwood Broughams of that era were B-body based with either 350 “truck” motors or de-tuned 350 LT1s. I wouldn’t touch a Northstar with someone else’s checkbook.

        Oops you were likely replying to the DeVille Concours post. Yeah Northstart Caddies are dead to me.

    • 0 avatar

      No, you should buy a 95-95 Fleetwood Brougham. Correct engine (94 had it too, of course), better mirrors, more usable center console (in the front arm rest), and better stereo (I think). Most people won’t know the difference… but if you’re going to get the last real American car, you might as well do it to the hilt. Oh, and if you get a 95, it’s pre-OBDII, which exempts you from emissions inspections in some states.

      But anyone who has been obsessed with the 92-96 Fleetwoods probably knew that already!

  • avatar

    The whole thing about evolving retro is, IMO, nonsense. The common wisdom is so often foolish these days that the term is becoming an oxymoron. (or I am just getting old!)

    Today’s retro styled car is simply an exercise in building a new car with classic styling. New technology, needs, and aesthetics will mean the new retro camaro will look different than the present one. Had they made a retro camaro in 1995, it would have looked different as well.

    You start with a new platform, keep as much as you can/like of the existing model, and build a new camaro that does what all camaros should have always done – retain the things that made it desirable in the first place rather than chucking them for something totally new. If camaro sales die, put it to rest for a while and come up with something different. If that does worse, bring the camaro back, etc.

  • avatar

    Last time I was in Williamsburg roaming among the hipster trash that infests it, I saw a 1965 mustang in a fair state of repair occupied by a kid with a ‘sleeved’ arm oh-so deliberately hanging out of the door. His own coolness could have crushed him if self importance had mass.

    That being said, ‘vintage’ cars were quie the rage in town. You either had an old Range Rover or a pre-millenium Audi, or a classic piece of detriot iron. Elsewise, you had something truly new and expensive to serve as a backdrop for your vintage leather jacket and still-puffy tats. There were, however, precious few ‘economy’ cars, which agrees nicely with the observations of this article.

    In so far as the concept cars are concerned. I dearly love the FC, but agree it’s likely not buildable. The revival of the Kaiser pickup whould be built, and it should be kept as simple as possible. Sinple, sturdy, and appropriately sized trucks are extinct in this country. This might be the rig to bring them back.

    As far as the other jeep concepts, I couldn’t care less about them. Modern Wranglers are pastic injection molded replicas of the farm tractor simple CJ’s of my own youth.

    • 0 avatar

      Hey, don’t forget the “cafe racer”. It’s becoming impossible to find an unmolested 1970s Japanese motorcycle on Craigslist; they’ve all been butchered into half-finished projects trying to replicate a style that existed only as the “squids” of 1960s Britain. I suppose it’s “ironic”, at least in that if you stuffed an actual British “cafe racer” into a time machine and brought him to 2012, he’d light his beloved Triton on fire in exchange for a modern S1000RR.

      • 0 avatar

        “He’d light his beloved Triton on fire in exchange for a modern S1000RR.”

        It wouldn’t even take that much. A modern SV650 or similar disposable “beginner bike” would have been the fastest, baddest bike in the world during the cafe racer era.

        I know a guy who tried to make a cafe bike out of a 500 Ninja. That is, he attempted to make a crappy 80’s bike look like an even crappier 60’s bike.

        That makes about as much sense as working a fox body Mustang up into an “American Graffiti” style hot rod. You don’t improve garbage by adopting styling cues from older, slower garbage.

  • avatar

    Good points Derek. I have 3 friends in their early 20’s. One of them drives a Cruze, another has a 90s Crown Vic, and the third doesn’t even have a license. But they all absolutely love my 69 Caddy.
    I think there’s some Toyota/Honda/any SUV backlash too. They don’t want to drive what their parents drive.

    • 0 avatar

      “They don’t want to drive what their parents drive.”


      I’m a dad in my early 30s, so a family MPV of some sort meets my needs pretty well. I am currently the reluctant owner of a decade-old Escape beater, because it’s cheap/available/repairable and solves my problem (kid-hauling + occasional light towing).

      Minivans and SUVs are the tired old rides that our parents drove. Wagons are cool again. And minivans aren’t mini anymore. And SUVs don’t go offroad anymore. Let’s just admit all of the family vehicles that are smaller than a full-sized van are just station wagons that concede functionality to style, and start building good wagons.

  • avatar

    You may not improve garbage with retro style, but you may make it more marketable. Just say’n.

  • avatar

    Count me among those 20-somethings who lust after 60’s-70’s trucks. I currently drive an ’05 Mazda3 hatch, which is basically the perfect car, but I’m bored with it. At the moment, the object of my desire is a first- or second-generation C/K 10 truck, preferably a stepside. But that changes every few months or so.

    As for the Jeeps, I like them both. The current market is in dire need of a small truck, and a diesel, so I hope they build it.

    The FC knockoff will clearly never be built. It looks like the offspring of a Unimog and an old Dodge A100 pickup.

    • 0 avatar

      Sean did you know there was a forward-control version of the early Jeep in the 1950’s? I agree though it won’t be built, crash testing would be a challenge.

  • avatar

    I come from that void era after gen X and before Gen Y. I had the hots for Winona Ryder, but the “Man, I’d like to hold her hand and stuff” hots. I was sad when Cobain offed himself, but couldn’t drive to a vigil…

    Anyway, I think some of the embracing of older stuff has to do with the Walmartization of consumer goods. I’ll have to make this point with tools: Back when I was assembling a toolbox in the ’90’s, you could go to Sears or Canadian Tire and buy the “good tools” that were warranted forever, and wouldn’t break anyway, but they were hundreds of dollars a set. OR you could go to Princess Auto and buy the junk tools that you knew would break, but were $40 a set, so you could afford to replace them 2-3x.

    Now, EVERYBODY sells the crummy tools at $70/set. They last slightly longer than ’90’s junk tools, and are warranted forever, but I don’t want to spend 3 hours returning tools every time I do a project. I want to buy the good stuff, but it just isn’t available.

    I actually target my car purchases in the middle ’90’s, because the EFI was good, so they run forever, the Japanese were still over-building, so they last forever, and they were still modular so I can replace the radio and not worry about my car refusing to start.

    Point being: Cars probably don’t NEED to be retro-styled, but the retro-styling hints of durability and repair-ability, and that is the draw. In my head, part of the draw of the FT-86 is that it’s Subaru underneath, so I could slap together an STI-powered one in 3 hours in my driveway. I’ll bet you’d make more youngin’s happy by including directions to swap the din-sized radio (requiring no more than 2 screwdrivers) in the owners manual than you would by having a steering wheel shaped like (insert popular music star of required gender)’s ass that pinned 4square tweets to mashable while you drive. Or whatever.

    • 0 avatar


      Any old stuff that has survived to the present day *is* the good stuff from that particular time. It really does suggest quality, repairability, and longevity.

      But it’s important to keep perspective and remember that crap was sold back then, too, it’s just been scrapped in the intervening decades. But anything that has lasted this long and still looks like it’s in good shape will probably last quite a bit longer!

      For instance, the tools that I inherited from my grandfather are still in great shape. They’ll probably outlast me, too.

      But Dodge’s “retro” Avenger or whatever from 2005ish that I rented didn’t do anything for me. It was a regular car that was trying to tap in to some sort of muscle-car nostalgia I don’t share (I’m too young and I prefer streamlined cars) have, and I didn’t just care. It was a generally competent car, but my favorite feature on that car was the AUX input on the stereo. Marketers are starting to figure out what’s happening when they say we want “genuineness”, but they’re still missing the point. I want the properties that made the “retro” item withstand the test of time, not nostalgia or pedigree, or whatever the hell they’re calling it now.

  • avatar

    If you buy Jack Baruth’s argument that luxury is having something other people don’t/can’t, a classic car is quite the luxury.

    Generic reliable/acceptable transportation is easily attainable.

    A ’64 Falcon costs as much as a decent used Corolla to buy, but ownership requires time and resources that are hard to come by.

    • 0 avatar

      And that’s what makes it a status symbol as well. “Oh, they have the time and money to run a classic car”. I am too young to remember when this applied to a “foreign car”.

      • 0 avatar

        It’s not just cars. You should be at the service entrance of the Honda/Yamaha shop where I work on a Saturday at quitting time when I wheel out the ’69 Triumph Bonneville (shabby but original, clubman bars, Norman Hyde rear-sets, a compete cafe racer like was ridden back in the 60’s) to go home. Just the look on their faces as they watch me go through the starting drill (three kicks no ignition to free up the clutch, tickle the carbs, switch on, KICK! – it often starts first kick, almost always second, if I’ve got to do a third I’ve got tricks to insure there isn’t a fourth) is worth the end of the day.

  • avatar

    I have always been very suspicious of anything retro. Any company that revels in its past glory clearly isn’t focused on creating anything new. I was in high school in the 70s and love that decade’s cars but it’s 2012 and I think we should focus on creating new great cars for the current age and not just indulging in rose colored retro vision.

    • 0 avatar

      Big exception to that thought: Triumph motorcycles. The Bonneville looks and feels like the original, and has modern reliability. Next to it on the showroom floor is the Daytona 675. The bike that almost won Daytona (one bike length) this year. It not that hard to do retro and stay with (if not beat) the competition at the same time.

    • 0 avatar

      But people hate change SO MUCH! Look at all the crap hybrids get, despite being new (ish), high tech, demonstrably more efficient, etc. “Boo Hoo, there’s no economic justification…” Same applies to any new car that is not a Canada Value Package Caravan, but I still see lots of Audi’s and Mercs on the road.

      What is familiar is comfortable, and people’s comfort zone extends approximately 1″ beyond the end of their nose. Retro is pitching to the lowest common denominator, and to paraphrase everyone: You can’t go wrong doing that.

  • avatar

    A large part of this phenomenon is backlash against the rampant consumerism of previous generations stemming from a sense of environmental responsibility as well as tough economic conditions. Why throw out a perfectly good car, stereo, bicycle, article of clothing when a new one offers little benefit? Gen Y and the millennials have re-discovered the lost arts of repair and tinkering which is in no small part due to the vast amount of information available online. The word is out: keeping an old car in running condition is cheap, satisfying, and impressive to friends who place value in having any sort of “old school” knowledge that was lost at some point by the boomer generation.

    • 0 avatar

      I completely agree that your statement encompasses the desired aesthetic of hipsters in much the same way that Iran adheres to the desired aesthetic of developing nuclear fission for peaceful power generation. I believe the truth is something more along the lines of “can’t afford a BMW on my hourly wage at Urban Outfitters, and I’m too embarrassed to buy a cheap reliable car within my means.”

      Call me cynical, but Gen Y is less about embracing the old and more about fear of being ridiculed by others on the internet for trying something original. It’s also about vintage shoes and Pabst Blue Ribbon.

      • 0 avatar

        You are being a bit cynical, not every member of Gen Y is a PBR swilling hipster with a dead end job. In fact most hipsters eschew cars in favor of bicycles due to traffic and expensive parking fees in the urban areas they inhabit. Talk to a few members of Gen Y, I think you’ll see my point, blowing large sum on on a big TV or making payments on an expensive car isn’t seen in the same light as it was pre-recession – it’s considered showy and irresponsible even if you can afford it. Fixing up a 15 year old Buick or refinishing a coffee table on the other hand is viewed in a much more positive light these days.

    • 0 avatar

      “millenials have re-discovered the lost arts of repair and tinkering..” – is that why they need a new iPhone every 6 months?

  • avatar

    So much hubris. The dawn of EFI, everybody said the same thing.

    Why would I want something I can’t work on, bunch of wires that will leave me stranded on the side of the road?? I’ll stick with my carb, thank you very much.

    Now Dorman reproduces, and often improves upon the electronic sub-assemblies and ECUs. If you think that the same thing won’t happen to the current crop of cars and the aftermarket, well you’re just as big of an idiot as those people still are.

    • 0 avatar

      I was a Ford mechanic back in the ’70s with carburetors and points/coil ignition systems. Not only *could* you work on them on the side of the road, more often than not, you *would* be working on them.

      Modern fuel injection/electronic ignition engines are superior in every measurable performance parameter – more power, cleaner exhaust, better fuel economy, and better reliability.

      I have a Corvette Z06 that has 405hp, gets over 30mpg on the highway, is rated as a NLEV (National Low Emissions Vehicle), and is more reliable than my old ’60s GTO could ever dream of being.

      I’m also an avid off-roader, and when my 4 wheel drive club goes on runs, we bring spare engine, axle, and suspension parts. You know what no one ever brings? A spare engine computer! Because I’ve never seen a failure on the trail due to an ECU. I’m not saying they *could* not ever fail, I’m saying that in my experience they never *do* fail – certainly not often enough to carry a spare. (And almost all the Jeeps in my club have ECU controlled 4.0 engines)

      Why would I want something I frequently have to work on, a finicky carb that will leave me stranded on the side of the road? I’ll stick with my ECU, thank you very much. :-)

  • avatar

    My personal experience seems to agree with this trend.

    My 22 year old daughter just about jumped out of her skin when she saw the ’81 AMC Eagle Kammback I recently acquired. It’s not much to look at but she said, “If you ever want to get rid of it, can I have it?”

  • avatar

    This explains so much about what I’ve seen regarding my own Pinterest account in the past few months.

    A while ago (2011), I created a couple of boards surrounding two pieces: mullet dresses and trucker jackets. The former includes 3rd-gen Camaros and a couple of El Caminos, while the latter has late 1970s Chevy and Ford pickups.

    At least once every day or two, I receive a notification from Pinterest stating that someone has used something from my boards for their boards. Guess what gets pinned? The cars. I guess quite a few aspire to own something from that time period for whatever reasons they have.

  • avatar

    All of the words on this page = BLAH BLAH BLAH OPINIONS BLAH BLAH

    That Unimog looking Jeep? I’d spend a stupid sum of money to have that as a daily driver. I don’t care what it’s mpg is, I don’t care if it’s old or new. I want it.

    • 0 avatar

      “All of the words on this page = BLAH BLAH BLAH OPINIONS BLAH BLAH”

      Does this not hold true for every post ever written on the entire site since its inception?

  • avatar

    I wish all the guys that are saying “Unimog” would Google “FC-170”.

    I like both of these trucks, but my heart was broken by the unfulfilled promise of the Gladiator concept from a few years ago.

    I don’t hold out much hope for either one of these actually happening.

    • 0 avatar

      I see both really. It’s like they had a baby. Me want baby.

    • 0 avatar

      Russians also made a similar cab-over truck/van from their jeep UAZ-469 (UAZ-450, -451, -452). It was a decent success for its time. However, its cargo bed was conventional and there was little space between it and the frame. Here we have enough space to hide big spare tire. Not sure if that’s desirable.

  • avatar

    “30 years from now…None of the computerized crap will be working.”

    Well, 30 years back, when the first Computer controlled car systems came out, the ’60’s era car purists’ said the same thing. But, a 25 year old Mustang 5.0 engine computer is still viable and the heart of a huge aftermarket.

  • avatar

    “Of course, retro design leads to an inevitable trap of making it difficult to evolve the product, but the point is to get them to move up from a J-12 to a Grand Cherokee.”

    Ever remove the front grille assembly from an ’80s SJ Wagoneer? The 1963 front sheet metal (upon which the J-12 concept is based) is still underneath, completely unmodified.

    Kaiser-Jeep and then AMC spent all of $12.50 updating the styling on these over a 25 year period. No reason Chrysler/Fiat couldn’t do the same with this.

  • avatar

    While the FC will never see production the Portal Axles already have a Part Numbers; for a mere $23k you can pick them up at your local Jeep Dealer. While they won’t sell a lot of them I can see some of the guys who do Capt. Insano $60-80k builds springing for them.

  • avatar

    I’m Gen-Y and I think you make a particularly good point about tech in cars. I seem to find that the more tech-savy a person is the more they fear in-car gadgets and touch screens. My smart-phone, my pc’s, even my tv all become obsolete in less than a year. In five years they are an absolute joke even if they are still functional. I can upgrade my phone every year, my computers every few years, I can not afford to do the same with my car.

  • avatar
    Matt Hardigree

    Hahahahahahahah. Oh boy.

    Maybe I should write a post: How TTAC Was Duped By A Communist Party Car Blog (Jalopnik)

    Where to start?

    That’s clearly not a Hipsta/Instagram photo. It’s not square. It doesn’t have a filter. It just has shading at the top and bottom.

    How do I know? DK took it from Jalopnik (without any credit, thanks). We actually took it from Phil (with credit) over at Automobile, who just snagged a regular iPhone shot of it.

    But hey, premising an entire article on a photo supplied by Jeep that clearly was not supplied by jeep doesn’t really matter. Your point can be right even when your evidence isn’t. And, as proven regularly around here, vice versa.

  • avatar

    I’d seriously consider that J-12 if it turned out to be reasonably reliable, still drove like a Jeep, and the price was right. A 4×4 has been on my wish list lately anyway.

  • avatar

    If that ‘Old Man’s Truck’ were on sale, I would be test diving it tomorrow. It looks like my dream-vehicle: old blocky Jeep styling, decent ground clearance, safe to drive at freeway speeds (something you just can’t do with a IH Scout). My F150 is over a decade old and I don’t plan to change any time soon…but I’d take a look at that.

  • avatar

    I guess I’m in the minority: I’m more interested in the functionality of a vehicle than the looks. The original VW Beetle looked that way for a reason (curved metal was stronger than flat panels, the fenders were bolted-on, etc.) Taking an modern-day, space efficient Golf and grafting on a “retro” beetle shape gives you less passenger and cargo space for no practical reason.

    I guess Harley Earl and PT Barnum were both right:

    “The art of automobile design has progressed, until today it is regarded as one of the most important factors in the marketing of the automobile.” – Harley Earl

    “There’s a sucker born every minute” – PT Barnum

    • 0 avatar

      Really? That’s rather counter intuitive. (and kind of late to the conversation)

      Think the same is true for Range Roovers or other Euro rides?

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Jeff S: The Iranian Hostage Crisis did create an oil crisis similar to the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973. That and the...
  • slavuta: ronavirus/2022/01/14/mass-repo rts-12864-new-covid-19-cases-6 4-new-deaths/...
  • Inside Looking Out: Actually smash and grab started with Apple stores long before pandemic. California always set hew...
  • NormSV650: While the Buick Envision is tops in segment in Consumer Reports rankings.
  • slavuta: please, no politifact “fact checks”. These fact checkers are activists twisting the truth.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber