Peak automotive engineering!
There used to be a sense of whimsy and fun in stuff.
People choose their colour based on how they think it’ll affect resale value. If they pick a punchy colour, that narrows down the demand and brings down the resale price.
It’s the same thing with millennial gray.It’s not that people don’t want colour, it’s that it costs such a huge part of their wealth that they’re scared about recouping it.
bUT My rESalE vAlUe!
Good point. If your car is a crazy color it’s resale value will drop
Not always. If you keep that car in good condition and it ends up being a desirable color it it could be considered rare by resale time, you’re just rolling the dice when you buy it with that strategy compared to a more common/basic color.
That’s kind of the point, though. The colored cars are less desirable colors, so the resale value drops.
90% of cars will never become sought after vehicles. If the 10% that could, you’re very likely to have already sold it before it ever became collectable.
I agree, also haven’t seen anyone mention the cost of repairs. Buying a car with a common colour will make the replacement of an exterior part much cheaper.
More specifically, all of the bright colours tend to fade in the sun over time.
Is that true today? In my experience it is mostly Japanese cars from the 80s where the fading is a big problem. On the other hand, my country is not having a lot of sun so I guess it could be a problem in other countries with more sun.
Super expensive oilpaint pigments +++ fade so probably.
That, and many of these cars wouldn’t last long enough for the paint to fade from UV. Your yellow car turning beige wasn’t a concern if it wasn’t going to reach 100,000.
Are you inplying these older cars weren’t intended to last longer than 100k because I’d wager most of the cars in the top image at least doubled that before going to scrap.
I park next to an 80s beetle with over 350k on the odometer. My own truck is from the 90s with 280k.
I work with a guy who daily drives his dad’s old Mercedes. While he inherited it, it wasn’t a “project car” or anything, it was a daily driver kept in good repair. Honestly, you put on a new clear coat, detail the interior? It feels no more than a few years old. 500k miles.
I owned 6 SAABs that were made from '82 - '90. I refused to touch a GM SAAB. Didn’t even buy them with less than 100,000 miles on the odometer. 1/6 died at ≈750,000 miles. That was my fault, found out about hydroplaning the hard way, on I-75. The other 5 died between 1.3-1.7 million miles. Never quite got one to 2,000,000. Several hundred people have, and despite SAAB not making a car since 2011, they still keep adding cars to the list of 2,000,000+
Not OP, but most of those cars only had 5 digits on the odometer. It says something about how long the manufacturer expected them to last.
It’s important to remember how far we’ve come on longevity. 100k as the expected lifespan wasn’t common until the 90s. My grandmother once told me that 40k meant it was time to start looking for a new car. This probably would’ve been for cars in the 50s.
Obviously you can take any car to any mileage if you’re willing to sink the time and money into it. Many of these cars are prized by enthusiasts, and became project cars. But your standard utility cars of the 70s and 80s were probably not getting to 100k before needing a lot of repairs.
Curious how old you are, because until this century, a car with 100,000 on the odometer was considered a piece of crap no one in their right mind would buy. Powertrain warranties of 50,000 were pretty nice in the 90s and when 100,000 came out people were astounded. 3 years/36K was standard warranty for everything else.
SOURCE: Worked Nissan consumer affairs, late 90s.
Problem was mostly rust because they used unprotected steel without any zink coating. In a wet country that would damage the frame and chassis within a few years, and sooner or later you end up patching one hole after the other. It’s even worse when they use salt on the roads in winter.
I watch some car restoration channel on YouTube. Some old cars look excellent at first, untill they lift it up and the floor plate or any mounts crumble into dust because some water was leaking inside the door frame, into the trunk or some hidden corner.
Lol, I haven’t had a car with <100k miles on it in close to 5-6 years
Since 1985 for me.
All my cars go to 300k, or more.
I haven’t driven 300k miles since 1985!
Unfortunately, none of my vehicles last more than 2-3 years.
I feel like an insurance nightmare at times.
Also red cars have higher insurance premiums.
Note to self, car insurance is run by orks from 40k…
Because painting things red makes them go faster.
This is (mostly) a myth, and dispelled by (among many others) Progressive and Allstate. How would they even know? Color is not part of your VIN, and is not something they will usually ask.
However, there is one small kernel of truth - sports cars, which genuinely are more expensive to insure, are far more likely to be red. But they would be the same price in blue, silver, or black.
Next time you get an online quote, experiment with the car details. You’ll be surprised.
Actually white cars are now starting to have higher premiums, because Teslas are more likely to crash into them.
How would I do that when they don’t even ask the color?
Then that insurer is cross subsidising their risks. Find a different insurer that does include color in their pricing models.
Color is absolutely part of VIN.
But your point stands.
I ran my VIN for a Chevy Bolt through the decoder at vpic.nhtsa.dot.gov (and again through the one at driving-tests.org). It has all sorts of details, including manufacturing location, battery size, and that the headlights are LED. But nowhere on the list is the color.
There may be circumstances where the color is part of it, but it’s absolutely not standard. Try it yourself.
deleted by creator
Car colour can also affect how much you pay for insurance
Not just the color. Each make and model used to look distinct and unique. Now they all have the same vague SUV shape. It makes sense aerodynamics and safety standards are a thing but it still feels so corporate and almost dystopian.
But SUVs are neither aerodynamic nor safe (for others)…*
*In comparison with normal cars.
There are also things like safety standards and whatnot, there’s more nuance here beyond some shape conspiracy lol
It’s largely roll over protection safety requirements have increased dramatically. So you get massive pillars that have to distribute force into the rest of the body.
Which also has to handle that load, or prevent intrusion laterally from side impacts.
It’s largely driven by safety designs.
safety standards are bs, tho. they still say more blinding headlights are safer than less blinding.
They typically look like a mildly used bar of soap on wheels.
The funnier interpretation IMO is that they’re all trying to be either wagons or minivans while maintaining plausible deniability.
No it’s an SUV! Right right…
It’s carsinisation but for cars. Everything evolves into a type of SUV. It makes sense since physics kind of dictates how aerodynamics works and engineers just have to work around that.
I’m looking forward to the day when we don’t have rear-view mirrors and just use cameras. Kind of surprised we haven’t just gone that direction already. Screens and camera tech has gotten good enough that we can do that pretty efficiently.
The issue I have with some of the more “modern” cars is getting rid of the door handles on the outside. These pop-out things are just a hazard for people in colder climates or places where dust and other ingress can cause problems opening the door. Although, it would be nice to have my kids walk up to the door and not jerk on the handle 2-3 times before I can get the keys out to unlock it.
Mirrors just work. No electricity, no lenses to get covered and blocked.
Cameras are good for the places mirrors can’t see, but otherwise it’s more shoving electronics in places were it’s not needed driving up cost, complexity, and decreasing repairability.
I like function over form for safety items. Simple, reliable, and imo there is beauty in something clearly being designed for a purpose.
Another factor that seems to get ignored with mirrors vs cameras is depth. A mirror is still a 3D reflection and there’s usually enough depth information to judge distances pretty well. You lose all sense of scale and distance with a lens and screen.
objects in mirror are closer than they appear
(i still have zero idea what this means…is the object closer in the mirror or is closer irl?)
That label is used for convex mirrors that show a wider area at the tradeoff of shrinking things. You get some depth perception in a mirror (unlike a camera, as otacon pointed out), but the shrinkage in a convex mirror throws that off. The object itself (not the reflection) is physically closer to you than what your depth perception on the reflection would indicate.
I suppose cameras can give you a better field of view than a mirror can though.
Sure but if they break, it’s a more expensive repair, one that I may be able to do myself whereas replacing a mirror or mirror housing isn’t that hard.
I want less computerization of cars, personally. Or at least a repairable, customizable, and FOSS system, if I have to have computers in my car.
“If they break”, oh yes, let’s fund a strawman.
Go see what a broken mirror costs today.
Glass alone, if heated (many are) $100+. Actual motorized mirror: $300+. Then there’s painting to match.
Cameras would be smaller, less likely to get damaged, and are pretty commodity tech these days.
Try $30 and fuck painting. Old car better.
“If they break”, oh yes, let’s fund a strawman.
…you don’t think car parts break? Or are you the type to just get a new one every few years so you’ve never experienced it?
Glass alone, if heated (many are) $100+. Actual motorized mirror: $300+. Then there’s painting to match.
Who exactly is the one building a strawman, here? 🤔 sources, please
Cameras would be smaller, less likely to get damaged, and are pretty commodity tech these days.
Fair, debatable, and fair. Definitely not cheaper than a mirror, though. Maybe on a luxury car, absolutely not on anything more common.
It ain’t the glass that costs. It’s the sleek custom designed shape of the housing that costs all that money. Not the mirror.
A plain round simple mirror that is externally mounted is cheap and easy to replace. But it won’t make your car look as fast or as cool.
They do, but know what works better? A single panel in front of you with all the views - you don’t even have to turn your head.
As someone who’s raced, "Wink" mirrors demonstrated this fantastically: multi-panel rear-view mirrors where you could see everything behind and beside you in a single mirror.
I used one in my daily driver when I had a neck injury (whiplash) and could barely turn my head for 2 years. Way easier to see all around you, and better too.
The tech for a camera system has been available and trivial since the 90’s. A single 4" tall wide screen on the dash, or built into the center rear view would work.
Clearly you’ve never driven in rain, snow, fog. Side mirrors are very problematic. Cameras can be better protected, and done right even deal with rain and ajow a lot better.
I know of those mirrors and surprise, I have driven in adverse conditions.
I’m not saying there aren’t better ways. But cameras in their current implementation isn’t the answer.
There becomes a point where there is too much in front of a driver. I also believe the frequent “feedback” from driving assists causes me, at least, to take my eyes off the road to figure out what it’s beeping at me for and it’s usually because the system doesn’t recognize a bend in the road or the car in front of me is turning.
One of my cars is a Chevy Bolt EUV. The rear view mirror, in place of the classic switch to change between day and night mode, has a switch that alternates the view between reflection and camera.
There are far more sedan shapes over SUV ones on the road, but with that said I agree with your reasoning. It’s natural that the most efficient shapes are adopted en masse so everyone can benefit. Same with other things like safety standards/regulations.
I can’t remember which car magazine did it, but about 6-8 years ago, the cover was a profile of every crossover in the US market. I was able to pick out the Honda but couldn’t tell any of the others apart.
Aerodynamics and safety get everyone to a generally uniform shape, but then they focus group it to death.
I miss cars that would last for 30 years more than choice of color.
Yes.
Sick of the gray in cars, clothing, buildings, etc. etc. etc.
The cars in the second picture are more colorful and interesting than what we have now
yeah, the golden light does a lot of the beauty there
there’s a study that shows that car colorfulness is positively correlated to being in a good mood for longer periods of time (i.e. not having depression)
so, car colors reflect the mood of a society. and that they’re all gray today is a bad sign.
there’s a number of additional signs to read the mood of society. i was told by a colleague that the length of women’s skirts is another indication (the shorter the skirt length, the better society’s mood is overall).
i also believe that the music they play i.e. in the supermarket is a good indicator. the more love songs on the radio, the better the mood of society. the more break-up songs on the radio, the worse the mood of society.
It’s not just cars. Our whole society is grey.
Blame this on the car insurance companies. They claim that certain car colors are less likely to be in a wreck.
Also blame car manufacturers. Some colors cost more than others. Check the sticker price next time you’re in the market.
The 80s, when your car was colorful and your house was… not
Brown is dark orange
Many people here say that people don’t want to be targeted by cops but I don’t feel like cops target colored cars specifically. At least where I live I feel like they target stereotypical vehicles, which would mean a combination of brand and model, color, tinted windows, any visible modding etc., and also the body style of the car. For example a gray roadster will have a higher chance to be targeted by the police than a yellow minivan. A modded car will always be stopped more than average.
So the way to not get targeted is to get a car that screams “mother/father of two in an unhappy marriage”. Or go to the other extream and get whatever the mafia drives if you have the money. I have never seen a G-class Mercedes stopped by the police.
The target here is vans, black BMW, Audi, Mercedes, and then the grey of the same 3 brands, it became an absolute stereotype
Someone finally decided to call this shit out, I go to any parking lot, and I get depressed by tge uniformity and how bland it looks, 3 colour saturation, white,black and fucken grey, it’s depressing af.and don’t get me started on the Tesla epidemic, black, white Grey hideousness
You can have any color you like, as long as it is grey. -Albert Einstein
Yay let’s make all cars the same colour as the road
It’s like we live in a world built out of that gray shit inside that Krabby Patty in the one episode.
Is this what you mean?
Or maybe this?
Well, gray and depressing does fit the times.
