Old perceptions that linger

[Max Rockatansky]

1950s through 1970s era platform mate cars are some of the easiest to tell apart.  Badge engineering (in particular body panel sharing) didn't really get homogenized the 1980s.

[Quillz]

I guess it will be different for everyone. I'm not much of a car person to begin with. But stuff from the late 80s/early 90s and then the early 00s is when I can most identify certain makes and models. When it comes to things like muscle cars, cars with tailfins, I could probably hazard vague guesses (Thunderbird, Camaro, etc.) but I doubt I'd get them right.

In general I do agree about the crossovers, though. I have a Subaru myself and at a glance it could be mistaken for a Kia, Hyundai, Ford, etc.

[-- US 175 --]

One old perception I keep encountering is the old "FM roads in TX east of I-35 (or US 281), RM roads to the west" idea.  Fortunately, maps and the internet show us otherwise.  There are 2 RM roads near Athens; either could easily be FMs instead, but oh well.  In the last few years, someone tried to use the "FMs east/RMs west" excuse to change the 2 RMs near Athens to FMs on the US 175 Wikipedia page, but that was reverted in short order.  There are RM roads west of I-35 but the bulk of the TX secondaries to the west are actually FMs.  I'm not sure how TxDOT (and its predecessors) came to name each one, but likely they thought the bulk of the land use alongside each road was one (FM) or the other (RM).

[Rothman]

One old perception I keep encountering is the old "FM roads in TX east of I-35 (or US 281), RM roads to the west" idea.  Fortunately, maps and the internet show us otherwise.  There are 2 RM roads near Athens; either could easily be FMs instead, but oh well.  In the last few years, someone tried to use the "FMs east/RMs west" excuse to change the 2 RMs near Athens to FMs on the US 175 Wikipedia page, but that was reverted in short order.  There are RM roads west of I-35 but the bulk of the TX secondaries to the west are actually FMs.  I'm not sure how TxDOT (and its predecessors) came to name each one, but likely they thought the bulk of the land use alongside each road was one (FM) or the other (RM).

Eh, loose rules aren't black and white.  Still, my perception is "FMs everywhere and RMs mostly to the west."

[bugo]

'Hard Core' gangsta (c)rap = REALLY REALLY BAD

I love gangsta rap. Scarface, NWA, Compton's Most Wanted, stuff like that. I love the sound of classic gangsta rap, and the violent lyrics are funny to me.

I don't understand why hip hop gets so much hate and vitriol. Some of it is generational, some of it is narrow-mindedness, and some of it comes from a much darker place. Another criticism of hip hop is that it is nothing but a guy talking over a drum machine loop with samples playing in the background. This argument would have been much more valid in 1985 than in 2005 as some prominent rappers in the 1970s and 1980s used tracks that consisted of an Isaac Hayes sample playing over an 808 loop, but rap grew up musically and diversified later in the 1980s and today, most hip hop is more complex than that. There are hip hop bands like the Roots that play traditional instruments, and bands like Outkast who are as creative and make music that is as valid as any other works of art, and their music is as good as the music of any rock band you can think of. Hip hop producers like Pharrell Williams of the Neptunes consistently create catchy earworms that have an edge to them. There really is a lot of talent out there.

I don't listen to rap all the time, but great hip hop is great music, period. If it isn't your thing, that's fine. But to disparage an entire genre as "crap" is a little too much. I don't like reggae, in fact I can't stand it, but you'd never hear me say that I think reggae is poor quality music. Quite the contrary. Reggae musicians are amazing players as gifted as musicians of any style. I just don't personally like the style.

The difference between us is that I respect reggae despite not liking it, but you don't respect hip hop and probably don't like it.

[bugo]

One that I can think of is getting between two destinations on Ridge Rd in Webster, NY.
Traffic on Ridge Rd is so ridiculous that in many cases it's faster to go up to the NY 104 freeway/service road and back down, especially during peak travel/shopping periods. However, those not using GPS and just doing things the way they've always done them are prone to wasting time stuck in traffic on Ridge Rd.

When I lived in Kansas City in the early 2000s, I lived off US 71 and Bannister and worked at Blue Parkway and Elmwood, which was a little more than a mile east of US 71. If you didn't know anything about the area, you would have just assumed that US 71 was the quickest route. But this isn't just any old US 71, this is the infamous Bruce Watkins Drive, which is a freeway except for two short sections with at-grades and traffic lights. It was actually faster to take the 3 lane Prospect Avenue (an old US 71 alignment) than to take Watkins Drive when I worked at 8am. Prospect didn't have much traffic that time of day, and I made better time going that way.

The Watkins Compromise benefited nobody: the road was far less efficient and deadly than a full freeway and the benefits to motorists and to the environment a full freeway would bring would be substantial to motorists. The the current pseudo-expressway design that was built is bad for the neighborhood, increasing pollution from cars sitting at traffic lights and making crossing the highway a suicidal jaunt across 8 lanes of traffic counting turning lanes instead of a casual stroll under a well-lit overpass.

There are rumblings that the freeway might actually get built. I remember in the 1990s having a disagreement with a road enthusiast about whether the highway would ever be built. He said no, it won't ever be be built even in a million years. I said to never say never, and that things change. Demographics change, values change and folks die, and that I thought it would be built one day. Looks like we might find out for sure soon.

[bugo]

15-year-old cars still look fairly new to me.  Nothing newer than 25 years old looks old to me.

Same. To be fair, automobile styling hasn't changed all that much since the 1990s. Cars have gotten taller and uglier, but the same aero design language featuring headlights that aren't either round or rectangular has endured for a long time. In 2000, you could tell if a car was 10 years old or older. In 2025, it's hard to tell a 2000 from a 2025 apart.

[formulanone]

15-year-old cars still look fairly new to me.  Nothing newer than 25 years old looks old to me.

Same. To be fair, automobile styling hasn't changed all that much since the 1990s. Cars have gotten taller and uglier, but the same aero design language featuring headlights that aren't either round or rectangular has endured for a long time. In 2000, you could tell if a car was 10 years old or older. In 2025, it's hard to tell a 2000 from a 2025 apart.

The proportions of frontal headlight area to the intake grille (for non-EVs) is a pretty good indicator of whether a vehicle was produced at the turn of the millennium or in more recent times. There's other cues like how much chrome trim is used, and slight changes in aerodynamics. But mostly, the change is overall design to make vehicles look more like SUVs by increasing ride height or for sedans to have a more steeply-raked back windshield are pretty good clues.

[Max Rockatansky]

15-year-old cars still look fairly new to me.  Nothing newer than 25 years old looks old to me.

Same. To be fair, automobile styling hasn't changed all that much since the 1990s. Cars have gotten taller and uglier, but the same aero design language featuring headlights that aren't either round or rectangular has endured for a long time. In 2000, you could tell if a car was 10 years old or older. In 2025, it's hard to tell a 2000 from a 2025 apart.

The proportions of frontal headlight area to the intake grille (for non-EVs) is a pretty good indicator of whether a vehicle was produced at the turn of the millennium or in more recent times. There's other cues like how much chrome trim is used, and slight changes in aerodynamics. But mostly, the change is overall design to make vehicles look more like SUVs by increasing ride height or for sedans to have a more steeply-raked back windshield are pretty good clues.

Regular Car Reviews had a lot to say recently on modern automotive design:

[pderocco]

15-year-old cars still look fairly new to me.  Nothing newer than 25 years old looks old to me.

Same. To be fair, automobile styling hasn't changed all that much since the 1990s. Cars have gotten taller and uglier, but the same aero design language featuring headlights that aren't either round or rectangular has endured for a long time. In 2000, you could tell if a car was 10 years old or older. In 2025, it's hard to tell a 2000 from a 2025 apart.

The proportions of frontal headlight area to the intake grille (for non-EVs) is a pretty good indicator of whether a vehicle was produced at the turn of the millennium or in more recent times. There's other cues like how much chrome trim is used, and slight changes in aerodynamics. But mostly, the change is overall design to make vehicles look more like SUVs by increasing ride height or for sedans to have a more steeply-raked back windshield are pretty good clues.

Regular Car Reviews had a lot to say recently on modern automotive design:

I always thought the Cybertruck looked like someone's hobby project, because of all the flat surfaces. On the other hand, had none of those surfaces been vertical, it would have made a nice stealth car, usually reflecting no signal back to a radar gun.

[Max Rockatansky]

15-year-old cars still look fairly new to me.  Nothing newer than 25 years old looks old to me.

Same. To be fair, automobile styling hasn't changed all that much since the 1990s. Cars have gotten taller and uglier, but the same aero design language featuring headlights that aren't either round or rectangular has endured for a long time. In 2000, you could tell if a car was 10 years old or older. In 2025, it's hard to tell a 2000 from a 2025 apart.

The proportions of frontal headlight area to the intake grille (for non-EVs) is a pretty good indicator of whether a vehicle was produced at the turn of the millennium or in more recent times. There's other cues like how much chrome trim is used, and slight changes in aerodynamics. But mostly, the change is overall design to make vehicles look more like SUVs by increasing ride height or for sedans to have a more steeply-raked back windshield are pretty good clues.

Regular Car Reviews had a lot to say recently on modern automotive design:

I always thought the Cybertruck looked like someone's hobby project, because of all the flat surfaces. On the other hand, had none of those surfaces been vertical, it would have made a nice stealth car, usually reflecting no signal back to a radar gun.

I can't help but see a stainless steel Pontiac Aztek.  The body lines are surprisingly similar.

[kphoger]

To me, it looks like a hypermiler made a tank.

[Henry]

15-year-old cars still look fairly new to me.  Nothing newer than 25 years old looks old to me.

Same. To be fair, automobile styling hasn't changed all that much since the 1990s. Cars have gotten taller and uglier, but the same aero design language featuring headlights that aren't either round or rectangular has endured for a long time. In 2000, you could tell if a car was 10 years old or older. In 2025, it's hard to tell a 2000 from a 2025 apart.

The proportions of frontal headlight area to the intake grille (for non-EVs) is a pretty good indicator of whether a vehicle was produced at the turn of the millennium or in more recent times. There's other cues like how much chrome trim is used, and slight changes in aerodynamics. But mostly, the change is overall design to make vehicles look more like SUVs by increasing ride height or for sedans to have a more steeply-raked back windshield are pretty good clues.

Regular Car Reviews had a lot to say recently on modern automotive design:

I always thought the Cybertruck looked like someone's hobby project, because of all the flat surfaces. On the other hand, had none of those surfaces been vertical, it would have made a nice stealth car, usually reflecting no signal back to a radar gun.

I can't help but see a stainless steel Pontiac Aztek.  The body lines are surprisingly similar.

I used to think the Aztek was the ugliest thing out there, but now I'm glad I was proven wrong. The Cybertruck is a million times worse, and I can say with certainty that it will remain the ugliest of all-time 50 years from now.

[Quillz]

15-year-old cars still look fairly new to me.  Nothing newer than 25 years old looks old to me.

Same. To be fair, automobile styling hasn't changed all that much since the 1990s. Cars have gotten taller and uglier, but the same aero design language featuring headlights that aren't either round or rectangular has endured for a long time. In 2000, you could tell if a car was 10 years old or older. In 2025, it's hard to tell a 2000 from a 2025 apart.

The proportions of frontal headlight area to the intake grille (for non-EVs) is a pretty good indicator of whether a vehicle was produced at the turn of the millennium or in more recent times. There's other cues like how much chrome trim is used, and slight changes in aerodynamics. But mostly, the change is overall design to make vehicles look more like SUVs by increasing ride height or for sedans to have a more steeply-raked back windshield are pretty good clues.

Regular Car Reviews had a lot to say recently on modern automotive design:

This gets said about virtually every era, though. I've heard that applied to 80s cars. Kind of a tired argument. 

[Max Rockatansky]

15-year-old cars still look fairly new to me.  Nothing newer than 25 years old looks old to me.

Same. To be fair, automobile styling hasn't changed all that much since the 1990s. Cars have gotten taller and uglier, but the same aero design language featuring headlights that aren't either round or rectangular has endured for a long time. In 2000, you could tell if a car was 10 years old or older. In 2025, it's hard to tell a 2000 from a 2025 apart.

The proportions of frontal headlight area to the intake grille (for non-EVs) is a pretty good indicator of whether a vehicle was produced at the turn of the millennium or in more recent times. There's other cues like how much chrome trim is used, and slight changes in aerodynamics. But mostly, the change is overall design to make vehicles look more like SUVs by increasing ride height or for sedans to have a more steeply-raked back windshield are pretty good clues.

Regular Car Reviews had a lot to say recently on modern automotive design:

This gets said about virtually every era, though. I've heard that applied to 80s cars. Kind of a tired argument.

A counterpoint even made in the video.

One thing is certain though, touch screens are the worst thing in automotive controls to come around in my lifetime.