>>1574032>People who think cars only now all look the same have selective nostalgia. First of all you shouldn't compare one model year to a decade or more, secondly you shouldn't compare the average of today to the best of the past. Then wasn't any less copypaste than today, only differently so.Why? If a car has shit looks, it has shit looks, regardless of when it was made.
The 62 Dodge Dart was made just a year after the Chrysler in the OP, but that doesn't mean it can't be objectively compared to modern cars. Even the blandest car made today doesn't even come close to the badly proportioned monstrosity that is the 62 Dart. Like it's literally a potato version of a Mustang with 'clusterfuck' being it's central design principal. I'd drive any 70-90's shitbox instead of that thing as far as looks goes. It's only saving grace was that it was a half decent car practically speaking.
The same thing applies to the Fiat Multipla. Shit design with practicality being it's only saving grace.
In both cases the manufacturers were smart enough to redesign the car to make it less of an eyesore because they were both objectively hideous.
