Terms like "retro-styling" bother me a bit, but the people who design American cars say it a lot. They try to design cars that resemble something that they are not. A good example is the PT Cruiser, built by Chrysler but closely resembling a late-1930's Ford. Ford got into the act with a 1957 Thunderbird design updated to the 21st century. The Mazda Miata is reminiscent of English roadsters that were popular almost 50 years ago. And General Motors is building a vehicle that might be a car and might be a truck, but the front end looks like a 1951 Chevy pickup.

I'm spoiled by mundane Toyotas that run forever and don't break down, but there is a part of me that looks at the PT Cruiser and wishes I had one. I learned to drive in a Ford that looked like that.

But what I'd really like to have is an update of one of those classic old cars that still looks exactly like the original, but has modern mechanical parts. The cars I dream about would look like a 1939 to 1948 Ford coupe, or 1941 Lincoln, or a '39 Plymouth, or a '48 Chrysler, but with a modern, fuel injected engine with electronic ignition system and an alternator. It could have a uni-body with no frame, and front wheel drive, as long as the outside was a copy of the original. Big cars like the Lincoln or Chrysler could be scaled down slightly as long as the appearance wasn't changed.

I'm not talking about a street-rod. Those don't usually look like they did when they left the factory. Most are powered by a small block Chevy engine, a design that dates to 1955. Street rods may have a modern suspension, but they are still a body bolted to a frame. That's a simple, easy-to-build design, but I'm talking about cars that are modern under the skin. Besides, street-rods are unique, one-of-a-kind cars, and I'm talking about something mass-produced in numbers like the PT Cruiser.

The out-dated aerodynamics would need a lighter chassis and a small engine to provide the fuel economy we need today. Most of those pre-1950 cars were somewhat under powered. A modern 4-cylinder engine will usually have more power and more speed than the 8-cylinder cars of that period. So I would go for the four, even if a modern V6 was available. I'm betting that modern technology could produce a '46 Ford that is several hundred pounds lighter than the one's sold in 1946. Those cars had a 100 hp V8, but a two-liter, four-cylinder, 21st century engine would offer improved performance.

OK, it's not going to happen. Most people today have never seen a '39 Mercury club coupe, unless it was in a car show or at a museum. Even then it may have had a Chevy engine. Most car buyers now want one of those nice little cars that look like they all came from the same cookie cutter. They are quick and efficient, but you have to get close enough to read the name to tell them apart. It was not that way with those beautiful old cars from the 40's. I can identify a '41 Chevrolet or a '46 Hudson from two blocks away.

A few people who have no idea what those old cars look like may have read this far. I would suggest that sometime when you have the time to spare, you might want to find a book on vintage cars at the library, or look some up on the internet. You will find that some cars produced before the middle of the 20th century are real works of art.
Howard