I was thinking about certain cars and how you don't see lineage anymore. Let me give you an example of what I mean. If today I go out and buy a Golf, I'm buying a modern version of the 1974 VW Rabbit. It's still a FWD 4 banger car that comes as a 2 or 4 door hatchback. It's still in the same class it used to be. It's not exactly the same car but close enough for government work. You know? So when I buy it, I get a sense of history and of permanence.

The same can be said of most trucks and SUVs and Vans. If I buy a brand new E-series van, it's almost the exact same design as the 1968 Econoline. Same goes for the Mustang, Challenger, Corvette and Camaro. Yeah, they've gotten a bit bigger and more complex and the engines have gotten smaller, but they still fit in that same spot their ancestors were in.

But then we run into some problems with cars like the Cobalt and Malibu and Impala. Yeah, they're technically modern versions of the Nova, Chevelle and Caprice... but at the same time, they're kind of not are they? I often think that the 1960's was a time when consumer taste in cars was fine tuned and that every car back then fit perfectly into the wants/likes of someone. However, a car like the Malibu is a poor substitute for a Chevelle. It doesn't have RWD, doesn't come as a 2 door or convertible, it doesn't have the growl of a V8. It's a mode of transport roughly the same size as it's ancestor, but it's not a natural evolution of that class of car.

Sure, we all hot-rod our J-bodies here, but there's very few people who wouldn't prefer them to be RWD and have a V8 like the old 1969 Nova. We hot-rod them anyway because we're working with what we got, but most of us aren't attracted to the fundamental design of FWD/L4.

Then there's the simple fact that the public buys things by association. Back in 1970 a father of four might buy a Chevelle wagon because, from the front at least, it looked like his swinging neighbour's Chevelle SS454. So it made him feel less like a wuss about buying one. (In the same way Minivans were popular with ex-hippies because they sort of looked like those crappy VW peace vans from the 60s and SUVs became popular because they looked like rough and tumble 4x4s. You'll also notice that the sales of both these vehicles dropped once they lost their gritty edge and became too different from the car/truck it had descended from.)

Obviously none of my babbling is the root cause of why cars are selling less nowadays, but I do think I have a point that cars change so much over time that they can't create a sort of "fanbase" anymore and that FWD will always be associated with cheapness when it comes to American cars because of all the horrible soulless cars from the 80's.

Hell you can't even buy a Golf anymore. They dropped the name and brought back "Rabbit" a couple years ago. I do think they are trying to use the heritage to help sell cars nowdays.