Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

It's not the proportions.  Of course a mid-engine car will have a different profile from a front-engine one.  My favorite car of all time is a Ford GT40, and it is mid-engined.  "Supercars" have been mid-engined since before the term was coined.

It's all the stupid styling lines and creases--that are not about function at all but rather about looking "aggressive"--that bother me.  And the new Corvette is particularly bad on this point.

Ahh, I can see your point there. I think "sharp edges/creases" have been design point streaming in unrelated to only supercars...

Car design is subjective.  

There will be folks who like the Corvette design and folks who don't.  There are folks who don't like the GT40 design.

This is my favorite car design right now, I'm sure some don't like it:

I suspect that with cars, they've run into a problem.

The cars are basically designed by computers for minimum Cd in a wind tunnel. Essentially they're all copies of each other, because they're all solving for the same solution. They have to fit a driver and passengers, and beyond that they're either a coupe/sedan, an SUV/crossover, or a truck. 

So they can't differentiate based on shape, and thus they have to do it on styling. And so you get a lot more angular/extreme looks, or other things to make it "look" unique since you can't change the shape, and some of those end up garish.

That said, my wife has a Lexus RX350. A few years ago, they went from a more rounded/bulbous design to something much more futuristic, sharp, and angular. I personally love it. The old look was boring. The new one is outstanding IMHO.

I suspect that with cars, they've run into a problem.

The cars are basically designed by computers for minimum Cd in a wind tunnel. Essentially they're all copies of each other, because they're all solving for the same solution. They have to fit a driver and passengers, and beyond that they're either a coupe/sedan, an SUV/crossover, or a truck.

So they can't differentiate based on shape, and thus they have to do it on styling. And so you get a lot more angular/extreme looks, or other things to make it "look" unique since you can't change the shape, and some of those end up garish.

That said, my wife has a Lexus RX350. A few years ago, they went from a more rounded/bulbous design to something much more futuristic, sharp, and angular. I personally love it. The old look was boring. The new one is outstanding IMHO.

Maybe?  But I've sometimes wondered, "Why wouldn't Ford just make cars that look exactly like a Ferrari or Aston Martin, but for the price of a Ford?"  And I'm not talking about all of the super-expensive wind tunnel testing or advanced computer modeling and such, that goes into the body design of a Ferrari.  Just simply the same basic design styling cues?  I'd love to drive a car that looked like a Ferrari, but had the reliability and longevity of a mass-produced American car, or Japanese car, or whatever.

Instead we get this?

  

Instead we get this?

 

Nothing wrong with "this" if it's dependable and efficient for 12 yrs or more.I'd buy the ugliest ride on the lot if it accomplishes that

I doubt folks would really like the practicality of a typical Ferrari sports car design. 

Very low seating, no back seat, small trunk, limiting view from inside, ...

All good points.  I'm accustomed to a very large SUV, a pickup, and my wife's convertible, so I'm not accustomed to limited views from the interior.  When I sit in the modern Mustang, Challenger, and Camaro, the sight lines are crazily bad to me.