It depends. While the old cars with really small pillars are going to be less safe due to having really small pillars there is more to it than that. The shape of the pillars, material used and thickness of the material are probably more important than the size itself. While making the pillars larger will help it is not an ideal solution since it reduces visibility. I think it probably has more to do with design and aesthetics, bigger pillars will make people feel like the vehicle is stronger and tougher and may be unavoidable due to the design choices that have been made. The Kia Sportage and Volvo XC60 are fairly comparable but the Volvo has much smaller rear pillars despite being the safer car. The volvo also has smaller front pillars as well. So they are probably doing it for aesthetic reasons, its probably also cheaper to manufacture with larger pillars as well.
Is it just me? Or do I legitimately think that every car i've seen I have not thought it looked ugly? (I have seen a ton of cars.)
I actually love the E64 coupe. F13 looks better though. But the best 6-series will always be the E24. - - - Updated - - - Because that's not the way you do utes. The roof should be chopped to end like a truck, not .zip'd into a weird tiny coupe greenhouse mess. Whoever did that has a disturbing lack of design knowledge.
I do apologize, sir, but it simply doesn't. It looks better than just about every BMW ever made, with their stupid parrot fish faces (the M3 is my only exception, but even that has something wrong with it).
no pictures != real thing the real thing looks way better then any picture could ever make it ever look so
These are parrot fish: I couldn't find one that wasn't. Come find me when you know what you're talking about.
I can agree that BMW's design isn't what it used to be (except for the 3/4 series), but pretty much every pre-1990 BMW looks better than any Mustang ever. And I do like the look of both classic and new Mustangs, I just think they were shit cars until 2015.
