My sentiments exactly. If we're to be supposed to be impressed by sleek looks, at best the new stuff looks like it's trying hard to be a comically aggressive-looking revival of past greatness from the 1970s sports cars (e.g. Countache, 70s Corvette), with none of the glory of the 1950s classic era (e.g. 57 Bel Air, 59 Impala). At worst it looks like this:
Meanwhile if we're supposed to be impressed by competitive performance, then looks don't matter at all and we're talking engines and suspension systems and HP and stuff, and I'm just not enough of a car dork for that. It does nothing for me because I'm not into sitting around watching other people drive cars, nor have I ever come close to having the time or money to just drive them on private tracks for fun, nor have any of my family members. Don't get me wrong, it does seem fun! But between a career, lots of kids, a full house to maintain, woodworking, music, and the other stuff I like to do, I don't need an expensive, highly pollutive, time- and space-consuming hobby. (What kinds of sacrifices must such a hobby require, I wonder...?)
What I love about the late 80s/early 90s econoboxes is the simplicity, practicality, understatement, and efficiency--and the ones I like most were incredibly reliable as well, much more so than many modern cars. These were tools that really served an everyday function. They got you where you needed to go every day without otherwise drawing attention to themselves, so you could use them to live rather than have your life dominated by your car.
BTW
@68bucks the "econobox" photo you shared is of a 5th generation Honda City, which isn't what I would call a true econobox because it lacks the "box". In fact, the Honda Fit is the American equivalent and it at least comes only in a hatchback! (Though not boxy enough for my tastes.) The econoboxes I dream about are vehicles like these:
Wagovan:
Tercel wagon: