I think he's referring more to the visual aesthetic. The 911 is literally timeless, because the broad strokes of the shape have been nearly unchanged in the past 40 years, and it's still one of the most beautiful and lusted after cars on the road. The Cadillac looks ugly.
I have always hated the design of the Porsche. As a kid I was so surprised to learn that this was the famous "Porsche" I had heard so much about. I am not a car guy, and thus perhaps my opinion doesn't matter, but I can at least understand the visual appeal of a Lamborghini or a BMW. Or perhaps put a better way, I can at least see what they're going for. With a Porsche, I'm just kind of reminded of a smart car. Its so tiny and stumpy that it looks ridiculous and straight out of the 80s to me. I actually start considering the fact that it only has two seats (as opposed to most sports cars which I usually forget when just looking at it). It neither looks fast nor classy, I just don't get it. Also, to me it doesn't look timeless, it just looks old. When I see a new one I imagine a scene from an 80s wallstreet movie or something.
The 911 was designed in the 1960s, the one displayed is from 1973. The reason the design is iconic is that the car is rear engined which gives it the unique characteristics of driving and style. It also allows for an aerodynamic profile while still having 4 seats. Having a horizontally opposed sir cooled engine also keeps both weight, cost and centre of gravity low, giving better handling, efficiency and mileage.
By the 1980s the design was quite dated but still popular because of the reputation of the car.
The reason pg probably picked the car was because the form followed the functions, it was designed rather than styled.
Same here. 911 to me is an acquired taste. I can appreciate their design now, especially the recent iterations but I remember I said it looked like a squashed frog with bulgy eyes when I first saw one as a kid.
Also happens with people's faces. A person who at first might appear ugly I've found gets better looking the more you see them. They don't become good looking or anything but appear less ugly.
Meh, I've always liked the smooth shape. I also love the look of the much boxier and more aggressive looking Ferarri Testarossa and Lamborghini Countach, but I think they look much more dated than even the 73 911. Design always has some elements of personal preference, of course.
This whole thing is such a logical fallacy I can't pick one name for it. How about fundamentally privileging the survivor hypothesis effect bias?
If the 911 turned out to look shit or be unfashionable, they would have changed the styling/stopped making it completely, like most cars from the 70s.
On the other hand, maybe it is still fashionable because they still make it? After all, generally what expert designers say is fashionable, is fashionable.
On the gripping hand, so? Maybe the turnover of style in a niche (sportscar vs mass-market) is slower (as you would expect given fast fashion and volume of play). That does not mean that niche is any better designed, only that bad design takes longer to be recognised and/or fashion tastes change slower.
I don't think he's referring to the visual aesthetic. I went through what the parent comment describes and kept re-reading these lines to guess what pg meant: "The Cadillac was carefully designed to appeal to the average driver. The 911 was designed for performance. Which one is better design?". I concluded that he did not mean visual design but instead meant some notion of "overall design" that included both visual appeal and performance, and did not state how he defined the term.
And then I read "It's so obviously superior to the Cadillac that a child could tell it's better" and decided that either he's bullshitting or my design sense is non-existent.
