Good Styling

andre1969 · December 2008

There's also a similar, less-pronounced crease that comes off the rear wheel opening. I think these creases work well with the car though, giving it a streamlined, windswept look.

On some cars there's a crease that comes off the top of the front wheel opening and carries forward to the front of the car. I always liked this look. In fact, it was one of the things that attracted me to the '57-58 DeSoto and Chrysler. I also like it on the '61-62 Cadillac and '59 Mercury. Ford did it as well in '57-59, Studebaker did it a few years, and countless others, I'm sure.

fintail · December 2008

It's an accent line coming off the wheelarch - suggests motion. It's a classical styling cue. No random flame surfacing or bustles.

stever · December 2008

It's a crease. :shades:

I like it, mind you, but it's styling, not function.

I like the next Z4 from the pics too. Didn't much care for the prior one. I liked the Z3 a lot; neighbor next door had one for a while. I tend to like "chick" cars - minivans, Miatas....

guss · December 2008

I'm with Steve, I thought the Z3 was the best looking of the trio. I thought it had the classic lines of a British roadster.

The new Z4 looks ok, but it looks alot like the previous Z4 to me, with the flame surfacing toned down just a little.

nippononly · December 2008

The Z3 was much better-looking than the Z4 has been.

andys120 · December 2008

somewhat, the Z3 was certainly better looking than the current Z4 but it doesn't compare to the new Z4 (E89) IMO.

stever · December 2008

Could be - I'll look forward to them hitting the street so I can admire 'em in person (or not...).

xrunner2 · December 2008

Speaking of Hondas...the 90-93 Accord is perhaps the most homogenous Japanese design ever, not derivative and almost timeless.

Would agree. The 90-93 4-door Accord is probably the best ever designed Accord.

We had 86, 95 and 98 4-door Accords. The 94-97 series was ungainly. The 98 was clean but too plain-Jane.

andys120 · February 2009

There was a time when General Motors was producing styling that rivaled the world's best, the Bill Mitchell era during the 1960s was perhaps GM Design's finest era and this is my candidate for the best looking Buick ever-made>

1966 Buick Riviera Gran Sport >

Notice how restrained the use of chrome and other details is, this car is all about form and proportion. I think it's even better than the '63-'65 Rivs.

Sadly it only took a couple of years to screw it up completely: link

xrunner2 · February 2009

That 66 looks a little bulbous in front. I'll take a Riv from the 63-65 vintage.

I suggest that the 58 Buick Roadmaster is the worst Buick styling ever and probably in the top 10 all time ugliest American cars.

fezo · February 2009

Yeah, but for 1958 it's almost just another car... What WAS it with that year?

xrunner2 · February 2009

Would agree. The Olds 98 would also be in the top ten all time ugliest cars. 58 Chevy Impala was ugly, the one used in movie with teen-age Opie that had Harrison Ford in a 57 Chev.. 58 Ford bad, Edsel also. Thank goodness GM got rid of poor styling and 4 decades later we get the classic Aztek.

Think that the 57 Chev black hardtop has survived the test of time of good styling for that era.

andre1969 · February 2009

The only reason that green '68 Riv looks ugly is because the headlights are exposed. That blue '66 wouldn't look near as attractive if the lights were exposed, either.

The only Riv that really grosses me out is the 1970 model. They took a car that had been clean, sporty, even futuristic looking, and suddenly made it look fat and old. It looked like a bloated Skylark. Many of them had fender skirts, but even without the skirts, the wheel openings in back were smaller than the '66-69. They also had exposed headlights that seemed mounted too far too the edges, and an awkward sculpting on the side with a dip that seemed to recall the 1950's, but it all contributed to making the car look fat and dowdy.

For the most part, the 1970's saw styling take a nosedive, but I think in the case of the Riv, the Boattail 1971 was actually an improvement on the 1970! While it was wild, flambuoyant, and pimpy, at least it still managed to return a youthful, sporty flair to the nameplate...until it got watered down again around 1974.

andys120 · February 2009

" 58 Chevy Impala was ugly, the one used in movie with
teen-age Opie that had Harrison Ford in a 57 Chev

No disagreement about the '58 Chevy being ugly.
It's funny how every discussion about 50s and 60s styling
always comes down to what the hell happened in 1958.

Here's a still from American Graffitti showing "Toad" next to "Steve Boland's" '58 Chevrolet Impala >

.

FWIW, the Harrison Ford car in that movie was a '55,
not a '57 as can be seen in the scene where he rolls it>

imidazol97 · February 2009

I have always liked the 58 Chevy, especially the hardtop and convertible models.
link title

andre1969 · February 2009

I have always liked the 58 Chevy, especially the hardtop and convertible models.

I think even the 4-door sedan version of the '58 Chevy is good looking, although I think the 2-door sedan is a bit awkward. I liked the 4-door hardtop as well, although I guess it was a bit awkward the way they had to put that piece of spacer trim at the back of the door, to allow the window to roll down.

fezo · February 2009

I agree for the most part with your comments on the 58 Chrysler cars. Plymouth I might call a tie between 57 and 58. I liked the 57 tail fins better but we had one so that probably makes me prejudiced.

I don't know what it is with 57 Chevies. They've been considered real icons for ages now but when Chevy was actually selling them it ws the one year in long period of time when they got outsold by Ford. Go figure. It was a good year to buy a car - the Chevy, Ford and Plymouth all looked good.

lemko · February 2009

Beautiful, but I prefer the 1965 Riviera:

lemko · February 2009

The 1961 Chevrolet Impala two-door hardtop is practically perfect!

fintail · February 2009

The bubbletops were a nice design. The curvy A-pillar was a nice touch too.

The 4-door hardtops weren't exactly offensive in 61 either.

(not easy to find a good pic of one)

andys120 · February 2009

A couple of years ago a buddy of mine sold one that looked exactly like that (283 CID under the hood). IMO the '61 Impala was the best looking Chevy ever with the possible exception of the 1970 Malibu two-foors.

fezo · February 2009

The 61s are nice. Any of the early 60s Chevies are nice. Hard to believe the change after the batmobiles of 59.

lemko · February 2009

xrunner2 · February 2009

Am standing corrected with previous poster documentation on American Graffitti black Chev. Obviously that was a 55 in the movie and styling was very good. Still like black Chevy 57 2-door hardtop a lot and see it from time to time in car shows in my area.

In 4-door category, the 77 to early 80's Chevy Caprice had very nice clean styling. Think this model is popular in LA and with guys that put hydraulics in to have cars jump around.
,
Best Camaros were 68, RS model, and 71, Z28. When 70.5 Camaros and twin Firebird were introduced, car magazines most generally gave very high marks to these cars for "Italian" influenced styling. Never undertood why GM chose to retro the 69 Camaro in that it was one of the worst styled Camaros excepting the fat/bulbous Camaros from late 80s' till 2002.

andys120 · February 2009

We're in agreement, the 70.5 Camaros & F-Birds were the best looking, even if they got too big. One of my beefs with the Retro Camaro is that it is just too large, the same goes for the Challenger.

lemko · February 2009

My beef with the Challenger is that it's not a true two-door hardtop.

texases · February 2009

I saw the new Mustang at the auto show - I'm disappointed. The headlights shrank, the hood bulged, and the side scoop is barely there. I've read it's a much better car to drive, but none of the styling changes are what I'd call an improvement.

xrunner2 · February 2009

Please define a "true" two-door hardtop.

andre1969 · February 2009

Please define a "true" two-door hardtop.

No B-pillar, and roll-down rear windows. The original concept for the Challenger was a 2-door hardtop, and I believe the Camaro concept was as well. However, the final production versions have a B-pillar and stationary rear windows. Most likely it was a cost-cutting move.

As far as I know, Mercedes Benz is the only manufacturer these days that makes a true 2-door hardtop.

xrunner2 · February 2009

I think the problems today with making a "true" 2-door hardtop are structural integrity and side impact protection.

andre1969 · February 2009

I think the problems today with making a "true" 2-door hardtop are structural integrity and side impact protection.

I don't think it would be too hard to do. After all, convertibles are still in production, so they must have found some way to overcome the side impact issue. And the back windows of a Camaro or Challenger are so small anyway, that it's really not opening up a huge vulnerable area.

I'm guessing though that most people just wouldn't care, other than die-hard old car fans like Lemko and me. With a convertible, you need the back windows to roll down, otherwise the car looks stupid. But they don't really make 2-door cars with useable back seats anymore, so I guess there's really no need for a roll-down rear window. I still kinda miss 'em, though.

andys120 · February 2009

berri · February 2009

The 70.5 was my favorite Camaro too, particularly in RS trim. I agree that Chevy did a good job with the downsized 77 Impala. My favorite Impala's are the 65 and 67 coupe or convertible. The 61-63 are all quite nice too, but the 64 seemed bit over styled? I actually liked the 59 better than the 60, especially that flat top 4 dr hdtp with all the wrap around glass, but I know I'm likely a minority on this one! The 59 GM line was a styling jolt like the 57 Mopars when they came out. However, the 59 line didn't go over as well. Maybe a bit too radical compared to the staid Ford products that year, or maybe people were a bit leery after the initial quality issues on the previously all new designed Mopars and Edsels? The 60 GM cars toned it down a bit, but may have also taken away a bit of the prior year model excitement (however, I think the 60's generally outsold the 59's, but I'm not sure if it was actually the GM restyle, or the ugly 60 Ford and uninspired 60 Plymouth and Dodge?)

berri · February 2009

Is the new Caddy coupe going to be fixed window?

I know another reason for fixed rear windows is cost savings which is why the old 2 dr hdtp designed seemed to be replaced with fixed windows starting in the early 70's.

andys120 · February 2009

..seems to bring more confirmation that it is no longer Ferrari which builds the most beautiful sports cars.

fintail · February 2009

Is it just me, or does that really look like a scale model?

writer · May 2010

I have a new car and it is dark blue.

Times change. I remember when I was buying one of my earliest cars and it came in a particularly nice blue colour. It was a medium shade metallic, close to a cyan in shade. I thought it was wonderful. However, it was out of stock and I was told it might take a while to get. On the other hand, they had a demo model Ferrari red (not the official name, but you know the colour) which I could have at a very big discount.

At that time, I particularly did not want a Ferrari red because I had anecdotal (but in my opinion reliable) evidence that cops targeted "sporty cars" in this colour. Yes, it was a "sporty car."

Now, many years later, I was buying a a car, and I wanted silver. But at the time I said that any colour would do except black. Knowing the colours, I overlooked that they had a dark navy blue that was almost black. The salesman scrounged but the first car that turned up -- delivered at their lot the next day on regular shipment, was navy blue. I almost rejected it because I really did not want that colour. First, colours that dark really show dirt badly, and secondly, because I do believe (without actual research number to prove it) that colours that dark probably heat up more in the summer under the sun.

A third reason I did not like this particular colour--sort of a metallic Navy blue, is that as blue goes, it really is too dark. On a cloudy day it looks black. I like *most* metallic blue colours, but not this one. Ironically, there was also a Ferrari red colour that I would have taken gladly over this blue.

andys120 · May 2010

Frankly I'm not sure what the point of your post is so I'll just acknowledge that you are correct that a very dark blue will show dirt and warm up the insides on a hot day but Navy Blue (metallic or otherwise) is one of my favorite car colors. It "classes up" any car that wears it IMO.

andre1969 · May 2010

Well, I can vouch for the fact that darker colors will make a car hotter than lighter colors. I have two '79 New Yorkers. One is a 2-tone creme 5th Ave with a creme leather interior. The other is a non-metallic midnight blue ("Nightwatch") base model with a matching dark blue interior, and cloth seats.

On warm days, the midnight blue one can be downright brutal, despite the fact that it has cloth, versus leather. And I've had it get bad enough that sometimes I have to use a cloth to turn the ignition key, or else I'll burn my fingers! And it doesn't help that the car won't always start on the first try in hot weather, so I get the opportunity to burn my fingers multiple times! In contrast, the creme colored leather interior never really gets all that bad.

And yeah, I agree, Navy blue is a beautiful color. And, like black, will sometimes stay beautiful for up to several hours after you wash it!

fezo · May 2010

Andre - is the paint really that good on that New Yorker or is it an optical illusion? It looks really fine!

That shade of blue looks great on a car. I understand all the problems of dark colored cars but they look great when cared for and I'm willing to live with what they look like when dirty.

The one color I don't touch is white. Makes a car look like a refrigerator. Oddly, I can deal with Volvos in white - probably because they look like refrigerators now matter what color you paint them.

I've had a few silver cars. that's definitely the no maintenance color. now matter how dirty it gets it still looks OK. The downside of that is no matter how clean and waxed it is it won't ever look better than OK.

andre1969 · May 2010

Well, I gotta confess, that picture was taken right after I washed it, and the car was still wet!

But, with a good washing and waxing, it does come off pretty nice.

Here's a picture I took of it back in August 2008, at the Das Awkscht Fescht show in Macungie, PA. I was supposed to take my '76 LeMans to this show, but it refused to start, and was blocking my '79 5th Ave in the garage. And my '67 Catalina, I wouldn't have trusted on a trip that far, so I decided to chance it with the '79. It did die on me about two miles from home, when I stopped off to get some ice for the cooler, but after I got it started again, it did fine for the whole ~390 mile round trip. Well, with the exception of losing a hubcap!

fintail · May 2010

Dark colors are just so hard to maintain. My daily driver is dark grey, and I have to put a substantial amount of labor into keeping it looking how I want it compared to my previous silver and light blue cars. It looks great when its clean, but you have to work for it. On the other hand, maybe it's not so bad...most of us can use a little more exercise :shades:

I generally like blues and greys for car colors, and I have a little thing for some modern light blue colors that seem to have shown up in the past year or two...but I don't know if I would buy one.

andys120 · May 2010

one color I don't touch is white. Makes a car look like a refrigerator.

That's the way I feel about Alpine White but I can see cream white or ivory on some cars. I owned a pearl white A4 sedan that looked sensational, it had one of those multi-layer/multi-hue paint jobs. In bright sunlight it looked like a very light silver but in indirect light or on a cloudy day it looked like an ivory or cream.

fezo · May 2010

Yes. I have seen that and it looks great. White is difficult to pull off. It's difficult to find an Audi with something wrong in anything related to style. Beautiful cars every one of them.

writer · May 2010

What was the point? A very good question.

I think we might have discussed this before? I would say that colour is in itself a debatable issue regarding styling. Some people would say that styling is the shape of the car and that colour is irrelevant. When I look at styling, I actually tend to start from that position. I look at the shape and relate it to function and then aesthetics. I cannot help looking at it functionally first. I think that all of us who read these discussions tend to weigh function heavily.

I wrote the comment specifically to bring out the irony that years ago I wanted blue and did not want the Ferrari red, and now in this case I would have wanted the Ferrari red instead of the blue. The truth is that my taste has not really changed that much at all, and it was more a question of the specific blue in question, but it was a comment on the fact that tastes can and do change over time.

And of course, there was a fairly open admission that colour is not really that important to me. In both cases I took the cars in colours I did not really want and lived with it.

As for this particular dark blue, it strikes me as somber. The car is a sports coupe -- not a particularly somber style, and I am not a particularly somber person. Dull maybe, in some peoples' eyes, but not somber.

And then there are the bird hits. They really show up on black and near-black colours. I have just taken my car to the car wash for the first time and now I am trying to hide it from the birds.

berri · May 2010

I liked darker colors when I was younger. Dark red was probably the easiest of them to keep looking good - didn't show the dirt quite as much. Now I'm lazy and prefer greys, silvers and golds. I had one white car. It actually was easier than the dark colors, but I'm not a big fan of white, except for some those optional ones people are talking about. White does have one advantage in that is seems to show design flaws. I always try to look at perspective cars in white because it seems to give me a better feel of whether I'll still like its looks down the road. I actually learned that trick from a design major I knew back in college and have found it over the years to generally be true.

imidazol97 · May 2010

>White does have one advantage in that is seems to show design flaws. I always try to look at perspective cars in white because it seems to give me a better feel of whether I'll still like its looks

That's a very interesting statement. I think I have to agree. Cars that I have really liked, I liked even in white based on the style, period. Thanks for sharing that point.

fezo · May 2010

I was going to start a new discussion about this but I'll try here.

Do yo notice combinations on cars that either just don't work or seem like a really mixed message?

For instance today I got caught behind a recent Odyssey with a gold package. now I am no fan of gold packages anyway but it looked particularly out of place on the Ody.

I remember thinking this same kind of thing when they started making fire engine red Volvos. Same thing when I see a plain white Mustang GT.

for add ons that look really strange I walked by a Sonata with port holes on Saturday.

fintail · May 2010

I loathe gold packages. Honda/Acura and Toyota/Lexus were prime offenders for this. It seems every early Lexus ES had gold trim, a friend of mine's mother had a late 90s Civic back in the day that was dark blue with gold trim - not cool, and the old couple who parked next to me in my previous residence had a ~2003 super loaded Camry that cost about 30K new that also had gold trim. Tacky.

White does show off bad lines. Think of a white bangle BMW, especially a 7er. Every weird curve shouts to be looked at. White has also been trendy with the "look at me" set - lots of recent white M and AMG cars, Cayennes, Range Rovers, etc .

nippononly · May 2010

the other day at a traffic light behind five cars that were all various shades of silver (as is mine). I am totally sick of silver - not only is every second car silver, but then we have all the lighter shades of lighter and darker gray with creative names.

What ever happened to cars with colors?

I have sworn that I will never buy another silver car. Nothing neutral in fact - white, black, gray - but especially not silver.

Problem is you get so few choices these days, and the limited choices that ARE available for any given model always seem to have to include silver (often two or three shades) and black, leaving precious little room in the lineup for real colors. :-(

Good Styling

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles