I forgot about those. Yeah, GM had the high hp FWD sedans before Nissan too and they weren't any bigger than the Altima is now.
Nissan didn't really "start" anything with 240 hp Altima. Older Maximas, Taurus SHOs, the GM S/C cars, even the Camry V6s with the manuals------all quick FWD mainstream sedans before the Altima....and yes, I consider the Taurus SHOs to be mainstream.
Yeah, but those were large sedans and not tuned to be very sporty. With the median Buick buyer in his 70s, noone would even have noticed.
The Grand Prix had almost the opposite problem, so many strakes, spoiler, gills, ribs, and cladding that noone over 30 wanted to be seen in one.
Grand Am was their mid-size mainstream entry, anyway. Buick's was the Century
"Yeah but".........
All the cars mentioned are similar in at least a few ways to the Altima.
The 240 hp Regal/Grand Prix are roughly the same size as the current Altima.
The new Altima is the logical successor to the older Maximas.
The manual Camry V6s were basically Maximas with a better ride. Both midsize Japanese sedans with manual transmissions and 185-190 hp V6s.
The Taurus SHOs were basically exactly what the Altima SE manual is right now.
I can't think of anything revolutionary about the new Altima. The exact formula was used a long time ago with the Taurus SHO. The Taurus SHO was a mainstream sedan. It's not like they were rare or exotic, anyone could buy one at the local Ford dealer.
Mazda had it with the 626, Toyota had it in certain models. I consider a manual tranny to be a pre-requisite in a sporty sedan, so for me the Altima was the one that broke the 200hp barrier, and it blew it away.
Noone seems to want to give Nissan credit so that's fine, but I still do.
SHO only came in a manual in the early years and they were rare at that. The Taurus was mainstream, but the SHO was not.
Accord has 240 because Altima has 240, not because of any GM car. Honda didn't see any GM car as competition. Honda actually held up introduction of last Accord so the engineers could dial in 240.
Avalon has 280 because Max has 265. TL might have 270, G35 might have 280, but that's not really relevant. Toyota was aiming at Max.
SHO only came in a manual in the early years and they were rare at that. The Taurus was mainstream, but the SHO was not.
The Taurus was mainstream and the SHO was simply a trim level of Taurus and they were hardly "rare". The Taurus SHO was nearly as quick as the new Altima.
How many manual V6 Altimas does Nissan sell? I can tell you right now they sell a whole lot more of the automatic version, which would make the manual version relatively rare. If the Taurus SHO isn't considered "mainstream" then neither is the manual V6 Altima.
Yamaha supplied the engine and it came in limited numbers. Very limited if you're talking manual tranny.
How many manual tranny V6 Altimas does Nissan sell? Is it a "mainstream" number? Are SE manual trans Altimas "abundant" when you consider total Altima sales for all models?
that we're going to pinpoint who, exactly "started it" when it came to the current horsepower race. After all, cars have been steadily increasing in hp since the early 80's. A low point was hit around 1979-1982 when many engines in the 5-liter range were only putting out 130-140 hp, and some V-6es in the 3.8 liter range were lucky to put out 100!
It wasn't the Maxima, though. The Max put out 140 hp in 1985, which was decent, but consider that you could get any GM A-body (Century, Celebrity, 6000) with 125+ hp, any turbocharged K-car with 146 hp, a small LTD with 120 hp (a limited production LX model had a 165 hp 302, and was actually quite a performer for its day), any V-8 GM G-body was putting out 140-150 hp (more with high-output variants like the Olds 442 and Monte SS), and so on. Plus, back then the Maxima wasn't really a mainstream car. The term "near luxury" hadn't been coined yet, but cars like the Max and the Cressida were definitely pushing into the luxury category. They were a far cry from the Accords, Stanzas, and Camrys of the day.
GM was getting 230 hp and more out of its turbocharged V-6 in the Grand National back in the 80's. It peaked at 276, with the final-edition GNX for 1987. But these were all relatively limited-production cars, although in some years, the GN accounted for a good 25% or so of all Regal sales.
The Altima certainly was a notable stepping stone, though. The main reason being that it was so far behind the times for so long. Honda started offering a V-6 Accord way back in 1996 or so. I don't know when the Camry first came with a V-6, but I know it had one in 1991. I'd guess around 1987?
As for the Taurus SHO, I think what Juice means with the MT variant is that it was the one to have. The original SHO with the manual tranny was quite a screamer, but was also very limited production. The later SHO, based on the "catfish" style '96+ Taurus, with the tiny V-8, was a bit underwhelming. The old SHO was a big jump over the typical 140 hp 3.0 Vulcan or 3.8 Essex V-6 Taurus, but once Ford had the Duratech 3.0, the SHO just wasn't that special anymore. Not in the Taurus lineup, nor in general.
was the first year. 2.7 V-6 with 170 hp, 165 ft-lb of torque. I'm guessing that's the V-6 that first went in the Legend? I heard they had to bulk up the nose of the car to make the V-6 fit, but I can't tell the difference. But back in the '95-97 timeframe, there probably weren't that many V-6 Accords, anyway. I guess if I saw them both side by side, I'd notice.
Just for comparison, the Camry V-6 that year was a 3.0 with 188 hp and 203 ft-lb of torque. It was also over 300 lb lighter, 2910 lb according to the stats I found on Edmund's. IIRC though, the Accord V-6 was a last-minute addition, so beefing up the '94 design after the fact, instead of designing it for a V-6 in the first place, is probably what made the '95 Accord V-6 so chunky.
That year's Maxima had a 3.0 with 190 hp and 205 ft-lb of torque, and weighed around 3000 lb. I'd imagine the Camry V-6 probably gave it a run for its money.
Also, by this time, the Buick 3.8 was only putting out 170 hp and 225 ft-lb of torque in base form, which is how your typical Regal, Lumina, LeSabre, etc was equipped. There was a 205 hp version out, but it was reserved for more luxurious cars like the Riviera, Park Avenue, etc. And then there was the supercharged version, but it was fairly limited production, reserved for the most top-line models.
By 1995 though, I wouldn't compare an Accord to anything GM was putting a 3.8 in. In my book, the Accord, while nice, was still a compact car, and competed more with the likes of the Grand Am, Achieva, Beretta/Corsica, and Skylark in the GM fold, and the Contour/Mystique over at Ford. And Chrysler's emerging "cloud cars", such as the Stratus/Cirrus sedans. GM's W-bodies were (and are) horribly space-inefficient though, so honestly, back in '95, a Regal or Lumina probably didn't have that much more useable interior room than an Accord!
Heck, today I'm actually MORE comfortable in an Accord than I am in a Grand Prix, Impala, or LaCrosse!
By that I mean you walk into a dealer and they were available right then and there.
Do you think it was any different with the Taurus SHO? It wasn't. I remember seeing SHOs sitting in the dealer lot. If you wanted one, you bought one, it was pretty simple. They were not rare by any means. If you want a manual Altima V6, you buy one. If you wanted a Taurus SHO, you bought one. What's the difference? Even if the SHO was lower volumn than the Altima manual V6, I don't see how that means that you ignore the SHO and say that it was really the Altima that started something new.
"the SHO just wasn't that special anymore. Not in the Taurus lineup, nor in general."
The first SHO would still be competitive today as far as performance is concerned. They were clocking mid 6 second 0-60 times.
"I don't know when the Camry first came with a V-6, but I know it had one in 1991. I'd guess around 1987?"
1988, to be exact. The exact same engine that first powered the ES250 in 1990 when Lexus was born.
And the Accord V-6 would not come for another seven years. But then, in a few short years the output of the Accord's V-6 would leapfrog past Toyota's V-6 in the Camry. I suspect we will finally see a Camry V-6 in MY '07 with more power than the Accord, but that advantage will likely be short-lived, with the Accord revision a year later.
And the pointless hp wars in the midsize sedan segment will continue...
:-/
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The SHO was always sold as a special, high-performance version of the Taurus. It was clear that this car was not for everyone because of its stiff suspension and special engine. From 1989 until the 1993 model year, an automatic transmission wasn't even available.
There was a pretty substantial price spread between the regular, garden-variety Taurus and the SHO version. In 1989, a Taurus LX V-6 sedan (top-of-the-line version of the "regular" Taurus sedans) stickered for $15,282.
The SHO had an MSRP of $19,739 - or over $4,400 more. That was a pretty hefty price spread in the family sedan segment in 1989.
The Altima V-6 sedan started "something new" (i.e., a horsepower race in this segment) because it was a regular family sedan that could be had for a reasonable price. The SHO was a pricey, special edition, limited-appeal sports sedan.
I agree with beck. To be given credit for something, you have to have followers. Taurus SHO was a one-off thing. No one tried to follow it. It didn't start a trend. Maybe it was ahead of its time. Or maybe other manufacturers didn't feel threatened by it. But ultimately it caused a lot of heartache for Ford, remember the cranckshaft cracks, literally those Yamaha engines fell apart.
If they sat in lots it's because demand was not high. I still consider that a special edition and not a mainstream family sedan. John and Jane Doe didn't walk into a Ford dealer looking for a SHO, they looked for a Taurus. The SHO was an enthusiast exclusive.
Thank you grbeck for demonstrating the huge price difference and mentioned the stiff suspension.
The Doe family did shop for V6 Altimas, though. Mainstream, not a niche product.
I see a difference, you don't. We disagree, period. Let's leave it at that. This argument has hijacked the thread and it's simply not worth it to continue. I'll let you have the last word.
The "Doe family" isn't shopping for manual transmission V6 Altimas SEs either. The "Doe family" (the average family) buys mainstream cars like Accords, Camrys, Malibus, and Altimas with automatics and that's only if they don't buy a mini-van or SUV.
The SHO had a stiff suspension huh? So does the Altima SE.
I'm not the only one that thinks bootless shifters look weird.
It looks they are doing a very good job of reorganizing the Accord line for '06, as well as increasing equipment levels a bit. I guess they are taking the large sales drop seriously. If the posters here are correct, they needed nothing more than a major restyle of face and butt!
I can't wait to see if dealers order any V-6/manual Accords.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
having had all 3 gens of sho's, all i want to say is there are a lot of negative posts about it from those who never owned, drove one, or got a ride in one. please try to keep it a bit 'real'. i would say that it was probably an inspiration(or excuse ), for others to develop high powered mainstream fwd sedans. bmw never caught on to it.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
When the Taurus was redesigned, the SHO went to a V8 automatic only. Obviously the V6/stick thing wasn't working for them. No modern automaker seems to be going the FWD V8 route...yet. Cept GM. But you'd think they would have known how stupid that idea was when they had to put larger tires on the FRONT of the car to keep it from understeering off the road.
The new Accord sedan looks nice. The press material mentions changes to the dashboard. I'm anxious to see just how extensive the interior changes are.
The European Civic is certainly different. The dashboard looks complicated...I guess we've come a long way from Honda's original slogan for the U.S. market - "We keep it simple." Not with that dashboard....
Overall, I like the dash. The bootless shifter doesn't bother me. I do wish it were mounted closer to the wheel (a la current Si). I thought the split level cowl would bother me, but it doesn't Not sure about the jock-strap-looking steering wheel, though.
I just saw the spy pics of the new Civic sedan, and from what I can tell, it looks pretty sharp.
I really hope Honda eventually offers an engine with more juice than the 140 hp 1.8L in the sedan. If they made a 200 hp Si version of the sedan, I would probably have to buy one.
This site is aimed at the professional car design community, so it's interesting to get their take on the new Civic, as they see it from a different perspective than the avarage car fan.
I really like the exterior design. It does sacrifice a little bit of space for a 5 door, but it's worth it. It really looks like a sporty 3 door, yet it's a practical 5 door.
Another trend I'm noticing is the disappearance of bumpers, or at least a much better, more streamllined integration. I think they did a great job here.
Here's a side-by-side of a couple of recent designs I like, note the shaved bumpers, and the matte black trim leading to the wheel well. Dual exhausts on both, too.
On the right is a Tribeca. Both are Asian but look European.
that Euro Civic looks an awful lot like an Intrepid would, if you made it into a hatchback and chopped about 2 feet out of the wheelbase! It's really obvious in the front door area, B-pillar, and windshield/A-pillar/cowl area.
I like it from the front, especially because it has smaller, more tasteful, almost agressive headlights, in sharp contrast to the overdone headlights that seem to be the trend these days. Finally, FINALLY, a new design on a small car with properly-proportioned headlights! Back end is a jumbled mess, but there's only so much you can do with the rump of a utilitarian vehicle. Minivan, SUV, hatchback, station wagon, they all share the same problem. They usually end up coming off understyled, or overstyled, but very rarely "just right"
I missed the earlier pic of the white Civic sedan in camo. Looking at that one really makes me think that they tried to take the roof of an Intrepid and graft it onto a much smaller car. Although truthfully, ever since the aero Civic came out for '92, and then the Intrepid for '93, I always did think that cars had a faint, passing similiarity in style to each other.
I kinda like the sedan, from what I can tell in the camo shot. If it ends up with that cool Euro front, I think it would be a neat car. I just hope that the more uplevel model of the Civic hides those unsightly black strips on the roof, or at least does them in body color. I always thought those strips gave cars an extremely unfinished look, like they were too lazy to finish off the roof, and just put a black strip down the seam! Which, essentially, is all they did.
I think out of all the Civics, the '92-95 style was my favorite. It just had a clean, almost futuristic look to it. When it "grew up" for 1996, with the little grille, "doe-like headlights" (a quote from some buff rag) and the quarter windows in the door, I just didn't care for it as much. Now the style before that, which I guess was 1987-1991, I also liked. Had one as a rental, and it gave me a newfound respect for small cars. I don't like the current Civic sedan at all, but I think the coupe is a looker.
Oh the '06 US-spec Civic is much more exciting looking than the current US-spec model, but next to the new Euro-Civic, it's strickly zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzville.
i know you were referring to the civic, but i disagree. as a matter of my opinion, there are many current vehicles that look less modern than cars from 1992. back then coefficient of drag was very important. now more drag, and more weight, can be allowed because of the improvements in relative fuel efficiency.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
That comes to mind that looks like the front 3/4 of the Accord. I mean the 94-99 Accord had tailights that looked like a Benz but that didn't make the WHOLE car look like a Benz. I guess since the Mazda3, Cavalier, Corolla all share similar taillamps, they all look alike.
Comments
Complete overkill for most folks.
-juice
Nissan didn't really "start" anything with 240 hp Altima. Older Maximas, Taurus SHOs, the GM S/C cars, even the Camry V6s with the manuals------all quick FWD mainstream sedans before the Altima....and yes, I consider the Taurus SHOs to be mainstream.
The Grand Prix had almost the opposite problem, so many strakes, spoiler, gills, ribs, and cladding that noone over 30 wanted to be seen in one.
Grand Am was their mid-size mainstream entry, anyway. Buick's was the Century
"Yeah but".........
All the cars mentioned are similar in at least a few ways to the Altima.
The 240 hp Regal/Grand Prix are roughly the same size as the current Altima.
The new Altima is the logical successor to the older Maximas.
The manual Camry V6s were basically Maximas with a better ride. Both midsize Japanese sedans with manual transmissions and 185-190 hp V6s.
The Taurus SHOs were basically exactly what the Altima SE manual is right now.
I can't think of anything revolutionary about the new Altima. The exact formula was used a long time ago with the Taurus SHO. The Taurus SHO was a mainstream sedan. It's not like they were rare or exotic, anyone could buy one at the local Ford dealer.
Noone seems to want to give Nissan credit so that's fine, but I still do.
SHO only came in a manual in the early years and they were rare at that. The Taurus was mainstream, but the SHO was not.
-juice
Accord has 240 because Altima has 240, not because of any GM car. Honda didn't see any GM car as competition. Honda actually held up introduction of last Accord so the engineers could dial in 240.
Avalon has 280 because Max has 265. TL might have 270, G35 might have 280, but that's not really relevant. Toyota was aiming at Max.
The Taurus was mainstream and the SHO was simply a trim level of Taurus and they were hardly "rare". The Taurus SHO was nearly as quick as the new Altima.
How many manual V6 Altimas does Nissan sell? I can tell you right now they sell a whole lot more of the automatic version, which would make the manual version relatively rare. If the Taurus SHO isn't considered "mainstream" then neither is the manual V6 Altima.
Why don't you consider the SHO mainstream?
No it didn't.
1989. Taurus. 220 hp. 5sp manual. end of story.
I might agree if you were talking about the Altima SE-R, which is not very common, but the SE is abundant.
We've managed to side track this Honda discussion, so I'll concede this point just so that we can move along with the topic.
-juice
How many manual tranny V6 Altimas does Nissan sell? Is it a "mainstream" number? Are SE manual trans Altimas "abundant" when you consider total Altima sales for all models?
Found 7 used 2002s with the 3.5l and a manual on Cars.com.
So yes, I'd call that abundant, easily.
-juice
It wasn't the Maxima, though. The Max put out 140 hp in 1985, which was decent, but consider that you could get any GM A-body (Century, Celebrity, 6000) with 125+ hp, any turbocharged K-car with 146 hp, a small LTD with 120 hp (a limited production LX model had a 165 hp 302, and was actually quite a performer for its day), any V-8 GM G-body was putting out 140-150 hp (more with high-output variants like the Olds 442 and Monte SS), and so on. Plus, back then the Maxima wasn't really a mainstream car. The term "near luxury" hadn't been coined yet, but cars like the Max and the Cressida were definitely pushing into the luxury category. They were a far cry from the Accords, Stanzas, and Camrys of the day.
GM was getting 230 hp and more out of its turbocharged V-6 in the Grand National back in the 80's. It peaked at 276, with the final-edition GNX for 1987. But these were all relatively limited-production cars, although in some years, the GN accounted for a good 25% or so of all Regal sales.
The Altima certainly was a notable stepping stone, though. The main reason being that it was so far behind the times for so long. Honda started offering a V-6 Accord way back in 1996 or so. I don't know when the Camry first came with a V-6, but I know it had one in 1991. I'd guess around 1987?
As for the Taurus SHO, I think what Juice means with the MT variant is that it was the one to have. The original SHO with the manual tranny was quite a screamer, but was also very limited production. The later SHO, based on the "catfish" style '96+ Taurus, with the tiny V-8, was a bit underwhelming. The old SHO was a big jump over the typical 140 hp 3.0 Vulcan or 3.8 Essex V-6 Taurus, but once Ford had the Duratech 3.0, the SHO just wasn't that special anymore. Not in the Taurus lineup, nor in general.
-juice
Just for comparison, the Camry V-6 that year was a 3.0 with 188 hp and 203 ft-lb of torque. It was also over 300 lb lighter, 2910 lb according to the stats I found on Edmund's. IIRC though, the Accord V-6 was a last-minute addition, so beefing up the '94 design after the fact, instead of designing it for a V-6 in the first place, is probably what made the '95 Accord V-6 so chunky.
That year's Maxima had a 3.0 with 190 hp and 205 ft-lb of torque, and weighed around 3000 lb. I'd imagine the Camry V-6 probably gave it a run for its money.
Also, by this time, the Buick 3.8 was only putting out 170 hp and 225 ft-lb of torque in base form, which is how your typical Regal, Lumina, LeSabre, etc was equipped. There was a 205 hp version out, but it was reserved for more luxurious cars like the Riviera, Park Avenue, etc. And then there was the supercharged version, but it was fairly limited production, reserved for the most top-line models.
By 1995 though, I wouldn't compare an Accord to anything GM was putting a 3.8 in. In my book, the Accord, while nice, was still a compact car, and competed more with the likes of the Grand Am, Achieva, Beretta/Corsica, and Skylark in the GM fold, and the Contour/Mystique over at Ford. And Chrysler's emerging "cloud cars", such as the Stratus/Cirrus sedans. GM's W-bodies were (and are) horribly space-inefficient though, so honestly, back in '95, a Regal or Lumina probably didn't have that much more useable interior room than an Accord!
Heck, today I'm actually MORE comfortable in an Accord than I am in a Grand Prix, Impala, or LaCrosse!
Do you think it was any different with the Taurus SHO? It wasn't. I remember seeing SHOs sitting in the dealer lot. If you wanted one, you bought one, it was pretty simple. They were not rare by any means. If you want a manual Altima V6, you buy one. If you wanted a Taurus SHO, you bought one. What's the difference? Even if the SHO was lower volumn than the Altima manual V6, I don't see how that means that you ignore the SHO and say that it was really the Altima that started something new.
"the SHO just wasn't that special anymore. Not in the Taurus lineup, nor in general."
The first SHO would still be competitive today as far as performance is concerned. They were clocking mid 6 second 0-60 times.
1988, to be exact. The exact same engine that first powered the ES250 in 1990 when Lexus was born.
And the Accord V-6 would not come for another seven years. But then, in a few short years the output of the Accord's V-6 would leapfrog past Toyota's V-6 in the Camry. I suspect we will finally see a Camry V-6 in MY '07 with more power than the Accord, but that advantage will likely be short-lived, with the Accord revision a year later.
And the pointless hp wars in the midsize sedan segment will continue...
:-/
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
There was a pretty substantial price spread between the regular, garden-variety Taurus and the SHO version. In 1989, a Taurus LX V-6 sedan (top-of-the-line version of the "regular" Taurus sedans) stickered for $15,282.
The SHO had an MSRP of $19,739 - or over $4,400 more. That was a pretty hefty price spread in the family sedan segment in 1989.
The Altima V-6 sedan started "something new" (i.e., a horsepower race in this segment) because it was a regular family sedan that could be had for a reasonable price. The SHO was a pricey, special edition, limited-appeal sports sedan.
Thank you grbeck for demonstrating the huge price difference and mentioned the stiff suspension.
The Doe family did shop for V6 Altimas, though. Mainstream, not a niche product.
I see a difference, you don't. We disagree, period. Let's leave it at that. This argument has hijacked the thread and it's simply not worth it to continue. I'll let you have the last word.
-juice
Sales up 10.3% for the month and 2.4% for the year so far. Source is AN.
-juice
V6 models get 17" rims, VSA, and brake assist. Sedan gets 6 speed manual option. Heated side mirrors on EX and V6s.
VP replaces DX and has A/C. LX SE model looks appealing, too.
Should boost sales a bit to go along with the revised rear end styling.
-juice
The "Doe family" isn't shopping for manual transmission V6 Altimas SEs either. The "Doe family" (the average family) buys mainstream cars like Accords, Camrys, Malibus, and Altimas with automatics and that's only if they don't buy a mini-van or SUV.
The SHO had a stiff suspension huh? So does the Altima SE.
It's got a 103.7" wheelbase.
Bob
I don't like the bootless shifter, something Volvo has offered on some models.
-juice
It looks they are doing a very good job of reorganizing the Accord line for '06, as well as increasing equipment levels a bit. I guess they are taking the large sales drop seriously. If the posters here are correct, they needed nothing more than a major restyle of face and butt!
I can't wait to see if dealers order any V-6/manual Accords.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
-juice
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
i would say that it was probably an inspiration(or excuse
Saw a stick shift Contour in the post office parking lot today, just about dropped dead from surprise.
It is close to impossible to find the stick shift V-6 Accord coupe now, so I can't imagine it will be much different when the sedan becomes available.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Lets see if anyone follows THAT lead.
The European Civic is certainly different. The dashboard looks complicated...I guess we've come a long way from Honda's original slogan for the U.S. market - "We keep it simple." Not with that dashboard....
Overall, I like the dash. The bootless shifter doesn't bother me. I do wish it were mounted closer to the wheel (a la current Si). I thought the split level cowl would bother me, but it doesn't Not sure about the jock-strap-looking steering wheel, though.
This one is executed better, though.
-juice
I really hope Honda eventually offers an engine with more juice than the 140 hp 1.8L in the sedan. If they made a 200 hp Si version of the sedan, I would probably have to buy one.
-juice
http://www.cardesignnews.com/news/2005/050803honda-civic/index.html
Bob
Another trend I'm noticing is the disappearance of bumpers, or at least a much better, more streamllined integration. I think they did a great job here.
Here's a side-by-side of a couple of recent designs I like, note the shaved bumpers, and the matte black trim leading to the wheel well. Dual exhausts on both, too.
On the right is a Tribeca. Both are Asian but look European.
-juice
I like it from the front, especially because it has smaller, more tasteful, almost agressive headlights, in sharp contrast to the overdone headlights that seem to be the trend these days. Finally, FINALLY, a new design on a small car with properly-proportioned headlights! Back end is a jumbled mess, but there's only so much you can do with the rump of a utilitarian vehicle. Minivan, SUV, hatchback, station wagon, they all share the same problem. They usually end up coming off understyled, or overstyled, but very rarely "just right"
What makes the car is the hidden rear door latch. Another thing they "shaved" to clean up the surface. I really like that.
In fact I even like the rear, it's just a new look that people will have to get used to. Bumpers that jut out are so ... last year I guess.
-juice
I kinda like the sedan, from what I can tell in the camo shot. If it ends up with that cool Euro front, I think it would be a neat car. I just hope that the more uplevel model of the Civic hides those unsightly black strips on the roof, or at least does them in body color. I always thought those strips gave cars an extremely unfinished look, like they were too lazy to finish off the roof, and just put a black strip down the seam! Which, essentially, is all they did.
Bob
Bob
I like the recessed grille on the coupe, and the low profile look from the side.
-juice
I think the sedan kind of looks like a scrunched TL.
as a matter of my opinion, there are many current vehicles that look less modern than cars from 1992. back then coefficient of drag was very important. now more drag, and more weight, can be allowed because of the improvements in relative fuel efficiency.