Good Styling
I think that if you post anything in Edmunds, you are probably at least a bit more knowledgeable about cars than average. So we all probably see cars more as functional devices than most other people. However, I expect that we all pay at least some attention to styling.
So this is the issue: What styling do you like and what do you not like?
Hopefully we will avoid personal insults. . . .
:-)
So this is the issue: What styling do you like and what do you not like?
Hopefully we will avoid personal insults. . . .
:-)
Tagged:
0
Comments
On the other hand, the Civics, particularly the coupe looks great. It makes all the other cars in that class look like they ran off in the wrong styling direction.
G35 Coupe? Excellent. Maybe the best looking car being made today. [Expect me to change my mind about that often, but still . . .]
I'll agree the current CRV is a mess, with its underbite and windowline that doesn't match the roof. IMO Acura SUVs also have a bad windowline, makes the car look like it is leaning forward.
The Civics remind me of Saturns. The new Accord is also weird in some ways, but not bad.
Speaking of Hondas...the 90-93 Accord is perhaps the most homogenous Japanese design ever, not derivative and almost timeless.
For instance, the new Jaguar XF. How does it look? Meh, it's OK.
I tend to like the VWs mostly, although the new Passat is another big yawn.
I like the looks of the Matrix enough that I bought two, but I would not argue with anyone who thought it will look dated in a few years. And most of the Toyota models look like concrete bunkers that someone melted, stuck in a wind tunnel, and mistakenly attached wheels to.
The Hondas look marginally better - the new Civic is gradually growing on me for instance - as do some of the Lexus cars with the exception of the ES.
I don't get the new Mercedes motif at all - the new S-class in particular looks like a small car that got stretched like warm string cheese until it was all misshapen, then frozen that way. The new C-class looks OK.
The only Ford with any presence is the Mustang, which would probably earn my money if what was under the skin was a lot more appealing. Likewise, I don't really like any of the Chevys except the Corvette, and now maybe the new Malibu. For GM, add the Aura and Astra to my list of reasonable lookers, as well as the Sky/Solstice.
I guess I'm weird with what I like and what I don't, but my fave of all of them is probably still the Mini Cooper. Another carmaker still very much on its styling game is Porsche. OTOH, BMWs look bloated now. All the BMWs of 10 years ago looked better to me than the comparable BMW models today. The Z3 and late 90s 3-series were some of my faves of the 90s.
Oh, and as for SUVs and tall wagons AKA crossovers? I don't think there's a single one that catches my eye, certainly not the new CRV that's for sure. The CRV has always been a bit funny looking. Maybe the best of the breed is the new GLK and the GM Lambda triplets, but none of them are much beyond just tolerable.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The XF you really have to see in person and in motion to appreciate. The only part of the design I had a problem with before I saw it in person were the headlights and even they look fine in person.
Now MB is moving on from the the oval/ovoid headlight theme it honed for 12+ years. Some of the results are mixed. A lot of people associate that look with MB.
The form follows function styling of the W126 and W124 will always be gold in my eyes.
I can't remember the last Toyotas I thought were good looking...I guess the 92 Camry had a pleasant rounded blandness to it, and the period Lexus SC looked good. I liked the wedge Supras too...but I don't know if I could call them good styling. The lineup is pretty uninspiring lately.
I find it amusing the Saturn Sky appears sportier and more aggressive than its Pontiac twin, seeing as Saturn has been a badge for those who don't really like cars.
Some makes do try to make them a big styling cue while others try to hide them but they are always there, usually ruining the lines.
I can't say I've seen many fender skirts that help either.
Now that I think about it, I had a '67 Newport with skirts, but they sort of blended in with the bodyside creases. That Newport was also more slab-sided, maybe even a bit concave, whereas the Bonneville was more fuselaged.
One styling cue that I tend to pay attention to with cars is where the C-pillar falls, in relation to the rear wheel opening. If the C-pillar is too far back, IMO it often makes the car look ungainly, like the roof is too big for the body. Some cars with rakish rooflines can sort of get away with it, but with more upright cars, I think it's harder to do.
The Germans seem to have as good a handle as anyone as to what makes a good looking car. Audis tend to look great. BMWs, Porsche, even VW. For the most part the Japanese aren't bad but they have a tendency to blend in with one another.
Amongst the Americans GM and Ford are improving their act. I don't know that the chrome bars need to be on all Fords but they work on the Fusion which is pretty attractive. Saturn has the idea. I never thought I'd say that. Newer Buick designs are really stepping up.
-Any Audi except the Q7
-Bentley GT & sedan
-BMW 3 Series, 7 Series
-Mercedes E Class and C Class
-Ford Fusion
-Ford Mustang, esp. Bullitt coupe
-Dodge Charger (exc. interior)
-Ferrari F430 and 599GTB
-Mini Cooper
-Infiniti G35/G37, M35/45
-Nissan Altima
-Mitsu Lancer/EVO
-Porsche Cayman, 911, Boxster
-Pontiac G8, Solstice
-Mazda Miata, 3, 6 CX-7
-Jag XK
-Maserati GT, QP
-Bad
-Audi Q7
-Saab 9-5
-BMW 6-Series
-Nissan Maxima, Armada
-Scion xB
-Lincoln Navi
-Jaguar XF (esp headlights)
Merc GM / Ford CV
Dodge Challenger
-Ugly
-Chrysler Sebring
-Honda CR-V
-Lincoln TC
-BMW 5 Series
-BMW Z4 esp coupe.
-Porsche Cayenne
-Roll-Royce Phantom (looks like a Kenworth in front!)
I left off a lot of cars that look okay enough but aren't particularly good, bad or ugly, including some (like the Corvette) I might conceivably buy
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
BMW has traditionally had beautiful cars but the current 5 and 6 series leave you scratching your head.
It would figure that the only was Honda got onto any list was with the redesign of the CRV. The new one is growing on me a little but that only means it moved up to "I don't turn the other way when I see one coming" class.
Nissan has been slowly destroying the Maxima design since it did the refresh in, what, 1991? The 89 Maxima was perfect. Still looks good now.
I have Hondas and Toyotas. Their design does not cause great emotion either way.
Passed a Cayman last weekend. Serious lust.
I sure like this one, note license plate.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
I do not find the new Matrix as appealing. Maybe it will grow on me.
I did not like the recessed grill on the original Vibe. When they changed the grill it made a big improvement. I have not had a good look at the new Vibe yet.
I do not like the Calibre. It reminds me of an old Citroen.
I have not decided about the Avenger. I think it might grow on me.
The pre-MB Chrysler cars were much better than what came after.
The Calibre is another car that looks like a truck. The styling might be the best thing about it, apparently it's a poor car.
The Avenger/Sebring twins are a real mess with discordant lines and poor proportions, the Dodge comes off a little better because it doesn't have the gimmicky ridges on the hood.
I like the second Gen of Viper styling much better than the unrestrained voluptuousness of the early design.
The Charger is a great looking car, one of the best current four door sedans, especially in a dark color which gives it an air of subtle menace. Like a lot of the cars of the D-C era it falls apart inside (metaphorically that is). The interior, like that of the 300, is bland and cheap looking.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
Not only attractive but doesn't have that hideous Yankees plate on there....
I agree with you - the new ones remind me of my '89 Voyager. I liked that boxy style a lot. Wish they made it in a SWB version still.
Functional looks NEVER go out of style, but a faddish trend will stale quickly (hello 70's landau roofs, 80's hyper-striped mini-trucks, 90's cliche Eddie Bauer two-tone SUVs, today's chrome dubs).
Call me wacko, but I really like the looks of this europe-only Ford Connect linked below.
http://www.ford.co.uk/ie/tourneoconnect07/toc_photo/toc_ext_gallery/-/-/-/- -#
Commercial-Grade utility with obvious attention paid to style. It's basically Ford's take on a miniaturized Sprinter van. I know it would play here in the NW, where we favor understated, utilitarian, faded Subaru wagons with room for bikes, climbing gear, kayaks & canoes.
Federalize a 4cyl Duratorq turbodiesel for this (35-40mpg) and Ford would have a very unique & timely rig for sale.
I guess this is another reason why skirts never caught on:
Postmodern (AlternateRoute)
I wonder what a Prius would look like with rear wheels skirts and a chrome strip along the bottom? :P
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
Saw one of those just yesterday in silver.
You don't notice that black stripe at the base of the skirt on the dark blue ones.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
I for one didn't find the CLS convincing since it wasn't as good looking as the E-Class it was derived from and in fact wasn't good looking at all to me.
Designers elsewhere took notice and before long styling leaders like Audi, BMW and Aston-Martin introduced 4-door Coupe concepts. One of those, the Aston-Martin Rapide (essentially a stretched DB9) was quickly slated for production and it was rumored that BMW's similar CS Concept was a preview of the next
7 series.
Now they're coming thick and fast as Volkswagen plans to introduce it's Passat CC
later this year>
BMW's X6 (now on sale) blurs the lines even further with a combination of SUV, sedan and coupe attributes in the same vehicle. My initial reaction was "who needs it?", Subaru's high-riding AWD sedans haven't exactly burned up the market.
Looking at it I found the styling inexplicably attractive and I couldn't understand why until I finally figured it out. IMO the term BMW is using ("Sports Activity Coupe" )
is a bit of marketing BS but in reality it is a five-door hatch back similar to the three Saabs I've owned but no longer available from the Swedes.
Things are getting strange when BMW starts building cars that look like Saabs and are called coupes. :confuse:
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
Well, there was the 1980-85 Seville. :P And while they didn't have sloped off rears back in the 50's, some of the 4-door hardtops back in those days shared the same roof as their 2-door counterparts.
The CLS actually makes me think of the '80-85 Seville, or a '79-81 Newport/St. Regis, in that it has frameless windows but a B-pillar, and that fixed quarter window in the back door that looks a bit funny if you open the back door with the window rolled down. Some of GM's hardtop sedans from 1958 were like that, too. Chrysler's 1956 hardtop sedans had that little quarter window, but it actually retracted down at an angle when you rolled the main window down.
But nothing does as much as the low, sleek coupe-like roofline; remember how, just a couple of years ago, four doors meant a squared roofline?
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://images.automotive.com/reviews/imag- - es/00grandprix.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.automallusa.net/2000/pontiac/grand-prix/- - reviews.html&h=263&w=400&sz=39&hl=en&start=7&um=1&tbnid=RSGbu3FDFje47M:&tbnh=82&- - tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dgrand%2Bprix%2Breview%2Bpontiac%2B1997%2Bphoto%26um%- - 3D1%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1T4GGIC_enUS255US255">
link
The oddball P5 is an easy one to forget as AFAIK it never came across the Atlantic but it did indeed have a chopped roof giving it a coupelike profile>
The Ford and Mercury fastback sedans of 1964 come to mind as well
I assume you're referring to this variation on the the Ford and Merc H/T sedans >
That's pretty tame compared to the "Nascar"-style roofs the Sports Coupes got 1963 1/2>
.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
Interesting ad, I don't recall seeing another that actually admits a half year like that.
I expect the same was true for the rest of GM in those years.
IIRC those were called Sedanettes, they didn't employ (AFAIK) a lower roof or windshield.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
Chrysler's first mass-produced 4-door hardtops, introduced for 1956, were actually 4-door sedans with the doors modified. That made them huge inside, as most hardtops are a bit tighter inside than their sedan counterparts. But it did present a problem with the door window architecture. The 4-door sedans had a rear window with a big roll-down window and a small spacer window in the back. For the hardtop, they made the spacer window pivot down at an angle, in conjunction with the roll down window. It's a neat thing to see in action, especially with power windows, but it was prone to air and water leaks.
GM's was first to the 4-door hardtop market with the 1955 Buick and Oldsmobile B-bodies. They're definitely lower and more rakish than the 4-door sedan counterparts, but I'm not sure how much commonality they have with the 2-door hardtop. I'm guessing the windshield and A-pillars are the same, but the roof might be modified back at the C-pillar/rear window area.
Wheels, tires, hubcaps and fender openings are areas that I give designers a "free-pass" as long as they fill their functions in a way that corresponds with my priorities.
The result is that I have tended to ignore how they look. I cannot even remember what the hubcaps looked like on any of the vehicles I have driven except the current two. I am curious, so I might just hunt around for some pictures now, but yes, I have forgotten them all. Considering that I used to do my own brakes for years, I should have at least a few of them deeply embedded in my memory, but no, they are all gone.
One of the "functions" that is necessary though, is that the tires be somewhat visible. I was taught that it is a good idea to walk around your car occasionally and inspect things briefly. That includes looking at the condition of the tire tread and side-walls. When I was younger, I did not do this as much as I do now. These days, I do a walk-around inspection at least a couple of times per week.
If the tires are hidden by fender skirts, or by the fender itself, that makes the quick inspection more difficult. So a car design with fairly large openings gets "points" despite the fact that other people might not like the way they look.
I will go further and say that it annoys me to see that many wheels are designed for appearance much as they are. I would rather see engineering numbers than count up the number of spokes. Well designed wheels should provide gains in power, handling and even fuel economy.
Now explain, say, a Dodge Magnum. Loses points for a barely functional viewshed? And can we give points to, say, a ... dare I say it ... AMC Pacer? :shades:
Seeing the tire is important.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
You mention the Pacer, but how about a more current oddball, the Kia Rondo?
An additional comment. I like this thread. It's fun to read all the passionate discussions around here about function, utility, and performance, but I still contend that when it is time to sign that sales agreement, style drives the majority of buying decisions. It is awfully hard to write that check for something you just think is fugly.
It's a moot point since the styling of most modern cars wouldn't mesh with wheel skirts but there are some exceptions (Prius?).
I haven't time now to get into the role of wheels and tires and how they play a key role in the look of a car but I agree that sometimes they act to the detriment of it's functions.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
Well, my grocery getter is an Outback so the Rondo looks mostly like another tall wagon to me, along the lines of the new CR-V. But I haven't seen one in person. The notchy rear is a bit odd, but otherwise the pics look ok for what it is.
The new CRV is really bad too. When the rear window is made curvy to be cute, and you can't see out of it....ridiculous.
Form is function.
Love the BMW 2002.
I always theorized that they made the '61 DeSoto look ugly on purpose, so that people would buy Chrysler Newports instead, and fewer people would whine once the marque went away. I dunno what Honda's excuse is...maybe they made it look like that so more people would buy the Acura version? :P
I also don't like the way the side windows and the roofline clash. The roof itself is somewhat upright, station wagon-ish. But the roofline really belongs on more of a fastback sort of vehicle. The end result is the poster child for that old cliche about several different teams of stylists working on different parts of the car, each not having a clue as to what the other is doing.
One thing I'll say for it though, after staring at a CRV long enough, suddenly, the Pontiac Aztek doesn't look half bad!
Yet for some reason the R-Class is selling like air conditioners in the Yukon while the CR-V is a huge success, I see them every where. :confuse: :sick:
The styling dept at Honda /Acura ought to go back to Grillework School. With a few exceptions their current front grilles are ugly but the CR-V is the worst of all.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93