Did you recently rush to buy a new vehicle before tariff-related price hikes? A reporter is looking to speak with shoppers who felt pressure to act quickly due to expected cost increases; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com for more details by 4/24.
There are reasons why there is so much said about old North American cars:
I think that most of the people who have been posting to this topic, here on "Edmunds" (which is a North American, English language board), are mainly North American born and raised males with fading memories of our 40th birthdays.
For the above reasons, I have more to say about those cars whereas if I was from Europe, I think I might find a lot more interesting things to say about some European and Asian cars.
As far as modern cars being retro is concerned, in part, that is a deliberate effort of the car manufacturers because they want to associate new products with familiar products that have specific values that the customers want. Like when the Chevy Cobalt came out with a Honda/Toyota-like grill.
Also, when you decided that for practical reasons your car is going to ride on 4 wheel, hold 4 or 5 human-size passengers, will comply with bumper, crash worthiness, and other safety and environmental regulations, will be park-able in standard shopping plaza spaces, get good mileage, be cheap to manufacture, etc, there is a lot less wiggle room for styling than you might think.
Yes, but the question is, would those Europeans and Asians also be reminiscing about cars from 50 years ago as the last examples in memory of great styling, or would they be cheering about recent or current designs instead?
That is the question as I see it. I mean, a fair number of the European and Asian models are on our streets here as well. Of course, significant by their absence are all the French cars and most of the Italians, perhaps two of the best sources of eclectic and occasionally great styling in the modern automotive era.
Given what I have seen in pictures from the auto shows, I won't be looking for any of the homegrown Korean or Chinese cars to win any styling awards for many years to come.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
One thing I notice, when looking at old European cars, is that it seems like they put most of their styling efforts into the fringes of the market. Stuff like 2-seat sportscars or high-priced, relatively low-volume luxury cars. When you look at most mainstream stuff from the mid 50's, it either has an offbeat French pastry look to it, looks like a cheap knockoff of an American style, or looks about ten years behind the times. Plus, with mainstream cars, I think the Europeans tended to put more emphasis on utility and function, so you ended up with stubby, upright little things that were easy to park and maneuver, but the function would come first, with any attempts at styling being purely secondary.
Ditto the Japanese. If you look at a mid-50's Datsun or Toyopet, they're awkward, goofy looking little things. Now that off-beatedness gives them a certain charm, but for the most part, I doubt the general public finds them endearing or beautiful.
In contrast, with the American manufacturers in the mid 50's, they made even a lowly Plymouth, Chevrolet, or Ford into something flashy and powerful, that their owners could be proud of. The domestics also tended to style their cars first, and then make the final product fit that vision. So it was form over function. The result was that you'd often end up with a car that was much bigger than it needed to be, with very little in the way of added useable space. But it was all about style...or what passed for it back then.
So I wonder if that's one reason why so many of us look back fondly on old Domestic iron? Simply because the domestics would put some effort into styling even their mainstream, mass-market cars, whereas with the Europeans, you usually had to look toward the niche markets for that?
Time to bring back tail fins? Two tone with a chrome divider running down the side? The new cars are so much better mechanically than the 1950s and 60s, but those were some real beauties. The styling of American cars then showed the rest of the world that we won the big war and were the top of the heap.
What I would really like to see is more choice of interior colors. Now you get a choice of drab or drabber. Litte red, blue, green, etc upholstery.
Everything is made to limit choices so they can stamp them out as economically as possible.
Everything is made to limit choices so they can stamp them out as economically as possible
yes and no. Red and Blue interiors do not sell in any kind of volume. Even at Buick with their old customers red and blue interiors held on with hardly any volume until around 8 years ago when they were dropped.
Yes there were some customers but dealers were afraid to buy them because they sat so long unless you were in Florida near a retirement home.
Read something that may apply here - companies have found that they lost sales when they get rid of unpopular options (here, it was fabric choices for furniture, IIRC), even though next to nobody picked those choices. Something about people liking to have the option, even if they didn't pick it.
I'm guessing not, the emergence of tail fins was a peculiarity of a time fascinated by the emergence of jet aircraft. Now a jet is just a flying sardine can, every bit as much a device of mass transport as the automobile itself. Personally I'd rather see a return of the wraparound windshield which at least had a practical value.
I saw a (new) two-toned Subaru Impreza five-door this AM. The top of the car was light blue while the lower third was beige. It looked better than it sounds but I'm not sure two tones are suitable for the shapes of most modern cars.
As for chrome I kinda like slender chrome surrounds on the side windows or windshield. IMO it looks good even on most modern cars but I never cared for the excessive chrome of the late 50s. My favorite cars of that era were the least chromed like the 2-seat T-Birds, Chrysler 300 letter cars, Corvettes, Healeys, Jags and the like.
Wraparound windshields would be nice though I'd hate to catch a stone with one of those!
How about vent windows? I liked those!
Tail fins were cute for their time. I can't imagine how you'd do a retro on those and make it look at something resembling right in a modern car. If nothing else they'd screw up all the aerodynamics.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
It was probably more advertising fluff than anything, but supposedly the tailfins on the '57 Chrysler products added stability at higher speeds. I think you had to be going 70-80 mph to really feel any effect though. And how would you disprove this claim? Only way I could think of would be to take a '57 Mopar and shave the tailfins off, and see how it compares...and no, I'm NOT volunteering my '57 DeSoto!
One thing that tailfins did, though, was to give the cars more visual bulk at the rear of the car. And if you look at most modern cars today, they rise up towards the rear, having more visual bulk back there. Although in the case of modern cars, that helps with trunk space, as the decklid and everything is higher, not just the fenders.
I don't think you could really do tailfins on a modern car, for the simple fact that their rears are already pretty high, as it is.
I'd like to see a return to more color choices in car interiors. I've always liked blue. I've had two cars with a blue interior. First was a 1980 Malibu coupe. Light blue metallic with a dark blue vinyl interior. Now I have a 1979 New Yorker, which is "Nightwatch", a non-metallic midnight blue that looks beautiful when it's clean, but shows dirt every bit as quickly as black does. It has a dark blue cloth interior, with walnut plood inserts, which I think is pretty attractive.
Nowadays though, cars have a lot more hard plastic in them, whereas back in the day, there was much more vinyl, cloth, or even exposed metal. So they could pull off a wider variety of colors with some dignity. That seems much harder to do with hard plastic.
I think the last time I saw a car with a green interior, it was a 1990's T-bird. It wasn't too attractive, and as I recall, it had a nasty, greasy look to it on all the hard plastic parts. They also didn't do a very good job at matching the hue on the plastic versus the cloth, so it ended up with the look of a 70's GM interior that had been left out in the sun too long, where all the different materials would fade to a different color.
I recall reading about some guys taking measurements on a bat-winged '59 Chevy to see if it had aerodynamic lift in the rear due to those big bat fins. The were surprised to discover that there was negative lift (i.e. downforce) at the rear,
Gee, my last green interior was my 80 Accord. I had blue interiors on my 85 Accord and 87 Sentra as well as my first 69 Volvo. I've had a ton of gray interiors, a couple of tan ones, two red ones and now one black one.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
The were surprised to discover that there was negative lift (i.e. downforce) at the rear,
That's interesting. I'd always heard that if you got a '59 Chevy up to about 100 mph, in the right wind conditions, you could get the rear to lift up! Guess that was just an old wives tale?
The only green interior I've ever had was in my '82 Cutlass Supreme coupe. It had a "jadestone" exterior, which was sort of a light silvery greenish-blue. It had a matching landau top, and the rally wheels were color-keyed as well. I thought it was a sharp looking car. The interior was done up to match, and was, IMO, a really soothing color. The dashboard was actually a really dark greenish-blue though, which gave a nice contrast. They offered several different shades of green for the interior back then, so I guess they made the dash in only one shade, to simplify a bit.
There's a 1980 LeBaron coupe on eBay right now, that's a similar color scheme. They called this color "Teal Frost metallic". I know it's not to everybody's liking, and may gross some people out, but I think it's gorgeous. :shades:
Now that you mention it, I do remember those cars in that color. For some reason, that burnt-orange/copper is what always sticks in my mind, as a buddy in high school/college had a 1980 hatchback in that color.
Didn't Honda issue the sedans in different colors from the hatchbacks in those days?
Yeah, that green worked much better on the outside!
Yeah, Honda would offer a couple of colors in the sedan and a couple of different ones in the coupe. There was a light metallic blue that was really popular in the coupe at that time.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
My grandma used to claim the ornament on her mid 80s Olds 98 helped her go straight down the road. I never understood that...was she driving down the middle on the line?
Actually, between the tailfins and the peaked front fenders that let you see the extremities of the car, my '57 DeSoto is remarkably easy to get into tight spots for such a big car. Only problem with the fins though, is that they're so high that I can see the left fin in the rearview mirror, and at a quick glance it makes me think a red car is cruising in my blind spot. I'm just not used to seeing a part of my car occupy that part of the rearview mirror, I guess.
With hood ornaments, or even a chrome strip down the hood, I'd always heard that if you lined up the hood ornament with the stripe on the right side of your lane, that meant you had the car centered in your lane. However, it seems to me that would depend more on the height of the driver and how far back they sit from the hood ornament.
When Audi first released it's R8 sports car, like everyone else, I was taken aback by the odd contrasting sail panel in the C-pillar. Audi calls it a "Blade". I recall reading that the R8 could be ordered without the contrasting panel. I had never seen it that way so I went looking for one and came up with this. Bladeless R8
I've come to think that the car looks better with the Blade which gives it a look that separates it from all the other exotic mid-engined sports cars (which do tend to look alike).
IMO it looks like someone took it out before the body shop was finished repairing some accident damage. Although honestly, I don't care too much for the looks of the car either way. Exotics can be hard to do though...they either come off looking just right, or they end up coming off looking like a kit car based on a Fiero or VW Bug or something.
modern cars are generally ugly. lamborghini gallardo is ugly. ferrari f430 is ugly. audi r8 is ugly. it may look neat because its wide and low and expensive, but its far from pretty. i'm still holding onto my old Nissan because I find it far better looking than most cars today. Its a 1990 300ZX Twin Turbo. i get more looks in this near 20 year old car than even brand new Mercedes Benz's. People in $200,000 rides even take notice. It is the newest car to be on Automobiles list of 25 most beautiful cars ever.
anyways, i saw an old Ferrari on the road like Inside Line's long term 308 and thought, "damn, thats a pretty car!" i see modern Ferrari's all the time and it doesn't evoke that feeling. maybe i just have a thing for old cars. maybe because that was a time where styling was unrestricted by pedestrian impact regulations or crash safety standards and such. whatever the case, i'm generally disappointed in todays cars.
I don't think the Ferrari f430 is ugly, but agree that it's not exactly a styling high point for that brand. I don't like that Lambo Gallardo at all, though. It looks like an unholy blend of current Mistubishi Eclipse, 2000 era Toyota Celica, and a bit of Chrysler Cab-Forward thrown in. The stubby hood, set-back front axle, and generous front-overhang make the thing look like it could be FWD.
The R8 just sort of falls somewhere in the middle to me. I don't think it's horrible looking, but not drop-dead gorgeous, either. It just doesn't register in my mind as an exotic car, but more along the lines of something that would compete with a Nissan Z, Toyota Supra (if they still made those), or maybe a Corvette. But nowhere near Ferrari/Lambo, or even Acura NSX territory.
It depends on how you look at them, most modern cars are not "pretty" in the way that old Jags and Ferraris were but that's mostly because they have a different design ethic.
In the 60's stylists were heavily influenced by the Italian look with it's emphasis on flowing harmonic lines and elegance. Now it's more about aggression and airflow.
That said there are still a few current designs that have the kind of sleek stylishness we liked so much back then. Aston-Martins, Audis (R8 included IMO) and Porsches come to mind.
Have you seen a Gallardo in person? Pretty might not be the word, but I do find them exciting to look at. Has Lambo made anything truly attractive in the last 30 years or so anyway?
Nah, I've only seen them in pics, so that might not be the fairest way to judge a car. Often they do look better in real life. Or if not prettier, at least, more interesting. I remember years ago, seeing pics of a 1961 Imperial in a Chrysler history book. I thought it was one of the most hideous things I had ever seen. But then I saw one at a car show, and thought it was way cool. Still pretty ugly, but in a cool sort of way. If that makes sense. :P
You make a couple of good points Lemmer. There are lots of cars that look better, or worse, in photographs than they do in the metal.
It's difficult to make a mid-engined car pretty but if it's well styled they can look exciting, the Gallardo and they F430 certainly do the latter. Except for the Porsche twins I can't think of any current mid-engines that are pretty.
May look better in person, but it just doesn't do anything for me. IMO it has sort of a petite look to it. Towards the rear, the way it kicks up, it makes me think of a Toyota Solara convertible, but that could just be the angle. I just don't care for the way that bodyside crease kicks up, and gives the illusion of a separate rear fender, like how they used to build cars in the 40's and early 50's. The raked back headlights make me think of a Pontiac Solstice. And that cutesy little grille makes me think of the way they draw smiles on people in Anime cartoons. Heck, they could dust off the old Neon "HI!" campaign to advertise this one.
I guess I'm just middle-of-the-road with this one. I don't think it's horrible looking, but it just doesn't inspire any lust in me, either.
I have mixed feelings. The good news is that it certainly looks like a Ferrari but I don't care for the side sculpturing, the high trunk or the tailights which appear to be tacked on rather than designed in>
I think one exception for 1958 would be Chrysler. I'd say the '58 Chrysler and DeSoto cars looked every bit as good as their outstanding 1957 counterparts. Well, maybe a few fussy trim details here and there, like an oddly shrunken taillight on the Chrysler, and pinched exhaust tips on the DeSoto. Those exhaust tips actually served a purpose, though. Coming off the assembly line, if one of the cars refused to start, they could just push it with the one behind it, and the crimped style exhaust tips wouldn't bend like the 1957 styles did.
I think the 1958 Plymouths, Dodges, and DeSoto Firesweeps (more Dodge than a "real" DeSoto) actually looked better than their 1957 counterparts!
I think I'd call the 1958 Oldsmobile the "most fallen" car that year, for lack of a better term. Basically, comparing it to its 1957 counterpart, it saw the biggest drop in style. I think the '58 Buick is pretty bad, too. But I think the '58 Olds looks worse, while I think a '57 Olds looks better than a '57 Buick, so the Olds "fell" further...if that makes sense!
I'm not a fan of big stretched eyes on a car (cat woman/bad facelift syndrome indeed - more of designers being lemmings) and I am not comfortable with the over-emphasized haunches of the rear part of the car either - it looks forced. The car has an amusing face but it is not a pure or clean design.
I jus received the June issue of Road & Track which has a story about the newspider, they do not use the California name referring to it as the Ferrari F149.
Interestingly the article includes CG artist's conceptions of the styling which resemble the official photos just released but are better looking. The side sculpturing is cleaner as is the rear and the front end is more aggressive. Unfortunately they are not online so I can't link to them for you.
"Like you I didn't like the 2000 redesign but now find them pretty attractive. I'd be slightly tempted to buy one when my second daughter gets her license in a year. The only reason it's slightly is because that's a fair bit of power for a kid."
If you like Nissan, then I expect your daughter might like a new Altima 2dr Coupe which looks very much like the G35. (I imagine her standing by your computer right now nodding and telling you "that's good advice. Listen to this guy.")
On the other hand, I also like the Versa. (And now I imagine her saying "NOOOO! Traitor!") :-)
Comments
I think that most of the people who have been posting to this topic, here on "Edmunds" (which is a North American, English language board), are mainly North American born and raised males with fading memories of our 40th birthdays.
For the above reasons, I have more to say about those cars whereas if I was from Europe, I think I might find a lot more interesting things to say about some European and Asian cars.
As far as modern cars being retro is concerned, in part, that is a deliberate effort of the car manufacturers because they want to associate new products with familiar products that have specific values that the customers want. Like when the Chevy Cobalt came out with a Honda/Toyota-like grill.
Also, when you decided that for practical reasons your car is going to ride on 4 wheel, hold 4 or 5 human-size passengers, will comply with bumper, crash worthiness, and other safety and environmental regulations, will be park-able in standard shopping plaza spaces, get good mileage, be cheap to manufacture, etc, there is a lot less wiggle room for styling than you might think.
That is the question as I see it. I mean, a fair number of the European and Asian models are on our streets here as well. Of course, significant by their absence are all the French cars and most of the Italians, perhaps two of the best sources of eclectic and occasionally great styling in the modern automotive era.
Given what I have seen in pictures from the auto shows, I won't be looking for any of the homegrown Korean or Chinese cars to win any styling awards for many years to come.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Ditto the Japanese. If you look at a mid-50's Datsun or Toyopet, they're awkward, goofy looking little things. Now that off-beatedness gives them a certain charm, but for the most part, I doubt the general public finds them endearing or beautiful.
In contrast, with the American manufacturers in the mid 50's, they made even a lowly Plymouth, Chevrolet, or Ford into something flashy and powerful, that their owners could be proud of. The domestics also tended to style their cars first, and then make the final product fit that vision. So it was form over function. The result was that you'd often end up with a car that was much bigger than it needed to be, with very little in the way of added useable space. But it was all about style...or what passed for it back then.
So I wonder if that's one reason why so many of us look back fondly on old Domestic iron? Simply because the domestics would put some effort into styling even their mainstream, mass-market cars, whereas with the Europeans, you usually had to look toward the niche markets for that?
What I would really like to see is more choice of interior colors. Now you get a choice of drab or drabber. Litte red, blue, green, etc upholstery.
Everything is made to limit choices so they can stamp them out as economically as possible.
yes and no. Red and Blue interiors do not sell in any kind of volume. Even at Buick with their old customers red and blue interiors held on with hardly any volume until around 8 years ago when they were dropped.
Yes there were some customers but dealers were afraid to buy them because they sat so long unless you were in Florida near a retirement home.
I'm guessing not, the emergence of tail fins was a peculiarity of a time fascinated by the emergence of jet aircraft. Now a jet is just a flying sardine can, every bit as much a device of mass transport as the automobile itself. Personally I'd rather see a return of the wraparound windshield which at least had a practical value.
I saw a (new) two-toned Subaru Impreza five-door this AM. The top of the car was light blue while the lower third was beige. It looked better than it sounds but I'm not sure two tones are suitable for the shapes of most modern cars.
As for chrome I kinda like slender chrome surrounds on the side windows or windshield. IMO it looks good even on most modern cars but I never cared for the excessive chrome of the late 50s. My favorite cars of that era were the least chromed like the 2-seat T-Birds, Chrysler 300 letter cars, Corvettes, Healeys, Jags and the like.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
How about vent windows? I liked those!
Tail fins were cute for their time. I can't imagine how you'd do a retro on those and make it look at something resembling right in a modern car. If nothing else they'd screw up all the aerodynamics.
One thing that tailfins did, though, was to give the cars more visual bulk at the rear of the car. And if you look at most modern cars today, they rise up towards the rear, having more visual bulk back there. Although in the case of modern cars, that helps with trunk space, as the decklid and everything is higher, not just the fenders.
I don't think you could really do tailfins on a modern car, for the simple fact that their rears are already pretty high, as it is.
I'd like to see a return to more color choices in car interiors. I've always liked blue. I've had two cars with a blue interior. First was a 1980 Malibu coupe. Light blue metallic with a dark blue vinyl interior. Now I have a 1979 New Yorker, which is "Nightwatch", a non-metallic midnight blue that looks beautiful when it's clean, but shows dirt every bit as quickly as black does. It has a dark blue cloth interior, with walnut plood inserts, which I think is pretty attractive.
Nowadays though, cars have a lot more hard plastic in them, whereas back in the day, there was much more vinyl, cloth, or even exposed metal. So they could pull off a wider variety of colors with some dignity. That seems much harder to do with hard plastic.
I think the last time I saw a car with a green interior, it was a 1990's T-bird. It wasn't too attractive, and as I recall, it had a nasty, greasy look to it on all the hard plastic parts. They also didn't do a very good job at matching the hue on the plastic versus the cloth, so it ended up with the look of a 70's GM interior that had been left out in the sun too long, where all the different materials would fade to a different color.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
That's interesting. I'd always heard that if you got a '59 Chevy up to about 100 mph, in the right wind conditions, you could get the rear to lift up! Guess that was just an old wives tale?
There's a 1980 LeBaron coupe on eBay right now, that's a similar color scheme. They called this color "Teal Frost metallic". I know it's not to everybody's liking, and may gross some people out, but I think it's gorgeous. :shades:
You can still get the Ivory Aspen interior with green carpets, pipping, upper dash and lower door sills but you can't get the green leather seats.
The double navy interior, navy seats, upper dash, lower door sills and carpet, is still available through next year at least.
Didn't Honda issue the sedans in different colors from the hatchbacks in those days?
Olive Green has become a very hot color showing up on all sorts of cars. I think it looks especially good on the new Wrangler 4-door.
They offer a dark olive green on Boxsters and Caymans (Caymen?) but it's so dark it looks like black.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
Yeah, Honda would offer a couple of colors in the sedan and a couple of different ones in the coupe. There was a light metallic blue that was really popular in the coupe at that time.
Didn't Honda issue the sedans in different colors from the hatchbacks in those days?
Yep, I had a tan '79 Hatch but there were no tan sedans, my bro' had a metallic red 4-dr which you couldn't get with a hatch etc, etc.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
I think in 1981 they had tan sedans. My brother had one for a while.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
"We used to use hood ornaments to help us follow the curve in the road but now cars don't have those anymore so you just kind of have to guess."
Doesn't speak well for the driver education system in this country.
Wha... they didn't offer curb feelers as an option?
Actually, between the tailfins and the peaked front fenders that let you see the extremities of the car, my '57 DeSoto is remarkably easy to get into tight spots for such a big car. Only problem with the fins though, is that they're so high that I can see the left fin in the rearview mirror, and at a quick glance it makes me think a red car is cruising in my blind spot. I'm just not used to seeing a part of my car occupy that part of the rearview mirror, I guess.
With hood ornaments, or even a chrome strip down the hood, I'd always heard that if you lined up the hood ornament with the stripe on the right side of your lane, that meant you had the car centered in your lane. However, it seems to me that would depend more on the height of the driver and how far back they sit from the hood ornament.
I've come to think that the car looks better with the Blade which gives it a look that separates it from all the other exotic mid-engined sports cars (which do tend to look alike).
R8 w Blade>
What say you?
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
anyways, i saw an old Ferrari on the road like Inside Line's long term 308 and thought, "damn, thats a pretty car!" i see modern Ferrari's all the time and it doesn't evoke that feeling. maybe i just have a thing for old cars. maybe because that was a time where styling was unrestricted by pedestrian impact regulations or crash safety standards and such. whatever the case, i'm generally disappointed in todays cars.
The R8 just sort of falls somewhere in the middle to me. I don't think it's horrible looking, but not drop-dead gorgeous, either. It just doesn't register in my mind as an exotic car, but more along the lines of something that would compete with a Nissan Z, Toyota Supra (if they still made those), or maybe a Corvette. But nowhere near Ferrari/Lambo, or even Acura NSX territory.
It depends on how you look at them, most modern cars are not "pretty" in the way that old Jags and Ferraris were but that's mostly because they have a different design ethic.
In the 60's stylists were heavily influenced by the Italian look with it's emphasis on flowing harmonic lines and elegance. Now it's more about aggression and airflow.
That said there are still a few current designs that have the kind of sleek stylishness we liked so much back then. Aston-Martins, Audis (R8 included IMO) and Porsches come to mind.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
It's difficult to make a mid-engined car pretty but if it's well styled they can look exciting, the Gallardo and they F430 certainly do the latter. Except for the Porsche twins I can't think of any current mid-engines that are pretty.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
I guess I'm just middle-of-the-road with this one. I don't think it's horrible looking, but it just doesn't inspire any lust in me, either.
I have mixed feelings. The good news is that it certainly looks like a Ferrari but I don't care for the side sculpturing, the high trunk or the tailights which appear to be tacked on rather than designed in>
I'll reserve judgment 'til I see it in the metal.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
I think the 1958 Plymouths, Dodges, and DeSoto Firesweeps (more Dodge than a "real" DeSoto) actually looked better than their 1957 counterparts!
I think I'd call the 1958 Oldsmobile the "most fallen" car that year, for lack of a better term. Basically, comparing it to its 1957 counterpart, it saw the biggest drop in style. I think the '58 Buick is pretty bad, too. But I think the '58 Olds looks worse, while I think a '57 Olds looks better than a '57 Buick, so the Olds "fell" further...if that makes sense!
Interestingly the article includes CG artist's conceptions of the styling which resemble the official photos just released but are better looking. The side sculpturing is cleaner as is the rear and the front end is more aggressive. Unfortunately they are not online
so I can't link to them for you.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
There's no improvement to the stock grille IMO. Why didn't they fix the dopey headlight clusters. :mad:
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
"Like you I didn't like the 2000 redesign but now find them pretty attractive. I'd be slightly tempted to buy one when my second daughter gets her license in a year. The only reason it's slightly is because that's a fair bit of power for a kid."
If you like Nissan, then I expect your daughter might like a new Altima 2dr Coupe which looks very much like the G35. (I imagine her standing by your computer right now nodding and telling you "that's good advice. Listen to this guy.")
On the other hand, I also like the Versa. (And now I imagine her saying "NOOOO! Traitor!")
:-)