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.
Fortunately there's a key word in there that will save me from buying - "new." She'll start out in probably a $6K car. Less if I can find one that I trust is both safe and reliable.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
they are big, wide, and low and that alone is enought to draw attention. add to that bright colors, big wheels, big brakes, and noise. also, the rarity of the cars on the road (due to ridiculous price tags, expensive & frequent maintainance, and questionable reliability) make it more exciting to see.
i like them when i first spot them too... its when i really pay attention to their lines, that is when i lose interest. of course, i do like the power, the noise, and the handling... so i'm not completely lost on the idea. however, it is a bit garish... i don't feel comfortable driving such expensive cars because i hate the attention i get. "hmm, hot girl smiling at me... does she want me or my wallet?"
"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."
"Point of view" and context (physical surrounding, and mental changes over time) are interesting. This is one of the reasons I started this topic. I am wondering if many of us will change our minds about specific designs over time. Like the Honda CRV I criticized right at the start. I wonder if, say a couple of years from now I will find it "reasonably nice". I do not expect to really like it a lot, but eventually I might find something I like about it. Right now, I think I just ignore them. :-)
An interesting "point of view" effect is the Matrix/Vibe. I have been driving "compact" cars over the last few years, so my point of view has always been fairly low (think Honda Civic, Cavalier, pre-2000 Toyota Corolla, Hyundai Accent size cars). Due to the slope of the roof, from the back, the Matrix only looks a bit bigger than what I am used to. However, when you see one from a Minivan, you realize that it is actually quite tall.
Corvettes have always looked big to me in pictures. Only when you see one parked at a curb on which you are standing do you realize that they are quite small.
I remember when the 2nd series Cavalier came out. I remember people thinking it was smaller than before. It is actually quite a bit taller, something like 4" longer in wheelbase, and longer overall. The result was probably a big increase in rear passenger space and some trunk space, but at the cost of handling. But the point is that it is a bigger car that some people think is smaller. That is the effect of the overall styling.
The "over time" and "in context" reminds me of the comment about the old and new Mitsubishi Lancers. Actually, I do not find I like the new one more than some of the previous ones. But I would have to study them a bit to say which ones I liked. I do not find that I like the front ends of all the older ones. Some where better than others, and I do not know which. Some of the old Lancers had front ends that did not seem to be designed for the rest of the car.
As for the new Lancer, it has a sort of "new Charger" and "Avenger" feel to it. It is like the design came off Chrysler's desk and Mitsubishi said "well, we can do better" and they fixed it up. It turned out pretty good, but it does not quite suit my taste. And it does not look like it came off the same desk as the other Mitsubishi products. Certainly not from the same pen as the Eclipse.
I have a theory that at the time it was being designed, it might have been a deliberate attempt to fit into the Chrysler lineup, either on the belief that there might be a Mitsubishi/Chrysler/MB merger, or at the least, a hope that Chrysler might import them to supplement sales of the Caliber.
Thinking about "retro" I think it is a pity that Mitsubishi did not bring back a version of their "Plymouth Arrow" which as far as I know, was only sold in North America. I am not entirely sure of the timing, but I think it pre-dates the "Trueno" (which came to North America as a Corolla) and the Nissan Silvia that also looked similar.
I am wondering if many of us will change our minds about specific designs over time.
Oh I know I do that, all that time. Often, it takes me awhile to warm up to a new style when it first comes out. For instance, when the Intrepid and Concorde got redesigned for 1998, I didn't like them at all. I just thought they were too extreme, and the Intrepid's headlights were too big, whereas the Concorde had a goofy looking front-end that seemed an odd blend of Camaro, '55 Chevy, and vintage Ferrari. But, over time, I came to like them...enough that I bought a 2000 Intrepid.
I also wasn't that crazy about the 2002 Camry or 2003 Accord when they first came out, but I got used to them. But now, for some reason, I liked the 2002 Altima, and still do. I'm not that crazy about the new Camry or Accord, though, although again, I like the Altima.
When I first saw the 2008 Malibu doing the auto show rounds, I liked it. A lot. But, once I started seeing them out on the street, I wasn't so wowed. I mean, it's a big improvement over the old one, but there's just something about the rear-end that has an unfinished look to it, IMO. And I'm not that crazy about how the front-end gets divided into a non-symmetric upper and lower grille. I think the Saturn Aura is better looking. I actually prefer the Ford Fusion to either one, although I think the GM cars have better engines.
I agree about the Malibu, it's a huge improvement over it's mousey predecessor but not as striking in the real world as in photos. IMO it looks like the ubiquitous Camry which lessens the visual impact as well. I also like the styling of the Fusion better but I think Ford ought to rethink putting the Gillette razor blade front end on every car.
I think the tailpipe as a styling element has gotten out of control. This dawned upon me this morning as I was behind a new stock Maxima with four huge chrome pipes sticking out the back. As I type this, a late '90s Maxima just drove by. It seems to be doing fine with one tailpipe that can hardly be seen.
That's more NVH than styling. Dual-muffler exhausts are quieter than singles, and OEM dual-outlet mufflers usually have a valve that opens a path to the second tip for high-rpm operation.
The new Malibu did slightly disappoint me, also, if only becuase of the press reaction. Still good looking, though. Call me crazy, but of all the current mid size sedans there are two I always look at twice: the current (not future) Acura TL and the Hyundai Sonata. Both are very clean with good proportions.
4 tail pipes used to be a signature feature of Ferraris and a few other 12 cylinder cars but everybody else started copying them about 10 years ago. They look especially silly on smaller cars like the BMW M3.
My only real gripe about the styling of my E39 BMW 528i is the lack of any visible outlet for the exhaust, it's all tucked up under the rear bumper.
"My only real gripe about the styling of my E39 BMW 528i is the lack of any visible outlet for the exhaust, it's all tucked up under the rear bumper"
I read that BMW, and maybe other EU carmakers, were going that look to de-emphasize the fact that their cars spew out greenhouse and other 'bad' gasses. Honest!
Call me crazy, but of all the current mid size sedans there are two I always look at twice: the current (not future) Acura TL and the Hyundai Sonata. Both are very clean with good proportions.
Actually, I think the TL is good looking, too. It's a bit angular and creased, yet still has a modern look about it. I think the style has aged fairly well. I remember the first time I saw the current Sonata, I thought it looked kinda like an Accord, but better looking. Now though, when I see them, they just have sort of a generic, wallflowerish look to them. Not that that's a bad thing.
Actually, on the subject of crazy, I'll admit that I thought the 2001-2006 Sebring and Stratus were really good looking, as far as midsized sedans go. The styling was a bit of a knock-off of the Intrepid, and while the car was about a foot shorter than an Intrepid, it seemed like the windshield and rear window weren't so radically sloped, so proportionally I thought it made the hood and rear deck look longer, so I thought the car looked better proportioned in general. Unfortunately, the cars weren't all that competent overall, using so-so engines and interiors that hinted at cost-cutting.
They really messed these cars up though when they went to the current Avenger/Sebring. They may be better cars in many ways, but the styling is just a mess, IMO.
Actually, I thought the 1995-2000 Cirrus/Stratus/Breeze sedans were attractive looking cars for the time. And the interiors and engines seemed much more competitive at the time. Not so good as today's in absolute terms, but everybody's better these days. Those cars even had a hint of that BMW Bangle-butt, although at the time we all thought it was cribbed from the '94 Accord. Somehow, back then it didn't look so bad, but these days when they do that look it makes the car look like it has bolt-on rear fenders, like they did back in the 40's and early 50's. Or it makes them look fatter. For instance, that Azera posted above, while not too brutal on the eyes, just looks kinda old-fashioned and chunky in the rear to me.
I agree, Chrysler/Plymouth/Dodge in 1995-2005 had a number of good looking cars, I just can't get the other qualities out of my mind when I look at them. Kind of like a good looking woman you know to be a jerk. Hard to get past that...
I think the XG300/350 is where I really noticed that pronounced separation of decklid and fenders, giving it that old fashioned look. The 1994-97 Accord had a similar thing going on, but the fenders just seemed more integrated. I think it's because that crease is just a continuation of the beltline, whereas on the XG, it looks like the rear fenders actually bulge out a bit. Also, the decklid on the Accord ends at the top edges, as opposed to wrapping downward on the sides, like a clamshell. So that may be why the XG looks more old-fashioned to me, and the Accord doesn't.
Everyone loves concept cars. With their curvy, chiseled lines and out-of-this-world technology, these vehicles belong in the 21st century, admirers always say.
But the reality is the all-new Chevy Malibu is a 21st century vehicle. And so are the Ford F-150 and the Nissan Altima. Every car company that releases a 2009 model is building a vehicle nine years into the 21st century.
Designers readily admit they're behind the curve on making more futuristic vehicles production ready. It's a point they conceded Tuesday as they spoke at an Automotive Press Association forum about technology and design at the Detroit Athletic Club.
"No one could have expected that the market would have changed as quickly as it has," said Pat Schiavone, Ford Motor Co.'s director of design for North American trucks and SUVs.
But it did, and designers are adapting, looking for the next home run.
"The time is now," said Dave Marek, chief designer at Honda Motor Co.'s research and development center Americas. "The problem is everyone wants to ease into the future.
No one wants to be the Beta, they want to be the next Blu-Ray."
"At GM, everything is going to have to be green," said John Cafaro, a top General Motors Corp. designer.
Green traditionally meant giving a wedge-shaped vehicle a weak engine and a bad paint job. But the growing consumer demand and expanse of new materials means cars and trucks of the future will not only be green but made from sustainable materials.
Many designers are dusting off old concepts from previous generations to find ways to create exciting cars. Others mix engineers and designers at the wind tunnel to carve out an efficient vehicle that still looks good.
"Ask any aero expert and he'll tell you to make the front round and the back flat," said Robert Bawer, a designer with Nissan Motor Co. "All of this takes a tremendous amount of energy to sustain, but we all know that cleaner is better."
Technology doesn't merely change the way vehicles are tested, it can replace materials used to build it. Rip out oil-based foam and replace it with foam made from soybeans instead of oil, dump the steel roof and glass windows and replace it with lighter polycarbonate, trade out fenders with carbon fiber or aluminum to lighten a vehicle.
And those materials give designers a new canvas.
Designers can curve polycarbonate in ways glass could never be bent. Companies are exploring ways to mass produce carbon fiber cheaply.
So what kind of face will that give the car of 2010? Probably very little.
But in the coming years, cars and trucks will certainly get smaller, lighter and more efficient.
"Now, everyone says they want it," Marek said. "The next generation will expect it."
"on the subject of crazy, I'll admit that I thought the 2001-2006 Sebring and Stratus were really good looking...Unfortunately, the cars weren't all that competent overall, using so-so engines and interiors that hinted at cost-cutting."
If a hint is screamed, can it still be called a hint?! :-P
OTOH, the outside look of those cars WAS pleasant in a 90s sort of way.
I always thought the Azera looked futuristic in a bad way. You think it looked old-fashioned, which sparks my curiosity. Either way, it doesn't broadcast any sort of curb appeal IMO. It looks a little weird in the same way a lot of the Korean cars look a little weird. It's kind of hard to explain. The XG just looked awful.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
has anyone seen the pics of the '09 Pilot? They took a decent-looking crossover and made it cross-eyed! Who thought the new look would be an improvement? Or is it just me that thinks it looks bad?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
You think it looked old-fashioned, which sparks my curiosity.
I think the main reason that look seems old fashioned to me is that it reminds me of this style of car:
Rear fenders bulging out a bit, giving them a bolt-on look, although by this time they were integrated into the rear of the car. When this generation first came out for '49 though, I think the rear fenders were still separate, with a rubber bead at the seam, like how they did with the VW Bug.
And the current trend with the decklid being higher than the tops of the rear fenders makes me think of this style, too. Funny how in '54, many cars still had the fender tops lower than the decklid, but by '56, just about everybody had tailfins!
When the 2002 Altima came out, with its bit of a reverse-slant C-pillar, it actually made me think of this type of car specifically, the '53-54 Mopar. I really didn't think of that feature as being old-fashioned, though. Perhaps because Chrysler did that reverse-slant C-pillar to try and add a bit of pizzazz to the cars. In 1949, their C-pillar was a really thick, formal looking thing, like this:
"They took a decent-looking crossover and made it cross-eyed! "
Not just you...I was holding off buying, but the Pilot wasn't worth waiting for. Not that the Highlander is great, but at least it's not offensive to me. It has those weird fender flares that Toyota's putting on all their SUV/CUVs:
I hadn't seen it before, but just googled the '09 Pilot. YUCK!! Now the current Pilot is nothing to get hot and bothered over. It's conservative and kinda boxy, but looks like it serves its purpose, and it isn't going to make you want to gouge your eyes out.
The new one just seems a mess though. It looks looks chunky and disproportionate, and none of its design features seem to flow.
One thing I'll say for the old days...if someone came up with an ugly style and the public spurned it, at least they could usually make it look halfway presentable in a year or so. But nowadays, when something ugly gets foisted on the market, often we have to look at it for half a decade before anything gets done about it!
And they don't rust away like they used to, so even once they do finally get replaced by a new design, we'll still have to look at them for years to come.
I think that Highlander's pretty attractive, and an improvement over the previous model. One design feature I like about it is how the upper and lower line of the windows is one continuous sweep all the way to that back, giving it a cleaner look. That flush-mounted rear window also helps hide the bulk of the C-pillar. In contrast, on the '09 Pilot, they expose the C-pillar, making it body color, and separate the rear side window. That clutters up the look IMO.
And, I know I have a bad habit of finding something old in something new, but here goes...the way that rear fender flares up and back faintly reminds me of the old Studebaker Larks, where a line came off the top of the rear wheel opening and went straight across to the back. Like this:
Actually, that's one styling feature that I thought was really cool, when Chrysler did it with the front wheels on the '57-58 DeSotos and Chryslers, like this:
I think here, it helped make the cars look lower and sleeker. I guess keeping the whole grille/bumper below the level of the top of the wheel opening really helped with that whole sleekness thing.
While I won't ACTUALLY gouge my eyes out the first time I see one on the street, I just can't IMAGINE the thinking of the person(s) that thought the '09 was an improvement for the Pilot.
I see now what you meant about the "old-fashioned" look of the Hyundai. I am less familiar than you with the golden oldies like the one in the picture you stuck in.
The new Highlander replaces "frumpy Japanese" with "sort of sleek but overwrought". It's like designers just don't know what to make of the breed that is crossovers, so they do a lot of random stuff to try and make them interesting (which they're still not).
So what to make of the rolling freezer-in-chrome that is the '09 Ford Flex? Here's another one vying with the Pilot for weirdest-looking-model-pretending-to-be-an-SUV. And what's with the trend in general towards using all this chrome again? It just looks tacky IMO.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
has anyone seen the pics of the '09 Pilot? They took a decent-looking crossover and made it cross-eyed! Who thought the new look would be an improvement? Or is it just me that thinks it looks bad?
Actually I prefer the new Pilot for the same reason that I prefer the Element to it's older brother, the CR-V. The Gen 1 Pilot looked like a Minivan with doors. Someone at Honda decided (correctly I think) that it'd look better if it resembled a truck. At least the '09 has some 'tude, the original is very bland.
They kinda did the same thing when they built a little Brinks truck on the bland CR-V and called it the Element.
"When I first saw the 2008 Malibu doing the auto show rounds, I liked it. A lot. But, once I started seeing them out on the street, I wasn't so wowed. I mean, it's a big improvement over the old one . . ."
About the 2007 and earlier Malibu, I look at them sometimes and I cannot explain why it is wrong. I just know that it does not look particularly good to me. If I describe it, it would sound like it should be good. At least I could probably make it sound good. Maybe I could start writing fiction yet? :-)
Seriously, the only thing I can point at is that the headlights could have been bigger. If done right, I think that much could have made it ok for me.
Another thing I did not like about it were the "side creases" bending around the wheel openings. I did not feel it was terrible, but sometimes it strikes me as sort of corny.
Regarding "creases", particularly on the side. That was the one thing that I particularly did not like about the new Lancer. The crease through the door handles does not look right to me. I can think of a couple of better side creases. I think I would prefer one that had more curve. I would make it rise a bit more at the front, a bit more like some current Mercedes models, though possible not quite that much. I would have to try a few drafts, but I think I could find a line I would like better. If you change that crease though, it might also be necessary to change the back, particularly the tail lights.
Again, I do not feel that crease is terrible, but a different one would have been better.
To me its really simple: they tried to make a car that looked like a big square truck. That's not a good look on cars, which is why no-one else has done this. And it's got to be part of the reason the previous Malibu still sold like crap, despite the significant updates to the mechanicals.
The rest of the reason is that they were still playing catch-up with the last Malibu. The new one is finally class-leading in some ways, which is why sales are up so much (it helps that everyone is diving out of trucks because of the junk gas mileage).
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
In 2006 the horizontal bar through the grill was gone, but that was not enough. In fact, when I see them with and without the horizontal bar, I am not sure which looks better. It is better balanced front to back with the bar, because that was how the back was designed.
I actually kinda like the style of the 1997-03 Malibu. It has an inoffensive, conservative look about it, basically what a rental car should be. It's not going to wow anybody, but not really disgust anybody either. It just seems like there's not a line out of place on it, and it's perfect for what it is.
With the 2004 though, there was just something about its style that made it seem too tall and slab-sided. Somehow, the thing seemed smaller than it really was. Seeing them out on the road, they looked about Civic or Corolla-sized to me, although at something like 186 inches long and riding a wheelbase of around 106-107 inches, they're not exactly tiny. It just lacked presence, I guess, and something like an Accord, Camry, or Altima just seemed like a more substantial car. I think I actually like the 2006 restyle better, the one where they tried to make the front look more like an Impala. I just didn't like the way that horizontal bar cut the grille. And the little creases that come up off the tops of the wheel openings and fade out toward the back just seem applied as an afterthought.
Overall though, the 2004-07 Malibu was a much better car than the previous model. The fit and finish seemed a lot better, and the interiors seemed higher quality. And the reworked V-6, while still pushrod, was a big improvement. But the problem is, Toyota, Nissan, and Honda don't stand still. The 1997 Malibu was a pretty good car...for 1997. But then in 1998 a new Accord and Altima came out, and in 2002 we saw a new Camry and yet another new Altima, and by 2003 we had another new Accord. Compared to all that, the 2004's improvements just weren't enough.
Hopefully they're getting it together with the 2008 Malibu.
This is the interior of the newly facelifted Porsche 911/997, IMO it doesn't look anything like a proper Porsche dash>
Porsche of all people should know that light colored dash will reflect onto the windshield and that geeky wheel could have come right out of a Nissan Maxima. :mad:
The classic 911 dash was one of the best ever, I hate it when they forget what made them great.
The other day I saw a hearse and at first I did not quite recognize it. Then I realized that it was a Chevy Uplander conversion. It actually looked quite nice. The front end is squarish enough that it fits into a "conservative" application. The rear quarter windows were covered over with something.
This "M1 Homage" concept car is popping up in the car mags. Automobile speculates that it may be ordered into production as a competitor for the Audi R8>
Just what we need, another BMW sportscar with off-the-wall styling :mad:
--------------------------------- Memo to BMW Design Group:
1)Leave the avante-garde stuff to Audi, they do it with out going ugly.
2) You're all fired! Firs the E60, then the Z4, now this.... enough!
Comments
i like them when i first spot them too... its when i really pay attention to their lines, that is when i lose interest. of course, i do like the power, the noise, and the handling... so i'm not completely lost on the idea. however, it is a bit garish... i don't feel comfortable driving such expensive cars because i hate the attention i get. "hmm, hot girl smiling at me... does she want me or my wallet?"
"Point of view" and context (physical surrounding, and mental changes over time) are interesting. This is one of the reasons I started this topic. I am wondering if many of us will change our minds about specific designs over time. Like the Honda CRV I criticized right at the start. I wonder if, say a couple of years from now I will find it "reasonably nice". I do not expect to really like it a lot, but eventually I might find something I like about it. Right now, I think I just ignore them. :-)
An interesting "point of view" effect is the Matrix/Vibe. I have been driving "compact" cars over the last few years, so my point of view has always been fairly low (think Honda Civic, Cavalier, pre-2000 Toyota Corolla, Hyundai Accent size cars). Due to the slope of the roof, from the back, the Matrix only looks a bit bigger than what I am used to. However, when you see one from a Minivan, you realize that it is actually quite tall.
Corvettes have always looked big to me in pictures. Only when you see one parked at a curb on which you are standing do you realize that they are quite small.
I remember when the 2nd series Cavalier came out. I remember people thinking it was smaller than before. It is actually quite a bit taller, something like 4" longer in wheelbase, and longer overall. The result was probably a big increase in rear passenger space and some trunk space, but at the cost of handling. But the point is that it is a bigger car that some people think is smaller. That is the effect of the overall styling.
The "over time" and "in context" reminds me of the comment about the old and new Mitsubishi Lancers. Actually, I do not find I like the new one more than some of the previous ones. But I would have to study them a bit to say which ones I liked. I do not find that I like the front ends of all the older ones. Some where better than others, and I do not know which. Some of the old Lancers had front ends that did not seem to be designed for the rest of the car.
As for the new Lancer, it has a sort of "new Charger" and "Avenger" feel to it. It is like the design came off Chrysler's desk and Mitsubishi said "well, we can do better" and they fixed it up. It turned out pretty good, but it does not quite suit my taste. And it does not look like it came off the same desk as the other Mitsubishi products. Certainly not from the same pen as the Eclipse.
I have a theory that at the time it was being designed, it might have been a deliberate attempt to fit into the Chrysler lineup, either on the belief that there might be a Mitsubishi/Chrysler/MB merger, or at the least, a hope that Chrysler might import them to supplement sales of the Caliber.
Thinking about "retro" I think it is a pity that Mitsubishi did not bring back a version of their "Plymouth Arrow" which as far as I know, was only sold in North America. I am not entirely sure of the timing, but I think it pre-dates the "Trueno" (which came to North America as a Corolla) and the Nissan Silvia that also looked similar.
Oh I know I do that, all that time. Often, it takes me awhile to warm up to a new style when it first comes out. For instance, when the Intrepid and Concorde got redesigned for 1998, I didn't like them at all. I just thought they were too extreme, and the Intrepid's headlights were too big, whereas the Concorde had a goofy looking front-end that seemed an odd blend of Camaro, '55 Chevy, and vintage Ferrari. But, over time, I came to like them...enough that I bought a 2000 Intrepid.
I also wasn't that crazy about the 2002 Camry or 2003 Accord when they first came out, but I got used to them. But now, for some reason, I liked the 2002 Altima, and still do. I'm not that crazy about the new Camry or Accord, though, although again, I like the Altima.
When I first saw the 2008 Malibu doing the auto show rounds, I liked it. A lot. But, once I started seeing them out on the street, I wasn't so wowed. I mean, it's a big improvement over the old one, but there's just something about the rear-end that has an unfinished look to it, IMO. And I'm not that crazy about how the front-end gets divided into a non-symmetric upper and lower grille. I think the Saturn Aura is better looking. I actually prefer the Ford Fusion to either one, although I think the GM cars have better engines.
I think Ford ought to rethink putting the Gillette razor blade front end on every car.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
My only real gripe about the styling of my E39 BMW 528i is the lack of any visible outlet for the exhaust, it's all tucked up under the rear bumper.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
I read that BMW, and maybe other EU carmakers, were going that look to de-emphasize the fact that their cars spew out greenhouse and other 'bad' gasses. Honest!
The Azera OTOH does interesting things with the rear fenders and trunk, looking a little like a 7-Series, only better>
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
Damning with faint praise :P The current 7 was a major disappointment to me.
Actually, I think the TL is good looking, too. It's a bit angular and creased, yet still has a modern look about it. I think the style has aged fairly well. I remember the first time I saw the current Sonata, I thought it looked kinda like an Accord, but better looking. Now though, when I see them, they just have sort of a generic, wallflowerish look to them. Not that that's a bad thing.
Actually, on the subject of crazy, I'll admit that I thought the 2001-2006 Sebring and Stratus were really good looking, as far as midsized sedans go. The styling was a bit of a knock-off of the Intrepid, and while the car was about a foot shorter than an Intrepid, it seemed like the windshield and rear window weren't so radically sloped, so proportionally I thought it made the hood and rear deck look longer, so I thought the car looked better proportioned in general. Unfortunately, the cars weren't all that competent overall, using so-so engines and interiors that hinted at cost-cutting.
They really messed these cars up though when they went to the current Avenger/Sebring. They may be better cars in many ways, but the styling is just a mess, IMO.
Actually, I thought the 1995-2000 Cirrus/Stratus/Breeze sedans were attractive looking cars for the time. And the interiors and engines seemed much more competitive at the time. Not so good as today's in absolute terms, but everybody's better these days. Those cars even had a hint of that BMW Bangle-butt, although at the time we all thought it was cribbed from the '94 Accord. Somehow, back then it didn't look so bad, but these days when they do that look it makes the car look like it has bolt-on rear fenders, like they did back in the 40's and early 50's. Or it makes them look fatter. For instance, that Azera posted above, while not too brutal on the eyes, just looks kinda old-fashioned and chunky in the rear to me.
Hehe. BMW borrowed that shouldered-trunklid thing from the 1998 Hyundai Grandeur, aka XG300/350.
But the reality is the all-new Chevy Malibu is a 21st century vehicle. And so are the Ford F-150 and the Nissan Altima. Every car company that releases a 2009 model is building a vehicle nine years into the 21st century.
Designers readily admit they're behind the curve on making more futuristic vehicles production ready. It's a point they conceded Tuesday as they spoke at an Automotive Press Association forum about technology and design at the Detroit Athletic Club.
"No one could have expected that the market would have changed as quickly as it has," said Pat Schiavone, Ford Motor Co.'s director of design for North American trucks and SUVs.
But it did, and designers are adapting, looking for the next home run.
"The time is now," said Dave Marek, chief designer at Honda Motor Co.'s research and development center Americas. "The problem is everyone wants to ease into the future.
No one wants to be the Beta, they want to be the next Blu-Ray."
"At GM, everything is going to have to be green," said John Cafaro, a top General Motors Corp. designer.
Green traditionally meant giving a wedge-shaped vehicle a weak engine and a bad paint job. But the growing consumer demand and expanse of new materials means cars and trucks of the future will not only be green but made from sustainable materials.
Many designers are dusting off old concepts from previous generations to find ways to create exciting cars. Others mix engineers and designers at the wind tunnel to carve out an efficient vehicle that still looks good.
"Ask any aero expert and he'll tell you to make the front round and the back flat," said Robert Bawer, a designer with Nissan Motor Co. "All of this takes a tremendous amount of energy to sustain, but we all know that cleaner is better."
Technology doesn't merely change the way vehicles are tested, it can replace materials used to build it. Rip out oil-based foam and replace it with foam made from soybeans instead of oil, dump the steel roof and glass windows and replace it with lighter polycarbonate, trade out fenders with carbon fiber or aluminum to lighten a vehicle.
And those materials give designers a new canvas.
Designers can curve polycarbonate in ways glass could never be bent. Companies are exploring ways to mass produce carbon fiber cheaply.
So what kind of face will that give the car of 2010? Probably very little.
But in the coming years, cars and trucks will certainly get smaller, lighter and more efficient.
"Now, everyone says they want it," Marek said. "The next generation will expect it."
If a hint is screamed, can it still be called a hint?! :-P
OTOH, the outside look of those cars WAS pleasant in a 90s sort of way.
I always thought the Azera looked futuristic in a bad way. You think it looked old-fashioned, which sparks my curiosity. Either way, it doesn't broadcast any sort of curb appeal IMO. It looks a little weird in the same way a lot of the Korean cars look a little weird. It's kind of hard to explain. The XG just looked awful.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I think the main reason that look seems old fashioned to me is that it reminds me of this style of car:
Rear fenders bulging out a bit, giving them a bolt-on look, although by this time they were integrated into the rear of the car. When this generation first came out for '49 though, I think the rear fenders were still separate, with a rubber bead at the seam, like how they did with the VW Bug.
And the current trend with the decklid being higher than the tops of the rear fenders makes me think of this style, too. Funny how in '54, many cars still had the fender tops lower than the decklid, but by '56, just about everybody had tailfins!
When the 2002 Altima came out, with its bit of a reverse-slant C-pillar, it actually made me think of this type of car specifically, the '53-54 Mopar. I really didn't think of that feature as being old-fashioned, though. Perhaps because Chrysler did that reverse-slant C-pillar to try and add a bit of pizzazz to the cars. In 1949, their C-pillar was a really thick, formal looking thing, like this:
Not just you...I was holding off buying, but the Pilot wasn't worth waiting for. Not that the Highlander is great, but at least it's not offensive to me. It has those weird fender flares that Toyota's putting on all their SUV/CUVs:
The new one just seems a mess though. It looks looks chunky and disproportionate, and none of its design features seem to flow.
One thing I'll say for the old days...if someone came up with an ugly style and the public spurned it, at least they could usually make it look halfway presentable in a year or so. But nowadays, when something ugly gets foisted on the market, often we have to look at it for half a decade before anything gets done about it!
And they don't rust away like they used to, so even once they do finally get replaced by a new design, we'll still have to look at them for years to come.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
And, I know I have a bad habit of finding something old in something new, but here goes...the way that rear fender flares up and back faintly reminds me of the old Studebaker Larks, where a line came off the top of the rear wheel opening and went straight across to the back. Like this:
Actually, that's one styling feature that I thought was really cool, when Chrysler did it with the front wheels on the '57-58 DeSotos and Chryslers, like this:
I think here, it helped make the cars look lower and sleeker. I guess keeping the whole grille/bumper below the level of the top of the wheel opening really helped with that whole sleekness thing.
While I won't ACTUALLY gouge my eyes out the first time I see one on the street, I just can't IMAGINE the thinking of the person(s) that thought the '09 was an improvement for the Pilot.
I see now what you meant about the "old-fashioned" look of the Hyundai. I am less familiar than you with the golden oldies like the one in the picture you stuck in.
The new Highlander replaces "frumpy Japanese" with "sort of sleek but overwrought". It's like designers just don't know what to make of the breed that is crossovers, so they do a lot of random stuff to try and make them interesting (which they're still not).
So what to make of the rolling freezer-in-chrome that is the '09 Ford Flex? Here's another one vying with the Pilot for weirdest-looking-model-pretending-to-be-an-SUV. And what's with the trend in general towards using all this chrome again? It just looks tacky IMO.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
What was the name of that "material" that was between the fenders and the next body part? Wasn't it made of something like a heavy duty cloth?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
link title
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Actually I prefer the new Pilot for the same reason that I prefer the Element to it's older brother, the CR-V. The Gen 1 Pilot looked like a Minivan with doors. Someone at Honda decided (correctly I think) that it'd look better if it resembled a truck. At least the '09 has some 'tude, the original is very bland.
They kinda did the same thing when they built a little Brinks truck on the bland CR-V and called it the Element.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
About the 2007 and earlier Malibu, I look at them sometimes and I cannot explain why it is wrong. I just know that it does not look particularly good to me. If I describe it, it would sound like it should be good. At least I could probably make it sound good. Maybe I could start writing fiction yet? :-)
Seriously, the only thing I can point at is that the headlights could have been bigger. If done right, I think that much could have made it ok for me.
Another thing I did not like about it were the "side creases" bending around the wheel openings. I did not feel it was terrible, but sometimes it strikes me as sort of corny.
Regarding "creases", particularly on the side. That was the one thing that I particularly did not like about the new Lancer. The crease through the door handles does not look right to me. I can think of a couple of better side creases. I think I would prefer one that had more curve. I would make it rise a bit more at the front, a bit more like some current Mercedes models, though possible not quite that much. I would have to try a few drafts, but I think I could find a line I would like better. If you change that crease though, it might also be necessary to change the back, particularly the tail lights.
Again, I do not feel that crease is terrible, but a different one would have been better.
The rest of the reason is that they were still playing catch-up with the last Malibu. The new one is finally class-leading in some ways, which is why sales are up so much (it helps that everyone is diving out of trucks because of the junk gas mileage).
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
With the 2004 though, there was just something about its style that made it seem too tall and slab-sided. Somehow, the thing seemed smaller than it really was. Seeing them out on the road, they looked about Civic or Corolla-sized to me, although at something like 186 inches long and riding a wheelbase of around 106-107 inches, they're not exactly tiny. It just lacked presence, I guess, and something like an Accord, Camry, or Altima just seemed like a more substantial car. I think I actually like the 2006 restyle better, the one where they tried to make the front look more like an Impala. I just didn't like the way that horizontal bar cut the grille. And the little creases that come up off the tops of the wheel openings and fade out toward the back just seem applied as an afterthought.
Overall though, the 2004-07 Malibu was a much better car than the previous model. The fit and finish seemed a lot better, and the interiors seemed higher quality. And the reworked V-6, while still pushrod, was a big improvement. But the problem is, Toyota, Nissan, and Honda don't stand still. The 1997 Malibu was a pretty good car...for 1997. But then in 1998 a new Accord and Altima came out, and in 2002 we saw a new Camry and yet another new Altima, and by 2003 we had another new Accord. Compared to all that, the 2004's improvements just weren't enough.
Hopefully they're getting it together with the 2008 Malibu.
More Pix
Opinions? :shades:
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
No, but they have have plans to reintroduce-Alfa Romeo.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
Porsche of all people should know that light colored dash will reflect onto the windshield and that geeky wheel could have come right out of a Nissan Maxima. :mad:
The classic 911 dash was one of the best ever, I hate it when they forget what made them great.
1973 911Carrera RS 2.7
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
Don't particularly care for that steering wheel, though.
speculates that it may be ordered into production as a competitor for the Audi R8>
Just what we need, another BMW sportscar with off-the-wall styling :mad:
---------------------------------
Memo to BMW Design Group:
1)Leave the avante-garde stuff to Audi, they do it with out going ugly.
2) You're all fired! Firs the E60, then the Z4, now this.... enough!
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93