I never was a huge chrome fan mself, and have managed to avoid it in large quantities on the vehicles I've owned. I have friends arounf my age (51) who LOVE chrome, and one has added a bunch of it to the trucks he's had over the last 25 years I've known him.
In general, until the last few years, I have hated Ford's styling, but a few of their new models look ok, but I doubt I will ever buy a Ford, their interiors are still bizarre to me, not as much as they used to be 15 years ago, but still weird. My dad had a never ending series of bad Fords that kind of turned me off of them anyway.
I like the higher beltlines, oversized windows always looked wrong to me. There used to be a website where some guy took and photoshopped then current models to make the windows smaller (Not extend past the point of the hood and trunk levels) and some cars were only slighty improved, but some looked GREAT. One of the things that sold me on my current car, an 08 Charger, was the high beltline, and the sanely sized windows.
HIDEOUS:
Ford Focus Dodge Durango (They really messed it up) Dodge Caliber Newer Mercedes and BMWs Buick Enclave Prius Chevy Colorado and whatever the GMC clone is.
EHHHH..
Chrysler Aspen, fiixes some of the Durango's issues, but too much chrome! Dodge Avenger, Mini Charger ok, just not quite right. Ford Taurus, Boring Honda Ridgeline, just something wrong Porsche Boxster, I just don't get it. A friend of mine foams at the mouth when he sees one! Dodge Nitro New Chevy Camaro. Current GM full sized pickups The vast majority of current cars and SUVs.
LIKE: Charger, needs a different grill, but ok. I have no complaints about the interior. 300, same comments as the Charger. Corvette Ford Edge GMC Acadia Saturn Outlook Dodge Ram F150, but Ford STILL can't do fender flares on the F150 right!
Ford Focus (what's with those stupid little chrome scoops?) Rolls-Royce Phantom (looks like it was designed by Kenworth) Toyota Camry (looks like it has a pig nose) Toyota Prius Toyota Yaris Honda Element (though not as hideous as previous years) Honda Ridgeline
EHHHH:
Dodge Avenger (Nice exterior ruined by Eastern-bloc interior) Lincoln MKZ (A sadly lost opportunity. Liked the Zephyr name better) Honda Accord (Trying too hard to be a Toyota Avalon) Lexus LS460 (Liked it better when they copied last-generation S-Class) Lincoln Town Car (outdated but still prefer this kind of car) Mercury Grand Marquis (see above) Remainder of U.S. and foreign vehicles not mentioned in above and below sections
LIKE:
Buick LaCrosse Buick Lucerne Cadillac CTS Cadillac SRX Cadillac STS Chevrolet Camaro Chevrolet Corvette Chevrolet Silverado Chrysler 300 Dodge Charger Dodge Challenger Ford F-150 and Super Duty Ford Fusion Ford Mustang Mercedes-Benz S-Class Pontiac G8 GT Pontiac Solstice Saturn Sky
I giot a good look at the newly restyled Matrix. I was surprised how much I liked i, the Radiant Red paint helped. It's a lot less bland than the previous Matrix or the vanilla Corolla they are derived from.
Slowly but surely a certain attitude and flair is creeping into the Toyota styling lexicon,The new Matrix reminds me of some of the better hatchbacks coming from Renault, Fiat etc.
The utter blandness of their styling has always been a major turn-off to me. I am one who would rather drive something borderline ugly (Saab 9000) than something that has no sense of style or individuality whatever.
I see attitude...not so much flair...windows are way too short, pillars are too thick, and the "sporty" trim is amusing. It's kind of a European style dumbed down by Toyota...who is a master at doing that to a design.
The only thing I like about it is that the headlights aren't oversized, which seemed to be the trend for awhile, but thankfully cars are backing away from, now. Oh, and I like the fact that they didn't try to put the logo in the top of the grille in an unsightly bulge, like they did with the Camry.
Otherwise though, I think the thing's a mess. I mean c'mon, the domestics didn't torture their sheetmetal like that in 1959, even! At least it looks like it's a "real" red though, rather than that shallow rental car orangish stuff that they used to try to pass off as red.
the headlights aren't oversized, which seemed to be the trend for awhile
I also like the simple, modest grille, lots of cars are developing Big Mouth Syndrome.
.....the domestics didn't torture their sheetmetal like that in 1959, even!
Hmm, the is a little bit of an odd indent at the door bottoms and the upper door crease has an odd shape but I don't see anything that'd call up the nightmare bodywork of the late '60s.
Fin, I'd like it better with thinner pillars and bigger windows but the pillbox look has become nearly universal since the Chrysler 300 came along. The apparent thickness of the roof bothers me too.
Photos of the 2010 Chevrolet Camaro have been released link
That got me to thinking about Pony Car styling, both Neo and Retro. It's a mistake to judge a car's looks by photos since in real life they often look different but I think GM has made a fundamental mistake in styling their new Pony Car after a '69 which never was the best looking Camaro, IMO it was the'70-'72 Camaro, esxpecially in Z-28 form which very nicely copied the styling themes and some details of perhaps the most beautiful Ferrari, the '63 250GT Lusso Berlinetta.
My favorite Camaro, stylewise, was the '67-68 and RS versions of the '69 (covered headlights). The "mullet era" never really excited me, although I actually preferred them in later years when they started sloping off the front and giving it the wraparound rear window.
I actually preferred them in later years when they started sloping off the front and giving it the wraparound rear window.
IMO, those were the true Mullet years, ugh! The '67-'68 cars had the virtue of being relatively light and compact but to me they tended to be a little plain, especially on the inside. Contemporary Mustangs had more of a finished look about them but around '69 they got too big and tried to cover too many bases. Mustang Grande, my (*&&^*!
Mustang Grandé. Is this all that bad? I don't think they were much larger than the 67 Mustang... Worst color for my taste but others liked it. Notice the half roof, Landau roof.
I don't think the '69-70 were a whole lot larger than the '65-68, but they were getting more of a plump, chunky look about them. My old car book lists the base weight of a '67 hardtop coupe at 2568 lb. Base weight for a '70 hardtop is 2822. The porker '71 started at 2982.
As for that '70 pictured above, I don't really care for the exterior color, but it could be worse, I guess. I think it would look better if the vinyl part of the roof was black, rather than matching the Grey Poupon/Peanut Butter or whatever that color is supposed to be.
I thought the Mustang Grande was rather pointless. Ford didn't need another Thunderbird and if you were bound to get a luxed up Pony car they had the Cougar XR-7 :confuse: :sick:
It seems as if light blues are coming into vogue on new cars. I'm not talking the typical light metallic blue but pastel shades more akin to Baby Blue, Powder Blue or Sky Blue.
These were very popular during the fifties and sixties even on sports cars and then they disappeared after '65 or so. Now metalflake versions are showing up on new Camrys and various other new cars. I was surprised to see a BMW Z3 wearing a non-metallic Powder Blue the other day.
Bright Yellows are getting very popular especially for Corvettes, Porsches and other two seater sports rigs. I saw an RX-8 wearing a very spiffy Lemon Yellow recently.
the return of yellows and oranges. Some of my favorite colors (depends on the car of course) have been considered "obsolete since the 70s" for so long, it is nice to see them making a comeback.
I am sick to DEATH of the 42 shades of gray/silver that some automakers seem to consider sufficient to round out their color offerings for their cars.
I am so tired of that I almost (ALMOST!) welcome what seems to be the return of white as well.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The 42 shades of silver/gray are still very much with us. In fact some interesting variants are popping up. today I saw a new Saab Convertible in (non-metallic) Battleship gray--it looked better than it sounds.
Ford and Lincoln crossovers are sporting the return of cream white which IMO looks a lot classier than the Frigidaire white that makes even sports cars look like washing machines.
have always been blues and the more tasteful shades of green. Like that light, silvery green that used to be common in the late 60's/early 70's, and seems to be making a return. I see it on a lot of Nissan Altimas and Sentras, and occasionally on a Camry. I actually like most shades of green, as long as it's not some of the more grating hues like pondscum or baby-bile. :P
In the late 70's and early 80's, when two-toning made a brief comeback, some cars offered a two-tone light green/dark green that was pretty striking. I don't know if too many cars today could pull that off, though. It seemed to work on the more angular cars of that era, where they could just break the color at a crease line or something.
I wonder if we'll ever get back to the point though, where a manufacturer offers this many color choices?
I'd sure like to see more choices in color. I understand the fewer colors meaning lower costs but it means boring cars as well.
One thing I really miss was when they'd try to coordinate the interior color with the exterior. Or at least do the interior in a nice contrast. For instance, I had a 1980 Malibu that was light blue, with a dark blue interior, and knew a few people with similar vintage 'Bu's that were dark blue, with a light blue interior.
I guess some colors would be pretty hard to match up, though. For instance, I had a 1982 Cutlass Supreme coupe that was "light Jadestone", which is a light, silvery greenish blue color. They also had a "Dark Jadestone", which is kind of like the "Magnesium" dark green that Chrysler was using on Chargers and 300's for a couple years. Well the interior was done up in a similar light jadestone color, with a dark green dash and rear package shelf. I think the steering wheel was dark green, too. In that case, there's not much you could really match that interior to. Just the dark jadestone and the light. And the occasional 2-tone, which must have been pretty rare. But it would've looked horribly clashy with regular green. And forget any red or burgundy or blue. I guess it would've gone with white okay. And maybe black woudn't have looked too horrible.
Nowadays though, you're lucky if they give you three shades of interior color. Usually they just give you beige, gray, or "putty", which is sort of a blend of the two. My Intrepid, which is charcoal, was actually a refreshing break from those more generic grays!
Does anybody even do a blue interior anymore? My buddy's '95 Grand Marquis had a blue interior. And I've seen 90's Fords with green interiors, but it wasn't too flattering. The fabrics were okay but anything that was vinyl or plastic just had a nasty, greasy look to it.
Would maybe a dark tan or beige looked ok with the jadestone?
My mom's Taurus has a blue interior...now that I think of it, all of the other ones I have seen have a grey interior. Of course, it is almost 10 years old now.
I'd like to see blue cars become more of an option...blues for me is what green is for you. My W126 looked great in a lightish blue, and the sky blue of my fintail always gets positive attention.
It's a Taurus, they became behind the times pretty quickly. My grandma also has one, an 03 - it still has a mechanical odometer. That amuses me. Hers is a greyish-silver with a grey interior...zzzz
The 85 Tempo that was in our family was also blue on blue, I remember the factory color name - "medium regatta blue metallic".
I am getting tired of silver...I know it's a good MB color but it is so common now. The initial thing that made me look at my E55 was that it was a rare color - not silver or black.
I'm not sure. I'm trying to picture a tan or beige with Jadestone, and I just don't think it would work. I guess if it was just the right hue, it might not clash too badly, but that just seems to be the type of color where the only interior that would work well is one that's a close approximation of the exterior color. FWIW, here's a 1981 Olds brochure pic that shows a Delta in the light Jadestone and one in the dark.
The beige/tan might have worked better in the dark jadestone but not in the light. I don't think that dark jadestone was very popular. I've seen the light on all sorts of cars though. It seems it was really popular for 1982, but then it was gone. I didn't even realize it was offered in 1981.
Now I think if you have more of an emerald green, forest green, British Racing green, or whatever, beige or tan would work well. I think my uncle's '97 Silverado is called Teal, but to me it seems a light emerald green, and not what they called Teal back in the 60's. Or what you might find in the Crayola box. It has a light gray interior, which you'd think wouldn't work with that exterior, but GM found a way to make it generic enough that it fit.
Oh, one other color I can think of that would have worked with the Jadestone, but this is something that was kind of out of style by the early 80's, and really had to be done in vinyl or leather. White. But, just like how they did it back in the 70's and before, you'd still most likely do the dash, carpeting, steering wheel, and all the hard plastic in Jadestone. Only the seats and door inserts would be white. I don't think white carpeting would stay white for very long. And white cloth probably wouldn't, either!
**Edit: Here's the last page of the 1981 Olds brochure, which shows all the color choices. They actually had 24 choices! Although not all colors were available on all cars. It looks like there was an extra-dark Jadestone, offered only on the Toronado. And a dark green metallic, which I think was basically just a forest green type color. Sometimes it's hard to tell from those scanned-in pictures. A few years later they offered a lighter green that was a bit more avocado/olive, but still not too horrible.
I saw a new Jag XF on the road the other day. It's been roundly criticized for it's bland cross-between-a-Lexus-and-a-BMW styling but seeing it on the road I thought it looked decent.....then I saw the front.
Aside from the awful headlights this one featured the traditional Leaping Cat hood emblem which looks distinctly out of place on this car, lacking in "Jaguaricity", as it is.>
This must be the 2000s equivalent of the landau roof and Continental spare, perhaps the 1970's really are back. :lemon: :sick:
That thing looks like a bad cross between a Corolla and a Hyundai, with a bit of 2000 Monte Carlo thrown in the headlights. Actually, with that one big oval stuck in the cluster, it makes me think of that fad in the 70's where they'd hang those big round, neoclassic looking headlights on the cars...sort like this.
And the hood just has too many creases on it. That bulge-on-top-of-a-bulge is just a bit much. If they did away with the big round oval, and the resulting creases in the hood, it would make for a much better looking car, if a bit bland.
I saw an XF in the Sam's Club parking lot a couple of weeks ago. I saw it from the rear, and for a moment I truly thought it was a BMW.
Everything is starting to look the same. It's hard to distinguish - from a styling perspective only - the difference between a Malibu and an Audi. Or a VW from a Volvo.
Holy CRAP Andre! Next time you post a link like that, attach a warning, PLEASE! I almost cracked my skull jumping back from the screen in shock! Good God, it's disturbing that even ONE PERSON at ANY TIME IN HISTORY thought that car looked good.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I have been thinking about the old Pony cars and I think I liked all of them to some extent -- even the Pinto based Mustangs (and I expect I am the only person here who ever liked those). Then again, I would never want to drive one of those Pinto based Mustangs due to safety reasons.
I really do not see that much resemblence between that particular Camaro and that particular Ferrari though. Off hand, I think if we searched around, there might be a closer match.
I saw the new Challenger recently on the road. It does not look as good as in the pictures. The scale is a problem. When you see it in traffic, it just looks too bulky. Ironically, the original Challenger was also bulky compared to the other Pony cars off its era. But at least back then, it was still "small" compared to the average cars on the road (which were Malibus and Torinos and Chargers). The new Challenger looks like a Zepplin sitting beside Honda Civic.
It's hard to say which is worse, the front or the back. The back looks a bit like the Maxima to me. This thing is ugly all the way around.
With the mess they have made of the line-up, I am amazed Acura sells anything any more. The only one I sort of like the looks of is the RDX, but it's a type of vehicle I would never want to own.
But I have a vote of my own for worst restyle: the new Pilot. And what the heck is up with the new Accord? Honda needs to fire everyone in their styling department - Honda AND Acura - and start from a clean sheet of paper. And soon.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I agree, most of the new Hondas and Acuras are disappointments. The Accord's not so much, just because I wasn't a fan of the previous generation. It's doubly disappointing to combine great car technology with poor styling.
Has anybody ever bought a Honda for styling? Sure, some of their cars have been handsome and they are currently in somewhat of an ugly stage, but ultimately nobody seems to care much. I don't particularly care for the styling of the new Pilot, but if I were to replace my wife's vehicle tomorrow that is likely what I would buy. I don't like the Accord's looks either, but it is still my first mid-sized sedan recomendation.
Come to think of it, are any vehicles in the Pilot or Accord's class really well styled? Does anybody care?
Not usually. I'd consider an Accord or Pilot, they're not bad enought to worry about. I did write off the CR-V (which are selling like crazy) because of the bad re-style. When it gets to TL money, though, I do want a car that I can look at without pain!
Come to think of it, are any vehicles in the Pilot or Accord's class really well styled? Does anybody care?
I don't think there's really anything in the Accord's class that's going to make me drool over it, but honestly, there's not much out there, period, that's going to do it for me these days, based only on style. As for Accord type vehicles, I find the Altima, Aura, Malibu, and Fusion attractive. Again, none of them inspire any lust in me, and I doubt if, 30 years from now I'll get nostalgic for any of them, but I find them decent enough.
I think the only thing that really bothers me about the current Accord is that it just doesn't "look" like a Honda to me, but more of a conglomeration of other cars. It's kinda like they took a Saturn L-series, BMW, and Nissan Altima and somehow blended them together. But, maybe it'll grow on me with time. I really didn't care for the '03-07 style so much at first, either, until I got used to them. And heck, I didn't like the 1998 Intrepid when it came out, but I must have changed my attitude at some point, since I bought a 2000!
Well, in 1980 you could buy an Accord for styling. For its time it looked pretty good - especially the sedan. However, with the exception of the third generation - the one with the flip up headlights - each generation has been a disappointment.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
...is that Accords seem to be pretty conservative but every so often they break the mold and go nuts (Gens III and VII), Right now in Gen VIII they're very conservative. I think the current 2-dr coupe is pretty cool looking except for the dull-as-dishwater grille.
I didn't buy my '79 Accord Hatch for looks, I did buy a set of Momo Alloy wheels to sex it up a bit but I was tempted to buy a Rabbit. Unfortunately by '79 they'd Americanized the Rabbit (square headlamps) and dropped the sunroof option.
In retrospect I should've bought a Scirocco, a really cool looking car (Italian styling!) and German-made.
I ended up buying an Americanized Rabbit in '83 but it was a GTI, need I say more?
The GTI eventually gave way to one of the more radical designs ever fielded by Honda>
Yeah, the wagon worked pretty well seeing as it is just a new rear stuck on a sedan. That generation Accord was just well-proportioned I guess...nothing cool or groundbreaking, but it was sound design. The little kink in the greenhouse works well, too.
Lessee, Accords... 1975-81: Hated them at the time, but remember I was a little kid raised on Detroit mastodons. I hated ANYTHING that was little. Plus, most of the domestics went to rectangular headlights for 1976, so IMO that made anything with round headlights look old, fast. Looking back now as an adult though, I appreciate the style more.
1982-83: I like these better, with the more squared-off lines and the rectangular headlights.
1984-85: I like these, too. Were they REALLY any different from the '82-83 though? I've heard there were some pretty major changes, but it all looked about the same to me.
1986-89: LOVE the flip-up headlights, and the notchback coupe that was starting to make the scene. Sedan was nice, too. I think the hatchback was starting to look a bit clumsy, though. Maybe it was getting too big?
1990-93: I always liked these. I know they're called bland, but I can see just a hint of BMW in their styling influence. Bland they may be, but I think they're just about perfectly styled...not a line out of place.
1994-97: I'm sort of so-so with these. I like the '96-97 years better, with the additional taillights in the decklid and the more expensive looking grille. But to me they looked a bit squat and chunky, compared to the '90-93, which had a longer, sleeker look to them. Probably the more upright windshield and rear window contributed to a longer hood and rear deck, which made them look longer. I also seem to remember the buff rags at the time dissing the '94 style, saying that it really wasn't an improvement over the 1990-93 style. In the past, when a new Accord came out it was usually considered a big improvement and a new benchmark, but I think with this one, they said it was just change for the sake of change. But not necessarily improvement.
1998-02. I like the style of these, and believe it or not, find the coupe to be sexy! I've heard this style, once again, called bland, but I still think they got it just right, with not a line out of place.
2003-2007: I didn't like it when it first came out, but it grew on me. Not my favorite of the Accords style-wise, but probably the first one that I'd consider buying. Regardless of what the EPA might say, to me, this is the first Accord that could truly be called midsized.
2008+: I like it. Don't love it, but don't hate it either. It's to the point though where if I bought it, it would be because of how well the car fits my needs, and not how good it looks. I think the days of the auto makers being able to lure me in solely on looks are long since past.
IIRC the flip-up lights were only offered on NA-spec models, the rest got normal flush mounted lights.
I remember when the 98 coupes were new, I thought the rear end seemed very modern, smooth and flat. Better than the strange bulges and bustles so much the rage today, perhaps.
Ouch. How many different people worked on that design?
The front fender bulge is just a disaster, and the way the crease that goes through the door reaches end is kind of odd, too. I bet the rear view is no better. The pillars look really thick, too.
And I don't even need to mention the shield grille.
Yeah, it's mainly the rear of the '98-02 coupe that catches my eye. Very futuristic, almost sci-fi looking. Like you could hop in the cockpit and launch from the Galactica and go fight Cylons with Starbuck and Apollo! :shades:
One thing I'll say for the Accord, even if it doesn't excite most people style-wise, I think it's usually been one of the better looking cars in its class. The only Camry that's ever interested me is, oddly enough, the 1987-91 style. I remember one reviewer saying that the thing looked like an 80's interpretation of a Rambler, but for some reason that style appeals to me. None of the others really do anything for me though. Now I do kinda like the 1995-96 Camry, where they gave it a more expensive looking grille and nicer taillights. But the others just sort of blend into obscurity.
The Altima never did anything for me until the 2002 style came out, but I've liked them ever since.
Now I have to confess, when the Corsica first came out, I thought it was attractive looking. But it hasn't aged very well. I think the 4-door versions of the 1986-91 Grand Am, Skylark, and Calais are nice looking. Interiors weren't always up to snuff, but just looking at the exteriors, I thought they were pleasant enough.
I've always pretty much preferred Accord to Camry on a few grounds..styling is certainly one of them.
The 92-96 Camry is bland, but it is a clean harmonious design too, for that rounded period. It makes the 90-93 Accord look very characterful, but still not a bad design, and I understand they were overengineered durable cars. The 97-01 Camry is perhaps the blandest design of modern times and I am sure many get hit simply because other motorists don't see them.
The Corsica always seemed a little disjointed to me...nice and modern (for the time) aero up front, but then after the B-pillar...bang, it's all angular again. Speaking of period GM, I thought the 92+ Bonneville and its siblings were pretty modern looking for the time, too. Not saying I think they look particularly good, but they were up to date anyway.
Comments
In general, until the last few years, I have hated Ford's styling, but a few of their new models look ok, but I doubt I will ever buy a Ford, their interiors are still bizarre to me, not as much as they used to be 15 years ago, but still weird. My dad had a never ending series of bad Fords that kind of turned me off of them anyway.
I like the higher beltlines, oversized windows always looked wrong to me. There used to be a website where some guy took and photoshopped then current models to make the windows smaller (Not extend past the point of the hood and trunk levels) and some cars were only slighty improved, but some looked GREAT. One of the things that sold me on my current car, an 08 Charger, was the high beltline, and the sanely sized windows.
HIDEOUS:
Ford Focus
Dodge Durango (They really messed it up)
Dodge Caliber
Newer Mercedes and BMWs
Buick Enclave
Prius
Chevy Colorado and whatever the GMC clone is.
EHHHH..
Chrysler Aspen, fiixes some of the Durango's issues, but too much chrome!
Dodge Avenger, Mini Charger ok, just not quite right.
Ford Taurus, Boring
Honda Ridgeline, just something wrong
Porsche Boxster, I just don't get it. A friend of mine foams at the mouth when he sees one!
Dodge Nitro
New Chevy Camaro.
Current GM full sized pickups
The vast majority of current cars and SUVs.
LIKE:
Charger, needs a different grill, but ok. I have no complaints about the interior.
300, same comments as the Charger.
Corvette
Ford Edge
GMC Acadia
Saturn Outlook
Dodge Ram
F150, but Ford STILL can't do fender flares on the F150 right!
Want so badly I can hardly stand it:
Dodge Challenger, in black, or arrest me red!
HIDEOUS:
Ford Focus (what's with those stupid little chrome scoops?)
Rolls-Royce Phantom (looks like it was designed by Kenworth)
Toyota Camry (looks like it has a pig nose)
Toyota Prius
Toyota Yaris
Honda Element (though not as hideous as previous years)
Honda Ridgeline
EHHHH:
Dodge Avenger (Nice exterior ruined by Eastern-bloc interior)
Lincoln MKZ (A sadly lost opportunity. Liked the Zephyr name better)
Honda Accord (Trying too hard to be a Toyota Avalon)
Lexus LS460 (Liked it better when they copied last-generation S-Class)
Lincoln Town Car (outdated but still prefer this kind of car)
Mercury Grand Marquis (see above)
Remainder of U.S. and foreign vehicles not mentioned in above and below sections
LIKE:
Buick LaCrosse
Buick Lucerne
Cadillac CTS
Cadillac SRX
Cadillac STS
Chevrolet Camaro
Chevrolet Corvette
Chevrolet Silverado
Chrysler 300
Dodge Charger
Dodge Challenger
Ford F-150 and Super Duty
Ford Fusion
Ford Mustang
Mercedes-Benz S-Class
Pontiac G8 GT
Pontiac Solstice
Saturn Sky
Wanted so badly I went out and bought it:
Cadillac DTS Performance!
Slowly but surely a certain attitude and flair is creeping into the Toyota styling lexicon,The new Matrix reminds me of some of the better hatchbacks coming from Renault, Fiat etc.
The utter blandness of their styling has always been a major turn-off to me. I am one who would rather drive something borderline ugly (Saab 9000) than something that has no sense of style or individuality whatever.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
Otherwise though, I think the thing's a mess. I mean c'mon, the domestics didn't torture their sheetmetal like that in 1959, even! At least it looks like it's a "real" red though, rather than that shallow rental car orangish stuff that they used to try to pass off as red.
I also like the simple, modest grille, lots of cars are developing Big Mouth Syndrome.
.....the domestics didn't torture their sheetmetal like that in 1959, even!
Hmm, the is a little bit of an odd indent at the door bottoms and the upper door crease has an odd shape but I don't see anything that'd call up the nightmare bodywork of the late '60s.
Fin, I'd like it better with thinner pillars and bigger windows but the pillbox look has become nearly universal since the Chrysler 300 came along. The apparent thickness of the roof bothers me too.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
It's another case of a company forgetting what made them great>
1973 365 GTB/4 "Daytona" Spider:
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
That got me to thinking about Pony Car styling, both Neo and Retro. It's a mistake to judge a car's looks by photos since in real life they often look different but I think GM has made a fundamental mistake in styling their new Pony Car after a '69 which never was the best looking Camaro, IMO it was the'70-'72 Camaro, esxpecially in Z-28 form which very nicely copied the styling themes and some details of perhaps the most beautiful Ferrari, the '63 250GT Lusso Berlinetta.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
IMO, those were the true Mullet years, ugh! The '67-'68 cars had the virtue of being relatively light and compact but to me they tended to be a little plain, especially on the inside. Contemporary Mustangs had more of a finished look about them but around '69 they got too big and tried to cover too many bases. Mustang Grande, my (*&&^*!
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
Worst color for my taste but others liked it. Notice the half roof, Landau roof.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
As for that '70 pictured above, I don't really care for the exterior color, but it could be worse, I guess. I think it would look better if the vinyl part of the roof was black, rather than matching the Grey Poupon/Peanut Butter or whatever that color is supposed to be.
Interior color's not bad, though, IMO.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
These were very popular during the fifties and sixties even on sports cars and then they disappeared after '65 or so. Now metalflake versions are showing up on new Camrys and various other new cars. I was surprised to see a BMW Z3 wearing a non-metallic Powder Blue the other day.
Bright Yellows are getting very popular especially for Corvettes, Porsches and other two seater sports rigs. I saw an RX-8 wearing a very spiffy Lemon Yellow recently.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
I am sick to DEATH of the 42 shades of gray/silver that some automakers seem to consider sufficient to round out their color offerings for their cars.
I am so tired of that I almost (ALMOST!) welcome what seems to be the return of white as well.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Ford and Lincoln crossovers are sporting the return of cream white which IMO looks a lot classier than the Frigidaire white that makes even sports cars look like washing
machines.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
In the late 70's and early 80's, when two-toning made a brief comeback, some cars offered a two-tone light green/dark green that was pretty striking. I don't know if too many cars today could pull that off, though. It seemed to work on the more angular cars of that era, where they could just break the color at a crease line or something.
I wonder if we'll ever get back to the point though, where a manufacturer offers this many color choices?
That light blue goes further back. I remember the folks up the street having a 64 Pontiac Tempest in that color.
I'd sure like to see more choices in color. I understand the fewer colors meaning lower costs but it means boring cars as well.
One thing I really miss was when they'd try to coordinate the interior color with the exterior. Or at least do the interior in a nice contrast. For instance, I had a 1980 Malibu that was light blue, with a dark blue interior, and knew a few people with similar vintage 'Bu's that were dark blue, with a light blue interior.
I guess some colors would be pretty hard to match up, though. For instance, I had a 1982 Cutlass Supreme coupe that was "light Jadestone", which is a light, silvery greenish blue color. They also had a "Dark Jadestone", which is kind of like the "Magnesium" dark green that Chrysler was using on Chargers and 300's for a couple years. Well the interior was done up in a similar light jadestone color, with a dark green dash and rear package shelf. I think the steering wheel was dark green, too. In that case, there's not much you could really match that interior to. Just the dark jadestone and the light. And the occasional 2-tone, which must have been pretty rare. But it would've looked horribly clashy with regular green. And forget any red or burgundy or blue. I guess it would've gone with white okay. And maybe black woudn't have looked too horrible.
Nowadays though, you're lucky if they give you three shades of interior color. Usually they just give you beige, gray, or "putty", which is sort of a blend of the two. My Intrepid, which is charcoal, was actually a refreshing break from those more generic grays!
Does anybody even do a blue interior anymore? My buddy's '95 Grand Marquis had a blue interior. And I've seen 90's Fords with green interiors, but it wasn't too flattering. The fabrics were okay but anything that was vinyl or plastic just had a nasty, greasy look to it.
My mom's Taurus has a blue interior...now that I think of it, all of the other ones I have seen have a grey interior. Of course, it is almost 10 years old now.
I'd like to see blue cars become more of an option...blues for me is what green is for you. My W126 looked great in a lightish blue, and the sky blue of my fintail always gets positive attention.
Last blue interior I can remember owning was our 85 Accord. Dark blue in and out.
The 85 Tempo that was in our family was also blue on blue, I remember the factory color name - "medium regatta blue metallic".
I am getting tired of silver...I know it's a good MB color but it is so common now. The initial thing that made me look at my E55 was that it was a rare color - not silver or black.
The beige/tan might have worked better in the dark jadestone but not in the light. I don't think that dark jadestone was very popular. I've seen the light on all sorts of cars though. It seems it was really popular for 1982, but then it was gone. I didn't even realize it was offered in 1981.
Now I think if you have more of an emerald green, forest green, British Racing green, or whatever, beige or tan would work well. I think my uncle's '97 Silverado is called Teal, but to me it seems a light emerald green, and not what they called Teal back in the 60's. Or what you might find in the Crayola box. It has a light gray interior, which you'd think wouldn't work with that exterior, but GM found a way to make it generic enough that it fit.
Oh, one other color I can think of that would have worked with the Jadestone, but this is something that was kind of out of style by the early 80's, and really had to be done in vinyl or leather. White. But, just like how they did it back in the 70's and before, you'd still most likely do the dash, carpeting, steering wheel, and all the hard plastic in Jadestone. Only the seats and door inserts would be white. I don't think white carpeting would stay white for very long. And white cloth probably wouldn't, either!
**Edit: Here's the last page of the 1981 Olds brochure, which shows all the color choices. They actually had 24 choices! Although not all colors were available on all cars. It looks like there was an extra-dark Jadestone, offered only on the Toronado. And a dark green metallic, which I think was basically just a forest green type color. Sometimes it's hard to tell from those scanned-in pictures. A few years later they offered a lighter green that was a bit more avocado/olive, but still not too horrible.
A matching interior color is usually the safest bet. It can be darker or lighter, but it will probably work.
Aside from the awful headlights this one featured the traditional Leaping Cat hood emblem which looks distinctly out of place on this car, lacking in "Jaguaricity", as it is.>
This must be the 2000s equivalent of the landau roof and Continental spare, perhaps the 1970's really are back. :lemon: :sick:
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
And the hood just has too many creases on it. That bulge-on-top-of-a-bulge is just a bit much. If they did away with the big round oval, and the resulting creases in the hood, it would make for a much better looking car, if a bit bland.
Everything is starting to look the same. It's hard to distinguish - from a styling perspective only - the difference between a Malibu and an Audi. Or a VW from a Volvo.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I really do not see that much resemblence between that particular Camaro and that particular Ferrari though. Off hand, I think if we searched around, there might be a closer match.
I saw the new Challenger recently on the road. It does not look as good as in the pictures. The scale is a problem. When you see it in traffic, it just looks too bulky. Ironically, the original Challenger was also bulky compared to the other Pony cars off its era. But at least back then, it was still "small" compared to the average cars on the road (which were Malibus and Torinos and Chargers). The new Challenger looks like a Zepplin sitting beside Honda Civic.
With the mess they have made of the line-up, I am amazed Acura sells anything any more. The only one I sort of like the looks of is the RDX, but it's a type of vehicle I would never want to own.
But I have a vote of my own for worst restyle: the new Pilot. And what the heck is up with the new Accord? Honda needs to fire everyone in their styling department - Honda AND Acura - and start from a clean sheet of paper. And soon.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Come to think of it, are any vehicles in the Pilot or Accord's class really well styled? Does anybody care?
Not usually. I'd consider an Accord or Pilot, they're not bad enought to worry about. I did write off the CR-V (which are selling like crazy) because of the bad re-style. When it gets to TL money, though, I do want a car that I can look at without pain!
I don't think there's really anything in the Accord's class that's going to make me drool over it, but honestly, there's not much out there, period, that's going to do it for me these days, based only on style. As for Accord type vehicles, I find the Altima, Aura, Malibu, and Fusion attractive. Again, none of them inspire any lust in me, and I doubt if, 30 years from now I'll get nostalgic for any of them, but I find them decent enough.
I think the only thing that really bothers me about the current Accord is that it just doesn't "look" like a Honda to me, but more of a conglomeration of other cars. It's kinda like they took a Saturn L-series, BMW, and Nissan Altima and somehow blended them together. But, maybe it'll grow on me with time. I really didn't care for the '03-07 style so much at first, either, until I got used to them. And heck, I didn't like the 1998 Intrepid when it came out, but I must have changed my attitude at some point, since I bought a 2000!
conservative. I think the current 2-dr coupe is pretty cool looking except for the
dull-as-dishwater grille.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
I didn't buy my '79 Accord Hatch for looks, I did buy a set of Momo Alloy wheels to sex it up a bit but I was tempted to buy a Rabbit. Unfortunately by '79 they'd Americanized the Rabbit (square headlamps) and dropped the sunroof option.
In retrospect I should've bought a Scirocco, a really cool looking car (Italian styling!) and German-made.
I ended up buying an Americanized Rabbit in '83 but it was a GTI, need I say more?
The GTI eventually gave way to one of the more radical designs ever fielded by Honda>
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
I liked the wagons link
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
1975-81: Hated them at the time, but remember I was a little kid raised on Detroit mastodons. I hated ANYTHING that was little. Plus, most of the domestics went to rectangular headlights for 1976, so IMO that made anything with round headlights look old, fast. Looking back now as an adult though, I appreciate the style more.
1982-83: I like these better, with the more squared-off lines and the rectangular headlights.
1984-85: I like these, too. Were they REALLY any different from the '82-83 though? I've heard there were some pretty major changes, but it all looked about the same to me.
1986-89: LOVE the flip-up headlights, and the notchback coupe that was starting to make the scene. Sedan was nice, too. I think the hatchback was starting to look a bit clumsy, though. Maybe it was getting too big?
1990-93: I always liked these. I know they're called bland, but I can see just a hint of BMW in their styling influence. Bland they may be, but I think they're just about perfectly styled...not a line out of place.
1994-97: I'm sort of so-so with these. I like the '96-97 years better, with the additional taillights in the decklid and the more expensive looking grille. But to me they looked a bit squat and chunky, compared to the '90-93, which had a longer, sleeker look to them. Probably the more upright windshield and rear window contributed to a longer hood and rear deck, which made them look longer. I also seem to remember the buff rags at the time dissing the '94 style, saying that it really wasn't an improvement over the 1990-93 style. In the past, when a new Accord came out it was usually considered a big improvement and a new benchmark, but I think with this one, they said it was just change for the sake of change. But not necessarily improvement.
1998-02. I like the style of these, and believe it or not, find the coupe to be sexy! I've heard this style, once again, called bland, but I still think they got it just right, with not a line out of place.
2003-2007: I didn't like it when it first came out, but it grew on me. Not my favorite of the Accords style-wise, but probably the first one that I'd consider buying. Regardless of what the EPA might say, to me, this is the first Accord that could truly be called midsized.
2008+: I like it. Don't love it, but don't hate it either. It's to the point though where if I bought it, it would be because of how well the car fits my needs, and not how good it looks. I think the days of the auto makers being able to lure me in solely on looks are long since past.
IIRC the flip-up lights were only offered on NA-spec models, the rest got normal flush mounted lights.
I remember when the 98 coupes were new, I thought the rear end seemed very modern, smooth and flat. Better than the strange bulges and bustles so much the rage today, perhaps.
The front fender bulge is just a disaster, and the way the crease that goes through the door reaches end is kind of odd, too. I bet the rear view is no better. The pillars look really thick, too.
And I don't even need to mention the shield grille.
One thing I'll say for the Accord, even if it doesn't excite most people style-wise, I think it's usually been one of the better looking cars in its class. The only Camry that's ever interested me is, oddly enough, the 1987-91 style. I remember one reviewer saying that the thing looked like an 80's interpretation of a Rambler, but for some reason that style appeals to me. None of the others really do anything for me though. Now I do kinda like the 1995-96 Camry, where they gave it a more expensive looking grille and nicer taillights. But the others just sort of blend into obscurity.
The Altima never did anything for me until the 2002 style came out, but I've liked them ever since.
Now I have to confess, when the Corsica first came out, I thought it was attractive looking. But it hasn't aged very well. I think the 4-door versions of the 1986-91 Grand Am, Skylark, and Calais are nice looking. Interiors weren't always up to snuff, but just looking at the exteriors, I thought they were pleasant enough.
The 92-96 Camry is bland, but it is a clean harmonious design too, for that rounded period. It makes the 90-93 Accord look very characterful, but still not a bad design, and I understand they were overengineered durable cars. The 97-01 Camry is perhaps the blandest design of modern times and I am sure many get hit simply because other motorists don't see them.
The Corsica always seemed a little disjointed to me...nice and modern (for the time) aero up front, but then after the B-pillar...bang, it's all angular again. Speaking of period GM, I thought the 92+ Bonneville and its siblings were pretty modern looking for the time, too. Not saying I think they look particularly good, but they were up to date anyway.