Good Styling

fezo

I always thought they'd have been a bigger deal on the market if the PT Cruiser hadn't been first. I still like the look of them.

Of course those Italians are another story.... I could get used to that!

andys120

I wouldn't use "Drop dead gorgeous" or even "gorgeous" to describe any huge, fake woody Big Three wagon but then you and I are polar opposites in which cars we like.


Did you see last night's episode of Mad Men in which the principal character buys himself a new '62 Coupe DeVille ? link

I

lemko

No, I didn't see it, but that's probably because he wrecked his mid-line 1961 Dodge sedan while intoxicated when he was out with a date with his mistress. I definitely got to see it.

Believe me, there is nothing like the experience of buying your first new Cadillac, especially when you're still a young guy. I'll never forget the day I took delivery of my new 1989 Cadillac Brougham!

andys120

Don't take this the wrong way but, as a former denizen of Madison Avenue in the later '60s, I couldn't help but think that, although he was doing well enough to afford a Caddy, a 40-something creative ad hot shot in 1962 would've been more inclined toward a Grand Prix, Bonneville or Starfire.

lemko

1962 Pontiac Bonneville


1962 Pontiac Grand Prix


1962 Oldsmobile Starfire


1962 Cadillac Coupe DeVille

andre1969

Of that bunch, I'd probably pick the '62 Caddy first. There's just something about the '61-62 style that I've always found very eye-pleasing. I like the forward thrust of the fenders, and the way the front wheel opening flows forward to the front of the car, similar to what they did on 1957-58 Chryslers and DeSotos.

The rest are sort of a tossup though. I LOVE the '61 and '63 Pontiacs, but the '62 just doesn't do it for me. I think it's that beak. It really doesn't stick out that far, but rather, the grille inserts themselves are recessed, to the point that it exaggerates it. I like the '62 Olds Starfire, too. Now knowing what I know today about the trannies in them, I'd pick the Bonneville first, as it had the old, 4-speed fluid coupling Hydramatic. The Grand Prix and Starfire would have had the 3-speed/torque converter "Slim Jim" tranny, which could be troublesome. But, if I was shopping for a new car back in 1962 and couldn't afford the Caddy, I could see myself getting the Starfire. The '62 Pontiac would have made me wish I'd bought in '61, and if I HAD bought a '62 Poncho, I would've been kicking myself when the '63's came out!

andys120

Considering you didn't see the show, you managed to come very close to the car Don Draper bought. His might've been a slighly lighter shade of blue and it did have the white top.

I might add that's a very nice photo of it. I liked all of the '62 GMs, in fact I might buy a '62 Electra convertible with the Wildcat 401 over any any of the others. I dunno why Don Draper didn't get a convertible, it's just the thing for an egotistical , extroverted Ad Guy.

Andre, good point about the '63 GP being better looking than the '62, here's a photo just because I like to look at it.>



[PS- Anybody got a good photo of a '62 Buick full-sized convertible, they're hard to come by.]

andre1969

Here's an ad for the '62 Wildcat...


I think that's another one where I like the '61 better. I just like peaked front fenders and the slight forward thrust that it gives the car. Still, the '62 is nicer. And the '63 is pleasant enough, although some little details I don't like, like the way the headlights seem to stick out a bit too far.

Overall though, I think '61-64 was pretty much a golden era when it came to GM design. I think the '65 models were gorgeous too, but then they started cluttering them up for '66, and when they got fatter for '67, I think it mucked the styling of a lot of them up. Although for some reason, I thought the '67 Pontiacs came out looking gorgeous...almost futuristic looking.

That '63 GP is definitely a looker.

fintail

I've always liked that GP too, just the right amount of businesslike angularity.

GM really knew what they were doing in the realm of styling, once upon a time.

bumpy

What's "4447"? The list price?

andre1969

I didn't know, so I googled it. Looks like "4447" was an internal GM code for that body style, which is actually a LeSabre 2-door hardtop. The same picture actually shows up on this page.

Also looking at that page, I see they were still calling the midrange series "Invicta". So when did the Wildcat come out, '63? I could've sworn I've seen a '62 Wildcat...unless it was just an option package and not an actual model that would have production figures broken out?

I'd imagine a '62 LeSabre would have started around $2800-3000, base price. I remember the Chrysler Newport was $2964 for the 4-door sedan, from 1961-64, and I'm sure the LeSabre was a bit cheaper. I'm sure it was easy to option one up to $4447, though! Especially if you got air conditioning.

writer

I was thinking about how my opinions have developed over the last year:

The new Matrix is not so bad after all. Partly, seeing it in context made it comprehensible to me. I "get it" now. Even the front, which I thought looked too stubby looks ok now. I still do not find it wonderful, but it is ok. I am no so sure that I like the new Vibe better than the new Matrix anymore. They are closer to equal in my current view. For pure styling I still to not prefer it over the old Matrix (or the last previous Vibe), but they are all closer to equal for me now.

I still do not like the current CRV, though it now blends into the landscape more.

The current Accord does not look terrible, but no, I cannot say that I like it.

I am finding the 2008 Lancer more attractive. Really, it is a matter of it fitting in more with other current cars from BMW and M-B, and a few others with that kind of arched curve crease on the side.

I really like the Saturn Astras.

I still do not like Calibres.

I ended up disappointed with the new Challenger when I saw it in traffic. The problem is scale. It is really too big for a "modern pony car".
---

Looking a longer time back, I find I like the Azteks now. I have seen some with paint that looks new to me. It makes a big difference. Yes, I would still prefer a different rear end treatment, but overall, it does not look bad. I think that the other SUVs just sort of because worse over time -- gaudy.

andys120

I'm in tune w most of your observations, tho I have yet to see a Challenger.

I doubt the Aztek however will ever look good to me, the shape of the rear end is just terrible and makes the vehicle look way too tall and narrow. The rest of the car is just plain awkward and over-decorated. It's still the most mis-begotten design to come out of the "Big Three" since the God-awful 1960 Mo Pars.

The sad thing is that the idea behind the Aztek was a good one, Honda made that idea work in the metal with the Element. I know a lot of people don't like that one but I find it unique and charming and you can't knock the practicality.

nippononly

I think it ironic that in the world of small cars, all the models out there have undergone styling changes since 2004, several in some cases, save the one that STILL looks the best (to me) in 4- or 5-door form: the Mazda3.

The "spaceship" 2006+ Civic has grown on me over time though, and I would call that a close second now.

"Most improved" in that timeframe HAS to go to the Lancer, with Impreza the runner-up in that category, IMHO.

fezo

There used to be a topic in here called something along the lines of "GM cars look like angry appliances." I think of that every time I see an Aztek.

fintail

The angry appliance look is still alive with many cars and soft road vehicles, with their menacing eyes...what I feel is a very base styling ploy.

lemko

I really like these two, especially the Plymouth:

andre1969

I like the look of that '68 Fury, too. It just has a tough, no-nonsense look to it. I never liked that 1970 Coronet facelift though. The '68-69 models were gorgeous IMO, but that '70 facelift just kills it for me. It looks like they were trying to hard to copy a Pontiac. That front-end style did work better on the redesigned 1971 models, where it flowed better with the more rounded bodies.

writer

I just saw a single photograph of the new Cruze in one of the other topics (GM something or other). Unfortunately, it was not a good enough photo to get a good feeling for the design. At least, I could not figure it out.

I have liked most of the Cavaliers from a styling standpoint. The only one that I never really liked was the last series 4-door. It never quite looked right with its convoluted folding along the doors. I understand why they did it, but I would have preferred a simpler look.

I also liked the 2-door Cobalt, but again, the 4-door was not so nice. In this case, the roof did not look like it fit on the body.

As I have said, I really like the Saturn Astra.

As an overall car, the new Cruze does not sound so good to me. The press is all excited about it being "bigger" than its competition. It is the wrong time for "bigger".

62vetteefp

As an overall car, the new Cruze does not sound so good to me. The press is all excited about it being "bigger" than its competition. It is the wrong time for "bigger".

As the entire industry knows cars get bigger and bigger. Look at the new Civic and Accord. The Fit is about the size of an old time Civic.

Anyway the upcoming Malibu will be bigger than what the Malibu is today. It will be wider,etc. So there is room for a slightly bigger than Cobalt car below it. Also look for the next Aveo to be slightly bigger and then watch for a new vehicle below the Aveo. Things change but they remain the same.

andre1969

As the entire industry knows cars get bigger and bigger. Look at the new Civic and Accord. The Fit is about the size of an old time Civic.

This time around though, it seems the cars are regressing towards a mean. Small cars are getting bigger, true. But the bigger cars aren't. The line between midsize and full-size is really blurred. Once upon a time, full-size meant comfy 3+3 seating with 60+ inches of shoulder room, and 20+ cubic foot trunks. Nowadays though, a Honda Accord is considered full-sized, if you don't get a sunroof. Yet it has a 14 cubic foot trunk (seems bigger though, maybe the way it's shaped?), and I think shoulder room is about 58", which is midsized in my book. Some midsized cars have been as wide inside as that, and some compacts have even had bigger trunks!

So while smaller cars are getting bigger, it makes me wonder what's going to happen at the upper end? For example, I doubt if an Impala will get much bigger than it already is, so if the Malibu gets bumped up, it seems to me the two would compete too much with each other.

Anyway the upcoming Malibu will be bigger than what the Malibu is today. It will be wider,etc. So there is room for a slightly bigger than Cobalt car below it.

Is there talk of a new Malibu already? When is it due out? I know the Malibu, Aura, and G6 have been criticized for having too narrow of a back seat. I think shoulder room back there is something like 54-55"...bordering on compact, really. I was surprised though, that it's that narrow. I've sat in a few, and they didn't seem that tight to me. Anyway, I could see these cars being made a bit bigger. Maybe not longer, but wider.

As for the Cruze, how big is the thing supposed to be? I don't think it matters that its bigger than the competition, as long as it's still competitive in fuel economy, performance, maneuverability, etc. Back in the day the Dodge Dart used to be advertised as "King of the compacts" and its advertisements told prospective buyers to quit messing around with kiddie car compacts and just get a REAL car. And it worked. The car was usually among the highest rated compacts, and much of that praise came from it being a compact car that didn't FEEL compact. I think that formula could work again. Small cars have always had a stigma of being cramped and uncomfortable, giving the impression to larger car buyers that they'd have to settle for less. So anything that breaks that mold is definitely a good thing.

One problem I've found with the current Cobalt is that it just doesn't feel all that space efficient. I find the front seat to be comfortable and roomy, but the back is horribly cramped. Part of it might be the relatively low seating position. If you regularly need to use the back seat, I think the Civic and Corolla are much better laid out. And the Sentra is downright HUGE inside for a small car. I think going on interior volume, it's actually rated midsize! So if this Chevy Cruise could still end up being smallish yet fuel efficient, and have an interior that's roomy enough to be competitive, I think they could have a winner.

mattandi

Just caught up with this thread. Amused by nippon asking if any SW stood out on styling alone, and others obliged with so many examples.

Clark Griswolds of the world unite.


:P

4 years ago my wife declares she wants a stationwagon. My immediate reaction was "Ugh, I don't want to drive my mom's car." Of course, now there is a Saturn LW2 in my driveway.

mattandi

It is fun to pick on nuances of otherwise bland, "me too" buggies and wax nostalgic of styling long gone, but what examples of current production cars can you think of that you just know that on styling alone folks will either love it or hate it? Styling that is at least somewhat outside the norm and gets your attention, so it practically demands you form an immediate opinion. Not exactly exotic, but definitely different.

a few examples I can think of:

Ford Flex - it is either a hearse or a shoebox with wheels or a huge Mini. FWIW I like it, but there are plenty who think that all that square isn't chic.

Nissan Quest - the Martian Minivan. Not exactly your typical box with a steering wheel. Not my taste, but some really like it.

Volvo C30 T5 - anti-square from the company that made square cool. Especially if approached from the rear.

BMW X6 - just a bizarre looking buggy. I would buy one in a New York minute if I was looking for a slightly outside the norm premium sporty crossover and had $60k or so burning a whole in my pocket.

Mercedes R class - did MB really make a minivan, or is it an oversized CR-V.

andys120

BMW X6 - just a bizarre looking buggy. I would buy one in a New York minute if I was looking for a slightly outside the norm premium sporty crossover and had $60k or so burning a whole in my pocket.

I saw a couple of 'em parked at the BMW Oktoberfest last week, they looked like a couple of blimps. There is no excuse for a four-seat automobile being that large,
especially nowadays, what are they thinking at BMW?. :sick:

Mercedes R class - did MB really make a minivan, or is it an oversized CR-V

Actually IIRC the CR-V came second, I can't imagine why Honda would copy that roofline. Amazingly enough, they CR-V seems more popular than ever. :confuse:

62vetteefp

The new LaCrosse out early next year is based on the new Eps II architecture. I have seen that the next Malibu is due 2012 but I really doubt it will be that long. It will also be based on the Eps II.

nippononly

People Love Angry-Faced Cars

If a Toyota Prius just looks too friendly for your tastes, you're not alone. People readily see faces and traits in cars, and a new study suggests that they prefer cars to appear dominant, masculine and angry.

Apparently they studies 38 car models - no SUVs because it would have "skewed the test results" - and with a sample group of 40 participants, cars like the 5-series came out on top because of their "power" characteristics. :-P

Just one more step on the road to all cars being styled by computers? I hope not.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20081006/sc_livescience/peopleloveangryfaced- - cars

andre1969

and with a sample group of 40 participants, cars like the 5-series came out on top because of their "power" characteristics.

Well maybe there's something to be said for that...Dame Edna and the Church Lady can be kinda scary... :P

fintail

I laugh at angry faced cars and their drivers.

The 5er has those Dame-Edna eyes...not exactly intimidating.

texases

I guess I'm even more disappointed in the 5er than the 7 - I'd never get a 7, but the 5 was on my list. I still haven't gotten used to the look. Prior versions just had a very 'honest' and clean design, don't know how better to put it. Not the current version. :sick: , or I guess I should say :mad:

fintail

The previous 5er was such a clean and homogenous design - almost good enough to be an old MB :P ...I have never adapted to the current version either. The 7er is just weird, where the old one was clean too.

I don't think either of them look "angry" per se, I don't see the glaring narrowed headlights as such an obvious styling ploy on BMW as I do on some others.

And on the styling note, am I alone in thinking the Chevy Traverse looks better than its blinged up siblings?

texases

"And on the styling note, am I alone in thinking the Chevy Traverse looks better than its blinged up siblings? "

I agree, the Buick seems overdone to me, not much to separate the Saturn and the GMC versions, the Traverse is better looking than both. GM just created another 'how do we advertise 4 of the same things' problem that's eating them alive. Chevy and Buick versions all all that's needed.

nippononly

I prefer "cute" to "angry". Maybe they got a group of angry people in their study! :-P

I prefer clean and well-proportioned to either cute or angry. And in general I don't focus on the looks of a car much at all. The specs and the way it drives are more important to me than the looks.

fintail

I am sure there's some kind of mumbo-jumbo study that links cars with angry "eyes" to angry people.

I will admit styling does matter to me. I need a balanced original design, something clean and not gimmicky. Specs and driving matter a lot too, but if a car hurts my eyes, that can break the deal. Kind of like with the new Acura TL....specs etc look fantastic, but it's sure ugly to me, even having a few "what the hell is that?!" design cues. Maybe it's because I am mildly obsessive about keeping my car clean, so I get to see every little detail a lot.

fintail

Agreed. And it is indeed possible to use too much chrome.

andre1969

I prefer "cute" to "angry". Maybe they got a group of angry people in their study!

I guess I prefer something in the middle. "Cute" just isn't my thing. But cars with that "angry" look just end up going so over the top that they look bufoonish. I dunno what other adjectives there are though. "Handsome", maybe?

I think a lot of old musclecars and such could look "tough", without having to resort to "angry".

andys120

I think a lot of old musclecars and such could look "tough", without having to resort to "angry".

I agree, the best looking of the musclecars were subtle in their styling. You had to look closely to tell that you weren't looking at a garden variety LeMans or Malibu.

'64 Pontiac LeMans>


'64 Pontiac GTO>

andre1969

I think in the case of the '64 Pontiacs, even the Tempest has a tough look about it, so that was a good basis for the GTO. In '65 though, I thought the whole package just looked too "pretty" to be tough. But for '66-67 they were able to balance it out to be "tough" yet "pretty", if that makes sense. :P

andys120

Porsche AG has released the first official photos of the controversial Panamera 4-door sport sedan, thankfully they look a lot better than the hideous spy-shots and sketches that have been floating around the web for months>



I'll reserve judgment til I see one but it sure looks better than the Cayenne.

andre1969

I think the car's actually reasonably attractive...but it's not what a Porsche should be, IMO. But I guess if Porsche can have an SUV, a sedan's not so bad. So when's the pickup truck version making its debut? :P

texases

From that angle it looks ok, but I don't like the profile towards the rear (edit: makes me think of what somebody would come up with when supplied with a 911, a sawzall, and instructions to 'make it a 4-door' :sick: :

nippononly

LOL! Just how would a Cayenne SUT look anyway? My guess is, hideous no matter what creative things one might try....

From the side view that Panamera looks like it should have a hatchback in the rear, not a trunk lid. Does it in fact have a hatchback? Either way it looks like the front view is its best one.

fintail

That's very awkward :sick:

It's a German 1978 Olds aeroback

andys120

... that's bound to be controversial is the new BMW Z4 (E89) in BMW speak. Based on what I've read elsewhere this is one of those love/hate designs. I think (pending a sighting inthe metal) I love it, look at how the light plays off the surfaces



Thanks to the folding hardtop, the E89 looks great even w the top up.



BTW, I should mention that I hate the current Z4 w it's lumpy trunk, blob tailights and plain interior.

Love it? Hate it?

fintail

I don't think it's too bad...some of the creases and curves don't seem too logical, but Bangle isn't German...but it doesn't offend me anyway.

I can give any car surfaces for light to play off, just give me a sledgehammer :P

62vetteefp

I saw the top blue photo and said "wow". Then I scrolled down and saw the silver one. Guess I need to see it in person because it just looks too busy and creased.

andys120

Like you I think it looks much better in darker colors and I also agree that it needs to be seen "in the metal" to be fully evaluated.

Fintail, Herr Bangle has been moved "upstairs" and is no longer directly in charge of BMW Design. The current Chief of Design Adrian Van Hooydonk gets much of the credit for recent BMW's including the One Series, new 3 Series, 7 Series Refresh as well as the new Z4.

andys120

that there's quite a bit of BMW 507 in the new Z4?



<img src="

fintail

But remember, car designers are by definition lemmings and plagiarists, there's almost no original thought these days. I don't see any new BMWs that don't show the influence of Bangle, and his vision has spread like a cancer to many other makes as well.

Look at that 507, no creases for the sake of creases

62vetteefp

There is a crease leading off from the upper wheelhouse on the front fender. No reason for that one.

andys120

The crease shows more prominently on this photo>



Prominent side creases have been elements of BMW design since the 1950s.