Wish they could make it better looking though. It's still kind of dorky.
You'll be surprised to hear that I agree with you. While the 2nd-gen ('03-'04) Forester generally improves on its predecessor, it still won't win, place, or show in any styling competitions. At least its bland looks are innocuous and noncontroversial. Many of us actually like the fact that it's "stealthy", fading into the background instead of attracting attention (from the law, for example). And, unlike many not-well-thought-out competitors, Subaru sacrificed nothing at all in terms of function or practicality when styling its body. That fact ranks very high with me.
Fortunately, styling doesn't appear on my top-10 priority list, and so I bought the $24K XT because of its stunning performance, broad versatility, excellent safety rating, and unbeatable high value proposition.
My personal nominee for best-styled small to midsize SUV is - are you ready for this - the Kia Sorento (which, unforunately, leaves much to be desired in every category other than style and price). But the Sorento body is close to perfect - excellent shape, terrific small details, a prime example of stylistic talent.
If that extremely well-done body style was grafted onto a turbocharged Forester XT platform (with all of its many existing attributes), that would be one heckuva car.
The XT is a sleeper - I like that feature a lot. I'd terrorize unsuspecting "sports cars" if I had one.
The Sorrento is a nice looking SUV - I almost always give it a second glance because it looks so much like a Lexus. The Koreans have the copying thing down.
The more stylish SUV's with the sloped rear roof lines give up a lot of practicality for style. I'm guilty - I have an X5, about the least practical in terms of load space, it's a great vehicle though. My sleeper is a Jetta wagon, diesel - automatic - it's really sleepy.
I have always liked the looks of the Forester (even Gen1) - squat, square hatch - what's not to like? I think Gen2 is a winner all 'round. All this 8th grader model car kit 'cool' leaves me cold. I'd wager the dorky Forester's design will endure well beyond that of the latest what-is-hip me-toos.
I always do a double-take when I see your screenname; it's so close to Rickover, the hot-tempered, intimidating admiral who single-handedly dragged the U.S. submarine fleet into the nuclear age. One of the most remarkable men I ever met.
<iI>Sorrento is a nice looking SUV - I almost always give it a second glance because it looks so much like a Lexus.
I actually think the Sorrento is better looking overall than the RX300, and much better looking than the new RX330, which I don't like at all.
...too truckish and unrefined in its driving manners, and way too underpowered for its substantial weight. And I don't believe the V-6 can be bought with a MT.
But my, oh my, that body design would be very difficult to improve on - vastly better looking than an FX, X3, Toureg, Cayenne, and the rest. Only change I'd make would be to either leave off the cladding or match it to the body color.
Excellent points in post 509 especially on stealth. I'd still buy it, but it has a schoolmarm look to it. I'd much prefer a sleeker more minimal look.
WRX is chimpanzee cute. The kids buzzing around in them with their hats turned backwards has become Americana.
Would like to see more from Subaru though with regard to styling. I do however like the ergonomics of my Outback. Hope the Forester is comparable or better. BMW ergonomics suck.
Would like to see more from Subaru though with regard to styling
Have you seen the next ('05) Legacy? IMO, it's another of those rare designs that I'd be hard-pressed to improve, bearing a striking resemblance to the Audi A4/A6 - if you're going to imitate, imitate something really good! My only quibbles are with the headlamps, radiator grille, and creases in the hood. So far, I've seen only photos; it's been my experience that most new designs wind up looking better in the flesh than in photographs. Not so, though, of the unfortunate FX or X3.
WRX, especially the sedan, is butt-ugly. The eyebrows over the wheelwells are dumb, the overall proportions are dumpy, the rear wing is juvenile, the gaping radiator inlets look old and dated, and the new headlights aren't much of an improvement over the originals. The wagon is a little cleaner (no wheelwell eyebrows, no wing). I really tried to get past the WRX look enough to buy one several times, because they do offer quite a bit for the buck, but just couldn't stomach the adolescent boy-racer image. Fortunately, the XT came along (with unarguably more grown-up looks and <gasp> BETTER performance) in the nick of time.
Am lukewarm to it, but find it tolerable unlike most of the new BMWs.
"it's been my experience that most new designs wind up looking better in the flesh than in photographs."
To me, cars in photos look exactly like they do in person with the exception of when they use lenses to distort depth of field. The only exception was the Cayenne which came out looking a lot bigger and bulkier to me. But as I recall the Cayenne photos, they never showed reference points with regard to scale, such as people and buildings. But I usually like to see batches of photos in different lighting situations before I make a complete judgement.
"the rear wing is juvenile"
I'll say.
"I really tried to get past the WRX look enough to buy one several times, because they do offer quite a bit for the buck, but just couldn't stomach the adolescent boy-racer image."
I could live with it just fine by swapping trunk lid w/o wing. Fits my maverick style... old man in callow car. Will have to live with my more serious Boxster S though ;-)
I couldn't be happier with the appearance of the XT. How many $24,000 sleepers are out there? Subaru is the first company to recognize a market exists for people who appreciate performance but don't want the attention. Face it, I always like to look over and see who's driving a Corvette, Mustang, 350Z etc and sometimes I can't help but think "get a load of this clown, he must be a race car driver LOL". I don't want the attention a sports car or muscle car usually brings with it. I'd rather have a fast ugly rugged-looking car than a pretty sports car any day.
designman: "To me, cars in photos look exactly like they do in person with the exception of when they use lenses to distort depth of field."
Most "glamour" car shots seem to be taken from about 6" off the pavement. So how tall are you anyway, design-guy? (No evil intent, just giving you a friendly jibe) )
Neither do I put style on the top ten, but that said, I agree with Jack; the Sorrento is the small SUV that is most pleasing to the eye. The Forester has some interesting lines from the front and back, but from the side it's bland (and I may be one of the few, but I think I like it better with the cladding, especially if you throw in the splash guards).
I also agree about the Jetta Wagon: clean and lean--with deceptive performance.
I like the delicate 12-spoke XT wheels and can't imagine wasting money replacing them. I like the overall proportions and everything about the greenhouse, which cannot be improved. I love the clean frameless door glass. The rear hatch and taillights are very well done. The bodysides would be improved by leaving off the pronounced, gimmicky, and completely nonfunctional horizontal slashes leading back from each wheelwell. Designers should be required to write "clean is good, gimmicks are bad" a thousand times before starting a new design.
The cladding is OK, I guess, when it matches the body color. I don't care for it in the contrasting colors.
The headlamps are, well, OK except for the weird little round light on each upper outer corner, which is totally out of place. The radiator inlet would be much improved by eliminating the thick, heavy-looking horizontal bars and filling the cleaned-up opening with a subtle, simple mesh, as many of the Japanese aftermarket replacement grilles do.
"Most 'glamour' car shots seem to be taken from about 6" off the pavement."
Not true. And in any event, after being a successful, award-winning designer/director for nearly 30 years, working with photographs an a daily basis, I know how to read them.
Let's take a poll. Come on people. What do the experts that frequent this board think? In automotive glamour photography, which is more common: eye-level shots or ankle level shots?
ALWAYS look better in person than they do in photos. I've seen the new Legacy in person at Detroit. I've sat in it, and climbed all over it. It is indeed a good looking car.
Two complaints:
Complaint # 1: They added extra unnecessary badging on the rear, unlike their cousins sold in other markets. The result is more visual clutter from the rear. The backside of the USDM Legacy is not nearly as good looking as those sold in other markets.
Complaint # 2: What Jack and I were referring to earlier -- styling vs. function. The interior door grab bar -- looks rich and elegant -- functions worse than the outgoing model's door pull. How so you ask? When your left arm is resting on the door armrest, no longer is it easy to reach/access the power window switches, as this door pull is now in the way. You have to move your arm out of the way to reach those switches. Before it was an easy and natural body movement. Not so any more. Styling = 1; ergonomics = 0.
Don't you hate that? For another example, consider the rotary HVAC controls on the 2nd-gen Forester. I like big simple rotary controls, but I expect them to successively rotate around the circle to the different positions, so that the angle of the crossbar points at the selected setting. Instead, the Forester's are spring-loaded and return to center after each change. Thus, instead of being able to tell by feel what you've selected, you have to look away from the road at the little LEDs. How on earth this is an improvement over tried-and-true real rotating dials is beyond me. Once again, a gimmick trumps function.
Also, as thoroughly hashed in other threads, the Forester's placement of switches for foglight, cruise, and rear defogger 'way down low on the left dash is dumb. I've always liked instrument binnacles whose projecting outer edges incorporate elongated pushbuttons for functions like these. Then the switches can be operated without looking, and in some cases without even moving your hand from the wheel. What a concept! How on earth did Subaru's designers think their placement of the aforementioned switches would be optimal under any scenario?
The new Legacy now has a much better cruise control master switch. It's the same unit used on the STi. The CC master switch is now incorporated on to the very end of the CC stalk, so that all the CC functions are now grouped together. It's very easy and *logical* to use. My kudos to Subaru here.
Also, a long-standing CC issue with me is that now, when you actually engage the CC, a green light on the dash now says set. Before it didn't work that way. In fact the green "cruise" light was MIA until the '03 Forester. This new "set" light is new to '04 Subies (FINALLY!) and is so for all '04 Subies, except the Forester, from what I understand. How/why they forgot the Forester is beyond me...
I like the cruise funtionality too (04 STi) another feature I like a lot is the auto climate control, it seems to be perfectly calibrated and is simple to use. I have dual zone climate control in my X5 and climatronic in the VW - both of which I despise because I'm always adjusting something, hardly automatic - the Subie system is great.
I've actually gotten used to the huge rear wing and hood scoop. I planned on removing the rear wing when I got the STi, but doubt I will now -
I could not agree more - give me 3 simple dials any day. The STi doesn't come standard with a radio but they put an auto climate control in it.
I almost went to the trouble of special ordering an X5 with manual climate controls. The VW has climatronic included with a luxury package - the other features I wanted weren't available outside the luxury package.
The automatic HVAC system in my sister's '03 Audi A4 is ridiculously obtuse. Riding as a passenger, I'm completely at the mercy of my sister to set my side, because no mere human will figure it out without reading the manual. No way should a system be that excessivly complex.
Now that I've spitcanned the looks of the XT, I think it only fair to comment on FX and X3.
FX: There are lots of them in my neck of the woods. I was looking at one at a stoplight today and thought... this thing looks like an old bathtub on Conestoga wagon wheels. This "futuristic" thing is wa-a-a-a-y outta line. Yeah it's DIFFERENT! Different and ugly.
X3: Looks like someone gave a 5-year old a hunk of clay and let him go crazy with a tongue depressor.
So here we have it... the dork, the bathtub, and the kindergarten sculpture.
Years from now the current Forester will look quite normal. X3 will look like a hunk of scrap metal and the FX will be laughed at.
I concur with your assessments of all three models. I'll take the straightforward, honest, form-follows-function 'dork' look any day over contrived, overdone, tasteless different-just-to-be-different styling. i.e. FX, X3, Murano, etc.
I actually like the current 3-series coupes, sedans, and wagons quite well. However, given the current ugly 7-series and the new 5 and X3, I expect BMW will similarly ruin the 3-series cars in due course.
In January 2004 Nissan/Infiniti sales went through the roof, up 27%, even more for trucks/SUV's. Apparently their design direction is pretty successful in the marketplace, just as Nissan hopes and expects. And isn't it the final barometer, how the cars do in the marketplace?
Some people think the bland styling of Subaru is not even in the same league with BMW and Infiniti.
Anyway most people here are aware of your personal opinions, will you guys just move on?
And isn't it the final barometer, how the cars do in the marketplace?
All that proves is that P.T. Barnum was even more correct than he realized...
How anyone can look at any of the recently-redone or forthcoming offerings from BMW and think "wow - great looking cars!" is utterly beyond me. They are butt-ugly.
"Some people think the bland styling of Subaru is not even in the same league with BMW and Infiniti."
me for one...which is one reason why I traded WAY UP to a FX45 from an Outback VDC. But mariner, these guys are stuck in neutral where aesthetics are concerned - not to mention performance. Give it up. Ballistic et al has an axe to grind and you just pushed his 'self-justification' button again.
Actually I do believe Nissan is on to something with styling. I'm in love with the 350Z roadster... almost bought it. But they don't apply the look well across platforms.
For instance, I think the Maxima is ugly... too bulbous, bloated. The proportions just aren't right even though the current Nissan genes are there. Same with the G35 although not as exaggerated.
They seemed to nail it with the Altima... miles ahead of Camry and Accord with regard to looks. And for a van (I loathe vans) they did a pretty good job too with Quest.
Yes, sales are the ultimate barometer with regard to success of a company, but is not my buying barometer.
BTW my rating of the FX and XT was the first time I had mentioned it. I don't like redundancy either and can appreciate your desire to "move on." Will not mention it again that FX is ugly.
"That's exactly what BMW, at least Bangle, and Infiniti want, polarizing designs. They don't want bland designs that most of the industry subscribe to."
Infiniti has a clue how to do it, 350Z is living proof IMO. BMW is clueless with style and their sales in the next three years will prove it.
BTW there is already rumor that Bangle's time is over although we'll be hearing the spin... it behooves BMW to parachute him gently or else it would jeapardize sales.
Infiniti is doing well, the G35 coupe is gorgeous, the FX draws your attention at least. They may have gone a little too far with some designs that compromise function.
Comments
You'll be surprised to hear that I agree with you. While the 2nd-gen ('03-'04) Forester generally improves on its predecessor, it still won't win, place, or show in any styling competitions. At least its bland looks are innocuous and noncontroversial. Many of us actually like the fact that it's "stealthy", fading into the background instead of attracting attention (from the law, for example). And, unlike many not-well-thought-out competitors, Subaru sacrificed nothing at all in terms of function or practicality when styling its body. That fact ranks very high with me.
Fortunately, styling doesn't appear on my top-10 priority list, and so I bought the $24K XT because of its stunning performance, broad versatility, excellent safety rating, and unbeatable high value proposition.
If that extremely well-done body style was grafted onto a turbocharged Forester XT platform (with all of its many existing attributes), that would be one heckuva car.
The Sorrento is a nice looking SUV - I almost always give it a second glance because it looks so much like a Lexus. The Koreans have the copying thing down.
The more stylish SUV's with the sloped rear roof lines give up a lot of practicality for style. I'm guilty - I have an X5, about the least practical in terms of load space, it's a great vehicle though. My sleeper is a Jetta wagon, diesel - automatic - it's really sleepy.
All this 8th grader model car kit 'cool' leaves me cold.
I'd wager the dorky Forester's design will endure well beyond that of the latest what-is-hip me-toos.
-juice
<iI>Sorrento is a nice looking SUV - I almost always give it a second glance because it looks so much like a Lexus.
I actually think the Sorrento is better looking overall than the RX300, and much better looking than the new RX330, which I don't like at all.
Bob
But my, oh my, that body design would be very difficult to improve on - vastly better looking than an FX, X3, Toureg, Cayenne, and the rest. Only change I'd make would be to either leave off the cladding or match it to the body color.
WRX is chimpanzee cute. The kids buzzing around in them with their hats turned backwards has become Americana.
Would like to see more from Subaru though with regard to styling. I do however like the ergonomics of my Outback. Hope the Forester is comparable or better. BMW ergonomics suck.
Have you seen the next ('05) Legacy? IMO, it's another of those rare designs that I'd be hard-pressed to improve, bearing a striking resemblance to the Audi A4/A6 - if you're going to imitate, imitate something really good! My only quibbles are with the headlamps, radiator grille, and creases in the hood. So far, I've seen only photos; it's been my experience that most new designs wind up looking better in the flesh than in photographs. Not so, though, of the unfortunate FX or X3.
WRX, especially the sedan, is butt-ugly. The eyebrows over the wheelwells are dumb, the overall proportions are dumpy, the rear wing is juvenile, the gaping radiator inlets look old and dated, and the new headlights aren't much of an improvement over the originals. The wagon is a little cleaner (no wheelwell eyebrows, no wing). I really tried to get past the WRX look enough to buy one several times, because they do offer quite a bit for the buck, but just couldn't stomach the adolescent boy-racer image. Fortunately, the XT came along (with unarguably more grown-up looks and <gasp> BETTER performance) in the nick of time.
Am lukewarm to it, but find it tolerable unlike most of the new BMWs.
"it's been my experience that most new designs wind up looking better in the flesh than in photographs."
To me, cars in photos look exactly like they do in person with the exception of when they use lenses to distort depth of field. The only exception was the Cayenne which came out looking a lot bigger and bulkier to me. But as I recall the Cayenne photos, they never showed reference points with regard to scale, such as people and buildings. But I usually like to see batches of photos in different lighting situations before I make a complete judgement.
"the rear wing is juvenile"
I'll say.
"I really tried to get past the WRX look enough to buy one several times, because they do offer quite a bit for the buck, but just couldn't stomach the adolescent boy-racer image."
I could live with it just fine by swapping trunk lid w/o wing. Fits my maverick style... old man in callow car. Will have to live with my more serious Boxster S though ;-)
Most "glamour" car shots seem to be taken from about 6" off the pavement. So how tall are you anyway, design-guy? (No evil intent, just giving you a friendly jibe)
james
I also agree about the Jetta Wagon: clean and lean--with deceptive performance.
Zman
The cladding is OK, I guess, when it matches the body color. I don't care for it in the contrasting colors.
The headlamps are, well, OK except for the weird little round light on each upper outer corner, which is totally out of place. The radiator inlet would be much improved by eliminating the thick, heavy-looking horizontal bars and filling the cleaned-up opening with a subtle, simple mesh, as many of the Japanese aftermarket replacement grilles do.
Not true. And in any event, after being a successful, award-winning designer/director for nearly 30 years, working with photographs an a daily basis, I know how to read them.
An affront! A challenge!!
Let's take a poll. Come on people. What do the experts that frequent this board think? In automotive glamour photography, which is more common: eye-level shots or ankle level shots?
james
Two complaints:
Complaint # 1: They added extra unnecessary badging on the rear, unlike their cousins sold in other markets. The result is more visual clutter from the rear. The backside of the USDM Legacy is not nearly as good looking as those sold in other markets.
Complaint # 2: What Jack and I were referring to earlier -- styling vs. function. The interior door grab bar -- looks rich and elegant -- functions worse than the outgoing model's door pull. How so you ask? When your left arm is resting on the door armrest, no longer is it easy to reach/access the power window switches, as this door pull is now in the way. You have to move your arm out of the way to reach those switches. Before it was an easy and natural body movement. Not so any more. Styling = 1; ergonomics = 0.
Bob
Also, as thoroughly hashed in other threads, the Forester's placement of switches for foglight, cruise, and rear defogger 'way down low on the left dash is dumb. I've always liked instrument binnacles whose projecting outer edges incorporate elongated pushbuttons for functions like these. Then the switches can be operated without looking, and in some cases without even moving your hand from the wheel. What a concept! How on earth did Subaru's designers think their placement of the aforementioned switches would be optimal under any scenario?
Also, a long-standing CC issue with me is that now, when you actually engage the CC, a green light on the dash now says set. Before it didn't work that way. In fact the green "cruise" light was MIA until the '03 Forester. This new "set" light is new to '04 Subies (FINALLY!) and is so for all '04 Subies, except the Forester, from what I understand. How/why they forgot the Forester is beyond me...
Bob
I've actually gotten used to the huge rear wing and hood scoop. I planned on removing the rear wing when I got the STi, but doubt I will now -
Most XT owners dislike its clumsy, unpredictable automatic climate control. I never use mine in automatic mode.
Having said that, I can see no earthly reason for any car to have automatic climate control in the first place. KISS, people, KISS.
I almost went to the trouble of special ordering an X5 with manual climate controls. The VW has climatronic included with a luxury package - the other features I wanted weren't available outside the luxury package.
FX:
There are lots of them in my neck of the woods. I was looking at one at a stoplight today and thought... this thing looks like an old bathtub on Conestoga wagon wheels. This "futuristic" thing is wa-a-a-a-y outta line. Yeah it's DIFFERENT! Different and ugly.
X3:
Looks like someone gave a 5-year old a hunk of clay and let him go crazy with a tongue depressor.
So here we have it... the dork, the bathtub, and the kindergarten sculpture.
Years from now the current Forester will look quite normal. X3 will look like a hunk of scrap metal and the FX will be laughed at.
Out of 10 on looks:
XT - 7
X3 - 5
FX - 3
Just my opinion. I still love you X3 and FX guys.
;-)
-juice
It's a done deal... Fall 2004.
The back looks heinous! Like a Daiwoo got together with a Citreon, and a birth defect was involved!
Some people think the bland styling of Subaru is not even in the same league with BMW and Infiniti.
Anyway most people here are aware of your personal opinions, will you guys just move on?
Can't say that any more. Andreas Zapatinas styled all the beautiful BMWs before heading over to Alfa Romeo. Now he's with Subaru.
BMW is stuck with Bangle. So while they may be better known for style, the two companies are heading in opposite directions.
-juice
All that proves is that P.T. Barnum was even more correct than he realized...
How anyone can look at any of the recently-redone or forthcoming offerings from BMW and think "wow - great looking cars!" is utterly beyond me. They are butt-ugly.
me for one...which is one reason why I traded WAY UP to a FX45 from an Outback VDC. But mariner, these guys are stuck in neutral where aesthetics are concerned - not to mention performance. Give it up. Ballistic et al has an axe to grind and you just pushed his 'self-justification' button again.
Bob
I thought Z4 and 6 are ugly, but some Brit mag I read yesterday thought they look great.
That's exactly what BMW, at least Bangle, and Infiniti want, polarizing designs. They don't want bland designs that most of the industry subscribe to.
For instance, I think the Maxima is ugly... too bulbous, bloated. The proportions just aren't right even though the current Nissan genes are there. Same with the G35 although not as exaggerated.
They seemed to nail it with the Altima... miles ahead of Camry and Accord with regard to looks. And for a van (I loathe vans) they did a pretty good job too with Quest.
Yes, sales are the ultimate barometer with regard to success of a company, but is not my buying barometer.
BTW my rating of the FX and XT was the first time I had mentioned it. I don't like redundancy either and can appreciate your desire to "move on." Will not mention it again that FX is ugly.
;-)
Infiniti has a clue how to do it, 350Z is living proof IMO. BMW is clueless with style and their sales in the next three years will prove it.
BTW there is already rumor that Bangle's time is over although we'll be hearing the spin... it behooves BMW to parachute him gently or else it would jeapardize sales.
-juice
An old bathtub on the curb waiting to be picked up as trash draws your attention also.
So, the question is - how gorgeous is the vehicle when EVERYONE has one :-)?
overtime
Lot's of ugly cars out there. Acceptable styling goes a long way these days.