|
Throatwarbler posted:
Err... I was tolerant of the giant trapezoidal "shield grille" in the Audis and even the Evo, but this latest round just looks terrible. At least in those former two, the grille opening itself had a contour and shape of a trapezoid. Now it's just a gaping hole. If the front clip of a car is meant to resemble a face, then this is a face that's been bound and gagged. Or maybe smeared with black paint or opened to obscene dimensions. I call it "hex-mouth"  Click here for the full 680x451 image. See also, the New Chevy Aveo Sonic whatever  Click here for the full 1600x1067 image. and Hyundai Sonata Hybrid  Click here for the full 900x540 image. Sorry guys, but as any wargamer can tell you, hexagons aren't cool. Also, no love for the Veloster Rally Car? I think that debuted at Chicago, right? Or are we only discussing production cars? 
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2011 20:08
|
|
- Charger SRT8, with the 6.4l Hemi. This one looks really good. 
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 16:09 |
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:The angle and the lighting on the photo sort of emphasize the grill a bit too much, and the new swoopier styling makes the rest of the car look small by comparison. It's not as bad here. Yeah I agree with you to a point. I'm not totally in the "hate camp" and I like what they've done with the design in some ways. In particular, I think the sculpting of the hood and grille area is pretty well done and the snouty grille forward look from the Ram trucks (or whatever the hell they're calling it now) works. Also, I like the headlights and admire their restraint in not streeeetching them back to the A pillar. However, I think looking at the front mouth from oblique angles makes it look awkward in part because of the blackout paint scheme. That black painted dodge grille hiding on top just looks bad to me, somehow.  Click here for the full 1280x850 image. Also, I'm not a fan of those hockeystickish cutouts on the doors. They remind me of the ones on the new Insignia, but not as well integrated. I understand that you need some sort of stamping on the doors for panel rigidity, but couldn't they have at least tried to disguise it as a fake brake duct or something? Maybe like a fake box flare look like in the GT-R? It just looks stamped on and doesn't really flow with the body lines that well. I mean move that vertical cut forward or something! The side sculpting looks better in the red car above, but still... Also i sort of wish they had gone with more of the coke-bottle profile of classic Mopar on the rear quarters, but that's getting picky now. Out of curiosity, what's the name for the "shoulder" area at the beltline that forms a sort of shelf between the body and greenhouse? Turnunder? Tumblehome? Something like that?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2011 20:32
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:I guess I should come out of the gay-for-Chrysler closet. I like our Intrepid a lot and the new stuff they've come out under FIAT management, new Grand Cherokee, Durango, 300, has looked really good.  Click here for the full 671x449 image.  Click here for the full 640x427 image. However, I still don't have a lot of confidence in Marchionne. He's too slick, and we've seen this story before. I worry he's just going to finish the job MB started and eventually gut Chrysler forever. Oh well, at least he's not a total mouth-breather like "Lt. Dan" Ackerson. I like Autoextremist's take on it: http://www.autoextremist.com/current/2011/2/6/the-autoextremist.html Peter M. De Lorenzo posted:No matter how much good Marchionne achieves – and by no means is his “blending” strategy of Fiat and Chrysler vehicle architectures guaranteed to be a success – he has well and truly revealed himself to be just another in a long line of industrial pariahs, a carpetbagging opportunist whose sense of entitlement and spectacularly deep-rooted hubris knows no bounds, and one who ultimately has one interest and one interest only: Dining on the wreckage of a failed company for personal gain. And a link to his excoriation of GM head Ackerson: http://www.autoextremist.com/current/2011/1/23/the-autoextremist.html edit: this quote from above article quote:If this is a business about product cadence – which it most definitely is – then the “new” General Motors is on a runaway train to Hell. After all, this is a guy who has proudly admitted “I’m not a car guy” from the get-go, underlining that statement by making some plainly horrific comments to the Wall Street Journal in a revealing interview conducted right before the Detroit Auto Show. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Feb 9, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2011 21:07
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:That article about Marchionne is mind blowingly stupid for a litany of reasons, but I don't get what the gently caress De Lorenzo thinks should have been done instead of selling Chrysler to Marchionne and appointing a temporary CEO for GM. Well he admits that selling to Marchionne was basically the only real alternative, but he's saying not to buy into the current media hype that he will save the brand. The article itself is a response to Marchionne's comment that the government bailout that basically handed Chrysler to FIAT for free were "shyster loans". What the hell? quote:Here’s a guy who strolled in back in early 2009 knowing full well that the U.S. government had exactly zero options on the table to salvage Chrysler, and that if they allowed Chrysler to sink that it could conceivably drag the rest of the U.S. auto industry – and its supplier network – down with it. So Marchionne basically fronts very little of Fiat’s cash and in turn is handed the keys to Chrysler lock, stock, and barrel. And as for GM, what he wants is for the Board of Directors to not be a pack of idiots and for them to find someone to be CEO who has SOME sort of experience in the auto industry. Someone. Anyone. Ackerson had a degree in engineering and was in the Navy. Good. But then he's worked at MCI, General Instrument (a semi-conductor manufacturer), Nextel, XO communications (now bankrupt), before jumping to private equity. Notice a hole in this resume? It's 100% telecom and electronics. The guy's hardly ever even worked selling stuff to consumers. He does not understand the auto industry, yet he seems unwilling to learn - he thinks he can just walk in and fix everything because he's such a genius.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2011 21:42
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Yeah that guy Mulally at Ford who didn't have experience in the auto industry sucks. In his earlier articles, DeLorenzo is guardedly optimistic about Ackerson. His opinion only changes after Ackerson needlessly sacks his head of product development and replaces him with a loyalist manager from outside the company who knows nothing about product development OR the auto industry. I also think his comparison to former GM CEO John Smith and Chairman John Smale is far more apt. This is the brain trust that ran GM into the ground in the 90s. In part I'm biased by my love of attack articles instead of the typical press pussyfooting or outright fellation that you see when talking about corporate managers. But at the same time, when taken in the context of Ackerson's various comments in the media about his thoughts on product development and planning, I think that his analysis of Ackerson's character and ability is quite accurate. quote:Let’s see, carpetbagging interloper plucked from corporate obscurity by a flat-out incompetent board of directors and then handed the keys to the candy store just for showing up that day? Check.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2011 22:24
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:I like a good attack article as much as the next guy if not more so, but you have to understand that attack articles rarely offer anything of value whatsoever. Dunno, Mulally doesn't really match any of the points on that list. He was fairly well known when they brought him in, and he worked at Boeing which means he has experience with development as well as working with unions. When he came into the company, he didn't immediately start cutting loose experienced managers and replace them with unqualified loyalists. His "Way Forward" cost-cutting restructuring cut current production and production facilities, but actually increased spending on R&D. I can understand why his tone annoys people, but if you actually read his coverage of Ackerson I think it's accurate. The dude is a GM insider and obviously Ackerson pissed him off by firing people he liked. But I know that everyone I know in the auto industry reads his blog.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2011 22:44
|
|
|
Maybe this? 1970 Click here for the full 800x415 image. But then again this is mostly decals or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2011 15:38
|
|
|
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203525404576050070062206368.html?mod=WSJ_article_relatedquote:Mr. Akerson isn't a "car guy." Call him GM's accidental CEO. The job "is not something I expected or sought," the former telecom executive says. "I'm not that special, but someone had to stand up." Dan Akerson posted:"Nobody cares about fuel economy. When it's empty, you fill it, period. Why are we advertising something that nobody cares about?" Missed 90s GM? Look forward to more marketing, less engineering, and lots of corner cutting! quote:At a recent meeting with his executive team, he interrupted a technical discussion on a future vehicle. "See this can?" Mr. Akerson said, picking up his Diet Coke. "It's a consumer product. GM has to start acting like a consumer-driven, not engineering-driven, company. We sell a consumer product—our can just costs $30,000." So, new Corvette is semi-confirmed for 2014. Hopefully they don't decide to start cutting, say, the three different engines offered in the current C6 (LS7, LS3, LS9) - all of which I argue can be justified. Now, my reckoning of exactly what is meant by "engine types" may be inaccurate, but typically the fastest way for the beancounters to meet meaningless metrics such as "number of engine types" will be to cut "niche" performance products and engineering in favor of retarded high-concept marketing stunts like Ackerson's current proposal: to add social media capabilities to OnStar. What the hell? quote:Mr. Akerson wants GM to ... "bet the company," as he puts it. That's what he once did at Nextel, when he made a big bet on a cellphone feature called "push to talk."
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2011 03:25
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Well, some of those things are a bit troubling. I think someone (Autoblog?) pointed out that GM is basically running on the fumes left over from Bob Lutz's time right now - every good car they have right now came from him, there's nothing in the pipeline for at least a few years and the Impala is going to be in production in 2014. Especially now that Ackerson got rid of his Chief of Product Development for being lippy. As a replacement for this very important and technical position, previously held by Bob Lutz, longtime car guy, and then by Tom Stephens, serious engineer and enthusiast? Some lady from HR. Whaaaa  Marchionne on the other hand knows his poo poo. The only question is what's going to come out in the next few years. The new Grand Cherokee is good and all, but that was already a done deal before FIAT came in, as were the rest of the refreshes. We'll have to see if the plan to combine platforms and technology will work. And the question is, in the worst-case scenario that Chrysler doesn't succeed, what is his tolerance for losing money to the Chrysler side of the business before pulling up stakes and gutting the company or bailing like Daimler did?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2011 09:38
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2011 19:27
|
|
|
I've never really understood the cupholder hate from so-called "driving purists." I mean, plenty of professional race drivers have hydration systems built into their cars. If it had a smoothie machine and burger warmer that would be ridiculous, but how is somewhere secure to put your water bottle so it doesn't fly around the cockpit under cornering and get stuck under your pedals really something that detracts from the 'purity' of the car? Even beyond the car's utility as an everyday practical mode of transportation, even if you're on the track or whatever you probably should be staying hydrated (Nomex and fear sweat makes you dehydrate like a bitch). It seems like an American euro-fetish thing just because a lot of euro imports didn't have them for a while (and now seem to design really willfully bad ones).
OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Feb 15, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2011 20:34
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:For Jalopnik links, if you use http://ca.jalopnik.com/, it displays as the old layout, so for example the Ferrari rant is http://ca.jalopnik.com/5760248 Thanks for that. I hate Jalopnik's new layout. Personally, I've always wondered what would happen if every Ferrari owner whose car was less than 5 years old was suddenly trapped in their cars and burned to death. I posit a net improvement in the world. I am obviously quite biased, but every new Ferrari owner that I've ever met so far has been a right dickhead.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2011 01:44
|
|
|
I think there was an announcement a year or two ago that said there were no plans to offer an SS version of the Cruze. http://www.motorauthority.com/blog/1032253_gm-disbands-high-performance-vehicle-operations John Heinricy retired in 2008, and without his protection GM completely disbanded his HPVO (High Performance Vehicle Operations) team which is responsible for engineering all Chevrolet SS and Cadillac V-series cars (excepting the Camaro SS and all Corvettes). The former engineers were distributed throughout the company and its resources reallocated. It will probably never return in its current form. Since the team members with performance tuning and engineering experience are now scattered between project teams, there will be less influence and available expertise for each project. All design is about making decisions about critical compromises between competing interests on a project, and I fear that without this level of centralization, GM's performance vehicles will suffer. Word is that the new management also doesn't like the idea of low volume performance variants, especially those that require a specialized engineering team, in the interests of cutting research and development spending as well as production costs. All that I have heard so far is that they will try to respect the SS brand and not use it for a glorified trim level, but that there is currently no engineering allocated to a performance Cruze. This means that if there probably won't be an SS variant like you saw with the Cobalt which was aggressively performance oriented and had a lot of unique engineering (for instance, the "no-lift shift" transmission feature). You'll probably see a "sporty" model with a slightly firmer suspension and stick-on side skirts with the refresh or something, but nothing like the excellent turbo Cobalt/HHR SS which had a unique engine and transmission, i believe different suspension geometry, and other serious performance engineering. The idea that I have gleaned from interviews and the like is that GM wants to market the Cruze as an "upscale" compact car with a "big car feel" and an interest in "luxury" and economy over sportiness. This is probably also part of the reason the hatch is not coming to the US - hatches are associated with cheapness, not luxury. This strikes mes as a pretty stupid decision, but seems pretty solidly in line with GM's recent decisions which seem to think that marketing and cost-cutting are more important than superior engineering. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Mar 7, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2011 20:41
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:The part about this that is silly is they are going to have a Buick Cruze variant. So, if they push the Chevy version too upmarket, they start stepping on their own toes. Nah, i think the ball is already rolling on the compact Buick, and the design's already been done in China I think. But Dan Ackerson was recently quoted as saying that they're spending too much in differentiated sheetmetal and that he thinks that they could differentiate models better with marketing  instead of all that bother. Because it worked out so well last time.Also, you mentioned Chevy going too upmarket, and I was reminded of this opinion piece. The writer argues that starting in the 70s and 80s, "fake luxury" replaced "fake performance" as the way to sell cars, in part because of death of muscle cars due to the EPA and insurance companies. http://www.speedsportlife.com/2008/04/29/avoidable-contact-11-how-fake-luxury-conquered-the-world/ Jack Baruth posted:And so, some time around 1970, the word went out that, from then on, all GM executives would drive cars from their own brand. I can only imagine that there were a lot of angry faces at the dinner tables of Oakland County when it all went down. Imagine, for a moment, that you are a Vice President at the Chevrolet Division of General Motors. As a GM executive, you lead an unbelievably pampered life. It’s been years since you purchased a car from a dealer, or vacuumed out your carpets, or even pumped your own gas. Instead, you have a top-of-the-line Cadillac Fleetwood Sixty Special or something similar, which is cleaned, serviced, and fueled during the day while you are working. In the evenings, you put on a dinner jacket, festoon your handsome, socially active wife with expensive jewels, and drive your brand-new Cadillac to posh dinner parties; on the weekends, you glide to church with your perfect children, a shining example of the American dream… Finally, I'd like to say that in defense of the Cobalt, the Cobalt Coupe actually was a decent looking little car if you ignored the shadow of the Cavalier that loomed above it. I rented one a few times. The proportions were conservative but respectable, although with just a tad too much front overhang, and there was nothing specifically objectionable about the styling. I thought the rear taillights were actually kind of fun and the rear end was fairly tidy, almost reminiscent of the Elise, actually. The sides were clean without pointless vents and character line frippery, the wheel arches decently contoured, and the front end, while clearly compromised in order to fit the FWD bits, but was at least not ridiculously tall like a modern one. The interior sucked, naturally, but it wasn't really worse than the contemporary Corolla. The design itself was exceedingly boring but at least inoffensive. The only reason people hate them is because they're associated with poor people and most people only have driven them as poverty-spec rental cars. If Toyota came out with the exact same car, people's opinions of the SS would be much better. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 23:42 on Mar 7, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2011 23:36
|
|
|
dissss posted:Sorry that is ludicrous - the only way to market the Cruze is its bigger, cheaper and better equipped than the competition. Were the NZ ones made in Korea? What were they badged as? I know in AUS they were Holden Barinas. I mean the Aveo was bad, but keep in mind that it was developed in Korea in like 2000 and when it was first released there in 2002, Chevy America was still selling the Cavalier and had just stopped selling the Lumina. As a massive Big 3 apologist, and I want to say nice things about the new Chevy Sonic but I can't because it is ugly as balls and probably poo poo. And the name sucks, too.  I mean, look at this thing: that is dogshit ugly. In so many different, terrible ways. It looks like you took the front end off a Dodge Charger, smashed it into a pugnose, then stick it on the back of a Corolla (also smashed). I mean the roofline isn't as atrocious as the "sedanified hatch" look of the previous Aveo, but it's still really oddly proportioned. And that front end is just horrifying at any angle. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 00:19 on Mar 8, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2011 00:15
|
|
|
dissss posted:Yeah its a Barina but I have no idea where they're assembled.  Yeah I mean to be fair the rest of the car isn't that bad. In particular, they do a decent job of making the sedan version look like a real sedan, as opposed to the often odd stuff they do to these other subcompacts to mash together hatch body panels into a sedan (see: the Ford Fiesta sedan). As a subcompact sedan, you're going to get some funky proportions, especially the teeny tiny deck/trunk/trunk opening. Hell, the trunk deck is actually half as long as the trunk is tall!  The two rising parallel line character lines on the side look alright, although the upper one looks awkward just emerging from the front fender arch out of nowhere in a particularly ugly way. And, ha, I just noticed the tiny Hofmeister kink there but actually think it's a decent way of resolving the rear window in this case (especially considering how bad it can be in a subcompact sedan). The C pillar is alright and looks good from several angles. But that front end. My god. It's so bad I actually cringe when it comes to view on a 360 spin. I honestly think it ruins the whole car. The front quarter is a train wreck, with three massively tall contours fighting it out in one tortured mass of melty ugly. The lines from the hood-fender contour and the top of the fender just sort of... moosh together into a bland little strip before hitting the A pillar. The only positive thing is that the front overhang is under control. And that says nothing of the gross double opening Chevy grille, which still just refuses to look good at all to me. I mean I tried to like it, and it is striking, but it gets your attention by looking ugly, drat it. I tried to give it a chance since I do think that the standard front grille/lower air opening look is not the only possible front end, but it just refuses to gel for me. Just move the logo up about 5 inches and it would all look so much more normal. And what is going on with the taillights? Those things are just ugly by any standard. They look like melted gummi bears and the shapes make no sense at all. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 01:12 on Mar 8, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2011 01:06
|
|
|
Linedance posted:Creme_Filling, as an aside, I don't suppose you could recommend any books on describing automotive design, the language used and how it applies (with pictures and examples?). It's something I'm very interested in but I only have a layman's outlook. You seem pretty well informed. You can PM me if you like. I'm just an interested lay observer who's read the occasional design critique. I wish I could help more. I'd also actually love to hear or get a thread from someone with formal automotive design training, as it's definitely an area of interest for me. All the books I know of are ridiculously overpriced textbooks, and even those tend to be out of date. All I can think of is this wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_automotive_design
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2011 03:44
|
|
|
dissss posted:Seriously? Dunno the Fiesta sedan looks like a taller fatter version of the old Chrysler cab forward LH sedans. I think part of the funny proportions game is how much longer the front doors are compared with the rear doors, and the relative distance between A/B pillar and B/C pillar, and the difference in length between hood and trunk. The "long hood short deck" look works really well for coupes, but with 4 doors it just looks silly. In particular, I've never liked the Civic sedan, where the front wheel sits basically at the base of the A pillar. That ridiculously raked windshield (which at the time was advertised as being steeper than that of the NSX) just looks really awkward stuck in front of a dumpy looking sedan with a bulgy rear roofline and arched C pillar/rear window. That roofline is practical because it increases headroom for rear seat passengers, but I think ideally, you want the A-line top silhouette to look at least somewhat describe an arc that is moderately symmetrical on a sedan. A wedgy looking sedan just looks ungainly and unstable due to its length, and I think ideally the angle of the windshield and rear window should be at least somewhat similar so as to maintain a visual continuity between the end of the greenhouse and the trunk itself. Sedans have always been popular in the US. Until the age of the SUV, the sedan was the family car for most Americans. In part, I think it's because Americans prefer a larger car with a longer wheelbase. Also, isn't it true that a sedan tends to be quieter than its comparable wagon/hatch/2box equivalent because of the way the space is divided?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2011 20:37
|
|
|
dissss posted:I guess thats why we end up with so many different designs. Personally I think its easily the ugliest car in its class, including that pug-Chevy. Hmm. My personal opinion on the Peugeot 407 is that it pulls it off, somehow, as many of the crazier french designs do. In part I think it's because the increased length compared to, say, the Civic Sedan example from before helps balance out the very stretched out front half of the greenhouse from the stubby back half. That nose still looks suuper long to me, though, but it might not look so long from another angle as there's lots of tricks you can use to disguise a long front overhang. Also, proportionally the trunk is so short (compared to overall length, etc.) that it almost looks like an ancestor of the "four-door coupe" fad. Looking at the Peugeot, I'm reminded again of the famous "cab-forward" Chrysler LH sedans, which take a more balanced approach to proportion in terms of hood/trunk length and front/back window rake. Pretty lovely cars, mechanically, but they were definitely design leaders at the time. The car shown dates back to 1999. Were they ever sold on the continent? I remember hearing that very recently they were licensed to some Russian car company, but I doubt they ever made it further west from that agreement. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2011 18:31
|
|
|
kimbo305 posted:How? Cab-forward cars have shortened hoods with relatively reduced front overhang. The front window rake is much more extreme on the Peugeot, counter to the idea of increased cabin space. I'd say that the important figure in making something "cab-forward" is more the axis-to-dash ratio from pushing the passenger compartment far forward near the front suspension than overhangs alone. The comparison I was making was in more general to the LH styling itself, including how there is less windshield rake and a shorter front end/longer rear end compared to the 407. I'd say (maybe) the 407 seems to be one of those cases where the car was designed as a coupe first, then sedanified. That's why the front end and front doors are so long in those cases. btw, here is the Lamborghini Chrysler Portofino concept from 1987, since it was mentioned.  I know the current vogue in styling is for sporty cars to follow the BMW model of short overhangs, pushing the wheels as far out to the corners of the car as possible. And it certainly looks good. But I've also heard that actually one positive factor for GT racing is a design with a long front overhang, since it allows for more downforce to be generated there. I'm not sure how reliable this info is, though.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2011 19:59
|
|
|
Super Aggro Crag posted:Yeah, but does it weigh 10,000lbs like the Avenger? I think he's talking about this Avenger (1994-2000), which weighed less than 2900 lbs. Not great, but i looked it up and the new Avenger is 3570 lbs with the 4 cylinder. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2011 23:54
|
|
|
Super Aggro Crag posted:I used to own a 1998 Avenger. you tricked me 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2011 17:53
|
|
|
CornHolio posted:Don't know where else to put this, so it goes here! Robert Cumberford, the design editor from Automobile magazine, really ripped on the Tundra's design when it came out back in 2007. http://www.automobilemag.com/features/by_design/0702_2007_toyota_tundra/index.html  quote:1. The headlamps are extremely banal, set high in the fender with a sharp break in the contours at the top.  quote:I believe we can be certain that the Tundra will be a good vehicle. It is surely not as aerodynamic as the latest General Motors pickups, and despite a grille largely inspired by the Dodge big-rig look, it doesn't really carry off the theme as well as Tom Gale's design team did more than a decade ago. The perpetual best-seller, Ford's F-150, was slightly feminized one generation back, and Toyota has tried to capture a bit of that civilized look without, it must be said, much success. But as I remarked to Telnack, what difference does the styling make if the vehicle is clearly superior? I have to agree. It's pretty awkward and looks strangely pudgy.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2011 04:17
|
|
|
2ndclasscitizen posted:In more ute news, time for some more Holden blue-balling America! I've had an idea for an ad that would sell about a million El Caminos to Chevy's demographic in the US, based on existing internet videos. quote:Dude loads his motorcycle into the back of the ute. (to how off functionality)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2011 04:29
|
|
|
zakiu posted:No kidding. Original photoshopper displayed his ignorance of subject matter by using a Toyota logo and not a Lexus logo. Toyota badge only works because Lexus has been doing similar things with reflectors in bumpers, however it is nothing new to the 5-series, either. Dunno, I also disagree. The design language is pretty indistinct compared to other modern BMWs. The most distinctive part is still the RWD proportioning, but in terms of actual detailing and styling, it's pretty generic. In part, this is because of the inevitable erosion of design novelty as novel design features propagate amongst designers. This is particularly true for "prestige" makes like BMW that make conventional cars (i.e. not low-slung sports cars) strongly associated with sportiness and luxury, since they inevitably spawn a certain degree of ape-ery. And in part, this is because the increasingly baroque and undulating curvatures stuck onto flat panels in BMW's designs are coincidentally becoming more and more similar to the current Toyota styling language and Hyundai's "Fluidic Sculpture" stuff. Look, in particular, to the rather pointless frowny forehead bumps on the hood of this concept. Also there's the really, really big swoopy character line with lined up door handles on the side that starts at the fender vent (a new and, for me, already hated design cliche) as opposed to the relatively Germanic cleanliness of the last 5 Series' sides. Of course the show lighting in that picture unpleasantly emphasizes it, but honestly that thing makes me think "New Ford Taurus" not "ooh swoop line that goes slightly up make car look fast". I think BMW realizes this as well, and they've always had to deal with this by continually updating their designs. However, I personally am not a fan of the new round of CS concept inspired designs. The enlarged kidney grille, for instance, was an attempt to try and play up the distinctive brand element. But by changing its proportions to be wider and more square, they've basically destroyed the visual distinctiveness and made it look at once clumsy and more generic (since it is now the same width as every other automaker's upper grille opening). Comparatively, look at the subtle shape of the previous 5's kidney grilles - they flare slightly at the center, etc. Looks good while still being recognizable, and flows with the curvature of the leading edge of the hood. The taillights in particular are a serious step down. Before, they had a distinctive open arched profile that echoed shapes in the front end, etc. Now they look like the tails in the old Toyota Avalon or maybe an Infiniti. And they're oddly angular. I think people are mainly reacting to that, plus the elimination of the white eyelines on the lights. The headlights, on the other hand, have various pointless kinks and curves on the profile and are significantly smaller even though the grille and front end generally has grown in size. I mean I understand why they went to the two piece tail lights so they could have a wider trunk opening, but the way it's executed is just terribly generic. The old 5 series' one piece taillights were pretty distinctive and had a very clean profile/outline. The new one is unnecessarily busy on an already busy rear end. Greenhouse profile? Typical germanic arch. Rear quarter and trunk? Again, the distinctive features - short overhangs, high blended trunk lid - have already all been copied to death. I mean there is still the general "low and wide" styling to distinguish the 5 as a BMW, but these proportions are harder to see in a photograph, particularly one taken from slightly unusual viewing angles. I mean the 5 series has never been that distinctive, but the ugly bulging front end (with particularly ugly "aggressive M" ducts) and bland rear (with similarly unimpressive fake diffuser) and ugly detailing really don't do much for me. The previous 5 series looked far more coherent. Look at the front from an angle, for instance. Super bulbous. The grille sticks out for no reason, the ducts on the M body kit all stick out (hypothetically you could justify this part with aero function if it serves one), and the profile as a whole is really lumpy instead of being smooth like on the prevoius m5.   Old m5: 
OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Apr 4, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2011 17:56
|
|
|
zakiu posted:Tail light design has progressed past overall shape and color heirarchy into the actual illumination design. People are reacting to the overall generic shape of the tails without actually understanding how the tails look when the car is on. The rear lights are similar to an older avalon, but the reality of it is when you look at the new 6 and the new 7, it's a specific design element that crosses products. If you tell me the tails do NOT look like an evolution of the updated 3 series, or farther back, the e46 tails, I'm going to just tell you that you're on crack. They're really awesome tails when they're lit at night and are very distinct. Overall, they did a decent job in some respects. In particular, they managed to take a quite tall car and at least at times give impression that it is low and wide. Still, there's a difference between "conservatively styled" and just plain boring. I'm still not totally sold on the taillights.   And, also, compare what we got to something like these fantasy predictions from some Swedish car mag that are more heavily influenced by the later E90 style   versus the actual 2012 5  
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2011 21:05
|
|
|
Muffinpox posted:It looks like a Cobalt. Nah, more like a Cruze. I think I preferred Subarus when they were ugly instead of boring. Also, insert obligatory blaming of Toyota here.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2011 03:31
|
|
|
 I suppose it looks less awkward than the old sedan. There is a better transition to the trunk area. And at least they kept the cowl height relatively low for a modern car. Hopefully the hatch doesn't look like a Kia Rio this time around. Eh, I will settle for boring. Slap some box flares on there and i suppose it'll work. But I do wonder how much weight/length has been gained this time around. Seriously, though, what is the name for those ugly flattened wheel arch flare things that every designer is putting on "sporty" cars now? In this case, they're even on the concept itself. Is there a reason they are popular now? Somethign to do with computer aided design? Ease of production or tooling? Do people really think that they look better than real rounded wheel arches? compare to old one:  And concept: 
OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 04:12 on Apr 14, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2011 04:01
|
|
|
dissss posted:
Ha, holy poo poo that is uncanny, especially if you mentally add US-spec bumpers to the back of the Impreza concept. Only real difference is a bigger rear fender crease on the Subaru and a slightly flatter beltline requiring a little bangle butt to link up to the trunk. Even the wheels look like the ones that came on the old mazdaspeed 6. Oh well, i suppose you could do worse than copy the mazda 3 (sans grin). Hell, I think the slightly straighter greenhouse actually looks better, though the stupid fenders are a little worse. Still, really good catch, there. Someone make a properly scaled side-by-side comparison or overlay. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 04:26 on Apr 14, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2011 04:17
|
|
|
anonumos posted:This looks like a goddamned Ford Focus.  Seriously, I'm cool with a boring-looking car. The front end, in particular, is still less bulbous and nasty than many of its competitors and looks a little more proportional than the previous model(though it looks a little like the new taurus with funny headlights). It looks like a Mazda 3 with a little Ford in it, but so what? I'm ok with copying two of some of the better styled small cars on the market right now. The classic Imprezas were all pretty boring looking soapbar cars hotted up with hood scoops, vents, wings, and box flares. I'll wait for the STI version. Also, an example of Chrysler not loving up: Grand Cherokee will get euro-spec 3.0 L Diesel by 2013. Output rated at 237 hp and 406 lb-ft. Availability in Wrangler as ye tunknown http://www.autoblog.com/2011/04/14/jeep-grand-cherokee-to-get-3-0l-diesel-v6-in-north-america-by-20/
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2011 19:26
|
|
|
kimbo305 posted:They did go out and hoon it, but leaving the dirt is such a desperate appeal to authority. At least when Hyundai made a fake rally car, they bothered to give it a bespoke AWD system and got engine output to 500hp. This? FWD, slightly better than stock hp going through the stock autostick. Laame.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2011 00:14
|
|
|
Skyssx posted:How many years did it compete? I honestly don't know, my only exposure to it was GT4. I was talking about the Veloster rally car, which yes isn't actually a fake rally car. It was prepared by Rhys Millen Racing, and I believe it's going to debut tomorrow at the Global Rallycross in Washington State. In addition to the US Rallycross championship, they're goign to do the X-Games, Pikes Peak again and also some sort of drifting whatever, too.  So yes, I was being a dick. My bad. Personally, I'm not a fan of Hyundai's overcomplicated designs, but the basic shape of the Veloster is not bad and its specs look pretty drat good. I'm hoping for a Kia version, although lately I worry that Kia's streak of design excellence is going to peter out. I vaguely remember some interview mentioning management displeasure that Shreyer's designs aren't "distinctively korean" enough or something. I know that they in the past used to run some Tiburon rally cars and before that the Accent Rally car was in WRC for like three years before they ran out of money and left. While I'm at it, the one positive thing about the Avenger rally concept is that some of those parts might possibly trickle down to the aftermarket through Mopar, particularly the suspension or the paddle shifters... Possibly. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 04:56 on Apr 15, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2011 04:47
|
|
|
Impreza Hatch photos just came out. Looks OK.    If nothing else, they've kept overall dimensions the same while expanding the wheelbase and reducing weight by 110 pounds to 2,911 lbs for the base spec manual hatch, which is pretty drat good for a car with the added weight of AWD. Subaru Product Planner Kenneth Lim posted:The profile of the front, the sharpness everywhere, all this was about fuel economy, with considerations of aesthetics afterward...We optimized the length and profile of the roof and the sharp edges get air off the car and away from it instead of being turbulent against the car, and sucking against the car in the rear. It reduced drag, and we have a much-reduced Cd. Sedan also looks good. Front end detailing and contouring looks good without being too busy. I like the angled cuts on the rear glass of the hatch, since hatches can often get too bubbly looking. I also really appreciate the hatch's skinny D pillar and generous greenhouse. Looks like Toyota by way of Nissan's GT-R styling - bland slightly ugly sculpting but with a vaguely mechanical look.  I am down with the styling. Much better than the new Legacy, which had some awkward proportions (too tall). OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Apr 20, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2011 20:19
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Introducing the 2012 Subaru Impreza "Mom Jeans" Edition. Seriously, who gets excited about a minivan anyway these days? Dunno looks more or less like any other hatch. I like the general restraint in gimmicky styling details - no enormous headlights or superfluous vents, and appreciate the big greenhouse even though it makes it look a little more like a van. High beltlines look "sporty" but aren't particularly practical. It looks more van-like in photos with no real scale reference, but in person It's a pretty compact car still. One thing that I do dislike is how they moved away from the strong upper character line that was meant to ape BMW and went with the strong lower character line connecting the two arches, which makes it look kind of bottom-heavy and is a little too reminiscent of the ugly body cladding of the Outback models. The chunky rear fenders also make it a little rear end-heavy, but they at least have a legitimate aero purpose.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2011 21:14
|
|
|
   In roofline without the roof rack, I'm seeing a little bit of a couple gens of Civic hatch 
OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Apr 20, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2011 22:49
|
|
|
travisray2004 posted:Holy poo poo. I don't mind the current gen Impreza because it looks kind of awkward. This just looks.....boring. The laws of fluid dynamics are a harsh mistress. Front end is probably like that on both cars for aero purposes. Same goes for the pseudo kamm back and weird angular lines on the back of the rear bumper, etc. Eh, the rear end and concave hatch treatment seem closest to the Mazda 3 with maybe a dash of older Ford Focus in the rounded silhouette. The D pillar could have been more distinctive, what with the sort of lame rounded triangular shape they do here, but maybe it might help visibility a bit? I do wish they could have taken these proportions but kept or even increased the sort of faux-flame surfacing thing they had with the last generation (I say this based on interviews with Subaru designers back then where they explicitly mentioned "BMW-like" as a goal). The nasty flat fender flares and weird Matrix/Outback body-cladding looking lower contour is pretty drat ugly compared to the last generation's strong upper character line, though.   Personally I like boring versus awkward. Add hood scoop and box flares and it's all good. I mean look at the beloved GC Impreza. Booring. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2011 00:48
|
|
|
Simkin posted:I used to deliver in an old (mid 60s I think) Chevy box van of some description that had an eco guage, which I'm pretty sure was just measuring the amount of vacuum being drawn on the carbs. It really depends entirely on how much it costs and how much it weighs. Let's imagine that it will be similar in price to the Genesis Coupe - between 20-25k. If it really is 2300 lbs like they promised, then it's significantly different. The Genesis coupe weighs 3300 lbs and is a moderately larger car. But, knowing Toyota, its probably at least 2800 lbs (possibly more). In terms of looks, I personally think that it's a wash. Scion has slightly more mainstream brand cachet, though. The problem here is that volume buyers might be more likely to go for the Genesis Coupe since it is a larger, more comfortable car with bigger numbers attached for a similar amount of money. And both are competing for a relatively smaller market since at least some customers who like the retro look will be looking at the Mustang/Camaro, which also hits a similar price point as the Genesis. If it is sub-20k priced, then the Hyundai it's really competing with is the new Veloster, which has similar power, is fwd, and kind of ugly but does weigh like 2600 pounds and has a projected 17k msrp. My best guess? Price $19-26k, weight 2800 lbs, engine output of like 155 hp in US tune. If it's actually priced at $25k+ like has been rumored, then it's probably dead in the water since then it's directly competing with the larger, more powerful Genesis Coupe and US pony cars. Maybe that's fine for the enthusiast market, but the mass market is likely to disagree. Also, branding as Scion instead of Toyota may reduce the brand loyalist draw for enthusiasts, to boot. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Apr 21, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2011 19:50
|
|
|
The obvious solution to the fuel pump / indicator stalk debate:  Well, at least on a work truck...
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2011 04:36
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:It might be a weight thing. I'm pretty sure the hatches are heavier than the sedans. Focus SE Sedan 2907 lbs Focus SE Hatch 2920 lbs Eh by like 13 pounds. It's probably more of a volume thing. Sales volume, that is. There's already four other trim levels for the sedan and three for the hatch. No need for more variants to make things more complicated.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2011 01:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 16:09 |
|
|
I'm actually very impressed that the new Impreza weighs the same as the Focus but adds AWD and a few inches in length. Focus SE Sedan 2907 lbs 2012 Impreza Sedan 2910 lbs Chevy Cruze Sedan 3102 lbs OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 04:55 on Apr 26, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2011 04:53
|
|