"new" car designs

[Agent G]

While I believe the new Dart looks killer in that pic, those body lines aren't new. That whole front clip has been done to death by various Japanese car makers in the last five years. In this view the rear quarters remind me of a Neon, maybe even a Pontiac G4.

Those are doors by Chevrolet for sure. Rear view mirrors by Ford.

Compared to the old Dart, no comparison at all.

Nothing wrong with modern but the styling. Safety, reliability, performance and handling are all lightyears ahead of the good old days.

G

[Guest Johnny]

But even in the 60's and 70's and the 50's as well, the cars shared a lot of the same styling, so its not different then from today

Oh but there is! It was man not machine designing those cars of the past.

Wife has a cousin that works in design for GM (by the way he says Americans are slim minority in there) and the guy probably don't know which end of a #4H pencil to use. If he didn't have a computer already loaded with appropriate programs I don't think he couldn't design a cardboard box!

There is no real imagination in today's designs. Just variations on what the Japanese or Europeans are doing. (mostly Japanese)

Then add in that the path seems to be to cars that take everything about driving out of the hands of the driver!

All about making it as comfortable as their living room!

As for the retro cars the latest Mustang and the Challenger are the only ones I halfway like. The Camaro would have been great had they kept the original Auto Show design but they decided to screw up the front and back ends and ruined it.(got to get those government mandated fuel mileage averages up)

I have never been a fan of reviving retired Badges of once revered cars just to try and sell. It shows how little imagination there is any more in the auto industry.

[Guest Johnny]

BTW for 2014 The Mustang will be a whole new care with no ties to it's past or even most recent past.

They would be better off to retire the Mustang and use a little imagination and just come up with a new name for a new design car!

But they won't. They will just put out another "foreign" looking car and hope the Mustang brand will help it sell more.

[Junkman]

Cars have been going to hell since about 1920! Who needs all this modern garp and enclosed envelope bodies. What is wrong with separate fenders and actual wood running boards. Overhead valves are just a bunch of gimcrackery! A car is not a car unless the radiator is visible and vertical and is sprung minimally with semi-elliptic or full-elliptics. Enclosed bodies and roll-up windows are for sissies! One doesn't deserve the title of Automobilist unless the wind is in your face. All of those chrome boats from the 50s and the "muscle" cars aren't real cars. A Muscle car is a Stutz Bearcat with a T-head engine!

I wouldn't go quite this far, but in essence, you have a point.

My impresson is that the automobile industry has completely lost the idea, what the actual purpose of a car is, what it actually was invented for in the first place. They give us these obese insolent carriages, that come festooned with all kinds of rubbish and each generation is bigger and heavier than the one it replaces. The modern European or Japanese family car challenges 1980s American full sized cars in the weight department. Any progress in engine efficiency is immadiately offset by adding more fat to the cars these engines are used in.

OK, this may be different in the US - at least to an extend - since cars have gotten smaller and more efficient over there compared with what was on offer as recently as 25 years ago. But what was the reaction of the buying public there? Switch to driving trucks and SUVs in droves.

But isn't this thread about car design? I like to belive, that each decade since WWII had a clear 'definition' or 'identity' when it comes to car design.

- 1940s: The (what I benevolently call) Detroit Potatoes

- 1950s: Fins and Chrome

- 1960s: The 'sculpted' look (think coke bottle)

- 1970s: The 'chiselled' look (think fuselage and 'trapezoidal')

- 1980s: The linear look (think right angles)

- 1990s: The jelly mould

- 2000s: The jelly mould

- 2010s: The??? Let me guess: jelly mould?

Notice something?

Edited April 29, 2012 by Junkman

[Junkman]

So this is the 'progress' they managed to come up with in almost 20 years.

How can they use the word 'new' and keep a straight face?

Edited April 29, 2012 by Junkman

[Harry P.]

To all of you guys that think cars all looking alike is some sort of new thing... 1928 Ford, Plymouth and Chevy:

[Rob Hall]

So this is the 'progress' they managed to come up with in almost 20 years.

How can they use the word 'new' and keep a straight face?

Well, it is a new and improved car..it probably has no parts in common w/ the Neon. And that's only about 12 years (that's a 2nd gen Neon in the pic). The Caliber replaced the Neon, the Dart replaces the Caliber, so it's the same market niche.

[Junkman]

Well, it is a new and improved car..it probably has no parts in common w/ the Neon. And that's only about 12 years (that's a 2nd gen Neon in the pic). The Caliber replaced the Neon, the Dart replaces the Caliber, so it's the same market niche.

I mean the car design. Not technical features. And I seemingly can't even tell the difference between a 1st and 2nd generation Neon, how's that for distinctive?

Edited April 29, 2012 by Junkman

[niteowl7710]

To all of you guys that think cars all looking alike is some sort of new thing... 1928 Ford, Plymouth and Chevy:

What you mean you can't easily tell them apart? Why they have different...err....umm...BUMPERS! Yes look at those front bumpers, clearly individualized and spectacularly designed differently from the others...

Edited April 29, 2012 by niteowl7710

[Rob Hall]

What you mean you can't easily tell them apart? Why they have different...err....umm...BUMPERS! Yes look at those front bumpers, clearly individualized a spectacularly designed differently from the others...

LoL...I can tell the bottom one is a Ford because of the blue oval emblem and the bumper that looks like that on the AMT Model A kits...

[niteowl7710]

I mean the CAR DESIGN. Not technical features.

Well what the heck DO you want it to look like? A '76 Chevette? Yes it's evolutionary, not revolutionary. Yes it also looks like a very angry squat Mitsubishi Evo X, but at the same time it's a "A" segment car, what all can they do with it? Put fins on it? Maybe about 100lbs of chrome trim?

I'd rather have the edgy angry Evo X wannabe than the bulbous bland Neon you've compared it to (to say nothing of that Aztek in waiting Caliber that replaced the Neon).

[charlie8575]

I'd rather have the edgy angry Evo X wannabe than the bulbous bland Neon you've compared it to (to say nothing of that Aztek in waiting Caliber that replaced the Neon).

I think that's one of the nicest things I've ever heard people call a Caliber. Too bad- great idea executed poorly.

Charlie Larkin

[Rob Hall]

Well what the heck DO you want it to look like? A '76 Chevette? Yes it's evolutionary, not revolutionary. Yes it also looks like a very angry squat Mitsubishi Evo X, but at the same time it's a "A" segment car, what all can they do with it? Put fins on it? Maybe about 100lbs of chrome trim?

.

Actually, the Dart is a 'C-segment' car, like the Caliber and Neon, and the Focus. A-segment cars are the really tiny subcompacts like the Spark or Fiat 500.

[fumi]

My impresson is that the automobile industry has completely lost the idea, what the actual purpose of a car is, what it actually was invented for in the first place. They give us these obese insolent carriages, that come festooned with all kinds of rubbish and each generation is bigger and heavier than the one it replaces. The modern European or Japanese family car challenges 1980s American full sized cars in the weight department. Any progress in engine efficiency is immadiately offset by adding more fat to the cars these engines are used in.

You cannot deny the cars are built much safer these days, and all of that add to the overall weight of the car. Still, most cars manufactured today are far more efficient than the original Beetle, with all these additional weight and engine capacity.

But isn't this thread about car design? I like to belive, that each decade since WWII had a clear 'definition' or 'identity' when it comes to car design.

- 1940s: The (what I benevolently call) Detroit Potatoes

- 1950s: Fins and Chrome

- 1960s: The 'sculpted' look (think coke bottle)

- 1970s: The 'chiselled' look (think fuselage and 'trapezoidal')

- 1980s: The linear look (think right angles)

- 1990s: The jelly mould

- 2000s: The jelly mould

- 2010s: The??? Let me guess: jelly mould?

Notice something?

The 2000s was hardly jelly mould. BMW had their Bangle's butt, and many car manufacturers were infatuated with the square, especially Ford. These days cars look far more dynamic than the ones in the last decade.

Edited April 29, 2012 by fumi

[niteowl7710]

Actually, the Dart is a 'C-segment' car, like the Caliber and Neon, and the Focus. A-segment cars are the really tiny subcompacts like the Spark or Fiat 500.

Ahh true dat. I see I had my segments all out of whack.

[Guest Johnny]

Well, it is a new and improved car..it probably has no parts in common w/ the Neon. And that's only about 12 years (that's a 2nd gen Neon in the pic). The Caliber replaced the Neon, the Dart replaces the Caliber, so it's the same market niche.

If it is "new" how could it have been "improved" already?

Edited April 29, 2012 by Johnny

[Rob Hall]

If it is "new" how could it have been "improved" already?

Improved in comparison to it's predecessor..the Caliber. More efficient, better performance, better interior materials and options, etc. From what I've read, it's much more competitive in it's segment than the Caliber was.

Edited April 29, 2012 by Rob Hall

[Erik Smith]

There are cars designed for people who don't care of you can tell what kind of car it is. Think Camry or Accord. People buy them because they are comfortable, reliable and fit their needs. It has been the same since cars were invented - or even horse saddles, or wagons....

Other cars are designed for people who value the visual appearance of their car. Those are the cars that we remember - the iconic cars - and every era has them.

I can find examples of cars from all era that I like, I love, and I loath. I, for instance, really dislike 1966 Ford Fairlanes and 1967 Chevelles - two cars that a lot of people rave about. I also like the new Fiat and the Hyundai Elantra - retro and new design, but to my eye, attractive, none the less.

If you want to find cars you like, don't look at the ones you don't like, because that's what you'll see.

Edited April 29, 2012 by Erik Smith

[CadillacPat]

To all of you guys that think cars all looking alike is some sort of new thing... 1928 Ford, Plymouth and Chevy:

Harry I don't think anyone said it was new, just obviously terrible today.

CadillacPat

[Harry P.]

Harry I don't think anyone said it was new, just obviously terrible today.

CadillacPat

Apparently no worse today than in 1928!

[Rob Hall]

Apparently no worse today than in 1928!

I'd argue cars are way more differentiated styling-wise today than they were in the '20s, 30s, 40s, or early '50s.

[lordairgtar]

To borrow from a rather randy limerick, "In days of olde, when artists were bold, before computers were invented.

We held a pencil and slung some clay,

And that's how cars were imagined"

Trouble is, is that all the designers have all studied at the same couple of schools and don't realy have an original thought in their minds. Guys loike Loewy, Exner, Gregorie, Brooks Stevens, et al, were men of vision. Retro isn't such a bad thing, neither. Exner restyled early classics into what were known as Revivals in 1966. They even were the basis of a line of model kits and a coupl,e of actual production cars. I myself drive a retro vehicle, my HHR panel truck...I've owned two of them.

[peekay]

At least in one design area there has been an on-going revolution in recent years. We seem to have finally freed ourselves from 30 years of self-imposed colour conservatism.

I'm seeing really gorgeous new colours/colour combinations on new cars these days. Two-tones and pastels that haven't been seen since the fifties and strong, bright shades ala "unforseeable fuschia/sub-lime".

Some of it may be conciously retro but there are also entirely new colours and effects that owe nothing to the past.

[Guest Johnny]

Improved in comparison to it's predecessor..the Caliber. More efficient, better performance, better interior materials and options, etc. From what I've read, it's much more competitive in it's segment than the Caliber was.

You can only improve what already exists. If some thing new is better it's well, still just new! But cannot be improved unless they make some change on "it" that makes it" improved" over the original!

I believe that is what is termed an oxymoron!

Edited April 30, 2012 by Johnny

[W-Machine]

How many cars evoke a "love it or hate it" response when new? Maybe that is the benchmark by which styling should be judged. If a design grabs that much of your attention, then maybe it could be considered a success. After all, the '71 Riviera was such a car. Of course, so were the Edsel, AMC Pacer and '74 Matador. Like them or hate them, they were distinctive. I think that the Charger, Challenger, Camaro, Mustang, Chrysler 300, and Cadillac CTS are all distinctive modern designs that will likely hold up well to the test of time, even if some of them strip-mine the past for styling cues. Hopefully, the next generation Mustang does NOT look like a Mustang II. Now that was one UGLY car.