Jump to content

Styling Trends


Guest Stephen Lyons

Recommended Posts

Guest Stephen Lyons

GM may feature the ghost of Harley Earl in its advertising, but it's not clear to me that anybody in the corporation is especially heeding his legacy. Earl's guiding principle was, "Longer, lower, wider." This dictum was largely followed until the downsizing of all models that began in the 1970's. In the last few years, it's hard to tell what direction GM, or the entire industry, for that matter, is taking.

Perhaps it is the popularity of SUV's that is a factor, but Toyota in particular is adopting a taller, narrower architecture for their passenger cars that Cadillac, in chasing down Lexus, seems to be adopting in its interpretation of edgy design (the new roadster being a welcome exception). Chrysler, held now in Mercedes' thrall, has seemingly abandoned the cab forward jellybean in favor of the old "three box" school of what a car should look like. BMW's have become glowering parodies of their former selves. Mix in a bunch of retro cues (Ford being the master of this art), & you have a real mishmash of directions going on at the moment. Great for diversity & consumer choices, I suppose, but overall maybe at the expense of any really tasteful & aesthetically pleasing cars, in the classic sense? Plus everyone seems intent on fitting the biggest, baddest wheels possible to every type of vehicle, whether this be appropriate or not. I guess this approaching rant stage, but I'd be happy to hear anyone's comments on this topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People don't want attractive cars right now, they're looking for toughness. They want to drive something as close to a tank as possible, no matter what the real nature of the vehicle may be. That's why you can have fake grille guard bars (a.k.a. 'roo bars) cast in plastic in the grille of the tiny Ford Escape. My Nissan Frontier is perhaps the worst offender in this way, with extreme 'roo bars applied along with cartoonish fender flares complete with <span style="font-style: italic">imitation</span> exposed fasteners! I still have a good laugh at the design now and then.

The Hummers take this trend to the ultimate extreme. The H1 is the genuine article, but the H2 and H3 are little more than GMC's with an extra 1000 lbs. of H1 Halloween costumes applied. They're remarkably dumb vehicles to drive. speechless-smiley-004.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me most of the companies have adopted some sort of signature grille. Maybe its the retro thing. Start with the grill and design the vehicle around it. Who will be the first to bring back the huge tail fins?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave ~ The automotive design world has gone totally and completely <span style="font-weight: bold">MAD!</span>.

Although you probably won't agree with me on this, some part of it is based on design to meet government decree.

hvs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dave ~ The automotive design world has gone totally and completely <span style="font-weight: bold">MAD!</span>.

Although you probably won't agree with me on this, some part of it is based on design to meet government decree.

hvs </div></div>

You're right Howard, I don't agree. As I recall there are currently very few decrees on exterior features. No protruding extensions (i.e. spinners), standard bumper height, marker light size and location, and the lights have to be functional after a 5 mph collision if an automaker is dumb enough to designate one of their vehicles as a "car" instead of a "truck". And all of those have been unchanged since at least 1986, when the "5 mph" (zero damage) bumper standard was dropped. Under the skin it's a different story, of course.

I think this trend started as a backlash against the globular aero-cars of the late 1990's, when a Geo, a Mazda and a Lexus could be indistinguishable at 20 feet. I think this phenomenon has taken off for psychological reasons. People in this country aren't as comfortable with our potency as we once were, and feel obliged to visually augment it via these pseudo-macho designs. It's happened here before. I think we can call it the Sputnik syndrome! tongue.gifgrin.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter. Next time please delete the entire post as I have just done. Emasculating it destroyed the meaning and the point of the post

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would add my two cents to this discussion by reminding everyone that style is highly subjective, and driven by the minds of those at the helm. Harley had some incredible ideas and some spectacularly bad ones. I do not see the 1959 Cadillac or the 1958 Buick Roadmaster 75 as among his failures. I rather like the over the top styling, but some of the autorama cars were truly ugly. Look back at the 1980's concept cars and you see the jellybean styling reflected in the common car of today. I remember seeing those same images in the science fiction movies of the '80s with their sleek, techno style and polished aluminium colors. People today see science and technology as the driving image of the future so its it any wonder that they see sleek metal pellets and star trek like pods. I cannot say I like it...in fact I don't...I do like the Chrysler trends that have come out this year, particularly the 300 line, and the European styling of the Crossfire. I simply doubt their reliability. Still as taste goes, most young people (under 30) like what they see, And that is what the market is aimed at, younger people. Thank God for older styles, antique car clubs and museums for those of us who prefer to remember the past than look to the future. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Other Dave ~ No question where the Dagmars came from. Or the tail lights on the '59 Caddy. The term "PE" does not refer to a human body part, but rather to the mental state of those who covet the macho design in an attempt, mostly in vain, to try to enhance their self image.

It is important to them even though only their kindred souls are impressed. I live in a town with a large military facility. You should see the creations that drive on and off the base. Lots of "PEs" there. Lots of jacked up, high wheeled pickups.

It also appears that the medical profession is joining in, mostly the 45-60 year old crowd trying to express something.

Just my thoughts based on observations and not on any scientific study. I'm sure someone will come on here with that. smirk.gif

hvs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Lyons

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">People don't want attractive cars right now, they're looking for toughness. They want to drive something as close to a tank as possible, no matter what the real nature of the vehicle may be. That's why you can have fake grille guard bars (a.k.a. 'roo bars) cast in plastic in the grille of the tiny Ford Escape. My Nissan Frontier is perhaps the worst offender in this way, with extreme 'roo bars applied along with cartoonish fender flares complete with <span style="font-style: italic">imitation</span> exposed fasteners! I still have a good laugh at the design now and then.</div></div>

The new Nissan Titan is another case in point in this regard. So overtly, deliberately, & unrelentingly "macho" so as to end up being rather "butch" instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Lyons

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would add my two cents to this discussion by reminding everyone that style is highly subjective, and driven by the minds of those at the helm. Harley had some incredible ideas and some spectacularly bad ones. I do not see the 1959 Cadillac or the 1958 Buick Roadmaster 75 as among his failures. I rather like the over the top styling, but some of the autorama cars were truly ugly. </div></div>

I agree with this assessment. The Motorama Firebirds (I, II, & III) were especially hideous. Right off the covers of the sci-fi pulps of the era.

Ugliest 1950's car - I'd nominate the 1958 Studebaker-based "Packard". That's especially sad, since the 1955-56 Packards were among the more restraned & attractive cars of this period. The 1956-57 version of the Hudson Hornet was pretty much a monstrosity. Among more mainstream products, I always thought the 1959 Chevrolet was misbegotten.

There were some tremendously elegant cars from the 1950's, as well. Who looks askance at the 1956-57 Corvettes, for example? Nothing wrong with the 1956 Chrysler 300B, either. All-time timeless design (from a styling standpoint) of that decade might be the Continental Mark II.

Ugly or beautiful, at least 1950's & 1960's cars had individual character rooted in their designers' sense of aesthetics....

Recommended reading on this topic: <span style="font-style: italic">The Art of American Car Design</span> by C. Edson Armi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Skyking

Go to the photo section and look at the 57 Merc & 57 Buick wagons and tell me the styling today is better!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Thank God for older styles, antique car clubs and museums for those of us who prefer to remember the past than look to the future. smile.gif </div></div>

Can't one do both (remember the past, yet look forward to the future)?

I think that all decades have their bombs and their beauties, though I do agree that current offerings are by and large not as good looking as those even in the recent past.

Current cars that I think are nice looking: Jaguar XK8, VW Passat, and most Mercedes Benz's. I also liked the Ford Focus 3 dr until they frumpified it. Some Volvos aren't too bad these days, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest greg72monte

Christopher,

In the list of cars you mentioned, some premium brands, I see

that you did not list BMW, and for good reason. On the way to

work today I was behind what I originally thought was a

Hyundai Elantra, but when we stopped for traffic. I saw that it was

a new BMW 5 Series. Is it me, or are most cars looking the same,

premium or economy, European, or Japanese or Korean?????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Lyons

There was a time when at night you could tell what kind of car you were following or overtaking just by the shape/configuration of the taillights. Which of today's cars can you perform that trick with anymore?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest greg72monte

Don't designers have any imagination anymore?

It seems most tail lights are that corner semi triangular design.

Where at the Cadillac tailfins when you need them????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try telling cars from the twenties and thirties apart from the back. Virtually all cars had small round tail lights on pedestals and nearly all followed then-current trends in trunks, bustle trunks, rumble seats, fender flares or whatever ruled the day. Maybe a few had distinctive bumpers. Styling of that erea was dictated by assembly and metal stamping technology. The exception that I can think of is the Cord 810 which was truly trend-setting but of course couldn't make money because the roof on the sedan was assembled from something like 7 welded panels.

Modern cars are also dictated by today's constraints-- many regulatory in nature-- squeezing the most interior space, side airbags and progressively chrushable chassis into the most slippery exterior shell to get the highest fuel ecomomy. As a result, most manufacturers come up with simlar solutions to the same constraints. The only really new designs that I see today are the retro cars and the (to me) hideous box-on-wheels cars exemplified by the Honda Element... and if that is trend-setting in the same way as the Cord 810, I'll be driving my current cars for quite a while.

The 50's and 60's were the anomaly, where designers ruled over engineers and the "longer, lower, wider" philosophy brought forth a lot of strange examples where form had nothing at all to do with function. The worst looking car? Any GM make from 1958, except the Chevy which took another year to get truly ugly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Lyons

One of the things that tends to alienate current vehicle styling from a positive emotional reaction is the abandonment of the anthropomorphic principle that previous generations of designers paid heed to.

Cars used to have subtle "faces" that human beings on some level could relate - they typically "grinned" at you, or if they were performance oriented, there was a hint of an agressive scowl. They were endowed in this way with discernable personalities, subliminal though this might be.

When the design team for the Neon first showed off their mock-up to senior Chrysler management, it had narrow, slit like headlamps. It was oh so very cutting edge, but it also looked angry, even vicious, which the executives, who were contemplating its marketing, immediately picked up on. And although they had pledged not to meddle in the design team's work, they in a very heavy handed way "persuaded" the team to go back and revamp this front end with some circular headlight pods for "eyes" with the result that the Neon came out with an open, friendly, even cute "face" that evoked a much more positive deep down emotional response from potential buyers. VW's new Beetle took the same road, it definitely "smiles" at you. These are "happy" cars.

On the other hand, many current offerings, Japanese in particular, but also notably the current generation of Chevy/GMC trucks & SUV's, have "faces" that are distinctly insect-like. A very cold, techno, & even alien look.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen, "Chevy/GMC trucks & SUV's, have "faces" that are distinctly insect-like. A very cold, techno, & even alien look."

And, ugly, in my mind! I'll be keeping my 2000 Chevy a little longer until Chevrolet wises up. I'll not spend $30,000 on something I wouldn't want to be caught dead in! Wayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest greg72monte

Unfortunately, bizarre sells.

Just look at (I try not to) the Honda Uglement, Scion xa & xb

etc etc..... kind of makes you sick to your stomach, doesn't it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Skyking

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> VW's new Beetle took the same road, it definitely "smiles" at you. These are "happy" cars.

</div></div>

Stephen, I drove my Metropolitan to the coffee shop where I visit every sunday morning. I had it parked across the street and one of the regular guys walked from around the block and saw the car and smiled. He called it a "Happy Car". He said it was a car that just made you feel happy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Lyons

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The worst looking car? Any GM make from 1958, except the Chevy which took another year to get truly ugly. </div></div>

Another GM styling nadir - 1973. Partly a function of 5 mph bumpers & rollover requirements, but the corporation's new mid-sized models were really grotesque in most other respects, too, and compared very poorly with the previous year's versions. In this class, only the Olds Cutlass looked halfway decent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Christopher,

In the list of cars you mentioned, some premium brands, I see

that you did not list BMW, and for good reason. </div></div>

That's because I think the Bangle designed BMW's are UGLY! Actually, I think that BMW has only made a small handful of really pretty cars over the last 75 years. My picks for those would be the 315 Cabriolet, the 328, 327, 507, and the 6-series.

I do see an upside to ugly BMWs though. Hopefully they'll depreciate more quickly so I can afford one sooner! I have no problem driving a car I think is ugly, but is an otherwise great and relaible performer. Heck, you can't see what your car looks like while you're driving it and I'm not vain, so I don't care! I think the Volvo 122 is a dumpy looking car but would drive one in a heartbeat.

My having the 327 project is simply a matter of dumb luck, btw. Dad bought the thing 40 years ago in Germany while in the Army, shipped it home, and we've held onto it ever since.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...No on that I disagree. I've watched this post and stayed out of it, but as for imagination, the designers had it then, and they still do today. In the 30's how many of the cars all resembled the Model 'A'? You seemed to have a major change in body style in 1949, again in 1955, and then more into the 60's. A Model 'A', a Whippet, Plymouth, Dodge and Chevy of that era all have the same basic shape and style. To the casual observer who knows little about cars, they don't know the difference.

Today with the Lexus, Camry, Maxima, etc. You have several cars that all have the same basic designs and unless you know the cars, you can't tell the difference. If you aren't into and follow the new cars, you are a casual observer and you don't know the difference. Today, as in the past you still have cars that have a look of their own, but the car that most common folk drive all have similar features. Granted there are some new cars out there that in my mind are butt ugly, but I've seen some older ones that in my mind fit the same category as well.

No one can take out the creative ability of today's automotive designers. Look at the new cars that are out today that are built to resemble the old cars yet have the modern comforts. Chrysler has the Viper, PT Cruiser, and Prowler, GM has that new SSR pickup that reminds me of a '50 Chevy pickup, Ford has the new Mustang coming as well as the current Thunderbird, Volkswagon has their new Beetle.

As much as I hate to say this, I'd say the best is yet to come. Some of these new cars are going to bring new interests as well stir interest among the older vehicles which can enhance our hobby. At this point you might have someone out there who has a new Thunderbird that is interested enough to buy the original to have with their new car.

I'm not saying that all of the new cars are attractive, but bear in mind, there were some old ones that weren't either. The difference in cars, backgrounds and styles are what make this hobby what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...