?

I like to think my F350 superduty looks like a truck. And pretty good looking too.

Saw the Chevy version of this the other day.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1110028920.jpg

My wife and I, parked in our Grand Caravan, remarked at how fugly that thing was. It looks like a vehicular rendition of a Beluga Whale.

I wouldn't describe the typical minivan as ugly-more blase'. That minivan is textbook ugly.

The Buick Beluga. Not only more fitting, but it sounds better too. ;)

I don't think the looks of the SSR is THAT bad. At least they went out on a creative limb for that one. It's not supposed to be practical, just a retro-hotrod thing. I think ....

The other one that looks unusually awful is the Envoy/Trailblazer XL - the extended versions. Looks like something that was done in one of these chopshops that makes limos out of Hummers and Escalades. Read a test report in one of the auto mags on the XL and they did not have a <u>single</u> good word to say about it. Usually they temper these 'tests' a little bit so as not to lose any potential advertising, but this was a total slam job. Of course, anyone who's ever driven one wouldn't need to read the article. I rented one once and its handling/performance can best be described as 'dangerous' - where's Ralph Nader when ya need him? . :cool:

I think the goal of car designers today is to be distinctive, instead of attractive.

When everybody tries this hard to be distinctive, nobody is.

I appreciate what Stelio Frati, Italian designer of some of the world's most beautiful airplanes said- "It costs no more money to design a pretty airplane than an ugly one."

If someone truly set out to design beautiful cars, they WOULD be distinctive!

5axis, I was thinking the same thing. My F350 Super Duty sure don't look like an SUV. If doesn't look like a truck I'm not sure what a truck looks like.

I have to interject.

Has no one seen the Pontiac Solstice that goes on sale next year? By far the best looking car GM has produced in a long time. It appears to be well-engineered (with do-dads like variable valve timing). It was also the personal pet project of Bob Lutz.

I have to interject.

Has no one seen the Pontiac Solstice that goes on sale next year? By far the best looking car GM has produced in a long time. It appears to be well-engineered (with do-dads like variable valve timing). It was also the personal pet project of Bob Lutz.

I'm not a big fan of Cadillac's current direction, but the Sixteen was the most beautiful sedan concept I have ever seen. Period.

Me too. The current state of light truck design is the best it's ever been. The truck market is hot, like it or not. Even Honda has entered the fray (Ridgeline), and I doubt their target is traditional truck buyers.

Sorry. I blame the suits in charge. Somewhere between what the designers create (mostly innovative) and what the board of directors choose and revise (probably infinitum), they lose it. Then they let the accountants and bureaucratic layers take over. It's been so long since they engineered something worthwhile, I don't even know if the engineers they currently have still have it.

The current Corvette looks passable. How long did it take for them to get to this point? I rest my case.

GM, General Morass

Sherwood

Come on...

These are pretty cars:

Cadillac Sixteen

Pontiac Solstice

The Sixteen may be a concept, but the Solstice goes on sale this summer.

legion,
Granted, the Sixteen looks nice in the pics, but then again, it's just a concept vehicle that costs $1 million or so. 1 mil buys a lot of unobtanium.

The jury has not convened for the Solstice as mere civilians haven't touched the car yet. Let's revisit later this year.

Sherwood

Fair enough. I do however agree that besides these two cars, just about everything else GM makes looks awful.

This SUV with the "truck" front is meant to appeal to soccer dads who dont want to be seen in a mini-van. It is design using psychology my friends, aspirations to beauty, form and function have no part in this..

Think of a development of McMansions or fashion patterned after oversized prison garb, and you will see the root of all this.

I am no croissant eating Europhile, but something is wrong here. Very, very wrong.

gaijindabe,
So you're saying they made a conscious effort to make this vehicle ugly. :)

Sherwood

What I am saying is that standards of ugly and beauty play no part in this. 1000 likely car/truck/van/suv buyers are wired up like Pavlov's dog and every desire and insecurity is mined like a Wyoming open pit. That these vehicles are a mirror of us as a society is the most frightening thing..

I think manufacturers know better about car design than consumers, but it's the consumer that's going to either accept or reject the design - regardless of the validity of the design.

Manufacturers have to do a balancing act between what is a "good" design versus what the consumer will/might purchase. Advertising plays a large part in the manufacturer's arsenal of getting people to accept their products - the mind game you mention.

While design and engineering are not mutually exclusive, design, as in body styling, can't be quantified. However, quality can be. I'm wondering whether the domestics are capable of catching up in this regard?

Stressing marketing over sound design is the philosophy that has GM and Ford gradually losing market share to the imports 1-1.5% every year.

Sherwood

At the last car show over here the biggest crowd was in the vintage section; that is not a good sign. No wonder most of the new cars I like are reproductions of an old model: the Mini Cooper, the Ford GT, the New Beetle, the new Mustang or the Miata.

One of the few concepts cars that I like is the Lexus:

Lexus:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1110337101.jpg

Sherwood has a good point. By playing the 'catch up game', trying to make cars that supposedly match Honda and Toyota in quality, GM & Ford have doomed themselves to following, and losing.
Yes, the quality has to be there. Thats a given, not a selling point that will make the consumer come to your showrooms in droves. One of the problems with GM's styling seems to be the desire for a 'family face' on Chev products. This leads to broad bands of brightwork through the grills of almost anything with the bow tie on it. Then you stop and think, aside from their truck, minivan and Monte Carlo/Impala and Corvette chassis, everything else came either from Opel or the pacific rim. Then they spend millions putting a domestic face on it. They should be spending that money improving dash materials, fit & finish and reliability of systems.
Who cares if their 'Chevy' lools like all the other 'Chevys' if they have to replace CV joints every two years, or the interior buzzes like a rattlesnake with the DTs after a year?
The North American 'response to the Asian invasion' has been going on for more than three decades and, based upon market share, they have failed miserably. If this was a military campaign, they would have sued for peace. In fact Chrysler Corporation has already been taken prisoner.
In the meantime, the 'domestic' manufacturers point their fingers at the unions for making them uncompetitive, when I suspect, these are the same unions which deal with the Asian namebrand plants in various states and Saturn, despite the union holiday, proved to be a dissappointment for the billions poured into it, (the cars were ugly, noisy and cheap).
Sorry fellows, the blame rests at the top. Mr Lutz, I wish you the best in your attempt to right the wrongs within the world's largest auto maker. Just remember when you are reviewing your executives: It is impossible to do anything productive when you are using both hands to cover your a$$.
Les