In the early 1980s, as the economy continued to slump and gas prices soared, American car makers were desperate for a way forward. The good old days were gone forever. Under pressure from the Japanese, whose small cars had gone from rolling jokes to serious, high quality competition in little more than a decade, the big three knew they needed to make a radical departure from their traditional approach before it was too late. Although some of the more stodgy cars would soldier on and continue to sell to members of the Greatest Generation well past their expiration dates, for the rest of us the future was a smaller, lighter and more efficient. The winds of change were blowing and even the Ford Mustang felt the chill.

In 1982 Ford began to take a good, hard look at their strong selling V8 powered, rear wheel drive pony car. Introduced in 1979, the Fox body mustang was a radical departure from the Ford Pinto based Mustang II that had carried the name forward through the disco era and it was a good car, but all indications were that the front engine rear wheel drive platform appeared to be on the way out. Most domestic manufacturers were headed towards front wheel drive platforms, Chrysler was already heavily invested in its K car and rumor had it that even GM was considering moving its Camaro and Firebird to FWD. Fortunately, Ford’s 25% stake in Mazda offered them quick and relatively inexpensive access to a FWD platform already under development, the Mazda 626, and they chose to examine that option.

Toshi Saito of Ford’s North American Design Center prepared the initial concepts, one of which was chosen and the project moved forward into a full sized clay mock up and eventually a fiberglass model was constructed and sent to Japan where Mazda headquarters in Hiroshima. Mazda’s management approved of the design, but after some thought Ford decided that it wasn’t quite what they were looking for and came back with a longer, leaner and more rakish design that required some re-engineering from Mazda. The car was to be produced in the United States and Mazda purchased a Ford property in Flat Rock, Michigan to produce the car alongside their own 626 and Mx-6 models.

Much like the now oft-derided Mustang II, the new Mustang was set to be a radical departure from the Fox car. First, no V8s were to be offered. Instead, the front wheel drive Mustang would mount a Mazda sourced transversely mounted 4 cylinder good for about 110 horsepower. For the first year, GT Mustangs would feature the same 4 cylinder with turbo good for about 145 horsepower – comparable to what the Mustang V8 was making at the time – and the next year move to the Mazda V6 which was good for about 175 horsepower. The design was sleek, slippery and generally well liked by those who saw production models and images.

The public backlash against the car came as a real shock. Mustang enthusiasts and red blooded ‘Murricans everywhere were appalled at the thought of a Mustang based on anything other than good old American design and sent up a howl of indignation that resonated all the way back to Ford’s executive offices. Firmly in the Reagan era, a resurgent America would simply not tolerate the venerable Mustang name attached to a Japanese design. As thousands upon thousands of angry letters poured into the corporate offices, buyers rushed into dealerships and sales of the Fox body Mustang, which had been slipping as the design aged, suddenly increased.

People, it seemed, were anxious to own what was sure to be the last “real” Mustang rushed into the dealership before it was too late and, in a moment of “Classic Coke” vs “New Coke” brilliance, Ford capitalized on the controversy. The classic Mustang would remain on sale, but the new car would live too, and so Ford reached into the bag of names and pulled out one that had been attached to an especially well received aerodynamic concept car just a few years earlier and, with a knowing wink to proctologists everywhere, dubbed it the “Probe.”

The rest is well known history. Introduced in 1988, The Probe was a success and it went on to win the hearts and minds of many of those who cross shopped it with its primary competition, the Chrysler/Plymouth/Dodge Turbo K variants, the small FWD GM cars, the Cavalier and the Beretta and Japanese turbo cars of all makes and models. Sales were brisk and the Detroit News reported in 1989 that Ford was selling around 600 of them a month. The design was refreshed in 1993 and almost 120,000 were sold that year. By 1997, however, the design had run its course and only 16,777 were sold. Meanwhile, the “Classic” Mustang soldiered on, was continually refreshed and, although it has been updated and redesigned over the years, it is still with us as the front engine, rear wheel drive pony car that God and Lee Iacocca originally intended.

Looking back, the 80s was a time or real, small-car innovation. Car companies, both domestic and foreign, put forth an amazing number of designs across all price ranges as they fought for market share. In that regard, I suppose, Ford really didn’t hurt themselves by keeping the ‘Stang and adding the Probe to their showrooms. I’m guessing the Probe really didn’t steal buyers from the Mustang as they each appealed to different market segments. I wonder, however, what would have happened if Ford had made the decision to stick with New Coke? Would GM have followed suit and put the Camaro and Firebird on a smaller FWD platform? Would the Chrysler K Turbos have eaten all their lunches? I wonder…

Thomas Kreutzer currently lives in Buffalo, New York with his wife and three children but has spent most of his adult life overseas. He has lived in Japan for 9 years, Jamaica for 2 and spent almost 5 years as a US Merchant Mariner serving primarily in the Pacific. A long time auto and motorcycle enthusiast he has pursued his hobbies whenever possible. He also enjoys writing and public speaking where, according to his wife, his favorite subject is himself.

Take a good look at the picture above. What do you see? If your answer is that you see three black Chevrolet Equinox “cute utes,” you’d be wrong.

I took the picture at about four in the afternoon on a sunny day at my local Chevrolet dealer. According to their window stickers, each of those trucklets are a different color. The Equinox furtherest from the camera, facing the building, is the only one that is Black. The one closest to the camera, next to the curb, is Black Granite Metallic. The third Equinox is painted Tungsten Metallic. Here’s a shot from a different angle of the Tungsten Metallic and Black Granite Metallic trucks. See the difference?

Yeah, me neither.

And if that’s not enough different shades of Pretentiously Named Dark Color That Looks Almost the Same from 50 Feet to satisfy you, Chevrolet offers a fourth shade of Almost Black for the Equinox called Ashen Gray Metallic. Here is a picture of an Ashen Gray Metallic Equinox parked next to a Tungston Metallic Equinox. The AGM truck is on the left. I think.

Keep in mind that these pictures were taken on a sunny day. Time, and the fact that the dealership was still open and I didn’t feel like dealing with any salesmen desperate to close a sale before the end of the month, kept me from examining the trucks any closer. I returned the following Saturday evening after the lot had closed for some more pictures. The sky was clouding over as a thunderstorm approached, so there wasn’t any sun to bring out the metallic flakes that help to differentiate the individual colors. Here are all four of them in order from darkest to not quite as dark.

Black

Granite Black Metallic

Tungsten Metallic

Ashen Gray Metallic

Seriously. It’s not just me, right? These colors are almost the same.

For 2013 the Chevy Equinox is available in 11 different colors. That’s actually on the high end for modern mass produced vehicles and it’s down from 12 options during the 2012 model year. The Equinox’s big brother, the Traverse, is available in 9 shades, as is the Suburban.  The Cadillac XTS makes do with only 8. Somehow, the marketing mavens at GM have given buyers of the fifth cheapest car in Chevrolet’s lineup more color options than they gave the higher end flagship models.

On the other hand, if 4 of the 11 colors are so similar that 9 out of 10 eyewitnesses to a drive- by shooting involving a Chevy Equinox after dark would describe the getaway vehicle’s color as “Black,” are consumers really being offered much choice at all? On Chevy’s  ”Build Your Own Page,” photoshopped onto a beach background, each of these colors appear very different from one another when viewed on a computer screen. But in real life, parked next to one another, they look way too much alike. This lack of choice was augmented at my local dealership by the fact that of 19 new Equinoxes for sale, 10 of them were painted one of the four “Almost Black” colors in question. The point was further driven home by the almost complete lack of diversity in interior color ordered by the dealer. Only a single model had a gray interior. All of the others were black.

Chevrolet (and presumably, the dealer) would most likely reply that they are simply responding to what customers want. Every year DuPont publishes a survey of the most popular automotive exterior colors broken down by market. In the latest survey black and gray were the second and fourth most popular colors in the North American market, as well as in the world overall.

All well and good, I suppose. There’s no reason why black and gray shouldn’t both be part of the lineup. But why offer two of each color and why make your grays so dark? Compare the color range in the four pictures above to the picture of a 2012 Equinox painted in a discontinued color called Graystone Metallic I found for sale on the used car side of the lot.

Graystone Metallic

So why would Chevrolet be so seemingly afraid of color? Their competitors aren’t. At the Ford dealership across the street I found these two Escapes. The dealer had stocked multiple examples of both.

Frosted Glass and Deep Impact Blue

It seems that Ford and Chevy have reversed their traditional roles when it comes to exterior colors. Most people have heard Henry Ford’s famous quote regarding the color of the Model T:  “Any customer can have a car painted any colour he wants so long as it is black.” Most people don’t know that prior to 1914 the Model T was available in multiple colors and the black standard was only adopted as Ford refined his assembly line process. The conventional wisdom is that Chevrolet (and GM overall) were able to grab market share because their models were offered in a greater variety of colors. There’s some truth to that belief, but it’s not the whole story.

It’s obvious that the old days of dozens of color combinations for each model are gone. That doesn’t mean that consumers shouldn’t be given a few more choices than the manufacturers seem to feel comfortable offering today.  At the very least, there’s no reason to offer four shades of practically the same color. C’mon, Chevrolet. Take a chance and show us some color.  Dump two of those four colors and give us another green or a real brown. Throw in a Burnt Orange or a Turquoise instead. Your competitors are doing it.

Haters bust out the Haterade: I mastered your drama back at the College of Creative Studies. My luxury car proposals sported stand up grilles…and why not? The (beautiful-ish) 1990 Lexus LS400 proved an upright grille happily exists on a sleek, masterfully engineered machine. But very talented, well-praised drama queens in the design studio can’t be proven wrong by a talentless schmuck. Even if they get super butthurt when your Lexian-precedent made their grandstanding look like the adolescent ranting of one unfit to judge a grade school art show…

To wit, an extreme argument: The Nissan Cube.

Not that the Cube is remotely as elegant as the original Lexus LS. But unlike the Nissan Juke, the Cube has many logical elements assembled on a boxy body.  The headlights are quite square, but with enough curves to look appealing, not upsetting.  The grille, oversized emblem notwithstanding, looks right: slots and static forms do the job.  The air slot below is another logical element.  Add the lower valence’s strong egg crate grille and you are done.

My only recommendation is to emulate the angular fog lights of the mildly redesigned, 2005 Lincoln Navigator’s fascia.

Imagine the boxy-ish fog lights making more sense with the square-ish elements in the headlights and the slotted grille. This is quite the well-designed piece. Considering the asking price, let’s assume that unique fog lights were never part of the deal.

I wish more non-Cube vehicles had lighting pods this square and logical.  Aside from the side marker lights that bulge out from the body line, these are quite elegant.

And while the lighting pods in the headlight assembly looked square from some angles, note how round they are from this angle!  This is the secret sauce of car design: the perfect balance between soft curves and hard angles.  If the rest of the Cube looked this good, we’d have a stellar machine.

Again, square and round at the same time.  It works, especially adding the depth of the recessed lighting pods in the headlight assembly.  The Nissan Cube is far from an actual cube.  It’s a seriously somewhat complex design.

This is the big problem, or the key selling feature: an upright–yet rounded–A pillar.  It’s jarring.  It’s brutal.  It’s cool and stupid at the same time.  And, after looking at the window sticker, that makes the Cube both cheap and cheerful.

On the plus side: NO DLO FAIL, SON!  Love me some logically beginning glasswork with a distinct lack of plastic triangles.

Pretty clean cowl trim.  A leaf blower will make short work of any debris stuck in these nooks and crannies, probably. Yet, like many vehicles with more concealed wiper arms, the Cube’s goods are somewhat tucked away as to not attract attention.

Unlike the Juke, the Cube has a nice ratio of bumper-to-fender real estate.  The fender does creep into the logical place for the A-pillar: that cutline should be at the base of the windshield, not several inches above.  Too bad about that.

Then again, those 4 spoke wheels are ugly as sin: static and counter-intuitive to the mission of a round element. My design school teachers insisted that 4 spoke wheels are the work of the Devil, and I agree.  Then again, they do take away from the odd A-pillar cut line.

The Cube’s biggest problems are presented here: the wavy door cutline (inappropriately showing a body contour) and a distinctly, overtly round, totally “not cube” B-pillar.

Actually the combo of round elements here (recessed into the sheet metal, much like portholes on a cruise ship) is quite beautiful.The cutline between the doors is super Cube-y rigid.  The window’s DLOs (plural) are round and quite entertaining next to the rest of the package. It’s a delicate balance, balanced.

The problems are elsewhere: and they have an adverse relationship to the B-pillar presented here.  The asymmetric C-pillars (different between Driver’s and Passenger’s side) detract from the quirky anti-Cube design.  You will see it as we progress around the Cube…and I’ll try to make it super memorable for you.

The rounded C-pillar stamping is cute if there wasn’t a gigantic DLO FAIL embodied in a plastic trim…with shockwave ripples casted into the fail.

Of course, this argument hinges on one’s approval of the Cube’s appalling boxy, top-heavy, overtly JDM space-efficient car styling.

I’ll admit that the plastic trim’s ripple effect negates the foolishness of this DLO FAIL, but it’s certainly not enough.  This is horribly ugly.  No doubt, this needs to be a quarter window instead.  Raise the base price by $50 and make it happen, Son.

Or $100. Or whatever: easy credit is flowing like cheap wine once more, just fix it. We can afford it!

So step back and look at the thing: not bad!  The wavy door cut line below the equator is only somewhat upsetting. The big DLO FAIL on the C-pillar is well, still pretty horrible.  But the stylish “I” design present in the B-pillar personifies all that’s right with the Cube: static yet quite dynamic.

And I’m lucky to have both 4-spoke wheels stopped in the same position: they look even more static when double teaming the Cube’s body.

There’s something very right about a vehicle with zero rear overhang.  Maximum space efficiency, just a little bend and stretch at the bottom for a crashworthy(?) bumper. This is a seriously cool piece of shit kit.

Turning the corner, confusion.  The elongated panel between the bumper and the tailgate looks like an afterthought.  While I didn’t have the keys to open and inspect the Cube’s door mechanism, it’s a safe bet there’s some hinge that demands a unique panel.  On a car this cheap, it’s only a mild bummer.

I like how the rear glass emulates the B-pillar’s rounded and recessed glass treatment.  It looks expensive, compared to what you normally see here. (See Scion xB).

The CHMSL gets the job done without overselling, over styling.  Nice. Too bad the rear wiper washer jet pokes out rather cheaply.

I took these pictures last July, so I forgot if this Cube has a backup camera: but this tacked-on thing looks like a backup camera. (Go ahead and Google it, show me up, etc.) On a vehicle this cheap, this is acceptable.  Like Cindy Crawford’s birthmark, it’s just a cute little bump on a cute little curve of sheet metal.

Well maybe not Cindy Crawford cute, but you catch my drift.

I like how this reflector is tucked inside the bumper cover.  It makes a unique plane within the body.  A simple, cheap and often overlooked way to add some texture on an otherwise boring and massive sheet of painted material.

Alright no more teasing: the back-end is head-scratchingly fantastic.  There’s the trim bumper with an elegant, full-width tail light treatment.  Go further up and it’s a tall JDM van-let, except with a flaw: the asymmetrical rear glass treatment.

Honestly, after months of deliberation, I don’t know if this is brilliant or idiotic.  Probably both, since I can’t take my eyes off of it. This isn’t eye-watering like a Pontiac Aztek, it’s just…profoundly interesting.

Something about the full width tail lights makes this design more cohesive and expensive: it makes up for the normally horrid feelings most of us feel about asymmetric design. It’s like Lyle Lovett and Julia Robert’s child, on wheels.

Except the Cube is kinda cute…not this.

More good design: the rear door seamlessly blends into the bumper and quarter panel.  Very trick, and a good use of minimal cut lines to carry out a particular need. Add that unique plane for the reflector light and you have something exciting, and not offensive.

And if the driver’s side of the Cube was the Lyle Lovett, the passenger side is Julia Roberts. RAWR!

Note how the C-pillar is completely encased in glass. And glass equals class.  It makes me wish the other side was this impressive.  Totally worth the extra cost, no matter what it is! (i.e., this isn’t a loss leader Versa, go ahead and ask a little more for being unique.)

Also note how the 4-spoke wheels continue to fight every damn element on the body.

While I’ve mentioned the Cube’s nice use of hard edges and soft forms, the square gas cap needs a good rounding out.  This would help accentuate the “Julia Roberts” C-pillar and it will also match the round negative area behind the door handle.  Shame.

Maybe this DLO (odd fitting black paint between two sheets of glass) isn’t as pretty as Julia Roberts, but this ain’t no Lyle Lovett.  I like how the DLO’s hard edge (Left) and round edge (Right) play with the straight-then-curve demeanor of the rear door’s cutline.  This is just car design cool.

Yes, car design cool.  Offensive? You betcha!  But, aside from the wavy door cutline (just like the driver’s side) that smears reflections (note the Versa’s wheel cover) from an unfortunate curvature, the Nissan Cube is a well-integrated design with moderate attention to detail.

At least on the Julia Roberts side. The Lyle Lovett side?  Not as much.

Thank you for reading, I hope you have a lovely week.

If you have a spare four minutes and four seconds (plus time for the commercial) take the time to check out the following discussion over at Bloomberg.com. As a layman, I find these kind of discussions very interesting and would like to hear the best and the brightest, many of whom I know to be connected with auto industry, give a little perspective to what seems to me to be a very shallow look on the subject of modern car design.

The active premise of the Bloomberg piece is that American car design lost its way in the 1970s, ’80s and ’90s, and is now beginning to return to its former glory. There is no doubt in my mind that improvements automotive technology have ushered in a golden age of performance, dependability and longevity, but I am left feeling cold when I hear people talking about how superior the “new designs,” are to the ones that came before.

There were some fantastic designs in the ’70s, ’80s and ’90s and when I look back at the clean, classic lines of many of those cars I miss the days when designers used a straight edge as a part of their work. The Chevrolet Vega and Monza, while mechanically problem prone, are still wonderful looking little cars that have aged quite gracefully. The mid 80s Fox Body Mustangs, shown in the piece alongside both previous and later versions, look especially good to my eye. Of course you already know my thoughts on the Chrysler LH cars of the 1990s – I like them so much I put my money where my mouth is and have a 300M Special in my driveway.

My take is that there were some damn good designs in the eras these people are deriding. Sure there were some uninteresting and even outlandish designs too, but that doesn’t mean that designers have spent the last 30 years sleeping on the job. They were trying new things and some of those really worked. So, tell us now, what are your favorite cars from the much derided ’70s, ’80s and ’90s?

Thomas Kreutzer currently lives in Buffalo, New York with his wife and three children but has spent most of his adult life overseas. He has lived in Japan for 9 years, Jamaica for 2 and spent almost 5 years as a US Merchant Mariner serving primarily in the Pacific. A long time auto and motorcycle enthusiast he has pursued his hobbies whenever possible. He also enjoys writing and public speaking where, according to his wife, his favorite subject is himself.

So, to celebrate this series’ First Anniversary: THANK YOU for letting me share my Venom. And know how much I appreciate it when you click that link:

The Nissan Juke is one of those concepts-come-to-life that did the original proud.  If the concept’s truly bizarre styling offended you, well, that’s understandable.  But remember it’s still a well sorted piece of Transportation Design kit.  The six eyes (on the hood, in the bumper, in the lower plastic valence) do offend me…in a good way.

Even though I hate the lighting pods, the multiple grille textures, and the emblem’s “U” chrome surround…I can’t help but admire it. The Juke is just so fantastically well executed.

But still, I could do without the oval grilles on the side.  The Juke is more logical and cohesive with the same “slats” of the grille’s center portion.  Plus, the oval grille casting looks cheaper than the vents in the center.

Much like the curiously placed headlights of the Rolls-Royce Phantom, the Juke uses what would make a fantastic Rally Car fog light for a head light.  Unlike the Roller, the headlight is made to dominate the bumper and grille.  It’s vulgar and beautiful at the same time.

If only the grille had the same texture: the strong linear elements of a “non-ovoid” grill would let you enjoy both the grille and the headlight far easier, with less distraction.

The swept back, lumpy and bumpy signal/marker light?  Pretty insect-like hideous, though I suspect (much like the LEAF) its shape is dictated by the wind tunnel for less wind noise around the A-pillar.  I’d prefer if this lamp assembly was flush-mounted above the grille, matching the linear tone of the center portion of the grille.  Then the Juke would look like a tall (yet right sized) Chevy Camaro. Distraction: gone!

But again, I hate yet wholly admire this element at the same time.  Argh, nothing is ever easy!

Present in the original concept, these round forms made production.  They work, unlike the ovals that dominate the grille.  And looky here: those be the real fog lights, too!

Perhaps if these were the only set of “eyes” on the front end, but since there’s another set of headlights and foglights…no. Too polarizing.

Except polarizing is often a good thing.  Especially when it comes to the Juke.

The windshield/cowl/wiper trim is very well executed: clean and elegantly tucked under the painted hood.  That’s the perk of a vehicle with a retro-sized windscreen, I suppose.

What did I say about a retro-sized windscreen?  Apparently the people who made the roof expected it to go up further: the glass’ natural end point is where the A-pillar turns into a flat roof,  instead we get a “bendy” roof.  Which is truly odd.

Speaking of, the bumper-to-fender crease isn’t especially logical. This is an unfortunate by-product of making a radical concept car come to life, cost effectively.  My suggestion?

Perhaps if that crease started at the trailing edge of the grille instead of some random point at the light.  The hood-to-fender has a similar problem: it should start from the top of the light assembly and end at the base of the A-pillar.

Why did Nissan make the least flowing, smallest possible fender?  Cost effectiveness, insurance repair concerns…or both. Sad.

If the fender was allowed more real estate on this form, the Juke would be a far prettier vehicle.  Or perhaps it’s just best in a panel-hiding black.  No matter, look at those fender haunches, front and rear!  What a quirky and fun design!

(That you must love even if you hate it.)

Note the lack of a black plastic triangle aimed to lengthen the greenhouse (DLO FAIL) on the Juke.  This rig is happy being in the dimensions bestowed upon it.  But while the fender was shrunken elsewhere, it creeps up the A-pillar?  I’d prefer if that fender-to-A pillar seam began at the base of the DLO…

The window weatherstrip smeared over the B-pillar is impossible not to fiddle with.  Good thing I didn’t have an X-ACTO knife handy.

Short wheelbase.  Impossibly short overhangs at each corner. Tall roof that immediately sweeps down. Oversized wheel flares.  Volvo like hatchback design. This rig is just plain cool, even if you’d never buy it. Or would you?

That “slopey” roof just does it for me.  What a fantastic design element!!!

I’ve enjoyed door handles blended into a vehicle’s greenhouse ever since the introduction of the GM-10 Coupes, even if they are magnets for scratches in a super visible place.  Combined with the little black plastic triangle of DLO FAIL in the C-pillar, perhaps it doesn’t work here.  I’d suggest eliminating the DLO fail and making the rear door end in a voluptuous curve instead.  There’s no need for a curvy triangle of FAIL if the door was rounded from the git-go.

While it’s always important to have a blend of hard bends and soft contours, the mix here is off.  Round off the door to match the “thrusting arch” of the wheel wells, eliminate the DLO FAIL and call it a day.

Can you imagine this body if the rear door ended with something as round as these fender haunches?

Here’s a close up of the DLO FAIL so you can imagine a rounded rear door that could eliminate this.

The rounded curves (and inward bending of the body) adds a bit of needed surface tension to the Juke’s very tall profile.  Note the wave in the cutline between the doors.  If that “wave” wasn’t there, this would be a boring panel.

Speaking of waves, the tail lights are a fantastic piece of kinetic lighting art.  Maybe the rear door’s redesigned curve should be just as radical as the lights.  Oh, and replace the dumpy square gas filler door with something as round as the back up lights, please? The natural curve of the tailgate and fender haunches demands something less static.

I wonder if it’s the same filler door as the Nissan Cube. Hmm…

Is this a Volvo or a Nissan?  No matter, this huge slice of non-functional red lense does something I thought I’d never say: be an important design element that looks better than if the same real estate was painted body color.

To my earlier point about having a blend of hard bends and soft contours, the Juke’s rear lights embody that belief.  There’s so much surface tension presented here!  And the way it naturally flows into the rear haunches?  Close to perfect for such a small vehicle.

Note the odd lump at the top of the roof, where it meets with the hatchback.  Considering the downward sloping roof and rather tiny rear dimensions, I suspect these “external” hinge covers are necessary.  It’s much like the bubbly roof on a Dodge Viper GTS, except the Juke didn’t make it into a noteworthy highlight.  If only it had more “oval” like qualities, like the front lower bumper valance, perhaps.

While I usually like clean and minimalist rear window wiper arms, the Juke demands something more garish and over-styled.  Too bad about that.

Tacky rear mud flaps are tacky.  Boo for the lack of integration.

The gray Juke was backed up against a brick wall, so its white neighbor will do.  While very Volvo-like, this isn’t necessarily a bad thing.  Note how the lighting pods add excitement to the body, while complimenting the curves and cutlines: the hatchback cutline doesn’t look out of place…even if it sorta is. I’m even digging the oversized license plate mustache with the Nissan logo.  While the mustache has been done to the point of death elsewhere, it looks good on the Juke.

If only the front end’s lighting pods were as logical as the rear. Then again, the Nissan Juke is impossible to miss, and easy to appreciate. While it may never grace your parking space, it deserves your respect.

The Juke is a nice piece of Vellum, that made production without much Venom. Thank you for reading, I hope you have a wonderful week.

The newly shown Jeep Cherokee has created quite a ruckus. Some like the design, some describe it in language unsuitable to a family-oriented site like TTAC. The fact is Jeep needs this. The mother-ship, Fiat, is taking Jeep international and while Jeep’s design language gets good points at home, it really doesn’t strike a chord among buyers worldwide. What’s more, Jeep doesn’t have that much of a heritage outside US borders. So, the Italians are free to do with it what they like. For starters, Jeep now sponsors one of the most popular football teams in Europe. That is a sure sign that the Jeep you knew and loved is going through profound changes that will either make it relevant, or send it bruised and bleeding to lick it wounds back home.

The Twingo – polarizing, but popular

All you have to do is look at the story of the Renault Twingo to understand. Its designer, Patrick le Quément is known the world over and very influential. The Twingo was the car that made his career. The Renault establishment balked when le Quément presented his vision of the car. Undaunted, le Quément pushed it through. The car is now considered an icon of modern automobile design. If you have a pristine example, hold on to it. It might be worth a pretty penny 20 years from now.

When the 80s became the 90s, Renault was in a tough situation. Its conservative cars were quickly running out of gas in the market place. Newly hired chief designer le Quément proposed a radical new approach to design. He separated it from the engineers and product planners who, of course, were not pleased. So much so that they told le Quément the Twingo would have to be toned down from his radical vision. Le Quément appealed directly to Louis Schweitzer, Renault’s head honcho at the time: “The greatest risk is not to take any risks.”

Le Quément argued his case in a quintessentially French, counter-intuitive fashion, taking the results of the focus groups and turning them on their heads, “fifty percent of  the participants hated it and 25 percent were dubious. However, 25 percent said they loved it.”

The French designer radicalizes, “retro is retrograde. It’s driving looking in the rear-view mirror, admitting that you’ve run out of ideas.” In other words, don’t just keep repeating yourself. Retro cars usually create a short bounce of excitement that the good old days are back, then their sales sink into oblivion.

Italians loved the Twingo. They bought it in droves. This story is well known in European design circles. You can bet that it was part of the reasoning for the new Jeep Cherokee. The past is fine and dandy. Nevertheless, Jeep needs to move on. I sincerely hope the lesson is not lost on the great car makers of the even greater United States of America.

Audi follows a trend set by other OEMs, notably GM, and opens an R&D Center in China. Located in Beijing’s fashionable 751 D-Park , the center will be busy doing product customization for the Asian market, especially when it comes to electronics and connectivity, along with components for new-energy vehicles and efficient powertrains.

Located at the site of an old coal-fired power plant, built in the bad old days with the assistance of East Germany, the 751 D-Park has quickly made a name as China’s fashion and design hub. Audi’s R&D Center is right in the middle of the center. It also helps that the 751 D-Park is in the North-East of Beijing, halfway between downtown and airport, thereby helping to avoid the worst of Beijing’s traffic, as long as one takes a plane.

Approximately a third of Audi’s sales are in Asia, and most of those are in China. If you are somebody in China, you show that with an Audi, preferably an A6 long, and most preferably one with a white tag and a red star. Blinking lights in the front grille help you get back to the airport on time.

Ignoring stories that government officials must eschew foreign premium marques and drive Chinese, Audi increased its 2012 sales in China by 30 percent. TTAC readers, serviced by experienced writers, never had to believe the story anyway.  We wrote in February: “Just about every year, there was an announcement that the Chinese government will from now on only buy Chinese. It never happened.” And so it did not happen again.

In November, the New York Times sounded the all clear, and wrote that the black A6 still is “the automobile of choice for practically any party official or military officer with enough clout to secure one.”

According to the nice entertainers at Top Gear the “Sub-Zero Fridge Coolest Car” at the moment is an Aston DB9. That makes perfect sense because the display on my Sub-Zero at home keeps going out and I anticipate the same fate is likely to strike every display screen on the DB9 much more quickly than the nine years it took my Sub-Z to start showing the freezer temperature as “88″ all the time. When the speedometer on the DB9 gets to 88, you’re going to see some serious shit, man. Like a $3000 repair bill.

I’m willing to accept TG‘s verdict on car coolness because I have no idea what makes a car truly “cool”. I do, however, have some opinions about what the most uncool car on the market might be. I’m thinking the Toyota Venza is certainly among the podium finishers there and possibly worthy of the top (bottom?) spot. Why is it uncool? Well, it’s a Toyota, and Toyotas are the vehicles of choice for uncool people around the world. Along with the Avalon, it’s one of the Toyotas most obviously aimed at old people, and old people are rarely cool unless they are murderers turned blues musicians. It’s a jacked-up fake-SUV station wagon that replaced the very cool Camry real station wagon. It’s the most forgettable-looking vehicle on the road, which makes it less cool than the rolling freakshow competitor known as the Honda Crosstour. It has a standard four-cylinder engine and front-wheel-drive. I can’t think of any way in which the Venza could suck it harder than it does right now. It’s the most cynical, depressing, worthless entry on the market.

Uncool, brother. But the DB9 and the Venza, eternal opposites on the cool scale, have one fairly uncool thing in common, don’t they?

That’s right: the Venza and DB9 were both recently “refreshed” with some completely meaningless and awkward-looking LED marker-light strips located within their existing headlamp cutouts. The LED running light is the Macarena of automotive details: briefly interesting, almost immediately omnipresent, hugely stupid to be the last person seen doing it. I mean, just four years ago I stuffed a VAG-COM into the OBD port of my Audi S5 and programmed the car to turn off the DRLs and run the LEDs full strength night or day; they were bright enough that I could drive at night without the Xenon main beams. If you saw a car coming your way with a similar look, it was an Audi. The diode boomerangs were initially exclusive to the R8 and S5 before wandering across the rest of the modern line over the course of a year or two.

The LED running/market lights were initially cool because they were unique features associated with cool cars. Once the Audi Q7 had them, the writing was on the wall. The Cool Wall. Perhaps once upon a time, Audi would have been able to retain the LED-light look as a brand signature, the way they used to have sudden acceleration and longitudinally-mounted coilpack failures. The automotive landscape used to be full of brand-specific features, from the quad-round lights of a Corvette to the driver-canted dashboard of a Seventies BMW. The LED boomerang might have remained the unique signature of an oncoming Audi, an open declaration of the company’s remarkably successful drive to challenge BMW and Mercedes-Benz on equal ground.

Of course, nobody who saw the Aston Martin Imitation Fender Vent Explosion Of The Mid-Two-Thousands would have been naive enough to think Audi was going to get to keep their shiny lights to themselves. Rapid prototyping and short model cycles have combined to make unique styling a very underpopulated village. If a new feature is a hit anywhere it will be quickly copied, and if the job of copying it can be foisted onto a supplier, it will happen even more quickly than otherwise.

Pride, too, used to keep car companies from brazenly copying each other to some degree. I’m reminded of Ampeg’s Everest Hull, who refused to make Fender-style tube amps even though his company’s arguably superior attention to detail and workmanship might have made a lot of musicians happy. Hull pointed out that he was in business to compete with Fender, not copy them. Think of that the next time you see that craven chrome wart of a fender vent on an Escalade. Modern auto companies are mostly run by interchangeable marketing people, not by engineers or any men with any sort of pride whatsoever.

Even Honda, which used to go its own way with a stubbornness once reserved for Stevie Nicks in the Rumours songwriting sessions, has fallen in line. The company that used CVCC instead of the catalytic converter just slapped a set of completely generic LEDs on the Accord. They’re possibly the worst ones out there; they don’t even pretend to be a shape. They’re just a line. Pep Boys will sell you the same thing for your ’07 Maxima.

Not that the “designed” running lights are any better. The Panamera has LEDs that look remarkably like what you’d see in a $2.99 flashlight sitting next to the impulse candy at a Wal-Mart checkout line. The Sonata Hybrid has the Korean Hangul character for “douchebag” scripted with glowing plastic in both light buckets. (Save your letters; I know Hangul is the equivalent of Kanji and not kana, or something like that.) The new Lexus IS has the Nike swoosh under the headlights in its own little area of urethane bumper, making the car look like it suffers from a radioactive species of ringworm. Each new car on the market has a worse implementation of Audi’s original idea than the one before it. The day is surely coming soon when GM will put the entire name of one of their Korean quick-bake compact cars in diodes on the front bumper. SONIC RUNS DEEP!

Where there isn’t time or budget to do something unique, Something Must Still Be Done. And thus we return to the DB9 and the Venza, both forced to wear LEDs now the way Van Halen was apparently forced to use synthesizers for the most forgettable parts of the “1984″ album. The DB9′s “update” can be forgiven under the general heading of Possibly Too Authentic Re-Creation Of British Make-Do Engineering By A Kuwait Company, but the Venza… that steps right over the line and this aggression will not stand, man, it will not stand! Grandpa doesn’t want those wacky lights on his Venza any more than the guy with the Audi R8 wants to see a Venza ahead of him in the left lane — with a “Life Is Good” sticker, unconsciously matching velocity next to a tractor-trailer in such a fashion as to create the maximum chance that Grandma is going to receive a free tracheotomy from the next retread that pops off. I think the Venza even has LED tails now, which confuse heat-seeking missiles and therefore lessen the chance of getting Grandpa out of your way before the next rest stop.

Wait until they start failing. The Nineties Seville became infamous for its monstrous LED CHMSL and the way just one or two crappy Chinese diodes could fail, turning the whole Darth Vader lightsaber across the trunk into the Morse code for “S O S”. (To be fair, my Porsche 993 appears to have suffered a similar fate. Luckily I never brake.) The headlights will fail the same way eventually. You’ll be confronted with a road full of broken boomerangs and sliced-up swooshes.

The Kia Optima, I think, will be one of the first casualties of such a process. I fundamentally distrust that car; it looks more like an Audi than Audis do, because Kia cribbed Audi’s designer, and it’s chock-full of bad-ass styling cues mixed with iffy materials at a budget price. It’s the Pontiac Firebird Esprit of mid-size sedans. I kind of want to get one but they aren’t particularly cheap. Instead I’m going to take great pleasure in their tragic on-road collapses. If said collapses don’t happen I’ll be very disappointed. I want the LED running light to be as firmly associated in the American mind with a broken-down Optima epilepsy-blinking by the side of the road as the toilet-seat grille is with failed Ford brands.

Tonight, as I prowled the mean streets of Nashville, TN looking for some Drama and/or trouble, I saw an unmarked Impala pulling someone over with what appeared to be a complete 360-degree array of LED flashers that probably are invisible on the doors unless they’re being used. Then I was aggressively tailgated by a steel-wheel V-6 Camaro with faux-angel eyes and an LED diode string all the way across the grille. They’d been applied crookedly. It was meant to be intimidating but it was just depressing, really.

The day is no doubt coming soon when proper full-strength LED headlamps won’t be just the province of Lexus hybrids and the first-to-offend Cadillac Escalade. With a lighting package as small as an iPod Nano it will be possible to completely light the road ahead. Had it happened twenty years ago, it probably would have ushered in a completely new era of automotive styling, but today’s pedestrian-impact regulations and SUV-butch styling will probably prevent anything genuinely unique from being done. If, however, somebody manages to do something genuinely cool — like, I don’t know, maybe a full-width Seventies Ford grille without headlamp doors — rest assured it won’t be special for long. Maybe we don’t need a new generation of lighting in the car trade; we need a new generation of thinking. Isn’t that a problem that someone could shine a little light on, besides your humble heading-towards-Venza-age bright bulb of an author?

Did you see an instant classic at last week’s Detroit Auto Show?  Maybe that new Stingray. And hearing that the first C7 Vette was on the auction block to support the College for Creative Studies made me a little proud of my former school, too.  But, aside from the always nerve-racking bus ride between CCS and Cobo Hall, my “instant classic” moment from the (1999) NAIAS was the introduction of the MK IV Jetta.  All of a sudden I couldn’t keep my eyes off of Jettas, especially a silver one in the lower hall of Cobo. And time hasn’t changed my opinion…aside from making it more extreme.

14 years later, the MK IV Jetta is still the best looking of the breed.  I sampled this from our old friend Captain Mike Solo, who apparently has a thing for VAG products.   Driving this Jetta around made me feel far superior to the current (MK VI) Jetta, and like a God among Men compared to the MK V. Just park one of these next to one of those.

How many cut lines do you see?  Not many. Because so many cut lines originate from the headlights and most are parallel to the strong grille lines, there might as well be none.  Well, at least compared to so many busy designs from the past 20 years.

The MK IV Jetta has a certain “1970s-80s clean wedge” theme about it…without being a boring wedge. Utilizing “modern” plastic casting technology for the bumpers and headlights, there is the ability to add a flair of curves and circles not seen back then.  But real subtle, never showy. This is perhaps the best of both worlds: a specific design aesthetic adapted to make a new look for a new era.

Note how the base of the headlight sweeps upward, complementing the shape of the bumper, forming the beginning of the fenders and the end of the hood’s horizontal cut line.  The “J” theme presented here is certainly the most distinctive element of the MK IV Jetta.  And damn, it’s so frickin’ beautiful.

Transposed “J” theme.  The body color grille doesn’t take away from the theme, and the power bulge in the hood is a natural extension: filling out the “shelf” of the bumper in the center. There’s another important design concept presented here: surface tension.  Never flabby or overwrought, the Jetta has acres of surface tension in its mid-sized body.

I like round headlight themes confined to square-ish headlights.  It adds excitement, without making a front end look like some sort of goofy creature with roundish, amoeba-ish eyes.  If it had the MK V’s cool VW logo in the headlight’s reflector cap, it would make the MK V Corolla Jetta a wholly extraneous design in the history of the Jetta.  Well, maybe not.

I never liked the emblem butting into the hood’s cut line.  I always wanted it straight up there, doing that with the bumper instead.  This looks like a wart, while my suggestion would be cute and cheeky.  But VW certainly doesn’t agree: this theme continued into the next two generations.  Oh well, can’t win ‘em all. Or any of them.

What do you think of the hood’s little circle of discontent? But the grille slats are very Mercedes SL like. Which is cool.

The strong parallel lines are most obvious down below. But even more surprising, the grilles look surprisingly multi-layered and expensive.  Not like the cheapy one piece units found on many cheap sedans…or the fog light assembly of the Cadillac CTS-V coupe.

The clean lines continue all the way to the front wheel. I like how the flat black lower trim visually thins the bumper.

The clean, parallel rub strip incorporates a marker light that bends and ends as a perfect compliment to the rub strip. Clean.

The “J” theme looks fantastic as you walk around the fender.  While Saturn already did this with the 1996 SL, the bumper’s cut line and gap size makes this a far nicer implementation.  And Ford aped this with their 2005 Focus…and failed.  The Jetta’s tight panel gaps and bullet like shaping trumps ‘em both.

Acres of surface tension on the hood. Note the warpage of the building’s reflection on the domed hood.  Combined with the neatly tucked away plastic cowl trim, this is such a beautifully modern and minimal design.

The base wheels are a snooze, especially how the plump spokes meet the rim.  The double-5 spoke 17″ wheels available from this era (on the VR6 model?) really added punch to the entire design.

The complex reflector design of the side marker light is hip and Euro: no wonder so many moderately aspirational people (i.e. Sorority Girls) flocked to the design.

This quirky mirror mount proves the Germans have a good sense of humor.  Not that I am laughing, I merely applaud a good zinger within a subtle statement.  Well done.

Functional and nicely tucked away door handles.  The negative area doesn’t try to impart a sense of style, it just does the job.  Which is beautiful in itself.

Wrap around door pillars need to make a comeback, even if they are harder to seal or assemble…or something.  With it, the fender, hood and A-pillar blend seamlessly (well, except for the two modest cut lines) into a green house with no non-functional plastic triangle of DLO FAIL. (daylight opening) Instead of the FAIL, there’s a cute little footprint for a sleek side view mirror. While the newest Jetta is by no means hideous from this angle, it isn’t this beautiful.

This car is a modern classic, people.  Stop and stare at one soon.

While this shot exaggerates the size of the greenhouse, there’s so much unfettered space here.  It’s delightful considering the submarine stance of most new sedans, even the latest Jetta.

Such a clean and strong B-pillar. The canted cut line looks both fast and solid at the same time.  And while newer Jettas try to hide this pillar with blackout trim, the MK IV makes it a significant styling statement.  It’s refreshing, because it doesn’t look cheap…even if it is.

Sometimes less is more…see???

The fixed rear window is necessary on the rear door, but VW wisely made the black trim hiding the runner (for the not-fixed window) as small as possible.  Apparently it needs to be a touch wider at the bottom.  Instead of fattening up the whole part, there’s a clever line added to keep your eyes on the slim and tall part, not the fatter part at the bottom.  It works, even though I have mixed feelings about that line…maybe the runner would look slender enough without it.

That’s a lot of glass.  And there’s no fake window/black plastic triangle giving the illusion that the Jetta is sleeker.  Instead, a big ass fixed window.  It looks fantastic.  Any day without the triangle of DLO FAIL is a good day.

I adore a rear door (get it?) that wraps up and over the area above the wheel arch.  It looks curvy, like the hip of a beautiful woman.  Problem is, it makes for a gigantic fixed window (or aforementioned DLO FAIL) as the moving window can’t roll down into the tire. And some people think this design makes it difficult to get in/out of a car.

I beg to differ.  While this vintage Jetta’s door is smaller than the “less sleek door” of the current model, one must remember to aim their head for the center of the interior, even if there’s a temptation to slide towards the back?  And the door makes for a good weapon, as it’s far “pointier” than a blocky door. Which isn’t a problem on the new model, but it’s also stodgy…and this is sleek.

This is just a gorgeous family sedan.  Perfect front-wheel drive proportioning and enough space for 5 non-American adults. Every line in its place, simple and pure.  Also note the low belt line where the glass and sheet metal meet.  This means that visibility is quite good in the Jetta…even with that tall and blocky butt.

Even the door molding is thin and sleek.  More parallel lines to boot.  Just a pretty design!

As mentioned two pictures ago, the green house is low and provides fantastic views of your world.  It’s in stark contrast to the short and fast rear window, which is commonplace in today’s vehicles.  This dichotomy is a blend of past and present.  It’s a fantastic transition, I believe it shows the evolution of passenger car design.  And, for the love of all that’s right with car design, it needs to come back to we can have our visibility again!

More clean cut lines around back, and there’s something unique about the tail light texture.  More on that later.

While everything is sleek and rakish elsewhere, the Jetta’s rear is tall and blocky.  Not a bad thing, if you actually use a sedan to carry people and their crap. There is still, like the front end, plenty of surface tension on this boxy butt: the crease above the license plate, the gentle curves of the bumper and the top of the trunk.  And, as always, the normal looking rub strip on the bumper is much appreciated.  Two things are still outstanding: the tail lights…and something else? Yup, the lack of a flashy tail pipe.  Who cares about pipes on a family sedan with such nice lines?  Much like the butt of the (C4) 1984 Corvette, the turn-down pipes make the exhaust essentially invisible to the casual observer, which is very cool for some designs.  Designs with C4 or MK IV Jetta levels of cleanliness deserve turn-down exhausts.

The extra trunk line (of surface tension) starts logically where the signal lights (within the entire lighting cluster) end.  There is plenty of tumblehome in the roofline, making the Jetta’s body look quite sleek for a small-ish sedan.

The MK IV’s trademark rooftop whip antenna is adorable and annoying at the same time.  Like Mr. T’s mohawk, this is an authoritative statement that also leaves the body sides uncluttered. According to the Wikipedia article on this car, there are aerodynamic advantages here too.  Which makes sense, even if I dropped out of Fluid Dynamics in college…to pursue a car design degree at CCS.  Oh boy, let’s move on to a new subject.

Okay, here’s the big thing about the taillights.  As Capt. Mike mentioned, VW went waaay out of their way to blend all the lighting elements into one form.  The yellow signal lights?  They are striped with red bands. The back up lights?  Tinted a purple-ish color.  Added to this car’s red paint, and the lenses are essentially invisible.

Which is so damn cool.  And musta cost a pretty penny too.  Too bad these tail lights didn’t make it to term with the rest of the MK IV Jetta: the clear bits added to the later lenses are likely a cost-cutting measure masked as a “product redesign.”  Or maybe I’m too much of a cynic.  Whatever.

Another cool detail: dat trunk lock cylinder.  Not resorting to an expensive sliding cover, the MK IV Jetta simply slides the lock within a perfectly sized Vee-Dub logo with black paint in the negative areas.  Damn son…THAT IS SHARP.

While not the MK IV Jetta’s finishing touch, the gas cap is a good ending to this article.  It has a logical location and remains relatively flat (not smeared on a fender flare) and purely functional.  Good design never dies, it only gets better.

The sad reality is these Jettas are far from good cars as they age: expensive and difficult to repair when fully depreciated. And now I see far too many of them in the junkyard.  Which saddens me, much like my shattered dreams as a CCS student dreaming of his career at the NAIAS many moons ago.  But that’s life, and that’s Vellum Venom.

Thank you for reading, I hope you have a wonderful week.

Fellow TTAC scribe Alex Dykes put a somewhat innocent enough post on our Facebook Wall, suggesting the BMW 3-series has a reputation for homogenous design, while the new Cadillac ATS suffers from…well, what so many modern GM products suffer from: a new release that’s only “almost” there. The ATS gauge cluster was his proof.

This cluster spurred a commotion from our FB readers that merited a chat window popping up from the Esteemed Mr. Dykes, suggesting this is a good Vellum Venom. Agreed.

The ATS’ cluster, much like a 94-96 Impala SS’ body in midnight black, is fine at night. The two half circles at each side with the speedo resting atop a multifunction display like a side view of eggs sunny-side up is different: and that’s not a bad idea in a sea of straightforward circles from BMW and Mercedes. A previous foray into this territory by Detroit, the Lincoln LS, was horribly boring and bland.

So let’s wait ’till dawn, shall we?

Oh dear. This is just far too much like the charcoal Tupperware designed Pontiacs of yesteryear. While the Cadillac SRX’s jeweled signal lights are cool and ballsy like tail fins on a DeVille, the ATS has…beveled black plastic accented lights. And that’s the nicest part of the whole cluster.

The flat plane gauge housing, draped in a dull wall of flat black, with cheap needles (again, see the SRX cluster) is so decidedly downmarket that the Kia Optima wouldn’t have it. The multifunction screen’s shape, size and location makes it poorly integrated into the circular theme. And heck, even my Ford Ranger doesn’t have those bizarre indentations for the idiot lights. Where did it all go wrong?

Honestly I don’t know…but the last Buick LeSabre (2005) was probably a low point for GM gauge design. The lumpy gauge receptacles made of cold/brittle looking (yet surprisingly color keyed!) plastic look more like the cute mushroom-thingies from Super Mario Brothers. It’s purely unrefined, and a lack of refinement is the main problem with the ATS’ cluster.

Compare it to what we saw a few decades ago.

Here’s a 1983 LeSabre dash. Note how the warm and inviting looking (if fake) wood trim surrounds the round gauges in a non-mushroom like fashion. There’s also a nice chrome ring frenched in for a decidely upscale look, even with the famous Malaise-era plastic quality. The last rear wheel drive LeSabre, Electra, Park Avenues from the early 1980s had a very upscale quality about them.

It was like a traditional Cadillac, but cleaner and far less ostentatious. It, chassis dynamics aside, was a proto ATS in this regard. I can’t believe I just said that. But here we are.

Perhaps the next photo is better ATS historical reference fodder.

I wish I grew up with the first-gen Pontiac Grand Prix. Reading the history and seeing them at car shows leads a youngblood to think these GM products were the high point of entry level luxury for Detroit.

No, for the world.

A fantastic car? Probably. A fantastic gauge cluster with real walnut trim and timeless mid-century design in the chrome gauge bezels? Wow, that’s the stuff right there, son.

Under the lenses of a design student born in the 1970s, a Ferrari of this vintage has no reference point or historical attraction.  Well, at least not a good one: I absolutely adore the 250 GTO after I purchased the 1:18th scale Bburago model when I was a child. Compared to the long, low and mean 250 GTO built solely for race homologation, the 275 GTB looks cute, soft and distinctly Miata like.

Is comparing the 275 GTB to the 250 GTO a fool’s errand?  Perhaps. 

It needs to lose a good 20 lbs in the face. The headlight buckets are too big for the lights themselves.  The fenders are fat with no toned muscles underneath. Worst of all, the transition from front fascia, hood, hood bulge, and fenders lack definition stemming from toned, muscular stampings.  What you see here is just plain fat.

No flab and lack of definition here.  The egg crate grille that’s a Ferrari hallmark looks mighty tasty from here.  Nicely sunken in with a deep chrome lip around it.  The craftsmanship is stunning in person. Plus, exposed mechanical bits are cool.  I’m digging the easy-access radiator cap, but I trying it is probably a bad idea at a Fezza dealership.

The 275′s overt roundness isn’t so obvious when you focus on the middle, without the headlights and the fenders.  But even here, compared to the 250, the hood has round cut lines that accentuate the chubbiness.  With so many round lines, the square hood mohawk in the center has no complimentary forms to blend with.  This one bit of toned muscle needs some “friends” on the rest of the 275′s face.

While there’s too much round elsewhere, the very bulbous windscreen is a work of art.  Visibility must be pretty fantastic inside there.

See how the toned and “muscular” roundness of the headlight itself makes no sense in the fat, amorphic blob of its oval case?  Yes, things like this keep me awake at night.

Well it looks better from this angle.  But still, if the middle of this oval was sucked in a touch like duckface on some chick’s profile pic on twitter, the Ferrari would look much longer, lower and sexier.  Not that duckface is sexy…

And yes, the 275 GTB has a lot of length to promote.  Why not suck the lense in to highlight this car’s fantastic proportions?  This isn’t a CUV that needs to mask all its heft with eye-catching headlight amoebas!

I once said “a Ferrari is whatever the hell Pininfarina says it is” in my Testarossa review…now watch me back pedal.

Perhaps not everything is fat and/or chubby on the 275.  The thin, delicate space between the headlight and chrome wisp of bumper is very elegant.  And taut.  Muscular, with the frenched-in signal light.  How lovely!

The fender starts to look a little plump here, but that teardrop-shaped turn signal is absolutely fantastic.  Considering this is the perfect aerodynamic shape found in nature, why don’t we have more side marker lights looking like this? The imagery, complete with that delicate chrome foundation, is fantastic.

The 275′s round and chunky face translates into a rather tall and blocky side profile.  Is it possible to have too much dash-to-axle ratio (i.e. that space between the front wheel and the A-pillar) when the fender tops are so high off the ground? Compounding the problem is that insanely laid back, thin and fast A-pillar. The roof doesn’t match the fender’s proportions.

I suspect that mere millimeters separate the heights/curves of the 275 to the 250 GTO (and the Jaguar E-Type) it only takes a few subtle changes in dimensions to turn a sexy sports car into a chubby wannabe.  The 275 is unquestionably cute, and certainly an excellent Ferrari. But I still long for more…perhaps Chris Bangle needs to flame surface this to add some excitement and thin down the bulk?

On the plus side, peep that massive stretch between the beginning of the door and the beginning of the A-pillar. It’s grotesquely unnecessary, and I like that.  If only the glass to body ratio was a little better: the door is super tall, round and massive: not a proto-Chrysler 300 by any stretch, but it’s too much red paint and not enough glass.

To my point about paint vs. glass, imagine how sexy the 275 could be if the red paint below was 1-2″ shorter in height? Course, that would probably be the Ferrari 250 LM.  So that’s already been done. And this isn’t exactly a race car, even if it’s trying to look like one.

Look at those massive sidewalls! How I long for the day when we can have a little more rubber…not this much, but you see my point.

This 275 didn’t come with the wire wheels, which is a bit of a shame.  I’ll assume these rims are a lightweight alloy casting far superior to the wires, but they look like the dumpy steelies on a 1980′s econobox.  Do you think these wheels aged well over time?

The Ferrari hub is certainly cool, even if it looks out-of-place on a wheel you’d expect on a Hyundai Excel. I admit this critique is unfair to the era of this vehicle’s engineering, but hey, history can be cruel. And people write on blogs for a reason…probably.

There’s something universally perfect about this A-pillar shot here.  It could be an older Ferrari, or an early Porsche 911…or maybe a the beginnings of the Ford Mustang?  Read on…

Oh yes!  The other side of the door shows a bit of why the 1965 Ford Mustang fastback is such a hot commodity: Ferrari’s classic styling makes for the Perfect Pony Car.  Not to take away from the beauty pictured above, just adding a little context into why this is beautiful.  And why you like it.

Because, without a doubt, this is a gorgeous greenhouse.  The tumblehome, the inward taper of the glass as it nears the “B” pillar, the body’s “hip” below the B-pillar, the scoops, and the eyebrow of the rain gutter is timeless, priceless.

Maybe the rain gutter is a bit too angular and ends rather abruptly.  It should follow the edge of the glass like that Fastback Mustang.

Yup, this is the real reason “we” love Fastback Mustangs. See how the round curves below logically extend into a taut, fit B-pillar that’s so faaaaast?  And just to keep the pillar from being flat and dull, there are three vent cut outs to add some excitement.  Is the excitement necessary?  Perhaps its a bit much.

Round curves and taut straight lines in perfect harmony.  If only the front fenders, hood and fascia had this magic blend of perfection.  As a bonus, the 275 looks much shorter/sleeker from this angle!

Oh yeah! Flat and muscular merges with fat (PHAT?) and curvy so perfectly.  The rear wheel arches just add to the sexiness as the B-pillar extends waaaay back here.

I love the sleek, pure yet functional design of these trunk hinges.

Oh wow, it even has a rear window defogger!

The trunk sports a logical cut line, ending at the base of the dovetail spoiler. The thin, body-hugging chrome bumper looks more than integral with the design: it looks necessary.  Add the period correct tailpipes and the 275 looks mighty smart from this angle.

Doesn’t the bright work say it all?  The nicely chiseled butt, slick spoiler (eat your heart out, 1970s Camaro) and unadorned rear sheet metal is pure Italian design goodness.

Is this too boring?  Maybe more tail lights would help, but then it’d look more like a Corvette.  Add a license plate and call it done: this is a pretty posterior.

The reflector pattern in the stop/signal lights is pretty 1960s groovy.  Compare that to the loony CGI inspired designs of modern lights and we see how design changes with technology over time.

And the license plate lights are a neat bit of kit.  They look far better on the bumper than as warts on the rear end.

Too bad this isn’t a one piece bumper!  But if you have to go multiple parts, the fit and finish of the 275′s bumper is very well executed.

But why fall in love with the 275 GTB when you can gawk at her hotter, more mature sister called 250 GTO? Okay, I know this is unfair to the 275 for several reasons, but just look at this beast!

Thanks for reading, have a very Merry Christmas.

Again…ever since the Mitsubishi Diamante face of the Lincoln LS, that is.  Let’s get this over with.

Like most all new Lincolns, the MKX has way too much width in the grille and not enough in the painted bumper and/or the lighting pods. While the strong center Mohawk hood crease, slender headlights and cohesive chrome valence (lower bumper treatment) look clean and logical enough, the face isn’t friendly to the CUV’s gigantic real estate.  The original Aviator/MKX design looked JFK-sleek and off-road friendly at the same time: it was pudgy like a proper CUV (so to speak) and had enough brand recognition bling to make it work.

BTW: if you’re upset that I kept dealership’s advertising present, don’t worry: Southwest Lincoln (Mercury) closed this year after being in business since 1966.  Owned by the same person that owned the Houston Oilers, “SWLM” was a fixture in Southwest Houston.  But it, much like the Lincoln brand AND the Houston Oilers, was left for scrap.  At least the Houston Texans don’t suck this season. But I digress.

Another reason why big grilles are a bad, bad idea: they cannot be functional.  When 30+% of the krill-filtering teeth don’t even feed this whale, the designers at Lincoln completely screwed up. This looks Tupperware Pontiac Grand Prix cheap. I wonder how the new MKZ will fare from this angle.

Which is a shame, because the intersection of so many fast lines looks absolutely fantastic up close.  If only this was on something Lincoln Town Car sized, especially in the height department.

Too bad I knelt to look at that valence.  The chrome is fine, but the oversized black trimming around the fog light is a poor (literally) way to integrate a round element into the chrome rhombus-thingie.  And there’s ANOTHER solid plastic grille…why? Attention to detail: not present.

Then again…imagine this pointy profile on a Mustang chassis!  Oh my, I’m feelin’ a little faint!

Another problem with the MKX’s redesign: round fenders on a blocky body, complete with a round crease above the wheel that has to meet up with the original’s hard and straight line from the door and back to the end of the body.  Much like a child hammering a round peg in a square hole, the designers are trying to take Lincoln’s latest design direction on the angular wedge that is the Ford Edge.  It isn’t called an “Edge” for no reason, Son!

Here’s a close up of the round element trying to seamlessly blend into the straight line crease of the Ford Edge.  It’s hideously flabby in its undefined and timid execution, looking like a mistake from this angle. But this is no mistake. Neither is the MKX’s fake fender vent appliqué in the shape of the Continental Star.  And there’s a wonderful black plastic triangle of DLO FAIL with chrome trimming up top, but more on that in the next photo.

The fender extends into logical places for both the door and the A-pillar. And because it does, there’s that black plastic DLO FAIL triangle, trying its best to make the MKX appear sleeker/longer/faster than it is…or ever could be.  I doubt the MKX was ever a credible sales threat to the Lexus RX, and here’s one reason why: the RX is so much prettier with more glass and none of the DLO FAIL.

At least this side marker light in the mirror housing looks pretty trick.  I wonder if they’d fit on a Lincoln Town Car, I’m sure they’d love to “escape” the MKX (get it?) for a proper Lincoln.

Lincoln’s signature keyless entry pad is a slapped on afterthought-like on the MKX, since this is an older design that was heavily based on the Ford Edge.  While this was acceptable in the 1980s with the fox body Lincoln Mark VII, it’s still a shame: the fox body Lincoln Continental had the keypad mounted flush with the aluminum trim around the base of the window. So while we love to complain about Lincoln’s current problems, they’ve been battling this since at least the 1980s.  Too bad about that.

Well, at least the detailing on the panoramic roof is pretty cool.  I like this lip spoiler looking thing…the entire roof panel of the MKX looks pretty sleek.

We used to live on the Edge, until someone heated the MKX’s front fascia and lightly smashed it into a brick wall.  The front end’s ripple makes absolutely no sense with the other 3/4′s of the MKX’s body.  This CUV is another tragic victim of Lincoln’s inability to stick with a design theme.  Or make a cohesive theme.  Or perhaps both.

But the wheels (photographed on another MKX on the lot) are pretty tasty.  Lincoln’s had a bad habit of writing “LINCOLN” in huge lettering around the hubcap, not present here.  I guess nobody’s gonna mistake this one for a Honda, so the letters got the boot.

Even worse, they ruined the original MKX’s taillight treatment too!  Sporting a proper full-width treatment that was impossible to mistake at night, the MKX used to be a catchy design.  With these two amoebas on the tailgate, all that brand equity was flushed down the toilet.  For what reason? The MKT has the same goofy nose with a somewhat sane full-width taillight…why on earth can’t the MKX have the same thing, too?

The new reflector treatment is certainly catchier than the last one.  If only the outgoing model’s dimensionally correct tail light had these inside instead. It would be a logical and proper upgrade for the Lincoln brand.  It would signify the product renaissance Ford says is right around the corner.  Instead, they blanded up the rear end, generic to death.  But at least the chrome inside them is sweet!

Nice afterthought backup camera. Instead of integrating/hiding this in some other element like so many other luxury vehicles, Lincoln seemingly had no choice but to make a new plastic part, slap a logo and a camera in it. I think a camera integrated into the FULL WIDTH TAIL LIGHT of the original MKX would be pretty nice.

How is this a Lincoln?  More chrome than the outgoing MKX? This new tailgate is, without question, a huge step backward for the brand.

Where did it all go wrong?  While I love my Mark VIII, it’s far from a perfect design, and didn’t sell terribly well.  Could Lincoln’s fear of getting stagnant be the reason why we are in our current MK-Hell? I doubt it.  While the personal luxury coupe market dried up in the 1990s, I still get compliments on what a “Great New Lincoln that must be to own!” For real. In my dentist’s parking lot last year, to be precise.

Wanna know the funny part? Comments like that turn my car into a Halo Vehicle in consideration of new Lincoln vehicles in this town.  A Dodge Viper with a fake spare tire hump. Believe that.

And why the hell not? From that long, sleek nose to the short and low rear deck with integral Continental kit, the Mark VIII paid homage to Edsel Ford’s original Continental coupe while still looking like a new car. Is there a lesson to be learned here?

Thanks for reading, you have a fantastic week!

The 8th generation Civic’s bumpers had a flat and clean, 1970s People Mover vibe to it. Radical yes, but not offensive. The 9th Gen’s redesign added lumps and bumps to the bumper, with the aesthetic pleasure of a pear-shaped silhouette. Adding insult to injury, all the folds and unique planes on the bumper’s face. This nose doesn’t work on a body this tall and, um, People Mover like.

The pear shape isn’t obvious from this angle.  Aside from the blocky-cheapness of the grille (even in fancy Hybrid trim), the Civic looks okay from here.  A perfectly flat nose (without the high point for the license plate) woulda been nicer, however.

This is a good time to mention that I gladly put my fingers in strange holes for TTAC’s readership. And, that solid casting behind the logo looks even cheaper in real life.  Shouldn’t Hybrids have a flat, solid badge for better aerodynamics?

This blue strip of Hybrid Snobbery is kinda cool.  First green was marketed for unique Hybrid markings, now blue. Which any luck, we will see more brown hues taking over in the Eco-Friendly color challenge.  After all, isn’t the earth mostly made of brown stuff?  There’s just a lot of green and blue on top of the chocolatey goodness!

While I’m all for unique trimmings on unique models, this blue lightbulb umbrella is a bit much.  Anodized(?) blue on a cheap metal stamping doesn’t look better, it accentuates something that’s better left in chrome camouflage. The only thing worse would be my brown remark from above, translated here.

If there was no fender flare, no pear shape to the bumper, this would be a decent enough looking machine. Then again, the 8th Gen Civic already had that covered. Much like the awful Chevy Uplander (CUV-wannabe) to the mediocre Chevy Venture (Minivan) that came before it, sometimes change is a very bad, very half-assed thing indeed.

On the plus side, the plane of the bumper that flows into the headlight is pretty cool from here.  And the bumper to fender seam is logical. There’s a bit of the 1970s wedgy perfection here.  Just not enough of it.

The 9th Gen Hybrid wheels are as contrived and overwrought as the front end.  The 8th Gen’s totally futuristic wheels were so much better.

Contrary to most cab-forward designs, the Civic’s plastic trim on the cowl is quite minimal and clean.  It’s nice to see more painted hood and less black plastic in this manner.

Too bad about this slab of plastic.  The Daylight Opening (DLO) of the 9th Gen is so, so much worse than the 8th Gen.  What used to be a cool ’70s people mover with those sleek bits of glass in front of the door turned into plastic triangles of DLO FAIL.  It’s very sad to see Honda go to Pontiac Aztek levels of cheapness in their quest to…well, I have no idea what they were thinking.

That’s right, they were thinking about the $$$.  And since the 2013 model still has the plastic triangles of DLO FAIL, we see that it’s still all about the money. Ain’t a damn thing funny!

DLO FAIL from another angle, complete with round-ish mirrors that fight the very wedgy greenhouse.  Remember when Honda spent the money to put covered headlights on the 3rd Generation Accord?  Oh, how the mighty have fallen.  Hyundai and Kia: the ball is in your court.

And yet, just like my review back in 2007, I still hear Jazz-Rock Fusion when I see a Civic.  The 70′s never died, it just went mainstream pop. The watered down wheel design, big hunka DLO FAIL, unnecessary muscular crease by the door handles and generic taillights don’t totally negate the wedge greenhouse. Probably.

Ack: bargain basement Hofmeister Kinkery!!! Try saying that three times fast!

Another reason to love the 8th Gen Civic.  While this isn’t DLO FAIL like the front, this cheap bit of (tacked on, not-flush fitting) trim at the end of the DLO means Honda took a page from GM’s beancounting playbook.  A very sad move indeed, son.

Since I am not one of those autojournos that gets all-expense paid trips to the LA Auto Show (sorry about that), I don’t know if the 2013 Civic improved here.  From what I see on the web, I have my doubts. Too bad about that.

Is this one piece plastic casting of parcel shelf and high-mount stop light (CHMSL) a clean and modern design, or a cheap bit from the dark days of GM and Chrysler interiors? I like carpet better, personally.

Most (all?) Civics in the history of Honda Awesomeness sported taillights that were either full width or something close to it. This cheapness is too Toyota like, and shameful.  Luckily the 2013 model goes back to a lamp arrangement befitting the brand and the Civic lineage. Now if only I knew for sure that bumper shelf below the taillights also met the chopping block for ’13.

At least you can’t see the DLO FAIL from this angle.

The strong shoulder line in this panel extends logically into the rear door.  It looks good enough, but the flat and wedgy profile of the 8th Gen was far more appealing from this angle. Mostly because it didn’t over promise on style, in an overwrought Toyota way. Hondas used to be so lithe and clean!

Thank goodness that mustache above the license plate isn’t chrome, as Honda would be just a fender ventiport away from copying every design cliché in the book! And that “shelf” at each corner really needs to go from this angle.  The pear-shaped Civic must never been seen again!

While there is an interesting dynamic of busy angles at the border of the Civic’s body, it is lumpy and frumpy.  This design will not age well.

Dare I say that, compared to what you see here, the 8th Gen Civic was downright gorgeous from this angle? While all the planes and wedges all lead to complimentary vanishing points somewhere out there in interstellar space (hopefully), there are simply far too many of them.

More blue tinting and pointless chrome bits. The lights would look better if they were flush to the body. It would also eliminate many lumps you’ve seen in the last two pictures.

And the spoiler adds a coupla more unique planes into the mix.  Just waaaay too busy.

Too many clichés, too much abandonment of what made the Civic a quality product with progressive and/or upscale design. The best thing you can say about the 2012 Civic is that the 2013 model should be in the showrooms very shortly.

Thanks for reading, you have a lovely weekend! This photo from 2006 will help.

A sports car. A luxury car. A truck. A car for third-world nations.  And yet CCS never gave me a project that said, “lower your standards and design a great rental car” for a week of studio work.   Does anyone design anything with unloved dispensability in mind? But I see it that way: leaving the design world to (eventually) to flash my MBA with an occasional corporate trip…with the obligatory rental car.  But how pretty is the Queen?

The fleet queen that is.

Bland and chubby. The password for Dodge’s Avenger is encrypted with elements from big brother Charger, slapped on a horribly chubby and bland body.  But check out the cute little negative area for the license plate.  This car has some, uh, charming elements to it.

But I can’t stand the de-Ram’d grille and logos of the post-Bankruptcy Dodge. And the Corvette Grand Sport-esque twin red hashes by the Dodge emblem. It’s sad to see how Dodge and Ram are split up for some sort of impending fiscal cliff for the MOPAR folk.

Bear with me, because some of the subtle detailing on the headlights are quite significant, and maybe even worthy of duplication on superior vehicles. Note how the lower element is comprised entirely of signal/parking lights.  This could almost be a German vehicle from this angle.  Almost!

There is very little pointless flash on these assemblies, just a little eyebrow of “beveled irrelevance” compared to so many other foolish wastes of space…I’m looking at you, Cadillac ATS.

The bumper’s lower half has a little speed bump, giving a bit of flash for no reason.  You know, like a tunerboi body kit for damn near any import.  I’m not hatin’ because it actually looks cool.

Back up to the lights.  Note how slender and sleek the Avenger looks from here, with a gentle power dome in the hood starting from a logical place in the grille.  The sunken-in headlights are clean and beautiful. I’d eliminate the hard bend in the fender to accentuate the domed hood and minimize the cut line between the hood and fender, but that’s no deal breaker. Rental car and all that.

The shadow of the stamped-in racing stripe doesn’t work for me.  Perhaps if they ended near the two dots (windshield washer nozzles), but certainly not as it stands.

And here is why you will never like the Avenger: the headlights are HUGE!  Only from a few angles do these things squint like the glare of an angry woman. If the front clip was the size of a Dodge Stratus, everything falls naturally into a cereal bowl of nicely proportioned Rental Car Granola.  Too bad about that.

And these not-quite-split 5 spoke wheels are so vanilla that I long for the days of generic rental car hub caps.  Here are plenty of hard edges with no soft contours to add excitement.  The spokes’ overzealous negative area in the rim is too much, but luckily the wheel weight covers one of the offending lines.  And why the chrome center cap?

Whoa dude. NO DLO FAIL. I’m starting to like this machine more than most of its competitors.

Seriously, how frickin’ hard is it to make shit like this on EVERY CAR? Logical, clean and lacking idiotic plastic filler panels to give the illusion of speed and pretension.

The cowl is both clean, skinny and minimal on bends and baubles, too.  I suspect this is another positive byproduct of not having a roof so fast as to encourage DLO fail.

The side-view mirror is recessed in a trick sheet metal stamping around the windows.   This is a logical, cheap and beautiful way to make a greenhouse with…once more…NO DLO FAIL.

Too bad about the floating, trim-less glass and the black rain gutter that ends so cheaply at the top of the windscreen.  While the Avenger is perfectly quiet and comfortable at speed, this looks like a magnet for wind noise.

From the bottom cut line of the doors, you can see a little taper at the bottom of the body.  It looks interesting, if not exciting. The blocky door handles don’t try to be wispy, frou-frou and flashy…and it works.

Black trim on the B-pillars when Chrysler coulda easily left them body color and saved a few pennies. Very nice.  With tinted windows, the Avenger’s greenhouse looks almost pretty.

Okay, so maybe this black b-pillar decal isn’t the highest quality of trim. On many other sedans, this area sports black plastic covers instead of tape. Bummer.

Oh man, that’s a fat, fat hunk of rear door.  Things aren’t looking good for the Avenger.

There’s nothing terribly wrong with the intended greenhouse design, if this was applied to the Dodge Charger instead.  And while the Charger is far from a sleek and sexy C-pillar on a slender body, it isn’t nearly this horrifying. The hard points needed for the C-pillar/Quarter Panel/Rear Door means a ridiculously vertical cut line for the door. Add the flowing glass, round gas cap and the door’s line doesn’t flow…and it doesn’t work.

Those unbelievably timid wheels don’t help, either.

If the vanishing point for the door cut line ended about a 1/2 inch forward, there’d be some rake from this angle.  And the Avenger would look better.

And while the Avenger’s rear greenhouse doesn’t have DLO fail like that of a Chevy Cruze, they had to have this big plastic filler panel…probably so the glass was the right size to roll down the door.  Visualize this design with a fixed vent window instead and things don’t get much better…a solid piece of glass is necessary to give that Charger-esque look.  I feel the designers didn’t have a choice here.

The little black plastic triangle of DLO fail outside turns into some hideous thing you always see when backing out of the airport parking lot.  Very sad.

Then again, you can make this look beautiful.  And the Avenger has some rather flowing lines. Note the gentle crease on the C-pillar near the rear window, and the strong shoulder-line from the base of the rear window that extends into the rear door.  On a shorter car with a little more wheelbase, this would be absolutely stunning.

There’s a reasonable amount of tumblehome too, accentuated by the strong shoulder line mentioned above.  Very cool.  Everything looks even “faster” when adding the divot-and-dip of the decklid.  Provided you don’t step back a foot, and remember this is a tall and dorky rental car.

That floating glass and poorly integrated rain gutter are back again on the Avenger’s hindquarters.

The tip of the decklid tapers in a bit, making for a larger gap at the end.  Not cool.

There she is, in all her rental car beauty.  Like mentioned before, this greenhouse would look so good with more wheelbase and MUCH less height.  Again, superimpose the silhouette of the Dodge Stratus, force that on the Avenger’s design elements and you’ll find the silver lining here.

Wait, can such a silver lining exist?

A very tall and stubby back end.  But there’s something hunky and chunky about the taper of the lights, slope of the decklid and chisels in the bumper. It’s a Dodge, not a Toyota!

Too tall and too much bumper!  I also wish the tail lights had two bright circular elements per corner, to emulate the front end’s headlights. Yes, the brake lights are a happy quartet, but there’s only one pair of white pimples.

I know that computer assisted design and awesome modern plastic casting techniques make seriously complicated stuff, but the Gatling gun look in automotive lighting pods must die a painful death…perhaps with Gatling guns?

But every car needs disco ball back up lights!  DISCO BALL BACKIN’ THAT AZZ UP!

Unlike the last gen Toyota Camry, these emblems look rather fantastic up close: providing contrast to the corners/edges/bends in the white paint, but they are otherwise lost on a gigantic ass when you step back. Too bad about that.

The modest black trim on the rear bumper is actually quite appealing, if the painted bumper above didn’t completely drown it out.  Someone please take 2-3 inches out of the Avenger’s mid section!

Something about the manual release gas cap finger divot is both cheap and cheerful at the same time. It’s not pretty, but it gets the job done for not much cash.  Kind of like IKEA, but without the insane assembly time and those carts that won’t go all the way to your vehicle’s butt in the loading zone.

Thank you for reading, I hope you have a fantastic week!

TTAC commentator halftruth writes/draws:

I got taking a look at the Chrysler 200 recently and while I want to like it, I cant get past the little droop on the bottom of the tail lights. I took a couple of stabs to see what they would look like flat and perhaps they are too VW-ish, but I like them better this way..

What do you think? I did them quickly in paint but I think you get the point…thanks!After:
After:

Sajeev answers:

Normally I prefer less fussy tail light designs, but not when it comes to very tall and clumsy proportioned sedans.  And when you think tall and clumsy sedans, the Chrysler Sebring-200 is one of the worst offenders on the planet. And not in that ironic hipster way like a Scion xD or xB or whatever…nor in that cheap and cheerful way like a penalty box Chevy Aveo or Nissan Versa. The Chrysler 200 is simply a poorly proportioned vehicle. And it needs all the help it can get.

My point is witnessed above, in the abomination that was the Chrysler Sebring. The Chrysler 200 needs those tail light flairs of modest style, it visually thins a plump sedan.

So I will disagree with you, even though I’m kicking myself for doing it! What say you, Best and Brightest???

Belle Isle sans sunlight is a scary place for most Detroiters, but many a CCS student knew this was the place to enjoy your machine.  But those days are gone, and I believe the 4000 CS Quattro that I adored found a new owner in Denver about 8 years ago.  Perhaps Murilee will see it soon in the junkyard.

Now this particular 4000 belongs to the somewhat-famous Tony Hoffman, a true genius when it comes to anything VAG related. It is his daily driver, and it shows.  In a good way, check out those factory looking driving lights in the grille.  Problem is, those aren’t factory. But you can still see the new 4000′s nicer bumper, made from fewer offending parts compared to the original 4000.  And the Euro-like headlights that finally made it into production!  It’s a big change from the last 4000 in this series.

Oops, missing reflectors in the bumper, too. But you can see the Audi 5000′s design DNA in the lights and bumpers, even if this isn’t the clean sheet re-think like the flagship Audi. The execution of Audi’s future design elements to its current platform were done fantastically well.

Okay, maybe those driving lights don’t look factory at all.  And maybe they make the Audi logo look like a kid that just bought a certain mouse-like hat at Disneyland. But the smooth bumper finally lets the 4000′s clean lines shine.  I love how the fender, hood, signal lights and headlights all share common cut lines. And how the bumper’s curvature matches that of the hood.

Trying to look like the big brother 5000, this 4000 is certainly a serious entry into the mid-luxury Yuppie market of the 1980s.  Wrap around lights that match the bumper curve for curve? Check.  All front end lines share the same vanishing point?  Check. Too bad the lower light/grille trim is missing, but sometimes I must photograph whatever comes my way.

Unlike the previous 4000′s Tupperware trimmings, this upper bumper trim is a small aluminum strip. And while the connection points are a little crude by today’s standards, this is a wonderful upgrade.

And no center trim buckle here!  Big step up from the original 4000.

I still feel the front end is too thick, static and stodgy from this angle.  If only there was more taper up front so the fender would look “faster” from front to back.

Still an odd mis-mash of seams, but the 4000 was not designed with an Audi 5000 budget in mind.

The front end’s taper looks better from here.  Perhaps the hard-line in the fender (by the hood and up against the headlights) is the only static part that “slows” down the package. And the bumper’s side protection finally looks like a proper Yuppiemobile. Integration at its finest, topped with a layer of aluminum icing.

And the superior bumper-age of the redesigned 4000 continues to the upscale side protection.  Very clean, very Audi and very 1980s.

Yes Tony’s car is rough around the edges.  But the wedgy edges of this fantastic design remain.  Compared to the original 4000′s comprised mouldings, these are superior for many reasons.  One: fancy Audi emblem, instead of a plastic casting.  Two: they cover the lumpy sheetmetal bend and smooth out the lower half of the body, while the older model’s trim was slapped on below the bend.  Three: the negative area for the door moulding to clear the fender is almost invisible. Four: more snazzy aluminum trim.

Okay, perhaps the mouldings are a little too shallow: witness the exposed sheet metal on the doors.  But this certainly helps remove the negative area’s bulk on the rubber, and this is still a huge improvement over the outgoing 4000.

Yes, these mouldings are a work of art on a rather unappealing bend.  All of a sudden, form and function meet, fall in love and get married.

The lower trim panel integrates all of the body’s elements into a nice foundation to hug the earth.

Step back and see what I’m talkin’ about.  With the 4000′s redesign, the whole becomes more integrated, focused on the taut lines of the midsection.  Smooth bumpers keep you away from the corners and the strong horizontal lines in the midsection (mouldings) accentuate the harmony and cleanliness of the aerodynamic wedge styling that was so common in high-class vehicles of the 1980s.

Yes, 4000′s refinement is present: an executive sedan if you want the finer things in life without trying too hard (Mercedes, BMW), without being stodgy (Cadillac and Lincoln) and without being screwball weird (SAAB, Volvo).  All lines are in harmony, all in the right place.

Man, what an amazing piece of work for a mid-cycle refresh.

Now perhaps the moulding is too thick for such a small and tall platform.  It does take away from the clean door cutlines and flowing DLO of the Hofmeister Kink-infused greenhouse. But the moulding’s proportioning is respectful to the rest of the package, so it works.

The front doors are vent window free, unlike most of the earlier 4000s (except for the LE model reviewed last time).  So the look is far cleaner, thanks to one less static line thrown into the mix.

While I love “quattro” props as much as the other guy, this one gets too close to the edges of the glass.  I’d shrink it down a good inch or so.  No need to overdo it, we all know that Quattro Audis totally rock.

Such a clean door cut line.  Such an open and exciting greenhouse.  Exciting?  Well, perhaps I’ve been punished by too many Chrysler 300s…and 300 wannabes.

And the rear bumper!  Oh my!  So clean and so elegant.  We gotta do something about Tony’s love of Audi decals, but the redesigned tail lights and that bumper clean up the 4000, taking it to a new level of snobbery.

There’s a strong sense of Audi 5000 here.  And it gets better the farther you go ’round back.

This isn’t the only 4000 that cracks the (non-functional) lense in this spot. One of my first H-town junkyard trips after I left CCS was to get a replacement for my buddy’s 4000 back in Detroit.  Like most modern/minimalistic art, cars from the 1980s let pure design elements take up a lot of real estate.  Clownish license plate chrome mustaches would be laughed out of town, as lighting pods get center stage.  Think new Dodge Charger, for example.

While this treatment looked far more elegant on the larger 5000, these lights filled up a lot of undefined space from the old 4000.  And that undefined sheet metal clouded the purity of this body’s design.  Clear, logical and minimalistic lenses were a great upgrade.

This looks like a far, far more expensive car than the original 4000.

Just because the lights are minimal does NOT mean they are simple.  Look at the casting work involved to flush them against the license plate.  This couldn’t be cheap back in the days of Atari 2600 technology. Plus, it’s lovely.

And the “quattro” badge reminds all why something this beautiful costs more than a, uh, Honda Accord?

Just like the outgoing 4000, the spoiler is too big in some places. Thin it out so the trunk lock won’t mess up the vibe.

Just like the front, there’s a modest meeting point for the aluminum trim.  Safe!

Even from down here, the bumpers are a HUGE improvement. The clean and organized plastic works well to let the lighting pods shine, so to speak.  Modern art on wheels, for the win.

“Quattro” lettering in the rear window defogger?  Not only is it nicely proportioned with the rest of the glass, it’s a somewhat subtle nod to why Audi’s are different/better than other European marques. If you disagree, fair enough. But I counter with today’s fake fender chrome/vents…and Audi’s lack of bandwagon jumping.

So don’t mess with this guy, he might be crazy enough to know what he’s doing.

When Sajeev the TTAC autojourno turns into the Indian Heritage Wearing Judge in the 24 Hours of LeMons, Tony gives me the keys to this Audi 4000 CS Quattro so I can quickly lay the hurt down on cheaty racers. This car is a joy to behold and drive. Stylistically it’s very crude compared to the Audi 5000, but it promises the same thrills of the honest and entertaining mechanicals underneath.

Happy Thanksgiving from “Indian Judge” Sajeev, and I hope you have a lovely weekend.

One of my Automotive Design teachers at CCS made us take a personality test to determine our strengths(?) as a designer.  It was beyond stupid, or so I thought. To wit, a (paraphrased) question: do you collect old things?  The answer was supposedly neutral: no matter what you answered on this query, your overall score didn’t change.

Which is a total crock. The history of design is so very important, especially for a powerhouse like Audi. Please!

The Audi 4000 signified the impending maturity of the Audi brand in the USA. This is a design that was the harbinger of better things to come: mass appeal with aspirational appeal.  It was seen in the Audi 5000, but that’s for another day. The 1984 Audi 4000 LE is a particularly perfect example of the breed, based on rarity (less than 400 made) alone.  Add the fact that this vehicle’s owner is our own Captain Mike Solo, who visited me in Houston to pick up his impressive 4000 LE a couple of weeks ago.

Now let’s be clear on one thing: like most European iron from this era, the 4000 was a somewhat horrible bastard compared to its homemarket offering.  The Euro 4000 (called the Audi 80) wasn’t handicapped by this battering ram bumper. The nose is overly static thanks to it and the US-spec headlights drowning out the clean lines of the upper half of the fascia.

While styled by the great Giugiaro himself, he did a far better job a couple of years later making the Hyundai Excel‘s bumpers. Perhaps VW was responsible for the US-spec bumpers, and if so, my apologizes to Mr. G and his studio.

Audi fanatics shall note that the LE was front-wheel drive , but there’s a Quattro badge on the grille!  Captain Mike’s LE had front end damage, so this isn’t the original grille.  (The emblem pops off, if you really give a crap about that.)

The quad headlights look a little sleeker from the side, sunken in with a wraparound trim cover and integral reflector. And while that bumper is all kinds of big compared to the Euro 80, let’s not forget that Lincoln loving fools like yours truly sported some seriously scary battering rams on their late-70s Disco Iron.  The point: these bumpers were here for a damn good reason.

Even better, the prodigious lower valance does a good job taking your eyes away from the large bumper.  The overall look is clean, but composed of far too many pieces.

Okay, the headlights look much better from here.  But my beef of too many parts to make the whole is coming to light: the trim between the headlights and bumper exists for…what reason?The extra filler panel abruptly ends with the marker light, adding an unfortunate layer to the already huge bumper.

Is this a Renault Alliance or an Audi 4000?  There’s a reason why people can still lust after aspirational American Iron of this era: they were about the same price, and they looked like a million bucks.  A million tacky and tasteless bucks, but whatever…peep the one piece bumper of the 1980 Ford Thunderbird: hideous car, awesome bumper.

Audi wasn’t on their game just yet, unless you were looking at the Audi 5000 waiting in the wings.

The four rings are a classic design element, and isn’t it such a lovely logo on such a small grille?  Too bad about that center trim thingie!

Too bad this couldn’t be a one piece affair.  Perhaps VW didn’t have the budget to make a fancy hunk of plastic only for America?

Too many parts, too many ways to weather in the Texas sun.  A big gap near my finger, an overlapping trim piece to the left.  The team involved in the US-Federalization of the Audi 80 can’t be thrilled with the end result in the 4000.

As you turn away from the 4000′s US-spec design, the clarity of the Audi 80′s DNA starts to show.  The side marker light is too close to the fender’s subtle crease, but at least it’s a slick affair with no exposed screws.

Like a balding forehead, the upper half of the fender is too thick and static, too Datsun Maxima.  A little less sheet metal above the headlights (ramp up) would make the front a little sleeker and “speed up” the lines as the fenders go to the A-pillar.

The thinner fender at the front wouldn’t change things here, but the overall effect would be far sleeker. Also note the interesting cut line of the fender into space normally reserved for the cowl: this also helps speed up the look.

That cut line made no sense in the last photo, but here you see it blend into the base of the greenhouse’s DLO, where the side view mirror starts the rest of the design.  Logical!

When is the last time you saw a near-luxury car with exposed wiper arms?  Times have changed, for the better.

Go a little lower and examine the bodyside molding, note the large negative area needed for the rubber to clear the path of an opening door: while this is a design pet peeve of mine, the cute Audi logo cast into the space is pretty cool.  The bigger problem?  The molding doesn’t blend into the crease directly above, it adds unnecessary visual bulk by not playing nice with the sheet metal.

Yup, premium imported vehicles have come a loooong way!

Today we hate the hideous black plastic triangle of DLO fail…but the Audi 4000′s black paint doesn’t look much classier.  Why not make an integrated sideview mirror casting to eliminate this waste of space?

Step back. That’s better. The 4000′s greenhouse is large, airy and chock full of glass.  The LE went a step further, eliminating the vent windows on the front doors.  It looks fantastic, also being a hat tip to the redesigned 4000 arriving shortly. The extra window in the C-pillar isn’t a cheap addition, and the contours of the sheet metal below give the impression of more tumblehome to the roof. Epic.

The 4000 is quite a looker from here.  Long hood, short deck and a wide open greenhouse. It looks efficient and sporty.  The C-pillar is fast, but not idiotically so. The decklid’s downward taper is delicious. While Audi’s clean DNA isn’t entirely present, this is definitely not Detroit Iron…and has more logical lines and crisp contours compared to its Japanese wannabe-competitors. Slam dunk win.

Did I mention “crisp contours”?  Note the four bends in the side of the 4000′s profile.  It’s not busy, and adds style without bulk and fuss.

I really like the slender black plastic door pulls with modest chrome overlays, especially since the negative area behind them is logical, not drawing attention to itself. (I’m looking at you, Toyota Venza) And the little release lever behind the slab of plastic is pretty slick.

Until Mike informed me that these release levers break at an alarming rate.  So much for beauty and durability going hand in hand.

Look at the size of that greenhouse!  What I wouldn’t do to see such a fine ratio of glass-to-metal, and for a clean cut line between the rear door and the fender. Everything is in its right place, logically.

The recessed rim is quite a looker too.

The BMW-like Hofmeister kink in the quarter window is a nice touch, sure to upset fans of the Roundel to no end! The horizontal trim bit at the base of the C-pillar upsets me. Was there a vinyl top option I’m not aware of?

While nobody loves black plastic triangles, this one serves a purpose (rear glass movement) and has nothing to do with DLO fail. Win.

This rain gutter is such a period piece, but it’s well-integrated. I wish the front bumper was this slick. Epic win.

Clean, trim and efficient.  The rear bumper has the same deadly sins of the front, but to a lesser extent.  Maybe because there’s an offset bulky spoiler on the deck lid?

A functional gas cap with finger assist (so to speak) and a symmetrical design that isn’t smeared on one of the 4000′s many body creases. Nice.

Tumblehome aplenty.  Me likey. A lot.

I’d still like to know why this trim piece at the base of the C-pillar needs to exist.  My cockamamie vinyl top notion makes sense from this angle!

Walk up, check out those cool halo headrests for rear passengers.  Very upmarket!  And if you want to complain about the aforementioned Hofmeister kink, Captain Mike has a Complaint Department ready to “handle” your concerns.

Yes ladies, he’s single!

Back to the bumper. Just like the front, that intermediate piece between the bumper and the body isn’t an elegant solution.  I know Audi was trying to eliminate the “shelf” appearance of most big bumper’d cars from this era, but this isn’t working.  The intermediate piece’s abrupt ending looks cheap, fading to bumper level as it reaches the rear wheels would have been marginally better.  Better still, stick with the conventional bumper “shelf”.

I do like how the crease ends into nothingness before the tail light.  I just wish the amber portion of the lense used that as a start/end point.

Then again, the 50/50 distribution of amber and red looks better here.

The 4000′s butt is a bit rounder than the front.  The curvy lights give surface tension to the design, even if it’s too VW-like for my tastes. The 4000′s redesign fixed that “problem”.

Like the front end’s significant valence, the rear end’s use of body color paint below the bumper helps lean out the package.

The spoiler is a nice “cap” to the decklid, tucking around the emblems and adding a new element to a somewhat mundane rear end. From this angle it looks like a perfectly curved baseball cap on the chiseled face of a perfectly wealthy baseball player.

Too bad the spoiler is too thick for the trunk lock.  Price point be damned, the 4000 is still a small car, the spoiler needs a bit more whimsy and lightheartedness to really be a part of the whole package.

These exposed license plate lights aren’t exactly the stuff of Yuppie fantasy, but at least you don’t see any exposed screws. And the lense is nicely frenched in.  While the 4000 is a nice piece, consider it as one of the vehicles that ushered decades of unquestionable design authority from Audi. Everyone starts somewhere, and this is a damn good place to start.

And that’s the real story here.

But still: my, what a big…bumper you have!  Thanks for reading and have a fantastic week!

The problem with the FR-S’ unrefined bumps, lumps and Trapezoid Homage to the 1977 Mercury Cougar now has a decent solution.  And what of this workaround?  It’s brutal. It’s borderline inexcusable.  But my goodness, it works…too bad I’m making you click to see it. 

BAM, SON!

A gigantic wing with mounting points that emulate the Cougar trapezoid form: all of a sudden the decklid has purpose! The hunks of metal (aluminum?) empathize with the trapezoid butt and the slant of the taillights.  And will you look at the decklid’s Bangle Butt with a big-ass spoiler on it? Not for a while!

Too bad there’s a downside.

Wings are pretty retarded.  You need the stance, the wheels, the wide-body flares and all the streetability compromise that comes with.  (Piston Slap moment: insert LSX-FTW swap here) This is pure race fantasy, but this FR-S (okay, BRZ) makes it work.  And it proves that purposeful race design can be both functional and beautiful.  Just don’t try this at home, kids…

Damn near everyone in the Industrial Design department at CCS said my engineering/gearhead/history buff background was killing my potential Car Design career. In hindsight they had a point, but most were complete jerks about it.  With three art history courses at three different colleges in mind, automotive brands/models/trim levels do indeed nod to something more than PR-hyped styling takeaways: perhaps a vintage automobile, a vague reference to a sub-culture not normally associated with a large corporation, or an entire genre of fine art. But the Scion FR-S isn’t retro…

…it’s retro-futurism.

Toothy and fang-like.  The FR-S has an assertive stance, made clear with pointy scoops at the base of the bumper and a hard cut line separating the bumper’s snout against the headlights.  Nissan 370Z it ain’t, there’s another hard crease between the headlights and the fog light area, making for three pairs of hard lines that give the FR-S a very angry look.

The round bulge for the low-beam headlights adds a more-than welcome soft point to all these fierce elements, but something about the Scion emblem in the center looks less like an organic extension of natural facial features…and possibly more of a wart on an otherwise lovely face. Even the hood cut lines are clean and logical.

The depression around the emblem is what kills the nose. This is far too cute and soft, which has nothing to do with this car.  While corporate logos housed in round casings is more than a little trite, combining it with the bumper’s reverse pimple takes away from the design’s overall aggressiveness.

A mail slot grille, individual S-C-I-O-N lettering…heck even the flat spot/round logo combo of the last Toyota Supra is a huge improvement.  Maybe on the mid-cycle refresh!

We discussed the hard, fierce lines before, but there’s more to the FR-S.  Note the gentle bend in the hood and bumper, creating a new point of surface tension.  It keeps the bumper from being too bloating and boring. If there was a slotted grille (a la mid-cycle refreshed Lexus SC400) using this soft curve and its genesis, the nose would be far more aggressive. It would no longer have a self-congratulatory wart for the Scion brand.

And if you missed the round element of the headlight, note how it breaks the surface tension of the front end from this angle.  Less techno-future, more retro Ferrari headlight from the 1950-60s.  Retro and future combine to form one being.  Dang.

The fog light pod is a different story.  The gigantic black plug is pretty tasteless, though I am sure the aftermarket can make it into a functional speed hole for something.  Perhaps a brake cooling duct, or something turbo-intercooler related. No matter, the entire form is a key element to the FR-S’s fierce nose.  And the strong linearity of the beveled edge around its bottom and outer edge looks pretty trick.

The angry creases of the lower bumper, the headlight, the fog light look absolutely sinister.  But the subtle crease above the headlight? That’s like a flirty eyebrow on a very pretty face.  It’s like a Maserati Gran Tourismo coupe, but not Italian super car pompous. Me likey.

Nicely integrated signal light!  But the front end’s angry lines look so tough because of one design feature: front end overhang allowing for an organic tapering of the snout.  Repeat after me, “Overhang is a good thing. A GOOD THING!”

Put another way: you ain’t nothin’ but a hound dog, Mr. Scion FR-S!

OMG SON, am I really seeing a non-Ferrari-Corvette-Panther with an impressive amount of space between the firewall and the front axle?  This dash-to-axle ratio is more than a little delicious, and such a great value compared to the others! (except the Panther, ‘natch)

While this 86-boxer emblem is “emblematic” of the limp-wristed motor beneath, you can’t deny the presence of such a “fast” looking line on the expansive canvas of a rear-wheel drive fender. Even better, this painted fender trim lies on a separate plane from the sheet metal itself, adding surface tension to a tall (by retro standards) belt line.

But I’m seeing another, far bigger problem. More on that later.

Thank goodness my camera phone couldn’t properly show this fake fender vent.  Oops on my part, double oops on the designer’s part.

That “far bigger” problem mentioned two photos ago?  Take a look at the sheer number of panel gaps, and their terrible sizing!  The door to fender is the worst, until you spend a little more time with the plastic cowl trim that starts with the wipers and ends at the base of the A-pillar.

Chintzy. Cheap. In poor taste for any non-Yugo product.  Go back to the last photo and note the sloppy end-point installation of the black plastic cowl trim. Hell, even the Yugo didn’t f–k up a fender’s meeting point this badly.  It doesn’t take much to visualize a fender that fixes this problem, too bad they couldn’t metal smith that plastic tab out.

You can see a bit of the black cowl plastic here too.  And the gigantic panel gap of the A-pillar to fender.  While Toyota generously gave a glass triangle instead of the typical DLO FAIL at this point, this area suffers from a unique form of FAIL: the DLO slides below the A-pillar, the fender AND the fender vent panel, adding another unnecessary line to the profile!

On the plus side, the unique plane of the fender vent/emblem continues across the top of the door.  Back on the minus side again, the side-view mirror’s black plastic base fights this plane with pudgy, bulge-y, overlapping curves. It reminds me of when I used to pour batter into the waffle iron as a child, and spill it over the “lines”.

In collector car speak, the FR-S is definitely more of a 20-footer. The ungainly cowl plastic, the hideous panel gaps and unnecessary meeting points blend into a smooth and slick coupe.  While the FR-S is still tall and mid-heavy like most modern cars, the ample greenhouse, flowing C-pillar and elegant “swoop” of the door’s cut line are an instant classic.  I love the complementary swoop of the rocker panel, especially as it naturally flows to the rear wheel well! Retro-futurism, indeed.

Not as lovely as a Porsche Cayman from this angle, but quite a stunner compared to everything else on the market.  While I’d like more chisel to the quarter panel’s “shoulders” on the C-pillar and a bit less hard/perfectly round negative area behind the door handle, this car is still the business.

Except for that droopy, chubby side view mirror.  I can’t wait for the aftermarket to “fix” this with a more suitable replacement.

Ack! The door cut line doesn’t end at the same point where the B-pillar begins!  While not as horrendous as the CTS coupe, it’s the same buzz kill.  The extra line presented here never had to exist.  And the FR-S deserves better.

Then again, this ain’t nothing compared to the nightmare of panel gaps and extraneous lines at the A-pillar…so the B-pillar is like totally my second favorite pillar on this car!

But kudos to the team responsible for the window trim and weatherstripping: the mating of two unique parts above the B-pillar is super tight and very intuitive. Yup, this is totally my second favorite pillar on the FR-S.

But there’s something about the FR-S’ C-pillar: it starts with this reverse power dome roof, continues to the glass shaped like the “T” of Toyota’s Truck emblem…even the black plastic rain gutter looks fast and powerful.

Note the amount of tumblehome between the roof and the quarter panel’s wheel arch/flares: significant!  This is a straight up sexy roof.  The Toyota Truck themed glass is very Toyota/Scion modern, but the forms presented in silver paint are just so, so classic. Retro-futurism ahoy!

The trunk shares its endpoint with the rear glass. The quarter panel and trunk share a common line with the side of the glass. Combined with the classical goodness of a proper RWD sports coupe in proportioning, this is one of those classic moves we just don’t see enough.

Oh yeah baby, that’s a C-pillar to die for.  Like I mentioned before, the gentle bend above the gas door should be a little more creased: this blends the hard edges in the bumper to the rest of the body far more elegantly.

What the heck is that???  As a Lincoln-Mercury fanboi I’ve always enjoyed the round Continental kit, grudgingly appreciating the goofy trapezoidal butt of the 1977 Mercury Cougar…but seeing this all over again on the FR-S? Some elements of retro-futurism MUST DIE!

This trunk needs a serious diet.  Just like the Cougar, when 1983 rolled around and that bustle got borderline beautiful.  Perhaps just raise up the bumper’s middle section to make the trunk a little smaller…but do something, ANYTHING to get that gaping maw outta my face!

Far less annoying is this subtle Bangle Butt on the rear.  Trunks don’t need flame surfacing, nor do they need a solid chunk of chrome tail light for no good reason.  Don’t make me wish this was an AE-86 liftback instead!

The Bangle Butt goes up.  The bumper slides down like Homer Simpson’s gut. The trunk thinks it’s a 1977 Mercury Cougar for a new millennium.  I really hope Toyota cleans this mess up in the mid-cycle refresh.

Flush-mounted tail lights would help too.  The chrome spear adds another layer of gravel to this talus pile of FAIL.  Imagine lights that are flat and form-fitting, and the FR-S could have more of a Lotus Elise “cove” treatment instead!

Another problem: the flat face of the trunk fights the downward sloping curve presented from corner-to-corner of the bumper. I’ll go into further detail, three pictures from now.

I guess the red triangle in the backup lights is cool, but it is another busy element to this convoluted rear deck.  It also reminds me of the over-the-top literal rotary theme on the Mazda RX-8 in the same place: considering their flawed engines, is it no surprise that both of these machines have this quirky styling element?

I’d prefer a smaller version of this emblem on that massive plastic mustache above the license plate instead.  Leave the Scion emblem in its place, but shrink it down a good 25% too.  Then put “FR-S” in the lower RH of the mustache.  Maybe emboss it into the plastic…nah, that’s a bit much: stream of consciousness writing FTL.

Remember what I said about the trunk needing a little slope?  If it leaned (from the top, leave the bottom’s location as-is) juuuust a bit, if the signal light didn’t thrust toward the center of the trunk so violently, there’d be a sweeter face to this sour puss.

The gas filler door is slightly melted over the fender bulge, but not bad enough to offend.  Safe!

One last curve: now you know why my professors/classmates at CCS said my automotive passions handicapped my designs!  How slow can you go? Sure it’s got a pretty face and a lovely hood, but open the bonnet and the FR-S’ retro-futurism officially failed.

Thanks for reading, I hope you have a great week!

At the Japanese launch of the Volkswagen Up!, VW’s design chief Walter de’ Silva told a group of assembled journalists that “overdesign”, his term for the recent spate of flamboyantly styled vehicles is now passe, and that the future belongs to clean, minimalist design.

A blurb in AN quotes the legendary designer as saying

“It can’t be only for one or two seasons,” de’ Silva says. “People want to understand what they buy. There is a certain security in our design. When you know that it keeps the resale value, it’s important for a family. That’s our intention.”

Naturally, de’ Silva praised vehicles like the Golf for offering “timeless” design that endures through various trends. The AN article cites cars like the Hyundai Sonata, Ford Fusion and BMW 3-Series as examples of the current “overdesign” trend (though stops short of quoting de’ Silva as offering them up as examples), and while myself and much of the B&B likes these cars, the fickle nature of design and the auto industry’s penchant for rapid change makes it an interesting question; is the pendulum moving the other way?

From my totally uneducated perspective, design, especially for a global vehicle, seems to be governed first and foremost by the dreadful European pedestrian safety regulations; the blunt front ends necessitate the high belt lines, and stubby ass-ends, which in turn call for oversized wheels that look appropriate but add mass and degrade ride quality.

But what do I know? I leave the design critiques to Sajeev and pontificate about everything else. Is de’ Silva on the right path?

My first couple days at TTAC weren’t so much a baptismal by fire, but a surprise dunk in the ice bath by the Best & Brightest. My now-infamous post, where I dubbed the unseen-at-the-time  2013 Ford Fusion as a “gamechanger” based on my embargoed preview of the car in Dearborn, became a punchline for the first month of my tenure. But now I get to gloat. Sort of.

Good cars are notoriously competent at flopping in the marketplace. Need I say more than the Pontiac G8? But this time, I really feel that things are different. For the first time ever, I’ve had people who don’t give a lick about cars ask me about “the Ford that looks like an Aston“.

Love him or hate him, Peter DeLorenzo nailed it when he said

“… the Ultimate Initial Product Differentiator going forward in this business will be design, and the Fusion makes a definitive statement and offers a real design point of view, something lacking from Ford and other car companies (Honda and Toyota just to name two) in the past, especially when it comes to the mainstream market in this country.”

For the average consumer, cars have never been safer, more fuel-efficient or feature-packed. Design is the key differentiator in a marketplace where everything gets 40 MPG and comes with a standard backup camera, Bluetooth and heated seats. It would be naive to think that the Fusion will make the Camry, Accord and Altima irrelevant; the mid-size segment is one place where boring, vanilla cars are mandatory, to serve the large segment of the population that many car enthusiasts hold in contempt for wanting nothing more than a beige box to transport them in comfort and isolation.

But what Hyundai, Kia and now Ford have picked up on is that there’s a whole other segment, that can be perfectly embodied by the term “aspirational”. The Fusion is a car that younger buyers will want because it looks like an Aston Martin, and older buyers who want something more exciting than vanilla – but not too much more. The Fusion could be powered by a hamster in a wheel and drive like an oxcart, but its design is strong enough to attract the attention of car enthusiasts and more importantly, people in the market for new cars, who want to make some kind of statement about whatever image they want to project but can’t or won’t shell out for something with a foreign badge. Believe me, there are tons of those consumers out there. And now they have an option besides a used luxury sedan that they won’t have to justify to their peer group.

The Camry, Accord and Altima will likely maintain their grip on the upper echelons of the market. After all, boring sells and this car may be a bit too adventurous for a certain class of buyer. But the Fusion will doubtlessly build on the previous generation’s success, and more importantly, get people talking about the brand, thanks to a mid-size car. Who would have ever thought that would happen just two years ago?

I wonder if vehicles like the Infiniti JX are the byproduct of a design studio trying too hard to address criticisms.  Or maybe this is just a common case of “over-styling” a vehicle.  Either way, here we are.

Is that a big-ass badge in ‘yo grille, or are you just happy to see me?

Since when did we let vehicles get so big (or tall) that emblems make a statement by being the size of a license plate? I’m not sure if I love/hate the lumps and bumps on the hood, bumper and the strange wraparound curves of the headlights.  The wings at the ends of the hood are a bit much, but nothing compared to that XXL grille.  Silly makes the wrong statement for a luxury car brand.

While Lexus’ “spindle” grille has a certain presence from its sharp curves and layers of texture/elevations, this flat and flabby grille shows why Infiniti always plays second fiddle to that other premium Japanese brand.

When you need textured light/wind diffusers in such an obvious location on the headlight, you did something wrong. Maybe there was a last minute legality issue with the light output, or maybe those things were needed to smooth out the aerodynamics.  Or maybe something else. Whatever that design problem is, this was the wrong solution.

This Mustang-esque lower valence treatment looks too sporty for a truck. Or SUV. Or CUV.  But when you have a face as tall as this, you got a lot of real estate to style.  At least the chrome fog light trim and not-solid plastic grille looks suitably upscale.

Hello Mr. Front Fascia, I’d like you to meet Mr. Hood and Mr. Fender.  You guys obviously hate each other, but that’s what happens when you add too many curves with no real place to merge elements cleanly.  For a fine example of this concept, check out the 1984 Corvette. It tucked away every panel gap behind a protective rubber stripe.

I love how this pointy styling element at the end of the headlight is cleanly and thoroughly filled in with an amber signal light. It adds sanity to an otherwise insane lighting pod.

The Gatling Gun look of the third generation Infiniti Q45 is alive and well in the JX.  And that’s a good thing.

I enjoy directional, twisty wheels on vehicles with boring sheetmetal, it brings visual excitement where needed. The JX’s voluptuous curves don’t need them: it adds too much noise to an already noisy body. Furthermore, can you believe how short (yet tall in height) the overhang is on this machine?

Like Disco music in 1983, car based trucks are wearing really, really thin these days.

No DLO fail and the fender/door/A-pillar meeting point is pretty logical.  Until you see just how much dead space there is between the A-pillar and the hood.  That’s one oddly shaped fender!

The negative area highlighted here may become a significant design element as you walk further back, but it starts in a horribly undefined/arbitrary location.  I’d move it much farther away from the door’s cutline, so it’d be less of an afterthought and “part of the whole” package.

The little tumor at the bottom of the side-view mirror doesn’t please the eyes. Considering the size of this part, there wasn’t enough real estate for a cleaner installation?

There’s a tacked-on mud flap up front, a clever chrome moulding (when nobody woulda minded ordinary paint) and a flared lower moulding at the bottom.  I hate the latter, as they are usually so big that they require “notching” so you can actually open the door without squishing the moulding.  Pontiacs of the 1990s were terrible about this, and it’s sad to see this trend continue apace.

More moulding notching.  Nothing says “We don’t really try very hard” quite like a severely notched moulding.

The notch doesn’t go away when you step back. Even worse, the wavy sheetmetal is a unique element to the JX.  Waves are a slippery slope, so to speak.  The more waves you add, the uglier the door cut line becomes.  I liked the aggressive (yet symmetric) coke-bottle profile of the 1996 Taurus from this angle, perhaps that’s the upper limit of good taste.

Toyota is pretty bad about over-styling the sheetmetal beneath the door handle to give a unique appearance, and now Infiniti is following suit.  Somehow, some way, this trend needs to stop.

No hate here, the JX is quite the looker from this angle.  All the waves and curves work mighty fine.

But (and there’s always a but) I can’t stand this plastic swoop holding the quarter window at the base of the C-pillar.  Maybe this smooths out the aero at highway speeds, but it sure is hideous.

And the big plastic triangle for the rear door’s window isn’t especially beautiful.  But at least it adds a little hard-edged blockiness to an otherwise frilly and frou-frou package.

Ack!  The plastic triangle bends up the window seal!  Infiniti is far from the only automaker doing this bit of design sin, I just wish I could banish this to the land of tailfins, open fenders and other outdated design elements.

I needed to snag an EVOX image to really show off the side.  From afar the JX looks much cleaner.  The fender flares and side sculpturing are not just appealing, they are unique.  But, as I’ve tried to show in the last few pictures, they over-styled the hell outta this vehicle. And for no good reason!

Speaking of…I normally like a radical looking side window, but this one tries way too hard.  The logical crease that sweeps back to the tailgate is a nice touch, ditto the plastic tailgate trim emulating the window’s curve.  But it’s not enough: this is such a silly design element.

Yup, still very silly.  Plus, it makes a rather impressive blind spot.  Remember when people bought SUV’s for their excellent view of the road from all corners? That died sometime around the Explorer-Firestone tire debacle.

While the front can get away with the curves and bubbles, the business end of a CUV needs to be boxy. Infiniti tries harder than most to hide that truth, and the overall look is contrived and counter-intuitive.  The lower curve of the rear glass gives the rear end a silly smile, while the rakish lighting pods have no business on a CUV.  Infiniti’s signature upper and lower license plate chrome mustaches are similarly out of place.  When it comes to the business end of any vehicle, being simple (or at least functionally honest) in the design is the right move.

More to the point, the JX’s rear hatch has too many elevation changes. I like the design on the tail lights from this angle, if they were flush with the body.  Stop trying so hard to be different!  There’s not enough room for creative expressions at this point!

Here’s an EVOX image since mine was too washed out from this angle.  You can’t see the elevation changes from here, which makes the JX look cleaner.  Flattening out most of the elevation changes would make the JX look this good at other angles.  But there’s really no hope in saving that rear glass treatment: this isn’t a Nissan Murano.  It doesn’t work here.

Bumper protection is usually an extra-cost option, but it shouldn’t be this much of an afterthought. If you can’t flush this part into the bumper for all models, at least chop it off before it melts down the bumper.  I’m fine with this treatment on a Hyundai CUV or similar, but Infiniti is a luxury brand!

When your emblem sits this close to your chrome trim, either the badge needs a shrink or your painted real estate needs more acreage.  Shrink the badge down, we know this isn’t a Honda! We promise!

This oval element is a nicely integrated item.  Kudos.

My favorite part of the JX is the sleek and functional components making up the rear wiper arm.

Now that I think about it, not only are there too many elevation changes on the rear end, but the lights are too narrow for this gigantic ass.

Yup, they need to be inches thicker. Inches, because the dead space between the bumper and the tail lights is rather extravagant. And not in a good way.

Combine all my other beefs with the two different textures presented in the tail lights, and I really grow weary of this back end. Simplify your life!

Thanks for reading, have a wonderful week!

This person’s work reminded me how culture influences design, and how people can negatively react to it. Which leads us to a flagship Mercedes heavily(?) influenced by a Mercedes design studio in Japan. Yes, Japan.  So let’s get to it.

Massive. Imposing.  Ugly?  Unlike the utterly fantastic Rolls-Royce Phantom, the Maybach just never had the presence of a proper flagship machine. The headlights are just awful in both shape and size/proportion relative to the rest of the vehicle.  Even worse is the massively generic chrome grille, whose front face looks undoubtedly…Asian.

This grille had little (no?) connection to the original Maybach, plus it was horribly bland and uninspiring.  That said, the massive hood contours complement the grille and headlights nicely.  Add the somewhat posh logo on the hood ornament, and you know this is a large-and-in-charge type of machine.

Here’s another Maybach I shot, giving you a better look at the absolutely silly shape of the headlights.  Googly-eyed lenses on a car that costs…how much? Combine the headlight’s shape with their grille-fighting size says one thing: Greed may be Good, but excess has its limits.

The fussy details on the bumper don’t help.  I’m certain they are meant to complement the LED marker lights at the bottom, but none of this screams “cream of the crop” luxury.  These bumper bulges are better suited to…well…something Korean on the scale of a Hyundai Azera.

Look at all the wasted real estate!  Make all the non-functional chrome go away so this beast can actually look luxurious!

The upside is that first impressions can go away, when you see the rest of the Maybach.  The extra cost over an S-class Benzo becomes clear in the length of that hood, the space between the dash and front axle, and the very subtle yet expansive use of chrome. The big problem–aside from the headlights–is the hard edges making up the hood’s power bulge. It works with the grille, but the rest of the car is so voluptuous that the front end’s design is just flat-out incorrect.

I do like how wheels get more restrained as you move up the automotive food chain.  But let’s hope you (or your driver) don’t scrape up those upwardly bending spokes at your nearest (so to speak) parallel parking curb in Beverly Hills.

No DLO fail, as hoped.  But WTF is up with the two different cut lines for the A-pillar and the door?  Massive(?) engineering undertaking aside, the Maybach would look so much more luxurious if the door’s cut line extended to the same point where the A-pillar meets the hood.

On a more ironic note: economy of lines regularly equates to a more expensive product.  Look at any late-model Aston Martin.  Or any Mac vs. PC debate.  The Maybach screwed the pooch.

I do like the shape of these mirrors and their proportion relative to the rest of this beast.  This proves why we need smaller mirrors in more normal sedans.

Organic and fluid, even in this “short” wheelbase configuration.  The classic pre-war lines that always influence modern executive sedans are here, but softened up.  Perhaps a little too much, as the Mercedes S-class references are not without foundation. The biggest problem to the Maybach’s lack of top dollar snooty factor? An S-class fast roofline.  A similar mistake was made by the original Lincoln Versailles, before a hasty re-do formaled up the rig.  Hmm, perhaps there are more apt Versailles references for the Maybach. Ouch.

There is excellent use of chrome throughout. While luxury cars (that mere mortals can buy) have plenty of spizzarkle around the glass and maybe the door handle area, who has the balls to chrome things below the belt line?  The filthy rich, that’s who!

S-class or Maybach?  It’s such a lovely door curve, with such an elegant roof. Too bad it was never the right move for Maybach. Plus, can’t I get those door handles on an E-class? Pish-posh!

This is a classic Mercedes door.  Adding the curtains is another excellent touch.  With the extra chrome above the door handles making a break in the sheetmetal’s wake, the Maybach’s W116 S-class roots are showing very, very well here.

Oh dear, that roofline is just all wrong for this car. Where’s the formal? But kudos for the tumblehome!

The monster rear moonroof is more than a little cool.  It promises a rear seating cabin that trumps everything. From what I’ve experienced, that’s no lie.

The full width taillight promises more luxury than an S-class and the decklid verges on being pre-war “bustle back” cool.  But without a more formal roof, the promise is watered down to the point of lying.

Here’s a factory photo, showing how the rear end has that classic Bustle Back look, but it can’t be accentuated to the point of ostentatiousness with a sporty roof line messing it up from the beginning. Too bad about that.

Also note how a two-tone paint scheme really adds some “pop” to the package.  Thank goodness for chrome trimmings on the bodyside!

These taillights are great, until the W220 S-class got the same fine-tooth backup lense treatment in 2003. Damn that S-class!!!

That said, the taillights have the same problem as the headlights.  They stick too far into the quarter panel, making the rear look artificially fat. Paper thin lights leading to a wide full length treatment at the bottom would be nice.  And the rounded shape of the trunk’s side might look better if it was as flat as the top. It would also help justify that looney grille up front.

Yup, the decklid needs to be a little flatter to help accentuate the Maybach’s overall size in other places.  Like a modest CEO of a Fortune 500 company, sometimes you have to be small to really be big.

If that didn’t make sense with the last photo, perhaps this shot helps.  The Maybach’s rear is too round and ponderous.  The people have spoken: and they all speak to the Phantom. Well, except for Rick Ross…but it’s all good.

I know a break in the taillight saves a huge wad of cash both in R&D and real world ownership costs, but on this car?  The Maybach needs a one-piece lamp assembly.

This bizarre kink in the glass is brought to you by…well, who knows!

And on that note, soak this in.  The Maybach looks suitably posh in a high-contrast, two-tone paintjob.  It’s a huge step forward.  Now imagine it with a formal roof and smaller headlights. And now, finally, you have a vision of how the Maybach could have beaten extinction. Better luck next time.

Thank you for reading, have a wonderful weekend.

While we say Panther Love, we really mean Cab Backward design for an Iconic American Sedan. Can you dig it?

Cab backward is the complete opposite of what we see today. The passenger compartment doesn’t interfere with the natural placement of the engine, axles and front/rear overhang.  While the original Chrysler LH cars were a fantastic case study in Cab Forward awesomeness, the concept’s absolutely ruined today. Not that every car should look like a Rolls Royce Phantom…

But perhaps the Iconic American Sedan should! Just look at the Town Car’s massive hood and short A-pillar, compared to the Caprice’s vast wasteland of dashboard and visibility-hampering A-pillar.  And look at how tiny the nose is compared to the green house: like a body builder who reached their caves’ growth limitations. It’s disproportionately small. Iconic American Sedan?  Not a chance.

That said, you won’t see me giving the last Town Car a free pass, its proportions are still on the wrong side of the Cab Forward spectrum.

If you were there for the beginning of Panther Love, you’ll remember this photo. The 1988 Town Car had far better visibility from a lower belt line, the space between the dashboard and front wheel is unabashedly delicious, and the fascias make it clear: this isn’t an import wannabe.  Again, Iconic American Sedan. Not the only one, it’s one of many.

Not just many, a cornucopia of Automotive Americana. Sadly, the Iconic American Sedan has been under attack for decades.  Perhaps one day an empowered design team will have the right platform, the right motivation, etc and make a proper sedan for us Yank Tank Fans. Unfortunately, I won’t hold my breath.

And honestly, after walking around this example at a historically savvy Hyundai dealer (next to a Lamborghini Dealership that bored me after 20 minutes) I suggest to you, dear reader, that the Excel sold so unbelievably well on both price and design. Because this machine could look much, much worse.

Boring and Boxy?  Yes, but the Excel is also very clean and well-integrated, when you consider the design confines of a low asking price.

Note how the signal lights are cleanly and very deeply sunken, instead of screwed on top. There’s an overabundance of parallel lines, which shows a bit of “big picture” thinking by a wise design team.  And every seam and cut line is remarkably well placed. Today’s cars could learn A LOT from the Excel.

The grille is the Excel’s best work: the one piece black plastic affair elegantly stores an emblem, headlights and is a natural extension of the parallel lines in the bumper and the slight curvature of the signal lense. And the grille ends at the same point where the hood and fender meet.  It may not have Italian flair, but someone sweated the details…on a tight budget.

You can see the harmonious lines here.  You can also see the less than perfect panel gaps and the tacked on side marker light, but this is anything but offensive to someone in dire need of cheap wheels.

When is the last time you saw a car that the hood, fender and lighting pods began and ended so logically? Even the grille’s modest and purposeful slats just makes sense (get it?) on this face. If Hyundai installed flush fitting headlamps in 1986, this Excel would look like a proper 1970s concept car from damn near any high dollar design firm. Which is a compliment, of a very high order.

Too bad the white lense couldn’t wrap around juuust a little more.  This would extend the grille’s curvature and make the Excel look a little less static.  Then again, this is a very static and boxy design from any angle outside of the grille, so perhaps Ital Design was on to something.

Once again, note the purposeful and super cheap signal lights.  Something about them screams “honest” like no car can today.

The hood crease doesn’t line up with a natural place in the grille, rather it comes from a place inside the headlights.  This probably keeps the Excel from looking like it was designed using a T-square at every angle…probably a good move by the Italians.

A tiny cowl with a similarly small dashboard.  Does it look cheap, or do you wish history could repeat itself?  Honestly, I don’t know the right answer.

Note the lack of DLO fail: the fender and A-pillar meet in such a logical manner. If only modern cars could replicate this.  That would mean abandoning today’s truck like nose swooping back to a wanna-be sports car greenhouse.  The Excel has a small nose and plenty of tall and upright glass.  It’s almost impossible to mess this one up.

Another shocker: wrap around door pillars on a Hyundai Excel?  This bit of 1980s aerodynamic kit was available on a car this cheap? Surely this door was far more expensive to pop off compared to a Yugo portal!

No, I am not pointing at the stain.  The crease in the fender turns into a large fold after it crosses the mirror.  This fold becomes a very important part of the Excel’s profile.  While the transition is far from organic, it works.

Another fold in the sheet metal. This not only gives the Excel a bit of negative area to break up the (still) very boxy side, it also makes for a logical place to insert some door guards.

More importantly, they put that guard on the fender?  That’s not a cheap item for such a cheap car.  Put it this way: the Ford Crown Victoria had this bit of plastic from 1992 until the mid-2000s, which Ford decided to thrift it out and let the fenders not match the doors.  Nice job Hyundai, you had something to prove while Ford had something to slowly kill for no good reason.

I can’t adequately explain why, but the rubber and chrome guards on this Excel integrate well with the door handles.  It says “cheap, yet cheerful.”  I also like how the side view mirror is by no means an afterthought…even if the wheels and signal lights need a lot of help.

One reason this Excel is in such good shape is because it sits underneath an awning, with an annoying pole right  in the middle! Luckily the B&B will fix it for me using some madtite photoshop skillz.

That problem resolved, there’s nothing wrong with the Excel from this angle.  It’s the classic “three box” design for a sedan. But the fender crease turns into a big crease under the door’s glass, and quickly merges with the rear door’s vent window.  The lower trim isn’t out of place.  The C-pillar is almost fast, yet there is so much greenhouse you are guaranteed not to feel claustrophobic in this machine.

Okay, maybe that last bit was going over the top.  No matter, this isn’t a bad piece of work for an Italian design firm. Not great, but certainly not bad.

The urge to grab a Testor’s paint marker (flat black, ‘natch) and remedy this odd showing of bling was tough to overcome.  Because it does detract from the smooth B-pillar, and the gentle (but present) use of wrap around door pillars. Not a cheap bit of stamping for a super cheap car.

The greenhouse is gigantic on this Hyundai!  It’s hard to dislike this angle when you consider every car looks like a submarine these days, but 1980s econoboxes looked cheap for a reason…and this is it.

Still, I love how the door cutline follows the natural line of the wheel well, then goes up and “back” to shadow the curve of the C-pillar. And no stupid black plastic triangle!

Oh crap, I’m starting to like this shitty little car.

The steel wheels are plain but somewhat easy on the eyes.  Someone bothered to put a flat plane around each vent hole, and they have a nice “dish” to the rim like most rims from this era.  The center cap is clean and modern, if a bit oversized for a car this size.

A locking gas cap?  I am not entirely sure of this Excel’s trim level (it was repainted and debadged and I’m not buying a brochure on eBay to verify) but this highline model has a nice touch that you never see anymore.  For good reason?  Perhaps, but this is another “honest” design element that I can appreciate.

Just like the front, but red. And it’s poor, but very honest!

The rear window matches the C-pillar’s angle quite well.  And there’s a slight amount of tumblehome, which looks out of proportion with the door’s relative straightness.  Dare I say it, can someone chop the roof down so it won’t overpower the doors?

Nah, I take that back.  This makes up for all the Chrysler 300s I’ve seen this past year. It’s refreshing, dammit!

Most of its Japanese and American competition had nicer side contouring, but they were all much more expensive.

Whoa dude, check out the logical trunk cut line, just like the hood!  The current Hyundai Elantra could learn a thing or two from its Excel forefather.

I like the hard bend to quickly and definitively transition from the C-pillar to the back of the roof.  Even more important, there’s another hard bend that accentuates the wrap around doors.  How much did this car cost when new?

Since I couldn’t get a decent shot of “my” Excel, this factory shot shows off the roof’s hard bend and the creases in the side.  You didn’t think the Excel could make the shadows dance with the light, did ya? Another thing you will see (in brutal detail) is the pure and functional design of the tail lights.  Simply put, they blend very well with the design.

More excellent usage of parallel lines.  The tail lights wrap around the quarter panel fairly nicely.  There are several bends that keep the boxy trunk and bumpers from looking like (just like the photo of the hood crease) the Hyundai Excel was designed using a T-square. That’s proved further by the negative area on the bumper and between the taillights. Even the trunk lock/handle is well thought out…at this asking price.

A gigantic wart of a lighting pod with exposed screws. Cheap, but who cares?  The Excel is now a museum piece.  It shows how things used to be done, and how lucky we are today!

Every line is in its right place, if only the trunk’s panel gaps were consistent.  And is it just me, or  are those tail lights a little on the Ferrari Testarossa side?

A ribbed, staggered tail light profile?  Don’t look now, but every Mercedes from the 1980s is blushing!

I swiped this photo (credit given) since I couldn’t get this far away from my example.  The Excel is boxy and chunky (never mind that aftermarket spoiler) but there’s no shame in being a cheap but purposefully designed three-box sedan.

This model came with the luggage rack, which is now mostly missing.  Not surprisingly, it doesn’t detract from the mystique of the Hyundai Excel.

Even their license plate graphics conveys the unabashedly cheap demeanor of the Excel. Very kitch, but the trunk lock/handle is definitely a cool bit of cheap car design.

Unlike so many modern cars that chrome out this feature in hopes of looking larger than life, the Excel’s exhaust pipe doesn’t overpromise. Honesty is a good thing, in this case: the motor never really delivered for the Amercian market. Oh well! Goodbye dear Hyundai Excel, I learned much from your logical Italian design. And I hope you did too.

Thank you all for reading, have a great weekend!