|
Peugeot seem to be the worst offender, some of the ugliest front ends ever made IMHO.
|
Oh I love the sinister BMWs!
I think they've wrecked the Skoda Fabia by giving it that friendly nose - no matter how good the 2 litre engine they put in the new vRS is, it's never going to look mean like the old one.
|
Audis look like sharks.
Peugeots look like piranha.
Porsche Cayenne looks like a beached whale.
:-)
|
|
|
|
"the Austins always looked smiley"
I gather that the Japanese view their cars that way, too, so their designers strive to make agreeable 'faces'. Of course, cultural differences mean that we don't always see them the same way!
|
|
When I was a boy I used to think a neighbours Anglia 105e had the scariest car face of them all.
|
|
You're right, its probable undoing was that its eyes were too far apart.
|
|
the front end of the dodge range is probably the most scariest of the bunch in my opinion
|
|
I love these aggressive imposing designs, and I'm not scared of my own shadow to boot.
|
I think the current Peugeots look stupid, especially with fog lamps. The lamps make it look like an open mouth with the middle teeth missing, like a child who has lost their milk teeth.
Nothing aggressive in that, but it could always gum you to death!
|
I completely agree with the OP. Give me a car with a happy, smiley face. That is the main reason I fancy a new Fiat 500.
Interestingly enough, if you read the comments of the ECOTY judges on the Fiat 500, you'll see that several of them seem to agree.
|
Current Seats look like cats, as did the 1960's Rileys which seemed to be complete with whiskers.
Remember the Hillman Super Minx from the 1960s? The half oval sidelights were positioned above the headlights and looked just like eyebrows!
|
I think fashion is fashion, whatever the product.
Designers, whether of clothes or cars need to ensure that their products have an obvious 'sell by' date such that the consumers want to buy the new one. Mini skirts follow longer ones, the hoodies will no doubt be replaced by collar-less in due course. Gaping mouths seem likely therefore to be followed by slinky slits - perhaps with the arrival of hybrid stuff and the demise of internal combustion.
It appears to be a fact that new designs do grow on us, so even those who hate the new Mondeo will, so I'm told, accommodate it once they've seen several thousand on the roads.
|
|
Aggressive design - I have noticed it just recently too and personally it leaves me completely cold. I think it is symptomatic of the aggressive behaviour of some of today's drivers. It is a negative reflection of society's values and I, for one, would certainly not consider buying such an overtly aggressive design.
Edited by Billy Whizz on 16/04/2008 at 10:57
|
I agree; I don't like the modern styling - especially not the "Devil eyes" headlights. I very much prefer the look of the squarish 1980s headlights and the matching body styles.
This malaise isn't confined to cars though - the class 365 trains that operate out of King's Cross to Cambridge and Peterborough have the most ridiclous silly grin on their front ends...
|
I am surprised that nobody has commented on the famous Ford Edsel. Not a gaping mouth, but ..........
If in doubt Google it.
|
Am I right in thinking that cars now have to have bulbous noses to comply with this NCAP crash safety business?
As the majority of designers today seem to be near-morons who only know how to manipulate computer programs their only response to the need to style a bulbous front end is to let the CAD program stick a big, ugly mouth across it.
The man (or woman) who despoiled the beautiful Pininfarina Peugeot 406 Coupe with a wide-mouth frog front should have their fingers stamped on.
|
Interesting post, Billy.
Does that mean that you would rule out a Peugeot? :-)
(Actually, I can't say that I feel the 107 looks aggressive.)
But the question is raised - Does car design merely reflect the aggressive behaviour of modern society, or does it also influence it? Does the young man (or woman) getting into an aggressive looking car subconsciously feel more aggressive as they take to the road? If I climb into a car with a friendly face, am I more likely to drive in a friendly manner?
|
>Does the young man (or woman) getting into an aggressive looking car subconsciously feel more aggressive as they take to the road?
Yes, on average, I believe so. I bet a scientific test could prove this.
|
>Does that mean that you would rule out a Peugeot? :-)
Probably. For example, the 206CC as pictured on the peugeot.co.uk website has such a cartoonish goblin face it is just laughable. No way would I have one of those and yet I love dinky convertibles. I am sure it looks different in the metal but still I am put right off by the way its image is projected on the pug site.
I love the 306 styling and, for a time, aspired to a 205 1.9 Gti so I have plenty of time for pugs.
I very much doubt I will buy a new car in the future but if I were to, I think the first one I would have a close look at would be a Fiat 500.
I certainly didn't buy my one and only new car, a 2004 Subaru Forester, on looks. It is one of its weak points.
|
I certainly didn't buy my one and only new car a 2004 Subaru Forester on looks. It is one of its weak points.
I too have always thought Subarus lacking in beauty although those bewinged and bescooped WRXs with drainpipe exhausts certainly look purposeful (but a bit too purposeful although they are far from all mouth and trousers: I prefer the anonymous, slightly shabby look of a true Q car).
But my daughter's bf's parents have a 3-litre Forester that looks better, or less lumpish, each time I look at it, and of course it is undoubtedly a very nice car different from the general run.
These basking-shark Peugeot snouts are not nice in my opinion, yawning or grinning and catching tons of insects instead of plankton. Cars look better and are probably more aerodynamically slippery if they have small holes in their noses or none at all. But it's a matter of taste, no right or wrong here.
|
|
The main reason to change the design of consumer goods is to create fresh demand. Many so called new improved versions of cars and other goods are not significantly better in any measurable terms than the models they replace. Small improvements can be pointed to but these are often features which could easily have been incorporated into the previous model / design. It is a basic marketing tenet that "new" is seen as better. The vastly improved quality and reliability ( and rustproofing ) of modern cars is such that people could keep them much longer and for far greater mileages than ever before. One of the few ways manufacturers have to encourage regular replacement is to create desire by the rapid introduction of new models with sufficiently different styling as to make the "old" ones look unfashionable. Styling cues will come and go. Given the limitations of the technology and safety features which need to be contained within the design there is a limit to the number of variables which can be introduced. Colour fashion changes, sometimes angular is in, sometimes rounded and flowing shapes, but the basic layout varies little. Thank goodness, frankly, for the sake of the industry and the wider economy, that the populace are so easily influenced, when they are after all only buying a form of personal transport. Fashion at all levels is one of the most powerful tools in the marketeers armoury. Many of those who are more than bright enough to see through it are still influenced enough by it to ignore their own common sense and allow themselves to be persuaded by it. It is a strong feature of modern life that it is becoming less and less possible or desireable to express individuality of choice and following the idealised and prepackaged lifestyle has become the norm. Take many modern workplaces and you will find that car park status really does count. If you stand back from this attitude it all begins to seem faintly ridiculous but it so deeply ingrained in our society that it would take a radical change of collective view to move on from this. I do not claim to have always based my choice of car on purely practical needs but in recent years I have conciously bought vehicles which meet my actual needs as opposed to my perceived ones. I am not for one moment suggesting that people should not buy things simply because they find them attractive but to feel embarrassed or in some way unfullfilled because they haven't got the latest model of their choice of car on the drive is frankly a bit silly.
|
Series 1s always look so sad with their eyes so close together.
|
Shoespy, all this was happening in the USA, and to a much lesser extent in the UK, more than 50 years ago.
Plus ca change, eh?
|
|
Pirsig had it right a long time ago Mike. Very difficult to "resist the Giant"
|
I don't mind the gaping mouths half so much as the sawn-off or bulbous rear ends.
|
I actually find the 407 quite attractive, apart from the ludicrous front overhang. If it had the front wheels out at the corners like a 3-series, it would be a beautiful looking car. As it is the SW looks better to my eye, as the rear overhang is longer and at least matches the front.
The most offensive nose styling element on any car I can think of are those ridiculous "christmas tree" LED sidelights being used by Audi on the new R8 and A4. They look like the kind of cheesy add-ons you'd find in a Ripspeed catalogue.
I've always thought Audis look classy and understated, and in the main they do, but these light units just look totally wrong to my eye.
Cheers
DP
Edited by DP on 16/04/2008 at 17:15
|
|
|
