There are some examples of great leaps in styling that were successively watered down in later generations, to the point of blandness. For my first example, I give you the Ford Focus. The rear view of the hatchback version was quite jarring in its first generation, with its high taillights and flat expanse of sheet metal:
America skipped the 2nd gen and went straight to the third gen (my car), which was less bold but still quite attractive:
I'm afraid that, in comparison, the 4th gen seems a bit bland:
Another example is the Hyundai Sonata. The 6th gen version from 2012 was impressively bold, with its sweeping body lines and fastback roofline:
I just saw the latest version, and I'm not at all impressed by it. The blandness is pervasive, with a complete loss of the curve in the body line and a much more sedan-like stance:
The Elantra has been similarly watered down. I thought the 2011 version was the most attractive car in the Hyundai lineup with its aggressively arched fenders, which have disappeared completely in the latest version.
1960 Plymouth Valiant. A rather over the top design even by Virgil Exner standards.
1964 Plymouth Valiant. The second generation - stylistic flourishes limited to a swoop on the front fenders.
1967 Plymouth Valiant. A fairly conventional design for the time.
Your mileage may vary on whether watering it down was the right call; the first generation is definitely not for everyone.
You seem to have a different definition of bold from the one I'm used to.
If this board has taught me anything, it's that people have radically different views on styling. The Civic Type R is a perfect example of this. To some, it's edgy and good looking, to others, it's the ugliest car ever forced upon the U.S. market. Who is right? It doesn't matter, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Different strokes for different folks.
MadScientistMatt said:
1964 Plymouth Valiant. The second generation - stylistic flourishes limited to a swoop on the front fenders.
Well, that and the vestigal fins.
Easing toward appliance status, true. But still distinctive enough for my taste.
Agreed on the Road Toad '60-'62 Valiants.
Joe Gearin said:
If this board has taught me anything, it's that people have radically different views on styling. The Civic Type R is a perfect example of this. To some, it's edgy and good looking, to others, it's the ugliest car ever forced upon the U.S. market. Who is right? It doesn't matter, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Different strokes for different folks.
I wouldn't say it's the "ugliest" car. To me it's the mid-90s equivalent of a GMC pickup with negative offset wheels and 3/4 of the JC Whitney catalog bolted on.
The CTR and upcoming GM trucks appear to have been styled by a blind person.
I can't post pictures from my phonebut Ive always loved the GM U-vans. The dustbusters. For better or worse they didn't look like anything else on the road. The second generation came out as a bland boxy van.
In reply to AClockworkGarage :
I remember talking to one of the designers of the U-Vans. They had to raise the noses on them because people couldn't tell where they were. Having driven (and liked) one, I can attest that you can nothing beyond the edge of the windshield. For my almost 6 foot tall self, that was fine, but somebody shorter would leave enough room between them and the next car to fit a MINI in
Bold, original, interesting.
WTF?
Sporty and Bold!
Look, I'm a Camry/Malibu/Whatever
Streetwiseguy said:
You seem to have a different definition of bold from the one I'm used to.
I said bold, not beautiful. I recall my revulsion when I first saw spy shots of the back of the Focus back in the late 90's, but it definitely grew on me. Different sometimes causes culture shock.
I haven't seen a legitimately beautiful car come from a major auto manufacturer in a while. It seems like they are all just struggling to be different and jarring with no eye towards harmony. Most of the designs are waaay over detailed with tooooo many character lines scattered across the sheet metal. I think Mazda is doing a decent job with minimal "extra" lines though. The CTR is just a hot mess to me.
In reply to jstein77 :
Love the newer Prius. Isn't the "ugliest" version a less than two year run that got fixed recently? I want my high tech Japanese car to look like a damn spaceship from the future.
The 2009-2018 Ram:
Distinctive crosshair grille and headlights. I owned a 2011 1500 Express in black that looked great.
2019-? Ram:
Bleh. It turned into a generic Toyota. I'm not a fan of the restyle.
I'm not saying any of them are actually incorrect, but seems like a lot of you are using selective photos to make your pre-determined point..Like for the sonata, I agree that in your post the new one looks lame vs. the previous one. But if you actually pick different photos, it's the previous Sonata that looks boring and the new one that looks a bit more "bold"
2012
2018
mazdeuce - Seth said:
In reply to jstein77 :
Love the newer Prius. Isn't the "ugliest" version a less than two year run that got fixed recently? I want my high tech Japanese car to look like a damn spaceship from the future.
My thoughts too, a coworker has one in a bright blue that I like.
anybody for bets on if they "tame" the looks of the next vette?
In reply to mad_machine :
The base C7 is a pretty bland car in today's traffic. They don't start getting visually interesting until they get a supercharger and the good aero. I would bet they get even more venty in the next iteration.
Vigo
UltimaDork
6/27/18 9:16 p.m.
It might be a bit of a struggle to put one's self back in the mindset of 2005, but when the 8th gen Civic came out it was a bold change of direction and was futuristic. The 9th gen seemed essentially to be just an 8th gen that had been watered down all the way back to normal.
The prius looks like it was styled in a windtunnel. That's the whole point so I'm okay with it.
Honestly, the new prius looks better than the old
mblommel said:
I haven't seen a legitimately beautiful car come from a major auto manufacturer in a while. It seems like they are all just struggling to be different and jarring with no eye towards harmony. Most of the designs are waaay over detailed with tooooo many character lines scattered across the sheet metal. I think Mazda is doing a decent job with minimal "extra" lines though. The CTR is just a hot mess to me.
I'd agree that modern car styling is at a low point, but that's bound to change, as styling always does. I do find the new Cayman pretty darn sexy and restrained. The Alfa Guila is also damn attractive in my eyes. But overall, yeah...... most new cars are bland or fugly. I prefer the smooth orgnaic shapes of the 90's, or the sharply creased style of the 60's. (Pontiac espeically)
The Mercedes SL family ebb and flow
Early 60's 180SL (nothing else from this time period looked like this)
1961 300 SL
1968 220/50/80SL (nothing else looked like this)
By 1975... (which was where they lost me, but that's just me)
1985
1995 somewhere in here it's become generic IMO
2005 staying generic except for side scoop tribute to the 300
2015 starting a comeback?
