--------- I realize that the chunky shit is more ergonomic. What I’m asking is why does it NEED to be more ergonomic?
I vote for function over form. Basically, I don’t care what the car looks like, as long as it doesn’t look like the Scion Xb.
Speaking of of the butt-ugly Scion Xb, anamnesis: clue me in. Why is the metal under the Xb’s door panel so fat and close to the ground? What’s the point? I’m only asking because that seems central to the cars ugliness. FWIW, your tapering of the xb roof on your webpage makes it look like an old mob car. Which is not a bad thing and almost certainly an improvement IMHO. (Then again…)
----- The brand recognition I’m referring to is the growing size of the logo plaques that you were referring to. They didn’t used to be very big or prominent in the grille. Now they are, and those grilles are increasingly utilizing certain shapes and materials to distinguish themselves. Every manufacturer from Kia to Mercedes Benz is doing this, so I don’t know what to say except that you should get used to it.
I think I saw a Ford today with a reasonably sized face plate. Personally, I find the Benz and Volkswagon logo to be attractive. Kia’s and Toyota’s are more dubious IMHO.
Argent Towers: I don’t think the front of the old mustang was bad. And I agree that it had a nice low key logo. I’m just saying that nonSUVs (IMO) have attractive front ends today, relatively speaking. The remainder of today’s car bodies look like malformed jelly beans, but hey I’m not complaining.
ALSO: I read an article some years back that noted that older cars were premised on feminine forms while boxy SUVs are more guy inspired. Make of that what you will.
[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
Speaking of of the butt-ugly Scion Xb, anamnesis: clue me in. Why is the metal under the Xb’s door panel so fat and close to the ground? What’s the point?
[/QUOTE]
Ok, I think Consumer Report’s car issue gives the answer:
So maybe a tall person who wants a smaller car might like it.
[QUOTE=brianjedi]
The Honda Element looks like a Lego car, especially with the mismatched colors.
To whoever said the Magnum was going to be a classic in 30 or 40 years: it’s a station wagon. Never has a station wagon been a classic.
I’m just glad that we’re finally starting to see edges and straight lines come back. The “inverted teardrop” cars of the 90s were bland. The best move Chevy made was reintroducing the side flares on the Monte Carlo.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
akira – What is it you like about the Scion xB? I’m curious: the original version hurt my eyes (later versions, less so, but still…).
[/QUOTE]
To be honest im not sure… i just love the car,I like the way it looks and other than no tourque i love the way it handles i have a '05 and i love my toaster !!!
[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
--------- I realize that the chunky shit is more ergonomic. What I’m asking is why does it NEED to be more ergonomic?
[/QUOTE]
?
Well. ummm yeah. Thats sort of why they are making cars more ergonomic.
You could carry thumb tacks in your pocket, or put them on your seat if you want to.
I find nothing chunky about the new cars. Have you ever driven some old cars? Your complaint is contradictory.
As far as the overly large badges complaint goes, mine has one largish mustang symbol in the front grill, and a round, sort of faux-gascap thing in the middle of the tail between the taillights, that has one small mustang in the middle, and “FORD” engraved in a circle around the bottom of. That is the only place that there is a single word on the outside of the car. No Ford logos, no “MUSTANG” anywhere. Nice and clean, if you ask me.
[QUOTE=RickJay]
I’m not fussy about the Mach 1 either. The back deck is way too high, and the hideous cross-strut things over the rear window (I don’t even know the correct name for the apparatus) are just plainly stupid.
