We’re talking about vehicles, not art gallery exhibits. Of course practicality is part of the equation.
I wouldn’t call it ugly but it’s not appealing to me, partly for those reasons. It doesn’t make me think “ooh, I wish I had the money to buy one.”
Ya know, it might not be exactly fair to compare a $90,000 car with ones that retail in the mid-20’s.
Well, I think it’s pretty because it’s practical. Though I admit it’s not the best example of “form follows function” - I don’t like the bulging bumpers on the xB.
I think the Volvo 240 wagon was a better example - lots of room, fantastic visibility in all directions, full height cargo area all the way to the back, and decent handling. The exterior design follows from those functional requirements, but with nice curves to soften the look. (The Volvo 740 went a little too far and looked starkly utilitarian, IMO.)
I know I would. Doesn’t seem that they understand the basic concept, tho. Reintroducing a classic does NOT mean putting an old name on a new car. The Mustang has a free pass since it’s been in production the entire time, but slapping a “GTO” sticker on a Monaro does not a GTO make. The T-Bird and the Charger are worse, in my opinion. It’s like remaking “War of the Worlds” and having Tom Cruise star - just flat wrong. 1968 Firebird with a modern drivetrain/suspension? Yeah!! (Keep the rear-wheel drive, tho)
Argent - I just dislike Mustangs. Always thought they were underpowered and ugly to start with, then they got big and ugly. I’d rather have a '72 Nova. Heck, I’d rather have an 05 Mustang than a 65.
I love it and if I could buy a car like that here I would. I (as a rule) love most of the miniature European and Japanese hatches and wagons. I’m glad to see some of them (the xB, the Yaris) coming to the US, cause if they do well, maybe we’ll get more of them – provided Fiat keeps the double-decker Multipla far, far away.
But I come from a different viewpoint than a lot of the people in this thread. I see the practicality of a car as one of its most important design considerations. The Honda Element does what it’s designed to do very well, and at the same time it manages to be cute and fun. Cute and fun are also completely valid design goals – not everything needs to be all roided out like that (HEINOUSLY UNATTRACTIVE) Mach 1.
Cars I like:
Nissan Cube
Toyota Vitz (Yaris in the US)
The Mazda5
Nissan Murano
The entire Volvo lineup
And lots of others… But giant cars that have form over function, like the 70s American models discussed above are not my taste. That doesn’t mean we live in the ugliest period in car history, it means what you like and what’s currently coming out aren’t the same.
I’m in the “I want reliable transportation” school of car-owning (gimme another Accord, they last for-fucking-ever!), so I’m not the most apt critic, I expect.
But to me, the Mach 1 doesn’t look mean; it looks cheap.
The grille is practically invisible. What IS visible is that sawed-off nose. To me, that’s cheap-looking.
As is the cut of the rear window and some other minor doodads. The paint job admittedly makes a big impression too.
Having been in grade school when The Jetsons were on TV, I’m acquainted with what was considered ‘futuristic’ in that era. There ain’t nothing ‘futuristic’-looking about the Mach 1.
I really don’t understand the logic here.
If there was a car that was the epitome of practicality: 100 mpg, plenty of storage space, good acceleration and handling, price under $10,000, yet was shaped, colored and textured to resemble a turd, would you still say “I think it’s pretty because it’s practical?” I wouldn’t. I would say “It’s a practical car, but that doesn’t change the fact that the styling is horrible.”
Hell, by that logic, turds are beautiful little sculptures: what other practical way is there for a biological system to dispose of waste? They’re pretty because they’re practical!
If Scion came out with the xSuck, which looked exactly like the xB, except it got 2 mpg, cost $100,000, and for some reason had a cramped interior with barely enough room for a driver, would you call that car ugly (because of the impracticality) and the xB pretty (because of the practicality), despite the fact that they both look exactly the same from the outside?
Sorry, I don’t know why that got me so worked up. I’m feeling kind of cranky today…
The point is that the box-like design is why it is practical. It allows you to pack the most useable space in that footprint. The form and function are linked. Making a car look like a turn wouldn’t impact the practicality so it wouldn’t meet the criteria.
As a vehicle with good access, lots of flexible storage, that doesn’t take up a lot of space, you end up with a box like design. It may not appeal to you, but to many of us who view the purpose of the car as part of the design, it looks great. Obviously, if the purpose of the car is to go real fast and corner well, this would not be a good design.
The Element and the xB are good uses of space, and their design reflects that. They are distinctive as well. I think the Element is a prettier car, but I also admire what the xB has done in a smaller platform.
This is all true, and I duly recoiled in horror the first several times I saw one, but … The Honda Element is growing on me. I don’t know why. Somehow, some part of my brain has decided that anything that presents ugliness with such goofy confidence has to have some kind of panache. Not that I’m about to go out and buy one, but I’ve decided that the Element is kind of cute.
Hee hee. Now that’s funny.
My personal least favorite car on the road is the Cadillac EXT Escalade pick up truck. I totally admit that my white liberal soul is completely offended by the sight of this 55-grand, seats-six-in-comfort-plus-the-servants-can-haul firewood excuse for a pickup. Plus people who drive them seem to be horrible road hogs.
I know this is subjective, so I’m not going to argue too hard on the particular merits of my opinion, but I do happen to like the styling of the Styling of the R34 Nissan Skyline. I love a car that goes fast and looks sleek, yet fuctional, without needing to look overly exaggerated and pretentions. Those mustangs in the last few pics just scream “tiny penis” a little too much.
Why, in the name of all that’s holy, must fuel efficient cars be so hideous? I’d like a Prius, but I can’t stand to look at the things. A low, slick looking sportscar body has got to be more aerodynamic than that thing. C’mon, Toyota. Even my old Corolla looks better.
I’m starting to see your point Argent Towers. In the late 70’s and early 80’s, it was primarily American cars that sickened me, now just about every company has at least one that I wouldn’t park near, just in case that ugly is contagious.
It’s good that my husband isn’t a member here, allowing me to say in confidence:
His '73 Mustang convertible is ugly. (Not a pcture of his car, but a dead ringer aside from the spoiler.)
Somewhere, his ears are burning in fury.
But a car shaped and textured like a turd would not be practical. It wouldn’t be aerodynamic, and its exterior size would be larger than necessary. It would also be difficult to wash.
A shape optimized for one function isn’t optimal for another. The Concorde may be a pretty good shape for a supersonic airliner, but a car shaped like the Concord would be horribly cramped.
It depends on what the purpose of the xSuck is. If that’s the result of loading a 7-liter V-8 engine on the rear of the xB, I’d call that an ugly car. If the poor performance is a result of loading a 100-gallon water tank to use as a mini fire truck in an amusement park, I’d consider it a pretty car.
No, it really isn’t. “Aerodynamic” means minimal air resistance for a given volume, or for a given frontal area. That means a blunt rounded nose, smooth sides and tapered tail end*, with no unnecessary protrusions. The classic teardrop shape is ideal. The Honda Insight is more aerodynamic than a Corvette.
*A truncated rear end is also good, if there’s a smooth taper up to that point. It’s called a Kammback.
Maybe the commercials are getting to you.
I like to peench
I have to disagree with you on this one. I like that they take chances on the design. I hated the 80s in that most of the designs were boxy and safe. Remember the Olds Cutlass which was the same as the Buick Century which was very similar to the Pontiac 6000 which looked like the Chevy something or other.
I drive an Element so take my opinion with a grain of salt. However, my car is easier to clean and can carry a bunch of stuff while getting decent fuel economy.
Thank you Mr. Skywatcher… I’ll just sit here and drool for a moment… A neighbor had a 429 Boss back in 1970 when I was a wee motorhead lad… who spent countless hours at the side of the highway near my house, competing with other boys trying to identify every car coming past by make, model and year…
As a counter to scr4, who thinks that little square boxes are attractive… here are some of my favorite cars… none of which are square… 
1970 Barracuda
For me, the epitome of American auto design was the late 60’s and early 70’s. Today, the only way you can get a car that looks great is to buy a Ferrari or a Lambo… which I can’t afford.
If you replace the words car, automobile, and specific model names with the word “penis”, the OP is hilarious.
I had a 70’ Barracuda, it was my first car. A very fun car, but only the Slant 6 Engine not the Hemi.
