Do you hate the style of modern cars as much as I do?

tadawson said:

Apparently nothing as good as you have been tooting . . . I never said anything about the Rabbit and anything now, just that the Rabbit was the first I recall of styling ripoffs, which continues to be prevalent between brands today (and I'll say this really slow so you can grasp it . . . )
O n
o t h e r
m o d e l s !!!
I've seen plenty that are almost identical to the Passat, but not sure who was first.
- Tim

Click to expand...

i guess you should speak more clearly then and finish your sentences.

tadawson said:

My gripe now, is that since everybody ripped off the look of the Rabbit in the 70's, everything looks the same! My wife changed parking spots at the store the other day, and I damn near put my bags in the wrong car, it was so similar!

Click to expand...

i think any normal person would take that as you think so many cars these days are ripping off the rabbit styling...

Rabbit ripped off original Mini styling.

No question about similarities. Like or dislike they all deal with physics. The winner travels down the road pushing the least resistance. Similarities in design are to be expected when dealing with a common problem.

Personal taste? Some prefer lots of body bling. Bulges and body lines if you will. My personal feeling is that these designs will age fairly rapidly.

VW, on the other hand, stays the course with an ultra conservative design. Sometimes there's elegance in simplicity. Others have opined and I agree that the VW design will age better than some of the competition.

Look at it this way... You're at a party. Lots of people attending. Two stunning women arrive. One with perfect makeup, loads of jewelery, and a dress that reveals her ample assets. The other woman needs no makeup or jewelery. She wears a simple elegant dress and is as much a show stopper as the other.

There will be those attracted to the first woman and those attracted to the second. I, myself, will go with the woman who needs nothing in order to be a show stopper even as I acknowledge the first as being stunning.

This among other things translates to Passat. Totally understated. And in that understatement is a huge statement. Some see it and others don't.

nord said:

No question about similarities. Like or dislike they all deal with physics. The winner travels down the road pushing the least resistance. Similarities in design are to be expected when dealing with a common problem.

Click to expand...

Yeah..between 2 similar newer cars with the tall hoods, tall grilles, etc, this is true, but compared to an older car like the hondas I mentioned earlier, I don't think it is. Like I wrote previously, I believe my mk6 Golf takes more hp to go down the highway at 80mph than my old accord. The VW might have a lower coefficient of drag, but it has a lot more frontal area. In other words it may be a more aerodynamic shape, but it's a bigger shape.

IndigoBlueWagon said:

Side impact standards that must withstand a Golf, for example, getting hit by an SUV account for smaller side windows.

Click to expand...

I thought of that too, and it may somewhat account for today's ridiculously high door sills overall, but it doesn't account for the thing I specifically mentioned, the door sills going up in height toward the rear of the vehicle. In other words, if the front of the door sill is at an adequate height for side impact protection, why does the rear door sill have to be several inches higher? It doesn't, that is purely "style". Also, the Audi s4 pic I linked, that car does not have excessively high door sills (compared to cars like the new challenger, etc) and it passes all the new crash requirements, being a new car.

I do wish the rear windows in my 2-door Golf were larger. Hatch window, too, and that's just styling, I believe. What I think is stupid is those triangle shaped windows in the cargo areas of smaller crossovers like the Honda CRV or Kia Sportage. What good are those?

2011tdiproject said:

Yeah..between 2 similar newer cars with the tall hoods, tall grilles, etc, this is true, but compared to an older car like the hondas I mentioned earlier, I don't think it is. Like I wrote previously, I believe my mk6 Golf takes more hp to go down the highway at 80mph than my old accord. The VW might have a lower coefficient of drag, but it has a lot more frontal area. In other words it may be a more aerodynamic shape, but it's a bigger shape.

Click to expand...

http://ecomodder.com/wiki/index.php/Vehicle_Coefficient_of_Drag_List

The numbers on the far right Cda- the lower the better. As you can see its .cd that's the most effective at controlling drag and not the frontal area.

Mathematically, they are of precisely equal importance. When doing the calculation, it is simply Cd . A, they are multiplied together. A 10% reduction in one has precisely the same effect as a 10% reduction in the other.

You may be referring to that if you want to have two people seated beside each other in a seating position that normal people would find to be acceptable, there is a point below which the frontal area is not readily reducible, and hence the frontal area of most modern cars is in the same range, so it appears to have little effect. But rest assured that the effect of frontal area is every bit as important as that of drag coefficient - you just can't do much about it below a certain minimum that people are willing to tolerate.

For an example of an unconventional approach to frontal area reduction, see VW XL1.

Interesting table, though. Shows why the old Honda CRX was an ecomodder's dream. Small frontal area and good drag coefficient. It comes close to the original Insight, which has the smallest Cd.A that I see in that table for a production car ... There are quite a few Honda and Acura models that are among the best.

03 01 tdi, I don't understand your thinking on that at all. The numbers multiply by each other. One is not more effective than the other, especially when you're not comparing a brick to a sleek car, you're comparing 2 cars, both already designed with aero in mind. Keeping the overall height of the car down has a huge influence on aero. The Golf being built like a minivan does not help it at all. I'd bet if you swapped the tdi powertrain into in an 89 prelude, the prelude's highway mpg would kill the Golf.

GoFaster said:

Mathematically, they are of precisely equal importance. When doing the calculation, it is simply Cd . A, they are multiplied together. A 10% reduction in one has precisely the same effect as a 10% reduction in the other.

There are quite a few Honda and Acura models that are among the best.

Click to expand...

LOL, we just posted the same thing at the same time!

leusgs said:

Sit in a 1990s Honda Accord and the difference is amazing. Too bad they are mostly all rusted away.

Click to expand...

Come to Georgia. I see at least one everyday with 0% rust.

I don't mind the design of modern cars, other than that they are all too alike, espesially the X-shaped fronts/grilles.

What I do "hate" about modern cars is that they are too fast! When my M-B 300 coupé was new the 224hp 3 litre, 24-valve engine was one of the fastest (if not THE fastest) 6-cylinder cars out there.
Now any modern car keeps up with it, that's not fair

And the music is too loud...

http://0.tqn.com/d/cars/1/0/g/v/2/ag_13civic_taillight.JPG
http://image.motortrend.com/f/42453.../2013-BMW-Active-Hybrid-3-tail-light-view.jpg
http://www.paulstravelpictures.com/...ry-Tail-Light-Bulbs-Replacement-Guide-001.JPG

Can anyone guess what these three pics have in common? It's one of my biggest pet peeves in modern car designs. Who comes up with this stuff?

Couldn't open the third one. Not sure if you are upset about the wrap around, the fact that there is plastic in the hatch too, or lack of an amber turn signal.

Guess again. Here's another:

http://www.dhresource.com/albu_272983107_00/1.0x0.jpg

With increased work travel, I've been able to pick up different cars to see what I like or dislike about any of them. My biggest issue so far is that the Kias and Hyundais all have a curving roofline. To give the driver more headroom, they bump in the middle and then narrow to the rear. This makes the back seat feel tighter and also gives a smaller back window that then limits the rear visibility.

snakeye said:

Guess again. Here's another:
http://www.dhresource.com/albu_272983107_00/1.0x0.jpg

Click to expand...

What, part of the fixture on the body and part on the trunk lid?

-J

Figured out what he doesn't like: Misalignment (by design) between the part that's on the body and the part that's on the lid. For example, in the one above, the bottom of the part that's on the lid is lower than the bottom of the part that's on the body.

Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. The BMW designs with that feature don't bother me too much. The 2013 Civic is OK, it still fits with the design of the vehicle. But the current Camry looks like a bad set of teeth sticking down, it's a disaster. And, of course, then there's this ...

http://0.tqn.com/d/cars/1/0/k/c/ag_07sebring_taillight.jpg

The Chrysler Sebring.

It looks like someone has fitted the trunk-lid taillights from a different year of vehicle. The outer part on the body has a "rounded lights" format, the inner part has a "straight line" format. If the inner part had carried on the rounded format, or the outer part carried on the straight dividing line, it would have looked OK. This is one of those things that stylists like to change with a mid-cycle refresh ... and the different styles looks like someone put a pre-refresh trunk lid on a post-refresh vehicle without bothering to swap to the proper lights.

Yup you got it! I don't see how they can justify leaving a chunk out of the tail lights. Why do they do this? Oh and LOL at the Sebring tail lights.

I wholeheartedly agree about the taillights. I also hate taillights that are arbitrarily slanted/angled, like on the new Evo. That just looks horrible, then slant/angle doesn't match anything else on the entire car. Puke!

Another thing I thought I'd mention randomly, although it isn't a "newer" car. The monte carlo, the "nascar" inspired one. That car looks like 2 completely different cars grafted together. The front looks like a grand prix, the back looks like an old cutlass. The car does not match itself, or anything else, it looks absolutely horrible.

30 years from now people will be making the same comparisons.

Just like I did 30 years ago, and 40X40 made 30 years before that.

I am surprised nobody picked up my #1 problem with current designs: there is no more car after the rear wheel arch. Now, that was fine for a Rabbit, and the very reason that the jetta was built, but think back to what EVERY "station wagon" until 10 years ago had for rear windows after the C pillar. Our MkIV Variant may be small, but it actually HAS useful cargo room behind the rear seat. Most of these 5,000 lb. behemouth "crossovers" do not. And, the closest thing to realistic is now gone (Passat B6 Variant). Every wagon-like thing (outside of a few minivans) has the rear hatch at a hatchback instead of tailgate angle, except that instead of stopping in Rabbit-like respectable distance behind the rear seat, they come right up to the rear seat passengers' spaces.

Dozenspeed said:

I agree, and was going to point this out. Same with the trunks, better rear-end collision safety. The poor designers have to cope with these rules when styling.

My other comment is: Anyone who doesn't think my MK6 Jetta has really sweet, sexy and aggressive style that looks great, is simply completely wrong!

Click to expand...

Current Jetta and Passat look like mid 90's Oldsmobiles in styling.

B, F, and/or D????

Just R.F.U

Really F. Ugly

Myself, I find the Passat better looking than a lot of the newer stuff that look more like rejects from a bad Asian video game. Same for the Jetta, and my family agrees (age 23 through 54) to the point that we have bought three in the last year (2P +1J).

To each thier own, but myself, I violently disagree than new implies better!

- Tim

The Passat is a pretty boring design, not as interesting as, nor do I think it will age as well as its predecessors. But there are some good-looking new cars coming out. I like the Audi A3, and except for the pedestrian safety crafted nose, the current 3-Series. The new Golf R looks great, as does the Porsche Macan and Cayman.

I agree that the nms passat is rather boring and wonder if it age as well as the b5.5 and 6 models.

The current Passat is a dead ringer for the now-previous-model Chevrolet Impala, which was most often seen as a taxi. Even the cops didn't like them. The current Jetta is plain ordinary 4 door sedan with nothing special about it. These cars were designed to not offend anyone.

And with that ... here is the dilemma that auto designers face. Do you get more sales by building something that looks the way people expect but doesn't turn anyone off, or do you do better by building something a little provocative to add some interest, but which inevitably some people won't like?

If you build something inoffensive, you end up with the beige four-door Mediocrity (a.k.a. Kia Magentis!) posted above. You can substitute a Toyota Corolla (2008 - 2013) if you wish. Nobody really "wants" such a car. People buy such a car because they need a car to use as an appliance, to serve a purpose. There is no interest in it.

Do something interesting ... and inevitably, somebody won't like it!