Kia Soul: What's the appeal?

[KinLM]

First, I mean no offense to anybody. I'm just genuinely.. Curious.

Right, the Kia Soul. There's a few things I don't get.

First off, the looks. I'm sorry, but it's truly a disgusting looking car. This sorry excuse for design makes me want to vomit. Going by the incredibly large headlights that look like the size of my TV screen, as well as the rest of the front of the car, it looks as though this car (at least in some way) was designed to be aerodynamic.

But then why did they make it into the shape of an ice cube if they wanted aerodynamics? I mean, it looks like the designers said "Right, lets make an aerodynamic economy car!" And then halfway through said "Screw aerodynamics, lets make it have one of the worst possible aerodynamic shapes possible." It makes the whole design look slightly confused.

If they went for a full box theme (such as a Scion xB, which by the way I also find pretty ugly) at least it would make sense. But it seems like the car was made by two different designers or something.

Then we have the performance. 140 HP on the base model, 165 on the high-end 2.0L engine. I can't see this being a petrolhead's car.

We also get to the fuel mileage. The highest estimate of any kind I saw anywhere was about 30 MPG. If you're going to buy this for gas mileage, what's the point? 30 MPG is the best-case-scenario mileage. You know what else can get that mileage? A McLaren MP4-12C. Once again, I just don't get the point. If these estimates are wrong then please correct me, but I believe that these are fairly accurate.

Then we have practicality. That horridly ugly shape means that there is space inside for people. But similar cars have much better cargo space. For instance, other somewhat similar cars (such as a PT Cruiser) have seats which you can take out to give you huge space in the back. The Soul doesn't have this. And I know that many cars don't, yes. But this seems like something they could've incorporated to really help. However, I'm not going to be totally irrational. This area I would definitely rate "good" for this car.

Unfortunately, then there's the price. The base model is in the $13,000 range. But you really get so little for this price, I don't get the point. Prices go all the way up past $20,000. I'm sorry, but my parents just bought a 2012 Ford Mustang Premium for $20,000. Unlike the Kia, a Mustang won't go out of style. Unlike the Kia, it will get you where you're going in a hurry if you need it. Unlike the Kia, the Mustang won't make most people vomit at it's shape.

Ignoring Mustangs in specific, I don't see the point. If you want a base model, there's really hardly anything to like, ignoring the fact that I saw a Scion tC for $3000 less a few days ago, as well as a very low mileage and nearly brand new Honda Fit for even less, both of which seem like better buys. And the high range models seem to be a little on the pricey side for what they're offering.

And then we get to something slightly off topic. A bunch of rats jumping around jamming out to rap and dancing. I don't get the ad campaign, it seems like they had a 5 year old come up with the ideas for the ad. But that's not really important here.

So here's my summary; It doesn't work as a performance car due to it's soft suspension and lack of power. It doesn't work as a great gas mileage car because the back half cuts an enormous hole in the air. It doesn't work as a pretty car because even though the front (which isn't without flaws) at least has some nice little touches and hints of aerodynamics, the back completely burns your eyes. It doesn't work as an ugly car because if I wanted to drive a box, I'd buy an xB or Cube or something which has a constant theme throughout its design. It doesn't make sense as a cheap car simply because there's other cheap cars on the market (especially low mileage used cars) which seem like much better value. And it doesn't work as a cool car because you have to suffer the ridicule of your friends when you tell them you own a Korean Box called the Kia Soul.

Yet, I see so so many of these things! There must be something there that I don't see. So, now, to you. Please prove me wrong and try and help me realize why there's appeal for this car.

 

[Dan]

Strangely, about two years ago during a vacation to Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, we only saw these, and Chevy Camaros around our hotel. Literally. Out of all the other cars on the road (I was expecting big Suburbans, F-150s, RAMs, etc) these were the most common.

 

[KinLM]

Strangely, about two years ago during a vacation to Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, we only saw these, and Chevy Camaros around our hotel. Literally. Out of all the other cars on the road (I was expecting big Suburbans, F-150s, RAMs, etc) these were the most common.

Thats what I'm thinking too.

I go to high school. When I first came at the beginning of this year, I expected to see huge pickups and minivans everywhere. But no. Souls. Tons of them. It's crazy. There must be some appeal but I can't see it.

 

[Dan]

Thats what I'm thinking too.

I go to high school. When I first came at the beginning of this year, I expected to see huge pickups and minivans everywhere. But no. Souls. Tons of them. It's crazy. There must be some appeal but I can't see it.

I know there's at least 1 Soul at my high school. But I think a teacher drives it.

 

[KinLM]

I know there's at least 1 Soul at my high school. But I think a teacher drives it.

Mostly soccer moms dropping off their kids and a few girl students at this school. This doesn't seem like a guy's car, but then again I could be wrong. Like I said, I don't get it. This car makes no sense to me.

 

[Kylehnat]

Okay, so you don't like it. I'm sure Kia will be calling you shortly for advice on how they can make money.

 

[KinLM]

Okay, so you don't like it. I'm sure Kia will be calling you shortly for advice on how they can make money.

You're clearly missing the point of this thread. I was asking to see if anybody who likes this car could possibly describe why they like it. Thanks for your input.

 

[Tornado]

I've driven one. I thought it had very comfortable seats.

 

[MisterWhiskers]

Kia needs to turn to the next chapter with the design. So far, I've only seen 1 Soul in my life. The car is very unattractive. They need to put a little swag in it, The fuel economy is good by the numbers I'm hearing. And they shouldn't market their product with a bunch of mice driving it. Especially at a tea party in the 18th century. I have to admit, though, it's creative and cute.

 

[KinLM]

I've driven one. I thought it had very comfortable seats.

Was the rest of the interior good? Because if so then that might explain quite a bit.

 

[Downhill Dino]

I like how it looks. Quite appealing to my eyes, love to see it drive by. Never sat in one but it looks cozy.

 

[Doog]

First, I mean no offense to anybody. I'm just genuinely.. Curious.

Right, the Kia Soul. There's a few things I don't get.

It's a small, inexpensive thing that affords a great deal of cargo due to its box-like shape despite being only slightly longer than a Mazda Miata. People like practical cars; there's a reason the Scion xB was popular with people outside its target audience.

First off, the looks. I'm sorry, but it's truly a disgusting looking car. This sorry excuse for design makes me want to vomit. Going by the incredibly large headlights that look like the size of my TV screen, as well as the rest of the front of the car, it looks as though this car (at least in some way) was designed to be aerodynamic.

All modern cars have to be as aerodynamic as possible to meet stringent CAFE requirements.

But then why did they make it into the shape of an ice cube if they wanted aerodynamics? I mean, it looks like the designers said "Right, lets make an aerodynamic economy car!" And then halfway through said "Screw aerodynamics, lets make it have one of the worst possible aerodynamic shapes possible." It makes the whole design look slightly confused.

Seeing the success of the first generation Scion xB, Kia realized that there was a market for a small, box-like car. Kia wanted to target a younger audience and gave it those styling ques you don't like. Again, pretty much everything has to be aerodynamic, hence the design that you find slightly confused.

Then we have the performance. 140 HP on the base model, 165 on the high-end 2.0L engine. I can't see this being a petrolhead's car.

The current Scion xB produces 158 horsepower, the Cube makes 122, the former right on par with the Soul. The Kia was never meant to be a hot hatch.

We also get to the fuel mileage. The highest estimate of any kind I saw anywhere was about 30 MPG. If you're going to buy this for gas mileage, what's the point? 30 MPG is the best-case-scenario mileage. You know what else can get that mileage? A McLaren MP4-12C. Once again, I just don't get the point. If these estimates are wrong then please correct me, but I believe that these are fairly accurate.

Nothing shaped like a box is very easy to push through the air. The Mclaren is a very unfair comparison, though. Unlike the Kia, it benefits from years of careful research and development, and very, very good aerodynamics. It's much easier for a sleek, low supercar to cut through the air than a tallish, boxy hatchback. The Mclaren also has a V8 and 7-speed gearbox. At highway speeds, it can run in top gear at very low RPMs, putting minimal stress on the engine and therefore allowing it to run pretty efficiently as far as supercars go.

Then we have practicality. That horridly ugly shape means that there is space inside for people. But similar cars have much better cargo space. For instance, other somewhat similar cars (such as a PT Cruiser) have seats which you can take out to give you huge space in the back. The Soul doesn't have this. And I know that many cars don't, yes. But this seems like something they could've incorporated to really help. However, I'm not going to be totally irrational. This area I would definitely rate "good" for this car.

The PT Cruiser may have removable seats, but at what price. The PT Cruiser is a decade-old design, has subpar interior quality, and has piss-poor resale values. The PT Cruiser also gets worse fuel mileage than the Soul, according to Fuelly. A 2010 PT Cruiser averages 20.7 miles per gallon, a 2010 Soul averages 26.4 miles per gallon.

Unfortunately, then there's the price. The base model is in the $13,000 range. But you really get so little for this price, I don't get the point. Prices go all the way up past $20,000. I'm sorry, but my parents just bought a 2012 Ford Mustang Premium for $20,000. Unlike the Kia, a Mustang won't go out of style. Unlike the Kia, it will get you where you're going in a hurry if you need it. Unlike the Kia, the Mustang won't make most people vomit at it's shape.

Apples to oranges. In no way does a Mustang compete with a Soul; not only that, but you're comparing an used Mustang to a new Soul. A 2013 Mustang starts at $26,200, twice that of the Soul. It's arguable as to whether the Mustang's gone out of style or not. The Kia is still a very new thing though, and clearly it hasn't gone out of style yet; a second generation is soon to come. Comparing a Kia with at most 165 horsepower to a Mustang with 300 horsepower, yes, that's very fair. Let's try stuffing the amount of things you can fit in a Soul into a Mustang.

Ignoring Mustangs in specific, I don't see the point. If you want a base model, there's really hardly anything to like, ignoring the fact that I saw a Scion tC for $3000 less a few days ago, as well as a very low mileage and nearly brand new Honda Fit for even less, both of which seem like better buys. And the high range models seem to be a little on the pricey side for what they're offering.

Name another car that retails for $13k new with anything more to like than a Soul.

So here's my summary; It doesn't work as a performance car due to it's soft suspension and lack of power. It doesn't work as a great gas mileage car because the back half cuts an enormous hole in the air. It doesn't work as a pretty car because even though the front (which isn't without flaws) at least has some nice little touches and hints of aerodynamics, the back completely burns your eyes. It doesn't work as an ugly car because if I wanted to drive a box, I'd buy an xB or Cube or something which has a constant theme throughout its design. It doesn't make sense as a cheap car simply because there's other cheap cars on the market (especially low mileage used cars) which seem like much better value. And it doesn't work as a cool car because you have to suffer the ridicule of your friends when you tell them you own a Korean Box called the Kia Soul.

You're looking at it the wrong way. The Kia Soul offers a blend of value, decent fuel economy, practicality, but is also small and easy to park. The similarly priced used car has always been a notable alternative to a new, cheap car, but some people don't want the headaches that come with used car shopping. Used car shopping comes with dishonest sellers, lemons, and sometimes having to settle for a car that doesn't have all the options you like. A new, cheap car gives you peace of mind that it will last for a very long time, and that's all some people want. And most people I've met generally like the Soul.

 

[KinLM]

It's a small, inexpensive thing that affords a great deal of cargo due to its box-like shape despite being only slightly longer than a Mazda Miata. People like practical cars; there's a reason the Scion xB was popular with people outside its target audience.

Yes I know, it's just personally being such an aerodynamics freak it just hurts my eyes to see such boxy shapes.

All modern cars have to be as aerodynamic as possible to meet stringent CAFE requirements.

Yes, it just seems that they could've made it slightly less.. Boxy, which would improve looks and aero I'd think.

Seeing the success of the first generation Scion xB, Kia realized that there was a market for a small, box-like car. Kia wanted to target a younger audience and gave it those styling ques you don't like. Again, pretty much everything has to be aerodynamic, hence the design that you find slightly confused.

I find it confusing just because the back is still just so boxy. Not my cup of tea but if it works for sales then it's all good.

The current Scion xB produces 158 horsepower, the Cube makes 122, the former right on par with the Soul. The Kia was never meant to be a hot hatch.

I know, if it was then something like a Focus would be much more fitting for somebody looking for this kind of car.

Nothing shaped like a box is very easy to push through the air. The Mclaren is a very unfair comparison, though. Unlike the Kia, it benefits from years of careful research and development, and very, very good aerodynamics. It's much easier for a sleek, low supercar to cut through the air than a tallish, boxy hatchback. The Mclaren also has a V8 and 7-speed gearbox. At highway speeds, it can run in top gear at very low RPMs, putting minimal stress on the engine and therefore allowing it to run pretty efficiently as far as supercars go.

Yes I do know this, but as I said, if they had made the back a bit less boxy then it could potentially add a few MPG. Although if the boxy shape is what they want to show off, so be it, even if it isn't my cup of tea.

And yes, I know that the McLaren isn't really a fair comparison, it's just I was trying to say that good aero can really help MPG.

The PT Cruiser may have removable seats, but at what price. The PT Cruiser is a decade-old design, has subpar interior quality, and has piss-poor resale values. The PT Cruiser also gets worse fuel mileage than the Soul, according to Fuelly. A 2010 PT Cruiser averages 20.7 miles per gallon, a 2010 Soul averages 26.4 miles per gallon.

The PT was just an example, there's other modern cars that have these same options. I was simply using the PT as I knew it had this feature.

Apples to oranges. In no way does a Mustang compete with a Soul; not only that, but you're comparing an used Mustang to a new Soul. A 2013 Mustang starts at $26,200, twice that of the Soul. It's arguable as to whether the Mustang's gone out of style or not. The Kia is still a very new thing though, and clearly it hasn't gone out of style yet; a second generation is soon to come. Comparing a Kia with at most 165 horsepower to a Mustang with 300 horsepower, yes, that's very fair. Let's try stuffing the amount of things you can fit in a Soul into a Mustang.

My point is that if you don't strictly need a hatchback then something like this would seem like it made much more sense. The mustang we bought had a 172 point inspection since we re-bought it from a Ford dealer, and as a result it has a substantial warranty as well. If you strictly need a hatchback then look below.

Name another car that retails for $13k new with anything more to like than a Soul.

Volkswagen Polo Blumotion.

Any extra money you pay on the price tag is easily made back up in terms of gas mileage, considering it gets almost 3 times the MPG of the Soul.

The Polo BM may only have about 70-80 HP, but if you're buying a Soul then (as we established above) you're not looking for a hot hatch. Not to mention that the Polo looks good, aerodynamic, and is still practical.

You're looking at it the wrong way. The Kia Soul offers a blend of value, decent fuel economy, practicality, but is also small and easy to park. The similarly priced used car has always been a notable alternative to a new, cheap car, but some people don't want the headaches that come with used car shopping. Used car shopping comes with dishonest sellers, lemons, and sometimes having to settle for a car that doesn't have all the options you like. A new, cheap car gives you peace of mind that it will last for a very long time, and that's all some people want. And most people I've met generally like the Soul.

It doesn't seem like a miserable car, it's just that personally I find it quite.. Boring, it's just there doesn't seem like much "pop" about it. It seems like it's a sorta bland car, and to fix this they tried to put on a "Hip" body style which I personally find as hideous.

But if you liked the shape, and you've got a tight budget and don't want to go used, then you're right. I guess the Soul is a good practical inexpensive little car that's pretty good for it's money. I guess the car has a little bit of appeal for that reason. Personally I'd buy other things but I can see how the Soul would be some people's cup of tea.

 

[Doog]

My point is that if you don't strictly need a hatchback then something like this would seem like it made much more sense. The mustang we bought had a 172 point inspection since we re-bought it from a Ford dealer, and as a result it has a substantial warranty as well. If you strictly need a hatchback then look below.

With a 2012 model year car, chances are it's still alright. My idea of used car shopping comes from trying to buy say a five or ten year old car for the price of a Soul.

Volkswagen Polo Blumotion.

Any extra money you pay on the price tag is easily made back up in terms of gas mileage, considering it gets almost 3 times the MPG of the Soul.

The Polo BM may only have about 70-80 HP, but if you're buying a Soul then (as we established above) you're not looking for a hot hatch. Not to mention that the Polo looks good, aerodynamic, and is still practical.

Tell me again about how the Volkswagen Polo is readily available in North America.

 

[niky]

Very unfair to compare a brand new Soul to a secondhand anything. I could compare a brand new Mustang to a twenty-year old Ferrari, but nobody is going to cross-shop the two.

The Soul has a roomy interior, decent handling (for a box) and decent poke. And it looks good if you don't expect all cars to look like sports cars.

Aerodynamics suck, but that's not the point. You want an aerodynamic Kia, you're buying a Rio. You want a fun, practical box that doesn't look like a box, you buy a Soul.

 

[KinLM]

With a 2012 model year car, chances are it's still alright. My idea of used car shopping comes from trying to buy say a five or ten year old car for the price of a Soul.

Yes, I can understand that. When I say "used" I guess I should be a bit more specific.

A year old, low mileage car bought second hand from the company's dealer with a long-term warranty is different than a 10 year old car from the used car dealer at the corner of the street.

I wouldn't be comfortable with the latter but with the former I think it's at least semi-comparable.

Tell me again about how the Volkswagen Polo is readily available in North America.

Sorry, I'm gonna be in the UK in a short time and sorta overlooked this as a result.

 

[KinLM]

Very unfair to compare a brand new Soul to a secondhand anything. I could compare a brand new Mustang to a twenty-year old Ferrari, but nobody is going to cross-shop the two.

As stated abode, I think it is fair to compare new to used as long as the used car is:

Less than 3 year old
Low mileage
Purchased from a company dealer
Available with a good warranty
Had an extensive inspection

Any car that fits all of those seems like a reasonable comparison to me.

The Soul has a roomy interior, decent handling (for a box) and decent poke. And it looks good if you don't expect all cars to look like sports cars.

All good points, which is what I was originally asking for. Thank you.

Aerodynamics suck, but that's not the point. You want an aerodynamic Kia, you're buying a Rio. You want a fun, practical box that doesn't look like a box, you buy a Soul.

Personally I just don't see the "fun" in the car but I guess that's something more of a personal opinion of what makes a car fun. As above, good points which is what I've been searching for. Thank you.

 

[niky]

The problem with secondhand cars, is then you have to compare a secondhand Fit or Scion to a secondhand Soul, which would still be cheaper.

Mind you, I probably wouldn't buy a Soul, either, if I was forced to get the 2.0 and the four-speed that Kia bundles the car with, in the US, but outside we get it with a 1.6 and a stick, which is much more practical.

Sadly, the US market "needs" more power (as if, a 1.6 Soul with a stick is faster than the 2.0 4AT...). Same thing that ruined the Scion xB... which went from a fun little buzzbox to a Camry-engined porker...

 

[KinLM]

The problem with secondhand cars, is then you have to compare a secondhand Fit or Scion to a secondhand Soul, which would still be cheaper.

I see your point on that.

Mind you, I probably wouldn't buy a Soul, either, if I was forced to get the 2.0 and the four-speed that Kia bundles the car with, in the US, but outside we get it with a 1.6 and a stick, which is much more practical.

Well fortunately I'll be outside of the US soon, and I much prefer a standard to an automatic, so if I ever have to buy a Soul then I might be in luck.

Sadly, the US market "needs" more power (as if, a 1.6 Soul with a stick is faster than the 2.0 4AT...). Same thing that ruined the Scion xB... which went from a fun little buzzbox to a Camry-engined porker...

Slightly off topic, but do they still make the xB?

 

[Downhill Dino]

Mind you, I probably wouldn't buy a Soul, either, if I was forced to get the 2.0 and the four-speed that Kia bundles the car with, in the US, but outside we get it with a 1.6 and a stick, which is much more practical.

Actually we are offered the 1.6 manual, as the base trim. To my knowledge at least.

 

[dylansan]

I quite like the Soul. I think the design is interesting, with the windshield that wraps around to the side windows, and the way the fenders are integrated.

As for the shape, there's more to aerodynamics than curves. It's pretty well known now that flat, cut-off rear ends tend to be more aerodynamic than tear-drop or other shapes (hence the Prius' rear).

If you want to know the exact thought process behind the design, according to Wikipedia,"In the short time he had...he had an inspiration for the design...using a mental visual picture of a powerful Boar with big front shoulders sloping back to it's rear legs...and for utility... wearing a back pack! So the KIA Soul was born with a sloping roof line and a "trunk" on the hatchback."

Honestly, it seems you're grasping at straws for reasons to dislike this car. Most of your examples are a little far-fetched.

And by the way, the animals in the commercial are hamsters, not rats. But this is another point, you have to give them credit for making a memorable commercial. God forbid car companies use humor to advertise their products. Personally, I'd much rather have that than the boring "car driving on a winding road while someone talks about it's features" type of commercial.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I think the soul is kind of funky and cool, in a way.

I thought about buying one, but I didn't like the way they drove. Also, don't judge a car by it's power. My Mazda2 has just 100 screaming horsepower, but it's actually quite a fun car, and due to it's extremely low weight (2200lbs!) it goes just fine.

 

[KinLM]

I quite like the Soul. I think the design is interesting, with the windshield that wraps around to the side windows, and the way the fenders are integrated.

Difference of opinion.

As for the shape, there's more to aerodynamics than curves. It's pretty well known now that flat, cut-off rear ends tend to be more aerodynamic than tear-drop or other shapes (hence the Prius' rear).

Really! Tell me more about how all the supercars have it wrong, and that their teardrop shapes are inferior to the cut off rear end of a Soul. Maybe in some ways a cut off rear end may be more efficient (McLaren F1) but this is different than a car that is this boxy.

If you want to know the exact thought process behind the design, according to Wikipedia,"In the short time he had...he had an inspiration for the design...using a mental visual picture of a powerful Boar with big front shoulders sloping back to it's rear legs...and for utility... wearing a back pack! So the KIA Soul was born with a sloping roof line and a "trunk" on the hatchback."

That's an interesting design path, one that I can't see much of in the final design as well as one that I wouldn't have chosen.

Honestly, it seems you're grasping at straws for reasons to dislike this car. Most of your examples are a little far-fetched.

Sorry, you're just plain wrong on this one

And by the way, the animals in the commercial are hamsters, not rats. But this is another point, you have to give them credit for making a memorable commercial. God forbid car companies use humor to advertise their products. Personally, I'd much rather have that than the boring "car driving on a winding road while someone talks about it's features" type of commercial.

Personally I don't care if they're rats or hamsters. Either way the ad doesn't make sense.

But I will agree that I do prefer these ads to those wretched Cadillac ATS commercials where they make the car sound like its faster than an F1 car.

 

[Downhill Dino]

You do realize, as had already been said, the Soul is not a hot hatch or sports hatch.

 

[KinLM]

You do realize, as had already been said, the Soul is not a hot hatch or sports hatch.

Yes. Your point? Where did I make it seem as though I thought it was?

 

[Doog]

Really! Tell me more about how all the supercars have it wrong, and that their teardrop shapes are inferior to the cut off rear end of a Soul. Maybe in some ways a cut off rear end may be more efficient (McLaren F1) but this is different than a car that is this boxy.

As for the shape, there's more to aerodynamics than curves. It's pretty well known now that flat, cut-off rear ends tend to be more aerodynamic than tear-drop or other shapes (hence the Prius' rear).

He didn't say it was the only way to aerodynamics, just that an aspect of the Soul's design is aerodynamically beneficial.

 

[dylansan]

Really! Tell me more about how all the supercars have it wrong, and that their teardrop shapes are inferior to the cut off rear end of a Soul. Maybe in some ways a cut off rear end may be more efficient (McLaren F1) but this is different than a car that is this boxy.

The point is that it's not so clear cut that "boxy = bad." Car companies do a lot of research into these things. But anyway, the Soul isn't even that boxy, especially when compared with some other cars.

Sorry, you're just plain wrong on this one

You've yet to provide a substantial reason that isn't based on personal opinion, or based on comparisons to other cars.

Personally I don't care if they're rats or hamsters. Either way the ad doesn't make sense.

Doesn't really matter. The ad is memorable, and that kind of automatically makes it a good commercial.

 

[KinLM]

The point is that it's not so clear cut that "boxy = bad." Car companies do a lot of research into these things. But anyway, the Soul isn't even that boxy, especially when compared with some other cars.

I know, but still I'm just saying that while it is more aerodynamic than other boxes, the overall shape still has many features that aren't beneficial to cutting through the air.

You've yet to provide a substantial reason that isn't based on personal opinion, or based on comparisons to other cars.

As opposed to what? Fictitious points that I make up? Seriously, what do you want?

Doesn't really matter. The ad is memorable, and that kind of automatically makes it a good commercial.

No, it doesn't. I'll admit that the attention it generates is good, but that does not make it a good commercial. Negative attention isn't always 100% beneficial.

 

[KinLM]

He didn't say it was the only way to aerodynamics, just that an aspect of the Soul's design is aerodynamically beneficial.

I see what you mean, it's just what I was saying is this:

The cause of this "cut off" is due to the boxy nature of the shape. And the boxy nature of the shape isn't helpful.

 

[Doog]

As opposed to what? Fictitious points that I make up? Seriously, what do you want?

Points the aren't almost completely opinionated.

No, it doesn't. I'll admit that the attention it generates is good, but that does not make it a good commercial. Negative attention isn't always 100% beneficial.

A memorable commercial is always a good commercial because it makes you remember the product, and increases the chance that you might buy it.