Modern car designs ugly?

[Neddo]

Jeep....oh god.

lol

 

[Legro]

vs

By looks? Old one, the new one is too angular.

 

[Odnomre]

Jeep....oh god.

That's... An actual car that people can buy? I think that might be even uglier than the Citroën

As for the Nissan Qashqai, I like the newer one better. The old one seems a little... Bland. But I suppose you can say the same about new "edgy" design.

 

[Slash]

That's... An actual car that people can buy? I think that might be even uglier than the Citroën

As for the Nissan Qashqai, I like the newer one better. The old one seems a little... Bland. But I suppose you can say the same about new "edgy" design.

Yes, and it's all over the place here in the United States.

 

[Legro]

People actually buy those Jeeps? I'm starting to think that only thing wrong in Pontiac Aztec was the fact that they sold it 10 years too early.

 

[Slash]

People actually buy those Jeeps? I'm starting to think that only thing wrong in Pontiac Aztec was the fact that they sold it 10 years too early.

I see more of those Jeeps than I ever did the Aztek.

 

[JacoJa]

IMO most car manufacturers these days are actually making an effort. Far better than the bland rubbish which came out of the 90's and 00's. Don't know why they've taken so long to do so.

I personally love the Duke, Cactus, i3, etc. Absolutely hate generic designs, like the Octavia, Passat, Golf, etc.

Apart from a handful of modern cars, I think car design peaked around 1950's-60's.

 

[Slash]

Given the direction things are going, I'd much rather take a "bland" '90s car over being seen standing next to one of these abominations.

 

[Odnomre]

I just looked up the Pontiac Aztek. I threw up in my mouth almost instantly. Then I scrolled down, and found out what the car needed to really fix it... Some flame vinyls!

 

[JacoJa]

Given the direction things are going, I'd much rather take a "bland" '90s car over being seen standing next to one of these abominations.

I'm in the minority, I'll give you that.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

I don't think modern cars are ugly. I will say this: it's much harder to design a classically beautiful car today. Cars now are bigger, fatter, and far more regulated. Between aerodynamics and safety regulations, the "average" car today isn't very pretty. However, a lot of average cars are very nice looking, and there are some cars out there that are absolute stunners. Mercedes CLA, Alfa 4C, BMW i3, Jaguar F-Type, BMW i8, Porsche Cayman, Citroen DS5, etc.

The biggest thing, though, is that style is personal. History has rooted out most of the boring or ugly cars, so when we think of old cars, we think of the pretty ones, so we all "agree" that old cars look good.

 

[ProjectWHaT]

I don't think modern cars are ugly. I will say this: it's much harder to design a classically beautiful car today. Cars now are bigger, fatter, and far more regulated. Between aerodynamics and safety regulations, the "average" car today isn't very pretty. However, a lot of average cars are very nice looking, and there are some cars out there that are absolute stunners. Mercedes CLA, Alfa 4C, BMW i3, Jaguar F-Type, BMW i8, Porsche Cayman, Citroen DS5, etc.

The biggest thing, though, is that style is personal. History has rooted out most of the boring or ugly cars, so when we think of old cars, we think of the pretty ones, so we all "agree" that old cars look good.

Only thing I disagree with.

 

[Roger the Horse]

Personally, I think that we're currently seeing interesting times for car design, with a lot of experimental and unusual styling. I think some of it will hold out well in ten or twenty years, while others which were initially seen as duds will remain as such. Some, such as the Lamborghini Aventador, the new Citroen C4 Picasso, or the Jaguar F-Type Coupé have already staked their claim as future design classics, while other, perhaps more challenging designs, such as the Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG, the Jaguar F-Type Convertible, or anything with a Lexus badge on it these days will need to wait for proper judgement further down the line.

 

[GTP_Ingram]

There comes a point where there's a difference between the aerodynamic benefit and ridiculousness.


It would probably be way more aerodynamic if all that black crap on the doors was gone.

Pretty much anything black on the P1 is designed that way to aid cooling/to benefit aero. There are gaps behind the front wheels to take hot air away from the brakes, there are vents in the leading edge of the rear arches to aid cooling for the radiators/intercoolers, and the black area at the back ejects more hot air out the back. It may have less drag without the black bits, but it would also overheat pretty quikly.

One thing that people need to consider is that many designs - especially more daring examples like the Cactus, BMW i8 etc, are so different to what we're used to seeing that people think they look wierd, and some people consider that ugly. Remember the first gen Ford Focus and Ka? People thought they looked really wierd when they came out, but nobody cares now.

There are some pretty cars around these days, but for every stunner there are ten or twenty which try too hard, with pointless creases and fussy details (Lexus spring to mind here..)

 

[The Stig Farmer]

There really aren't that many "ugly" new cars these days...

It would probably be way more aerodynamic if all that black crap on the doors was gone.

Do not question McLaren

Together with everything Seat and KIA throw out of their design department.

No.

 

[ProjectWHaT]

It would probably be way more aerodynamic if all that black crap on the doors was gone.

(lol I didn't even notice this post, did you edit it on?)

The black "crap" is there for aerodynamics as seen in the picture. Its black because it gives a good contrast and makes it less bland. If you don't like it black, you can use a wrap and make it some other color.

 

[Slash]

(lol I didn't even notice this post, did you edit it on?)

The black "crap" is there for aerodynamics as seen in the picture. Its black because it gives a good contrast and makes it less bland. If you don't like it black, you can use a wrap and make it some other color.

Fair enough, but I'm still not fond of the design.

 

[Neddo]

hmmmmmm

 

[Wiegert]

the new Citroen C4 Picasso

Coming from someone who likes two-tier headlight designs in general, I don't think it's nearly as good-looking as the car it replaced. Most of us can agree that both are light years ahead of the first gen Picasso, although now it looks like the lights are set far too low with the grill cutting them off by extending into the upper light cluster. It's sharp as a result, but seems a little too off-kilter on a model with such a rotund overall shape.


Not that I'd ever think of calling it the ugliest Citroen on the market. That would be the C1:

What actually inspired that front design? Carl Jung's face?

 

[Spacegoat]

What in the 🤬 is going on with that front end.

I used to think the same thing about the Juke until I saw one in person a while back. Looks much better in the flesh then it does in pics imo.

 

[Slash]

I used to think the same thing about the Juke until I saw one in person a while back. Looks much better in the flesh then it does in pics imo.

I've seen a ton of them IRL up close and personal and I think it's about 30 times worse

 

[McLaren]

It would probably be way more aerodynamic if all that black crap on the doors was gone.

The irony in this is that you worship moving bricks whilst telling McLaren what would work better aerodynamically on the P1.

 

[Slash]

The irony in this is that you worship moving bricks whilst telling McLaren what would work better aerodynamically on the P1.

Good point

 

[synchromesh]

That is good.

These are good too

 

[Exorcet]

Are these days cars that ugly?

I don't think so, I think modern styling is fairly good. What is not good is that cars are large, even sports cars. I was somewhat recently able to see a 90's RX-7 next to a 2010 or so Mustang at a stop light. The Mustang looked like a big ugly SUV. Even without the rather poor looking (in my opinion) retro styling, the Mustang was simply too large.

Is the peak of car desings 60's? Do all good looking cars look like more modern versions of their ancestors of 60's?

The 60's was full of nightmares. I think that aerodynamic cars look good. Today's cars are more aerodynamic, but aerodynamics still takes a back seats to design themes.

Yeah, I thought so. I want to believe the emphasis is aerodynamics over beauty, because otherwise, I don't get how these cars even exist.

Aerodynamics and styling are two sides of a battle ground in every modern road car. The crazy shapes we have today start in the heads of stylists and then get passed to the aero guys who may hate everything about them and try to make the shapes work without changing too much.

McLaren P1 is a great example of aerodynamics before design (even though I love how the P1 looks)

It's nothing special. The car was meant to look like it does and tweaked to reach aero goals. The wing especially. A rounded rear end is usually a tell-tale sign of form over function. Very few cars, even sports cars, have a proper tapering at the rear. Sports cars actually tend to have the opposite to look "muscular". The P1 is the same.

 

[Doog]

I'm all for a lot of modern car designs, but if there's one element I hate, it's the trend towards tall doors and high belt-lines. Before I acknowledge the main purpose for this practice, I can't help but wonder if part of it's by choice. The Chrysler 300 was quite an influential car when it was released a decade ago. Since so may people bought them pretty much based off looks alone, it's only a given the other manufacturers would take note and incorporate appealing elements from the 300 into their own designs. The 300's trademark (other than looking enough like a Bentley to win over hood rats) was that high-waisted, tiny window look that gave off the impression of a muscular car.

Before the 300 came out, the door to window ratio on most cars was pretty normal:

Now there's this style where the doors are very tall and the windows are very short. In more extreme cases (like these), it almost gives off the impression that the car was actually built off a crossover or SUV's platform, with the only difference being that their tall greenhouse was lopped off in favor of a sedan's roof.

One reason behind higher belt-lines is for aerodynamics. I can see the purpose of that, but then there's cars like a decade-old Lexus LS430 that are just as aerodynamic (or moreso) than new cars, without having such exaggerated qualities.

The new Impala has a drag coefficient of 0.296, whereas the Lexus is 0.26. That Lexus' advantage improves with an air suspension, which reduces that rating to 0.25. The Impala should more aerodynamic than the LS, seeing that it has a number of wind blockers, grille shutters* and and underside aeropanels*. The Impala's about four and a half inches longer than the Lexus (201.3 versus 196.7), yet it's still less aerodynamic. Examining the Lexus closely, you can find a few intentional ripples in the bodywork, but adding all those cues together just doesn't compare to the Impala's very chiseled, sculpted bodywork. Basically, I'm wondering out loud why the Impala, despite having a more advanced and advantageous design, falls short of the outdated Lexus that sports a rather basic, upright design.

Of course, the other big reason behind this is safety. The LS430 has side curtain airbags and torso airbags for the front seats. The Impala has side curtain airbags, torso airbags for the front and rear seats. The IIHS say the new Impala is very safe, scoring good in moderate frontal overlap and side impact test. Unfortunately, I was not able to find a side impact statistic for the Lexus' side impact score, but the same source indicated that it scored good in the moderate frontal overlap test. The Impala will probably hold the higher side impact score, since it has more airbags for that region.

So the Lexus is more aerodynamic than the Impala, but falls short of it in airbag count and possible side impact scores. What I'm wondering is how essential the Impala's very high-waisted design is to its good safety rating, since I'm not too educated on the matter.

*four cylinder only

 

[Tornado]

People actually buy those Jeeps? I'm starting to think that only thing wrong in Pontiac Aztec was the fact that they sold it 10 years too early.

VehiCROSS was too.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

@Slash I actually agree with you about the P1. It's very, very functional, but having seen one in person, it looks kind of cheap. It just doesn't look like the quality product that it is, because the styling tries too hard.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

I don't think modern cars are ugly. I will say this: it's much harder to design a classically beautiful car today. Cars now are bigger, fatter, and far more regulated. Between aerodynamics and safety regulations, the "average" car today isn't very pretty. However, a lot of average cars are very nice looking, and there are some cars out there that are absolute stunners. Mercedes CLA, Alfa 4C, BMW i3, Jaguar F-Type, BMW i8, Porsche Cayman, Citroen DS5, etc.

The biggest thing, though, is that style is personal. History has rooted out most of the boring or ugly cars, so when we think of old cars, we think of the pretty ones, so we all "agree" that old cars look good.

Exactly. We remember the Giulias and the 156's, but not the Arna.

Are modern car designs ugly? Sure, some of them can be. Just as they could be in every single decade before, too. But design is different now, almost to the point you can't really compare them anyway: it's sort of like art. Nobody can say Impressionism is "better" than Art Deco, or vice-versa. Taste is subjective, and in no doubt affected by some heavy rose tinting in some cases. I appreciate the simple, feminine curves of a Ferrari 250 Lusso, but I'm also a huge fan of the BMW i8's relentless modernity: they are both, in their own ways, very good.

What doesn't appeal to me is boring design. Things like these:

Do nothing to further the idea that cars can be art.

 

[RandomCarGuy17]

People actually buy those Jeeps? I'm starting to think that only thing wrong in Pontiac Aztec was the fact that they sold it 10 years too early.

Yes, I've seen quite a few of the new Cherokees around where I live.

Anyway, I don't think modern car designs are all ugly to be honest. It's more of what people have said already, design for cars change in general overtime.

vs

Yeah, I'm going to say that I prefer the top one. The bottom Nissan just looks bland in comparison.