Detroit News columnist John McCormic joins the chorus of Detroit cheerleaders who echo GM Car Czar Bob Lutz' infamous rallying cry against the transplants' hugely popular products: "soulless appliances!" McCormick's rant was inspired by a Sin City tete-a-tete with ex-Toyota appliance maker and current Chrysler co-Veep Jim Press. After telegraphing the new Chrysler's new party line– damn! we're fast!– the auto scribe portrays Press as an exec on the horns of a dilemma. "Some customers really love the passion and emotion of cars," Press told Big Mac. "When you drive the Viper or the new Challenger, the hair on the back of your neck stands up." And then, a confession. "There are many customers who want to drive appliances and we've got to get better at giving them appliances." The answer? Give 'em both! And there you have it: a "new paradigm" for a resurgent Motown. "Press is not alone in recognizing this viewpoint. General Motors has been laboring hard over the last few years to create a new overall formula for dependable and engaging vehicles and the results are showing in the U.S. market. So too has Ford, although with more success on the dependable side of the equation than the appealing element." Hey, who can argue with that?
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
This is essentially the formula followed by Mazda for the Mazda3 compact sedan. It is a great car, but its popularity is equally attributable to the rational and emotional aspects of the buying decision.
I’ve never understood the design philosophy of “appliance cars” vs “passionate cars”. Many car companies have been successfully pulling off both traits in cars for years.
My most recent car – an Infiniti G35X, makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up, gets decent (not great) gas mileage, is reliable, has all-wheel drive, has plenty of room for the wife and kid, and is generally a joy to own.
If an American car company can give me that for $10,000 less, I’ll be the first in line to buy one.
C’mon Detroit – the formula for success isn’t that hard, but it does take a little work.
“When you drive the Viper or the new Challenger, the hair on the back of your neck stands up.”
What, exactly, is Press telling me about these cars? The last time the hair on the back of my neck stood up, it was because my brakes had failed.
KixStart:
What are you, a Vulcan? Usually failed brakes = shitted britches, atleast where I am from..
Several post-2003 Infiniti models successfully meld industry leading design and performance with appliance-like quality, reliability and durability.
The Infiniti FX blends an SUV lower body with a sleek, elegant upper body reminiscent of a classic sports GT. An award winning engine and strong drivetrain yields sports car performance with SUV functionality.
FX design cues are appearing in competitors’ products.
Maybe Kix Start drives a manual tranny car with a hand emergency brake?
I drove a ’65 Buick LeSabre as a youngster; thankfully, the “Shift Into Low at 60MPH Super Turbine 400” autobox saved my bacon more than once, as the finned-drums all around felt (when hauling down that boat) like the brake shoes were 8 bars of Ivory Soap :-)
The silly term “automotive appliance” has become the new catch phase in the auto industry. It is OK to see the folks throw this term around in all of the online forums but it is sad and rather scary to see the Detroit execs start to take this phase seriously.
For the Leadership in the big 2.8 to take this phase to heart means that therse companies are beginning to believe in the fantasy of their own marketing and advertising press.
In all honesty, Chevy and Ford in their heyday did not look to sell “excitement”.Just as Honda, Nissan, and Toyota today do not attempt to create and sell the most exciting car in today’s market. Their success is due to the simple fact that they strive to just make and sell good, competent, nice cars that represent VALUE.
Since I have been paying serious attention to the auto industry 22 years ago the domestics have continuously missed the mark trying to sell “excitement”. 99% of folks do NOT wish to drive around in a “batmobile” or a wannabe racecar. Most folks seem to like conservatively or shall we say “seriously” styled vehicles. Witness the success of such cars like the Volvo 740/760, mid 1980s 3 series, just about all VWs up until the latest styling change, the Jeep Wrangler and Cherokee, orginial Ford Tauras, and of course the Accord and Camry.
Most of the so called enthusaist here talk a lot of trash about how they hate “appliances” but then love to belly ache about how oh so ugly the Chris Bangle BMWs are.
Face facts a $25,000 family sedan IS an “appliance” no matter how you look at it. A company can use marketing and advertising to try and infuse an “image” onto a particular product but at the end of the day it is what it is!
The person buying a 328i is buying that particular car for the exact same reason as the guy who is writing the check on an Accord, they need a transportation device or shall we say “appliance”. With the exception of the relatively few buyers that will put “passion” before necessity people buy automobiles based on what they NEED. Can it carry 4-5 passangers in comfort? Does it have enough trunk space? Will it handle safely in bad weather? Will it get mileage I can actually afford? Most folk I know require a yes answer to all of the above questions when buying a car.
If a fun to drive car misses on these points most buyer will pass on a vehicle built primarily for “excitement”.
Of course Honda could make the Accord a bit more “exciting”. Needless to say it would cost a bit more than standard Accord. Guees what Honda already does and it is called an Acura TL.
I have been in the new Malipoo.. Nothing to write home about.
Shaker: “… as the finned-drums all around felt (when hauling down that boat) like the brake shoes were 8 bars of Ivory Soap :-)”
I’m thinking that’s a “TTAC Phrase of the Day” nomination.
As regards my own experience, I assure you that what I said at the time wasn’t an imperturbable “Fascinating” and it prompted my wife to say, “I thought we weren’t teaching those words to the children?”
But I not only tell the children to “go before we get in the car,” I practice what I preach, so soiled short were not in the offing. An ounce of prevention…
It was a VW EuroVan. Does “fahrvergneugen” mean, “Oh, sh!t?”
What whatdoiknow1 said goes for me too.
Not every ‘appliance’ needs to look like one. Even a Maytag will look cool with the right design.
The funny thing is that actual appliances have become more diverse, technological and expensive in recent years. Five thousand dollar Sub-Zeros and ten thousand dollar commercial ovens are all the rage now. How about those washers and dryers in bright metallic paints selling for over $1500 each?
As far as the notion that Japan builds boring cars and the US makes interesting ones, it’s BS. Other than the Mustang there isn’t a single thing in the US Ford/Lincoln/Mercury lineup oozing with passion and style. Take away Corvette and Cadillac and GM’s line-up is likewise a snooze fest. Chrysler had cornered the market on vehicles-inspired-by-cartoons (well, Hummer has a piece as well), but Chrysler’s volume models are hardly the things dreams are made of.
This American=Passionate, Japanese=Boring line of reasoning is pure rubbish. Plenty of Miata, NSX, Evo and WRX owners are passionate about their rides right out of the box just as Corvette, Viper and Mustang owners are. Countless young folks have tortured their Civics and Integras with more passion than those poor cars deserve to have inflicted on them. When people under the age of 30 today hot rod a car it typically started out as a Japanese vehicle.
It isn’t only the internet which is filled with BS! (see the In Defense of In Defense of Saab article on TTAC)
Give me an “appliance” any day. “Enthusiast” or “performance” cars usually have too many compromises.
cramped
noisy
cheap feeling
rough riding
uncomfortable seats
either all that or very expensive
jthorner:
“As far as the notion that Japan builds boring cars and the US makes interesting ones, it’s BS”
Yeah… I honestly don’t know anyone who’d equate American cars with excitement. Just over the 90s and 2000s, the Japanese have had some amazingly fun cars (some of them were cheap, some more expensive – without going into supercar territory, but fun nonetheless):
Integra GS-R and Type-R
RSX Type S
Civic Si
CRX
3000GT
Eclipse GS-T and GS-X
Evo
Sentra SE-R
240SX
300Z and 350Z
Supra
Celica Alltrac and GT-S (well, GT was fun too)
Miata
RX-7 and RX-8
WRX and STi
The only fun American cars from that period that I can recall (again, that weren’t supercars) were Corvette, Mustang, and Camaro, with GTO, Solstice, and Sky coming in just recently. I can’t for the life of me remember a small, inexpensive, fun to drive American car. Laser was a rebadged Eclipse, so it doesn’t count
Most of the talk of appliance vs. excitement cars assumes a binary market split, as though an exciting car cannot have appliance attributes, and vice-versa. The auto spectrum is more diversified and there are many overlaps. Appliance, excitement, performance, sports, gentleman’s GTs, etc., etc. But I think most of these characterizations miss the essential point some of the execs noted are trying to articulate.
Design is driving LG into the laundry and kitchen appliance market. Sony and Apple have used design as competitive weapons to infuse technical products with soul and “gotta-have-it” appeal. Look at what people will pony up for Sonus Faber loudspeakers, sometimes even without hearing them. China is bringing designer furniture down to blue collar prices enabling a new class of retailers to grab market share from incumbents. Drama sells, especially when it is married to utility and reliability.
The appliance cars are simply functional but they lack design appeal that excites emotion, pride and expression. Performance cars make utility sacrifices for an element of style and capability. In the modern car market, we don’t have much in between, but this is not as it always was.
The American market has a lot of continuing nostalgia for the design elements of 1950s automobiles, including the Rococo excesses near the end of the decade, because the time is remembered for its rosy simplicity and optimism. No matter the social dysfunctions swept under the rug, and the backdrop of fear engendered by the Cold War and its nuclear threat. But the 1950s don’t point the way back to what these executives are aiming for.
They may not know it, given the woefully scant institutional memories of the car companies, but they are looking for Bill Mitchell’s eye.
As GM’s design chief after Harley Earl, Mitchell oversaw the styling of an extraordinary run of sensationally beautiful cars that average people could own. He arguably displayed the best sustained aesthetic judgment of any automotive design chief so far. Bill Mitchell’s cars were clean and expressive. They made people feel successful rather than merely competent, which is what today’s appliance cars communicate. Not just smart, but enviable. We’re never going to get out of the emotion attached to the fact that we “wear” our cars. Else, why would so many moms and wives eliminate wonderfully useful minivans from their short lists? The pessimism and austerity of the 1970s broke the design lineage of the auto companies pretty much worldwide, and while things have gotten much better in the last 10 to 15 years, we’re not back to what we enjoyed between, say, 1962 and 1972 in the United States.
During that tumultuous but prosperous decade, GM’s cars towered over every other volume carmaker’s in terms of sheer design integrity and visual appeal. 1962 Chevrolet Impala, 1963 – 65 Buick Riviera, the “Mid-Year” Corvettes, 1965-7 Impala/Caprice, 1965 Pontiac Bonneville, 1965 – 69 Corvair, 1966 Oldsmobile Toronado, 1966-7 Oldsmobile Delta 88, 1968 Pontiac GTO, 1967 Camaro, 1969 Camaro, 1970 thin bumper Camaro, 1968 Impala/Caprice, 1966-7 Malibu. 1968 Malibu. 1971-2 Buick Riviera. 1969-72 Oldsmobile 442. El Dorados throughout the ’60s. Prosaic Chevy Novas. Pontiac Catalina. And this isn’t a remotely comprehensive list.
Put aside for a moment 1960s engineering we’d now judge differently. The predominant feature of this era was that average working stiffs owned cars that were beautiful even in their base configurations. A 1965 Caprice sedan had been to finishing school; the Impala carried panache, but even the lowly Biscayne shared the upper models’ fresh face, proportions, skin and bones. Interiors, too, were styled rather than merely arranged. Ergonomics weren’t anyone’s first concern and took a back seat to visual appeal. But visual appeal motivated folks. Now, a good designer can do both. When GM was selling more than 1 million Impalas annually, the appliances of the day that were beautiful had selling advantage over those that weren’t. Except for the Mustang, Cougar, and the slab-sided Lincolns, Ford seemed forever behind. Chrysler Corp got fresh with the Plymouth Satellite and Road Runner, the latter Gen 2 ‘Cuda, the Challenger and the sleek 1968 Charger, but for the most part couldn’t match Bill Mitchell’s vision for the power of design appeal in mainstream sedans.
People are still hungry for style, but they’re getting tofu and wild oats. A Cadillac had more craft and detail, but its essential beauty was bred in the forms that blue collar buyers could drive.
You can say that the auto market has evolved to a more knowledgeable and sophisticated buyer. But emotion is still the latent driver that puts people in new cars before the car they’re driving begs for replacement. The lost link between design and identity, between style and expression, echoed in the rise of the SUV, in the initial market rapture that greeted half-hearted efforts like the New Beetle, the PT Cruiser, Thunderbird. Only in the famished context of 2005 could the current Mustang be a design-driven hit. Would Cadillac have begun its road back without Art & Science? I doubt it.
Bill Mitchell and the GM wrapped around him led with drama and emotion, and they weren’t elitists. The common man wasn’t denied style; he could be a participant in a world moving up market, even if most of the rest of his life wasn’t.
The utilitarians bleached our world 30 years ago, and then threw sand in our eyes to scratch our corneas raw. An idea got planted that design had to be slave to form, and appliance-like reliability and utility was only attainable at the expense of expression. The minivan drove another stake through the heart of emotional appeal, leaving the 1980s a visual desert of rolling stock that obliterated memory of roads filled with highly-distinctive cars. The Italians packed their bags as their cars dissolved like Alka-Seltzer tablets left in the rain. The curvilinear British sports cars melted away from view. Mustangs regained their V8 but lost their drama. Camaros grew Nascar overhangs. Squared-off Crown Vics and Caprices looked purposeful but bleak. Even Ferrari lost its judgment poorly resolving the tension between vividness and elegance. Jaguar stopped evolving. The Germans could only give us shoebox and sausage forms. Japan Inc. seared our retinas with intense offense. Our roadscape became bleached of imagination.
Today, every car company knows how to deliver a car that works. Buy anything, and it’s going to start and get you to work on time. Fit and finish are exemplary compared to the best 1960s standards. Handling, performance, safety and environmental impact are refined beyond the technical imagination of 1965. But cars aren’t stirring us in the same way, yet people want to be stirred.
GM is finding its way back, tentatively. Solstice and Sky regardless of their ergonomic missteps — are widely regarded as beautiful cars in terms of exterior design. Cadillacs have visual drama that is polarizing in a healthy way. Only Corvette among Chevies brings visual drama to the fight. Camaro promises to dial up your pulse. Malibu is sleek, but it is still too timid to reinstate the aesthetic genetics of its best forebearers. When can we get an Impala borne from an update of Bill Mitchell’s heritage? G8 and G6 score solid singles in our ascetic context. Lucerne and LaCrosse telegraph a modicum of indulgence. Ford is still searching. It’s learned clean, but imagination eludes J Mays. Whatever won him his job at Ford seems to have been exhausted before his first day on the job. Chrysler believe, but they’ve been short on taste. Though give them credit: Enzo Ferrari said the Jeep CJ was America’s one true sports car and the Wrangler has been managed to that standard of late. Would he think the Wrangler Unlimited to be our true sports sedan?
Japan has mastered repeatability and the current Detroit 3 have absorbed the lesson. The Koreans aren’t loafing. Europe persists on craft, but has trouble with the bulletproofing. BMW and Mercedes have been trying their hand at expressive ham-handedly, with mixed results. Jaguar has an unsteady hand but unfailingly avoids tastelessness. Audi tweaks bauhaus 25 years on. Aston-Martin knows beauty in small volumes. Maserati defines the modern standard for gorgeousness but all of their production must have been shipped to Los Angeles.
Detroit must end the traditional trade-off between utility and beauty. Today there is only one truly lovely four-door sedan on the entire planet: the Maserati Quattroporte. In the 1960s, the elements of beauty that make the stratospheric Maser so singularly enlightening to the roadscape today were available to working stiffs raising families on the hourly wage. Bill Mitchell’s eye for beauty and drama, alloyed with his willingness and ability to design gorgeous cars for mass manufacturing, points the way to competitive edge for the Detroit 3, or any carmaker looking to roll back Toyota’s gains.
Phil
I realize mine is a minority opinion, (at least at TTAC) but I don’t think people are looking for all that much style or excitement in cars. They don’t mind if the car looks nice, but that comes after reliability, economy, and other factors.
I remember Biscaynes from my youth, and I don’t recall ever associating them with style. They were boring cubes for the man who was cheap and wanted the rest of the world to know it. Plain doesn’t even begin to describe the Biscayne.
Ford found that the market for brand new ’55 T-birds was very limited. That’s why RetroBird is no longer with us. In a few more years, they’ll find that the market for freshened up ’68 Mustangs has been satiated. (As an aside, I like the retro bird very much, and would like to have one, if it’s not too used up.)
PT Cruiser has been more successful, probably because it isn’t trying to recapture the “magic” of any actual past car. When new, it was different, and fresh, and I admit that appealed to some people just for it’s styling. But the popularity is waning, even while people continue to buy butt-ugly appliances.
Corvette is a great design (whether you like it or not. I don’t, particularly) because it’s not trying to look retro. Over the decades, it’s changed, but slowly, so it’s always continued to look like a ‘vette. It keeps it’s association with past design, w/o trying to recapture the past.
One concern is that when Detroit starts to talk style, they may think their work on quality/reliability is done. It’s not. Nor will it ever be. Another concern is that they seem to think the Japanese inherently can’t build nice looking cars, and somehow they (the D3) can gain a market advantage with styling. But other posters have listed sporty nice looking offerings from Japan. Just because Japan makes some butt-ugly cars doesn’t mean they are incapable of good styling.
For what little my opinion may be worth, style is a tertiary concern (if it’s even that high) for most buyers. That Toyota can sell the new Camry, to people who are not blind and have at least heard of the word aesthetics is mind boggling. Yet, that’s reality.
I’m not saying style plays no part at all, but if Detroit thinks it’s going to start gaining market share (or even quit loosing market share) because of how it bends the sheetmetal, they’re in for some real disapointment.
Having said the above, there is a place for style to be a deciding factor. When two or more cars are on the same platform and have largely the same specifications, one might choose the nicer looking of the two – assuming only a small price differential. A good example might be the Malibu/Aura. If the new ‘Bu meets my needs, then so does the Aura. Why not get the nicer looking one? Mercury is another example. The brand exists, as far as I can see, only by giving Ford buyers a slightly nicer looking version of the same car.
I remember Biscaynes from my youth, and I don’t recall ever associating them with style. They were boring cubes for the man who was cheap and wanted the rest of the world to know it. Plain doesn’t even begin to describe the Biscayne.
You’re not thinking of the 1965/6/7 version. There was nothing cubey about it. Earlier? Sure.
They don’t mind if the car looks nice, but that comes after reliability, economy, and other factors.
I’m talking about ending the trade-off. Throughout consumer sectors, people decidedly respond to style as a differentiator if utility is present. And sometimes when it’s compromised.
Ford found that the market for brand new ‘55 T-birds was very limited. That’s why RetroBird is no longer with us. In a few more years, they’ll find that the market for freshened up ‘68 Mustangs has been satiated. (As an aside, I like the retro bird very much, and would like to have one, if it’s not too used up.)
Yes, because Ford lacked imagination. Finding Bill Mitchell’s spirit is about looking forward, not back.
PT Cruiser has been more successful, probably because it isn’t trying to recapture the “magic” of any actual past car.
It blatantly references 1930s Fords and Chryslers.
One concern is that when Detroit starts to talk style, they may think their work on quality/reliability is done. It’s not. Nor will it ever be.
This is ending.
Another concern is that they seem to think the Japanese inherently can’t build nice looking cars, and somehow they (the D3) can gain a market advantage with styling. But other posters have listed sporty nice looking offerings from Japan. Just because Japan makes some butt-ugly cars doesn’t mean they are incapable of good styling.
So far, despite Japanese culture’s excellent design, craft and art heritage, engaging beautiful design hasn’t been a sustained strength of any Japanese carmaker. A few models have made notable exceptions.
That Toyota can sell the new Camry, to people who are not blind and have at least heard of the word aesthetics is mind boggling. Yet, that’s reality.
In the current context of aesthetic poverty in mainstream automotive styling, the Camry isn’t so objectionable. In a richer environment for automotive panache where more emotion was married to similar quality, Camry’s other virtues would be somewhat less competitive or valued. People will care when a design advantage is put in front of them worth caring about.
I’m not saying style plays no part at all, but if Detroit thinks it’s going to start gaining market share (or even quit loosing market share) because of how it bends the sheetmetal, they’re in for some real disappointment.
You’ve seemingly missed the point about delivering both quality and style.
Having said the above, there is a place for style to be a deciding factor. When two or more cars are on the same platform and have largely the same specifications, one might choose the nicer looking of the two – assuming only a small price differential. A good example might be the Malibu/Aura. If the new ‘Bu meets my needs, then so does the Aura. Why not get the nicer looking one? Mercury is another example. The brand exists, as far as I can see, only by giving Ford buyers a slightly nicer looking version of the same car.
Or, design differentiation can enlarge the aggregate market for a platform by appealing to multiple aesthetic sensibilities on the same engineering.
Phil
“It blatantly references 1930s Fords and Chryslers.”
Looks more like a ’40s inspiration to me, though I’d agree it has some Airflow cues.
“I’m talking about ending the trade-off. …”
Me too. Even w/o the trade-off, styling is down the priority list.
“You’re not thinking of the 1965/6/7 version. There was nothing cubey about it. Earlier? Sure.”
Ok, but still very plain.
“So far, despite Japan culture’s excellent design, craft and art heritage, engaging beautiful design hasn’t been a sustained strength of any Japanese carmaker. A few models have made notable exceptions.”
Ditto for the American car makers.
“You’ve seemingly missed the point about delivering both quality and style.”
No, I havn’t. I understand the intent is to offer both at the same time. They assume they have (or at least might be able to attain) an advantage over their competition in this regard. Not true.
“Or, design differentiation can enlarge the aggregate market for a platform by appealing to multiple aesthetic sensibilities on the same engineering.”
Agreed.
“You’re not thinking of the 1965/6/7 version. There was nothing cubey about it. Earlier? Sure.”
Ok, but still very plain.
As a base stripper, sure the car lacked the details of the up-models, but the essential beauty of the design form was preserved. Compared to strippers before and since, those Bill Mitchell base models were unusually sophisticated visually.
“So far, despite Japan culture’s excellent design, craft and art heritage, engaging beautiful design hasn’t been a sustained strength of any Japanese carmaker. A few models have made notable exceptions.”
Ditto for the American car makers.
If you consider both country’s automotive industries as a whole over their history, the incidence of engaging, beautiful design from American carmakers has been much more common than for Japan’s. That country’s design heritage in craft and architecture has not seeped into industrial design for mainstream personal transportation. Mazda seems most intent on changing that.
No, I haven’t. I understand the intent is to offer both at the same time. They assume they have (or at least might be able to attain) an advantage over their competition in this regard. Not true.
At least as you’ve expressed it, this doesn’t make sense. If the American carmakers deliver more compelling design that the marketplace rewards with renewed attention and preference, and they do so while matching overall quality and utility, that will be advantage. If you’re contesting that the “ifs” here aren’t possible from Detroit, then say that. But if you aren’t ruling out the ifs as being attainable, then advantage prevails.
Phil
“As a base stripper, sure the car lacked the details of the up-models, but the essential beauty of the design form was preserved. Compared to strippers before and since, those Bill Mitchell base models were unusually sophisticated visually.”
You’re entitled to your opinion, but I see nothing very sophisticated about the ’68 Chevies.
“If you consider both country’s automotive industries as a whole over their history, the incidence of engaging, beautiful design from American carmakers has been much more common than for Japan’s. …”
I see no evidence of that. The vast majority of what has been produced, by both countries is mediocre to ugly.
“At least as you’ve expressed it, this doesn’t make sense. If the American carmakers deliver more compelling design that the marketplace rewards with renewed attention and preference, and they do so while matching overall quality and utility, that will be advantage. If you’re contesting that the “ifs” here aren’t possible from Detroit, then say that. But if you aren’t ruling out the ifs as being attainable, then advantage prevails.”
I could easily rephrase that and say “If the Japanese carmakers deliver more compelling desing that the marketplace rewards with renewed attention and preference, and they do so while matching overall quality and utility, that will be an advantage”.
“If” is the operative word. I see no reason to think it’s likely that Detroit can attain any lasting advantage in styling. I’m not saying it’s impossible for Detroit to come up with a great looking car – not at all – just that it provides no lasting advantage. The Japanese can make great designs too. The advantage only prevails “if” the “ifs” are attained, and only for as long as the styling remains superior – which wouldn’t be long.
Even if we assume (wrongly in my view) that the Japanese just can’t cut the mustard when it comes to styling, what prevents them from hiring an Italian design studio to do that for them? (Or even an American design studio?)
Americans have no inherently superior aesthetic sensibility, thus no real advantage will obtain, overall. Here and there, a “WOW” design might sell some cars, but then other manufacturers will either mimick, or surpass that design.
I’m sure if we were all living in 1965 the Chevy Biscayne would be considered as bland as an Accord is today. It’s the commonality that makes it boring not the style. The minivans were considered striking in 1984 but dull now.
f8- Ford Focus, Dodge Neon, Chevy Cobalt SS, Saturn Ion Redline
You forgot the Toyota MR2
Don’t forget the Jeep Wrangler, Hummer H3, Jeep Cherokee which aren’t fun in the track driving sense but in the rock climbing way.
I say a Suburban or Expedition is fun because it can hold all your drunken buddies (or kids) and tow your boat or camper.
” As GM’s design chief after Harley Earl, Mitchell oversaw the styling of an extraordinary run of sensationally beautiful cars that average people could own. He arguably displayed the best sustained aesthetic judgment of any automotive design chief so far. ”
Well imagine this, I find myself completely in agreement with Phil!
With respect to “plain” vs “beautiful…”
I see a Maserati Quattroporte periodically. It’s distinctive enough that both a friend and I recognized it right away, beautiful enough that we want one and it’s still very “plain.”
The opposite of “plain” is “ornate.” Neither of which is synonymous with “beautiful.”
Think about Shaker furniture. Or a Hitchcock chair.
The previous generation of Buicks, I thought they were very attractive, although I’d rate them a bit less so than the Maserati. They did have a few more syling details and rather than assist in any material way, I think they didn’t hurt much.
And design is personal. I’ve heard people compliment the new Buick CUV but I don’t care for it. I think it’s possible to make things that are considered almost universally ugly but very difficult to make someting nearly universally regarded as beautiful.
davey – I second the nomination for the 1st gen neon. Until the mini came along, it was best in its SCCA class for AutoX and even circuit racing. NASA even has a Spec Neon class now. I’ve had two of them. Few people seem to remember that the neon redefined the subcompact class in terms of room and performance. The engines were powerful (compared to the competition) and remarkable efficient when mated to manual trannies. In the world of Sport Compacts, the neon and its SRT4 derivative are virtually the only respected US cars.
IC Turbo- unfortunately the Neon is the poster child for domestic brand poor quality as of late. Imagine how respected it would’ve been if Chrysler had made them correctly.
KixStart- probably my favorite design is that of the XJ Jeep Cherokee- I think that is a fairly simple design
Styling does matter. The question isn’t whether it isn’t important, but who will bother paying extra for it, how much they’ll pay and whether they’ll trade off styling for other product features.
Some buyers are strictly pragmatic. They don’t care much about styling, and a few of them may even be turned off by it, believing that they are paying hidden costs for it that they don’t want to pay. For them, styling is irrelevant, or “blandness” may communicate a message that they want to send.
To a few buyers, styling is critical or a very high priority. They will reject a car that they otherwise prefer in favor of the more attractive one.
A very small part of the market wants a car that has enough aftermarket modifications available that it is possible to alter the car to make a personal statement. To satisfy this crowd, the automaker needs to provide a good canvas and enough interest from the aftermarket that the mod-happy owner has plenty of surgical options available.
I believe that most buyers want some element of style, but that they have other expectations as well — the desire for style is not an all-or-nothing requirement. It’s a matter of buyers having several priorities simultaneously and making a choice that takes all of them into account, with some compromises made along the way. Better styling may tip the balance for some purchases, while in other cases may not be enough.
The Camry and the Bangle styling cues that inspired it are subject to a lot of derision in discussions such as these. But it should be noted that Toyota made these styling changes precisely because market research indicated that prospective buyers of the previous generation Camry who bought something else instead, did so primarily because of their dislike of the Camry’s styling. As has been the case with the BMW’s, the latest Camry body style has been quite successful, so I’d say that the enthusiasts have missed the mark in so far as popular opinion goes.
The most recent Chrysler 300 had a good run in the marketplace prior to the run up in fuel prices because of styling. The current Mustang had similar fortune, in large part because of styling. (That, and there are no other pony cars left to buy.) The last generation Altima, G35 and 350Z were turnaround products for Nissan because of styling. The MINI and New Beetle were both successful in large part because of styling. And I have no doubt that styling helped to sell the Prius, as it allowed the buyer to articulate to the world that his or her was different, unique and had a purpose.
So clearly, styling has its place. And the good thing about styling is that it’s free — bad styling isn’t really any cheaper than good styling, and there is no negative trade off between making something attractive and making it ugly. If a car is appealing (which, to correct myself, is not necessarily attractive) and also reliable, useful, etc. what could possibly be wrong with that?
So there’s no good reason not to provide decent styling. If you want to sell high volumes, then you can’t make the styles too polarizing, a compromise that may encourage some of the uber-critics to criticize that middle-ground as “soulless appliance” territory. But if a Cobalt is supposed to be someone’s idea of soulful, then I guess that I ain’t got no soul. (Be wary of the irony, Mr. Lutz. We’re not laughing with you, we’re laughing at you.)
There was a reference in an earlier post “Design is driving LG into the laundry and kitchen appliance market”.
Hopefully no auto manufacturer will use them as a model…
http://www.marco.org/79
whatdoiknow1 has it right. Strange how Camrys and Accords can be derided as appliances yet not the Ford 150 or the Chevy Silverado. How come they’re not soul less appliances?
Strange how Camrys and Accords can be derided as appliances yet not the Ford 150 or the Chevy Silverado. How come they’re not soul less appliances?
There are many more F150s on the road than Camrys or Accords, yet people don’t have the same reaction labelling them soulless. There are two reasons for this. First, the F150 is a truck, so it has a strong visual presence. Second, its tie to work, west, and individualism is culturally resonant in the US. The white featureless pickup in fleets might be an appliance, but the vehicle genre is loaded with emotion. A truck has a reputation for strength and durability. It has permanence and while a given design ages, it never looks out of place. Cars become dated much faster.
The Camry and Accord typify what’s happened to the mainstream sedan — bland and conforming. They aren’t the only guilty models, as this unfortunate aesthetic has infected the entire genre. The Japanese appliance styling had its roots in small cars, where there’s simply less surface for visual expression. The Italians broke through this decades ago with the Fiat 500, the Brits with the original Mini, and Honda with the original 600. But is didn’t last. The efficiency aesthetic in the 1980s homogenized auto design, and emotion shifted to trucks. Ironically, now the Camry and Accord have ballooned to proportions that offer acres of sheetmetal for expansive design, but these companies don’t seem to know how to infuse this bigger canvas with emotion. Or they don’t want to — hard to say. But all other things being roughly competitive, their lack of design expression is an opening for anyone trying to catch up to their sales volume in the sector.
Phil
davey49:
“f8- Ford Focus, Dodge Neon, Chevy Cobalt SS, Saturn Ion Redline”
I’m assuming you mean the SVT Focus and the turbo Neon (since neither Focus nor Neon are fun to drive in base form.) I missed the cars you mentioned, that’s true, but those cars were made in response to fun Japanese hatchbacks, and were way too late and not nearly as good. Yeah, SVT Focus is decent, but I wouldn’t take one over an Integra GSR or an RSX. Cobalt SS and Redline are just late attempts by the GM to cash in on the “fast and furious” craze, complete with stupid wings, kits, large wheels, and no redeeming characteristics besides a blown engine. Sporty Japanese FWD cars have always been far more refined in handling and power, and they have been around for much, much longer – the Neon/Redline/SS are just domestics trying to catch up and failing.
“You forgot the Toyota MR2”
I did, I’m kicking myself over that. I forgot the S2000 as well.
“Don’t forget the Jeep Wrangler, Hummer H3, Jeep Cherokee which aren’t fun in the track driving sense but in the rock climbing way.”
Yeah, I wasn’t going to go there, since I don’t know that segment too well. Still, I’m pretty sure that Toyota and Nissan had some strong entries to compete with Jeep toe-to-toe.
There was a reference in an earlier post “Design is driving LG into the laundry and kitchen appliance market”.
Hopefully no auto manufacturer will use them as a model…
http://www.marco.org/79
Yeah, LG’s record for reliability in electronics is poor. In home appliances, they seem to be doing much better. Nevertheless, they are leading with a design hand to stand out, as is Samsung. Both Koreans started out with bottom-feeder brands and began their push to parity with the incumbents, modern industrial design led their push while quality progressed but lagged. They’ve also forced the incumbents out of their former design straightjacket.
Phil
davey – I’ve been saying the same thing for a long time about neons. If only they didn’t have beancounted headgaskets and peeling paint. The peeling paint issues were only on the basic colors. If you had a pearl coat or similar or a 97 or later they had good paint. Unfortunately, the headgaskets were not really fixed until halfway through the 98 model year.
As for being durable, my 97 went to 216k miles (original clutch still) with the headgasket being changed at 90k miles. Other than that routine maintenance. It would have went farther had Chrysler put in a decent oil pan. The stock one has no baffles, so I sucked it dry and spun a bearing around a hard corner.
f8 – No, I am actually talking 1st gen neons. I had a 95 (not my fault accident killed it) and a 97 and even the base (Highline) suspension cars were great handling cars. The R/T came with better dampers, and the ACR had factory adjustable struts (Arvin then Koni). Then of course there was the neon challenge series. I could be wrong, but I think that evolved into the Touring Car series we have today. The racing success combined with the sport compact scene is what brought about the SRT4 concept in 2000(?) and production in 2003.
The cars were pretty quick too. Stock manual tranny cars were in the 15’s in the 1/4 for both engines (DOHC faster) and it didn’t take much to drop into the 14’s. The autos were slow (high 17’s at best) and hampered by only having 3 ratios. The 4 speed auto didn’t come out in neons until 2002 IIRC.
As far as this thread goes, I won’t buy an American appliance car. They don’t make one I’d buy. I only buy cars with manual transmissions, so the pickings are slim from Detroit. I could get a Cobalt SS or SRT4, but I have a fun car already, an SR swapped 240SX. I won’t buy a Mustang for the same reason and Corvette is out of my league for now. That leaves the upcoming Challenger (see Mustang) or the still upcoming G8 which I would actually consider. Of course I could be in a Ford Fusion I4, or its chassis mate Mazda 6 if I wanted a V6.
“The Camry and Accord typify what’s happened to the mainstream sedan — bland and conforming.”
The 2008 Accord is about as good looking of a car as you can buy in the mid-price four door sedan market.
http://automobiles.honda.com/accord-sedan/exterior-photos.aspx
Then there is the new 2008 Malibu which will compete with it:
http://cars.about.com/od/chevrolet/ig/2008-Chevrolet-Malibu-gallery/
From some angles the new Malibu looks pretty good, but from others it is just off. The rear end 3/4 view is especially clumsy. Have a look at the transitions from the rear wheel wells to the actual tail of the car to have a real head-scratching experience. The attempt to harken back to early 60s Chevrolet dashboards doesn’t come off very well either. The headlight treatment is too much like the now-last-generation Accord.
Compared to either of these the Fusion trio simply looks boring and dated and the Camry remains a What The **** looking beast.
The 2008 Accord is about as good looking of a car as you can buy in the mid-price four door sedan market.
Which is exactly the problem, isn’t it?
Phil
I think the new version is quite nice. It looks like it belongs in the 21st century. I’m tired of all these recent automotive designs which play off of “nostalgia”. Cars like the beetle had a certain form as a result of their function and a sense of elegance as a result of their simplicity. All these new cars with retro styling just seem forced. Their makers are simply milking your memories for money.
Here’s a thought maybe the actual owners, the ones who actually chose and then paid money for their rides have a different taste for looks and aesthetics from the critics. I owned a 91 accord coupe and a 2000 coupe. I absolutely loved the the way both of them looked, especially the 2000.