Find Reviews by Make:
Via Motorauthority come these first official images of Mercedes’ 2010 E-Class Coupe. Daimler claims a frontal Cd of .24 for its CLK replacement, “a figure that is comparable with cars like the Toyota Prius and upcoming Chevrolet Volt.” And as much as the romantic in me wants to believe that solid aerodynamics lend an innate beauty to a vehicle’s design, the three vehicles mentioned seem to make the opposite argument. What say you?
41 Comments on “Ask the Best and Brightest: Does Aerodynamic Equal Beautiful?...”
Read all comments
I’m just gonna head on over to the pedia that is wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_drag_coefficients
I feel the Prius is so so, definitely not stunning or pretty, but not completely ugly either, especially the new one. As for the Volt I think its going to be a stunner from what I’ve seen in pictures. It has smooth lines and just a generally nice, interesting, futuristic(lights, interior) look about it. And I also like this new E class coupe. Its certainly not the best looking Mercedes ever especially from the front, but it has some nice styling elements and its a hardtop, pillarless coupe! Thats pretty rare these days.
I think that picture doesn’t do it justice. It really has a handsome side profile, but at that angle, the multiple curves of the body make it look overstyled.
“Admirable” is not the same thing as “beautiful.”
I hate Mercedes’ current design language. I really liked the looks of the previous C-class, CLK, SLK, SL, and CL — everything I’ve heard about them discourages me from wanting them (awful reliability, expensive to fix, etc.), but they looked great. The current cars seem overwrought in a manner I associate with Hyundai…no interesting shapes, but a fussy, anxious over-working of lines that should feel effortless. The current sedans feel like a migraine.
The angle makes it look a bit like the front is melting, but I think that’s an illusion. All in all, a good looking car. Much nicer than most of the ugly crap Mercedes has been building lately.
I like the look of this one, and that of the new C. I think the new C is the best looking in its class. Only if it can get some more red dots in CR, then I will really consider it.
I think that the human mind has a natural tendency to find functional designs aesthetically pleasing.
The Tatra T77, which has a better Cd than a Prius or an Insight, is a beautiful car.
However, with modern computer modeling software Mercedes is able to make cars that are aerodynamic yet ugly.
Did anyone like the looks of all those aero devices on last years F1 cars? Simple clean smooth lines is what I like. No gimicks. MB has disappointed me a lot lately. Audi has gotten it right more often than not.
Yes! Aerodynamicer is beautifuller!
http://www.ebroadcast.com.au/ecars/Museums/NMMUK/PiCs37/Bluebird01.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/1985_subaru_xt_gl-10_right.jpg
http://www.fantasyjackpalance.com/fjp/photos/city/b002/car-citroen-cx-leeson.jpg
Cd alone isn’t all that helpful. One needs to know frontal area as well: Cd x frontal area is the important bit.
Aerodynamic does not always = beautiful.
But this MB is very beautiful, in my opinion.
Aerodynamic can mean beautiful, if for no other reason than you end up with a long, low, sweeping and symmetrical appearance that’s considered widely* appealing.
Of course, the devil is in the details, or rather, the detailing. A car can have a great shape but awful finishing touches. Mercedes, to some, could fall into the latter camp: good shape, problematic details. Detail is even more subjective than shape, though.
The other extreme example is, well, the Nissan Cube**, which violates not only generally-admired proportions, but actually has asymmetric detailing. It could only be more off-base if the basic shape was also asymmetric.
Of course, I like the Cube, so my opinion might want for a big grain of salt.
* The key words are “considered widely”. It’s a consensus choice, and some people may prefer a taller front end, or less of a windshield rake, or a longer rear deck.
** Not the Aztek. The Aztek was ugly because of incompetence; the Cube is ugly by design. Big difference.
The only beautiful cars built in recent memory are the Aston Martins – Vanquish and Vantage. All other cars range from offensive (Toyota or anything from Korea) to palatable (Porsche, Lambo, a few Fords, an Audi and Benz or 2)
There is no reason why a car with a relatively low Cd can’t be beautiful. The C class is an OK looking car. Better than most. However, no matter what the Cd, 99.9% of modern cars just aren’t that inspiring. I believe that most Americans really don’t want a car that looks stunning. They are afraid to stand out or have a car that is unique. Ultra bland looking vehicles like Toyotas and SUVs rule the roads. And they always will.
From the perspective of the designer, an emphasis on aerodynamics reduces the number of opportunities for style-based bodywork decisions.
In other words, aerodynamic soundness does not inherently make for ugliness, but prioritizing it diminishes the chances for beautiful results.
It certainly doesn’t, the Weber being proof: http://www.autoblog.com/2007/05/04/top-gear-crowns-weber-supercar-ugliest-car-of-2007/
No.
The terms are neither inextricably linked nor mutually exclusive.
i looked at all 25 images on the motorauthority website and, except for the taillights and the front aux lights [everything LED], which look a little awkward to my eye, i liked what i saw.
Cliche alert! Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
I remember when Renault was in control of AMC and they brought out this square-edged box –forget its name at the moment– and they claimed it had a lower drag coefficient than the Taurus, which was the perceived aero leader of the time (only the Audi 5000 may have been sleeker). I didn’t think it was much to look at.
OTOH, I’ve always thought the mid-80s Audi 5000 was a very good-looking sedan, sleek and clean-lined. It was “aerodynamic” without looking like a science experiment. It didn’t need no stinkin’ oversized grille, either.
@James2: Medallion?
In nature, it certainly does. I’m thinking of air birds, sea turtles, penguins, seals, etc. In cars, gawd no. The problem is that while everything about an aerodynamic creature is minimalistic, aerodynamic cars have a lot of oft-fussy detail that uglifies them. As psarhjinian says above, the devil is in the details.
Of course, the ugliness of a lot of aerodynamic cars is more a modern phenom. Someone alluded t the beauty of the very aerodynamic Tatra above, and I’d offer the Citroen DS and the Chrysler Airflow, although I have no idea what their CDs are and no time to look right now.
Does aerodynamic equal beautiful? No. Does the E-Coupe equal beautiful? Hell yeah!
I do like that particular Merc, but it’s only partly the aerodybnamics, and I would have gotten rid of that hump around the rear wheel.
The 1958 Lotus Elite vs. 1974 Lotus Elite. Lotus claimed a drag of .29 for both which is hard to believe. Proof that aerodynamic doesn’t equal beautiful. IMO :) Now is this car beautiful? http://www.aptera.com Drag coefficient .15
“Aerodynamics are for people who can’t build engines.”
Enzo Ferrari
The answer to the question you pose is: No.
–chuck
This car had a frontal Cd of .28 in 1921:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/Rumpler_Tropfenwagen.jpg
And with the new 204hp 2.2 liter 4cyl diesel (250 CE), it’s rated at 44mpg (5,3 L/100km) in Europe.
And with the new 204hp 2.2 liter 4cyl diesel (250 CE), it’s rated at 44mpg (5,3 L/100km) in Europe.
…and probably would 10-15% less on any mileage test that wasn’t as, ah, optimistic as those of European origin.
That thing is hideous!
Slippery doesn’t necessarily mean ugly, though. That’s an excuse for the terrible styling displayed here.
The completely normal-looking 1997-2004 Mitsubishi Diamante had a very low .28 coefficient of drag, despite what most would call utterly boring FWD sedan styling (I think it’s beautiful – I own one – but most just see a run of the mill sedan).
My previous car, a 1996 Galant (again, nondescript sedan that I thought was beutiful) scored .29.
The current Camry bests both of those by offering .27.
Why does this Benz “need” to be fugly to score .24? Yes, it’s low, but is it worth it if it has to look like that?
No. The most aerodynamic car shape is a sperm or a suppository. The original EV1 was a good approximation. No amount of clever headlight design can make up for a fundamentally unattractive shape.
Beautiful cars tend to have an aggressive, crouching stance with a high rear and wide hips. The latter two features are not conducive to aerodynamics. The designers of the McLaren F1 acknowledged this, but included them anyway to give the car adequate road presence.
FWIW, I like the way the Prius and the Civic look.
However, I’ve seen some of those new Mercedes out on the road and they are very attractive. They make me think of a jungle cat. Except way faster.
I thought the Chrysler Airflow answered this question in the 30s.
Aerodynamic does not necessarily equal beautiful.
It’s not as ugly as an Airflow, but it’s no beauty. And what is up with those dinky little quarter-lights in the c pillar? Harkening back to the equally weird and misshapen 450 SLC? I see no unifying theme to this car, except “let’s use every styling cliche we have.”
I also am at a loss to understand why M-B has continued to position the CLK (now renamed E Class Coupe) as a member of the E Class family when it is obviously built on a C Class platform.
I also am at a loss to understand why M-B has continued to position the CLK (now renamed E Class Coupe) as a member of the E Class family when it is obviously built on a C Class platform.
The CLK was never a member of the E-Class family, although it borrowed some of the looks, especially the first gen.
The E-Class coupe is no longer based on the C, but on the E. So it does do justice to its name.
We were arguing about the most beautiful cars ever last week. I put a list up, and my favorite was the Talbot Lago. I doubt that it is very aerodynamic. The Sting-Ray was way up there on the list, and I understand that its aerodynamic qualities were not good. OTOH, the modern F1 cars are designed in wind tunnels and are as ugly as they could be.
Gimme a Plymouth SuperBird.
Coulda’ bought a used one with low miles for $1,800 in 1975.
No place to park it and couldn’t afford to store it on a sailor’s pay.
Captain wouldn’t let me park it in the destroyer’s helo hanger.
Sniff.
I originaly considered buying the 2010 E-class – trading in my 2007 S-class550, but after seeing pics of the 2012 S-class, I’m already sold on it.
I think that good aerodynamics can create a pleasing aesthetic of pragmatism, but then you risk people noticing other less-than-pragmatic bits, like the fact that that car has tiny windows.
It also a fairly busy design, and doesn’t at all look aerodynamic, which would seem to be important to triggering any inherent human love of aerodynamic designs. Applying the computer simulations to any old design may very well give you a more slippery design, but I doubt any consumer is going to noticed where you shaved away at the troublesome parts.
that is such a bad picture. well maybe the car really does look that bad, there’s just so many lines and so much going on.
i prefer the worst of flame surfacing to the current overstyling of MB
Richard Chen: Thanks.
dgduris is absolutely correct despite his dreadful English, the Stout Scarab, the Chrysler Airflow and that Merc at the top of the page.