Just saw one on the freeway beside me. Grey.

Cannot quite decide if it is beautiful or ugly.

I remember having the same reaction to the 2004 Accord, that looked
like the 1987 Taurus, a perfected gumdrop. I finally decided the
Accord was actually very well done.

You look at the Crosstour, and see the cut line alone the sides that
swoops up and meets the hatch line, and I can just see the design
meeting where everyone went slapping each other on the back for that.
But it looks taller than the standard Accord, and ... I just dunno.

Also saw the new 4-door Porsche, that seems to have a lot of the same
kind of bulbous design points and it's another design I'm not quite
sure of, yet. First impressions on both are positive, but a little
moreso on the Porsche, fwiw.

J.

 

JRStern <JRStern@foobar.invalid> wrote in
news:4tqhl5pa7518e63ac95utm8brcs0lt0eva@4ax.com:

> Just saw one on the freeway beside me. Grey.
>
> Cannot quite decide if it is beautiful or ugly.



My opinion?

From the side, not bad.

From the back, meh. Not quite ugh.

From the front, definitely ugh!

That great big, fat, bulbous "safety" front end is the pits. Ford has done
a better job with the looks of their "safety" fronts than most other
manufacturers, as far as I'm concerned.




>
> I remember having the same reaction to the 2004 Accord, that looked
> like the 1987 Taurus, a perfected gumdrop. I finally decided the
> Accord was actually very well done.



Sometimes they just sort of grow on you. I originally thought the front end
of the Chrysler 300 and the Dodge Charger/Magnum was horribly ugly, but now
I kinda like it.


--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

 

On 1/21/2010 10:15 PM, Tegger wrote:
>
> Sometimes they just sort of grow on you. I originally thought the front end
> of the Chrysler 300 and the Dodge Charger/Magnum was horribly ugly, but now
> I kinda like it.

I thought the same thing about the *new* design that they gave the Ram
years ago, I didn't like it initially and then I came to like its look.

 

Thus spake Tegger <invalid@invalid.inv> :

>JRStern <JRStern@foobar.invalid> wrote in
>news:4tqhl5pa7518e63ac95utm8brcs0lt0eva@4ax.com :
>
>> Just saw one on the freeway beside me. Grey.
>>
>> Cannot quite decide if it is beautiful or ugly.
>
>
>
>My opinion?
>
>From the side, not bad.

From the side? BFU

>
>From the back, meh. Not quite ugh.

Back? meh, depends on the amount of beer I had lst night

>
>From the front, definitely ugh!

Front? What were they thinking?

>
>That great big, fat, bulbous "safety" front end is the pits. Ford has done
>a better job with the looks of their "safety" fronts than most other
>manufacturers, as far as I'm concerned.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> I remember having the same reaction to the 2004 Accord, that looked
>> like the 1987 Taurus, a perfected gumdrop. I finally decided the
>> Accord was actually very well done.
>
>
>
>Sometimes they just sort of grow on you. I originally thought the front end
>of the Chrysler 300 and the Dodge Charger/Magnum was horribly ugly, but now
>I kinda like it.

But the sides of both of those are still horrid.
--

- dillon I am not invalid

I love my country, It's my government I fear.

Hey, turnabout's fair play.

 

On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:10:41 -0800, JRStern <JRStern@foobar.invalid>
wrote:

>Just saw one on the freeway beside me. Grey.
>
>Cannot quite decide if it is beautiful or ugly.
>
>I remember having the same reaction to the 2004 Accord, that looked
>like the 1987 Taurus, a perfected gumdrop. I finally decided the
>Accord was actually very well done.
>
>You look at the Crosstour, and see the cut line alone the sides that
>swoops up and meets the hatch line, and I can just see the design
>meeting where everyone went slapping each other on the back for that.
>But it looks taller than the standard Accord, and ... I just dunno.
>
>Also saw the new 4-door Porsche, that seems to have a lot of the same
>kind of bulbous design points and it's another design I'm not quite
>sure of, yet. First impressions on both are positive, but a little
>moreso on the Porsche, fwiw.
>
>J.
Ugly, all around. Hondas are well built, however no one would argue
that they are design leaders (excluding the Fit, last generation
Prelude and perhaps the previous TL). The Panamera is actually one
amazing piece of machinery, a technical masterpiece.

 

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 08:45:01 -0500, oneshot@gmab.com wrote:

>Ugly, all around. Hondas are well built, however no one would argue
>that they are design leaders (excluding the Fit, last generation
>Prelude and perhaps the previous TL). The Panamera is actually one
>amazing piece of machinery, a technical masterpiece.

I dunno, the Honda sheet metal tends to be respectable, after all most
of the past twenty years' Accords are just cloned and lightly modified
Mercedes and BMW designs!

The current Civic I think is quite nice, the Fit - eh.

And all are better looking than the Toyota equivalents ... well,
actually, the Yaris is kind of cute, if you like that sort of thing.

I'll have to trust you on the Panamera.

J.

 

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 19:33:19 -0800, JRStern <JRStern@foobar.invalid>
wrote:

>On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 08:45:01 -0500, oneshot@gmab.com wrote:
>
>>Ugly, all around. Hondas are well built, however no one would argue
>>that they are design leaders (excluding the Fit, last generation
>>Prelude and perhaps the previous TL). The Panamera is actually one
>>amazing piece of machinery, a technical masterpiece.
>
>I dunno, the Honda sheet metal tends to be respectable, after all most
>of the past twenty years' Accords are just cloned and lightly modified
>Mercedes and BMW designs!
>
Really? I don't see it at all. Is there evidence regarding this?

 

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 12:08:49 -0500, oneshot@gmab.com wrote:

>>I dunno, the Honda sheet metal tends to be respectable, after all most
>>of the past twenty years' Accords are just cloned and lightly modified
>>Mercedes and BMW designs!
>>
>Really? I don't see it at all. Is there evidence regarding this?

I've never seen it documented, but my 1987 Accord was clearly a
Mercedes 300 mini-clone, I remember laughing the first time I saw one.
A later model, circa 1997, was a BMW derivative, and the current
Accord has some loose similiarities to BMWs of about three years ago,
I think, though the BMW/Mercedes/Audi design rules are getting rather
similar, so I guess that's generic enough that everybody can copy
them.

Very nice designs for the most part, btw. I keep looking at something
like the current BMW 3 series, and imagine popping one in the wayback
machine and showing it off circa 1970. Would look like it came from
the future, and run like it, too.

J.

 

Thus spake oneshot@gmab.com :

>On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 19:33:19 -0800, JRStern <JRStern@foobar.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 08:45:01 -0500, oneshot@gmab.com wrote:
>>
>>>Ugly, all around. Hondas are well built, however no one would argue
>>>that they are design leaders (excluding the Fit, last generation
>>>Prelude and perhaps the previous TL). The Panamera is actually one
>>>amazing piece of machinery, a technical masterpiece.
>>
>>I dunno, the Honda sheet metal tends to be respectable, after all most
>>of the past twenty years' Accords are just cloned and lightly modified
>>Mercedes and BMW designs!
>>
>Really? I don't see it at all. Is there evidence regarding this?

My 96 Civic sure had the lines of a BMW 3 series. No mistaking the
two, but individual lines were really close.

Clones? No. Parallel evolution? Maybe. Limited number of ways to
get the same airflow from the same basic frame design? Very likely.

Remember how everything started looking like a "melted gumdrop" after
the Taurus came out?
--

- dillon I am not invalid

I love my country, It's my government I fear.

Hey, turnabout's fair play.