I think Mazda screwed up all the cars they put "smiles" on. When I'm in a bad mood seeing a Mazda smile at me pisses me off even more! Kind of like in Office Space when the lady says "Sounds like someone has a case of the Mondays".......
I think Mazda screwed up all the cars they put "smiles" on. When I'm in a bad mood seeing a Mazda smile at me pisses me off even more! Kind of like in Office Space when the lady says "Sounds like someone has a case of the Mondays".......
If you drive it fast enough, no one will see it.
Vigo wrote: In reply to Irish44j: Again, did not read anything but your response, so maybe its been said.. But all the ugly cars i own were CHEAP. REAAAAALLLLY cheap. Anywhere from $100 to $1000 IN TOTAL. Even my cars that SOME might call ugly, 06 Magnum and 01 Insight, i paid $4600 and $3900 for. When i think about spending 10-15K on a car, i think about Porsche Boxsters and 968s in very good condition. When i think about spending $25k, well, honestly, i dont, but if my Magnum is $5k of pretty and a Boxster is $10k or pretty, $25k of pretty is WAAAAAAY prettier than an STi that you cant actually get for $25k.
Comparing old, high-mileage, beat-down cars with a brand new car to justify when it is "ok to look ugly" and "not ok to look ugly?" A Boxster or 968 or Magnum were over $25k new too.
by that logic, it's better to live in a $1300 40-year-old, rusty single-wide trailer with a port-a-potty out back than to live in a $250,000 4-bedroom house built 2 years ago that happens to be unattractive on the outside.....
because it's still a roof over your head, right? Just like driving a Chevette would make for an enjoyable daily commute...
Give it up dude, you ain't going anywhere with cute analogies. The car is a cool car, I certainly don't hate it but it IS ugly, it's the overwhelming consensus here. And other have made excellent points about Mazda and other manufacturer's and how they are screwing up their styling.
plance1 wrote: Give it up dude, you ain't going anywhere with cute analogies. The car is a cool car, I certainly don't hate it but it IS ugly, it's the overwhelming consensus here. And other have made excellent points about Mazda and other manufacturer's and how they are screwing up their styling.
give up arguing on an internet forum?
what would be the point of being here then? 
It's ALL Chris Bangle's fault. BMW let him spaz all over their product line and too many companies jumped into the downward spiral of trite metaphorical anthropomorphizing or animal quotes or whatever silliness the marketing people believed would sell (which is all too often all that matters). As a product designer, I am embarrassed for my profession by the mazda smile, the BMW "eagle", the hello kitty Cube, and the like. Audi kept their head and are reaping the benefits- Ford is rocking, That Buick (you know the one) looks good... The Legacy was wonderful, the WRX that started this thread is hideous. Good car, no doubt, butt ugly, no doubt.
Uh, how many escorts can you fit in a canoe? Also, apparently WRXs are so ugly they will literally kill you. Good to know.
It's still better looking than anything in the current BMW lineup. I think the STI even looks rather good, (and not just good by comparison to a new BMW.)
Hehe I thought the new MS3 was less ugly than the WRX, at least it's not as bland looking.
But when I open the loud pedal and unleash all the torque steery goodness, I don't care either way.
Luke wrote: It's still better looking than anything in the current BMW lineup. I think the STI even looks rather good, (and not just good by comparison to a new BMW.)
Huh?
Shaun wrote: Audi kept their head
...except for that massive pedestrian-swallowing grill and resulting bulbous nose they pasted on the front of otherwise-decent-looking cars.
I will say I am happy to see Ford and GM have taken the hint and their styling has come back around. Take a look at where Buck has come from - look at a 91 skylark and look at the new Regal GS, or a 84 vs the new Taurus. Only took a near colapse of the american auto manufacturing market to figure out that making fugly ass cars keeps the masses from wanting one. Enthusiasts know better - we can still appreciate a race car with a turd on the outside of the fast parts, but keeping the fecal content out of the body design goes a long way for us too
justify when it is "ok to look ugly" and "not ok to look ugly?" A Boxster or 968 or Magnum were over $25k new too.
Does a new Porsche Boxster HAVE to be prettier than a Tata Nano? YES, it ABSOLUTELY has to be prettier. Acceptable amounts of style depends GREATLY on price point. This is as much a truth comparing new-v-new as it is comparing old to new.
Subaru simply CANNOT afford to do the kind of shapes you'd find on a ferrari on a car that costs what the STI does. That said, it could certainly afford to make it look BETTER for the same price
by that logic, it's better to live in a $1300 40-year-old, rusty single-wide trailer with a port-a-potty out back than to live in a $250,000 4-bedroom house built 2 years ago that happens to be unattractive on the outside.....
Amenities, quality, and ugly are all different things. This thread only has one of those words in the title. Im not arguing that you dont get better quality and amenities on the new subaru vs my sub-$1k cars. Nobody would argue that. But Subaru CAN make a prettier STi, hell, up til now it always had!
Duke wrote:Shaun wrote: Audi kept their head...except for that massive pedestrian-swallowing grill and resulting bulbous nose they pasted on the front of otherwise-decent-looking cars.
The grill looks better in person with a licence plate on it, particularly with European plates. All the car mag photos are plate-less. I like that Audi actually designed in a place for the plate. I agree with the bulbous nose part. Audi's last couple cars suffered with the new pedestrian impact specs. Volvo is having trouble with that one too. BMW after Bangle is trending up again aesthetically IMO.
ReverendDexter wrote: Am I the only one that doesn't mind the Furai styling?
I don't mind the Furai styling, on the Furai. It doesn't (as of yet) translate very well to their more pedestrian models.
Shaun wrote: The grill looks better in person with a licence plate on it, particularly with European plates. All the car mag photos are plate-less.
Sorry, they don't get a pass for that. They are still ugly. Didn't work in 2002, doesn't work in 2010.
Oh goody! They've put the same hideous front end on the VWs now too!
Actually, VW dropped that nose this year:
And I find the Audi noses pretty good looking. That Chrysler is hideous though!
Luke wrote: It's still better looking than anything in the current BMW lineup. I think the STI even looks rather good, (and not just good by comparison to a new BMW.)
oddly, I think most of the current BMW lineup looks great. But they're far from the "raw" cars like the E30 and E36 were (to some extent)....and like a wrx is (to some extent). And the new lineup is douch-ier than ever :)
Vigo wrote: Does a new Porsche Boxster HAVE to be prettier than a Tata Nano? YES, it ABSOLUTELY has to be prettier.
what happened to the Panamera, then? It looks stupid as hell.
Vigo wrote: But Subaru CAN make a prettier STi, hell, up til now it always had!
Yep, Subaru COULD do exactly what Hyundai (for example) does....take the best parts of other cars' designs and meld them into your own (see: Genesis, Sonata).
I wouldn't agre that the STi has ever been pretty. Except for the JDM GC STi, of course.
Has the thought occurred to anyone here that Subaru doesn't WANT to make a pretty STi? After all, maybe they have the right strategy, seeing as they're one of the few car companies out there that is actually INCREASING its sales in the recent past and present...
In reply to ddavidv:
So we disagree- and once again the Audi/VW's are pictured without plates, but there is a space designed to accept them. The European license plates fit perfectly and I think with a plate in there it looks fine. The Chysler makes no provision, so the plate becomes a cluged on de facto (bad) design element. The red (a4 is it?) has a heavy looking nose in that shot which a plate breaks up by design. Audi has a much more sensible and cohesive looking product line than BMW or Mercedes. So does VW.
So...............
After five pages we've established that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Would the same scrutiny and criticism be applied if we all had the chance to review wives, swmbo's, s/o's and g/f"s?
Forgive my crudity, but cars are like Bob Costas - if you're interested and find you like the performance, it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks.
Plus, I rather like the WRX/Sti sedans, too!
just to put "ugly" in perspective....the new WRX/STi aren't all that attractive, but not ugly.
This is ugly
I like the Juke. And the Isuzu VehiCROSS... which the Juke appears to share a lot of styling with....
hotlinking is the name of the game.
I like the Vehicross everywhere but the front. They look cool from behind, rear 3/4 view, etc. IMO.
Ok so the STi isnt pure UGLY. I'll give you that. And it never was BEAUTIFUL.
And your point about them maybe being on the right track based on their sales.. plausible.
I definitely think Subaru does MANY things right. But i think they've taken the cool factor down a few notches with the impreza and legacy. I think they may be jumping the gun, thinking the first gen of turbo/awd suby owners have already grown up enough to want to ditch the boy-racer stuff in their next suby's. I dont think that has happened yet.
Also, it just frustrates me that this company, and Mazda, both of which i admire, have butchered their styling while companies that i like less, such as Ford, have improved their own (there is probably something there about the mazda ford relationship, but thats tangential).If someone asked me: "Which of the following companies' current lineups has the best overall style/most improved style? I would have to answer Ford, even though i have been pretty derogatory towards Ford for most of my life.
mndsm wrote: I like the Juke. And the Isuzu VehiCROSS... which the Juke appears to share a lot of styling with....
vehicross was ugly, but it looked tough and purposeful. The juke is just ugly and has stupid headlights...
You'll need to log in to post.
