MadScientistMatt wrote: It's a lot better looking to me than the Juke, but if Toyota wants to attract younger buyers, they need to stop their Department of Corporate Blandness from meddling with the driving dynamics. Red metallic looks won't help if the driving experience is pure beige.
I totally agree.
Kinda what I see...but imagine with a big afro also
Looks like an H-rv with more spoiler and less useable hatch area.
fanfoy wrote: The term you are looking for is Fugly. As in berkeleying ugly. But this isn't fugly. It's just trying too hard...Like a 65 year old that gets tatoos and goes to the gym like crazy to try and get young chicks. It's sorta sad really
Trying to pick up Toyota Jan? Toyota: We make cars for people who hate cars. Sad, really.
MadScientistMatt wrote: It's a lot better looking to me than the Juke, but if Toyota wants to attract younger buyers, they need to stop their Department of Corporate Blandness from meddling with the driving dynamics. Red metallic looks won't help if the driving experience is pure beige.
I'm 30. I have a handful of "car guy" friends that I've met through the hobby over the years. The vast majority of my friends and family in my age bracket aren't that interested in cars though. If you asked them to describe the "driving dynamics" you'd likely get blank stares. Being "fun to drive" would probably fall way down the list of desirable attributes that a new vehicle should have in their opinion. Toyota gives many of them exactly what they want. That makes me sad, but we still have Mazda if we want that "zoom-zoom" DNA throughout the product line.
4cylndrfury wrote: I miss simple, understated design. Do not want.
So much this. So much this.
STM317 wrote:MadScientistMatt wrote: It's a lot better looking to me than the Juke, but if Toyota wants to attract younger buyers, they need to stop their Department of Corporate Blandness from meddling with the driving dynamics. Red metallic looks won't help if the driving experience is pure beige.If you asked them to describe the "driving dynamics" you'd likely get blank stares. Being "fun to drive" would probably fall way down the list of desirable attributes that a new vehicle should have in their opinion.
For most, Fun-to-drive = easy-to-drive....which is soon to be replaced by auto-drive.
captdownshift wrote: Needs flapping pedals instead of a cvt and DI turbo 4 to be relevant
^^ This ^^
Honestly I see Jukes all over the place, sounds like Toyota wants a cut of the action.
It's like the Juke and the '17 Civic Type R had a baby...
Not my idea of good looking but my wife said she would like to see it in bright green.
Better than the Juke still not good enough to buy. Toyota and Nissan need to go visit Mazda for a lesson on cute ute styling.
Flight Service wrote: It's like the Juke and the '17 Civic Type R had a baby...
...and it was rasied in the Fukishima radiation zone...
That this uuuggglllyyyy....
When did auto stylists start doing weird drugs? Very littler newer than 2000 has looked good.
My wife said she likes it. My son said she has bad taste. I think I side with him, but don't tell her.
I kinda like it but I sure don't want to be the PDR tech who bangs out that rear door after a door ding.
I like it. Wish it was powered by the rc-f driveline only awd.
Gearheadotaku wrote: When did auto stylists start doing weird drugs? Very littler newer than 2000 has looked good.
They're all Millenials, raised on anime, Pokemon, and Gameboy color. They don't know what cars are supposed to look like -- not their fault.
As for car buyers, most people don't want to drive a car that is too small to be at eye-level with all the other cars. They need good visibility to cruise in the left hand lane for miles with their blinker on.
It reminds me of the korean cars of the early 2000's they had no originality so they just styled there cars after the cars in the segment they were going to sell their car in. I see part honda HRV part nissan juke part civic
For the record i actually like how this thing looks. I also like quite a few modern Toyotas. IF this thing had a drivetrain worth talking about, all the 'i dont hate its' in this thread would probably be 'tell me mores' instead. I hope they sell a decent number. This is a hell of a lot better than the bad old days of the 2g Matrix, for example, a similarly sized toyota which was unabashedly hideous to go along with its lack of sporting pretensions. I'd still rather have cars look sporty and not be (because i can conceivably change that) than look just as boring as they actually are.
Gearheadotaku wrote:Flight Service wrote: It's like the Juke and the '17 Civic Type R had a baby......and it was rasied in the Fukishima radiation zone... That this uuuggglllyyyy.... When did auto stylists start doing weird drugs? Very littler newer than 2000 has looked good.
What's really frustrating to me is this:
Around, say, 1995-2005 there was an era of great, clean, well-proportioned styling. That really came to the fore in 2000-2005.
There was backlash against the conformity and a general feeling that "all cars looked the same", so automotive designers started throwing hideous stuff out just as long as it was striking and had brand identity.
Now, by 2016, all cars look the same again, they're just mostly berking hideous.
4cylndrfury wrote: I miss simple, understated design. Do not want.
Thank you!
Without too much thought (none): out of all the most sought-after beautiful cars and trucks in history, can any of them be described as "overdone" like this can?
Every Lamborghini since ~1975?
We have a 2015 Juke AWD, that since owning 11 months have put over 15,000 miles on it. For us, it's awesome. Whether you baby it, set the cruise at 85, drive up and down mountains, and put your foot in it we get 34mpg (low 34 to high 34).
I"m 6'2" and my wife is 5'2". She can see everything, and I have lots of headroom. She is the main driver, and dislikes anything "big" or "large" in size to drive.
Great power with the turbo.
The front end is a love it or hate it with most people. The lighting is great at night.
TIGMOTORSPORTS wrote: The front end is a love it or hate it with most people...
2% love, 98% hate...
TIGMOTORSPORTS wrote: We have a 2015 Juke AWD, that since owning 11 months have put over 15,000 miles on it. For us, it's awesome. Whether you baby it, set the cruise at 85, drive up and down mountains, and put your foot in it we get 34mpg (low 34 to high 34).
Curious, how do you get 34 mpg when the best on Fuelly is 30 and the average is 27.4mpg, and those are mostly non-turbo engines?
ebonyandivory wrote:4cylndrfury wrote: I miss simple, understated design. Do not want.Thank you! Without too much thought (none): out of all the most sought-after beautiful cars and trucks in history, can any of them be described as "overdone" like this can?
any mopar product?
You'll need to log in to post.
