Good Styling

Replying to: nippononly (Oct 06, 2008 11:17 am)

Replies to this message:
• texases (Oct 06, 2008 1:29 pm)
  • fintail (Oct 06, 2008 2:17 pm)
    • texases (Oct 06, 2008 3:03 pm) and 1 more...
• nippononly (Oct 06, 2008 3:32 pm)
  • fintail (Oct 06, 2008 4:02 pm)
  • andre1969 (Oct 07, 2008 4:30 am)
    • andys120 (Oct 07, 2008 4:53 am) and 1 more...

Replying to: fintail (Oct 06, 2008 1:17 pm)

I guess I'm even more disappointed in the 5er than the 7 - I'd never get a 7, but the 5 was on my list. I still haven't gotten used to the look. Prior versions just had a very 'honest' and clean design, don't know how better to put it. Not the current version. , or I guess I should say

Replies to this message:
• fintail (Oct 06, 2008 2:17 pm)
  • texases (Oct 06, 2008 3:03 pm)
    • fintail (Oct 06, 2008 4:03 pm)

Replying to: texases (Oct 06, 2008 1:29 pm)

The previous 5er was such a clean and homogenous design - almost good enough to be an old MB ...I have never adapted to the current version either. The 7er is just weird, where the old one was clean too.
 
I don't think either of them look "angry" per se, I don't see the glaring narrowed headlights as such an obvious styling ploy on BMW as I do on some others.
 
And on the styling note, am I alone in thinking the Chevy Traverse looks better than its blinged up siblings?

Replies to this message:
• texases (Oct 06, 2008 3:03 pm)
  • fintail (Oct 06, 2008 4:03 pm)

Replying to: fintail (Oct 06, 2008 2:17 pm)

Replies to this message:
• fintail (Oct 06, 2008 4:03 pm)

Replying to: fintail (Oct 06, 2008 1:17 pm)

I prefer "cute" to "angry". Maybe they got a group of angry people in their study!
 
I prefer clean and well-proportioned to either cute or angry. And in general I don't focus on the looks of a car much at all. The specs and the way it drives are more important to me than the looks.

Replies to this message:
• fintail (Oct 06, 2008 4:02 pm)
• andre1969 (Oct 07, 2008 4:30 am)
  • andys120 (Oct 07, 2008 4:53 am)
    • andre1969 (Oct 07, 2008 5:03 am)

Replying to: nippononly (Oct 06, 2008 3:32 pm)

Replying to: texases (Oct 06, 2008 3:03 pm)

Replying to: nippononly (Oct 06, 2008 3:32 pm)

Replies to this message:
• andys120 (Oct 07, 2008 4:53 am)
  • andre1969 (Oct 07, 2008 5:03 am)

Replying to: andre1969 (Oct 07, 2008 4:30 am)

I think a lot of old musclecars and such could look "tough", without having to resort to "angry".
 
I agree, the best looking of the musclecars were subtle in their styling. You had to look closely to tell that you weren't looking at a garden variety LeMans or Malibu.
 
'64 Pontiac LeMans>

 
'64 Pontiac GTO>

Replies to this message:
• andre1969 (Oct 07, 2008 5:03 am)

Replying to: andys120 (Oct 07, 2008 4:53 am)

I think in the case of the '64 Pontiacs, even the Tempest has a tough look about it, so that was a good basis for the GTO. In '65 though, I thought the whole package just looked too "pretty" to be tough. But for '66-67 they were able to balance it out to be "tough" yet "pretty", if that makes sense.