Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views Good Styling
392 messages, Last post on Feb 25, 2009 at 8:29 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: writer (Apr 28, 2008 11:17 pm) IIRC those were called Sedanettes, they didn't employ (AFAIK) a lower roof or windshield.
|
|
|
Replying to: andys120 (Apr 29, 2008 2:35 am) Chrysler's first mass-produced 4-door hardtops, introduced for 1956, were actually 4-door sedans with the doors modified. That made them huge inside, as most hardtops are a bit tighter inside than their sedan counterparts. But it did present a problem with the door window architecture. The 4-door sedans had a rear window with a big roll-down window and a small spacer window in the back. For the hardtop, they made the spacer window pivot down at an angle, in conjunction with the roll down window. It's a neat thing to see in action, especially with power windows, but it was prone to air and water leaks. GM's was first to the 4-door hardtop market with the 1955 Buick and Oldsmobile B-bodies. They're definitely lower and more rakish than the 4-door sedan counterparts, but I'm not sure how much commonality they have with the 2-door hardtop. I'm guessing the windshield and A-pillars are the same, but the roof might be modified back at the C-pillar/rear window area. |
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Apr 25, 2008 9:09 am) Wheels, tires, hubcaps and fender openings are areas that I give designers a "free-pass" as long as they fill their functions in a way that corresponds with my priorities. The result is that I have tended to ignore how they look. I cannot even remember what the hubcaps looked like on any of the vehicles I have driven except the current two. I am curious, so I might just hunt around for some pictures now, but yes, I have forgotten them all. Considering that I used to do my own brakes for years, I should have at least a few of them deeply embedded in my memory, but no, they are all gone. One of the "functions" that is necessary though, is that the tires be somewhat visible. I was taught that it is a good idea to walk around your car occasionally and inspect things briefly. That includes looking at the condition of the tire tread and side-walls. When I was younger, I did not do this as much as I do now. These days, I do a walk-around inspection at least a couple of times per week. If the tires are hidden by fender skirts, or by the fender itself, that makes the quick inspection more difficult. So a car design with fairly large openings gets "points" despite the fact that other people might not like the way they look. I will go further and say that it annoys me to see that many wheels are designed for appearance much as they are. I would rather see engineering numbers than count up the number of spokes. Well designed wheels should provide gains in power, handling and even fuel economy.
|
|
|
Replying to: writer (Apr 29, 2008 9:33 pm) Now explain, say, a Dodge Magnum. Loses points for a barely functional viewshed? And can we give points to, say, a ... dare I say it ... AMC Pacer? 
|
|
|
|
|
I usually look at the tire treads as I walk up to the car. I look at the bottom part of the tire for low air pressure signs meaning a possible nail. I have seen nails/screws in tires many times just because I look at them while walking up. Often those have not penetrated beyond the tread thickness, yet, because I caught them early. Seeing the tire is important. |
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Apr 29, 2008 9:41 pm) You mention the Pacer, but how about a more current oddball, the Kia Rondo? An additional comment. I like this thread. It's fun to read all the passionate discussions around here about function, utility, and performance, but I still contend that when it is time to sign that sales agreement, style drives the majority of buying decisions. It is awfully hard to write that check for something you just think is fugly.
|
|
|
Replying to: writer (Apr 29, 2008 9:33 pm) It's a moot point since the styling of most modern cars wouldn't mesh with wheel skirts but there are some exceptions (Prius?). I haven't time now to get into the role of wheels and tires and how they play a key role in the look of a car but I agree that sometimes they act to the detriment of it's functions. |
|
|
Replying to: mattandi (Apr 30, 2008 5:56 am) Well, my grocery getter is an Outback so the Rondo looks mostly like another tall wagon to me, along the lines of the new CR-V. But I haven't seen one in person. The notchy rear is a bit odd, but otherwise the pics look ok for what it is.
|
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Apr 30, 2008 7:02 am) |
|
|
Replying to: writer (Apr 24, 2008 3:28 pm) The new CRV is really bad too. When the rear window is made curvy to be cute, and you can't see out of it....ridiculous. Form is function. Love the BMW 2002. |
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Good Styling
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
