IMO, the CrossFire [exterior] seems like a knock-off of the Audi TT.
The interior of the TT beats the Crossfire HANDS DOWN!
Actually, the interior of the TT is still one of the most beautifully done interiors I've ever seen. I'm not claiming I've seen every car on earth, but from my own eyes, the TT is still by far the best looking.
The TT will look good with the new Audi corporate nose, even more Auto Union than the current car. All the Audi sedans are also very finely shaped, and so is the A4 cabrio.
The Crossfire doesn't look at all TT to me. It's biased more to the back end, and has more edges and a bigger seperation between the canopy and the fenders -- at the front because the canopy is set back, such that it looks ass heavy from the side; and, from at the rear because the window is pinched in in such that the canopy looks narrow from the back.
. . .
Here's the thing about the "flame surfacing" -- it ain't more than some concave surfaces and curves of different trajectories meeting abruptly to make a crease. If you do not know exactly how those creases should line up, your car looks odd and even dented in the wrong light. As bad as the Z4 is, there is worse, the Hyndai Santa Fe. The crease over the rear wheel arch and the curve that meets it over the rear door just look like the car's been in a fender bender -- poor.
Has it ever looked good? Yes, when you have a clear vision of where those creases are going. Early corvettes, and some Ferrari and Mercedes racers from way back. But you don't get points from me just for being original. It may be a new design direction, but the destination isn't clear. Based on a combination of badge appeal and dynamic goodness, BMW has clout; they may yet define the next few years of automotive design, but someone else from the industry is going to have to make it happen, probably the Italians, who just seem to have a knack for resolving aesthetic details better than anyone else.
The new TL is an uglier version of the TSX. The side and rear end designs of the TSX are nicer than the TL's. That groove in the side and the wonky rear just kill the car. Like the TSX though, very clean for a Japanese design.
270 HP + FWD = Torque steer. Problem.
Mazda 3 looks quirky, but good. Not sure how well the RX-8 tail schema translates to a hatch or a small sedan.
Satchmo, i'm really curious what pictures you've seen of the upcoming 3.
The groove on the side of the TL is a bit jarring to the eye. But it's at least an attempt to get away from Honda's boring wedge designs of the 80's/90's.
Here's a link to the edmunds.com site for the Mazda 3.
No, it's not in the same class as the others here, but heck for $17K, it's not bad.
Personally, I still think Audi has the most going on the design front today. While understated, it still manages to turn heads. As Matsu mentioned, it's new full grill will give it more character. The A4 will probably go through a revision in a year or so, even though it still looks very fresh and current.
They've also taken a more aggressive approach fast tracking some of their prototypes such as the Audi Le Mans quattro.
Daimler = reliable, luxurious, good (classical) looks, far overpriced, not driver's cars by any means unless you go to the very top of the range
In short, things don't look good for Crossfire unless Daimler only leaves its mark in the reliability/quality department.
I also think Crossfire's front is ugly, although side view is nice.
Slightly OT. I just went to dealerships today to test drive MB C-class and Audi A4 quattro. There was slight snowfall, temperature only a little below freezing. The only thing C-class had going for it was looks, but in everything else Audi OWNED. I continue to be amazed by the fact that people use their hard earned money to buy Benzes.
Convoluted surface detailing, check. Application of proboscis-monkey-nose to a hood less than half the length of the SLR? check. Wierd purposeless venting ahead of the front wheels? check. Strange sill cutlines and sculpting? yep. got it all.
This makes the (imo, less than stunning) Z4 look like a piece of art.
I'd take the last SLK over this monstrosity in a heartbeat.
I actually think it looks a looot better than the Z4 does. The Z4 has so many character lines that just don't need to be there. This new SLK looks a lot classier than the Z4 does. I also agree with what someone said on the C&D forums...the F1 nose works a lot better on the SLK than it does on the SLR.
That's funny, I figured that's where he ripped most of the comments from.
exactly. i've read most of that bullsh*t before. very little of what he wrote could be known unless he actively drove these cars hard. it's all been written and easily accessable on magazines.
No really, you should write a review of a car, probably BMW and send it to some mags, You would be a breath of fresh air to them i think.
I too have very little clue about what you said, but I got the feel of it...
Does that make any sense?
yeah, give them an essay about something they dont care to hear because they already know the correct information. they dont want to hear pointless opinions from some kid that is based on very little actual true test results--thats what's important.
I actually think it looks a looot better than the Z4 does. The Z4 has so many character lines that just don't need to be there. This new SLK looks a lot classier than the Z4 does. I also agree with what someone said on the C&D forums...the F1 nose works a lot better on the SLK than it does on the SLR.
These are just my opinions though.
the Z4 is a much better design than the hideous (and pathetically engineered) Z3 that they scrapped together at the last minute. i drove tghe Z4 around the track a couple weeks ago and it handles decent, although nowhere near what a $40k+ car should drive. the $33k S2000 destroys it in almost every way. the interior is just pathetic. talk about cheap build quality. i could not believe it. everything felt like it could easily be broken. a $40 thousand dollar car should not be filled with cheap plastic. pitiful. i was actually considering it for awhile too.
Comments
The interior of the TT beats the Crossfire HANDS DOWN!
Actually, the interior of the TT is still one of the most beautifully done interiors I've ever seen. I'm not claiming I've seen every car on earth, but from my own eyes, the TT is still by far the best looking.
The Crossfire doesn't look at all TT to me. It's biased more to the back end, and has more edges and a bigger seperation between the canopy and the fenders -- at the front because the canopy is set back, such that it looks ass heavy from the side; and, from at the rear because the window is pinched in in such that the canopy looks narrow from the back.
. . .
Here's the thing about the "flame surfacing" -- it ain't more than some concave surfaces and curves of different trajectories meeting abruptly to make a crease. If you do not know exactly how those creases should line up, your car looks odd and even dented in the wrong light. As bad as the Z4 is, there is worse, the Hyndai Santa Fe. The crease over the rear wheel arch and the curve that meets it over the rear door just look like the car's been in a fender bender -- poor.
Has it ever looked good? Yes, when you have a clear vision of where those creases are going. Early corvettes, and some Ferrari and Mercedes racers from way back. But you don't get points from me just for being original. It may be a new design direction, but the destination isn't clear. Based on a combination of badge appeal and dynamic goodness, BMW has clout; they may yet define the next few years of automotive design, but someone else from the industry is going to have to make it happen, probably the Italians, who just seem to have a knack for resolving aesthetic details better than anyone else.
Originally posted by Matsu
I'm struggling to think of truly pretty BMW's. There aren't that many.
1973 Verona Red 2002. 'Nuf said.
Originally posted by Jonathan
The new TL is an uglier version of the TSX. The side and rear end designs of the TSX are nicer than the TL's. That groove in the side and the wonky rear just kill the car. Like the TSX though, very clean for a Japanese design.
270 HP + FWD = Torque steer. Problem.
Mazda 3 looks quirky, but good. Not sure how well the RX-8 tail schema translates to a hatch or a small sedan.
Satchmo, i'm really curious what pictures you've seen of the upcoming 3.
The groove on the side of the TL is a bit jarring to the eye. But it's at least an attempt to get away from Honda's boring wedge designs of the 80's/90's.
Here's a link to the edmunds.com site for the Mazda 3.
No, it's not in the same class as the others here, but heck for $17K, it's not bad.
http://www.edmunds.com/new/2004/mazd...hoto..1.Mazda*
Personally, I still think Audi has the most going on the design front today. While understated, it still manages to turn heads. As Matsu mentioned, it's new full grill will give it more character. The A4 will probably go through a revision in a year or so, even though it still looks very fresh and current.
They've also taken a more aggressive approach fast tracking some of their prototypes such as the Audi Le Mans quattro.
http://www.audiworld.com/news/03/lmq/
Daimler = reliable, luxurious, good (classical) looks, far overpriced, not driver's cars by any means unless you go to the very top of the range
In short, things don't look good for Crossfire unless Daimler only leaves its mark in the reliability/quality department.
I also think Crossfire's front is ugly, although side view is nice.
Slightly OT. I just went to dealerships today to test drive MB C-class and Audi A4 quattro. There was slight snowfall, temperature only a little below freezing. The only thing C-class had going for it was looks, but in everything else Audi OWNED. I continue to be amazed by the fact that people use their hard earned money to buy Benzes.
It's the 2005 Chrysler 300
i present, in all its hideousness, the 2004 SLK.
http://caranddriver.com/idealbb/view...ng=&sessionID={14122C4F-1242-447C-91FD-9E74998D6D2C}
Convoluted surface detailing, check. Application of proboscis-monkey-nose to a hood less than half the length of the SLR? check. Wierd purposeless venting ahead of the front wheels? check. Strange sill cutlines and sculpting? yep. got it all.
This makes the (imo, less than stunning) Z4 look like a piece of art.
I'd take the last SLK over this monstrosity in a heartbeat.
Originally posted by Jonathan
foad:
i present, in all its hideousness, the 2004 SLK.
Sorry, on looks alone, I'd take that over any of the 2004 BangleMW vehicles.
Originally posted by Jonathan
foad:
i present, in all its hideousness, the 2004 SLK.
I actually think it looks a looot better than the Z4 does. The Z4 has so many character lines that just don't need to be there. This new SLK looks a lot classier than the Z4 does. I also agree with what someone said on the C&D forums...the F1 nose works a lot better on the SLK than it does on the SLR.
These are just my opinions though.
Originally posted by Eugene
The M-Coupe is beautiful.
you are on dope.
Originally posted by NaplesX
You should write for a car magazine. Good stuff.
you obviously know nothing about what constitutes "good stuff."
Originally posted by Eugene
That's funny, I figured that's where he ripped most of the comments from.
exactly. i've read most of that bullsh*t before. very little of what he wrote could be known unless he actively drove these cars hard. it's all been written and easily accessable on magazines.
Originally posted by Jonathan
If i'd ripped the comments from any car magazine, the opinions expressed would have been in complete opposition to mine.
except for a couple opinions based on design, wrong.
Originally posted by NaplesX
No really, you should write a review of a car, probably BMW and send it to some mags, You would be a breath of fresh air to them i think.
I too have very little clue about what you said, but I got the feel of it...
Does that make any sense?
yeah, give them an essay about something they dont care to hear because they already know the correct information. they dont want to hear pointless opinions from some kid that is based on very little actual true test results--thats what's important.
Originally posted by foad
I actually think it looks a looot better than the Z4 does. The Z4 has so many character lines that just don't need to be there. This new SLK looks a lot classier than the Z4 does. I also agree with what someone said on the C&D forums...the F1 nose works a lot better on the SLK than it does on the SLR.
These are just my opinions though.
the Z4 is a much better design than the hideous (and pathetically engineered) Z3 that they scrapped together at the last minute. i drove tghe Z4 around the track a couple weeks ago and it handles decent, although nowhere near what a $40k+ car should drive. the $33k S2000 destroys it in almost every way. the interior is just pathetic. talk about cheap build quality. i could not believe it. everything felt like it could easily be broken. a $40 thousand dollar car should not be filled with cheap plastic. pitiful. i was actually considering it for awhile too.
i think i'll get either an Elise or an S4 though.
Yes, you can click the smiley