I'm posting this because I'm a little irritated.
There seems to be no new talent coming in the automotive design world, but rather the same talent gets passed around. Cars are starting to look the same.
For example, Peter Schreyer.
He was the designer of the Audi TT and worked for Audi. He now works for Kia. What do we have?
(http://www.theleasingco.co.uk/images/car_images/audi_a5_rear_660.jpg)
(http://www.dieselstation.com/pics/Kia-Forte-Koup-Coupe-car-picture.jpg)
(http://loadinform.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/2010-kia-venga.jpeg)
(http://www.audinationwide.co.uk/news/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/audi-q5-rear.jpg)
Then we have Bryan Nesbitt, designed the PT and the HHR.
Walter De Silva (Audi) Was at Fiat, Alfa, Seat before he got to Audi.
Does anyone else find this annoying that there seems to be no new talent or imagination in automotive design? This is precisely why I like Chris Bangle and the Chinese.
Yeah, they should probably give you a job. Your designs are so much cooler.
I don't think this isn't the case at all. There is clearly talent in the industry but they also have guidelines to follow that limit their creativity. Brands know their buyers. Period.
These days people are far too sensitive when it comes to car design. The moment somebody spots a design that "almost looks" or has a "similar shape" to something found on an existing car it's labeled as "copying". Give me a break. :facepalm:
Quote from: cawimmer430 on September 26, 2009, 11:51:10 AM
I don't think this isn't the case at all. There is clearly talent in the industry but they also have guidelines to follow that limit their creativity. Brands know their buyers. Period.
These days people are far too sensitive when it comes to car design. The moment somebody spots a design that "almost looks" or has a "similar shape" to something found on an existing car it's labeled as "copying". Give me a break. :facepalm:
In my opinion, cars are starting to look the same. Industrial design students are conditioned to create one-box, totally practical and bland vehicles.
I wouldn't call it "copying" but vehicles are starting to look similar. The second a manufactuer takes a daring risk, it seems like they're slammed. (BMW)
Quote from: 2o6 on September 26, 2009, 12:14:39 PM
In my opinion, cars are starting to look the same. Industrial design students are conditioned to create one-box, totally practical and bland vehicles.
I wouldn't call it "copying" but vehicles are starting to look similar. The second a manufactuer takes a daring risk, it seems like they're slammed. (BMW)
It's also a question of what "the people out there want". I think right now we're experiencing one of those "conservative phases" so car design is adapted to suit the masses.
So you're accusing the automotive design world of making all cars look the same because one guy went from one company to the other and is showing some similar design cues in his stylings?
Do you draw a line differently depending on what building you're in?
:wtf:
Peter Schreyer had nothing to do with the Audi A5. The current Audi design language was invented by Walter de Silva and has since then been continued under Wolfgang Egger when de silva moved to VW. If anything Egger has to be criticized that he is unable to step out of de Silva's shadow. I guess that is hard to do with de Silva being considered one of the greatest current car designers.
You mentioned the PT and the HHR. The interesting thing is that the retro trend was almost single handedly started by J Mays who first created the Audi Avus and then the New Beetle. He later created the retro Thunderbird.
There are new designers entering the industry. The BMW 5er GT design team was almost entirely under 30. Of course they had to work with the theme created by Chris Bangle and Adrian van Hooydonks.
Quote from: Galaxy on September 26, 2009, 12:44:05 PM
Peter Schreyer had nothing to do with the Audi A5. The current Audi design language was invented by Walter de Silva and has since then been continued under Wolfgang Egger when de silva moved to VW. If anything Egger has to be criticized that he is unable to step out of de Silva's shadow. I guess that is hard to do with de Silva being considered one of the greatest current car designers.
You mentioned the PT and the HHR. The interesting thing is that the retro trend was almost single handedly started by J Mays who first created the Audi Avus and then the New Beetle. He later created the retro Thunderbird.
There are new designers entering the industry. The BMW 5er GT design team was almost entirely under 30. Of course they had to work with the theme created by Chris Bangle and Adrian van Hooydonks.
I guess you're right. Car design has become so locked in and tight, nothing like the 30's, 40's or 50's. It seems like back then manufacturers changed things at the drop of a hat. Cars back then seemed to be more flamboyant. I guess that has to do something with the fact that the entire industry was really in it's infancy back then.
Quoteauthor=2o6 link=topic=20045.msg1167865#msg1167865 date=1253991103]
I guess you're right. Car design has become so locked in and tight, nothing like the 30's, 40's or 50's. It seems like back then manufacturers changed things at the drop of a hat. Cars back then seemed to be more flamboyant. I guess that has to do something with the fact that the entire industry was really in it's infancy back then.
The car industry used similar themes back then to. Look at a Cadillac, Lincoln etc and you can tell from what time it stems.
Very few companies/designers can really create "new" design. BMW/Bangle did with the E 65 and they have since been copied.
Quote from: 2o6 on September 26, 2009, 12:51:43 PM
I guess you're right. Car design has become so locked in and tight, nothing like the 30's, 40's or 50's. It seems like back then manufacturers changed things at the drop of a hat. Cars back then seemed to be more flamboyant. I guess that has to do something with the fact that the entire industry was really in it's infancy back then.
Except that, in every era, cars of the era, well, looked the same.
Always have. You can instantly tell when a car was made due to shared styling cues of the era. There were fewer detail changes between a Ford and Chevy of that era than between a Ford Fusion and a Ford Taurus now.
When I started on forums in the early '90s, people were complaining that cars were all starting to look the same. By the early 2000s, cars had changed, but people were complaining that cars were starting to look the same. Here we are coming up on 2010 and here is someone complaining that.... cars are starting to look the same.
:nutty:
There are only so many variations on the same formula. Some automakers try to blur the lines a bit by coming up with designs that aren't quite 2- or 3-box, but ultimately they are all going to be similar in basic shape, with variations on the details. There are just so many things that are standard to nearly every major automaker; for example, 4 wheels, two headlights, two taillights, a central grill between the front lights and a rear decklid between the tail lights, and usually the same number of windows with vaguely the same shape. Some stuff that has tried to vary things a bit have just been too strange looking, such as the Aztek, pre-facelift Tribeca, the old GM vans based on the Lumina platform (forget what those were called...), etc. Even BMW's new SUV designs are maybe too odd to succeed.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that innovation in design is frequently punished in this industry.
Chris is right. People have been bitching about this for years. Cars have always looked the same from on gen to the next.
Hell, almost every car from the 70' looked like a brick.
giant_mtb there's no need to be such a dick....
Not having known the actual people responsible I thought 2o6 was onto something.
Cars will always all look similar... they compete with each other and are bound by the same safety requirements.
I just don't like how UGLY cars have become. Proportions are dying in the name of safety and size. Details have begun to go to extremes in the name of distinction.
IT's all Computers' fault.
They spit out those cursed numbers that indicate the most inches inside, best aerodynamics outside, and DAGNABBIT the computers at Audi and the ones at Kia spit out the same numbers as the ones at Ford and the ones at GM.
Anyway the last two pictures in the first post of the thread: very "identical" looking cars. Because they are the same size/ general shape.
-BUT the Audi has a single straight line at the bottom of the doors from wheel to wheel. The Kia has a triangular crease, along with the side windows curving up- the Audi has a straight window line. The rear bottom fascias are very different, etc...
Quote from: sportyaccordy on September 26, 2009, 05:54:29 PM
giant_mtb there's no need to be such a dick....
Not having known the actual people responsible I thought 2o6 was onto something.
But he did know that (in his example) the guy moved from company to company. Was he expecting the guy to completely change his entire idea and practice of car design or something?
Quote from: giant_mtb on September 26, 2009, 06:33:12 PM
But he did know that (in his example) the guy moved from company to company. Was he expecting the guy to completely change his entire idea and practice of car design or something?
That's not the point I was trying to make.
Then I guess you shouldn't have used it as an example. :huh:
Quote from: giant_mtb on September 26, 2009, 06:34:29 PM
Then I guess you shouldn't have used it as an example. :huh:
No, you misinterpreted it.
I'm talking that it seems like the same people are employed at the same positions all the time, and thus everything
comes out as predictable and the same as everyone else.
Quote from: giant_mtb on September 26, 2009, 06:33:12 PM
But he did know that (in his example) the guy moved from company to company. Was he expecting the guy to completely change his entire idea and practice of car design or something?
Howd u miss his point
Dude worked at Audi, implemented a design language there... went to Kia, and basically implemented the same language there as well
So rather than different companies employing different design themes you have a bunch of companies with cars that *literally* look the same.
It's not like with Pininfarina or Giugaro (I know I spelled that wrong) that would work to maximize the beauty within the context of a manufacturer's design history. These new guys just totally do what they were doing elsewhere without regard to what their new companies were about before they came. Prime example- Jaguar.
Wow, fascinating topic!
Chris V is right. Cars looking the same is nothing new. I've read articles going back to the 1920s bemoaning the fact all cars look pretty much the same. Of course, by the 1920s, nearly the entire automotive world had settled on the formula of putting the engine up front, passengers in the middle and cargo at the back. This lead to a lot of similarities in car design. Since then, we've seen periods of flamboyance (1930s, 1950s) and periods of stagnant conservatism.
I remember when every car in the 1980s was basically a box on wheels. They all looked the same: slightly sloping nose, nearly vertical rear window and squared-off tail. Then the 1986 Ford Taurus landed on the scene like an atomic bomb and suddenly every other car on the road looked old. The Taurus literally sent GM, Chrysler and the Japanese back to their drawing boards. Square was out, "Aero" was in.
I think once designers had grown tired of the 1990s jellybean look, there was nowhere left to go. So they started adding sharp creases to the standard jellybean shape and this evolved in the "Ugly" look of the noughties. Designers have resorted to making their cars look "different" simply for the sake of being different. Naturally, safety regulations will always play a big part in determining what a car will look like but there's still plenty of scope for imagination and creativity. The problem is manufacturers have to be able to sell their designs to the public and the average consumer is a timid creature who will seldom embrace truly new or revolutionary ideas. So carmakers will keep regurgitating old ideas ad nausium, changing the appearance just enough to make their latest creation look new. Even if it isn't.
Cheers,
Madman of the People
Everyone gives the '86 Taurus credit for starting the "aero" age. But didn't '85 T Bird have the aero look first?
Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on September 27, 2009, 12:00:50 AM
Everyone gives the '86 Taurus credit for starting the "aero" age. But didn't '85 T Bird have the aero look first?
I know this has nothing to do with, well, anything, but I hate that T-Bird.
Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on September 27, 2009, 12:00:50 AM
Everyone gives the '86 Taurus credit for starting the "aero" age. But didn't '85 T Bird have the aero look first?
Kinda. But not the rounded-ness the Taurus did. A big factor was the fact that they all had glass lights before that too- the Fed refused to let anyone use plastic light covers, until Ford SOMEHOW won.
Square lights can only come in square, round, or somewhere in between.....
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on September 27, 2009, 01:34:05 AM
Kinda. But not the rounded-ness the Taurus did. A big factor was the fact that they all had glass lights before that too- the Fed refused to let anyone use plastic light covers, until Ford SOMEHOW won.
Square lights can only come in square, round, or somewhere in between.....
I thought square lights could only come in... square. :huh:
:lol:
Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on September 27, 2009, 12:00:50 AM
Everyone gives the '86 Taurus credit for starting the "aero" age. But didn't '85 T Bird have the aero look first?
'83, and it was a big deal at the time.
They went from this:
(http://www.tbirdranch.com/1982.JPG)
to this:
(http://www.channel4.com/4car/media/features/2004/ford-thunderbird/03-large/1986-f3q.jpg)
Don't forget this
(http://www.maniza.com/America/images/oklahoma/ok23.jpg)
:wtf: NACar where the FUCK did you get that picture? That might be the most awkward captured image of any Escort in existence!!!!
And the Tempo, too.
(http://www.automobear.com/images/models/Ford/Tempo_01.jpg)
The 1984 CE14 cars - Ford Tempo (http://www.automobear.com/Default.aspx?brand=Ford&model=Tempo) (and its Mercury Topaz sister) - were from the same Jack Telnack school of thought responsible for the 1983 Ford Thunderbird and 1986 Taurus. They were lower-cost implementations of the Aero look, to be sure; but a 1988 facelift made the lineage clear.
(http://www.automobear.com/images/models/Mercury/Topaz_01.jpg)
More than 450 hours of wind-tunnel testing, beginning in December 1978, resulted in a fast, 60-degree windshield and rear window rake; door frames which wrapped up over the edge of the roof; a somewhat sloped front end, and wider rear track. The tall trunk rose above the waterline.
The 4-door cars' 0.36 coefficient of drag (0.37 for the notchbacks) was the equivalent of Thunderbird's.
Some worried that the public might find it too modern; this was, after all, a mainstream car. "Thermo-nuclear ugly," said Car and Driver, which 2 years later would also misjudge the appeal of the Taurus.
The line soared to become the 4th best-seller in America, moving 531,468 units in its first full year.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on September 27, 2009, 03:43:47 PM
:wtf: NACar where the FUCK did you get that picture? That might be the most awkward captured image of any Escort in existence!!!!
Yes, it does happen to be my faviourite Ford Escort picture. If you Google "1983 Ford Escort", it comes up every time. :praise:
Quote from: Psilos on September 27, 2009, 12:11:09 PM
I thought square lights could only come in... square. :huh:
:lol:
ha I meant "glass". Musta been tired.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on September 27, 2009, 03:43:47 PM
:wtf: NACar where the FUCK did you get that picture? That might be the most awkward captured image of any Escort in existence!!!!
Looks like it could have been a scene from Napoleon Dynamite :lol:
Quote from: MX793 on September 27, 2009, 06:31:26 PM
Looks like it should could have been a scene from Napoleon Dynamite :lol:
Did the super sexy A5 really get compared to a kia in this thread?!?!? :facepalm:
Quote from: r0tor on September 28, 2009, 06:08:53 AM
Did the super sexy A5 really get compared to a kia in this thread?!?!? :facepalm:
They really do have the same taillights and side window shapes :huh:
Quote from: sportyaccordy on September 28, 2009, 06:12:26 AM
They really do have the same taillights and side window shapes :huh:
and share absolutely nothing else in common....
Quote from: r0tor on September 28, 2009, 06:36:02 AM
and share absolutely nothing else in common....
Well obviously, under the metal they are totally different cars
Youd have to be blind not to see the similarities in the tail lights, c-pillars etc which are both pretty much the only defining characteristics of either car from the 3/4 view
One problem is there are a limited number of ways to meet the requirements for a new car. Say you are designing a front wheel drive mid size car (Fusion-Camry size.) You have similar interior and trunk room requirements to meet the competition and must meet the same government requirements regarding passenger and pedestrian safety. Plus, you are designing for maximum effeciency at the same time, along with minimizing cost and bulk. So all the manufacturers come up with the standard three box design. Give engineers and designers the same swet of constraints and they will conme up with simiplar looking solutions. Differentiation comes from details. Stray too far from the mainstream and you risk losing sales. That's why Camry and Accord are generally rather conservative (bland) looking, better to offend no one than to break new ground.
Quote from: Madman on September 26, 2009, 11:29:37 PM
Wow, fascinating topic!
Chris V is right. Cars looking the same is nothing new. I've read articles going back to the 1920s bemoaning the fact all cars look pretty much the same. Of course, by the 1920s, nearly the entire automotive world had settled on the formula of putting the engine up front, passengers in the middle and cargo at the back.
Also, about 50% of the cars in the world were Model Ts so of course they pretty much looked the same.
I think there was more design freedom in the late 50 through about 1970 than any other era in automotive history. Gas was cheap so economy wasn't nearly the issue it is today., Safety regulations were few and far between until the 1968 model year. The US love affair with the automobile was in full bloom and the domestics ruled the road and manufacturers were happy to provide an annual model change.
Quote from: Byteme on September 28, 2009, 08:21:07 AM
I think there was more design freedom in the late 50 through about 1970 than any other era in automotive history. Gas was cheap so economy wasn't nearly the issue it is today., Safety regulations were few and far between until the 1968 model year. The US love affair with the automobile was in full bloom and the domestics ruled the road and manufacturers were happy to provide an annual model change.
Byteme again sums it up succinctly.
But even within general similarities, some stand out as terrific and some stand out as tragic.
The terrifics: The '63 Buick Riviera coupe, the original Studebaker Avanti ('62? '63?), the '68 Dodge Charger, the '65 Mustang fastback (2+2) and GT-350, the '67 Mustang fastback, the '69 Mustang fastback (Sportroof), the '05 Mustang fastback, the '66 Pontiac GTO, the '68 Pontiac GTO, the '63-and-a-half Ford Galaxie 500 fastback, the '68 Mercury Cyclone GT fastback, the '65 Impala Super Sport fastback, the original Pontiac Firebird Trans-Am ('71?) coupe, the Lincoln Continental Mark V, the '61 Lincoln Continental and doubtless a few more would come to mind if I gave it more time...I left off sportscars (the '63 Chevrolet Stingray coupe, the early 'Sixties Jaguar XKE, the Ferrari 250 GTO, the original Lotus Esprit ('74???), yada yada yada) as this thread is not really about sportscars. Some beautiful sheetmetal has come out of the three-box formula, along with a ton of mundane-to-downright-ugly.
I look back over this partial list and see that the Mustangs were beauty for the bucks, relative to the others there, and Mustangs look like Mustangs--so unmistakeable that in 2006 the Mustang was the second most-recognized manufactured product on Earth, behind the Coke bottle in first place and ahead of the Avtomat Kalashnikov Sorok Sem' (AK-47 assault rifle) in third. Beginning in 2005, Ford did not put "Mustang" or "Ford" anywhere on the exterior yet the vehicle was recognized the world over as a Mustang. If product recognition is to be valued, the right three-box looks can be priceless in a Camcordima world. Today, a cellphone might rank waaayyyy up there, too. No current Buick is as glamorous as the '63 Riviera (and probably none of them sell as well as the pricey-in-its-day Riviera, either!)--and I think this is cause-and-effect at work. The tragedy is, read that list and see all those famous names that are long, long gone (And don't claim that the Impala is still around--the original Impala morphed into the Caprice, and thus into oblivion. The current Impala is a characterless rental queen with FWD, disgracing the legendary nameplate of Chevy's stellar full-sizer from The Golden Age of the American Automobile).
Not only does the Nethead here lament the passing of these great vehicles, but I lament the passing of the America that was then. I was really, really lucky...
I agree that "automotive design reached it's Zenith" in the '50s and '60s. It's been going downhill ever since. Small wonder there have been so many retro designs harking back to that era. :huh:
Quote from: NACar on September 27, 2009, 03:33:45 PM
Don't forget this
(http://www.maniza.com/America/images/oklahoma/ok23.jpg)
Whoa! Two child molesters posing with their getaway car! :pullover:
Quote from: FoMoJo on September 28, 2009, 01:57:40 PM
I agree that "automotive design reached it's Zenith" in the '50s and '60s. It's been going downhill ever since. Small wonder there have been so many retro designs harking back to that era. :huh:
Perhaps it's due to my not being around back then, but I find cars from that era to just be generally oversized and overstyled. Fundamentally, from a proportions and just overall footprint point of view I think cars peaked in beauty during the 80s and 90s. Low sills, sizing just big enough to be relatively safe and comfortable, interesting details... you'll find this all through that time.
Well, it doesn't pay off to be different. Look like how people slam the ZDX.
The design of your face has reach it's Zenith :rolleyes:
Here is an example for fresh thinking 206. The BMW hedgehog er LOVOS (Lifestyle Of Voluntary Simplicity). Designed by a 24 year old student working for BMW.
(http://www.autobild.de/ir_img/68820610_26df06f7f6.jpg)
(http://bilder.autobild.de/ir_img/68820611_0ee4f4e39c.jpg)
(http://bilder.autobild.de/ir_img/68820616_c7b4312ce3.jpg)
(http://bilder.autobild.de/ir_img/68820617_ce38d610de.jpg)
(http://bilder.autobild.de/ir_img/68820619_ddeb633e86.jpg)
The girls name is Anne Forschner. Her name needs to be red flagged in all auto design departments.
Quote from: Galaxy on September 30, 2009, 05:44:39 AM
Here is an example for fresh thinking 206. The BMW hedgehog er LOVOS (Lifestyle Of Voluntary Simplicity). Designed by a 24 year old student working for BMW.
(http://bilder.autobild.de/ir_img/68820617_ce38d610de.jpg)
The girls name is Anne Forschner. Her name needs to be red flagged in all auto design departments.
Apparently BMW design need to lower that glass ceiling a bit more. :devil:
I'd love to see the CD stats for that design. I'd guess somewhere north of .50
What is this? A car for ants? How can people be expected to drive this car... if they can't even fit inside the door?
Quote from: sportyaccordy on September 28, 2009, 02:32:56 PM
Perhaps it's due to my not being around back then, but I find cars from that era to just be generally oversized and overstyled. Fundamentally, from a proportions and just overall footprint point of view I think cars peaked in beauty during the 80s and 90s. Low sills, sizing just big enough to be relatively safe and comfortable, interesting details... you'll find this all through that time.
I suppose we form our impressions early on. The following designs, likely, influenced what I still consider to be a beautiful shape for a car. For that matter, I still consider the '53s to be the most beautiful of all N.A. designs.
One of the first designs I was taken with were the series of Studebaker Starlight Coupes starting in 1947...
(http://oldcarandtruckpictures.com/Studebaker/1947StudebakerFoundInUruguay.jpg)
with a facelift in 1950...
(http://oldcarandtruckpictures.com/Studebaker/1950StudebakerChampionRegalDeLuxeStarlightCoupe.jpg)
evolving into the truly beautiful 1953 Starlight Coupe...
(http://oldcarandtruckpictures.com/Studebaker/1953_Studebaker_Commander.jpg)
and the equally beautiful 1953 Starliner...
(http://oldcarandtruckpictures.com/Studebaker/1953Stude-Champion-Starlight-2dr-Ht-023.jpg)
The '54s were almost as beautiful...
Starlight
(http://oldcarandtruckpictures.com/Studebaker/1954_Studebaker_Commander_2dr.jpg)
Starliner
(http://oldcarandtruckpictures.com/Studebaker/1954Studebaker-1.jpg)
Quote from: Byteme on September 30, 2009, 07:43:21 AM
Apparently BMW design need to lower that glass ceiling a bit more. :devil:
I'd love to see the CD stats for that design. I'd guess somewhere north of .50
It looks like the teleportation machine hiccupped when they beamed it into the showroom :confused:.
(http://bilder.autobild.de/ir_img/68820617_ce38d610de.jpg)
Holy air-brakes, Batman!
I. Absolutely. Adore. It.
That BMW seriously looks scary... reminds me of when I cut into salmon the wrong way. Freaks me out actually
Quote from: Laconian on September 30, 2009, 09:54:59 AM
What is this? A car for ants? How can people be expected to drive this car... if they can't even fit inside the door?
I knew reciting that line at the Art Center exhibit was a mistake :mask:
It's actually a pretty awesome idea. Not practical, but...
Imagine the active aerodynamics you can get out of it... if it's going around a bend the computer senses the suspension unloading at one corner of the car, and can raise the panels on that corner to force that part of the car down.
Aero braking would be huge at track speeds
You could set a certain percentage of down force you wanted front and rear, or even side to side before you headed out
I've read that another idea is for those panels to have photovoltaic cells in them, so they could turn to match the angle of sunlight. I think it'd be cool to see a time lapsed video of the car parked and the panels following it across the sky
The damage from kids wanging your car in the parking lot would be much more costly.
Quote from: Laconian on September 30, 2009, 04:47:30 PM
The damage from kids wanging your car in the parking lot would be much more costly.
That's why you contain the car in a bubble.
Quote from: NomisR on September 30, 2009, 05:27:45 PM
That's why you contain the car in a bubble.
Why get a car then, just roll around in the bubble. You can even go over water.
(http://www.uswaterball.com/pix/efim.jpg)
Quote from: hotrodalex on September 30, 2009, 05:41:34 PM
Why get a car then, just roll around in the bubble. You can even go over water.
(http://www.uswaterball.com/pix/efim.jpg)
Don't give Obama any more ideas :facepalm:
Quote from: sportyaccordy on September 30, 2009, 07:52:54 PM
Obubble
I literally heard a rim shot from a drum set as I read that
Quote from: FoMoJo on September 30, 2009, 10:38:44 AM
I suppose we form our impressions early on. The following designs, likely, influenced what I still consider to be a beautiful shape for a car. For that matter, I still consider the '53s to be the most beautiful of all N.A. designs.
One of the first designs I was taken with were the series of Studebaker Starlight Coupes starting in 1947...
(http://oldcarandtruckpictures.com/Studebaker/1947StudebakerFoundInUruguay.jpg)
with a facelift in 1950...
(http://oldcarandtruckpictures.com/Studebaker/1950StudebakerChampionRegalDeLuxeStarlightCoupe.jpg)
evolving into the truly beautiful 1953 Starlight Coupe...
(http://oldcarandtruckpictures.com/Studebaker/1953_Studebaker_Commander.jpg)
and the equally beautiful 1953 Starliner...
(http://oldcarandtruckpictures.com/Studebaker/1953Stude-Champion-Starlight-2dr-Ht-023.jpg)
The '54s were almost as beautiful...
Starlight
(http://oldcarandtruckpictures.com/Studebaker/1954_Studebaker_Commander_2dr.jpg)
Starliner
(http://oldcarandtruckpictures.com/Studebaker/1954Studebaker-1.jpg)
I find the best-looking of that series to be the final GT Hawks - that classic '60s hardtop roofline and stunning lithe bodywork get me every time.
(http://www.special-classics.com/Archive/american/gt-hawk.jpg)
:wub:
The earlier models are still lovely, of course, and I like that Studebakers in general are a little beyond the norm. I'd buy one just to be a bit different; even a more conservative Lark.
Quote from: omicron on October 01, 2009, 10:10:26 AM
I find the best-looking of that series to be the final GT Hawks - that classic '60s hardtop roofline and stunning lithe bodywork get me every time.
(http://www.special-classics.com/Archive/american/gt-hawk.jpg)
:wub:
The earlier models are still lovely, of course, and I like that Studebakers in general are a little beyond the norm. I'd buy one just to be a bit different; even a more conservative Lark.
I had a '57 Silverhawk which I loved (my 2nd car). It looked something like this...
(http://www.dottygale.com/p1x/my_57_stude_11_med.jpg)
In review, the Raymond Loewy design is timeless, imo.
Quote from: FoMoJo on October 01, 2009, 10:19:36 AM
I had a '57 Silverhawk which I loved (my 2nd car). It looked something like this...
(http://www.dottygale.com/p1x/my_57_stude_11_med.jpg)
In review, the Raymond Loewy design is timeless, imo.
It's highly desirable, certainly, and lacking the overt ornamentation of other designs of the era that can date quickly. One of its best attributes is that it's not a huge car - it's a very manageable size, and looks like it was designed that way rather than as a shrunken full-size car.
Plus, the Studebaker V8 engine sounds like melted butter and double cream.
Quote from: omicron on October 01, 2009, 10:28:51 AM
It's highly desirable, certainly, and lacking the overt ornamentation of other designs of the era that can date quickly. One of its best attributes is that it's not a huge car - it's a very manageable size, and looks like it was designed that way rather than as a shrunken full-size car.
Plus, the Studebaker V8 engine sounds like melted butter and double cream.
What I liked about it was the sleekness of the design - compared to the more boxy appearance of many other models of that era; despite fins spouting out the body-work here and there. As well, the touches like the elegant little chrome encased parking lights on top of the fenders produced a classy look.
The V8 in mine was a 289 2 barrel and indeed it purred; especially after I converted it to dual exhaust. However, as classy as the design was, the underpinnings were somewhat dated; kingpins and all that.