I think it's a good idea.
http://www.autoblog.com/2012/01/04/ford-ecosport-concept-new-delhi-auto-expo/
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2012/01/2012-ford-ecosport-debut-628.jpg)
I don't like Ford's new direction. It's working for them, but I don't like it.
Quote from: SVT666 on January 04, 2012, 11:59:16 AM
I don't like Ford's new direction. It's working for them, but I don't like it.
...the styling?
This is gross.
Looks like some kind of mutant electronic fish.
It reminds me of this.
(http://www.mouseplanet.info/gallery/d/120608-2/MK_SM_18_fish-goldhaber.jpg)
It looks like that new Buick.
Another crossover?
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on January 04, 2012, 07:27:39 PM
Another crossover?
Fiesta based, replaces the current Ecosport.
Wow, that's just revolting. It's not often that a car is actually physically repulsive, like a short chick with a thinning hairline, bad teeth, meth-worn skin, trailer park manners and a frame that can barely support her 20 stone load. This car, however is indeed that chick, just wrapped in a Latex jumpsuit designed by the house of Dior under the strictest of guidelines: "What would Lady GaGa wear if she were dropping acid and doing an interpretive dance routine on Andy Warhol's grave.
Quote from: Submariner on January 04, 2012, 10:30:32 PM
Wow, that's just revolting. It's not often that a car is actually physically repulsive, like a short chick with a thinning hairline, bad teeth, meth-worn skin, trailer park manners and a frame that can barely support her 20 stone load. This car, however is indeed that chick, just wrapped in a Latex jumpsuit designed by the house of Dior under the strictest of guidelines: "What would Lady GaGa wear if she were dropping acid and doing an interpretive dance routine on Andy Warhol's grave.
The front fascia is weird, but it really is pretty traditional, if generic and bland.
I thought it would be OK until I saw how terribly proportioned it is...
(http://www.carsguide.com.au/images/uploads/ford-ecosport-w.jpg)
The greenhouse is shaped all wrong, and it's just very bad looking. The wheels look positively tiny. In comparison to the Nissan Juke, another B-segment SUV, which has far better proportions (although the design details aren't to everyone's tastes)
(http://0.tqn.com/d/suvs/1/0/d/4/0/-/ProfileLeft.jpg)
Miniaturized Rendezvous? Ugh.
Quote from: 2o6 on January 04, 2012, 11:09:12 PM
In comparison to the Nissan Juke, another B-segment SUV, which has far better proportions (although the design details aren't to everyone's tastes)
(http://0.tqn.com/d/suvs/1/0/d/4/0/-/ProfileLeft.jpg)
Actually I think the Juke is hideous. Looks like someone dropped a piano on the back half of the thing.
Quote from: MiataJohn on January 05, 2012, 06:28:46 AM
Actually I think the Juke is hideous. Looks like someone dropped a piano on the back half of the thing.
It has a better stance was the point I was trying to make.
What does it do?
Everything about the Juke looks better but the front end. If Nissan cleaned up the front, the Juke would be awesome. I hated it when it first came out, but it has really grown on me.
Quote from: 2o6 on January 05, 2012, 09:09:43 AM
It has a better stance was the point I was trying to make.
Quote from: SVT666 on January 05, 2012, 09:29:52 AM
Everything about the Juke looks better but the front end. If Nissan cleaned up the front, the Juke would be awesome. I hated it when it first came out, but it has really grown on me.
Styling is subjective. I think the Juke is ugly as hell. That doesn't invalidate your opinions to the contrary.
Quote from: MiataJohn on January 05, 2012, 12:52:10 PM
Styling is subjective. I think the Juke is ugly as hell. That doesn't invalidate your opinions to the contrary.
I'm not talking about the styling. I'm talking about the stance.
Quote from: 2o6 on January 05, 2012, 12:55:57 PM
I'm not talking about the styling. I'm talking about the stance.
No offense, but who the hell ever bought a car because they liked it's stance?
Quote from: MiataJohn on January 05, 2012, 02:15:05 PM
No offense, but who the hell ever bought a car because they liked it's stance?
You're missing the point.
The stance and proportioning of the Ecosport looks bad; as Rupert brought out, a shrunken Rendezvous. The details of the design are actually pretty generic and typical ford (aside from that front fascia). Reminds me a lot of the Rendezvous, actually. Does not look normal, and not even as good as the old Ecosport.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-b8IjrXNAhoo/Tr--Tb9qMSI/AAAAAAAAEZ0/k_yX3qyY_HM/s1600/Ford-Ecosport-2.jpg)
In this shot, it doesn't look quite as bad, but still looks terrible.
(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQzhdgZ9BEWANqVHxKJuB00gmfQ5c_ulK5-jZed-PVxfEuojnsQjvhiaU1b)
The proportions and stance make the front overhang look extra huge, and the wheelbase shorter than it actually is. Coupled with the small wheels and oversized front fascia, the whole car looks tippy and insubstantial.
By comparison the Juke's bigger wheels, good sized wheel arches (and huge fender flares) coupled with a proportionally lower roofline (not sure if it is or not, but the belt line on the Juke is higher) makes the Juke have a more athletic and muscular stance.
(http://0.tqn.com/d/suvs/1/0/d/4/0/-/ProfileLeft.jpg)
The Juke looks stable and planted, where the Ecosport looks tippy.
Quote from: 2o6 on January 05, 2012, 02:26:11 PM
You're missing the point.
The stance and proportioning of the Ecosport looks bad; as Rupert brought out, a shrunken Rendezvous. The details of the design are actually pretty generic and typical ford (aside from that front fascia). Reminds me a lot of the Rendezvous, actually. Does not look normal, and not even as good as the old Ecosport.
In this shot, it doesn't look quite as bad, but still looks terrible.
The proportions and stance make the front overhang look extra huge, and the wheelbase shorter than it actually is. Coupled with the small wheels and oversized front fascia, the whole car looks tippy and insubstantial.
By comparison the Juke's bigger wheels, good sized wheel arches (and huge fender flares) coupled with a proportionally lower roofline (not sure if it is or not, but the belt line on the Juke is higher) makes the Juke have a more athletic and muscular stance.
The Juke looks stable and planted, where the Ecosport looks tippy.
In comparison, the Nissan Juke
No, I'm not missing it. What you call stance is part of the styling; it contributes to how the vehicle looks overall.
And I have yet to find a definition where stance refers to anything other than an antimate object. :huh:
Quote from: MiataJohn on January 05, 2012, 02:30:06 PM
No, I'm not missing it. What you call stance is part of the styling; it contributes to how the vehicle looks overall.
But I'm talking about just the stance. Nothing else.
The Ecosport looks bad because of horrible proportions. The Juke is polarizing because of it's styling details and motif; it actually has very good proportions.
The Ecosport's bad proportions are probably dictated by the fact that it's Fiesta based. So far, it seems like anything that is Fiesta based but isn't a Fiesta hatch looks ugly. The B-segment MPV isn't very attractive, and the Fiesta sedan is a rolling eyesore.
I don't know if it's that the proportions on the new Ecosport are inherently bad or if they just don't work with the curvy design language on other new Fords. The old model is the same approximate shape but with a more upright windshield, a lower beltline, and boxier details, and it works. The new one looks like Ford just took a normal hatchback shape and then added some extra sheetmetal in halfway up to make it taller.
I think if they would black out the entire wheel arch they could mask some more of the visual height.
Quote from: 2o6 on January 05, 2012, 02:33:34 PM
But I'm talking about just the stance. Nothing else.
The Ecosport looks bad because of horrible proportions. The Juke is polarizing because of it's styling details and motif; it actually has very good proportions.
The Ecosport's bad proportions are probably dictated by the fact that it's Fiesta based. So far, it seems like anything that is Fiesta based but isn't a Fiesta hatch looks ugly. The B-segment MPV isn't very attractive, and the Fiesta sedan is a rolling eyesore.
Ok, for purposes of discussion let's talk about stance as if it related to cars. The Juke sits a bit lower; IMHO it's still ugly because the bodywork sucks. The Ford sucks, IMHO, too but not because of its 'stance', but because of that god awful front end. On the plus side the Ford has greater ground clearance, I'd guess.
And using a shot of the Ford from below the beltline and the Juke above the roof kind of skews the actual results anyway.
Edit:
I just looked at a picture on Nissan's site shot from about the same angle and the Juke looks pretty jacked up in that shot.
Okay. :huh:
This car doesn't deserve the exclaimation point you've given it in this thread's title.
(http://www.carsguide.com.au/images/uploads/ford-ecosport-w.jpg)
The wheels and tires look tiny. The car looks really unstable too, like it's sitting on top of the wheels and it would tip over just by looking at it. The styling is brutal.
If it's going to ride that high, then it better have a real 4wd system, some beefy tires, and a tiny engine with low gearing so it can't go fast enough to tip over. Otherwise, this is just plain dumb.
It's not that bad. Kinda weird, swoopy, and scrunched up looking in a Korean sort of way. I've seen worse.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on January 05, 2012, 10:13:43 PM
If it's going to ride that high, then it better have a real 4wd system, some beefy tires, and a tiny engine with low gearing so it can't go fast enough to tip over. Otherwise, this is just plain dumb.
Ecoboost V6. 365 hp.
The back has a certain resemblance to the latest ML Mercedes, and the front.......... words cannot describe what I think of the front (well, not polite ones!). The gaping gob on he Focus ST is bad enough, but that is truly appalling. And where are they going to stick the licence plate? Right in the middle, I assume?
I don't know what car designers have been smoking, but this week we have seen a series of truly appalling new things - and if the artists illustration of Clio 4 is anything to go by, there is far worse to come (that car looks like Renault's suicide pill).
Quote from: SVT666 on January 05, 2012, 10:05:11 PM
(http://www.carsguide.com.au/images/uploads/ford-ecosport-w.jpg)
The wheels and tires look tiny. The car looks really unstable too, like it's sitting on top of the wheels and it would tip over just by looking at it. The styling is brutal.
On my monitor those wheels are oval. The picture has been compressed horizontally.
Quote from: MiataJohn on January 06, 2012, 07:42:40 AM
On my monitor those wheels are oval. The picture has been compressed horizontally.
Adjust your screen.
They're perfectly round on all my computer and in on my iPod touch.
Even if it weren't compressed, it would still look terrible.
I just saw two camo'ed prototypes (well, the same one twice) running around. Proportions look better in real life, but the wheels look tiny. And why is this thing testing in Akron of all places?
Lost.
Quote from: 2o6 on January 04, 2012, 11:57:33 AM
I think it's a good idea.
http://www.autoblog.com/2012/01/04/ford-ecosport-concept-new-delhi-auto-expo/
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2012/01/2012-ford-ecosport-debut-628.jpg)
Production model. Not much changed, but these are more flattering shots. I think it's a good idea for the US.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7267/6955457102_af78732345_c.jpg)
Fast fact, that is a door handle integrated into the right tail lamp. Clever.
http://www.netcarshow.com/ford/2013-ecosport/
It also has the new 1.0L Ecoboost that will make its way to the Fiesta.
Why don't they just make the Fiesta AND the Focus 10ft tall and call them "new cars"???
Here's a spy shot I took of this car running around (I saw it again, today!)
(http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/457525_3246332843724_1428997818_32495417_1794550058_o.jpg)
Why are they testing a model that is/should be done by now? Methinks they're doing some suspension calibration for the US market.
It looks better in person, not as gawky and frumpy in the photos.
Oh, and looks to be a twist axle out back, and this model didn't look like it had AWD.
Looks dumb.
Wow, just what we need. Another RAV4. Ugh.
Quote from: TurboDan on May 18, 2012, 11:23:48 PM
Wow, just what we need. Another RAV4. Ugh.
RAV4 is a great vehicle...
Quote from: 2o6 on May 18, 2012, 11:31:18 PM
RAV4 is a great vehicle...
Have you ever driven one? I had one as a rental and I was scared for my life. Cheapest-built vehicle I've ever driven. Felt like a strong wind could have whipped it off the road. Terrible handling, tons of creaks and rattles, light-closing doors, totally unrefined engine, atrocious interior, cheap plastic everywhere.
Wouldn't trust it offroad anywhere.
Quote from: TurboDan on May 18, 2012, 11:41:09 PM
Have you ever driven one? I had one as a rental and I was scared for my life. Cheapest-built vehicle I've ever driven. Felt like a strong wind could have whipped it off the road. Terrible handling, tons of creaks and rattles, light-closing doors, totally unrefined engine, atrocious interior, cheap plastic everywhere.
Wouldn't trust it offroad anywhere.
Most modern SUVs aren't meant for off road.
Which RAV4 are you talking of? All of them are pretty quality vehicles.
Quote from: 2o6 on May 18, 2012, 11:43:39 PM
Most modern SUVs aren't meant for off road.
Drive my Landie. Can go wherever a Defender can go without the baggage ;) .
But honestly, isn't this the problem? If a "RAV4" can't do shit demanded of 4WD vehicles? Even if it can't, OK, cool... but the vehicle was one of the cheapest, low-quality POS cars I've ever driven. No excuse for the terrible execution of that truck at all.
Quote from: TurboDan on May 18, 2012, 11:51:04 PM
Drive my Landie. Can go wherever a Defender can go without the baggage ;) .
But honestly, isn't this the problem? If a "RAV4" can't do shit demanded of 4WD vehicles? Even if it can't, OK, cool... but the vehicle was one of the cheapest, low-quality POS cars I've ever driven. No excuse for the terrible execution of that truck at all.
None of them can. Freelander/LR2 is much more expensive; and without the trick differential it's just as useless as everything else. I have driven a Freelander MK1; I hope it's not as bad on road as the new one. I by no means dislike the LR2, but its in the same vein as other compact CUV's; just its a little nicer and is decent off road.
The RAV4 is a compact CUV. It arguably one of the best on the market...
"Best" and "RAV4" shall not be used in the same sentence.
Price has nothing to do with anything. The next Defender will be priced cheap and it will destroy all. The old Cherokee did the same thing. The RAV4 is a cheaply built POS if there ever was one.
And as the LR2 goes, the New Jersey pine barrens' deepest roughest trails, the deep-sand beaches of Island Beach State Park and the deep-mud of a national Superfund landfill site have yet to sink her, so I feel pretty confident. ;)
Quote from: TurboDan on May 19, 2012, 12:01:34 AM
"Best" and "RAV4" shall not be used in the same sentence.
Price has nothing to do with anything. The next Defender will be priced cheap and it will destroy all. The old Cherokee did the same thing. The RAV4 is a cheaply built POS if there ever was one.
The old Cherokee was also atrocious on road, and the defender won't be affordable (LR is a luxury make). The Defender is great off road, but very very crude.
The RAV4 is a well made small SUV; delivering exactly what customers want.
I think your standards are just off again for mainstream-priced cars. If you hate the RAV4, you'd hate anything else in its class that provides any similar qualities. I've driven three RAV4s, one for a week, and can't share your complaints at all.
3rd (current) gen Rav4 redefined the class, and otherwise changed the way soft roaders as a whole are built. Mega kudos to Toyota shoving the 3.5L V6 in there too.
Quote from: ifcar on May 19, 2012, 05:36:51 AM
I think your standards are just off again for mainstream-priced cars. If you hate the RAV4, you'd hate anything else in its class that provides any similar qualities. I've driven three RAV4s, one for a week, and can't share your complaints at all.
Not really. I don't hate the CR-V. I don't hate the Escape. I don't hate the Liberty. I don't hate the Tiguan (even though that's pricier).