Looks like they shot a bonus video which shows off more sketches I watched a video about mustang II's a while back and it seems the enthusiasts are really friendly. Also a lot of weird special editions and options you could get on them.
I really took it as a badge of honor when you liked some of my posts defending the design of the car in those threads.
I am currently obsessed with the design of the dino. I can't stop watching videos of the car. Gosh it's really one of the absolute best designs ever. Also to think that the 275 to the Daytona. I wasn't alive when that stuff came out but there had to have been people who were really upset with the design language then.
The "bring back Pininfarina" line of reasoning seems pretty illogical. It's the people at the desks that matter, not the office they sit in. The passionate responses - good and bad - seem completely reasonable to me, on the other hand. You don't need a background in design to know if you find a car attractive. And whatever design prowess went into this car (no doubt more than I can begin to understand), it's clear that there's a large contingent who think it's, erm, not a looker. And they're no more wrong than the folks who are absolutely smitten.
Haha. I still am. 275 is one of my all time favorites. Never liked the Daytona... Dino, on the other hand, I'm right there with you. Stunning.
275 is a whale from the side view. beltline too high, bloated rear window. 250 GTO is the cats meow and the lambo miura is perfection.
https://performance.ford.com/enthusiasts/newsroom/2018/02/_sudden-death_-big-block-mustang-ii-.html Image Unavailable, Please Login
I'm with you 100%. Never meant to imply one's opinion was more valid than the next. I was just commenting on the voracity of the commentary when the actual car hasen't been seen by many of the commenters. It's all very amusing as far as i'm concerned, but I am glad people take design so seriously.
Full disclosure here, this last week i had lunch with 5 of my former design peeps. One of the topics of course was the F80. Much to my surprise there were mixed feelings, not unlike those commenting in there F80 thread elsewhere. The negativism wasn't as strong as experienced here however. Several agreed that the car looked good, but wasn't the "typical" Ferrari design vocabulary. To a man everyone is still in love with the icons from the '50's-'70's, not unlike those here on Fchat. But there was unanimous opinion that Pininfarina isn't a singular designer, but a staff that evolves. The original leadership has long left the bldg. No question, Mr. Manzoni has one of the most difficult design positions in the automotive world. I personally believe his track record shows he's up to the task. Evidently many in the public disagree.
I think part of the problem is the F80 has too much race car in it. The nose and the way it joins the rest of the car by the windshield looks all race car, not streetcar. Street cars should be more beautiful, not just aero devices made for just speed, as none of these cars will ever need that extra performance. So, aesthetics first, performance second. Ferrari is missing the point.
I heard somewhere previously and I commented in that thread about a luxury brands design theory I was told... I was told that the greatest brands don't give you want you want. That's not their job. They are supposed to give you what you don't know you want yet. For me that clicked. Rolex... Should make a stainless steel Daytona with a blue dial... It would go crazy. Everyone would kill for one... But it's too obvious. You can buy a blue dial chrono anywhere... And then people would ask for a green dial on the same watch... And then... You would end up being fossil watch or something. Also you would be jumping at your customers requests forever in that fashion. The precedent set would be destructive. Plus anytime you did the out of the box thing people would assume you "lost it" because you were giving them everything... And now your uniqueness is gone. Your leadership in the space is gone... Now you are just a follower.of customer whims and trends instead of the trend setter. It's crazy to look back and think of the iconic 69s Ferraris... Then move into the 1970 right angle era and big flat surfaces... Where as in the 60s cars im not sure there was one flat panel on the car ... Then... Go from the 70s stuff to the 1980s stuff with the strakes and vents all over! In my opinion the 90s cars were really the the 1960s stuff combined with the 80s stuff....and they made an homage to the 70s with the 456 bugs that's about it. But the 90s stuff (my 2nd favorite era of Ferrari) was really the first sort of return to fashion or dare I say retro design that occured in the industry. The f50 has some 60s prototype racer ala p3 in it compared to the trend setting f40. The 355 was a dino-ish 308 ish look. The 456 borrowed from the 365 Daytona and 2+2. The 550 was back to being organically shaped and rounded like a 275. Now none of those were direct copies but they pulled influence on the Ferrari heritage. I feel perhaps this new design language is a look back at the 70s stuff along with an attempt to look forward. Obviously the f80 has design influenc from the f40 as well. All I know is this... The sf90 replacement is going to be really interesting to see based on the 12c and the f80
This is such an interesting, complex topic that billions of $$ are spent on analyzing and discussing various strategies. Design is not a science. There are no right and wrong answers, just different answers. Give 10 designers the same design brief and you’ll get 10 different answers. While we were discussing the merits and faults of the F80 it was enlightening as to what each designer focused on. The curse of being a designer is that everything you look at sets off a thought process as to how ‘you’ would have done it. I like the F80, but that front end is where I have a disconnect. Someone else pointed out the bump over the rear wheel, etc. I recently said this somewhere else, but no production design is an accident. They look the way they do because someone wanted them to look that way. Costs, safety regulations, manufacturing regulations, marketing dictates, personal preferences, and on and on and on. Building and designing a mass produced vehicle is one of THE most complicated endeavors. My time worn tale: “It’s not easy. If it were, anyone could do it. It’s not and they can’t”
Similar stance, too ... (Forty pic by Zach Mayne) Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
I'm starting to like it a little bit better after a week of incubation time! Anybody know what that little black box under the yellow horsie logo is? Something electrical? Image Unavailable, Please Login
Not too much alike. They both have high tails and very low noses...Oh wait The F80 should have been made as a limited production race car, not a streetcar.
Still ugly, but at least ICE available and the sedan a retro back to the original 5 series. Image Unavailable, Please Login
Everyone see the new VW/Scout Pick-up/SUV? Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login By Peter M. DeLorenzo Detroit. Longtime readers of this website are very familiar with the drill by now. A manufacturer summons the automotive media – or what passes for it these days (including the various hangers-on, analysts, and fanboys and girls, etc.) – flies them to a location not their own and regales them about its upcoming Belchfire EV in SUV or truck guise. Not only will these new vehicles rewrite the history books, but they are promised to be the greatest thing since sliced bread, at least in automotive terms. Then the assembled media-types – who run the gamut from credible to barely tolerable – dutifully report what said manufacturer wants them to say. The new vehicles will be new and good and better than most. They will “redefine the market.” They will be immediate “forces to be reckoned with” in their segments. And, they will be eminently successful – I mean, how could they not be? I and we have heard this all before. Over and over and over again. It’s like we’re on a doom loop of over-promising, and if things don’t work out, oh well, it’s on to the next big thing. What company am I talking about this time? Volkswagen’s new offshoot “Scout Motors” brand. Thinly based on the heritage of the long ago – and defunct – International Harvester brand, this is VW’s foray into the truck and SUV market minus the baggage that the VW name brings to these segments, meaning it has no credibility, so this will allow it to play in the hottest segments with a clean slate. At least that’s the idea. And Scout Motors operatives said all the right things when they showed the “production concepts” of the all-electric Scout Traveler SUV and Scout Traveler pickup truck to the media in Nashville. Designed and engineered right here in Michigan and slated to be assembled in Columbia, South Carolina, the two new products with body-on-frame architecture are aimed to hit dealerships at around $60,000.00 with a 350-mile range for both, and in a significant hedge, a range-extending feature called “Harvester,” which uses ICE assist to deliver an estimated 500-mile range, will be available. One analyst has already weighed in by attaching the word “brilliant” to the endeavor. Mind you, there was nothing to drive, so why this assessment would be even remotely valid or credible is beyond me. Another analyst said that with a 2027 introduction date, Scout Motors would have plenty of time to build buzz for the brand. Let’s stop the proceedings right here. 2027? You have to be frickin’ kidding me. I can safely say that that isn’t enough time, and there isn’t enough money to build a brand from scratch. And make no mistake, despite the old International Harvester throwback names, we’re definitely talking from scratch here. VW is said to be on the hook to the tune of $3 Billion for this quixotic quest. Let me set the record straight right here – that rumored investment is laughable. We’re easily talking $4 Billion, if not more. Serious dough-re-me, folks. That’s just what this kind of product launch costs. Needless to say, I don’t attach the word “brilliant” to this market foray by VW just for showing up. Are the new products going to be good? Who the hell knows? They look good and boast all of the right accoutrements – at least on paper – but that means exactly zero at this juncture. I expected more from the journalists and analysts assembled in Nashville to see these products, but then again, why should I? It’s called “rote regurgitation” of the info presented, and there wasn’t a critical perspective to be had anywhere. It’s disappointing and pathetic. Back to that 2027 launch date. I get why Scout Motors operatives wanted to show off their dream scrolling, because they’re under intense pressure to show something, but this really doesn’t move the needle to the substantive zone. At all. It just shows that they’re present and accounted for, at best. And that just isn’t enough. Especially when the plan is to sell Scouts directly to customers, cutting the VW dealers out of the loop completely. (As you might imagine, VW dealers are taking legal steps to counter that decision. Good luck with that, by the way.) I will be shocked if we see Scouts roll out of the assemble facility in 2027, and if they do, it will be a handful of vehicles on December 31, 2027, just to say they met the target. Realistically, we’re talking 2028 here, and what the market will look like for EVs then is anyone’s wild-ass guess at this point. This whole thing is just a giant “we’ll see,” as we like to say around here. On paper, the Scouts should be pretty good. But that’s on paper. That seems to be enough for some analysts and journalists – I mean, it was a slow day in October – but it isn’t even remotely close to being enough for me. “On paper” sounds a lot like glorified vaporware to me. And ladies and gentlemen, if that floats your boat, good night and good luck. And that’s the High-Octane Truth for this week.
Rivian’s first cousin? And it’s called a Belchfire? Not sure the exact pronunciation of that but sure my wife isn’t gonna like it.
The ICE seems to function as an onboard generator for the batteries rather than as a direct mechanism of propulsion. A 500-mile total range makes it a viable option that presumably I could do a refuel for 650 or two refuels for 800 miles in a day. My current SUV does ~340 gas miles on one tank (~300 miles if I use remote start a lot for climate control), and that is a bit tight for a Realtor. I would have an easier time with a 500-mile range vehicle. Quite a lot of Realtors here drive Tahoes/Suburbans and Yukons/XL for the big tanks and long range between refuelling. If going EV, I might be tempted to do it with an SUV with an ICE generator. A friend's Karma Revero GT is an amazing car and when I drove it I said something along the lines of: "Damn you. There I was, perfectly happy loathing all soulless electric vehicles and then you had to make me drive one I'd actually like." The only problem with Karma is next to no support for the thing here in Alabama. Fortunately, my friend is pretty handy himself around tech (he's a technology company CTO). An SUV version of that with backing by a big traditional car company with local dealerships... maybe I could do it. Maaaaybe. All the best, Andrew.
That ICE recharging system is the same concept several Japanese companies planned to use on their next generation cars. Mazda Vision and RX7 replacements had that concept, but they were going to use a small Wankel ICE motor. I say make the main driving unit a small ICE motor and stop the need for long recharges. Forget EV and go hybrid, problem solved.
Drive a Karma Revero GT and see if you have any other thoughts. When the ICE is running to charge while you drive, it actually sounds like it's an ICE-driven car. All the best, Andrew.
