Hey Mr. Lund failed to mention when you picked up your new 1967 Camaro the special tuned exhaust headers were in the trunk... Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
All kinds of cool on that page! Might have to punch 6 and double-up w/the Plenum intake! Punch 7 for carbon-to-sample cupholder (furnished loose in the glovebox?) ...?
What do y'all thing of the current Mustang GT ? Particularly those of you in the business, John, Jeff, etc. I think its gorgeous. It has its retro cues but its its own beast. I just really dig it. Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
As far as retro goes, IMHO, it's the best they've ever done for the retro series Mustangs. There are so many around here I see them everywhere. They've just about run that string out IMO. I'm expecting something different next time around, but it's hard to argue with success. Their retro formula resonates with their target market..........in spite of what I may think. Chrysler with the Challenger and Camaro find the same formula works for them as well.
I find it well done for what it is. BUT, I am not a fan of retro design. Show me new and the best of the talent for moving the ball down the field. As John said, where is their next since they have mined this idiom (is next the Mustang II?). As for the current Camaro: likely a great platform with a hugely disappoint body. The 1969 Camaro isn't even my favorite series from the past. Oh well, GM Design's management is an embarrassment to the legacy of Bill Mitchell. Challenger: Very nicely done re-iteration of the original. Too bad its on an older generation of the E Class platform. A one trick pony.
1. It may be difficult to tell from the pictures, but the original Mustang was SMALL car. Maybe it's because I'm an old fart, but I associate sport cars with being small. The new Mustang, Camaro, et al, are squished toads by comparison. 2. How can anybody like the nose on this Mustang. Only thing missing is a Lexus grill. PS Jeff are you sure you want me in here? Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
Yes, you should hang out here. Design is mostly subjective. Around here you may find out explanations on items and you will certainly hear about process. As for the original Mustang it was a smaller car; it was a repackage of the then current Falcon. I do have a design issue with the tail to the rest of the car. The rounded corner of the rear bumper did not flow forward into the main body forward of the rear wheel. I definitely like the curved ends of the bumper but it, to me, is like it came from another proposal that was grafted on. I don't mind the current Mustang. My complaint is that they could have done more to be "new". But it was done under J Mays reign, the King of retro as a design direction.
Screw pedestrians. Maser makes it work okay. I'm not in love with it, but it looks a lot better in person. Image Unavailable, Please Login
Thanks to the newest crash and roll over standards, plus the need to hide 3,872 air bags, small is just not something that can be done with a new car, especially a fairly inexpensive car. I'm not a fan of the size either, but it is nicer than the last generation Mustang. I actually like the new Mustang front end. Not so much the new Camaro, though. And don't even get me started on the Clone Trooper--erm--I mean Lexus.
With all due respect to JM2, My opinion is that because of the EU requirements for 75mm clearance between any suspension "hard point", and the exterior sheetmetal, visual problems are created when trying to sell into the sporty market. This creates an effect of a very low wheelwell and high hood (aka "the Juke-look"). For a sleek appearing car, a "false crease" for lack of a better term, gives the illusion of a low hood, when in reality the hood/bonnet sheetmetal retains the 75mm clearance to the hard point at the top of the MacPherson strut.
I agree - the retro cues are there but I think of them more as mustang cues and don't see the overall design as retro any more.
A car designers job is to make a car look good. There is always packaging issues, legislation, crash standards etc. that the designer needs to deal with. None of those things are a reasonable excuse for not making the car look good. Any designer who uses those things as an excuse, clearly is not happy with the job they have done. Fail!
That kind of depends, I think. Low hoods and reasonably sized roof pillars have effectively been outlawed (unless the manufacturer can use expensive, high-tech solutions). More and more, the government is effectively controlling the basic shape and size of the car. Sure, a good designer can make a decent looking car within those parameters, but the parameters will always show through. You can't hide the tall hoods and the 6X6 posts holding up the roof.
That sounds a very likely explanation for the high hood/cowl, but doesn't explain why there can't just be "blisters" over the strut hardpoints and why, for example, BMW's 5-series, which doesn't use struts at the front, still has a high hood. The latter though may be due to the high mounting points of the upper arm. I suspected that it had to do with the fact that most cars are now based on a platform designed to morph into an SUV or crossover, so the proportions are determined by the taller vehicle. Alternately, I thought maybe a high/hood cowl was used to create a larger air plenum above the hotter-running engines of today (especially turbo'd ones) to promote better engine cooling ventilation. Maybe it's to do, as you noted, with creating a gap to engine hardpoints. Regardless, I am struck by the ubiquity of the "false crease", as you note (yellow line in example below) and the developing hood crease leading to, and blending with, the A-pillar (green line). I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say that probably fully 90% + of sedans and SUV's feature this design. One recently noted exception is the Audi A3 and I think the Porsche SUV's don't do this. Porsche cars, Ferraris are also exceptions, of course. Not only does this design create an unsightly hood cut-line visible from the side view, it is invariably matched to the fender trim line part way up the A-pillar instead of its traditional, and cleaner, location at the base of the A-pillar. This trend having started on Japanese cars some years ago, I suspect it has to do with control of tolerances on assemblies and simplifying sheetmetal stampings. Image Unavailable, Please Login
There is also a requirement for clearance between the engine and the hood, so far as I know. Some manufacturers even have exploring under hood explosive devices to raise the back of the hood for more clearance.
