car design thread

Actually, the Barracuda came first, beating the Mustang introduction by two weeks.

As for the Mustang, I don't think it really "came together" design wise until the '67-'68 refresh.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Curious what people think of the new BMW Z4 concept just unveiled. I have a 2003 E85 Z4 currently and previously had a 2009 E89 Z4 so clearly I like the cars.

I hadn't been a fan of the Z3 but I liked the Z4 right away when it came out in 2003. When the introduced the E89 Z4 in '09 I liked it even better - it felt more sophisticated and resolved. But over time I have come to appreciate the earlier model more as more pure and distinctive.

Haven't seen it live, but the new one just doesn't feel right to me. The front's not bad and the rear is nice but the sides leave me cold. The vent slash seems too large, the upper rising character lines seems un-resolved and the lower line is an obvious nod to the first generation Z4 but seems out of place here.

It also seems like the nose has gotten slightly longer in front of the wheels and the space between front wheel and door is slightly less.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

What is the story about the handling on these cars? From what I recall, the Z3 were not much loved. Did the car improve with the Z4?

BTW, the pic looks like a Boxster.

 

The BMW looks clean as fresh snow compared to this Portofino. Which looks more like the result from a committee that could not agree on anything and eventually ran out of time. Though to some degree they are trapped by the old California design. It looks more like a mid-cycle refresh instead of a brand new car. They didn't go nearly far enough compared to what was promised by LdM...
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

To bad they didn't Bring down the nose of the Ferrari down a little more.


BMW does need to come up with their own ideas.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Hardpoints, that is why I noted above the result doesn't look like a 'brand new' car.

It's also the 488 replacement platform to so it wasn't like they were restricted in their design choices for technical reasons. Ferrari claims to know their customers well so they have safely not strayed far from the visually popular California styling. Ironically the real incentive to buy the new car is that new platform you can't see that is underneath the body...
Tim also hints at something special about this new model that we are not aware of yet.

 

I bet it is an electric hybrid just like the future USA Giulia 4C Veloce, so a trunk full of batteries..


Here is the motors technical specs..Also says it will be lighter.


"Revised engine - the news of Ferrari Portofino are many also at a mechanical level, an accessory to the start of a new chassis, which according to Ferrari is more rigid and lightweight than California T and should improve the response of the car to the pilot's commands. The size, however, remains almost unchanged compared to the California T: the length passes from 457 to 459 cm, while the centimetres in width are 194 and no more 191. The height remains 132 cm. New is also the roof, lighter and operated, while the 3.9 litre turbo v8 receives new pistons, rods and a completely redesigned exhaust line: now develops 600 HP (40 plus) At 7.500 rpm, but according to the house house, it is also more responsive to the accelerator controls. The Ferrari declared 3,5 seconds for the acceleration of 0-100 km / h and a maximum speed of more than 320 km / H, compared to the of the compared to California T: the approved value is 9,5 Km / l."

 

Correct. Z3s were known for the rear end suddenly kicking out. Z4s were an improvement.

 

The first generation Barracuda looked like the Valiant it was derived from while the 64.5 Mustang looked unrelated to the Falcon it came from. The Mustang used a modified Falcon platform with a different wheelbase to get a short-coupled passenger compartment.

I agree that the 67 Mustang was better resolved although it was getting bloated. Wonder how much extra of the design integration was possible because of additional tooling funding becoming available based upon the initial sales success.

 

Z3 was a fun to drive car. It may not be the most precise weapon but it was fun and still road well. It had an older rear suspension from the E30 3 series that wasn't loved... but to be honest... people just say that so they sound smart... Those same people will trash talk the rear suspension of a Z3 and then gloat about how awesome an E30 M3 is... its the same damn suspension design.... Drives ME CRAZY

The Z4 was much more "focused and sharp" It was a solid solid car and chassis. The convertible top was amazing and quiet. The problem was giant wheels and run flat tires... I think if you drove it in Michigan you would leave it where ever you parked it. It just whacked the **** out of you on harsh bumps. I mean lotus elise style harsh on bumps

 

I couldn't disagree with you more. That BMW is a mess. The Portofino is busy but eliminates most of the horribleness of the California (I hate the California). The Portofino, in it's overall form, is a relatively nicely proportioned car (yes, with stuff all over it ) unlike the bustle butt California.
Generally when car companies replace models, even with new chassis', they tend to maintain a lot of the basic packaging of things. It can be assumed that a lot of major components (engine, passengers, electric roof mechanicals etc.) on this car are in the same place as the California.
The BMW is based on the new shared platform with Toyota, so some styling (proportion, packaging) direction came from that new platform which, from a packaging standpoint, was heavily influenced by the FT1.

 

Probably not much fresh snow in your neighborhood! Fortunately none here either at the moment. However old snow has lots of 'old foot prints' and other marks as well. To me the BMW Z4 looks new and appearance wise the Portofino has lots of old footprints so it's newness seems compromised. You can debate the merit of design details but it is that new 'look' that really motivates potential buyers. Once upon a time the car companies changed the styling every year to keep those customers trading up...

 

Attention with a capitol "A"

 

New or old, when I see stressed surfaces, I see badness.

 

Never driven a Z3 but my understanding is that the Z4 improved on it. From what I've read, the boxster was generally given the edge over the Z4 in handling but was still considered quite good.

I take my '03 to the track several times a year and enjoy it immensely, especially for a car that is also my dd.

 

I tend to agree. The portofino is conservative but is a cleaner, better design than the previous two Californias though the T was an big improvement. I particularly like the way that's retained a really clean coupe profile with the top up.

BMW more "edgy" - it is still a concept after all, but it's just off somehow.

 

All well and good but how does that affect the consumer when spending dollars. The consumer just knows what they do and don't like but probably not so much 'why' when it comes to design.

 

I'm convinced Ferrari could chrome plate do-do and sell every pile for a premium.

 

Indeed but it's still pretty much intact...
Image Unavailable, Please Login