Personally, I only care about design, not the consumer or sales. That said, I think people don't like bad surface, and like you said, they don't know what it is they don't like about it.
Apologies Andrew as Texas was calling. I am confident there are lots of other 348 owners who are still happy with their choice! Some especially so when they own this yellow beauty... Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
I was just thinking, and correct me if I am incorrect, but my favorites are nearly all from the Mitchell age, no?
Bill Mitchell came to work for GM Design in 1935 and retired in 1977. He was the VP of Design for the last 19 years he spent there. Just the last two cars on your list were completed after he retired. Image Unavailable, Please Login
The 1957 and 1957 were under Harley Earl. The 1958s are considered the last of Harley Earl's reign. The story goes that Chuck Jordan (later to ascend to be Mitchell's #2 and then later to VP) went over to Chrysler's area during lunch and found a spot to see the 1957 line. He ran back to GM and got others to come with him to see them. These were the "Forward Look" cars that completely out did GM. Harley Earl was on a European trip and in his absence the designers made a major direction change for the 1959s. Earl upon his return allowed this to go forward as he was on the verge of retirement and these would be the start of Mitchell's leadership. The 1958's on the other hand were too far along to do anything but trim work. Since Earl knew that the Chrysler line had clearly out done them with design he would trowel enough chrome trim on wow the public with shiny objects; see 1958 Buicks and Oldsmobiles for the most outrageous applications.
I love the Portofino... well... everything other than the name. I think the car looks VERY 550ish. Its beautiful with the top up and it no longer looks like a lexus sc430! (the california T was a much needed improvement)
In my mind the Mark VIII was very cohesive. For me it is a good thing that it was not trying to be a Mark III or Mark IV. Likely it would fall into the "under appreciated" list. I have a big bias against a lot of Ford Design. With that as a starting point it is no wonder that my list of great aesthetic designs by them is short. Ford executive leadership has a dismal history of even wanting to be a design leader. To me, the last time there was real commitment to design was Edsel Ford with Bob Gregorie. George Walker made a point of being an aesthetic politician instead of even trying for design leadership. Bordinet I dealt with previously; well known to roll in the latest GM so they could Fordize it. Jack Telnack was great and did some great work although not necessarily getting the all time greats through the process. Jack got pushed aside so they could bring in J. May; a headshaking turn of events. J.'s specialty was retro (what to do when you run out of new ideas) and to replicate his Audi design language. Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
I had two Z3 MRoadsters and think they are cool looking cars (notice I didnt say beautiful). But the Z4 was, IMO, absolutely hideous. So hideous I couldnt buy one even though technically it was a much better car. And please dont be offended by my thinking your Z4 is hideous. I own a California which from the front wheels back is pretty hideous itself.
Curious what you auto design enthusiasts and professionals think of the Z8. I think its the most beautiful mass produced car from the past ~20 years. Im seriously thinking about buying one before they get beyond my price range Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
My take from when they were new was: nice but did not look/have the presence of anywhere like the list price.
I initially thought it was the Z3 replacement. When I found out what it was, I was shocked. I hate retro so much and I also hate fancy. The basic exterior shape is inoffensive enough but the detailing and the interior are "not to my taste" (I like Jerry so I am trying not to use my typical excessively negative descriptions) But if you like it, that is all that matters. As an investment, I think it is probably not bad but it is interesting that most of the cars for sale have very low miles. So either they are no fun to drive or people bought them as investments (I think the latter). I would personally rather have a Portofino (Or even a California ) which fills the same basic purpose.
John, you picked up on boring. I want to expand upon that a concept of car design. Don't do something where the first look essentially tells all there is to know about the design. Have aspects that clearly work but they don't have to be entirely predictable. Subtlety is a hallmark. An example might be if all the intersections of a window opening are angles then make one a curve. Do accelerated curves not pure arcs. Even if it looks like an arc, it should not be. If the shapes are simple then make sure that the shape, the position, the position of the high point of the curve are at perfection. No amount of detailing can save bad proportions but bad detailing can make irreparable harm to good proportions.
Its all good you wont offend me. I fully understand the subjectivity of 'taste' partly why I posted here as I wouldnt expect anyone here to be rude. I have a hard time with the term 'retro' as it implies a particular design sense must be shackled to the era where it was born. As a human figurative sculptor Ive found that the classic gestures are still the best gestures. I would believe the same goes for auto design. Certain shapes that are referred to as 'retro' are simply the most pleasing shapes to us, which is why they get used over and over. To me, the negative form of retro design occurs when you force a design methodology from a car from the past that had a set of proportions , onto a car in the present that has a different set of proportions. The Camaro is very guilty of that IMO. Those form do not work on the current platform.
Harley Earl once held a 'cue' ball in one hand and a baseball in his other hand. He asked the designers around him; " which is more interesting?". Another one of his comments was ; " don't make it simple like Simon" Everyone got the message...
There are a lot of different definitions of retro and different people put different cars into the retro catagory of their choosing. I think a good example of this also references your comments about classic shapes being reused over time. Here is my example/comparison - Aston Martin built their entire return to popularity on classically propotioned coupes. Beautiful modern coupes that everyone loves. I never hear the term retro used about these cars. Their surfacing and most of their detailing is modern. Mini Cooper built their entire return to popularity on a classically proportioned coupe (obviously a less classic and less beautiful choice). The modern Mini even has some modern surfacing, but all the surfacing around the front of the hood and lights, and ALL of the details are squarely aimed at being retro (Did marketing push this on design, the designer said "I didn't design a retro car" or something like that) So the Mini is well known as retro (and proud of it, I guess)
I like the Mk VIII, but I like the Thunderbird better. Interestingly, I like the Mk VII better than the corresponding Thunderbird. Image Unavailable, Please Login
i agree. AM has mostly done a good job of finding the balance. i see the Z8 as i do the Astons. Classic lines and proportion with modern surfacing and details.
Dig these, too. Also appreciate the interior design. Meant to be 507 of its era? Though rear could be today's XK-E. Recall some had frame issues.
