OT: Ugly cars again...

With that grin I still reckon it looks like Benny The Cab from "Who framed roger rabbit" they really should stop designing webpages friday afternoons after the pub lunch. Derek

Reply to
Derek
Loading thread data ...

Same stuff that Chevrolet are with the Caliber! For those of us who have to drink the stuff.......

Mind you, LR should take a page out of their advert and stop trying to appologise for their vehicles.

Richard

Reply to
beamendsltd

On or around Sat, 29 Jul 2006 22:25:16 +0100, "Richard Brookman" enlightened us thusly:

actually, I think the PTC looks quite good, in black, and with some extra chrome. Looks like an updated gangster car from the 30s.

some of the colours look naff though. I reckon you can make a good case that to be pretty a car must look good in any colour. If it looks nice in dark colours but s**te in pale colours, the design isn't up to it in the first place.

Reply to
Austin Shackles

||| It actually looks a bit like the PT Cruiser, which says a lot. || || actually, I think the PTC looks quite good, in black, and with some || extra chrome. Looks like an updated gangster car from the 30s.

The whole point, IMO. It looks like one thing, but it most definitely is something else. It's all "let's pretend". The reason we all like Land Rovers is that they tend to be what they seem to be, and aren't styled into looking like something else. Well, up to the newest RR, anyway.

You want a gangster car, get a Cord.

Reply to
Richard Brookman

On or around Mon, 31 Jul 2006 20:13:12 +0100, "Richard Brookman" enlightened us thusly:

yebbut, *real* gangster cars are thin on the ground.

I've always wanted a Checker Marathon taxi[1], and they're like bloody hens teeth now. There must have been at the least tens of thousands of 'em.

[1] you know, the one that's in all the movies. here's a picture of an uncharacteristically blue one:

formatting link
and a more recognisable colour scheme:

formatting link

Reply to
Austin Shackles

||| And whoTF wrote the copy? "THE CONSUMMATE URBAN WARRIOR", "Brace ||| yourself. Aggressively styled..." "A striking new mid-range SUV ||| that fuses genuine off-road performance with stunning urban looks". || || Same stuff that Chevrolet are with the Caliber! For those of || us who have to drink the stuff.......

Got me thinking. So many of the non-LR vehicles have names suggesting aggression or conflict (Warrior, Challenger, Samurai etc), whereas LR have names suggesting freedom and adventure (Freelander, Discovery, Range Rover). OK, there's Defender, but at least that is defensive and reassuring rather than hostile like Warrior.

I wonder how much anti-4x4 feeling is fostered by seeing a massive pick-up roaring by your child's pram with WARRIOR in 3" high letters on the back?

Reply to
Richard Brookman

On or around Mon, 31 Jul 2006 20:13:12 +0100, "Richard Brookman" enlightened us thusly:

'ere, for those who thought the Fiat multipla was an ugley newish thing:

formatting link
now is that cool or what?

Reply to
Austin Shackles

I believe you have a point there, the Warrior's etc going round looking like ye-ha beer swilling Good ole' Sourthern Boys *I* find irritating, never mind the anti's. And with all that chome, spotless bodywork, slick tyres and (usually) 300 additional spotlamps its obvious to anyone, and particularly round here where a new working off-roader is driven into a gate post on delivery, that the vehicle is not intended for work in any shape or form. Having said that, though, LR adverts are so wet that it just reinforces the impression the LR are no longer interested on devloping off-road vehicles (that's customer feedback by the way).

Richard

Reply to
beamendsltd

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 20:47:02 +0100, Austin Shackles scribbled the following nonsense:

looks a VW Beetle (old sort) tried to hump a bubble car thingy (the one where the door was at the front and contained all the headlights etc)

Reply to
Simon Isaacs

To suggest that an item is ugly because it looks like another item is nonsense. It's like saying a blue car is ugly because the sky is blue. The assumption is that the sky is ugly, therefore the car is ugly. That's nonsense.

If you took the PT Cruiser out of the context of the 1930s retro ideal, we'd probably all say it was a nice looking car. How do we know this? Because when they came out in the 30s there was no history to compare them to yet. People weren't saying I like them or don't like them because they look like a model T. The design was new and people loved them for what they were.

They are nice looking cars for the same reason they were nice looking cars in the 30s: The wheel wells express the nature of the car... wheeled transportation. The strong hood line is an aerodynamic hyperbola The belt line continue all the way around the car and ties it all together The large grill expresses the nature of the engine's need for air The hatch expresses the function of a roomy wagon The forward rake of the roof line suggests agressive forward momentum I'd imagine if you put the engine and wheels in a river, the water would flow over them following much the same form of the design of the car. The shape just visually makes sense. The function is sheathed in an aesthetic and aerodynamic skin which is also functional.

The Land Rover is simple functi> Aust>

Reply to
robinjoe61

(re-arranged to bottom post)

|| Richard Brookman wrote: ||| Austin Shackles wrote: ||| |||||| It actually looks a bit like the PT Cruiser, which says a lot. ||||| ||||| actually, I think the PTC looks quite good, in black, and with ||||| some extra chrome. Looks like an updated gangster car from the ||||| 30s. ||| ||| The whole point, IMO. It looks like one thing, but it most ||| definitely is something else. It's all "let's pretend". The ||| reason we all like Land Rovers is that they tend to be what they ||| seem to be, and aren't styled into looking like something else. ||| Well, up to the newest RR, anyway.

|| To suggest that an item is ugly because it looks like another item is || nonsense. It's like saying a blue car is ugly because the sky is || blue. The assumption is that the sky is ugly, therefore the car is || ugly. That's nonsense.

Agreed, but that is not what I was saying. It is a bland family saloon with a moderately feeble engine dressed up to look like a 1930s hot-rod. That puts it in the same category as the rusty Corsa with the expensive bodykit - something which the owner is trying to pretend is something else, or that he/she hopes other people will think is something else. In either case, it offends me because it isn't honest. Engineering is honest, styling is essentially dishonest. Engineering builds something that works (the old hot-rods looked that way for sound dynamic reasons), styling tries to hide the engineering and impose something else on it. Usually, the something else is there to pander to the owner's ego rather than enhance the machine in terms of its function.

It's the whole form and function debate, and I tend to appreciate honest function and distrust any form which disguises that.

|| If you took the PT Cruiser out of the context of the 1930s retro || ideal, we'd probably all say it was a nice looking car. How do we || know this? Because when they came out in the 30s there was no || history to compare them to yet. People weren't saying I like them || or don't like them because they look like a model T. The design was || new and people loved them for what they were.

Agreed.

|| They are nice looking cars for the same reason they were nice looking || cars in the 30s: || The wheel wells express the nature of the car... wheeled || transportation.

OK ...

|| The strong hood line is an aerodynamic hyperbola || The belt line continue all the way around the car and ties it all || together

This is aesthetics and has nothing to do with the machine itself. Where we seem to disagree is whether this matters or not.

|| The large grill expresses the nature of the engine's need for air

Rather than having a large grille because the engine actually needs the air.

|| The forward rake of the roof line suggests agressive forward momentum

This is where I stick. The stylist says the roof line "suggests aggressive forward momentum". The car is actually an ordinary saloon mainly used for the Tesco trip. The difference between the two is where the owner's ego lives. To go back to the Actyon: the "consummate urban warrior" exists in the stylist's mind, the marketeer's wordcraft and the purchaser's fantasies. Not in the metal, which is probably pretty crap.

|| The Land Rover is simple function. It is functional and it expresses || that function with no compromise for aesthetics. It also happens to || be ugly, but that's OK, it's not supposed to be beautiful. IMHO

Beauty and ugliness are entirely subjective - I find the lines of a classic Land Rover beautiful, but that's just me. A "styled" body on a junk car is, to me, like sportswear on a fat smoker. "Look at me, I'm fit, I wear Adidas!"

Reply to
Richard Brookman

You didn't do the press releases for Freelander II did you? ;-)

That actually fits in with your 30's comments - form and function, the aim of some arty-farty designer mob in the 30's - something to do with Bowerhous (sp?) I seem to recall, though they did get a tad carried away.

Richard

Reply to
beamendsltd

Richard,

Thanks for that very articulate response.

My only disagreement would be with your assumption that the PT is: "a bland family saloon with a moderately feeble engine dressed up to look like a 1930s hot-rod"

I'm not sure what a "family saloon" is. Maybe you can elaborate.

The 2.4 L 150 HP engine is not bad for a car that size. But you need to look at the PT Cruiser GT with it's 230 HP engine.

Of course, comparing the $23,000 PT GT to a $38,000-$$75,000 Land Rover is a bit of a stretch, but the PT GT has more horsepower than the Land Rover LR3 with a 4.0 V6 engine (216 HP).

The 2003 model PT GT had 15 less HP than the newer ones, and it did

0-60 in under 6.7 seconds with an automatic transmission (of course a manual transmission would be about 1/2 sec. faster). source:
formatting link
's stock, no modifications. Like any hot-rod the PT can besooped-up to boost more speed out of it. "This isn't just a standard PT engine with a turbo bolted on. In the interest of reliability, the engine block assembly, cylinder head, and crankshaft have been redesigned to handle the engine's higher output. Pistons are cooled with racing-style oilers, and the oil lubrication and water cooling systems of the turbo were designed for maximum durability. A performance tuned exhaust system is also part of the turbo package." (motorweek)

Cargo capacity of 63 CF ain't to bad for a car that weighs 2/3 that of the LR3 which has 73 CF of cargo capacity.

It is a very utilitarian car that also happens to be a hot-rod and look like a hot-rod. I would consider any car that can beats a Ferrari 308 GTB/Si Quattrovalvole (0-60 in 6.8 sec w/ manual tranny)

formatting link
a 1980 Chevrolet Corvette L82 (0-60 in 7.4) a well qualifiedhot-rod.

Reply to
robinjoe61

snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote:

|| Richard, || || Thanks for that very articulate response.

:-) Form/function - a bugbear of mine.

|| My only disagreement would be with your assumption that the PT is: || "a bland family saloon with a moderately feeble engine dressed up to || look like a 1930s hot-rod" || || I'm not sure what a "family saloon" is. Maybe you can elaborate.

Aha! Just seen the dollar prices below - I (wrongly) assumed you were in the UK. A family saloon is a "normal" car (doors, roof, wheels etc) as opposed to a hatchback, convertible, sports car, SUV and so on. "Family" implies use by and for a family, four/five/more seats, practical if a little unexciting. Thuis might be what you mean by a sedan - not too sure.

|| The 2.4 L 150 HP engine is not bad for a car that size. || But you need to look at the PT Cruiser GT with it's 230 HP engine.

In UK, the 2.4 engine has 143bhp - not bad, as you say, but that's the best we get. The only other engine is a 119bhp diesel. So my description above is accurate as far as the cars we get here is concerned. All your well-researched comments about the GT are not applicable to the UK, I'm afraid. It sounds like a fine car in terms of its performance, and I won't disagree with what you say, but at the end of the day it's the idea of "styling" something to give the "impression" of this or the "feeling" of that, that I don't like. Just build a machine that does the job. If you can make it prettier while not degrading its ability to function, then that's fine, but I won't get excited about it.

If we had the 230bhp model here, I would probably love it, but for the fun of driving it, not because it looks "aggressive" or "purposeful". I'd like a massive air-intake if the engine needs that amount of cooling, but not if it's a modest 4-cylinder and the grille is a "styling feature" intended to "suggest" performance.

|| Of course, comparing the $23,000 PT GT to a $38,000-$$75,000 Land || Rover is a bit of a stretch, but the PT GT has more horsepower than || the Land Rover LR3 with a 4.0 V6 engine (216 HP). || || The 2003 model PT GT had 15 less HP than the newer ones, and it did || 0-60 in under 6.7 seconds with an automatic transmission (of course a || manual transmission would be about 1/2 sec. faster). source: ||

formatting link
|| That's stock, no modifications. Like any hot-rod the PT can be|| sooped-up to boost more speed out of it.|| || "This isn't just a standard PT engine with a turbo bolted on. In the || interest of reliability, the engine block assembly, cylinder head, || and crankshaft have been redesigned to handle the engine's higher || output. Pistons are cooled with racing-style oilers, and the oil || lubrication and water cooling systems of the turbo were designed for || maximum durability. A performance tuned exhaust system is also part || of the turbo package." (motorweek) || || Cargo capacity of 63 CF ain't to bad for a car that weighs 2/3 that || of the LR3 which has 73 CF of cargo capacity. || || It is a very utilitarian car that also happens to be a hot-rod and || look like a hot-rod. I would consider any car that can beats a || Ferrari 308 GTB/Si Quattrovalvole (0-60 in 6.8 sec w/ manual tranny) ||
formatting link
|| or a 1980 Chevrolet Corvette L82 (0-60 in 7.4) a well qualified|| hot-rod.

The nearest quote I can find from a UK source (Top Gear magazine): "More hearse-power than horsepower, the funeral-chariot-meets-hot-rod styling is as cool as a morgue."

Obviously you guys keep the best for yourselves.

:-)

Reply to
Richard Brookman

On or around Wed, 2 Aug 2006 20:30:16 +0100, "Richard Brookman" enlightened us thusly:

119 BHP is 8 more than a TDi disco, though...

and it's ample power for an normal family car. It'd be a bit slow if you tried to tow a big caravan with it, probably.

I've had normal saloon cars with much less power than that and they were perfectly usable. In fact, the only one with significantly more than which I've had is the sierra V6, and sure, it's fun, but the standard 80BHP 1.6 was just as good for going from A to B.

there's a tendency these days to assume that nothing with less than 250 BHP is any good, and frankly, it's bollocks.

Reply to
Austin Shackles

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 09:04:53 +0100, Austin Shackles scribbled the following nonsense:

I prefer to look at the weight of the vehicle and calculate the BHP per tonne. 144 BHP may be adequate in some vehicles, (eg Disco), but dump the same engine into something weighing a smidgen more than a gnat, and it is far too much (eg Pilgrim Sumo). In a Disco it works out to about 77ish BHP per tonne, but in the Pilgrim Sumo it's more like 200BHP per tonne.

Reply to
Simon Isaacs

Yebbut, there's nothing to love about the Cobra or it's many imitations other than it's dynamic failings, awful driving position and obnoxious soundtrack.

I've done a few laps in a proper Cobra on a racetrack. Acceleration is "**cking hell!", handling is 'alarming' and the gearbox seemed to me to be largely irrelevant.

Adjacent to me on the track was a fairly competent ex-racer in a DB6 and whilst I looked silly in every corner I almost rammed him at the end of each straight, despite having no real clue what gear I was in.

I really really want one, but I'm fairly sure it would kill me. I can think of worse ways to go.

Reply to
Tim Hobbs

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.