Chysler Sebring

I like to hand it to Chrysler for taking risks. Their cars are certainly not bland. They don't always hit their mark, but they like to go for the gold. This is an example of neither going for the gold, or hitting the mark. If you don't aim high, then you can't miss.

I really don't know where to start, except the first thing that makes me want to scratch my eyes out is the execution of the convertible top. If there's ever been a car that looks like it was designed as a hardtop first, and a convertible as an after thought, this is it.

Then I forget all about the roof when I see those grooves in the hood, that may have looked good once on a concept car back in 2000.

When the top is down, it hides nicely under a beautifully sculpted, well proportioned rear trunk lid. But since they couldn't leave well enough alone, they put the antenna right in the middle. If it was any larger, you might confuse it for a life size radio controlled car.

I must say that I like the interior quite a bit. Judging by the number of these I see out on the road, the interior must make up for the entire rest of the car, but who would be willing to approach this hideous thing to find out?

A Pirate's car? Toyota YAAARis

My first post about the Aveo drew a comparison to the Yaris from a commenter, so naturally, I needed to follow up. Unlike the Aveo, I think this car has a lot of personality. Can a bug have a personality?

To design a car that looks like a bug and still expect people to drive it, you can't mess anything up. You start with a good stance. Check. You couldn't shove those wheels any further out if you tried. Make it sporty. Check. The car has a serious forward rake, which is accentuated by the angle of the rear lift gate, and the wheels are a good stock size. All the movement lines curve towards the front of the car helping the car move while it's standing still. Check out the lines that move down the hood and wrap the grill, and the sill line that dives forward below the level of the hood. The wheel wells have a respectable amount of flare too. My favorite little detail here is the Toyota badge on the front grill. Below the oval T, there is a cutout in the lower part of the grill that matches the curve of the badge as if it's opening its mouth. This car is nothing short of goofy looking. Seriously. It looks like it was designed at Disney. The proportions are very cartoon like.

Now that I think about it, I think the Toyota Yaris should star in a movie opposite Johnny Depp (there's that pirate reference that you all have been waiting for.) Maybe it would make a random beeps that only Johnny Depp could understand. You know, like R2D2? Oh, just imagine the trouble those two could get themselves into.

The sum of all parts is greater than the whole

That's how I feel about the new Ford Focus. Every time I see one on the road I wonder what happened to it. I actually used to drive a 2002 Ford Focus ZX3. That's the 3 door hatchback. It looked like an egg. It had lots of details that drove me nuts as a designer. The new Focus has a lot of details that are well crafted. So why does it look so offensive? The past few years, the Focus has fallen completely out of my cardar. That's my car radar. You heard it here first. Anyways, what I am saying is that it was so bland and boring the past few years that I couldn't draw one during a game of Pictionary Car Edition. Now, this Focus has certainly caught my eye, like a train wreck, cheetah print, or a girl with a muffin top that for some reason, you just can't look away from no matter how much it pains you to keep looking. No one else has that problem?

Get on with it!


I'll comment on the things I like about this car. I'll start at the front.

1. I like how the headlights integrate well with the grill. I don't like the headlights or the grill, but I like the way they integrate with each other. I like how the fog lights follow that hard line down around the front of the car.

2. I like the body work as it relates to the fake air vent. The top of the cutout connects the front and the rear of the car well. I don't like the "chrome" piece that fills it. It stops too abruptly at the door line. It feels like they forced the piece into too small of an area.

3. I like the dash board. I don't know how much you'll like that brushed aluminum finish when it's reflecting the sun in your eyes, but from a purely aesthetic point of view, I like how it frames everything. The controls look very balanced. Even the steering wheel looks integrated well from the angle the picture was taken from.

4. The back end... Well I don't like anything about the back end. Except maybe the blinking third brake light that my wife pointed out to me.

So as a whole, the car somehow fails. It's too tall, the wheels look too small, the tail lights are too small for such a big back end, and the grill is a weak interpretation of Ford's new beefy horizontal grill treatment that seems to work great on all of it's other cars. Overall, the car just has weird proportions that keep it from looking sporty, sophisticated, bland, or cute. But I'll keep looking at it when I pass one on the road, not understanding what captures my attention. The beauty is in the details if you can make yourself stare long enough to see them.

Yeah, the Mini too

I didn't mean to imply that last week's "Who does retro right?" post was about any and all car manufacturers that are pulling off the retro thing. It's just that those three cars are soon to be in the same segment and needed to be compared. The Mini stands alone. Just like the cheese.

The redesigned Mini in 2001 is so much bigger than it's father, it's hard to believe that they pulled it off. When you see one on the road, you marvel at how much it looks just like the old one. Well don't stare at them for too long or you'll be disappointed how poorly your memory serves you.

Don't get me wrong, there are so many details that are so beautifully executed that the details themselves are great examples of retro design. The roof line, mirrors, wheels and instrument panel are careful modern interpretations of the originals. The headlights are filled with turn signals and projection beams, but are simplified to an oval (which viewed from straight on, are circles). A white roof, racing stripes and grille mounted driving lights are among the other details that are inspired by the car's heritage.

There's really nothing that I don't like about the design. All the details are well thought out, even though so many of those details designed themselves. So the only criticism I can give is that there's nothing ground breaking about the aesthetic. It's been done before. I think it was called the Mini. And that's why designers typically don't like retro designs. Retro designers get credit for beautiful interpretations of classic designs, but the argument can be made that it's only half as difficult to redesign a car as it is to design something from scratch.

who does retro right?

Finally, the big three here in the states are competing again in the pony car market. Ford has had all the fun since the release of the redesigned mustang in 2005 (model year). Now, every Tom, Dick and Harry has one. I was afraid of that. So, fashionably late to the party, comes the Chevy Camaro and the Dodge Challenger. Now, just to be clear, I'm not going to go over horsepower, suspension, gas mileage, or any other details that will help you decide which car is right for you. I'm just talking aesthetics here. It's kinda my thing. Who has succeeded in faithfully capturing the spirit of the original classics in new sheet metal?


We'll start with the Ford Mustang.




It's hard to pin down exactly what year in the late 1960s that this new generation of Mustang came from, and that's the idea. There's really nothing about this car that I don't like. Except that every Tom, Dick and Harry has them. I've already mentioned that. But, being that there's so many of them out there, we've seen how the aftermarket has made nearly every GT out there unique. Scouring the net for images of late 60s Mustangs, it was very hard to find one that was stock.

I give this a 9.5 in honor of the olympics.

Next, let's look at the Chevy Camaro.




It's easier to put your finger on the 68 or 69 model year, except this is a much more modern interpretation of the classic. I applaud GM for pushing the envelope on this, but why mess with a winning recipe? There were sketches floating around the web of what the Camaro might look like that were just as exciting as the Mustang, but the final product is polarizing. No one seems to be indifferent, and I for one am not a fan. It looks squished, and has some angles that seem to be arbitrary.

I'll give it a 8.7. It scores low marks in "badass"

Last, but not least, the Dodge Challenger.





Again, it's pretty easy to see that the Challenger is the offspring of the 1970 pictured here. Both cars score huge marks in "badass". Staying true to the concept as both the Mustang and the Camaro did, (don't split hairs with me here people,) the Dodge has really muscular lines, and fantastic design cues from the classic.

I give it a 9.8. Retro, badass, and great attention to detail makes the Challenger the gold medal winner.

Chevy Aveo. Really?

this is the Chevy Aveo. it's a subcompact that appeals to... um... well, nobody.

i think this is how the conversation went.
"we need a more fuel efficient vehicle for our line up."
"how about an H4?"
"no, something smaller. we need more than 30MPG."
"what red blooded american wants a car like that when they can have a truck?"
"good question. how about we make it as ugly as we can, and that way, no one will buy one and we will have the numbers to prove that americans don't want little cars."
"great idea."

well i couldn't help but to offer some suggestions. the changes below have made it a little more aggressive and purposeful. note the wider c-piller like the new vw rabbit and gti. the front gets chevy's new huge grille, and the feet get bigger. this isn't a sports car, but why can't it look like the little brother of a sporty compact?