Changing vehicle looks for the sake of change

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Oct 8, 2006
Messages
11,526
Location
OH
Maybe I'm just getting old (actually, there's no maybe about it), but I still believe if you've got something that works, don't change it. I think a lot of automakers change the designs of their models just to get a different look, and in the process, they are actually ruining a lot of models. Take the Civic for example, IMO the '06 thru '11 models were by far the nicest looking Civics ever produced, either in the coupe or the sedan. The model after that was way too generic looking, and the current model is just plain *****. I don't understand what they're doing, style wise, at Honda, but they're not the only ones. Here are a few of the others I've noticed:

All models of the previous gen Mazda 3 were much nicer looking than the current one.

I saw a new Cruze yesterday and I thought it looked exactly like a Ford Focus sedan. The previous version was much better looking.

Though the Corvette is a bit different in that it undergoes many performance upgrades, I haven't been able to warm up to the looks of the C7. The smooth, round, flowing lines of the C5 and C6 have been replaced by angles and sharp corners. No thanks Chevy, even though the C7 is a better performer, I'd still take a C5 or C6 over it any day.

I realize each successive model is usually better in some ways than its predecessor, but the newer designs seem to be lacking a restraint from gaudiness. Different just to be different regardless of the outcome seems to be the new "in" thing...I guess I am out...
 
Last edited:
Didn't you already post basically the same thread that they shouldn't change the looks of well selling vehicles a few months ago ?

We no longer tie an onion to our belt (which was the fashion at the time from what I've heard0
 
There was a time when the auto makers changed the car every model year.
The 55, 56, 57, 58 Chevy as an example. Or did Chevy reach the pinnacle of automotive design with the Citation II?
 
Hey grampi, I'm so with you as are many of us but changing sheet metal and trying to be cool is and has been a part of marketing for a long, long time.

So, I say this with an uplifting tone of comradery.....try to move on. Dwelling on the market places inadequacies will wear you down.

What's galling is that the car companies will call it "freshening".

Ex: The small, flat headlights of the '80's was said by GM to allow lower lighting angles. Then, in later cars, they stacked the 2 small lights!

Liars
 
Civic was made for its intended target market, being the younger crowd. Its certainly sportier looking. Being 34, its not on my list anyways.
 
The only time it bothered me was recently with the Kia Sportage. They turned a very handsome car, with a broad market of buyers into a car that looks like a frog.

I can't imagine many people want to buy a frog car.
 
What did Honda end up doing with the Civics that had the coolant seeping engine blocks? Did they just extend the warranty or actually replace engines. I was looking at used Civics back in 2010 when I found out about their issue and quit looking after three dealer's service departments told me they never heard of the problem.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow

We no longer tie an onion to our belt (which was the fashion at the time from what I've heard0


Dunno about you, but I love that episode of the Simpsons!

Onion on belt


Originally Posted By: DemoFly

I can't imagine many people want to buy a frog car.


mad.gif


I take offense to that statement.
I like the Nissan juke!
 
Meh, the 55-57 was basically the same body. I drove 6 volt Bugs for nearly 20 yrs,. Then kids came and we switched to AMC Wagoneers. They used the same body '63-'91. Then 528es for 20 yrs. They had the same body for all 8 years. Studebaker sedans were the same cabin from '53-'64. The front end and decklid changed, but not the cabins. Leave the form the same but tweak the innards. 2 of those companies are extinct. BMW was building E 28s that would go 300K miles with basic maintenance. The bean counters fixed that problem. Nah, people want fresh looking new cars. Change the lights and grille. add more electronics. Same old car underneath the cosmetics.
 
I agree...the market is profit-driven though, so if a model is "stale" the sales numbers drop. In today's "I must have the newest phone" world, there is a social status (stigma?) with some people who associate what they drive with who they are, and the people they know judge them accordingly....
 
55 and 56 Chevys are almost clones, but the 57 Chevy, at least from the C pillars back, were unique for the tri fives. Same for the first gen Camaro. 67 and 68 were virtual clones except for the door vent glass and side marker lights. The 69 Camaro was like a one year only design even though it is considered a first generation. In 70 the Camaro was radically changed from the first gens, and looked pretty much the same for the next decade. Then we have the Volkswagen Beetle, which went almost unchanged cosmetically for 40 years. I'd bet Grampi is a big fan of the Beetle....
wink.gif
 
Originally Posted By: HM12460
I think the new Civic is a fine looking car, especially the coupe version.


+1 - also - Change is inevitable , change is constant.
 
Originally Posted By: Kira

What's galling is that the car companies will call it "freshening".


I find it galling regarding the opposite explanation of calling something "dated". Even though a design might be excellent, we must buy something newer to keep up with the fashion show trends. I actually ordered my current vehicle with roll up windows to please my wants. Old man rant over, LOL. I agree, though, don't waste any precious time in our lives on this trivial nonsense.
 
Yeah, it's basically competition. All you have to do is look at the sales number for a car. When it first comes out, it's new and the sales spike, then it trails off after a couple years. If they didn't do a refresh, sales would basically just wither away. It's the original Model T problem, they didn't change for years and other car makers came out with newer models and their sales declined. Marketing 101 now. Still true today. Not all refreshes are successful though so it's just one of the risks in doing one, but the downfall of not doing one is even worse.
 
Perceived obsolescence. A cosmetic design change makes a lot of perfectly-running 3-year-old cars look old all of a sudden.

Old GM was a good example. Along with the tri-fives and Camaros mentioned above, think about the '65-'67 and '68-72 Chevelle/GTO/Cutlass. Three to five years on a body style, with cosmetic front and rear end changes. The second generation Camaro/Firebird's basic style got stretched about a decade, but then I'm not sure if a 1970 fender would fit a 1980.
 
People don't want to buy the same car over and over again and have an old body style.

Just look at the Ram, 10 years on the same body style, while it isn't bad looking, IT'S TIME FOR A REFRESH!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top