Cut off fenders? Nope...new terrible styling trend...

A General Discussion forum for cars and other topics, and a great place to introduce yourself if you are new to NICO!
User avatar
MinisterofDOOM
Moderator
Posts: 30928
Joined: Wed May 19, 2004 5:51 pm
Car: 1962 Corvair Monza
1961 Corvair Lakewood
1974 Unimog 404
1997 Pathfinder XE
2005 Lincoln LS8
Former:
1995 Q45t
1993 Maxima GXE
1995 Ranger XL 2.3
1984 Coupe DeVille
Location: The middle of nowhere.

Post

So lots of us hate cut-off fenders or wheel arches. You know the ones, like the current Altima has, where they look like someone glued spheres over the tires and then just guillotined some of the sheetmetal off. The idea, I've always assumed, is to visually reduce the size difference between the fender itself and the actual wheel arch opening. Which is silly in age when Toyotas can be purchased with 19'' wheels. But somehow the beltlines of cars continue to outrun ridiculous blingfactor wheels without any trouble. So we end up with stuff like this:
Image

Well there's something else just as bad happening now. It's just as nonsense, looks just as out-of-place, and is appearing on just as wide a variety of cars. I don't even know what to call it. It's the rear bumper curve. Like this:

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

All of these cars have one feature in common. Their rear bumpers have that goofy concave curve going on where they flow down from the tail lights. They don't follow existing bodylines, they don't naturally or gradually add length behind the lights. They just...oooops, we need some padding for collisions, let's just chisel out some of the bumper and stick on there.

For contrast, this is how bumpers look when they work with existing bodywork:
Image
Image
Image
Image

I won't even talk about the seventybillion different lines going on in those rear corners of the Elantra (one body line leads into the top of the tail light and disappears, while another appears from nowhere in the sheetmetal below the tail light and turns into our chiselbutt...while a third sort of blobs its way purposelessly around the wheel arch and disappears somewhere in the door...WTF is GOING ON!?). Okay, so I will talk about it. It's terrible.

Chiselbutt must go. I don't want to see it anymore. Chris Bangle proved that concave design elements rarely work. This one is no exception to that rule.
Now that I've pointed it out, you're going to notice it EVERYWHERE. I apologize. But this evil must be confronted.


User avatar
Jesda
Posts: 39644
Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 1:50 pm
Location: STL, DTW
Contact:

Post

I agree. It looks saggy.

As for wheel arches, I like the way Cadillac flared them out on the 2008 CTS:
Image
The wheels gracefully bulge out from the bodywork, curving into the doors and fenders and rear quarters to make the car look like it has an aggressive, wide stance. It's a smart way of lowering the visual height of a tall, short body. Of course, it costs more to stamp metal that way. That kind of styling requires more precisely built panels that align together perfectly, so there's the risk of having more wasted material, slower production, and higher costs, which is why its okay for a luxury car.

I'm not so keen on the rear of the new ATS:
Image
It's starting at only $33k, so maybe the oddness of the design can be somewhat forgiven. I'm hoping the 2014 CTS looks more elegant.

User avatar
MinisterofDOOM
Moderator
Posts: 30928
Joined: Wed May 19, 2004 5:51 pm
Car: 1962 Corvair Monza
1961 Corvair Lakewood
1974 Unimog 404
1997 Pathfinder XE
2005 Lincoln LS8
Former:
1995 Q45t
1993 Maxima GXE
1995 Ranger XL 2.3
1984 Coupe DeVille
Location: The middle of nowhere.

Post

Yes, I love the 2nd gen CTS's wheel arches. They're muscular, clean, elegant, and sharp all in one go. The Japanese made "widebody" a thing in the 90s with hotted up versions of their average cars...stick wider fenders on a Skyline or Impreza or Lancer and you've got a more aggressive-looking car with room to hide more rubber. Same deal with the CTS, except its wide fenders don't look tacked on and there's no narrow version.

There's a LOT of stuff going on at the rear of the ATS. I'm not fond of that end of it either, especially not the little...topper...on the trunk lid. The bumper and Acura-style bucktooth need fixing as well. And it commits a Cardinal Design Sin: downward angled decklid.

I'm honestly VERY disappointed in the ATS's pricing. $34k sounds great until you realize it's for a 2.5 liter four cylinder. Yes, 200hp is "plenty" for an entry level luxury car. But with Infiniti or Lexus or BMW you get a 2.5 or 3 liter V6 making that power. In the ATS you get the Cruze's Ecotec. The Ecotec's not a bad engine, but sans turbo it does not belong in a Cadillac. I want a 2.5 liter version of the hotted up LFX V6. You could easily get 220hp out of it, and it'd be silky smooth and pleasant sounding.

User avatar
alms24sebring
Posts: 7332
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:18 am
Car: '97 Nissan 240sx. First Nissan. First love. Sold.
'04 Nissan Sentra SER SpecV
Location: Alexandria VA

Post

I have noticed the flattened fenders. Cant say I hate it, but I dont like it. I just dont like all the complex unnecessary lines all around the bodies that are on alot of new cars, especially on rear bumpers as noted.

I would like to see you design a smooth type or style of new car that would be different, of course with a 2.X liter motor with 250+hp. Who knows it could make you millions.

User avatar
Mr1der
Posts: 36020
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 8:35 am
Car: It's still not a Nissan...
Location: Lebanon TN

Post

blame cheaper cost and pedestrian safety standards...

User avatar
MinisterofDOOM
Moderator
Posts: 30928
Joined: Wed May 19, 2004 5:51 pm
Car: 1962 Corvair Monza
1961 Corvair Lakewood
1974 Unimog 404
1997 Pathfinder XE
2005 Lincoln LS8
Former:
1995 Q45t
1993 Maxima GXE
1995 Ranger XL 2.3
1984 Coupe DeVille
Location: The middle of nowhere.

Post

Mr1der wrote:blame cheaper cost and pedestrian safety standards...
When I am Emperor, pedestrian safety standards will work like this:

Do not be in the road.
If you are hit by a car and not in a crosswalk, you will pay for repairs to the car and (if you want) yourself.
If you are in the road and not in a crosswalk and don't get hit and a policeman drives by, you will be hit, then fined, then pay for the repairs to the police car.

User avatar
alms24sebring
Posts: 7332
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:18 am
Car: '97 Nissan 240sx. First Nissan. First love. Sold.
'04 Nissan Sentra SER SpecV
Location: Alexandria VA

Post

What about the people that get hit because they dont hear the hybrid cars coming. Or how about the guys that decide to cross the street at 2am wearing all black, just as you are coming up. I swear its on purpose. Happens all the time here and Ive had a few close calls myself, others arent so lucky. But for christ's sakes man, you can see me way earlier than I can see you, why should you decide to cross as I am coming up fast. Im the only car on the road!

/rant

User avatar
themadscientist
Posts: 26254
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 3:30 pm
Car: R32 GTR, DR30 RS Turbo, BRZ, Lunchbox, NSR50 Sportster 883 Iron
Location: Staring down at you with disdain from the spooky mountaintop castle.

Post

They got it right in the 60's.

Image

User avatar
skydragoness
Posts: 9394
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2002 6:49 am
Car: 03' 350z Touring 6spd
92' 240sx 60k survivor :)
Location: North DFW, TEJAS
Contact:

Post

Semi-related: the new Civic is HORRID.
What a fat turd it's become. Terrible, terrible looking car.
New cars are such fat turds, they all seem to have huge rears now.

User avatar
Rev_D21
Posts: 5946
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2003 9:49 pm
Car: 1986.5 D21 LB HD 2WD V6 5Speed
1991 D21 Reg 2WD Auto
1995 D21 Reg 2WD 5Spd
1996 D21 Reg 4WD 5Spd
2012 Versa 1.6S 5-Speed
Location: Somwhere in Western NY
Contact:

Post

Too many lines. An old hot-rodder said it to me best..."clean lines sell cars". The designers these days don't understand the words subtle and understated, they are all over the place. Most new designs are some of the most flamboyant and overdone I have ever seen.

Image

vs.

Image

User avatar
MinisterofDOOM
Moderator
Posts: 30928
Joined: Wed May 19, 2004 5:51 pm
Car: 1962 Corvair Monza
1961 Corvair Lakewood
1974 Unimog 404
1997 Pathfinder XE
2005 Lincoln LS8
Former:
1995 Q45t
1993 Maxima GXE
1995 Ranger XL 2.3
1984 Coupe DeVille
Location: The middle of nowhere.

Post

Well demonstrated, sir. :dblthumb:
skydragoness wrote:Semi-related: the new Civic is HORRID.
What a fat turd it's become. Terrible, terrible looking car.
New cars are such fat turds, they all seem to have huge rears now.
Agreed all around. The last-gen Civic was definitely weirdly-proportioned, but the bodywork was still tight, clean, and well engineered. The new one is still weirdly proportioned, but has sloppy, cheap bodywork. The sedan's tail light design is terrible and the coupe's rear overhang (COUPE REAR OVERHANG WTF?!) and roofline are stupid weird. I don't like the shoulders they've given it either. I don't like ANY of it. Fat turd is right.
The interior sucks, too. Space-age digital cluster nonsense sucked in 2006 and will continue to suck long into the future.
Image
So terrible. A big recess for a lone tach, and then a 1980s-style horizontal crawl for the equally 1980s-tastic digital speedo and other readouts. Bonus points for curving the radio/nav toward the driver, but minus just as many for the floating minivan-style cascadeless center "stack". And the last time I saw that many cheap plastic dash panels I was sitting in a Cavalier.

User avatar
Mr1der
Posts: 36020
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 8:35 am
Car: It's still not a Nissan...
Location: Lebanon TN

Post

the EM and EP's where the last really good looking Civics.

Yes, I'm biased.

Love the Mini Minivan.

Image


Return to “General Chat”