Why can't cheaper cars be nicer looking?

Good designers cost money I suppose? Or just good designs get passed over by upper management for whatever reason. I think some of Hyundai's designs look pretty decent compared to their competitors given their price-range. Btw, I don't think most modern cars even look that good including the W221.

 

I too have wondered about it. Good design sells and you're spending big money on R&D for a new car why on Earth wouldn't you make it good looking too? New Mazdas look good to me. Alfa Romeo also gets it. I think the new VW Passat also looks great in black.

 

I think the new Mazda 3 and 6 are sharp looking. The new generation Kias are good looking as well. Design is so subjective. I actually think the current Malibu is a huge step forward relative to the last few versions.

 

Neither car you posted is the current model. Neither car is even remotely attractive.

The current Mazda, Kia, and Hyundais aren't bad for being economy cars. To answer your question, it is all about cost. The fancy lights, wheels, trim, and more complex body panels all cost more to manufacture.

 

I think a good example was the karmann ghia.... Sure it was more expensive than a beetle but it was a direct drop on the stock vw chassis pan...abarth and zagato did amazing things to fiat 600s as well.... Had fiat tooled up we could have been awash in record monzas....

 

I'm not a production expert and stand corrected if wrong, but more complex body shapes require more steps in pressing the body panels and more complicated tooling. Tooling for body parts is horribly expensive. I can't remember the exact numbers, but in an article I read about VW's plans to launch a cheap 3rd world car, they mentioned the cost of 5 vs. 3 pressing steps for a particular body part, and the difference in total cost was staggering.

 

Hi,

I think you are right on the money. Renault first implemented this concept with its L90 platform (Dacia Logan) which was a runaway success despite looks only a mother could love. The plain design was a result of keeping mold costs etc. at a minimum. However, what it lacked in styling, it made up with ergonomics, i.e large back seat which could easily sit three (a developing world requirement) a large trunk (ditto) and peppy engine, especially for high altitude areas and/or CNG conversion.

It would be interesting to see how VW follows in Renault's footsteps. Their last attempt with the Brazilian VW Gol left a lot to be desired.

Best Regards,

Ramin


.

 

My wife and I are planning a road trip to visit family so we looked at renting a car. They want stupid money for the Camaro convertible (over $100 per day) and everything else was just too boring. We're taking my Jeep instead.
.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Because if they made the cheaper cars too attractive some folks would opt for them over their more expensive brothers.

Always seemed to me to be more marketing than anything else, although for sure there are some exceptions.

 

Nail hit.

They design cheap cars to be bland on purpose and also some owners want that image.
Pete

 

Merely appliances... for most people.

 

Seriously, do you really believe that?

 

Yes, I believe that, for most people, their cars are chosen based on needs. Unfortunately, many cars are rather indistinguishable from one another. For example, why is the Nissan Altima so successful (sales)? It's certainly not an attractive car. And the Camry/ Taurus before it? Appliances all.

Form vs. function; does aerodynamic efficiency have any significance in the real world (e.g. urban/suburban traffic and commuting). If not, then that should provide some latitude for the designers, no?

 

You betcha.

There's really no other reason. Cost certainly comes into play in the interior and finishes but bland exterior design can only be explained as marketing.

If it costs $100 more to double or triple stamp body panels, can it really be a cost issue?

D

 

And yes, I think most folks choose function over form when it comes to their DD. Remember, this forum is not occupied by typical car buyers, so our opinion of what constitutes a good daily driver is different from the mainstream.

D

 

I think most folks are idiots and know nothing about cars ��
Just care about getting from A to B. I asked this one guy how he came about buying his Chevy, he said I don't know, woke up decided to go down to the local dealer and see what they got. No analysis, no favorite color, didn't care if it was 2 or 4 doors, really?

these are the folks cheap car manufacturers target, so we get crappy looking POS like the Malibu mentioned above. No passion, no emotion, totally utilitarian and always end up as airport Rentals! To be fair, it does get the job done!

You ask why cant it be better, because it's alot more profitable to sell cheap designs, cheap material, hence cheap cars than to actually put some time and money into something exceptional looking!

The Mazda Miata imo was the only car that broke the mold, great design, performance, cheap price!
But thru the years, even the Miata has double/triple the price of what they were when they came out.


Best

 

There might be some truth in this, but I said, Alfa Romeo 159, Mazda 6 and VW Passat are all good looking cars that don't cost significantly more than their competition
competition. Also, new Citroëns have pretty "complex" body shapes. It can be done.

 

Guys--

Cost benefit analysis in the lower cost car markets are evaluated at levels as low as a dime swing in component costs.

Lower price cars look the way they do because they have to meet different design criteria and cost criteria. Stuff 99.9% of even people here on this web site have no clue about.

Things like door swing axis and seal lip retention. Do you alter the swing axis 2-3°, as the studio wants, but now have to design a flexible compliant seal to overcome the wind retention issue? And hence spend that extra money? Or do you keep the swing axis such you can go with a stiff seal concept?

And that small difference in swing axis will change might change the principal beltline character angle enough that the studio says they don't like it.

There is so much more to designing a new production car than almost anyone understands that it would quite literally blow your mind if you saw what needs to be considered.

Why 2-3 billion to do a new car is quite reasonable, actually.

And what 4 door decent interior size car do you think looks good? Hell Ferrari messed it up good with the FF. Do you call a Porsche Panamera good looking?

And for 2 door cars-I would say a Fiat X19, Toyota MR2 would good looking cheap cars.

There are good looking cheap cars. The Mini would be one. The old VW Scirroco would be one. An Alfa boattail spider? Gorgeous. 240 Z?

Throw a Ferrari badge and motor in one of those, increase price 2, 3 4 times and most of us would say what a cool Ferrari. Okay-Not a Mini!

You are a car mfg: You need a good low cost 4 seater. You need a transverse 4 banger FWD package, you need good ingress/egress numbers. (You have all the competitor numbers and must do as good or better.) You need proper headroom in the rear. You have to meet Fed front and rear sightline regs. You need this much space in boot and this much fuel capacity. You have to have a minimum amount/length of crush space front and rear for Fed crash regs. Same thing for bumpers. Min/max heights for barrier and pendulum tests. And you need to meet the bumper damage cost limit regs.

Now add the need for side structure for the Side pole impact tests, add crash bars into the doors. Now meet the occupant restraint requirements for belted and unbelted occupants, 96% male and 50% female. Now add room (volume) for airbags, side airbags, knee airbags.

Now add occupant to hood safety regs. Now add EPA regs for cats and emissions.

Now add that the car has to be made on an assembly line in Detroit or Hamburg or Tokyo. And at 1 a minute. So you have to have access to assemble everything. (But not access to take apart!)

So in the end all the mfg are driven to a very limited degree of freedom in the shape of car.

 

^^^^^^^ well put !

These are the reasons why the car prices have been climbing over the years as well.
Auto makers have been riding the economic wave shifting to more up scale market cars (Toyota=Lexus, Honda=Acura, Nissan=Infinity, etc) leaving the lower end stuff to the Koreans. And the cycle continues as barriers to entry falls and India and China gets into the game.

 

Its all about perspective. I think my wife's mazda3 is incredibly well designed for a $19k car.

 

Brian, great post. And it does elaborate on cost requirements. But I'm not sure it answers the question about bland styling.

The last full sized median priced sedan that I liked was the Pontiac Bonneville GXP (in black please).

 

The costs and manufacturing constraints are huge. If they can save $100 per vehicle, over a million vehicles, that is $100M. Sort of like why some airlines ditch the extra magazines and peanuts to save a few pounds of fuel per flight. And the union guys/cheapest labor India or Mexico can provide working on a moving assembly line aren't exactly artisans.

Also, by the very nature of the high volume cheap car, they have to make the styling unoffensive to as many potential buyers as possible.

And using anything made by GM as an example is really just setting the bar as low as you can go

 

Quality is not cheap and the old saying holds true for that reason: you get what you pay for!

At Mercedes Benz, The Best or Nothing!