What Makes A Car Beautiful?

NoCoPilot wrote:

A car's front end should resemble, slightly, a human face.  And not just any face -- a smiley happy face.

Like this?

NoCoPilot wrote:

I like when the headlights stick up or out from the hood.  Recessed or flush lights look counter-functional & "too designy" to me:

My Jaguar had covered headlights. I don't know if they would be considered recessed of flushed, but I liked the way they looked (except at night). The gum'mint decided they were illegal, so the later Jags had open headlights, which I thought looked like shit. Today, you can buy conversion kits to put covered headlights on later E-Types. And they will  sell for a few thousand dollars more.

What is your opinion?

Why'd the gub'mint decide they were illegal? That's dumb.

As to which option I prefer, I'd prefer they stuck up like a 911.

Is it just me, or does the XKE hood look just a little bit like this?

They also decided that "pointy things" were illegal on wheels.

So the knock-off nuts with "wings"...


were replaced with octagonal nuts, which required a wrench or adapter.

NoCoPilot wrote:

As to which option I prefer, I'd prefer they stuck up like a 911.

I was asking for your opinion of whether the open headlights detracted from the design, not for a complete redesign of the car.

I have never considered headlights to be a design element, but rather something to be accommodated.

I have never liked the design of the 911. I didn't like it when it first came out, and I don't like it now. It looks like a high-school design project. It has always struck me as a very bland design. I do like the Porsche 356, however. Those were exceedingly cool cars.

356 really? That's a Volkswagen bug, basically.

Very similar. All you have to change is the chassis, the suspension, the steering, the brakes, the engine, the transmission, the interior and the body.

When is the last time you drove a 356? Or sat in one? Or saw one up close?

I've never driven a 356, in fact the 914 is the only Porsche I've ever driven. Never been particularly interested in sportscars so I've spent no time investigating them. I'm like Trump, I have opinions unimpeded by the thought process.

As to whether the Jag headlights look better covered or uncovered, they look about the same either way in my opinion. Yes, headlights need to be "accommodated" but a clever designer incorporates into the design those elements that need to be there. I think the Jag's headlights are its second worse feature (next to the out-of-proportion hood).

The 911 design is enduring and iconic. I hate the whaletail some of them have, but the basic shape is gorgeous. There's some modern iteration -- 959? -- which is particularly stunning.

The 914 was a joint project of VW and Porsche. Nearly all of the 914s that were sold had a four-cylinder Volkswagen engine. Early plans called for the 914 to be sold as a VW and the 914-6 to be sold as a Porsche.

The "stunning" 959 had covered headlights similar to the E-Type. The later model 911s also have covered headlights. Damned Germans spoil everything.

The long bonnet on the E-Type was a requirement. The car is quite small and the engine is quite long; they bonnet is only as long as it had to be. A side view doesn't over-emphasize the bonnet length as a front view does.

Oh I don't know about that.

See, it's all a matter of photography. Notice that the angle at which the orange car was shot makes the bonnet look much shorter.

You have to keep it in perspective. The Jag was several inches lower at the roof line and several inches shorter than the 911. It was a very small car. The bonnet is only long relative to its size.

From a design perspective, about 20% too long. IMO.

The orange Jag's bonnet looks shorter because, well, you know.

That one manages to be really smooth and butt-ugly at the same time: quite an achievement.

Better?

richard09 wrote:

That one manages to be really smooth and butt-ugly at the same time: quite an achievement.

That makes me think that someone needs to clean up after his dog.

If you manipulate the aspect ratio. I tried 3 or 4 before I found a truthful depiction.



Hey, it's a 356!!!!

I don't evaluate the appearance of a car from any single item. Everything about the car must work together, without any extraneous lines.

I also consider functionality. A car is for getting from here to there. A high performance car of for getting from here to there quickly, and therefore has more stringent requirements as to its design.

This is why I find the GT-40 and the Series 1 E-Type to be beautiful cars. There are no features of the cars that detract from their purpose just for the sake of design. The long nose on the E-Type, for example: The car was a descendant of the Jaguar racing car, the D-Type. When they extended the nose of the D-Type for aerodynamic reasons, the reduced drag gave it an increased speed, allowing it to win Le Mans in 1955, 1956, and 1957. So I cannot fault the E-Type for its long nose.

On its release. Enzo Ferrari called it "the most beautiful car ever made". Enzo may have been a bit hyperbolic, but he has a point. The E-Type was the most sought after car in the world for several years. Hey, Steve McQueen drove one, and if Mister Cool liked it, well....

_Howard wrote:

I cannot fault the E-Type for its long nose.

_Howard wrote:

On its release. Enzo Ferrari called it "the most beautiful car ever made".

Do you see the resemblance???

You probably don't know it, but Mrs. Calabash drove an E-Type.

What do you think of the Elio?

Fine looking golf cart.