Toyota gone from bland to vomit inducing

[Camino LS6]

Time to tone down the sniping and get back to the topic.

I'd rather not lock this thread.

One small bit of advice, aatbloke. Do a bit more reading around the forums for a while and perhaps hold back on the posting a bit. There is much to learn here about American cars and about those who make up our membership.

That said, welcome to C&G.

[Camino LS6]

I don't care who came up with that thing but I know what would make it look better, about a pound of C4.

Agreed.

It is purely hideous.

[Guest aatbloke]

Boredom is for the people who wish I was in one.

You are just sulking over the fact that your pompous English words learned from a rigorous curriculum could not retaliate an American Teenager who has better vocabulary than yours.

LOL, ignorance is indeed bliss.

[Z-06]

Time to tone down the sniping and get back to the topic.

I'd rather not lock this thread.

One small bit of advice, aatbloke. Do a bit more reading around the forums for a while and perhaps hold back on the posting a bit. There is much to learn here about American cars and about those who make up our membership.

That said, welcome to C&G.

10 4 Captain.

[Guest aatbloke]

Time to tone down the sniping and get back to the topic.

I'd rather not lock this thread.

One small bit of advice, aatbloke. Do a bit more reading around the forums for a while and perhaps hold back on the posting a bit. There is much to learn here about American cars and about those who make up our membership.

That said, welcome to C&G.

Appreciate the comments. I have great admiration for many American cars. But I also have great admiration for cars from elsewhere. Most of all I have great admiration for businessman the world over who handle organisations of bewildering sizes providing original products to such a competitive marketplace - which includes those people who can dismiss those efforts in the blink of an eye.

[zhawk]

Agreed.

It is purely hideous.

Or we could airdrop it from a C-17 at 30,000 ft and forget the parachute.

Let the Army use it for artillary practice?

[Z-06]

Or we could airdrop it from a C-17 at 30,000 ft and forget the parachute.

Let the Army use it for artillary practice?

Army needs some mules for practice anyways. I would not waste any C-4 on this Pile Of Soil though.

[Guest aatbloke]

Army needs some mules for practice anyways. I would not waste any C-4 on this Pile Of Soil though.

I couldn't agree more! Those based in the reserve in Vienna, Ohio for example only have to travel a short distance to Lordstown.

[Camino LS6]

Appreciate the comments. I have great admiration for many American cars. But I also have great admiration for cars from elsewhere. Most of all I have great admiration for businessman the world over who handle organisations of bewildering sizes providing original products to such a competitive marketplace - which includes those people who can dismiss those efforts in the blink of an eye.

That's the price you pay when displaying any car publically, some will inevitably hate it.

As I posted earlier, if you poke around this site you will find a wide array of loyalties. Certainly, GM is foremost among them but you will find that most here have an appreciation for cars of other origins.

[Guest aatbloke]

That's the price you pay when displaying any car publically, some will inevitably hate it.

As I posted earlier, if you poke around this site you will find a wide array of loyalties. Certainly, GM is foremost among them but you will find that most here have an appreciation for cars of other origins.

I have no doubt. In my experience - from membership of Ford's RS Club to Volkswagen enthusiast gatherings to a diminutive Rover Metro appreciation group - people are real enthusiasts who appreciate the virtues of all cars, regardless as to whether those cars cater to their own tastes or not. Blinkered Toyota followers are just as bad as their GM counterparts as far as I'm concerned.

[gm4life]

It is liked a dropped down two door Blazer, but worse.. WAY WORSE! This sucker is ugly BUILD IT! It would hurt you more than the sales are worth.

[Blake Noble]

You know, I'm thinking that they might have been plundering through Saturn's wastebaskets at night for fascia deisgns ...

[balthazar]

>>"Gone are the hideously overdesigned, ugly-clad machines such as the Grand Am, Bonneville and the likes. In their place has been introduced simpler, clean cut lines with obvious European design cues (G6 and Cobalt)"<<

You DO know where Pontiac got their inspiration for their cladding, right?

>>"people are real enthusiasts who appreciate the virtues of all cars"<<

I've seen this stated more than once and I cannot agree: passion and preference do not need to encompass every aspect & interpretation of the automobile to be legitimate. Most passions burn stronger when more focused & consistant, and logically, that would make that person more of an enthusiast, at least for that preference, than one who found merit in examples that are, at many times, in direct opposition to another.

[Camino LS6]

As usual, well said Balthazar.

I guess the point is that the loyalties around here vary quite a bit. Some are loyal to several divergent brands, while others have a more narrow, defined focus. Still others have no loyalty at all to a particular brand.

For me, it is about configuration and design. If a car meets my standards in those areas, brand is less important.

[Guest aatbloke]

>>"Gone are the hideously overdesigned, ugly-clad machines such as the Grand Am, Bonneville and the likes. In their place has been introduced simpler, clean cut lines with obvious European design cues (G6 and Cobalt)"<<

You DO know where Pontiac got their inspiration for their cladding, right?

>>"people are real enthusiasts who appreciate the virtues of all cars"<<

I've seen this stated more than once and I cannot agree: passion and preference do not need to encompass every aspect & interpretation of the automobile to be legitimate. Most passions burn stronger when more focused & consistant, and logically, that would make that person more of an enthusiast, at least for that preference, than one who found merit in examples that are, at many times, in direct opposition to another.

"You DO know where Pontiac got their inspiration for their cladding, right?"

The short list would be an FV 4201 Chieftain, a Dalek made for a 1964 Dr Who stage set, and the Pompidou Centre.

"I've seen this stated more than once and I cannot agree: passion and preference do not need to encompass every aspect & interpretation of the automobile to be legitimate."

Passion is a raw feeling, often resulting from a particular experience. I'm curious to hear from anyone on here who blindly slated Scion's Hako concept as a result of actually driving it. I suspect I'll be waiting for a while.

When I talk of appreciating cars, I am not suggesting in anyway that one should hold any preference towards them or indeed have a liking for them. Cars and cars, and regardless of their design, origin or power, embody an appliance which a car enthusiast takes an interest in. Personally, I think the Pontiac Aztec was one of the ugliest and pointless cars ever built - but it still took years of development by a team of industry professionals to not only create it, but bring it to market. It therefore commands my appreciation of it as a car enthusiast, even though I wouldn't personally touch one with a barge pole.

[Blake Noble]

The short list would be an FV 4201 Chieftain, a Dalek made for a 1964 Dr Who stage set, and the Pompidou Centre.

:rotflmao:

As much as I found that list humorous, the real answer would be this, I believe:

[Guest aatbloke]

"As much as I found that list humorous, the real answer would be this, I believe"

I've heard various stories - more motoring urban legends than anything else - that Pontiac's massively ribbed cladding were a caricature of the discrete lower door panel ribbing of the R107 Mercedes SL Class of 1972 and an inspiration from the Ferrari TR's side air scoops, which weren't actually themselves cladding but an integral part of the car's bodywork structure.

Pontiac however managed to extrapolate the whole deal to such a degree to incorporate the design into bumpers, for and aft, making their vehicles resemble dodgems more than cars.

The point however is that where Ferrari can produce an outrageous air scoop and Mercedes that ever-so discrete rib on the bottom of the door and still produce a car which exudes class worldwide, GM-Pontiac managed only a hideous pastiche. By 2004 when it debuted its clad-free G6 model, it was caving in to the clean-cut look of a European sedan which had existed since the NSU Ro80 almost forty years beforehand.

Edited March 21, 2008 by aatbloke

[Camino LS6]

"You DO know where Pontiac got their inspiration for their cladding, right?"

The short list would be an FV 4201 Chieftain, a Dalek made for a 1964 Dr Who stage set, and the Pompidou Centre.

"I've seen this stated more than once and I cannot agree: passion and preference do not need to encompass every aspect & interpretation of the automobile to be legitimate."

Passion is a raw feeling, often resulting from a particular experience. I'm curious to hear from anyone on here who blindly slated Scion's Hako concept as a result of actually driving it. I suspect I'll be waiting for a while.

When I talk of appreciating cars, I am not suggesting in anyway that one should hold any preference towards them or indeed have a liking for them. Cars and cars, and regardless of their design, origin or power, embody an appliance which a car enthusiast takes an interest in. Personally, I think the Pontiac Aztec was one of the ugliest and pointless cars ever built - but it still took years of development by a team of industry professionals to not only create it, but bring it to market. It therefore commands my appreciation of it as a car enthusiast, even though I wouldn't personally touch one with a barge pole.

You are far too charitable toward the Aztek, it was a nasty design that was built by stubborn folks even after the concept version was roundly criticized. It remains as the ugliest Pontiac ever produced and is a contender for the ugliest car ever produced.

Some automotive efforts deserve unflinching criticism. Any universal acceptance of all automotive adventures as worthy of appreciation smacks of politically correct silliness devoid of meaning.

Sometimes the designs and/or execution are simply bad.

[Robert Hall]

You are far too charitable toward the Aztek, it was a nasty design that was built by stubborn folks even after the concept version was roundly criticized. It remains as the ugliest Pontiac ever produced and is a contender for the ugliest car ever produced.

Some automotive efforts deserve unflinching criticism. Any universal acceptance of all autmotive adventures as worthy of appreciation smacks of politically correct silliness devoid of meaning.

Sometimes the designs and/or execution are simply bad.

Yes, just like software projects..sometimes teams of people can spend years building something that ends up a commercial and critical failure. Such is the nature of the business. Not every car is praise-worthy...

[Guest aatbloke]

Yes, just like software projects..sometimes teams of people can spend years building something that ends up a commercial and critical failure. Such is the nature of the business. Not every car is praise-worthy...

I'm not praising the Aztek - not in the least. I'm saying that as a car industry enthusiast, I appreciate what it took for the car to exist, regardless of how tasteful I find its looks or my opinion as to how appropriate I think it is for the market.

[mustang84]

Since when did the Model A become an influence for modern design?

Terrible. I can't imagine how this thing fares in a wind tunnel.

[cletus8269]

Since when did the Model A become an influence for modern design?

Terrible. I can't imagine how this thing fares in a wind tunnel.

slightly better than their control... which i am told is a cider block scaled to size

[Guest aatbloke]

Since when did the Model A become an influence for modern design?

Terrible. I can't imagine how this thing fares in a wind tunnel.

Why couldn't it be? After all, the 1940's Chevrolet Suburban was apparently the inspiration behind the modern day HHR - and that went into production. The Hako is simply a design interpretation.

[CARBIZ]

As ugly as the Aztec is, we can't keep them on the used lot. These things fly off the lot. They ride and handle quite well, and with the neat seat configurations, clever features (radio controls in the back, for example) younger people and singles are oddly attracted to them.

The trouble with Pontiac's obsession with plastic cladding is that it was cheap looking plastic cladding. The cladding done on the Escalade and other vehicles was far better looking. As with the later iterations of the Grand Am, Pontiac was trying for a 'look,' which did not appeal to me, but then their target demographic was a few years younger than my age, so it wasn't me they were trying to appeal to. I suspect that is the case with this gawdawful Toyota concept.

I sincerely hope Toyota does build this thing, along with other equally hideous Toyota concepts that we have been subjected to lately. As was remarked earlier, the trouble with ugly designs is that they only have any appeal if they are original at least. If Toyota goes ahead and builds this affront to the senses, then they are clearly sliding down the same path traveled by GM about 20 years ago when GM began to have little regard for its designs, believing the American public woud buy just about anything it cranked out.

Wait a minute, the more I think about it, that is just about right: Toyota is where GM was 20 years ago: arrogant and increasingly over confident.

Go ahead, build this Tyco-inspired masterpiece.

[Guest aatbloke]

The whole purpose of a concept car is that it's supposed to be something functional yet fantastical - and that doesn't necessarily mean it has to be beautiful. They are meant to push the envelope for whatever reason, whether it be to explore new design trends are create a modernist interpretation of a classic theme. While elements of concept car design often make it into production, the purpose of a concept car itself is not for the whole thing - lock, stock and barrel - to enter production. There are exceptions to this of course - the original Audi TT being a classic (and widely criticised) example. However, concept cars are generally deliberately meant to be controversial and in some cases, extreme.

[mustang84]

Why couldn't it be? After all, the 1940's Chevrolet Suburban was apparently the inspiration behind the modern day HHR - and that went into production. The Hako is simply a design interpretation.

The 1940s Suburban was a Chevrolet, therefore it made some sense that the retro HHR was based off it. Toyota wasn't even a company when the Ford Model A was in production, so why the fascination with making a "hot rod" when the definition of a hot rod has long since changed.

Just because they thought the old 1920s hot rod look was cool doesn't mean translates into a substantial design in the 21st century. This car ignores basic aerodynamics at a time when gas prices are beyond 1981 levels. When 95% of the public reaction is negative, you have a dud. If Toyota produces this car, they have clearly lost their marbles.

[Guest aatbloke]

The 1940s Suburban was a Chevrolet, therefore it made some sense that the retro HHR was based off it. Toyota wasn't even a company when the Ford Model A was in production, so why the fascination with making a "hot rod" when the definition of a hot rod has long since changed.

Just because they thought the old 1920s hot rod look was cool doesn't mean translates into a substantial design in the 21st century. This car ignores basic aerodynamics at a time when gas prices are beyond 1981 levels. When 95% of the public reaction is negative, you have a dud. If Toyota produces this car, they have clearly lost their marbles.

Save for the Dodge Caliber CRD and (possibly) Ford's Escape hybrid, there isn't a single economical car built in the United States either at a time when inflation-adjusted oil prices are beyond 1981 levels. I would have thought Americans would be calling upon their own industry to produce vastly more fuel efficient cars than they are currently doing and indeed, the small car market in particular in the States is dominated by imported cars. Anything that achieves less than 35mpg (US) at highway speeds isn't usually considered to be a fuel-efficient car in global terms.

Modern interpretations of old designs can be drawn from anywhere, not just the same company. Toyota's particular take harks back to the 1920's and 1930's, whether it be a Ford Model A, Austin Seven, or whatever the case may be. Just because Toyota didn't exist as a car manufacturer in the 1930's is completely irrelevant when it comes to drawing design inspiration. Toyota realises the design is controversial - it's meant to be, it's a concept car. Toyota also issued a statement that it would expect a car like this to be of a "love it or hate it" nature. That alone gives the car much publicity and makes it a talking point - a clever move by Toyota. A production version is highly unlikely to retain all the Hako's radical design cues but may well still be a controversial design in itself, as is the case with the rest of its small-car range which have always been rebadged Toyotas themselves. Such vastly retrospective designs aren't usually my cup of tea - you wouldn't pay me to drive a PT Cruiser or a HHR - but there's nothing wrong with exploring this area of design.

If we lived in a world where everything looked as boring as say, a Ford Fusion or a Fiat Linea, then I'd probably forget cars altogether.

Edited March 21, 2008 by aatbloke

[Blake Noble]

"As much as I found that list humorous, the real answer would be this, I believe"

I've heard various stories - more motoring urban legends than anything else - that Pontiac's massively ribbed cladding were a caricature of the discrete lower door panel ribbing of the R107 Mercedes SL Class of 1972 and an inspiration from the Ferrari TR's side air scoops, which weren't actually themselves cladding but an integral part of the car's bodywork structure.

Pontiac however managed to extrapolate the whole deal to such a degree to incorporate the design into bumpers, for and aft, making their vehicles resemble dodgems more than cars.

The point however is that where Ferrari can produce an outrageous air scoop and Mercedes that ever-so discrete rib on the bottom of the door and still produce a car which exudes class worldwide, GM-Pontiac managed only a hideous pastiche. By 2004 when it debuted its clad-free G6 model, it was caving in to the clean-cut look of a European sedan which had existed since the NSU Ro80 almost forty years beforehand.

I don't disagree that Pontiac's cladded styling was a nightmare of design, not at all.

I suppose that, when you look at the roots behind Pontiac's ribbed cladding, it was basically GM stylists wanting to find a way to make a design visually exciting, and maybe as a method spite of towards the engineers, who were sucking the fun out of everything to make what were really totally unwarranted changes, to make sure that a car had more than enough headroom than was really needed, or just about a inch or two more trunk space than one would really need, and that would wind up compromising whole designs.

And you should see some of the design proposals of the G6 before Lutz stepped in. They would cause bad dreams for years. :AH-HA_wink:

[IfICouldWouldYou?]

Americans are not clamoring for more fuel efficient vehicles for a variety of reasons; chief among them, I would say, is that America is a very big country and we spend our money differently.

Europeans nearly all have passports and on holidays, they love to travel. When you can drive across England in a matter of hours, having a car is not exactly a major importance. (Don't get me wrong, there are lots of things to do in England, but with a population density like theirs, it can be done by train, bus or foot.) Americans, conversely, are among the lowest possessors of passports in the world. You could spend a lifetime driving in this country (and I would include Canada in this) and still not see everything.

Euro-middle class spend their money differently, that's all. If I am going to spend 6-8 hour days driving with 3 screaming kids, cross-country, it will not be in a Opel Astra, I can tell you that. City driving numbers are largely dependent on the way one drive's; however, highway numbers are more realistic and there are plenty of comfortable highway cruisers that get over 30 mpg here (keeping in mind that UK mpg and US are 20% different!)

Having said that, if the purpose of a concept vehicle is to evoke debate, well this vehicle from Toyota is certainly a success!

[Guest aatbloke]

Americans are not clamoring for more fuel efficient vehicles for a variety of reasons; chief among them, I would say, is that America is a very big country and we spend our money differently.

Europeans nearly all have passports and on holidays, they love to travel. When you can drive across England in a matter of hours, having a car is not exactly a major importance. (Don't get me wrong, there are lots of things to do in England, but with a population density like theirs, it can be done by train, bus or foot.) Americans, conversely, are among the lowest possessors of passports in the world. You could spend a lifetime driving in this country (and I would include Canada in this) and still not see everything.

Euro-middle class spend their money differently, that's all. If I am going to spend 6-8 hour days driving with 3 screaming kids, cross-country, it will not be in a Opel Astra, I can tell you that. City driving numbers are largely dependent on the way one drive's; however, highway numbers are more realistic and there are plenty of comfortable highway cruisers that get over 30 mpg here (keeping in mind that UK mpg and US are 20% different!)

Having said that, if the purpose of a concept vehicle is to evoke debate, well this vehicle from Toyota is certainly a success!

Do you think that the English only drive in England? The French only drive in France? The Germans only drive in Germany? Not at all - Europeans take driving holidays too, often across or around continental Europe. Go to Greece or to Spain, and you're likely to find a surprising number of UK registered cars there. From Leicester (central England) to Paris, France via a one-hour Dover to Calais ferry run takes roughly 9 hours. I've driven that route many times, as do many others. However, since the advent of budget airlines such as Volare, EasyJet and Ryan Air, it's becoming common to fly across Europe for a small cost.

Furthermore, does the average American spend their lives commuting in their cars across their country? No. If they need to travel large distances, most will hop on a plane.

I lived in Ohio for eight years, and while people can travel slightly further for things such as home team sports events and doctor visits (particularly those in rural areas), the only real difference to the English is the concrete annual driving holiday, and even then, not all Americans prefer to do that and has petrol prices have increased, more are taking aircraft instead. The average mileage considered by the UK's Inland Revenue is 12-18K miles per annum, identical to the IRS's view of average annual mileage in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Indeed, most people in those states commute roughly between 5 and 40 miles to work, again identical to the UK.

I realise that the US is a very large country, but in my experience living there, most Americans I came across would take a plane if they were heading to a destination across their continent-sized country, not a car. The same goes for Europeans - most would take a plane, but some do make a holiday out of it and drive.

The British paid the equivalent of $3.30 a gallon in 1992. By 1996 it was $4.00; by 1999 $5.10; by 2003 $6.30; by 2006 $7.50; and now it's roughly $8.40. If you think fuel prices will stop at current levels, you have your head in the sand. Many ordinary Americans are already switching to smaller, fuel-efficient cars as the B-segment there grows rapidly. By the time you're paying over $5/gallon - which will come, you can count on it - most ordinary people, faced with higher energy, food and insurance bills, will simply be forced to get rid of the old gas-guzzling Explorer. When I said the British considered anything less than 35mpg on a highway uneconomical, I was talking in US gallons - and I'm being generous with 35mpg.

You know, Australia is a country almost the size of the US, although its population is spread somewhat differently. Most cars in Australia are European or Asian designs.

Edited March 22, 2008 by aatbloke

[Oracle of Delphi]

You know, Australia is a country almost the size of the US, although its population is spread somewhat differently. Most cars in Australia are European or Asian designs.

You mean they are not all driving Holdens? Rutt Rohh Reorge! :AH-HA_wink:

[Camino LS6]

For a whole host of reasons, Americans won't gravitate to microcars in terribly significant numbers despite the cost of gasoline. We are much more likely to push our way toward alternative fuels - it is a much more natural direction for us. We like to have our cake and eat it too, sacrifice and belt tightening just tends to piss us off. We would much rather conquer the issue and maintain the choices we have. It is all tied up in both the size of our country and our desire to live as we choose. Microcars will always be perceived here as cheap and lowly - no matter the reality.

I take comfort in that.

[A Horse With No Name]

There is a difference between small and micro. Micro makes a lot of sense if you live in Rome or Paris. It is a piss poor choice to drive on a rural interstate across say, Illinois.

Chris

[Guest aatbloke]

You mean they are not all driving Holdens? Rutt Rohh Reorge! :AH-HA_wink:

Traditionally, few Holdens are Australian like the current Commodore. Over the years, most have been rebadged Opels, Toyotas and Daewoos.

[Guest aatbloke]

For a whole host of reasons, Americans won't gravitate to microcars in terribly significant numbers despite the cost of gasoline. We are much more likely to push our way toward alternative fuels - it is a much more natural direction for us. We like to have our cake and eat it too, sacrifice and belt tightening just tends to piss us off. We would much rather conquer the issue and maintain the choices we have. It is all tied up in both the size of our country and our desire to live as we choose. Microcars will always be perceived here as cheap and lowly - no matter the reality.

I take comfort in that.

Microcars, such as the Smart ForTwo, are only popular in Europe too in crowded major cities - but not elsewhere. The A-segment cars like the Ford Ka and Toyota Aygo, are larger and more common, but again, only used for urban areas where parking can be tight and/or limited.

[CARBIZ]

People will get used to almost anything. Witness the explosion of Chevy Corsas, Fiat Unos and Ford Kas all over Brazil - where they are paying about $8 a gallon.

Still, I have to agree that we North Americans have piss poor rail service, and buses are mostly for the peasants, so it is the highway we go. I personally have driven across this continent 3 times. I've been to the west coast, the East, driven almost to James Bay (Cochrane is as far as the roads go, then you have to take the rail) and Florida countless times. I can't say I would do any of those trips in a Ka.

It may also be an age thing. I didn't mind traveling 10k km in my '82 Rampage with no a/c and a 4 spd manual, but then I was 24 and carefree. The next trip I made to the west coast was in my '91 Caprice barge - that was a much better trip.

You can actually witness the transition in progress, if you watch the progression from the U.S. (big, gas guzzlers, but the people have money, for now), Canada (medium gas guzzlers, but we have the taxes), Europe (small, fast cars because there must be somewhere better than HERE), and Brazil (tiny tin cans that can barely get out of their own way.)

Let's hope there is something better on the horizon so we don't have to drive cars like this Toyota concept.

[The O.C.]

You are far too charitable toward the Aztek, it was a nasty design that was built by stubborn folks even after the concept version was roundly criticized. It remains as the ugliest Pontiac ever produced and is a contender for the ugliest car ever produced.

The real problem with the Aztek wasn't the design direction of the concept......it was the fact that, for production, Pontiac had to mold the concept's design language to an (already outdated) minivan architecture. There's only so much you can do with an existing chassis/suspension/component set of that sort.

That's been my huge problem with both the Aztek AND the Rendezvous......they both look like what they are......minivans trying to look and act like SUVs. The body language never set right with me on either car.

[The O.C.]

Microcars, such as the Smart ForTwo, are only popular in Europe too in crowded major cities - but not elsewhere. The A-segment cars like the Ford Ka and Toyota Aygo, are larger and more common, but again, only used for urban areas where parking can be tight and/or limited.

Both sides of this argument are correct.....to some point......but our car culture, different as it may be from Europe and Asia, has developed for very significant reasons. People here have grown up with bigger cars....it's always been this way.

Americans, even living in major urban areas, are so much more inclined to rely on personal transportation than anywhere else I've ever been or seen in England or Europe. Mass transit here simply isn't a solution for the vast majority of Americans that live in urban areas (with MAYBE the exception of NYC.)

Cities like Boston, Atlanta, Chicago, and San Francisco all have wonderful (and popular) mass transit systems. But when you look at the population in total, the vast majority still rely on cars to get them around. Why? I'd harbor the argument that our cities and urban areas are laid out in a much different manner than most of the urban areas in Europe.

Look at Chicago. People don't just live and work in the city. Nowadays, you have vast centers of industry OUTSIDE of the Chicago downtown area (suburbs like Naperville, and others near O'Hare, etc.). Same goes for people that maybe live in Atlanta.....but commute way up to Marietta or Alphretta for their jobs. Mass transit isn't as helpful in these kinds of matters. Also, the sheer scale of many urban areas in the U.S. is mind-boggling compared to the compact urban areas of Europe. This also contributes greatly to a need for cars.

Or, look at Southern California. I've spent alot of time in London, for example.....and I'm shocked at how small the city and it's urban and suburban areas are compared to where I live in Los Angeles. You can leave central London by car, and within a 15 minute drive (on a light-traffic day, of course) you are out past the M25 ring-road and into the country. Urban Los Angeles, on the other hand, stretches for over 100 miles north-to-south....and an equal amount from the coast, inland. It's not unusual for me to drive 100-120 miles round-trip on a given day.....JUST to run errands.....or see clients.....or do whatever. For right-or-for-wrong, people in the U.S. are used to living this sort of way. (Many of us, that is, that live in major urban areas.)

BTW....that 12K-18K mile average-per-year for the U.S. driving is grossly under-estimated......on average.....for anyone living in a major U.S. urban area and using their car daily.

[Sixty8panther]

Toyo does 1920's retro...

That sir is a gross insult to 1920s cars!!!!

I can think of plenty of 1920s cars I'd love to own, but if I ever

won one of these in a radio promotion i'd do an insurance job

on it on the ride home or fear of the embarasement of parking

it in my driveway.

[mustang84]

When I lived in Rome, I could walk across the historic center of the city within 40 minutes, and it was very pedestrian-friendly. In Ames, it would take you 40 minutes to walk from campus to the grocery store along busy streets with little or no sidewalks.

America's society is largely centered on the automobile because this country encompasses so much territory and government policies such as the Federal Housing Act of 1934 and Interstate Highway Act of 1956 have basically dictated how cities have developed for the last 60 years. Americans also tend to have larger families, larger homes, and more material possessions, and this is a result of abudant land and resources. American cities are not set up for mass transit or pedestrian travel. Everyone outside of North America loves to criticize us for this, but that's the way things are. Unlike many European countries and Japan, our population continues to grow and many people choose to have one or more kids. Families and all the stuff we haul have led to larger cars, SUVs, crossovers, etc. I have to drive 45 miles one-way to work twice a week while I'm at college, and I would love to be able to ride a train down but that simply isn't an option.

Changing mobility within the US is something that won't happen overnight. You can't just force Americans into smaller cars because they won't do it; small cars generally can't get the job done if you have a family or travel a lot. Over the long term, emphasis needs to be placed on better mass transit and urban planning.

I realise that the US is a very large country, but in my experience living there, most Americans I came across would take a plane if they were heading to a destination across their continent-sized country, not a car. The same goes for Europeans - most would take a plane, but some do make a holiday out of it and drive.

It totally depends on the person and the occasion. Sure, a business person needing to be in Seattle by 2 the next day will take a plane, but the whole family vacation thing is still a large part of our society. We don't have cheap airfare like you find on RyanAir; you take a plane usually only if it's very far away or you are planning to stay in your destination city. Amtrak is very limited and almost nobody uses it. Nobody takes a Greyhound bus because once you get to your destination, you will have to rent a car anyway. National parks are usually far from metropolitan areas so you would need a car to reach them.

[mustang84]

Save for the Dodge Caliber CRD and (possibly) Ford's Escape hybrid, there isn't a single economical car built in the United States either at a time when inflation-adjusted oil prices are beyond 1981 levels. I would have thought Americans would be calling upon their own industry to produce vastly more fuel efficient cars than they are currently doing and indeed, the small car market in particular in the States is dominated by imported cars. Anything that achieves less than 35mpg (US) at highway speeds isn't usually considered to be a fuel-efficient car in global terms.

Simple answer: small cars are not profitable so investment in them is limited, and gas prices aren't high enough yet to stimulate demand for more fuel-efficient small cars.

A large percentage of Europeans drive diesel cars that get much better gas mileage than gasoline ones. EPA emission regulations for diesel engines and bad past perception of diesel cars are reasons why Americans tend to shun them. Add in that diesel is now up to $4 a gallon and I doubt we will see much demand for them in the short term.

Unlike Europeans, Americans generally won't pay a lot for a small car. Small cars are equated with cheap. If the price is too much, it will be a sales dud. The European Focus would do horribly over here even though it is an excellent car.

Modern interpretations of old designs can be drawn from anywhere, not just the same company. Toyota's particular take harks back to the 1920's and 1930's, whether it be a Ford Model A, Austin Seven, or whatever the case may be. Just because Toyota didn't exist as a car manufacturer in the 1930's is completely irrelevant when it comes to drawing design inspiration. Toyota realises the design is controversial - it's meant to be, it's a concept car. Toyota also issued a statement that it would expect a car like this to be of a "love it or hate it" nature. That alone gives the car much publicity and makes it a talking point - a clever move by Toyota. A production version is highly unlikely to retain all the Hako's radical design cues but may well still be a controversial design in itself, as is the case with the rest of its small-car range which have always been rebadged Toyotas themselves. Such vastly retrospective designs aren't usually my cup of tea - you wouldn't pay me to drive a PT Cruiser or a HHR - but there's nothing wrong with exploring this area of design.

If we lived in a world where everything looked as boring as say, a Ford Fusion or a Fiat Linea, then I'd probably forget cars altogether.

I still think it's hideous and a bad take on the Model A.

It's always interesting to see the difference in cultural tastes between Europeans and Americans when it comes to cars, because I generally find European cars extremely bland unless it is a BMW, MB, Alfa, exotic luxury auto, or certain mainstream models like the Ford Focus. I consider our Fusion to be fairly attractive and distinctive on the road, while something like the European Fusion just strikes me as dull and devoid of excitement. I'm sure Europeans find our vintage land barges from the 50s to the 70s to be grotesque, even though we see them as classics.

With that said, Japanese automobile design in general has almost no appeal to me. What they find quirky or cool, I find detestable.

Edited March 23, 2008 by mustang84

[mcseanerson]

This is good japanese design. Read a really good article by Robert Cumberford about the whole mazda concept family. If more Japanese cars looked like this, or even the more pedestrian nagare cars, I would have more appreciation for them.

The only japanese company to hurt themselves more design wise then Toyota is with this scion concept is Subaru with their whole line. They went from weird and distinctive to weird and bland. The only car I didn't like the last subie nose on was the tribeca. I thouht it looked awesome on the impreza and legacy

[Guest aatbloke]

Simple answer: small cars are not profitable so investment in them is limited, and gas prices aren't high enough yet to stimulate demand for more fuel-efficient small cars.

A large percentage of Europeans drive diesel cars that get much better gas mileage than gasoline ones. EPA emission regulations for diesel engines and bad past perception of diesel cars are reasons why Americans tend to shun them. Add in that diesel is now up to $4 a gallon and I doubt we will see much demand for them in the short term.

Unlike Europeans, Americans generally won't pay a lot for a small car. Small cars are equated with cheap. If the price is too much, it will be a sales dud. The European Focus would do horribly over here even though it is an excellent car.

I still think it's hideous and a bad take on the Model A.

It's always interesting to see the difference in cultural tastes between Europeans and Americans when it comes to cars, because I generally find European cars extremely bland unless it is a BMW, MB, Alfa, exotic luxury auto, or certain mainstream models like the Ford Focus. I consider our Fusion to be fairly attractive and distinctive on the road, while something like the European Fusion just strikes me as dull and devoid of excitement. I'm sure Europeans find our vintage land barges from the 50s to the 70s to be grotesque, even though we see them as classics.

With that said, Japanese automobile design in general has almost no appeal to me. What they find quirky or cool, I find detestable.

Unfortunately, your not-so-profitable small cars and public perception with small=cheap puts the US car industry at a major disadvantage with the Europeans and the Japanese especially: not only are the latter providing most of the world with a bewildering array of fuel-efficient cars already and have done for many years, but they're able to capitalise immediately in the United States when fuel-efficient cars are in demand, which they're doing.

I didn't say the Hako was a "take" on the Model A specifically. It's a concept car, understand that. Traditional 1920's and 1930's coupes inspired its design, such as the Model A. It's certainly no more hideous than bread vans such as the HHR or PT Cruiser.

The Fusion is distinctive on American roads, but wouldn't be in Europe, where the Mondeo, Vectra, Passat, Laguna and 407 all offer "home-grown" interesting designs in that segment. As far as your 1950's and 1960's "barges" are concerned, clearly you have no idea how collectable these are in Europe - the UK, Norway and Sweden have many enthusiasts' clubs in particular and even nationwide magazine just devoted to the genre, such as the UK's Classic American.

Edited March 23, 2008 by aatbloke

[CARBIZ]

It's really fascinating how the car industry around the world has evolved. Economics have always been at the forefront, obviously. Although there clearly is a need for change, it isn't the size of vehicles that has me worried, it is the insistence by the far left that the automobile is the scourge of the planet and those people will not rest until we are all driving bicycles or squished into buses. I live 3 blocks from a subway station, and my place of work is between two subway stations, yet I will never take transit to work. This is partially because Toronto's transit system has gone from one of the best in the world to one of the worst in the world in a generation, but also because I have no interest in having someone who hasn't had a bath in a week shove their armpit in my face while blasting [insert your most loathed music form here] on their iPod.

Toyota is not alone in foisting 'soul-less' appliances on the world, they are probably just the best at it. Somewhere between the anarchy that has become Mumbai and the hedonism of greater Los Angeles has to exist an answer that humans as an advanced species can cope with.

[MyerShift]

This thing is awful looking. *Beat the dead horse*

[ehaase]

Same goes for people that maybe live in Atlanta.....but commute way up to Marietta or Alphretta for their jobs. Mass transit isn't as helpful in these kinds of matters. Also, the sheer scale of many urban areas in the U.S. is mind-boggling compared to the compact urban areas of Europe. This also contributes greatly to a need for cars.

The opposite is true in Atlanta. People live in Cobb, Dekalb, and Gwinnett counties and work downtown, but MARTA doesn't reach the areas where most of the people live. I worked in Atlanta for 5 months once. I had to drive 17 miles to the closest MARTA station, but the office was only 25 miles away from where I was staying, so it was easier just to drive.