Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, Oscar
Ford had best find a buyer for Volvo before too many people get a gander at this abomination. Or maybe just shut down Volvo in its entirety and call it a “mercy killing,” which is probably legal in Sweden. If not, Stockholm will make it legal if they ever see what Ford has done to their baby.
What I want to know is, exactly how many committees were involved in designing that front end, why did no one provide them with one another’s contact information, who told the CAD programmer to take the results and “just wing it,” why were the executives in charge of preproduction vehicles all on vacation that week, who stole their emergency cell phone contact information, what drugs was everybody involved on, how much do they cost, do they go well with red wine, and where can I get some?
Also, I want to see that car from the rear end in the exact same way I’d like Rosie O’Donnell to moon me — while she’s suffering apoplexy.
Ugh…
Steve, now can we have a look at the Koenigsegg as a palate cleanser?
To their credit, Volvo has provided ‘suicide’ rear doors to the buyers. I guess they misinterpreted the focus group data that said “Id rather commit suicide than drive this”. I suppose that means there’s no need for you to run the hose from the exhaust anymore, because with volvo, suicide is no longer an option( with this car – its mandatory!). Remember that in Volvos, the airbags are there not to save you from injury but to cover you from the growing sense of shame that comes with owning a car that looks like a Studebaker, but drives like an international harvester tractor.
Another thing to note is that this is the first car in years where drink holders are not needed because when you see this thing you will instantly spill your drink. No need to make a place for them in the car if you dropped them in the parking lot now is there! One point to Volvo for getting the same emotional effect out of you that you would get from seeing a naked Phyllis Diller into their design.
In their defense, this is Volvo we are talking about here. At Volvo, what the car actually looks like really doesnt figure into their thinking. Volvo is a car that is designed as much of a singleminded driver demographically correct political mindset as is the Priap.., (er, uh sorry I meant to say ‘Prius’). Performance? Handling? Comfort? bah. Who needs all that when you have slab sided station wagons as the core of your fleet that say ” I might have skied at vail this year, but that would only be because I was slumming, you peasant”.
This is a car company whos products main purpose to its owners isnt so much to serve as their transportation as it is to serve as the main stage for oh so many liberal bumper stickers. Bumper stickers that are there to tell you, the driver of the car directly behind them, to “go green” and “Save lake tahoe” as if to say until you saw that bumper sticker you had planned to change your transmission fluid right there on the sandy shores of that great lake, but you had second thoughts about it when you saw that lovely blue bumper sticker on the back of that volvo. Ive always enjoyed the special sense of irony that comes from watching someone who owns a car made of primarily of a lead core that’s covered in a thick hide of pig iron and still has the same aerodynamic slipperiness that bricks dont, a car that has been shipped all the way from lovely industrial Sweden, telling everyone else that they should “go green”.
You’re kidding, right? I hate Volvo design, generally, but this is a great looking car.
Look, you’re an enjoyable writer – usually funny, smart, and informed. So I’m telling you this with all due respect and admiration:
Whenever you are thinking about blogging about automotive design, the auto business – basically, anything that is even remotely related to a four-wheeled self-propelled conveyance of any kind – keep in mind that you are wrong 99.99% of the time. You’ve had a really, really bad string of misses on the subject lately. Just – well, of course blog what you want (it’s your place and you sure don’t need my permission or approval) but I’m just trying to help here – just don’t do it. Hell, if I were you, just to be safe I’d avoid blogging about anything with the four letter string “a-u-t-o” in it, including “autoeroticasphyxiation.”
Rocketeer –
Design is design, and tastes differ.
About the only other auto news I blog about semi-regularly is GM’s need for C11 restructuring (and why Ford, unfairly, may be forced to follow suit) and that Chrysler is already dead.
Am I wrong? Could be. But only time will tell — not you. Meanwhile, you haven’t said why or how I’ve gotten anything wrong, just made some fun-sounding assertions. Nothing wrong with that, but you haven’t exactly given me anything to think about.
uh, Im with @rocketter… this isn’t a BAD looking car at all. really tailored lines, more aggressive headlights, and the color isn’t bad either.
Joel –
I tried to count the number of design cues forced onto that front end, but my maths aren’t that big.
Japanese headlights, a VW grill, the hood came off an ’02 Chrysler Sebring, the cuts into the side mirrors look like something Chris Bangle drew drunk (and with a broken pencil). Speaking of Bangle, they stole that doorsill droop off the BMW 1-series, itself no looker, but made it look even more ridiculous because on a tall car/CUV/thing they look extra droopier. And what the hell is going on under the headlights? Can anyone tell me? Is Darth Vader crying?
Seriously, what’s tailored here? The swage line under the greenhouse is all over the place, and I really can’t get over the case of droopy drawers at the doorsill.
About the only flaw not present (fortunately) is the Bangle butt trunk lid which BMW wisely chopped off the 7-series a couple years ago, but which Toyota jammed onto the Camry’s ass and won’t let go.
But the absence of one popular design miscue isn’t enough to save this beast. U-G-L-Y it ain’t got no alibi.
THERE. I’ve explained why it’s awful. Anyone want to take a stab at explaining why it isn’t? (Simply asserting that “it’s great-looking” doesn’t cut it.)
Oh, and one other thing, not obvious unless you click on the full-size picture.
That nicely sloping rear pillar (stolen off the Mercedes CLS) appears to leave zero headroom at all for rear passengers.
Two things that I’d say you got right in your criticism:
1) That slope in the rear would cause a midget to slump in the back seat. Ridiculous.
2) The grill doesn’t work, especially with the Volvo logo. Go figure. And that may be enough to condemn the car itself.
If you are looking from a traditional perspective, this is definitely outside the box, as far as a Volvo sedan goes. But if you’re willing to change your paradigm some, I think it mostly works. The lines are definitely aggressive. But they work together really well (minus the grill, as noted above). It’s a little outrageous, but that’s the intent. It catches my eye (to speak only for myself here), and the flow of the car keeps my attention. I do wonder about the rear, though. It does look to be a little abrupt. Not sure how that would be changed, but there you go.
It definitely owes a serious debt to at least one version of the Sebring though, which was the very first thing that came to mind when I saw this picture.
I think it mostly works, though. This is one of those “let’s challenge the thinking a little (or a lot), and see how much attention we can get.” If they get enough positive attention, then it’s a win. Always a risk.
Is that detailed enough for you?
Detailed, yep — and nicely done, too.
Of course, I still don’t see it.
There’s nothing wrong with aggressive lines, but Volvo has so many of them going on that it forces some really weird… weirdness to happen. Look at those flat surfaces (are those the front turn signals?) between the grill and the headlights. What are they doing there, other than ruining the curves UP from those Emo Darth Vader lenses under the headlights, AND DOWN from that swage line dragged all the way FORWARD from the side mirrors.
Now look under Emo Vader’s sunglasses. Those curves start from nowhere on the outside edges, and end just as abruptly at the… what are those… Vader’s upside-down tear ducts? And then in the middle, it’s Chevy’s corporate air duct! On a Volvo!
I suppose the headlights are alright, in a Subaru WRX kind of way — but I don’t think that crowd is going to be buying very many $40,000+ family CUVs. And why build a crossover that will barely seat four? Because BMW got stoned one night and dreamed up the X6?
And here’s why that rear end should frighten you. As you approach it, it looks like the designers started out to steal the muscular “shoulders” off the Dodge Charger, then chickened out. For no reason I can figure out, the shoulder starts about halfway along the suicide doors (which ARE a nice touch, BTW), as a continuation of that zigzaggy swage line. Which might not look so bad, if it weren’t interrupted so rudely by those giant masses the side mirrors stick out from.
And those wheels. I think they found them at a SEMA exhibit called “Things That Look Like They Might Be Spinners But Without All That Spinning.”
Oh, god… I could just keep going.
The thing is, it looks like a FORD, not a VOLVO. And I guarantee they’re charging Volvo prices.
It just now dawns on me that this thing is maybe trying to be a 2+2 sedan, and not a CUV after all. Or a 4-door “coupe” like the Mercedes CLS. The CLS has its faults, especially if you’re forced to sit in back — but “ugly” ain’t one of them. Neither is “confused.”
Volvo’s… thing… is too tall to be a sedan, too short to be a wagon, too swoopy to have any utility, and too ugly to be made by mortal hands.
And Mr. Lady is right, although I don’t think it looks like a Ford. Some of Ford’s new products have some real presence, and in a good way. This thing just sits there and stinks.
Dunno. Looks like just about any other CAD-car to me these days.
I’d love to hear your opinion of the Crossfire.
Casey –
The Crossfire is flawed, especially if you’ve ever sat in one. “Coffinlike” is generous — although the convertible, top down, helps with that.
However, it’s certainly better looking overall than its lump-of-poo platform mate, the first-generation Mercedes SLK.
BTW, if you want to see a twisty swage line done right, then look no further than the one that gave the Crossfire its name. That tasty bit of sheet metal is almost enough to make up for those silly hood strakes.
Fair enough, VP. But you haven’t given me much to work with other than fun-sounding assertions, either. Even your extended comments above are pretty much comprised of that. As you point out, aethetics are subjective, and therefore ultimately immune to argument – which means that a simple assertion either pro or con actually is enough.
And the Big 3 commentary is what I’m talking about. Only time will tell, true, and you may be right, but in my opinion it’s painfully uninformed commentary, which I think is an aberration for you. I really owe you a bit of an apology for giving you grief on this. It’s unfair, because the only reason you’re getting it, actually, is that you’re the only commenter on the subject I’ve run across that’s magnanimous enough and man enough to be open to comments, including criticism, on your site. It’s just been a little tiring to read criticism of the way the companies have been managed from a commentariat who’s only apparent claim to expertise seems to be that they…drive cars. (Full disclosure: My father was a process engineer for Ford’s heavy truck division until the mid-90s; I actually think Ford has been managed extremely well under Mullally, and Bill Ford was at least a smart enough CEO to step aside, so half a cheer for him).
But enough of my asshattery – I’m a jerk for my first comments here having been basically an extended jab. You do good work and I really do enjoy your site overall.
I have a friend who did contract work for Ford for several years between the late 90s and mid oughts. I won’t go into specifics here, as he hasn’t given permission, but suffice it to say that, if even half of what he encountered while working with some pretty high-level officials (Senior Executives in both the U.S. and worldwide) is true, then “Ford has been managed extremely well” has no relationship with reality. It has been, and continues to be, a Charlie Foxtrot of the first order.
It’s that “vision” thing, you know? It keeps biting them in the ass, over and over and over and over….
Here’s a challenge for you Steve. Of all this years new models of cars – name the ones you think are excellent examples of beauty.
Rocketeer –
Imagine if, from around 1992 on, Ford and GM (and Chrysler, to a lesser extent) had plowed their truck and SUV profits back into their passenger car businesses. Instead of, you know, buying up unprofitable and dead-end foreign nameplates.
Then, instead of having to prop up SAAB, Volvo, Aston, etc., the Detroit 3 could have built small cars and sedans for something other than the rental markets. They could have competed with the Japanese on value, instead of on price — and high-price producers (thanks, UAW!) simply can’t compete on price.
Would it have made a difference? Could Detroit have turned things around in time? I don’t know. Chrysler, probably not — the Germans really ran their Chrysler Group holdings into the ground.
Ford? Ford’s already turning around, as you’ve rightly noted — but they’re still on the precipice, a place they might not be if they still had all those billions they wasted creating (then disbanding at a loss) the PAG. Oh, and if just one of those billions had been spent keeping the Taurus current, and designing and marketing the Fusion two or three years sooner.
And maybe, just maybe, having had some money to something, anything with Mercury and Lincoln other than silly rebadges.
And GM? Ten or twelve years ago, my grandfather (who’d driven nothing but Caddies since the ’50s) looked at the fleet of Escalades on the dealer’s lot and said, “I don’t know what a Caddy is anymore.” That’s when I knew GM was in trouble. When they folded Olds, I said, “There’s a start.” But then they bought SAAB, launched Hummer, and continued to shed sales. Too many brands, too many models, too many dealers, too many bean counters, too much debt, too many union rules and benefits. And the only way to cut ANY of those down, much less all of them, is through C11 restructuring.
This isn’t all 20/20 hindsight BS, either — this is stuff I’ve been reading elsewhere (and saying myself) for years.
So, yes, I will criticize the way companies have been managed, when they are companies I’ve followed for years. And as someone who prefers to buy domestic, has some small emotional (and financial) stake in.
Also, when somebody tells me I can’t or shouldn’t speak, I’ll sure as hell get in their face. Loudly.
Frank –
Good question, worth a blog post. But may I go back a couple years, to get a better view of the current market as a whole? In a business with long lead times and production runs, a single year doesn’t always tell you much.
Agreed.
I have to quote that movie, “Crazy People”… Mel Brooks said it best “Volvo. They’re boxy, but they’re safe.”
I’ve driven Volvo’s for 15 years, having just made the switch to an Audi earlier this year, and I have to say that that car is no Volvo. It looks terribly unsafe, uncomfortable and very Ford-like. It looks like what they did to Jaguar… turned it into Taurus lite. Probably will have to be fixed or repaired daily…
Ick.
You’re sounding more and more like Farago every day.
Stephen, thanks for that mini-review! I’m surprised in that the other “professional” reviews I’ve seen tend to praise the Crossfire its front-seat spaciousness.
It sure as hell looks good on the outside.
Rocketeer: I think VP has presented a respectable list of specific comments. Design is like that. Me, I’m more familiar with computer software and hardware; still, I can bitch all day about the horrible keyboards Apple produces (small keyboards, close-spaced keys, short key-travel, no physical or audible feedback to demonstrate a complete keystroke), but other folks will, like you, reply that I’m using “subjective” standards. Don’t get me started on those absurd one-button mice, either. Feh.
On the other hand the Apple external designs are just gosh-darn pretty, and the G4 tower makes me want wet my pants when I see how elegantly the case folds apart. Most folks don’t even notice that, since they don’t open their computers, as a rule. That’s usually the first thing I do with a new box, a bad habit I got a long time ago.
But, really, once you get past wind resistance and other non-esthetic issues, what objective standards can you cite for external automotive design?
I think the Z3 is a sexy little car, the ’68 Chevelle SS gorgeous, and ’69 Super Bee just damned hot. I also think the ’82 Civic was one of the most elegant hatchbacks ever designed.
But objectively? Pttth. Stephen is much better at that (for cars) than I.