Can you post a larger high res version of this so I can keep a copy of it in a folder with the rest of your chops. That is ****in awesome! I like to look at them full screen and think about what life could be like in a perfect car world!
What don't you like about this?
I'm not a mind reader so...
People are saying they don't like this chop but not actually describing why? Can somebody help me out and tell me what is wrong with this sedan, i.e. the front, the shape, the proportions - what exactly? To me it looks like a Chrysler 300 with an Escalade front...
![]()
![]()
People are saying they don't like this chop but not actually describing why? Can somebody help me out and tell me what is wrong with this sedan, i.e. the front, the shape, the proportions - what exactly? To me it looks like a Chrysler 300 with an Escalade front...
2
1 - 20 of 43 Posts
Thanks. I was going for a Chrysler 300 look with the bluff grille. I have found some Americans really like that and many don't. Must be an either/or thing...
The sedan is Nearly production ready in my opinion. Dynamite! I can't see the rear well enough, so it may be the weakest part, but to me it looks great! Bold, strong, Cadillac. It should be what cadillac is shooting for!I'm not a mind reader so...
People are saying they don't like this chop but not actually describing why? Can somebody help me out and tell me what is wrong with this sedan, i.e. the front, the shape, the proportions - what exactly? To me it looks like a Chrysler 300 with an Escalade front...
![]()
![]()
Maybe you are overly sensitive to others' criticisms. Maybe you are trying to please a group that is negative to most initiatives. Who knows? It's Great to me!
I see what you mean. It looks bigger then a 300 to me. It looks more like the presidents Caddy. I believe they call it the beast.Thanks. I was going for a Chrysler 300 look with the bluff grille. I have found some Americans really like that and many don't. Must be an either/or thing...
Three thoughts. First, the scale of the grill is, to my eyes, too big. Second, the c-pillar and raised trunk look tacked on and not integrated with the rest of the design. And last, the overall shape and forms are a bit dated looking. There is a bit of first generation Chrysler 300 here, and that car is nearly a decade old and really common here. Even if you played with fixing some of the details, I think you'd end up with a mash up of the 300 and the A&S facelifted DTS. Too soon for those designs to be retro; right now, they are just old.
Those shapes work fine on the different bones of the SUV, but are lacking on the much different proportions of the sedan.
That said, A&S is strongly rooted in the '67 Eldorado. That's a lovely car, but far from the only heritage Cadillac has. I wonder what A&S might evolve into if it was influenced by, say, the '76 Seville. Or, the '79 Eldorado. Both have some of the edginess of the first Eldo, but introduce other elements into the mix, including a more formal backlight and more horizontal lighting elements. Both have more exaggerated cabin-rear proportions as well.
![]()
![]()
Those shapes work fine on the different bones of the SUV, but are lacking on the much different proportions of the sedan.
That said, A&S is strongly rooted in the '67 Eldorado. That's a lovely car, but far from the only heritage Cadillac has. I wonder what A&S might evolve into if it was influenced by, say, the '76 Seville. Or, the '79 Eldorado. Both have some of the edginess of the first Eldo, but introduce other elements into the mix, including a more formal backlight and more horizontal lighting elements. Both have more exaggerated cabin-rear proportions as well.
Attachments
Yes it would be bigger than the 300 as I think Omega will be and Zeta could easily be. But to me a real Cadillac is a big car. Before Seville they never needed an 'entry level' vehicle. On the rear roofline I already posted on that in the other thread - see bottom below.Three thoughts. First, the scale of the grill is, to my eyes, too big. Second, the c-pillar and raised trunk look tacked on and not integrated with the rest of the design. And last, the overall shape and forms are a bit dated looking. There is a bit of first generation Chrysler 300 here, and that car is nearly a decade old and really common here. Even if you played with fixing some of the details, I think you'd end up with a mash up of the 300 and the A&S facelifted DTS. Too soon for those designs to be retro; right now, they are just old.
Those shapes work fine on the different bones of the SUV, but are lacking on the much different proportions of the sedan.
That said, A&S is strongly rooted in the '67 Eldorado. That's a lovely car, but far from the only heritage Cadillac has. I wonder what A&S might evolve into if it was influenced by, say, the '76 Seville. Or, the '79 Eldorado. Both have some of the edginess of the first Eldo, but introduce other elements into the mix, including a more formal backlight and more horizontal lighting elements. Both have more exaggerated cabin-rear proportions as well.
![]()
![]()
That's interesting about the roofline. I think that may be what Z Fury above is also talking about with the rear reminding him of the Avalanche rear.
The reason I did the retro squared off roof is because I have over the years had so many people ask me to add a more formal upright roofline as there are many people who don't like that all cars today are virtually fastbacks.
There seems to be a divide in American taste - some like old-school, some like modern. I'm not exactly sure how to reconcile the two...
To me, this chop is a modern interpretation of the 1966 Deville. But I could be wrong. I am enjoying a few beers right now..
![]()
I've done some fiddling with smaller grille and less formal rear roofline...
http://s9.postimg.org/sbq6arp5r/cadillac_escalation_v_b.jpg HD version
![]()
Old version below
![]()
http://s9.postimg.org/sbq6arp5r/cadillac_escalation_v_b.jpg HD version
Old version below
2
I can cut the rear height down but when it comes to aerodynamics the rear is THE critical area that most drag is created, and that is why you see so many cars today with high deck lids and bangle butts. Because when a three box design draws the air down a too steep rear window or too far down creates a break-up of the laminar flow into turbulence... So fastback rear windows and high rear deck lids is the norm. It all depends on what FE you want... plus you get more luggage space.
It's one thing to do a more retro style but people don't want retro gas mileage. So now you know why we see wedge designs like CTS ATS as it is to try to hide the high trunk lid.
How about a bangle/bustle which keeps the deck height but sweeps the roofline down to the taillights...
1 - 20 of 43 Posts
