GM Inside News Forum banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
393 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
All the small Cheyy's are ugly.
They are like super model, on paper they look ok, take off the make up and see them in person they are ugly.
Was a Chevy dealer and none of the cars I could say ,I would want to have, from looking at the shapeNo wow factor of the car.
I was in a Honda dealer and saw an Accord now that is a good looking car.
Mazda 6 and 3 have more wow factor.
I believe people look at Wow factor first of the shape of a car and HP would be down the list.
When I was looking at used cars with my 25 year old daughter, she did not once ask about HP or time in a 1/4 mile.She was looking at the shape of the car first.
We end get a 97 Cavalier(with 64km) which look much better then other new Chevy's out there.
The Malibu is going against the Accord. The a joke! The Accord look 1000x better.
Chrysler all design their cars with Wow fact
I am not against GM .
I have 99 STS great looking car. 03 GMC serria EXt Cab z-71.
Had 6 other GM cars
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,003 Posts
If U say so sir, but that new Accord, in the looks department it's just straight a$$.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,307 Posts
I agree that the Altima(when it first came out), Mazda 3/6 have a certain "wow" factor that the Malibu does not have at all.

If you notice, the market leaders (Camry, Accord, original Taurus) were not bold cars. They were all rather non descript. The Camry is downright boring in terms of style. (When the Taurus went wacky, sales plummeted).

But they are the top sellers. So enthusiasts aside, it looks like this is what the buying public wants.

The Malibu is different enought (those HUGE headlights) to stand out, but not necessarily in a good way.

It doesn't matter how good a car is. If it's ugly, it won't attract all buyers.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
23,621 Posts
Originally posted by airbalancer@Mar 10 2004, 12:48 PM
All the small Cheyy's are ugly.
i'd say there' a difference between ugly and non-wow. i don't find many vehicles ugly these days... often they're just boring or uninspired. but as rex pointed out the best selling vehicles aren't bold... just boring. chev's small cars (aveo, optra and epica) are, in my opinion, dull, not ugly, but they're no worse than the competition. i betcha the mazda3, though exciting looking now, will look dated in a few years.

i think the cavalier you bought is a perfect example of un-inspired but attractive design. there was little wow even when it was new, but it still looks okay 7 years later.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,714 Posts
Actually, when the Taurus came out in late 1985, it very much had that "wow" factor, which made it an anomaly. Cars that sit at the top of the sales race typically are bland. If you want to have bold styling, you're going to turn off large portions of the population. If you want to appeal to the greatest number of people, you need an inoffensive design.

The Camry and Accord are inoffensive and lack boldness...or that "wow" factor. To my eyes, the Malibu is actually ugly...but that's just me. I like the styling of cars like the Chrysler Sebring/Dodge Stratus and Mazda6, but because they're so bold they won't ever be in the top 10 in sales.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,056 Posts
Wanna see ugly?
Take a look at Dodge's Sling shot. Boy was it a disappointment seeing this concept vehicle at the auto show.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,882 Posts
The Camry looks like a large, slab-sided car on tiny wheels. The Accord is better, but it's hardly bold. From the rear it looks like a mid-80's Alfa Romeo sedan.

Other than the bug-eyed front end, I find the new Malibu pleasing. It's certainly no worse than the class leaders. The Mazda 6 is a nice-looking piece, but it's just a bit player in the market. Passats aren't bad either, but they are priced way north of the Malibu.

As others have said, terrific styling is not the way to huge success in this market.

Other than the Malibu, there's the Cavalier which you seem to think is OK looking, and the Aveo. The Aveo probably won't light anyone's fire, but show me something in that class that lights anybody's fire. Again, that's not what the class is about.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,963 Posts
Originally posted by MelvinJ@Mar 10 2004, 02:51 PM
The Camry looks like a large, slab-sided car on tiny wheels. The Accord is better, but it's hardly bold. From the rear it looks like a mid-80's Alfa Romeo sedan.

Other than the bug-eyed front end, I find the new Malibu pleasing. It's certainly no worse than the class leaders. The Mazda 6 is a nice-looking piece, but it's just a bit player in the market. Passats aren't bad either, but they are priced way north of the Malibu.

As others have said, terrific styling is not the way to huge success in this market.

Other than the Malibu, there's the Cavalier which you seem to think is OK looking, and the Aveo. The Aveo probably won't light anyone's fire, but show me something in that class that lights anybody's fire. Again, that's not what the class is about.
remember they live in Canada... they have a lot more smaller cars then GM America has.
I think the Optra and the other one are very good looking. They have nice lines and look as if they offer a lot for the price.
I like the Malibu, but I the front end gets me at certain angles. The chrome bar that goes across kinda looks like the front end was cut in half.
The Aveo doesnt look that bad, but the front end could get some more flare to it.
And the Cavi is butt fugly. Thank GOD for the Cobalt.
As for the Accord, the coupe is nice, but the sedan looks like afterbirth. That whole extra door totaly messes up that rear end of that car.
The Altima... blah. Basic styling with alteza lights.
The dodge cars look good. Lutz did good there. Too bad he couldnt improve on the engineering.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
393 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
I guess we should happy that we do have a choice.
It could be like 100 years ago , you could have a model T in any colour as long as it was black.
Or worst we could be all driving Ladas
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,963 Posts
Originally posted by airbalancer@Mar 10 2004, 09:38 PM
I guess we should happy that we do have a choice.
It could be like 100 years ago , you could have a model T in any colour as long as it was black.
Or worst we could be all driving Ladas
its color ya crazy cannuck!! Put down the Labat and step away from the keyboard!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,692 Posts
Originally posted by casket_demon@Mar 10 2004, 08:06 AM
If U say so sir, but that new Accord, in the looks department it's just straight a$$.
Refrigerator repair-man a$$, or JLo a$$? Big difference there. :p

I would say the most attrative mainstream car in the Malibu's class right now is the Mazda 6.

I know a few people who bought them on looks alone, and one who bought a previous gen Protege at the dealership after being drawn in by the Mazda 6's looks.

I don't think Chevy's new cars are "ugly" --- just take a look at some of the bland montrosities from the 80's and 90's (not to mention the 70's).

I don't like the mega-large headlights of mainstream styled cars now, ToyoHonda seems to be leading the charge on this, and I don't want to see Chevy follow. Audis and Volkswagens look fine without cartoonishly large headlights:



Unlike this horridness:


Unfortunately the Cobalt looks more like the latter than the former.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
393 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Maybe ugly was little strong( the front of the truck is ugly bought a gmc instead), but I look at the new Chevys they give me no feeling just emptyness
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top