Pontiac Solstice Forum banner
1 - 20 of 46 Posts

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
5,600 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
that looks are important.

The sales success of the Pontiac Solstice - well over 10,000 units sold sight unseen without a test drive, based on little more than photos and with almost no information about the car beyond what a few people read on this website - should prove to GM beyond a shadow of a doubt that designing beautiful cars is the way to beat the competition.

GM cars are about as reliable as well designed as most of the competition. The Chevy Malibu is not a terrible car but the Honda Accord still dominates. Now make the Malibu so beautiful that you HAVE TO HAVE IT, and watch Accord sales plummet.

Make Cadillacs look like show cars and see who steps up to buy German cars after that.

Make Buicks drop dead gorgeous and you may just get a lot of people out of their Acuras and Infinitis for them.

GM, are you listening? The G6 is a nice car but a complete Accord clone. Who things the Cobalt is "gorgeous"? You have to be nuts. The GTO is a blob.

Make these cars gorgeous and dominate your competition. Solstice is the proof.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
124 Posts
Zolsol said:
:agree: Thse days you got to have looks and performance to beat the competition.

:agree: Somewhere, deep down, they must Know it. After all, they put those pretty concept cars out each year. And when one makes it to the market the way Solstice has, it sells.

The companies should listen to the buzz and use the buzz. They spent megabucks creating the concept cars. And with Solstice, it worked. Maybe they will learn the lesson.
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
5,600 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Lutz said that the cost of the entire Solstice program was equivalent to a large advertizing blitz. If that was the case, take cut the advertizing money in half and put that money toward producing beautiful cars that will sell like hotcakes WITHOUT the advertising.

The Solstice is gorgeous, so I know there is hope for GM. But it is a point of light out there in the dark and I would like to see GM introduce cars that look like the Nomad and Bel Air and other great looking cars. They better not miss with the new GTO or Camaro, either. The photoshop posted here of the 2008 GTO doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,135 Posts
jimbo said:
that looks are important.

The sales success of the Pontiac Solstice - well over 10,000 units sold sight unseen without a test drive, based on little more than photos and with almost no information about the car beyond what a few people read on this website - should prove to GM beyond a shadow of a doubt that designing beautiful cars is the way to beat the competition.

GM cars are about as reliable as well designed as most of the competition. The Chevy Malibu is not a terrible car but the Honda Accord still dominates. Now make the Malibu so beautiful that you HAVE TO HAVE IT, and watch Accord sales plummet.

Make Cadillacs look like show cars and see who steps up to buy German cars after that.

Make Buicks drop dead gorgeous and you may just get a lot of people out of their Acuras and Infinitis for them.

GM, are you listening? The G6 is a nice car but a complete Accord clone. Who things the Cobalt is "gorgeous"? You have to be nuts. The GTO is a blob.

Make these cars gorgeous and dominate your competition. Solstice is the proof.
I like the new Dodge Charger.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
119 Posts
I can't figure out why GM hasn't gotten it, yet. They've turned out some weird looking cars and I can't believe it would cost any more to turn out something beautiful. I've figured the GM design department must have been run by a bunch of committees and is the victim of "group think." Hopefully, the Solstice is an indication the old GM design process has moved on to BMW.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
705 Posts
Glad you brought this up, it is something I've always wondered. How can all the major auto makers be so stupid??? There must be more to it then design, it must cost more to make a car look great. I have to believe that it costs significantly more, because if it does not then they are just dumb!

I bought a new '04 Malibu Maxx, nice car. An obvious attempt was made at styling but they did not take it far enough. I need a good car for commuting, I'd prefer it have some style. Why do they make concept cars we drool over but never see? This is the first car I can think of that made it from concept to car in one piece...let's hope it's a sign of things to come!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
102 Posts
jimbo said:
that looks are important.

Make these cars gorgeous and dominate your competition. Solstice is the proof.

I totally agree, But, why is the Scion and Element getting reviews of their "great styling". To me they are a box following a box with four wheels. And why do so many people drive them?? Mileage? I don't get that one. I think they are the ugliest cars ever to hit the road. It just doesn't seem that much thought went into them. Don't mean to offend anyone anyone who has them, but "styling"?
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
5,600 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
deluke said:
I like the new Dodge Charger.
I like it, too. The left side of my brain keeps saying, "I should hate that ugly POS", but the right side keeps saying, "Way cool."

For some reason, I just really like it. Too bad it weighs so much . My ideal weight for a sports car is 3000 lb and for a GT car is 3400 lb. The Charger, at almost 4200 lb, almost weighs as much as my Chevy Silverado.

Still way cool. :cool:

Come on, Pontiac! Lets see a gorgeous GTO. And get it down to 3600 lbs. I want to HAVE to buy one.
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
5,600 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Pterosaur said:
Glad you brought this up, it is something I've always wondered. How can all the major auto makers be so stupid??? There must be more to it then design, it must cost more to make a car look great.
It does cost more - at least it used to, that's for sure.

You learn a LOT on this fabulous forum. (I just LOVE the internet!) I have become very sensitive to the bland shapes of 90% of all production cars. I used to think it was an attempt to make cars perfectly smooth in an obsessive quest for maximum fuel economy.

Someone on this forum taught me that the beautiful fenders and shapes on old cars were achieved by pressing the piece on up to 7 presses to mold them into such dramatic shapes. Now manufacturers use 2 presses at most on any given part, too expensive otherwise. So maybe the bland shapes of cars is simple economics, and not strictly dictated by design tastes or by aerodynamic efficiency.

With the development of hydroforming, they can again economically produce complex, dramatic shapes that would have required several presses to achieve back in the day.

I am not made of money, but I would GLADLY pay a $2,500 to $3,000 premium over any given car to have the same essential platform clad with a gorgeous body. If they can make gorgeous cars withing that price premium, then I don't understand why they can't do it. I would be happy to pay that premium. If I'm going to own my car 6 to 10 years, I want it to look as fine as possible during the duration.

Not all of us think cars are a transportation appliance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
145 Posts
Oregonian said:
I totally agree, But, why is the Scion and Element getting reviews of their "great styling". To me they are a box following a box with four wheels. And why do so many people drive them?? Mileage? I don't get that one. I think they are the ugliest cars ever to hit the road. It just doesn't seem that much thought went into them. Don't mean to offend anyone anyone who has them, but "styling"?
I agree that they're pretty ugly. But I guess that's part of the attraction. It's different. Plus the Scion has good gas mileage, plenty of room, and it's cheap. People are so tired with the same design that they'll go for anything different just to stand out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
275 Posts
Advertisers certainly know the value of looks - ever seen a commercial with plain/ugly people splashed over the screen? What money GM has made over the recent past has been from large Suvs ,trucks, hardly bathing beauties
when it comes to vehicles. They do have some stylish cars - the Cadillac CTS
in a dark color is quite striking. Perhaps that's a big reason why Caddies have done well lately. Pontiac has certainly improved their car's looks lately. It
wouldn't seem difficult to outdo the Accord in the looks department. Or the Civic, both forgettable designs.
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
5,600 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Well, this was DEFINITELY different, and it didn't last long.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,135 Posts
jimbo said:
I like it, too. The left side of my brain keeps saying, "I should hate that ugly POS", but the right side keeps saying, "Way cool."

For some reason, I just really like it. Too bad it weighs so much . My ideal weight for a sports car is 3000 lb and for a GT car is 3400 lb. The Charger, at almost 4200 lb, almost weighs as much as my Chevy Silverado.

Still way cool. :cool:

Come on, Pontiac! Lets see a gorgeous GTO. And get it down to 3600 lbs. I want to HAVE to buy one.
Getting off the topic of the Solstice, but keeping in line with ugly cars, I think the Hummer has got to be one of the ugliest cars or SUV that I've seen. Whats your openion?
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
5,600 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 · (Edited)
deluke said:
Getting off the topic of the Solstice, but keeping in line with ugly cars, I think the Hummer has got to be one of the ugliest cars or SUV that I've seen. Whats your openion?
I love it. I like the looks of the original better than the H2, but think both look very good. They look masculine, powerful, well proportioned and the details seem right. SUVs definitely march to the beat of a different styling drum than sports and GT cars. They are not meant to have the same design characteristics. I hate it as much when people try to make boxy sports cars as when they try to make streamlined, effiminate SUVs. Sports car should looked streamlined and flowing as if for high-speed travel. SUVs should conform to the Abrahms tank school of automotive design as if they could crash through things or just run over the top of them. Just MHO of course.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
109 Posts
GM should fire their designers... I used to call Ford "Forgive our retarded designers", but now I'm starting to wonder.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
109 Posts
jimbo said:
Well, this was DEFINITELY different, and it didn't last long.

I saw one of these POSs all fixed up and it looked nice... It only costs $32K to make a $35K POS look nice. ;)
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
5,600 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
Pterosaur said:
Hey I just ate lunch!
Sorry. Forgot the barf alert... :willy:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
278 Posts
jimbo said:
I love it. I like the looks of the original better than the H2, but think both look very good. They look masculine, powerful, well proportioned and the details seem right. SUVs definitely march to the beat of a different styling drum than sports and GT cars. They are not meant to have the same design characteristics. I hate it as much when people try to make boxy sports cars as when they try to make streamlined, effiminate SUVs. Sports car should looked streamlined and flowing as if for high-speed travel. SUVs should conform to the Abrahms tank school of automotive design as if they could crash through things or just run over the top of them. Just MHO of course.
i would have to completely agree with this statement. :agree: suv's need to look like suv's not sports cars.
 
1 - 20 of 46 Posts
Top