Pontiac Solstice Forum banner

Pontiac Badging

4K views 29 replies 12 participants last post by  Fformula88 
#1 ·
This subject was touched upon quite a while ago and I can't find the thread. After looking for hours and hours at various photos of the Solstice, I counted the number of Pontiac badges I was seeing. ELEVEN. Isn't that excessive? :rolleyes
 
#2 ·
Eleven?

Where?

There's a crest on the front, the back, and one on each side (4).

One on the steering wheel (+1=5). And a "Pontiac" and "Solstice" on the back.

And 4 on the hub centers if you count those, even though you can't seem them on the road when the vehicle is in motion (+4 = 9, though these are a stretch).

There's a lot more chevy symbols on the SSR (even a couple molded into the seal vent holes for the top and in the center of the side marker lamps - how's that for excessive).
 
#5 ·
Everything is well branded in America. We actually love brand identification as a culture and will even pay to display company logos. I guess we tend to use brand names to help identify who we are and what we're about. Chances are the clothes you are wearing are branded. Have you counted the logos on the car you have now?

Maybe I'm totally desenceatized to branding, because 11 logos on the Solstice does seem excessive on paper, yet I've been staring at the same photos since February, and I don't even really notice them, or I guess I'm OK with them. When this subject came up last time, it was about badge size, and I started to look at other cars on the road more criticaly for the badge size and placement, and found most other cars to be the same if not worse.

I totaly understand the distaste for the branding of America and not wanting to do a companies advertizing for them, but I wonder if the objection to the Pontiac logos on the Solstice is due to some not being comfortable with the Pontiac brand. If the Solstice were being made with 11 BMW rotundels on it, would people mind as much? For many of us, this will be the first Pontiac they've ever owned, and maybe they're not so sure they're ready to be a Pontiac owner, with all the baggage that comes with that in some circles.

I don't know, just a thought. I'm sure some of the badges can be removed or covered. Many will change the wheels and steering wheel for aftermarket ones that will no doubt have different logos on them. Some will be successful in prying the badges off the hood and trunk. Still others may end up putting even more Pontiac stickers on. It is a personal taste issue, but I believe that the badging that has been done so far on the production prototype (remember, it is a proto type, and the badges could still be changed.) has been done in a tasteful and reletively low key way compared to some other manufactures. :cheers
 
#6 ·
I guess I don't think it's excessive. I've seen worse, most vehicles have 4 wheels, one front exterior, one back exterior, one on the steering wheel, and one somewhere else interior. The only extra ones are the two side indent-thingy artsy-fartsy fake scoops. The design could easily lose these and never miss a beat.
 
#7 ·
solsticeman said:
I guess I don't think it's excessive. I've seen worse, most vehicles have 4 wheels, one front exterior, one back exterior, one on the steering wheel, and one somewhere else interior. The only extra ones are the two side indent-thingy artsy-fartsy fake scoops. The design could easily lose these and never miss a beat.
I agree 100%. Perosnally I hate non functional facia. All the fake scoops on Mustangs have allways driven me crazy. If you're going to spend the time to develope those scoop, spend some extra time and make it functional. Which I really hope those giant scoops behind the VX Lightning are functional. They make it look kinda C6 Corvette-ish (just a little to me).
 
#8 ·
11 isn’t so bad. Most vehicles probably have a similar number. At least they are using the symbol and not spelling it out everywhere. My Jeep has 10 “Jeep” logos, front, back (tire cover), both sides, all 5 wheel centers, and the steering wheel.

My Fiero probably has as much badging as I have seen on a car. 2 Pontiac Chevrons, 2 Pontiac emblems with the word Pontiac spelled out. One Fiero emblem spelled out. 11 Fiero Pegasus shields throughout the car (6 on the interior alone). That gets me up to 15 emblems total!
 
#9 · (Edited)
I think the Pontiac logo is one of the more attractive on the market. I have no problem with the number or placement on the Solstice. The only logos that I find more attractive are all from Italian manufacturers and contain either a horse, a bull, a trident, or a snake.
 
#10 ·
History BUFFS--Was there different sized (width) trunk badging on the early Pontiacs??

I saw a early 1950's unit the other day and it reminded me that maybe the width of the trunk stripe (metal) was a clue to the model. Chief, Chieftain, Super Chief?

Damn, I am getting OLD!!! And have CRS!!!

Steve
 
#11 ·
Another reason why I like my '79 Camaro. It has two Camaro emblems with little bity bow-ties in them, one on the grille and one on the gas door in the middle of the tail light cluster. Also, it has emblems that say "Camaro" on each front fender, and "Berlinetta" on the front of the hood and bottom of the trunk lid and then on the side pillars inbetween the side windows and rear windshield. It also says "Camaro" on the glove box and says "Berlinetta" on the horn cap. The majority of the emblems identify it as being a Camaro and more specifically a Berlinetta but have no mention of it being a Chevy, except for the two tiny bow-ties and are hard to see. The car actually identifies itself as being a "GM" more times than it does being a Chevy, it has the GM logo as the button on all four seat belt clasps. It lets you know it's a Camaro, not just some Chevy car.

That makes me think about something else. Why don't the new cars have emblems of their own?? The Camaro has it's own emblem, the Vette has it's, the Mustang of course is probably the most recognizable of the three, then you have the "reborn" cars, the Monte Carlo, Impala, Malibu. These cars all have their own emblems but they also have years of history behind them. It seems that trend has gone by the wayside. Personally I like the cars having their own emblem alongside of the company emblem. I would rather see the individual car's emblem more prominently than I would the company's. Ideally, externally it should just have the company name somewhere and then the only badges should be the car's badges. Place the company logo somewhere on the inside. That's just my opinion.
 
#12 ·
simmonsmb said:
That makes me think about something else. Why don't the new cars have emblems of their own?? The Camaro has it's own emblem, the Vette has it's, the Mustang of course is probably the most recognizable of the three, then you have the "reborn" cars, the Monte Carlo, Impala, Malibu. These cars all have their own emblems but they also have years of history behind them. It seems that trend has gone by the wayside. Personally I like the cars having their own emblem alongside of the company emblem. I would rather see the individual car's emblem more prominently than I would the company's. Ideally, externally it should just have the company name somewhere and then the only badges should be the car's badges. Place the company logo somewhere on the inside. That's just my opinion.
I agree with you about model specific badges to a degree, they can be nice and really help to build a cult feeling around a car. As long as the car is strong and successful it can be a plus. The one thing that I am overwhelmingly grateful for is that Pontiac has actually given the Solstice a name and not just a series of numbers and letters. The foreign trend of giveing their cars number/letter designations just raises confusion in the consumer and tests their memory skills. I personaly hate this practice because it deminishes the sole and spirit of a car and makes me feel like the manufacturers who use this system are just lazy. It's as though they have a program code and just say "That's good enough." who cares what it's called! Pretty lame.:rolleyes

Again, thank you Pontiac for giving the Solstice a real name, and a really good one at that in my opinon! :thumbs
 
#13 ·
I've seen worse logo treatments, both in terms of size and number, on other vehicles. The reference to Italian car badging is a good one as well. I think you will probably find close to 10 prancing horse logos on most Ferraris.

Regarding those "indent-thingy, artsy-fartsy fake scoops," is there any possibility that on the finished models those would be somehow connected to the hood release system? They do look a little silly, unless they are somehow intended to be functional.
 
#14 ·
I agree that model specific badging can be nice. It gives the car a sense of its own identity. But I really only like to see it on a car that is enthusiast oriented. For example, it seems to be overkill to me to have a separate Impala badge. The current Impala is nothing more than a large family sedan. Nothing to get too excited about. The supercharged versions are nice, but they are not exactly muscle sedans either. Now,l the 90’s Impala’s based on the Caprice with the Corvette V8’s were a different story. Very appropriate there.

The Solstice could easily have its own emblem. It would also fit in with Pontiac’s sports car history to give it a unique emblem (Firebird, Fiero). But I’ll take a real name at this point with them returning to alphanumeric names (G6, and a future G8 and G4 on the way. Ugh).
 
#15 ·
2091351 said:
History BUFFS--Was there different sized (width) trunk badging on the early Pontiacs??

I saw a early 1950's unit the other day and it reminded me that maybe the width of the trunk stripe (metal) was a clue to the model. Chief, Chieftain, Super Chief? Steve
Interesting question, I couldn't remember that so I looked it up. The metal stripping on Pontiacs was called "Silver Streak" styling. (That much I could remember.) It debuted in 1935 and was intended soley for brand identification. It made Pontiacs easily recognizable. My understanding is that the Pontiac brand had gotton a reputation for making bigger better cars than Chevrolet, but being that it was the depression, Pontiac wanted into the low cost market. They added the "Silver Streak" styling feature to identify Pontiac, so they could then slip in cheaper I6 engines and lesser appointments in lower models without compromising the brand identity. Because the 6cyl looked pretty much the same as the 8cyl car, the brand didn't get associated with down grading, just more options for folks.

I guess it was a success because the "Silver Steaks" were a Pontiac feature right up into 1956. The stripping changed a little year to year, in the years 1953, 1955 and 1956 it was actually two stripes, like rally stripes. The most tasteful ones I think were the pre-war models and the 1954 model, where it was just 4 very thin lines grouped. They never did use the stripes to designate different models, only name badging did this. This kept with the original purpose of brand identity and conceiling the nature of the cheaper models.

I have never owned a Pontiac from this era, but having restored several American 50's cars, let me tell you, stainless trim pieces like the ones on the Silver Streaks are a royal pain in the ass to work with, and any who has a Silver Syreak Pontiac who has taken them off to paint the car or polish and straighten them, will no doubt tell you too. It truly amazes me the metal working capabilities the auto industry used to have. I don't think cars like these could ever be built again.
 
#16 ·
OHNOTHIMAGEN said:
Regarding those "indent-thingy, artsy-fartsy fake scoops," is there any possibility that on the finished models those would be somehow connected to the hood release system? They do look a little silly, unless they are somehow intended to be functional.

I'm going to go out on a limb and against the grain here. I actually like the scoops. Functional or not. They kind of evoke the fender treatment on the earlier Trans Ams. I agree that they could be functional, and I also think they could stand to be a little larger. Another nice touch would be to backlight the Pontiac logo, but to be legal, they would have to backlight it amber.

I can't recall what year or model it was off the top of my head, but there was a Pontiac in the musclecar era that had backlight Pontiac arrowhead logos on the quarterpanels.
 
#18 ·
2KWK4U said:
I'm going to go out on a limb and against the grain here. I actually like the scoops. Functional or not. They kind of evoke the fender treatment on the earlier Trans Ams. I agree that they could be functional, and I also think they could stand to be a little larger. Another nice touch would be to backlight the Pontiac logo, but to be legal, they would have to backlight it amber.
I 100% agree with you. I like the fender badging. I think it adds a little texture and interest in an otherwise flat, plain fender. The car would look fine without them, but I like it better with them. As to functionality, what would anyone want them to do? I guess they could be hood releases, but that would require you to go to both sides of the car to get the hood up. People have suggested they could be vents or scoops, but for what purpose? I don't share the obsession with poking holes in the fenders. Just because a fender has a real hole in it doesn't mean it does any good or is needed. It's just a styling feature, that's all. Artsy fartsy? Automotive styling is art, or it should be.

I know it's a difference of opinion, there's the school of thought that form should strictly follow function, that if it doesn't serve the puprose of enhancing the performance of the car, it should be ommited. Some people just love the completely clean shaven look, but most buyers don't mind a little flair, a little style thrown in. It helps sell cars and makes them memorable. Even Ferrari puts things on their cars just because it looks cool, not simply because it is functional or nessisary. My opinion on this is probably warped, and just because I have spent so much time with American cars from the past, which are full of art, but people love those old cars, and that's mainly why. They are rolling sculptures.

I also agree 100% that the side badges would be cool back lit. Another potential function for it might be as a side fender turn signal like European cars have. I don't know how they'll end up, but I'm OK with them the way they are. :cheers
 
#19 ·
Dave -Thanks for the great information. I wasn't sure if they meant anything, I just could remember there were different ones. Now that you have identified the differences were associated with model years, I have it straight.

Might make some interesting ideas with striping on my Solstice.

Steve
 
#20 ·
2091351 said:
Dave -Thanks for the great information. I wasn't sure if they meant anything, I just could remember there were different ones. Now that you have identified the differences were associated with model years, I have it straight.

Might make some interesting ideas with striping on my Solstice.

Steve
Yeah, you could get a black Solstice and put silver stripes on it in the "Silver Streak" fashion, and really make a historical tie-in. A little photoshop could easily give you an idea what that'd look like. Could be cool, Dunno. Maybe Pontiac should look into it?
 
#21 ·
In response to 2KWK4U, I wasn't being critcal of the fender badging when I called it "artsy-fartsy," but rather quoting another prior post about the scoops. Personally, on first sight I thought they looked a little odd but assumed they were probably were some form of hood release. It is certainly a different approach, which is fine.
 
#22 ·
AeroDave said:
I...It's just a styling feature, that's all. Artsy fartsy? Automotive styling is art, or it should be.

I know it's a difference of opinion, there's the school of thought that form should strictly follow function, that if it doesn't serve the puprose of enhancing the performance of the car, it should be ommited. ...
Since I am the originator of the "artsy-fartsy" designation of the side emblems (from now on known as the AFSS, for Artsy-Fartsy-Side-Scoop), I'll add my two cents.

Automotive styling is purpose driven art. Stylists HATE tires. Every concept car, no exceptions, always pushes the limit of tire aspect ratio (to the extreme of "forklift" option, or wheel-dipped-in-rubber). But this interferes with the function of the system.

Form does not always follow function. Nor is the reverse true. That is the problem, and what most people (especially automotive designers) don't get: product design is finding the true sweet spot, the "middle ground" for you Zen Buddists. The place where form and function are inextricably melded together - where each aspect enhances the other.

Frank Lloyd Wright, while not the originator of "form and function are one" (though his followers claim so), certainly tried to combine the two aspects in his architecture. For example, the wide vertical ridges/slats sticking out of the sides of Taliesin West are beautiful. They mimic nature in the saguaro cactii form - yet it is not so simple as how they look. These ridges/slats work the same way on the building as they do on the catcus - they shield the sun from baking the structure in the harsh AZ sun.

Likewise, I dislike when items are there for "form" alone. Unfortunately, stylists have this thing where they think the "form" dominates. The trick is to find where all the aspects of a design's FUNCTION are combined with it's FORM. This is finding the win-win solution where each aspect enhances the other.

Pieces of form that have no function, by my definition, are artsy-fartsy. The AFSS fall into this category. If the mule photos are indications, the rear top wing/buttresses may fall into this category - if they do nothing other than eye-candy, and they make putting the top down or bringing the top up or even getting into the trunk a real PITA, then the designer failed to find a good solution where form was integrated with function.

Along with this are benign artsy-fartsy form stuff (like the AFSS), and there are malignant artsy-fartsy form items that actually interfere with function. 24" wheels are an example here. So might be the buttresses, for a specific Solstice example.

Where this is done well, the result is an organically beautiful, functionally specific result.

If those AFSS never existed to start with, nobody would have had any issue. The dimensions and proportions of the car are developed organically - it's wide enough to support the growing American driver. The wheels and tires are nearly practical in size. Most of the car is well-matched with function and form. Artsy-fartsy details like those AFSS do nothing to enhance the car. Likewise for the rear silver crossbar on the Chevy SSR - which should never have been in the design in the first place.

Part of the reason the Solstice form has not changed much is probably because of a very specific mission statement: "low cost, low volume, highyly-styled, back-to-basics roadster". Good for GM, they actually have a project that doesn't seem to have been contaminated by the typical "be everything to everybody".

Any bonehead can grab a photo of a car, 'chop it on a computer, and have another "hot car" with a really cool name. Or grab a big chunk of clay and mold one. The "secret garage" for GM is full of cars like this - rolling (or in many cases non-rolling) pieces of art. The trick is to hit with one of these forms that can actually function and hit it within the design space of functionality.

Does that make me a minimalist? Maybe. But being a minimalist for a sports car or a back-to-basics roadster seems like a great place to start. Maybe not-so-much for a Cadillac STS...

But does anyone else look at the side marker on the front fascia of the Solstice and wonder if that was just an afterthought? Might the designer have missed a BIG opportunity to combine the AFSS and the side marker (ala BMW Z4)?
 
#23 ·
I agree with the AFSS. They just look like some designer decided 9 badges wasn't enough and wanted those two more. The person probably thought side air ducts worked good on exotic cars, BMW, and the Corvette and felt the Solstice needed some too. Non functional ones though. And as I've mentioned before I detest non-functional facia. The AFSS look like they were an after thought, and completely out of place. I would greatly appreciate an option to remove them. I would even consider after market fenders just to get rid of them. That's part of the reason I like the Lightning concept so much, is the giant air ducts for the wheels.
 
#24 ·
Solsticeman- How do you feel about the Ibuki? That seems to me that's what happens when you strip a car to it's core function. Not much AF on that car except the headerless windshield that probably isn't too great an idea. We also don't know yet, the badges might yet be side markers. Get rid of the rear head fairing/butress things? No way! It's features like that that make it stand out from all the other roadsters. If someone looks at a car and says "Damb! That car looks cool! I'm buying it.", then job done. Styling sells cars.

You're right, if they had never put the side badges on, probably not a lot of people would have said, "Gee.. It needs something on the fender.", but side ID badges are pretty common and likely they would have put something there. I think the intent of the side badges was to add a more 3D aspect to badging instead of ordinary flat badges. I'm not so sure they really expected them to look like vent holes. Anyhow IMO the side badges are a small issue and the fact we're even talking about them is we're bored.

However, I think if they were to delete the head buttresses, I don't think they would have raised the interest in the car that they have. They don't do anything... except give the car an exotic feel. People say, "I can't believe this is a 20k roadster.", knock those buttresses off and it starts to look more like a Miata that people can believe is a 20k roadster. The big wheels are another feature that make the car look exotic, yet IMO add little or even decrease the functionality of the car. I actually wish it could have a little smaller wheels, but that's neither here nor there. Bottom line, people think it costs more than it does, and nobody thinks that of the Miata.

The Lightning is another example. People love that car too, and that car is loaded with styling gimmicks. It looks expensive and exotic because it tries to emmulate race cars with all kinds of scoops and vents and what not. You don't need all that stuff unless you really do go racing, and I would hazard to guess that less than 5% of Lightning production would ever hit the race track. In fact all those scoops and things raise the drag coeffieciency and makes the car get worse gas mileage, and that's something the other 95% of buyers could actually use. I'm not suggesting that they deleat the scoops on the Lightning, on the contrarry they should stay. Some people really like that sort of thing and it would again, sell cars. Mission accomplished.

Anyhow, I think we basically agree, the Solstice looks great, just a difference of opinion on styling, no doubt due to our backgrounds, that leads us to debate small features on the Solstice. Overall I think everyone agrees the car looks great and we're just bored. :cheers
 
#25 ·
It is possible that those buttresses are a part of the functional design of the top. They may be necessary to tie down the corner of the top and keep it tightly sealed along the door window. I am just guessing, but I cannot imagine that GM would have them on the top if they were not functional. A Convertible’s roof is generally not the place where companies add extra cost and manufacturing complexity in the name of added design flair.

As for the side badges, I believe they went from having a function on the original concept to being a carry over design element that has turned into fluff. On the original concept, the hood opened up along those cutouts, and it looks to me like the cutout may have possibly been a grab point for lifting up the hood. On the production, the hood cut line is noticeably higher than those emblems, so they essentially carried over the design element for uniqueness.

Could there be a function in a non-functional design element too? A function other than mechanical? What those side Pontiac chevrons really remind me of is the side emblems on a BMW Z4. Those emblems seem to stand out from the body, and I believe are integrated with side marker lights. At any rate, the Pontiac emblems look to me like they are somewhat mimicking those BMW emblems on the side of the Z4. In essence, the purpose of the Pontiac emblem having some depth to it and sheet metal design around it is to make the car look more upscale, like a BMW Z4. Lutz keeps saying he wants Pontiac to be seen as a cheaper BMW too. In that sense, the design may have a marketing function beyond simply advertising the Pontiac chevron.
 
#26 ·
"A Convertible’s roof is generally not the place where companies add extra cost and manufacturing complexity in the name of added design flair. "

In fact GM rarely mkes their own tops. Back in the 70s, tops on Cadillacs looked spread out because it was actually the same top used on the narrower Chevvy's and in fact ALL of the "B" bodies used the same aftermarket top assembly.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top