Author Topic: Honda Jumps the Shark (Read 23430 times)

Otto Puzzell · « **on:** August 21, 2007, 06:13:28 AM »

Pictures of Honda's next-gen Accord had begun appearing in the press.

Taking its cue from faltering (or pheonix-like, depending on your viewpoint) Chryler LLC, Honda has eschewed the clean, modern lines that has been its halmark for well over decade, in favor of a boxy, multi-creased conglomeration of clashing clutter. For years, Honda had enjoyed collabarative input from legendary Italian desigh house Pininfarina. If that relationship continues, alarm bells should be ringing in both camps.

On the other hand, Toyota has deployed ugly and-or ultra-bland cars to good effect for some time now, while Honda's looked on in envy.

What say you? Regardless of the (likely) sound mechanical bits underneath, has Honda helped or hurt themselves with the latest Accord?

Photo Credit: Autoblog.com

Stephen M · « **Reply #1 on:** August 21, 2007, 04:00:00 PM »

It's not an outright offense, IMHO....to these eyes it looks like a vaguely Korean competent appliance.

They won't win over shoppers of other brands with this styling, but I don't think they'll scare anyone away, either. Help or hurt? Color me a so-so shade of indifferent neutral matte gray.

Ultra · « **Reply #2 on:** August 21, 2007, 04:48:46 PM »

Possessed with the urge to trade in the GTO, I am not.

JeffJue · « **Reply #3 on:** October 11, 2008, 09:05:11 PM »

my mom bought one of these. champaign colored. I actually really like it now. It looks very distinctive.

Bezor · « **Reply #4 on:** October 12, 2008, 01:53:49 AM »

Quote from: JeffJue on October 11, 2008, 09:05:11 PM

It looks very distinctive.

How so?

@re · « **Reply #5 on:** October 12, 2008, 05:05:40 PM »

Quote from: Ultra on August 21, 2007, 04:48:46 PM

Possessed with the urge to trade in the GTO, I am not.

Then again, who in their right mind would trade in a GTO for an Accord...?

Ultra · « **Reply #6 on:** October 13, 2008, 11:33:49 AM »

Quote from: @re on October 12, 2008, 05:05:40 PM

Quote from: Ultra on August 21, 2007, 04:48:46 PM
Possessed with the urge to trade in the GTO, I am not.

Then again, who in their right mind would trade in a GTO for an Accord...?

I rarely ever get accused of being in my right mind.

JeffJue · « **Reply #7 on:** December 16, 2008, 05:10:04 PM »

Quote from: Bezor on October 12, 2008, 01:53:49 AM

Quote from: JeffJue on October 11, 2008, 09:05:11 PM
It looks very distinctive.

How so?

the way the headlights/taillights pop out of the design and osme of the bodylines are quirky. I like it overall. But you have to see it up close and personal for a while and then you kind of get the design of it.

Otto Puzzell · « **Reply #8 on:** April 05, 2009, 06:09:27 AM »

What do I know? I'm one of those people who agrees with the Ugly Cars UK site's assessment of the Citroen DS:

Quote

Known to strange individuals as "The Goddess." Obviously this was the Goddess of people with vision defects. For some bizarre reason many people seem to think that this car is a design classic. We think not. It's as attractive as a slug-filled croissant.

Paul Jaray · « **Reply #9 on:** April 05, 2009, 06:38:28 AM »

Quote from: Otto Puzzell on April 05, 2009, 06:09:27 AM

What do I know? I'm one of those people who agrees with the Ugly Cars UK site's assessment of the Citroen DS:

Quote
Known to strange individuals as "The Goddess." Obviously this was the Goddess of people with vision defects. For some bizarre reason many people seem to think that this car is a design classic. We think not. It's as attractive as a slug-filled croissant.

Yep, but that was a 1955 car!
Try to compare it to other cars from that period. (BTW I don't like it very much either)
When I started looking into car history I was always surprised about the rumor behind the Cisitalia. Yes, that's a very nice car, but, hey, a rolling sculpture? a masterpiece in design? Then I considered the same car when appeared in 1947! for the first time the line of the pre-war cars was overtaken for a totally new conception of design that was later followed by others. Looking at the same car now I wonder: hey, that was really advanced!

Otto Puzzell · « **Reply #10 on:** April 05, 2009, 07:36:01 AM »

I find the front of the Citroen to be derivative of the '53 Studebaker. The rear is derivative of the aforementioned slug (IMO)

ImpishGrin · « **Reply #11 on:** April 06, 2009, 07:35:13 AM »

Well, the fact (or impression actually) that it's not beautiful, doesn't mean it can't be a "design classic"

Bezor · « **Reply #12 on:** April 09, 2009, 11:10:12 PM »

Quote from: ImpishGrin on April 06, 2009, 07:35:13 AM

Well, the fact (or impression actually) that it's not beautiful, doesn't mean it can't be a "design classic"

Excellent point.

A Chrysler Airflow is a design classic, but rather ugly (at least to me). I do like streamliner shapes, however.

Otto Puzzell · « **Reply #13 on:** September 05, 2009, 09:52:57 AM »

It gets better. Now Honda is mixing 1/3 parts Crossfire, Caliber, and (already ugly) Accord.

Feast your eyes on this treat.

motorcar1 · « **Reply #14 on:** September 09, 2009, 09:40:17 AM »

With the exception of most exotic and expensive automobiles;

Strip all of the nameplates off of most new automobiles and 95% of all buyers would not have a clue as to the manufacturer, make and model.

By the way, the cut front fender edge blending to the drop from the hood>>> looks like what Ford created in design about two years ago for the new Taurus being introduced at this time.

The smiley face grill/front nose also seems to be in style for many manufacturerer's, guess they need something too smile about, huh?

John

Paul Jaray · « **Reply #15 on:** September 09, 2009, 09:47:09 AM »

How true is that.
Yesterday I was driving and a gentleman drove his car right behind mine. After addressing him some gentle thoughts I looked at the car and I was confused...when did Ford made such a car? Is this the new Mondeo? Then I realized...it was a Subaru!

faksta · « **Reply #16 on:** September 26, 2009, 06:37:11 PM »

Quote from: Paul Jaray on September 09, 2009, 09:47:09 AM

How true is that.
Yesterday I was driving and a gentleman drove his car right behind mine. After addressing him some gentle thoughts I looked at the car and I was confused...when did Ford made such a car? Is this the new Mondeo? Then I realized...it was a Subaru!

The latest Subaru are so ugly

I liked the first Forester and Outback - they literally had no competitors. Now Outback is a fat cat and Forester is more like a Korean minivan than what it was before.

Otto Puzzell · « **Reply #17 on:** June 18, 2010, 05:39:49 AM »

It continues...

I'm sure it's a well-built product, and it only looks like the ass-end fell off and was replaced with something that approximately fit in its place.

Ultra · « **Reply #18 on:** June 18, 2010, 07:51:43 AM »

Just plain ol bad design.

MG · « **Reply #19 on:** June 18, 2010, 07:55:07 AM »

Well, Mazda has done OK with its oddly styled minivan for several years now........

But yes, this beast is just fugugly!

DeAutogids.nl · « **Reply #20 on:** June 18, 2010, 08:01:30 AM »

It is at least better then Ssang Yong's minivan

Paul Jaray · « **Reply #21 on:** June 18, 2010, 08:11:18 AM »

Quote from: Otto Puzzell on June 18, 2010, 05:39:49 AM

It continues...

I'm sure it's a well-built product, and it only looks like the ass-end fell off and was replaced with something that approximately fit in its place.

...are you saying that is not Photoshop?

Bezor · « **Reply #22 on:** July 02, 2010, 01:22:41 AM »

Quote from: DeAutogids.nl on June 18, 2010, 08:01:30 AM

It is at least better then Ssang Yong's minivan

No doubt. Ssang Yong is a company that is consistent.....in the products it markets. Ugly stuff indeed.

News:

Author Topic: Honda Jumps the Shark (Read 23430 times)

DeAutogids.nl