danup

I saw a white Santa Fe today while riding the bus to class and it looked really similar to the Kuga, and I think it's that kind of familiarity that's bothering me. FoA's crossovers, by retaining a more truck-like look, stand out a lot more than the Murano/Santa Fe class.

I don't doubt that the Caliber is crap, judging from some of the reviews it's gotten, but seeing as the thing replaces the Neon (and trades out the Neon's fun-to-drive rep for a big SUV-ish profile) I don't think handling worse than an 02 Mustang is all that terrible a fate.

I know everybody loves FoE, but the Kuga looks really derivative to me, like a vaguely kinetic-designed version of every foreign CUV out there. And that rear fascia is pinched on a 96-Sable level. I hope that, if it ends up as the new Escape, it undergoes some significant restyling for the American market.

There's pictures of a development 96 Taurus clay (basically a sharp, aggressive update to the 95 Taurus) and an earlier rear-end of the final Taurus in Car, by Mary Walton, which I have out from the library right now. If they aren't already on the internet I'll try to get them scanned some time in the next few days (I don't have a scanner at home.)

I've gotta disagree, the giant taillights and Lincoln grille disguise it from the front and the back but the car has the exact same profile as its brother and sister cars. (And if I remember correctly the Milan and MKZ both even look pretty similar from the back.) It's a Taurus/Sable situation, which you just shouldn't try to do with your highest-end brand.

The MKZ is embarrassingly similar to the Fusion (a great car, don't get me wrong, but my $15,000 fresh-outta-the-fleet V6 Fusion shouldn't have the exact same shape as a car Lincoln's trying to sell for twice that), but I think if it didn't exist people wouldn't be proclaiming the MKS a Taurus rebadge at all. The MKS looks like the Taurus should look, maybe. But nobody, and I mean nobody, who doesn't have a working knowledge of Ford's platforms is going to see the giant-greenhoused Taurus and then this car and guess they're in any way related, even if they're side by side. Don't let the MKZephyr's gussied-up-Fusion looks color your view of this car, which looks to be Lincoln's best and most differentiated entry since the LS. (And just in time; is Lincoln selling anything that doesn't look exactly like its Ford counterpart in profile at this point?)

I hope that's the next-gen Taurus, I'd love to see them come back to the relatively low-slung profiles of the earlier Tauruses. That said, the C pillar looks a little big for a Taurus. (Incidentally, I used to hate the 96 Taurus but I've grown really fond of it in the last few months. It and the Focus are the last two models where Ford really thought outside the box and swung for the fences. The rear end of the Sable and the 98-99 refresh are another story, but the original's actually a nice-looking car.)

Yikes, that one's definitely similar, in the plainer-sister sense. It looks like someone drove a Verve into a funhouse and took a picture in front of the least flattering mirror they could find.

For god's sake, did a Concorde run over your parents or something? It's a nice-looking car, and considering the Verve is an entry-level car getting compared to a three-year-old near-luxury car isn't really a raw deal. If you think it resembles the Aston Martin more closely than you have some really huge blinders on; the slats are more similar-looking on the LHS--larger and darker than the AM--as is the shape of the opening--which is almost the same, only inverted. Rather than just freaking out could you give me one reason that the Verve's grille more closely resembles the AM? Because I really see no possible justification for that. (And considering people actually drive the Concorde/LHS/300M in America, I think that even if the Verve did resemble the Aston Martin, which it really doesn't, it's going to draw considerably more comparisons to some of the better-selling cars of the recent past.)

I'm not a big exotic car guy, but I thought it was very very... cab-forward Chrysler. Particularly the LHS: I'd say the resemblance is a little more pronounced than on the Ferrari. Not that it's a bad thing--those late-90s Chryslers were and are gorgeous cars--but I really do hope the front fascia gets some Ford America design cues. God knows how, or what, but I'd like something that keeps it from being the kinetic sore thumb in Ford's lineup.

My guess is that this went out about the sedans because people have already placed orders and cars have already been manufactured. Isn't the coupe still a month away from production?

GM poured a ton of money into Olds. There was some outstanding product, even--the second gen. Aurora was a beautiful car, and Intrigue and Alero were no more heinously badge-engineered than anything else GM was making at the time. But after refreshing their entire lineup, remaking their image with a new logo and a flagship car, and a ton of advertising, they still hadn't made a major recovery. I wish it had been Buick, because I love the Aurora/Intrigue Olds design language, but to say that GM didn't give it the college try before they pulled the plug is disingenuous.

GM's sales came out pretty recently, they had a big month.

I really like the Focus refresh; the 05-07 refresh just looked like a mess, stylistically, (hate those wheelwells) whereas this one looks like a proper evolution. It looks sort of like a cross between the 99-04's new edge look and the new Ford style, and not in a bad way. Really is a shame about the hatchback, though, when people think of a Focus I bet 90% of them picture a ZX3 in their mind's eye.

For all the talk about Buick sucking it up, the Lucerne is a nice car and it's outselling the Avalon. (It's no Aurora, but I've made my peace with GM axing the wrong division long ago.) That said, the LaCrosse... ouch. It'll be a shame if the Taurus doesn't take off, it's an amazing car.