Lincoln Continental

[rmc523]

Heres a drawing I did of what I think a new Continental could look like. The Continental (done yesterday) is on top.

The front end incorporates Lincoln's new bow-wing(wave?) grille, along with a fender vent/Lincoln emblem combo, the rear uses a similar lightbar setup like on the MKX.

I thought about giving it suicide doors, but figured I'd reserve that for an "L" model. This is a short wheelbase model pictured, BTW.

 

I like it (obviously).

There's also a pretty old Town Car sketch of mine on the bottom. (That one's not very good, though since I did it so long ago.)

BTW, the Continental (top) was done entirely by hand (including wheels). Town Car wheels were done w/ a circle maker.

 

Let me know what you all think.

 

So that my topic goes along w/ it's title, I think a nice size (large) Continental would do well as a flagship model for Lincoln.

Edited January 4, 2008 by rmc523

[J-150]

Nice sketches.

 

I would like to see the TC be the larger vehicle. That being said, I think a shorter wheelbase Conti could still be the flagship.

 

The TC could be a very large car as it is now, but updated to modern platform and mechanicals. The Conti could have a larger engine, Euro suspension, etc. Imagine it as an M6 or AMG E-class killer.

[rmc523]

Nice sketches.

 

I would like to see the TC be the larger vehicle. That being said, I think a shorter wheelbase Conti could still be the flagship.

 

The TC could be a very large car as it is now, but updated to modern platform and mechanicals. The Conti could have a larger engine, Euro suspension, etc. Imagine it as an M6 or AMG E-class killer.

 

Thanks.

 

I think it's sounding like that's where MKR will come in, to compete w/ CTS (which is between 3/5 series size-wise) and friends.

 

Had I redone the TC recently, I probably would've made it the larger vehicle, but I didn't. Actually, I was going to erase the TC completely and then have it become the Continental that's on top, but I decided to leave the TC on the bottom.

Edited January 5, 2008 by rmc523

[Bored of Pisteon]

Lose the ghetto bling-bling rims and lengthen up the fenders and you have a winner.

[rmc523]

Lose the ghetto bling-bling rims and lengthen up the fenders and you have a winner.

 

Do you mean the actual size/diameter of the wheel (like giving it bigger/thicker tires) or making the entire wheel/tire combo smaller?

 

Also, what do you mean by lengthening the fenders?

 

Thanks, btw.

[Edstock]

Also, what do you mean by lengthening the fenders?

 

It's the distance from the back of the front wheel to the A-pillar.

 

For example, FWD/AWD sleds like the 500 and Audis, tend to have the distance shorter. The sled is more "cab forward". RWD sleds tend to have this distance lengthened.

 

Here's a quickie I posted a couple of years back, of the difference. The top picture shows the 500 stretched, like a BMW, for a long engine. At the same time, notice how I made the front overhang disappear. The cars are the same length.

 

[rmc523]

It's the distance from the back of the front wheel to the A-pillar.

 

For example, FWD/AWD sleds like the 500 and Audis, tend to have the distance shorter. The sled is more "cab forward". RWD sleds tend to have this distance lengthened.

 

Here's a quickie I posted a couple of years back, of the difference. The top picture shows the 500 stretched, like a BMW, for a long engine. At the same time, notice how I made the front overhang disappear. The cars are the same length.

 

 

I see what you're/he's saying now.

 

Do you think he was referring to both vehicles or just one? If it were just one, I'd think he meant the Town Car (bottom). I'd have to come back at that by saying that picture is several years old now, and if I had updated it, it would have better proportions, and would look more like the Continental (top).

[68fastback]

It's the distance from the back of the front wheel to the A-pillar.

 

For example, FWD/AWD sleds like the 500 and Audis, tend to have the distance shorter. The sled is more "cab forward". RWD sleds tend to have this distance lengthened.

 

Here's a quickie I posted a couple of years back, of the difference. The top picture shows the 500 stretched, like a BMW, for a long engine. At the same time, notice how I made the front overhang disappear. The cars are the same length.

 

 

 

What a diff wheel loc can make... the top one looks so much more grounded and 'right' to my eye. Also pushing those front wheels forward for rwd helps push some weight to the rear wheels.

[Bored of Pisteon]

Do you mean the actual size/diameter of the wheel (like giving it bigger/thicker tires) or making the entire wheel/tire combo smaller?

 

Also, what do you mean by lengthening the fenders?

 

Thanks, btw.

 

Both! We don't need wide ass tires that cost too much money to begin with and yes... I say go back to the traditional squared-off look on the fenders.

 

Thank you.

[68fastback]

In the top Lincoln sketch, I think the wheels could move even further forward to look more 'settled.'

 

I like the overall 'feel.'

[Edstock]

You seem to be serious about the craft, so here are some cogent thoughts on the matter.

 

I haven't bought a copy of Road & Track in years, but their road tests used to come with a cutaway side-view drawing of the car reviewed, showing how the engine/transmission was placed in the chassis.

 

IMHO, you should study those, to get an idea of current component placement.

 

Next, get rid of the 30-aspect tires, and use real-world 50-series tires, and 18-20" rims TO SCALE.

 

Scale is important. Draw to scale.

 

As well, your designs are derivative, high belt-line, Chrysler 300 windows only smaller. Believe it, this is not the future. You have got to think differently.

 

As well, we have a current period of "designer daze". You might not have been into computers in the mid-80's, when desk-top publishing arrived, and people started to produce shit with 20 fonts on one page, just because they could.

 

Similarly, thanks to CAD/CAM, the cost of doing complex dies has fallen, so we see excessive sculpting, like on the 3-5 series Bangle BMW's, and excessive grill assemblies and rear-end clips, like the new Explorer concept (which I like overall, except for the grill) or the Acura MDX or whatever they call it. Why?, because they can; it's a new play-toy, go for the gusto. Back when you freaked over compound curves, boxes were good. Compound curves are still rather bitchy, but not too long ago, they were nightmares that kept Italian panel-beaters pounding on soft aluminum. So you get Chris Bangle.

 

Sometimes, less is more. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. You can't please everybody, and while everybody looks, few people see. Some are tone-deaf, others are visually challenged. The un-trained eye resents change. Some people actually like poyester leisure suits, others like tatoos and piercing. Free choice.

 

If you try subtlety, some will call it boring. If you make something strong, some will call it excessive.

 

Here's a question (and I don't know, myself):

 

That "cooling" mule of the Lincoln Flex shows a large R-type grill. Is it right?

 

My first reaction is that the "waterfall" "blades" are too big and coarse, like they need to be thinner, and add maybe another 3-4 to each side?

 

Another thought is that maybe it should have a grill with the pattern (but not necessarily the same shape) used on the MKX?

 

Should the "waterfall" be a sedan-coupe grill only?

 

Everybody's eyes are different. Lots hate the current TC. Subtlety gets lost on a lot of 'em. For example, the "waterfall" as done on the TC is a brilliant reprise on what I call the "American Federal Shield" from circa 1885-95. Now is that classic, or what?

 

I am further amazed that nobody has tried a "gun-slit" window ZZ-top/Chip Foose custom, even as just a 3-D rendering. Think of the old Merc in "Cobra" or whatever that Stallone flick was called.

 

And you want to go to school here: http://www.artcenter.edu/

[rmc523]

You seem to be serious about the craft, so here are some cogent thoughts on the matter.

 

I haven't bought a copy of Road & Track in years, but their road tests used to come with a cutaway side-view drawing of the car reviewed, showing how the engine/transmission was placed in the chassis.

 

IMHO, you should study those, to get an idea of current component placement.

 

Next, get rid of the 30-aspect tires, and use real-world 50-series tires, and 18-20" rims TO SCALE.

 

Scale is important. Draw to scale.

 

As well, your designs are derivative, high belt-line, Chrysler 300 windows only smaller. Believe it, this is not the future. You have got to think differently.

 

As well, we have a current period of "designer daze". You might not have been into computers in the mid-80's, when desk-top publishing arrived, and people started to produce shit with 20 fonts on one page, just because they could.

 

Similarly, thanks to CAD/CAM, the cost of doing complex dies has fallen, so we see excessive sculpting, like on the 3-5 series Bangle BMW's, and excessive grill assemblies and rear-end clips, like the new Explorer concept (which I like overall, except for the grill) or the Acura MDX or whatever they call it. Why?, because they can; it's a new play-toy, go for the gusto. Back when you freaked over compound curves, boxes were good. Compound curves are still rather bitchy, but not too long ago, they were nightmares that kept Italian panel-beaters pounding on soft aluminum. So you get Chris Bangle.

 

Sometimes, less is more. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. You can't please everybody, and while everybody looks, few people see. Some are tone-deaf, others are visually challenged. The un-trained eye resents change. Some people actually like poyester leisure suits, others like tatoos and piercing. Free choice.

 

If you try subtlety, some will call it boring. If you make something strong, some will call it excessive.

 

Here's a question (and I don't know, myself):

 

That "cooling" mule of the Lincoln Flex shows a large R-type grill. Is it right?

 

My first reaction is that the "waterfall" "blades" are too big and coarse, like they need to be thinner, and add maybe another 3-4 to each side?

 

Another thought is that maybe it should have a grill with the pattern (but not necessarily the same shape) used on the MKX?

 

Should the "waterfall" be a sedan-coupe grill only?

 

Everybody's eyes are different. Lots hate the current TC. Subtlety gets lost on a lot of 'em. For example, the "waterfall" as done on the TC is a brilliant reprise on what I call the "American Federal Shield" from circa 1885-95. Now is that classic, or what?

 

I am further amazed that nobody has tried a "gun-slit" window ZZ-top/Chip Foose custom, even as just a 3-D rendering. Think of the old Merc in "Cobra" or whatever that Stallone flick was called.

 

And you want to go to school here: http://www.artcenter.edu/

 

Thanks for the advice.

 

On the Lincoln MKT/F comment, I'm going to reserve judgement until the concept comes out and we can actually see the design.

 

It could be that that grille needs to be sedan/coupe only, we shall see when this vehicle comes out, I suppose.

 

Also about the ArtCenter, I visited there this past summer.

[Blueblood]

You seem to be serious about the craft, so here are some cogent thoughts on the matter.

 

I haven't bought a copy of Road & Track in years, but their road tests used to come with a cutaway side-view drawing of the car reviewed, showing how the engine/transmission was placed in the chassis.

 

IMHO, you should study those, to get an idea of current component placement.

 

Next, get rid of the 30-aspect tires, and use real-world 50-series tires, and 18-20" rims TO SCALE.

 

Scale is important. Draw to scale.

 

As well, your designs are derivative, high belt-line, Chrysler 300 windows only smaller. Believe it, this is not the future. You have got to think differently.

 

As well, we have a current period of "designer daze". You might not have been into computers in the mid-80's, when desk-top publishing arrived, and people started to produce shit with 20 fonts on one page, just because they could.

 

Similarly, thanks to CAD/CAM, the cost of doing complex dies has fallen, so we see excessive sculpting, like on the 3-5 series Bangle BMW's, and excessive grill assemblies and rear-end clips, like the new Explorer concept (which I like overall, except for the grill) or the Acura MDX or whatever they call it. Why?, because they can; it's a new play-toy, go for the gusto. Back when you freaked over compound curves, boxes were good. Compound curves are still rather bitchy, but not too long ago, they were nightmares that kept Italian panel-beaters pounding on soft aluminum. So you get Chris Bangle.

 

Sometimes, less is more. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. You can't please everybody, and while everybody looks, few people see. Some are tone-deaf, others are visually challenged. The un-trained eye resents change. Some people actually like poyester leisure suits, others like tatoos and piercing. Free choice.

 

If you try subtlety, some will call it boring. If you make something strong, some will call it excessive.

 

Here's a question (and I don't know, myself):

 

That "cooling" mule of the Lincoln Flex shows a large R-type grill. Is it right?

 

My first reaction is that the "waterfall" "blades" are too big and coarse, like they need to be thinner, and add maybe another 3-4 to each side?

 

Another thought is that maybe it should have a grill with the pattern (but not necessarily the same shape) used on the MKX?

 

Should the "waterfall" be a sedan-coupe grill only?

 

Everybody's eyes are different. Lots hate the current TC. Subtlety gets lost on a lot of 'em. For example, the "waterfall" as done on the TC is a brilliant reprise on what I call the "American Federal Shield" from circa 1885-95. Now is that classic, or what?

 

I am further amazed that nobody has tried a "gun-slit" window ZZ-top/Chip Foose custom, even as just a 3-D rendering. Think of the old Merc in "Cobra" or whatever that Stallone flick was called.

 

And you want to go to school here: http://www.artcenter.edu/

 

 

That's where I went to school, did you go there as well? There were some mind blowing designs coming out of there when I was there!

[Edstock]

That's where I went to school, did you go there as well? There were some mind blowing designs coming out of there when I was there!

 

I would have, if I had the bucks.

 

I remember seeing a "soap box derby" put on annually (IIRC) covered in R&T, amazing vehicles like a Popsicle that started down the hill, only to split apart into 2, with a second driver popping out after the split.

 

Today, though, if you have the "fire" it's not so necessary: get a workstation, a Wacom tablet and Katia or Rhinosceros or 3-D Studio or whatever hi-power CAD you prefer, and dream.

 

The most important skill is to learn to draw, and draw well.