Mystery Ford Concept

[Traveler]

With the long, flat hood it definitely looks to house some V8 power under the hood for sure...maybe big enough to shove a blower under the hood without a raised cowl. The frontal area is also rather large, which could also help with cooling requirements.

I'd say its either destined to be just a concept, its a Lincoln cruiser or maybe some sort of experimentation for a RWD 4 door. Its interesting, but I too wonder what kind of front styling are they going for because it looks like they're going for a lower grille and headlights built into the front with a blend into the fenders.

[J2D]

I hope it's the production Continental. Refreshed and updated to kick ass.

Edited July 28, 2006 by J2D

[silvrsvt]

The only problem is that this car puts into question the direction Lincoln is going with styling. The MkS and MkZ aren't really similar..the MkZ is more squared/blocky off then the MkS, which is more curvy then either the MkZ or MkX. Not really coherent. This concept is more blocky like the MkZ or MkX.

[PFA]

...but they don't need all their cars to look the same with different sizes. That's one thing I hate about Ford truck/suv lineup. They tend to look the same except for size. Be different.

[NickF1011]

The only problem is that this car puts into question the direction Lincoln is going with styling. The MkS and MkZ aren't really similar..the MkZ is more squared/blocky off then the MkS, which is more curvy then either the MkZ or MkX. Not really coherent. This concept is more blocky like the MkZ or MkX.

 

That could explain why the MKS was sent back to the drawing board....

 

In either case, despite the curviness, the main thing is that it was still instantly recognizable as a Lincoln. As PFA pointed out, they don't need to have the same shape to convey a family resemblence.

[ANTAUS]

The MKS was sent back to the drawing board? Last I heard, what we saw is 95% in concrete.

[NickF1011]

The MKS was sent back to the drawing board? Last I heard, what we saw is 95% in concrete.

 

That was apparently before Mark Fields evaluated the program.

[ANTAUS]

Mark....hmm well in that case, I would welcome any tweaking he might see fit. As long as it's positive for the product, rather than just conversative beancounting.

[OrlandoGuy80]

Hummer H5 concept.

 

Definitely.

[RichardJensen]

That was apparently before Mark Fields evaluated the program.

MKS hasn't been sent back for review. I think the larger Lincoln has, though.

[NickF1011]

MKS hasn't been sent back for review. I think the larger Lincoln has, though.

 

If it hasn't been sent back for review, why isn't it coming out this fall with the MKX and MKZ? It takes them 2 years to finish the final 5% of a car?

 

That's embarrassing.

[RichardJensen]

If it hasn't been sent back for review, why isn't it coming out this fall with the MKX and MKZ? It takes them 2 years to finish the final 5% of a car?

 

That's embarrassing.

Apparently, more work was added to the Five Hundred/Montego/Freestyle triplets.

 

Staff shortages, y'know...

[NickF1011]

Apparently, more work was added to the Five Hundred/Montego/Freestyle triplets.

 

Staff shortages, y'know...

 

Yet they spend the most on R&D? Sounds like they're wasting a lot of money and time somewhere - perhaps developing concepts like the one in this thread that will wow everybody and then be mothballed.

Edited July 28, 2006 by NickF1011

[RichardJensen]

Yet they spend the most on R&D? Sounds like they're wasting a lot of money and time somewhere - perhaps developing concepts like the one in this thread that will wow everybody and then be mothballed.

Actually, Ford spends a lot on pure research. Too little of this, IMO, makes it into production

[silvrsvt]

Actually, Ford spends a lot on pure research. Too little of this, IMO, makes it into production

 

They why waste money on something if you can't make any money off it? Thats fucking stupid!

[ANTAUS]

I dont know why Ford has to spend so much on all this stupid research groups and such...all they have to do is listen to this site when they visit, and they can leave the decision making to them

[Guest Sixcav]

This entire thread is proof positive of what I have said on a couple of other threads on here when people post pictures of cars or SUV's and everyone starts commenting. You could design the most unique and original car design ever and everyone would look at it and say how it reminds them of something that came before it. This is just human nature. Humans will try to associate what they see with what they know. It's the brains never ending quest to put the world into order and convince the jerk in charge of it that he or she really has everything under control. lol The reality of it is this. A car breaks down into three basic shapes from a design point of view. It's a rectangle with a square in the middle and 4 circles at each corner. There is only so much you can do with that from a design point of view and still have it look like a car. So working within those limited parameters, a car will always look like a car, and to most of you it will look like some car that you've seen before. I understand that many of you here have analitical minds so all of the above probably makes no since to you. Regardless of that, it's in you and it's fucking with your analitical mind. lol

[Noah Harbinger]

The reality of it is this. A car breaks down into three basic shapes from a design point of view. It's a rectangle with a square in the middle and 4 circles at each corner. There is only so much you can do with that from a design point of view and still have it look like a car. So working within those limited parameters, a car will always look like a car, and to most of you it will look like some car that you've seen before. I understand that many of you here have analitical minds so all of the above probably makes no since to you. Regardless of that, it's in you and it's fucking with your analitical mind. lol

 

Actually that sounds like a pretty analytical analysis of the matter... it's the unanalytical types who might be more prone to have trouble with the idea.

[Guest Sixcav]

Actually that sounds like a pretty analytical analysis of the matter... it's the unanalytical types who might be more prone to have trouble with the idea.

 

 

Well I'll tellya Noah, when you complete a degree in Art and Design you can speak to that. But until then let me just help you a bit. All life basically breaks down into some basic shapes, the rectangle, square, circle, and triangle or if you prefer, the long box, short box, sphere and pyramid. Just about everything you see is derived from them. I know that's hard to believe, but that's because your brain is still trying to associate what it sees with what it knows all the time. When we create a design from scratch these are the basic shapes we work in and then we tweak them, bend them and shape them into something that ends up looking like a car, or a building, even a human being. But in the beginning, just these four basic shapes. For exmaple if you were going to draw a Mustang from the front end it is basically a rectangle, with four circles, a smaller rectangle within it and up above another rectangle to recreate the windshield. This is the front end, plus two headlamps, two fog lamps, and the grill. From there you tweak it to look like the front of a Mustang and then draw in the horse. Now human beings are probably the most difficult shape in nature to recreate on the canvas or pad. Some artists spend whole lifetimes trying to perfect their ability to do this. Others have this natural talent for it. But that's another story. So in some respect I suppose you could argue that its analytical. I can see how you got there. But from my point of view I just see what the deisgners have to work with to begin with and at the other end of the spectrum I see the masses who are expecting to be wowed by some new car but because of their inability to understand the world around them, they are always let down because their brain takes over and tries to assimilate this new design into what it already knows.

[Edstock]

"The untrained eye resents change." Design aphorism.

 

Design also involves illusion and an understanding of how most humans see things. An example is the Rolls-Royce radiator. The top is not straight, but has a miniscule arch — that is seen as straight by most eyes.

 

And while change is resisted, sometimes the overall effect of a new approach strikes a chord in the consumer, and there's a new addition that may or may not stand the test of time.

[Guest Sixcav]

"The untrained eye resents change." Design aphorism.

 

Thanks Edstock, apparently a student of the arts.

[630land]

3 guesses

 

Next gen Stang, 2 door Fusion, or a Focus 'ZX2' coupe

[J2D]

Correct me if I'm wrong. But this thread was about guessing what the concept is or might be. I don't remember anything about it resimbles this or looks like that or what are the 3 basic shapes too designing a car.

IT'S NOT THAT SERIOUS!!!! :shrug: Why can't everyone get alone?

[Noah Harbinger]

Actually that sounds like a pretty analytical analysis of the matter... it's the unanalytical types who might be more prone to have trouble with the idea.

Well I'll tellya Noah, when you complete a degree in Art and Design you can speak to that. But until then let me just help you a bit. All life basically breaks down into some basic shapes, the rectangle, square, circle, and triangle or if you prefer, the long box, short box, sphere and pyramid. Just about everything you see is derived from them. I know that's hard to believe, but that's because your brain is still trying to associate what it sees with what it knows all the time. When we create a design from scratch these are the basic shapes we work in and then we tweak them, bend them and shape them into something that ends up looking like a car, or a building, even a human being. But in the beginning, just these four basic shapes. For exmaple if you were going to draw a Mustang from the front end it is basically a rectangle, with four circles, a smaller rectangle within it and up above another rectangle to recreate the windshield. This is the front end, plus two headlamps, two fog lamps, and the grill. From there you tweak it to look like the front of a Mustang and then draw in the horse. Now human beings are probably the most difficult shape in nature to recreate on the canvas or pad. Some artists spend whole lifetimes trying to perfect their ability to do this. Others have this natural talent for it. But that's another story. So in some respect I suppose you could argue that its analytical. I can see how you got there. But from my point of view I just see what the deisgners have to work with to begin with and at the other end of the spectrum I see the masses who are expecting to be wowed by some new car but because of their inability to understand the world around them, they are always let down because their brain takes over and tries to assimilate this new design into what it already knows.

 

I'm not sure what point you were trying to make, anyway. Too bad they didn't throw in any rhetoric or logic classes.

 

"Analysis" comes from the greek words for "Break Apart" -- which is essentially what you're doing by 'breaking down' the vehicle into its constituent pieces, the very definition of "Analysis".

 

 

Now, using the Lombardo Method, you learn to see everyday objects as a simple gr-r-rouping of geometrical shapes. Here, we see how two concentric circles, various trapezoids, ellipses, and YES! Even a R-R-RHOMBUS! can create an adorable little bunny-rabbit. It's just that easy!

 

Trust me, it is neither a foreign, nor difficult concept. I'm sure they told you that that's what you'd be doing in the first 15 minutes of your first class. It's actually being able to do it, and do it well, that takes 4 years of study.

 

If you fail to put together the necessary rhombuses to create a vehicle that will make people think they're seeing something new, then that's a failing of the designers, not a failing of "the masses".

Edited July 31, 2006 by Noah Harbinger

[DCK]

I dont know why Ford has to spend so much on all this stupid research groups and such...all they have to do is listen to this site when they visit, and they can leave the decision making to them

Hardly, if ford listened to people here they would of continued doing what they're doing and sonner or later go out of business. To many people here defend ford 100% on stuff that is really bad.