New Saturn Aura

[RichardJensen]

Was browsing the Autoweek website, and caught their photo gallery for the '07 Aura.

 

Not a bad looking car at all.

 

Of course, what really caught my eye, was this: "The Aura is a handsome car, clean with a bit of jewelry to declare this isn’t the plain-Jane basic transportation that was Saturn’s forte."

 

And you know what? The car furnishes a few classic examples of what can be called 'clean' design.

 

The first is the character line that forms the car's 'shoulders'. This line rises from the chrome in the taillights and runs along the side of the car, becoming part of the headlight shape (and forming the line between the headlights and parking lights), before aligning with the top of the grille/lip of the hood, and continuing on around to the other taillight.

 

The shape of the grille echoes the outside edges of the headlights, the C pillar, while transitioning somewhat awkwardly into the deck and shoulder of the car, forms part of a curve that is shared with the taillights and bumper, and the rear decklid has a lower lip that is similar to the lower edge of the grille on the front of the car. There is also a slight vertical crease to the decklid that echoes the shape of the grille.

 

The lower airdam is also well integrated in the design of the headlights and grille. The foglights are rather boring, but the neat thing is that the foglight surrounds are slight exaggerations of the headlight shapes..... Very nice.

 

Looking at this, I only wish the headlights a little smaller, and perhaps a bit more detailing in the rear bumper.

 

The interior is okay, but not fantastic. It's no where near as nice as the outside.

 

GM has some very talented designers. The Solstice and the Aura are examples of how GM can create wonderfully pure clean designs, 'designer's' designs, so to speak. The Aura demonstrates a level of purity in theme, a unity in design 'language' from front to back, that I had pretty much given up expecting from volume GM product. It is a cleaner design than the Ford Fusion and Mercury Milan.

 

And then you see monstrosities like the Tahoe, the Impala, G6, etc.

 

http://autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/gallery?...Params=Itemnr=1

 

FWIW, the '61 Continental is about the best example of 'clean' design you'll ever see.

Edited August 9, 2006 by RichardJensen

[waymondospiff]

I don't like the Aura. I know GM people are all geared up for it and are saying it's the best car ever, but I think the design is so tortured and forced. Richard, you know much more about design than I do, and reading your observations, yes, I see what you mean. But in the case of the Aura its total worth is less than the sum of its parts.

 

-Uses the same akward rear wheel placement of the stretched Epsilon, see G6 & Malibu Maxx.

-The chrome band across the front grille is too thick.

-The headlights are too big. "Goofy" comes to mind.

-And, why the HUGE headlights and the tiny foglamps?

-Too much silver/chrome on the rear & side views. Maybe the lower-line models will be more restrained.

-The way the back comes to a "point" in two-dimensions is odd. Too much like the Sunfire.

-And in profile, the rear appears turned up, like the front should be crouching down...but the front doesn't crouch down, it's just blocky. But in the profile the mondo-headlights cut a "forward slash" through the fender, further upsetting the "stance."

 

These aren't fancy design-guru terms. It's just my best attempt at describing what I see as a novice. But it's still better than a Malibu or G6.

 

It just seems too, ummm, contrived? Forced? Needless?

 

I do believe it will sell well, I just think it's ugly. The interior is bland, minus the saddle-leather seats, but looks alright. Although the center stack reminds me too much of the current Hyundai Sonata and that's not a good thing.

 

Oh, and seriously ugly gauges. 1985 called. It wants its gauge cluster back.

 

Scott

Edited August 10, 2006 by waymondospiff

[RichardJensen]

-Uses the same akward rear wheel placement of the stretched Epsilon, see G6 & Malibu Maxx.

-The chrome band across the front grille is too thick.

-The headlights are too big. "Goofy" comes to mind.

-And, why the HUGE headlights and the tiny foglamps?

-Too much silver/chrome on the rear & side views. Maybe the lower-line models will be more restrained.

-The way the back comes to a "point" in two-dimensions is odd. Too much like the Sunfire.

-And in profile, the rear appears turned up, like the front should be crouching down...but the front doesn't crouch down, it's just blocky. But in the profile the mondo-headlights cut a "forward slash" through the fender, further upsetting the "stance."

-I don't really see a problem with rear wheel placement.

-Not a big fan of the Saturn 'lip', but I'm willing to let it pass, as Superintendent Chalmers said, "But that's how you know it's a Honda!"

-I agree on the headlights, but I suspect this problem will be less noticeable in person.

-I agree on the foglights. I'm not sure what happened there, why they didn't go with lenses..... Probably they had lenses in, and then some design boss said "No, no, no, make them those little lights, like the ones on my kid's Civic, that'll give it real street cred"

-Not sure quite what you mean about the sunfire comment.

-Part of that 'rear turned up' thing is from a bit of a clumsy merge between C pillar and decklid, the rest of it is just lighting. In person, I don't think you'll notice either the size of the headlights, or the awkward C pillar seam, as much. Maybe you will now that you've taken the idea into your head.

 

I don't see its design as being forced--I reserve that designation for the Saturn Sky, which apparently occurred when some higher-up at GM told the Solstice team, 'Looks great. Make it a Saturn.'

 

Also, I can't stand those orange gauges. Someone at GM must think that people will stop buying Saturns if they use a color besides orange, and if they put anything other than a cross-hatch pattern on the IP. Didn't mention it in the design analysis, because there's really no 'wrong' color for IP lighting. Mostly it's what you're used to. I definitely prefer the good ol' Ford green, but I can't possibly tell you if I have a sound reason for it.

 

The Aura isn't as tight and clean as the previous A6, but it integrates a lot of lines and curves in a coherent manner, something that few GMs have done lately (:cough: YUKON :cough: Corvette :cough: Malibu :cough: AZTEK)

[Misteredog]

The interior looks good but I'll reserve further judgement on it until I've given it a sit, though the orange IP illumination is a welcome change from the green on all the Fords I've driven. I wear a special tint when driving during the day to ward off headaches and the green IP lighting on my Montego just gets lost, especially nearing dusk. I really like the saddle leather look though, it's far too rare.

 

As for the exterior, nice overall lines and good proportions, no squished down greenhouse that's all the rage these days. I do find the tail a bit busy though especially with the chrome strip on the lower edge of the decklid, the Mecury Milan has one too and I don't much care for it on that car. I kind of like the large headlight clusters, don't know why, maybe it's a reaction to having driven a few used cars with disappearing headlights that got stuck in the closed position or fond memories of my old Escort.

 

I actually do like the Pontiac G6's exterior a bit better, it's cleaner, and the G6 coupe is gorgeous.

Edited August 10, 2006 by Misteredog

[RichardJensen]

I actually do like the Pontiac G6's exterior a bit better, it's cleaner

Gee, you must've missed me taking Borg to task for misusing that term.

 

I had thoroughly orthodox design instructors in college, one guy in particular was very strict in how he evaluated the way we described our designs, and other students' work. Students were frequently taken to task for using "clean" as a synonym for "I like it." His rationale being that humans, in general, prefer clean to dirty (up to a point--we don't prefer sterile cleanliness to a certain amount of 'lived in' mess), and that we often make a mistake in asserting that the things we like are 'clean', where we have heard the word 'clean' used as an adjective before. He used clean as a synonym for 'organized' and 'well structured', and as opposed to 'cluttered'. Many designers also use the word the same way.

 

Design is a creative process, but it should be guided by a grasp of principles of design. In order to grasp those principles, you need to re-learn how to look at things. One of the ways you learn to do this is by learning the mental shortcuts you use to say "I like it" when you really can't explain why.

 

Grasping the fundamentals of design will not make you a good designer, you still need a measure of aptitude apart from knowledge. However, a grasp of the fundamentals will make a good designer better.

 

Anyway, sorry for the extended rant--I'm a big fan of learning as much as you can about whatever you can (well, within reason), and while I know most of the people on this board are not designers, maybe you want to learn a bit about how designers are taught to see the world? At least designers taught by the kind of professors I had.

Edited August 10, 2006 by RichardJensen

[Traveler]

I think the Aura will be a home-run for Saturn. The styling is a tiny bit radical, but I think many buyers will appreciate the edgy styling and its uniqueness. In a way, this car's possibilities remind me of the innovative thinking behind the original Taurus. The Sky is another likeable car from the brand. In the beginning I thought I liked the Saturn Sky better, but I personally have begun to like the Pontiac Solstice a bit better for the type of car it is. Still, the Sky is handsome.

 

Saturn is a gleaming sparkle of hope I imagine these days inside the board rooms at General Motors because the brand's potential popularity is right where it needs to be with the youth and for the economy-minded who still desire an attractive, fresh product.

[mettech]

GM has hit their target group; A cheap looking Lexus with some Nissian sport, produced from an American company. Women in the age group 25 - 48 will buy them because of the "no haggle" sales.

 

I think it's the best look mid size that GM has. Hope is rides better than than the G6.

[igor]

Isn't Red and blue preferred in IP lighting,l because it does not register as "light" to our photoreceptors, and thus our eyes do not shirink the lens when we look at the IP< justot expand it back one we look out again onto the dark road?

 

Or is the headlamp lighing of the road enough to expand the eye lens enough to make the IP color irrelevant.

 

Igor

 

GM has hit their target group; A cheap looking Lexus with some Nissian sport, produced from an American company. Women in the age group 25 - 48 will buy them because of the "no haggle" sales.

 

I think it's the best look mid size that GM has. Hope is rides better than than the G6.

it will not ride better than G6 ... unfortunately GM has still one huge problem with their FWD fars - the chasis is weak as crap - they all handle like pigs ...

 

Hopefully Epsylon II will fix that. Eps II will also finally offer AWD - 5 years after Ford.

 

Igor

[Misteredog]

Gee, you must've missed me taking Borg to task for misusing that term.

 

I had thoroughly orthodox design instructors in college, one guy in particular was very strict in how he evaluated the way we described our designs, and other students' work. Students were frequently taken to task for using "clean" as a synonym for "I like it." His rationale being that humans, in general, prefer clean to dirty (up to a point--we don't prefer sterile cleanliness to a certain amount of 'lived in' mess), and that we often make a mistake in asserting that the things we like are 'clean', where we have heard the word 'clean' used as an adjective before. He used clean as a synonym for 'organized' and 'well structured', and as opposed to 'cluttered'. Many designers also use the word the same way.

 

Design is a creative process, but it should be guided by a grasp of principles of design. In order to grasp those principles, you need to re-learn how to look at things. One of the ways you learn to do this is by learning the mental shortcuts you use to say "I like it" when you really can't explain why.

 

Grasping the fundamentals of design will not make you a good designer, you still need a measure of aptitude apart from knowledge. However, a grasp of the fundamentals will make a good designer better.

 

Anyway, sorry for the extended rant--I'm a big fan of learning as much as you can about whatever you can (well, within reason), and while I know most of the people on this board are not designers, maybe you want to learn a bit about how designers are taught to see the world? At least designers taught by the kind of professors I had.

 

I am also an art and design graduate and I understand what "clean" means Richard. I would say that the G6 is a clean, as in well structured, cohesive, unclutters design. It is also a bit too "emotional" for my taste, the profile is a bit too aggressive for me, and its wedginess really comes of much better on the coupe, but the sedan isn't bad, it is by far the best looking sedan I've seen come out of Pontiac in countless years. The overall stance of the Aura is more to my liking than the G6's but it gets a bit to busy and fussy with the heavy chrome trim on the front and decklid, the chrome trim around the greenhouse is also a bit heavy. The Aura might look better in a lighter colour where the contrast would be lessened.

 

The Grand Prixs etc. that Pontiac was putting out in the 80s and 90s were certanly not "clean" designs, way tooo much in the way of surface textures, curves, etc a real jumble. I wouldn't call the the current generation of 7 series BMWs clean either--way too busy, Bangle said he was trying to get away from the wedge profile and have a straighter beltline but it's badly done there, the Volvo S80 did it much better years earlier, and the bodyside sculpting on the the Z4 roadster--Uggh. Nissan Maximas and Altimas, even the Nissan Z's aren't "clean", they have great shapes, clean shapes, but the detailing destroys them, take a look at the rear door window frame on the Altima--It looks jury-rigged.

[silvrsvt]

biggest problem with the Aura is that the base models look really really cheap looking. At least with the Fusion (which can be a good or bad thing) they look identical besides wheels and foglights between the base model and SEL.

[NickF1011]

biggest problem with the Aura is that the base models look really really cheap looking. At least with the Fusion (which can be a good or bad thing) they look identical besides wheels and foglights between the base model and SEL.

 

Well, one other glaring difference on the V6 vs I4 Fusions that sticks out to me like a sore thumb: The tailpipes.

 

What's with the crappy instant-rust-colored twin-pipe right-mounted muffler on the 4 cylinder Fusion? It looks like something you'd see on a 1986 Toyota or something.

[kevinb120]

Well, one other glaring difference on the V6 vs I4 Fusions that sticks out to me like a sore thumb: The tailpipes.

 

What's with the crappy instant-rust-colored twin-pipe right-mounted muffler on the 4 cylinder Fusion? It looks like something you'd see on a 1986 Toyota or something.

 

I can't STAND the honda looking pipes on any of the base models.

 

 

The Aura at least looks like something a male could be seen in, unlike the Barbi solstice.

[waymondospiff]

-I don't really see a problem with rear wheel placement.

Small thing, probably only important to me. But if comparing a G6 & Malibu, the G6's rear wheels look out of place. It probably only matters to me and I'm sure a big part of it is becuase I've read & seen the difference.

 

-I agree on the headlights, but I suspect this problem will be less noticeable in person.

I've seen the Aura twice now (Detroit & Atlanta) and they stick out at me. Much like the 1996 Civic did when it first launched. Today, the '96 Civic looks quite normal, and the same will probably be true for the Aura after a couple of years. But it still strikes me as odd.

 

-Not sure quite what you mean about the sunfire comment.

It's the wannabe-boattail style. Seen here:

1929 Auburn Boattail Speedster

 

and here:

1971 Buick Riviera Boattail Coupe

 

but most recently, and disastriously, here:

2003 Pontiac Sunfire

 

I don't like the "point." Just not a fan.

 

I don't see its design as being forced--I reserve that designation for the Saturn Sky, which apparently occurred when some higher-up at GM told the Solstice team, 'Looks great. Make it a Saturn.'

And to me, the Aura looks like GM said, "make the G6 a Saturn."

 

But that's just taste for you. I still haven't seen a midsize sedan that is as simple & stylish as the Mazda6.

 

Good ol' Mazda6. But now I'm letting my true allegiance show.

 

Scott

[RichardJensen]

I am also an art and design graduate and I understand what "clean" means Richard. I would say that the G6 is a clean, as in well structured, cohesive, unclutters design.

I disagree.

The side character line intersects the door handles, but other than that, doesn't relate to anything at the front or rear of the car--it matches the cutline for the front bumper, but the crease disappears in the fender flare. I also find the shape of the C pillar to be poorly integrated with the rest of the design. It's just kind of there, IMO--not related to the resolution of lines at the end of the car (unlike the Mustang or Aura)--this is the same problem I have with the CD3 triplets. The C pillar is just kind of there.

Taillight shapes don't integrate with any other elements on the car, there's a character line in the deck lid that isn't related to anything in the taillights, it's just kind of there. Ditto the character line on the side that just kind of disappears in the front and rear quarters.

Lower airdam is not related to headlights or grille, grille design, with its rounded corners sticks out, as there are no other rounded corners on the rest of the car. Everything else comes to a point. Except the leading edges of the taillights.

 

As sort of a personal commentary, the G6 looks unfinished. My initial reaction to it was that it was clumsily detailed, especially in the front. Headlights shapes unrelated to the grille, conflicting lines at both the top and bottom of the headlights and grille, and no 'light touch' anywhere, no 'fine' detailing.

 

--

 

Also I didn't really mind the looks of the Sunfire, on the outside at least (inside 'twas your typical GM crap), and yeah, the '96 Civic had much bigger headlights than the previous model, I thought overall '96-'00 Civic was rather well put together, though.

 

I like the Mazda3 more than the 6.

Edited August 10, 2006 by RichardJensen

[Watchdevil]

The Aura looks fine to me... The new Chrysler Sebring is a design nightmare...

[RichardJensen]

The Aura looks fine to me... The new Chrysler Sebring is a design nightmare...

I think we've pretty much got consensus on that one.

[Edgey]

I am very impressed by the Aura. It has an amazing 'presence' that arises out of its careful and well constructed design. It speaks to the aesthetic instincts we all have. It's the same instincts that helps us to appreciate the beauty in balance and order in all forms of art. I have the same oppinion of the Fusion; and prior to the that - the VW and Audi designs pioneered by J. Mays. That's why the simplest designs can often resonate more deeply, to the point it's too abstract to express literally. It's also the hardest to get right and I think the 500 is a good example of a design that strived for harmony but didn't quite make it and now it's ridiculed as dull and stody instead of graceful and 'clean'.

 

Chrysler design is disasterous, it gets worse with every launch...although I must admit to liking the Nitro.

 

GM has made some big strides in design and I think their newest products surprise me the most.

[taxman100]

They had a couple of Aura's on display downtown a couple of days ago at the Statehouse - I got to check them out inside and out. Very nice cars by modern mainstream tastes, especially for the price and features, but not my cup of tea.

 

I'm old school in my sedans, but we do keep a more modern crapwagon built car around the house for point A to B commuting. The Aura doesn't fit into either roll for me, but I could say that about nearly every sedan larger than a Corolla.

[2005Explorer]

Also, I can't stand those orange gauges. Someone at GM must think that people will stop buying Saturns if they use a color besides orange, and if they put anything other than a cross-hatch pattern on the IP. Didn't mention it in the design analysis, because there's really no 'wrong' color for IP lighting. Mostly it's what you're used to. I definitely prefer the good ol' Ford green, but I can't possibly tell you if I have a sound reason for it.

 

Actually there is a reason that most instrument illumination has been green for years. Green is the best color for the human eye to make out in low light conditions. If you run your instrument lighting at high level it actually reduces your night vision. If green is used, the instrument lighting can be turned down to a low level yet still be quite legible to the human eye. The best colors to use for night lighting are either red or green. The military used red but has swiched to green over the years because green is better to see in low light conditions.

 

The other colors that are used today to light gauges are more for looks then anything. I know a few people have complained about Ford's green gauges because they don't look modern or trendy enough, but I think there is a reason behind keeping them green. When you turn the fancy colored gauges down to a low light level they are actually harder for the human eye to see.

 

I don't know how much this source can be trusted, but I thought it gave some good reasoning for the science behind color choice for night vision.

 

http://www.equipped.com/nitevision.htm

[Roadrunner]

That's interesting to me - I always need the green (or red, or any color) guages turned up as brightly as they can be.

[ANTAUS]

I had a BMW which lasted 6 months...couldn't stand the red gauges, made me all hot and sweaty, icky sticky in all this Florida heat. I've always liked Fords Green, and VW's blueish purple instrumentation.

 

Originally Saturn always had the piss-yellow lighting although they have gotten orangy throughout the year. Chrysler has kept the piss-yellow as well which I also dislike.

[Guest Sixcav]

Gee, you must've missed me taking Borg to task for misusing that term.

 

I had thoroughly orthodox design instructors in college, one guy in particular was very strict in how he evaluated the way we described our designs, and other students' work. Students were frequently taken to task for using "clean" as a synonym for "I like it." His rationale being that humans, in general, prefer clean to dirty (up to a point--we don't prefer sterile cleanliness to a certain amount of 'lived in' mess), and that we often make a mistake in asserting that the things we like are 'clean', where we have heard the word 'clean' used as an adjective before. He used clean as a synonym for 'organized' and 'well structured', and as opposed to 'cluttered'. Many designers also use the word the same way.

 

Design is a creative process, but it should be guided by a grasp of principles of design. In order to grasp those principles, you need to re-learn how to look at things. One of the ways you learn to do this is by learning the mental shortcuts you use to say "I like it" when you really can't explain why.

 

Grasping the fundamentals of design will not make you a good designer, you still need a measure of aptitude apart from knowledge. However, a grasp of the fundamentals will make a good designer better.

 

Anyway, sorry for the extended rant--I'm a big fan of learning as much as you can about whatever you can (well, within reason), and while I know most of the people on this board are not designers, maybe you want to learn a bit about how designers are taught to see the world? At least designers taught by the kind of professors I had.

 

Just a question. Did anyone come here to learn fundamentals of design?

 

The look of a car breaks down into one of three categories.

1. You like it.

2. You don't like it.

3. It doesn't appeal one way or the other.

 

Everything else is purely flowery language and horseshit. If someone chooses to use the term clean to describe a car and that just flies in the face of what your professor taught you then run and tell your little professor and let him come kick my ass if he thinks he can.

 

The average person does not need to relearn how they look at things. They aren't designers. Let the design geeks worry about that crap. Does the average person need to learn all the technical jargan or programing for Java or HTML? I mean they see it and use it most everyday, even right here right now. These people are allowed to use whatever descriptive term they feel best suits their impression of whatever car they are looking at. It's not up to you to try and convert them all into your little sphere of design thinking. They don't care, nor should they.

[RichardJensen]

Just a question. Did anyone come here to learn fundamentals of design?

You have an ignore option. Use it.

 

Or do you think you're going to get anywhere with your extravagance with the obscenities?

 

Undobubtedly, if you keep reiterating the same tired old objections to my posts, I will eventually change.

Edited August 14, 2006 by RichardJensen

[Guest Sixcav]

Richie, I couldn't give a damn if you don't like my use of so called curse words. You can just take a sugar frosted fuck off the end of my dick. Words are words, that's it. Men thought them up, men created them, then apparently men decided that the words they created are never to be used. It's stupid as hell. I couldn't care less if you ever change. But everytime you decide to take it upon yourself to try and enforce some bullshit rules of etiquette around here you can bet that I'll be by to muddy up the water with my savage language. I have no use for fake ass people and I have no trouble letting them know it.

[RichardJensen]

You can just take a sugar frosted fuck off the end of my dick.

I'll take a pass, even though you make it sound so inviting.

 

BTW, thank you for letting me know that you consider me a fake. I'm sure that someday when the rest of us come to our senses and replace our judgment with yours, I'll get what I deserve. Until then, happy ranting. I hope it makes you feel better. Obviously you haven't gotten over yourself, and--in fact--it looks like the breakup was pretty hard on you.

Edited August 15, 2006 by RichardJensen