I have been a fan of Toyota for many years – must have had over ten since my first 1974 MS60 Toyota Crown “Kujira” in 1981. Of the three cars we currently own, two are Toyotas. Styling wasn’t the first criteria for purchasing – engineering, durability, and reliability were typically what drove our decision. Still, several I thought were pretty attractive. I really can’t say that about any of the current models the company is producing – and its most recent examples seem to be getting worse. Evidently the current head of Toyota styling is a fan of runny mascara – that’s about the only way I can describe these recent front and rear styling trends.
Not something I find especially good looking…
A representative example of the company’s world-wide and JDM models follows…
Lexus LC 500
4Runner
Camry
Estima
Sienta
Along with the Lexus spindle grill, this black body molding trim doesn’t do much for me – and would probably be a deal-breaker if I was in the market.
What’s your opinion?
I agree. A bad look. Along with oversized (and mostly blocked off) gtrilles that scream useless affectation. and too high beltlines that create extraordinary blind spots and actually require cameras. and the headlights swept back nearly to the ‘A” pillar as well as taillights reaching orward down the rear side, I expect they will soon meet somewhaere near the ‘B” pillars. And the decidedly unnecessary and incomprehensive lines along the side. they come and go it seems at will. I designed better looks when adding vehicles to a front elevation of homes I designed for presentation to clients.
Are the high beltlines predominantly born out of styling, or safety?
I think the safety aspect of high beltlines is a rationalization over what started as a styling trope. The door impact beams are ultimately what are designed to prevent passenger compartment intrusion, and they are not placed that high in the door.
It appears that Virgil Exner’s later odd styling “inspirations and directions” have resurrected and resurfaced within the context of Japanese modernity. Styling for the “sake of styling”, forgetting the need to find balance and differentiation within the concepts of taste, bad taste, and no taste seems prevalent now. Toyota, and even Ferrari, now without Pininfarina, appear to have lost their way.
My first thought, Vic. If someone had gone to sleep in 1961 and awakened today, they would swear that these were products of the old, old Chrysler Corporation. The Forward Look for the new millennium!
Cross some Exner with a dollop of Turbo Nerf football for the body shape… maybe a pinch of ’72 Torino in the hips.
Vic; it’s the post-modern era. Everybody bitches about contemporary design, but how about coming up with some examples of what “the way” is?
Mazda. The entire range has a lot of the elements disliked here, but done with a sort of taste, and placed in pretty overall shapes. May not be “the” way, but it’s certainly a way of using current ideas well.
Agreed on Mazda.
I find the overwhelming majority of cars these days look either terrifying or bland (Toyota being in the former category).
Some individual models may look ok, e.g. Peugeot 508, Jaguar XJ, Fiat 500 (only the base two-door) or Maserati QP, but nobody aside from Mazda has a look that works well across the range, IMHO.
The current styling trend at Toyota is tending towards Fugly. I bought a car Thursday, it wasn’t a Toyota. Even the cheapest Yaris with a manual transmission and absolutely no other options, not even floor mats ($195), will set you back $16,590, not adding in paperwork/title fees which are $129 where I am and sales tax.
And it has the Tammy Faye look down pat.
MSRP? What’s that?
I bought a new Corolla LE (well equipped, automatic, of course) a couple of months ago for my daughter’s group home: $14,200 total drive it out the door price, including all tags, registration, etc.
And it’s really quite a nice car; they love it. Plenty big four four adults. Perfect for their needs.
Small cars aren’t selling well, so MSRP is irrelevant. As it is on any car these days; average incentives are about $4k.
Still no sales tax in Oregon, right? I do get your point. Ford is dropping the Fiesta again from the US market due to poor demand in that segment, regardless of price.
One notable exception seems to be the Honda Fit. Dealer margins are slim and they do sell close to MSRP. I love mine enough that I would still buy another, even without a “deal”. Civics, like the competing Corolla, have lots of lease incentives, etc.
Ford, and mind you I am a dyed-in-the-wool Ford fan, needed to dump the Fiesta. What a piece of crap car it is. Owned one, and worked for awhile at a place that had two Fiesta company cars. All of them where an embarrassment for Ford.
In addition to no sales tax the license fee is cheap in OR. http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/DMV/pages/fees/vehicle.aspx so of that $14,200 about $13,950 was car and any other dealer fees.
To drive that $13,950 car out the door in WA and you would be looking at over$15,500 and your license tabs would only be good for a single year, not 4.
Which is why several cars in my Washington State neighborhood are running Oregon plates. I paid $81.00 + $15.00 smog check fee for one year’s registration on my 2004 Titan. State patrol is currently cracking down on this.
At least smog testing goes away in 2019 so that expense and hassle is no more. The ’86 Jetta, being 31 years old now has a collector plates so is eternally registration free. If I still have the ’87 Jetta come January it’s getting a collector plate as well.
No state income tax has to be made up elsewhere.
As for the current styling trend Toyota is using, not a fan at all.
$81/yr + $15 for smog check for a 2004 Titan in WA? Try the Peoples Republic of Kalifornia. $243 + $30 for a 2000 Chevy pickup, and it will go up next year. Smog checks apply to 1976 and newer (no longer “rolling”). Oh, and the gas tax just went up $.12 and diesel $.20 this month.
The highest income tax in the country doesnt seem to offset these fees.
Honda Fit is an ugly piece of cheap crap. I would take one of the butt ugly new Toyotas over one if I was forced to have to choose
Grew up near a big lake that startled the Pa. / Ohio state line. It was stocked with carp, to keep the lake cleaned up. These look like them!
Jon, where are you from? We may have been neighbors.
Grew up New Castle Pa. Lawrence Co. The lake is Pymatunig Resevoir Went camping and fishing there a lot at Linesville Pa. as a kid.
Now live in KY.
Heh! I grew up in West Hill, Ohio. Literally on the border with Sharon, PA. Our family spent a lot of time in the southern part of the Pymatuning in the summers. My wife is from the Pittsburgh area. We live in Michigan now…
This look is to “styling” as the attached image is to “art.”
If that’s “art”, Ed, I may actually go back to painting. “It’s art because I say it is”.
That’ll work.
When life gives you lemons, paint a vague abstract of them and sell it for millions.
Ed? Or are you the re-incarnation of the late Jackson Pollock? 🙂
Looks like a well used drop cloth.
Gee, Ed. For a guy who went through design school, I assumed you had some exposure and resultant appreciation for modern art. I guess that’s what life on a Midwestern farm will do. 🙂
I’m on a Midwestern farm, and I don’t mind abstract expressionism. I prefer De Stijl, though.
I took two years of architecture before changing to industrial design. The architectural style that was favored at the time (early 1980s) was the equivalent to this so-called modern art. That may be one reason I wanted out. “Form follows Function” and the Bauhaus movement appealed to me much more than the dreck they were teaching! Might also be why I’m one of the rare fans of the New Beetle…. (c:
I was just giving you a hard time…)
Well deserved, of course! (c:
My local Ford dealer (the brand I prefer for new cars) also sells Lincoln, Hyundai and Toyota. I know the older salesmen who have been there for years, though I only buy from one of them. One of the others, Bob, is a nice guy who specializes in the Toyota brand and has been polite and friendly to me over the years.
I ran into Bob at the dealership recently. He was near one of the new Camrys and asked me how did I like it. And being honest and blunt I told him I thought it was horrible. He was surprised and maybe even hurt. He thinks it is the greatest Toyota ever and I think it is bizarre. I told him the last Toyota I found palatable was the Venza and that anything current would be unacceptable for styling alone.
I will stick with the Fords.
We are in a bizarre era for styling. I have remarked in other contexts that it is almost a replay of 1960 when there was no real consensus for what is the next big styling thing. So everyone is taking current generally familiar shapes and covering them with grotesque details that are bold and striking, but little else.
Everyone ragged on GM 10-15 years ago when they went down this path with the Avalanche and Aztek but they turned out to be prescient. Everyone sells Aztecs now.
And the Subaru Tribeca – just look at the Ford Escape.
Have you ever considered that there won’t be a “next big styling thing”? It’s a post-modern world. What do you suggest the new direction be?
The VW / Skoda family. Extremely sharp linear styling cut like a well tailored suit. Tasteful details, complex yet very disciplined. Look at the Skoda Superb or the new VW Arteon. 1961 Continental compared to Toyota’s 61 Plymouths.
Aside from the body cladding, I don’t see what was so revolutionary styling-wise about the Avalanche. Underneath, it was still a ’00s Suburban with the back cut off.
I didn’t like the original Avalanche at all, but the later ones, without the odd cladding were fine.
I spent some time in Japan recently, and noticed something that (I think) might impact their approach to styling. The streets Japan are very crowded; and it is rare to get a full whole-body view of a car. Here in the states, we get to view cars from a distance, so that the overall profile of the car; the sweep from nose to tail is important. In Japan, since you only get a partial view of the car, it’s about details, and those details must make your car distinctive enough for the brand to be recognized. So, love it or hate it, Toyota is striving for instant identifiability over beauty.
Can you find the Toyota with the mascara in this picture?
Perhaps they are designing for instant recognition, front or rear. Just as the designers of the Edsel were.
But still. Just Ugh.
I’d buy a Toyota mini-minvan like the Sienta in a heartbeat. Just get it in a darker color to help mask the hideous black accents. It’s not at all bad looking minus that.
No argument with the feelings presented herein, but it must also be noted that Fusion looks like Optima, which looks like Sonata, which looks like Altima…which looks like Malibu. Only Mazda and Toyota have made the effort to develop truly distinctive styling. Between the two, I would says Mazda is the more attractive.
it must also be noted that Fusion looks like Optima, which looks like Sonata, which looks like Altima…which looks like Malibu. Only Mazda and Toyota have made the effort to develop truly distinctive styling.
Agreed.
Some of these sedans (and a few CUVs) I truly have a hard time telling apart. Yet I can always ID a Toyota. Think there might be something to that?
The same could have been said of average sedans in the ’00s, ’90s, ’80s…in any given decade, the most cutthroat segment will assume more-or-less the same form across all brands, with the same amount of cues to differentiate them to the more attentive viewers. Taller and larger vehicles (anything bigger than a midsize CUV) will invariably have more distinctive styling from the get-go.
Running mascara – that’s too funny (and an accurate description)!
I’m guessing the Sienta (first and last photo) has Thai license plates, correct?
Some recent Cadillacs like the CT6 have the crying/running mascara look too
When new, I thought the exterior styling of my Barcelona Red 2011 Camry was kinda-sorta bland & anonymous.
But at least it wasn’t dayum irritating and “Butt Ugly” like the newest Toyotas are!
Funny how the looks of a car “grow on you”, given the passing of time.
First think I’d do on that Camry is paint those random black trim “accents” body color.
WTF is the reason for those ?
Especially if one is going to use the Universal Tail Light design language seen on dozens of cars already.
It’s a cry for help. A clear reflection of the frustration there must be as a car designer these days. The raw shapes of 2017 cars are in essence exactly the same as they were in 1997, where the the styling/engineering mold was effectively perfected. The perfected engineering (aerodynamics, safety, power train) from 20 years ago still dictates many familiar proportions and hard points, and when trends change and contempt sets in for familiar aesthetics, designers had nowhere to go but to reshape the grilles, headlights, add some subtle surface creases and some paint trickery to the unaltered core shape to keep things fresh.
So being a car designer has gone from what used to be sculptor to a make up artist. As someone who once had the young, unfulfilled, desire to be a car designer, I’d be depressed enough to draw tears on my products if I couldn’t tweak the greenhouse shape or touch the overhangs.
This is perhaps especially the case with Toyota, who long have been criticized for making boring cars – what they actually did was keep the styling consistent with the staid and steady state of the engineering underneath – and in the last few years, where their boringness has gone from being joked about strictly among internet enthusiasts to being part of the cultural zeitgeist, they have made the decision to throw every trick at them they could to try and shake that perception. The resort is a bizarre abstract art painting over the same old canvas.
Very interesting. We bought a new 1993 Corolla. Although it was the 3rd generation FWD Corolla (at least in the US) its design seemed significantly advanced over the previous two generations … aesthetically and aerodynamically. And then it didn’t seem to change except in detail for the next 20+ years. But I think the new Camry has hit new lows for the mainstream sedan. I suspect there will be a mild refresh sooner than the usual Toyota update cycle.
If you think the Corolla hasn’t changed “except in details” since 1993, I think you need new glasses. Here’s the 1993:
Here’s the 2017:
I don’t think new glasses would help. I have a friend who insists that two newscasters look “almost identical”, “like twins”. That’s when I realized he’s faceblind along with being “carblind”, unable to see any difference between cars. The only resemblance between the two women is they are brunettes. They are roughly the same age, mid 30’s, but one is Irish, and the other is hispanic and strongly looks it, and is very “horsefaced”. When I, just for grins, printed up 8″x10″ pics of them, he couldn’t tell them apart! When his stepdaughter traded in her old Prius for a Camry last year, he insisted that they looked “exactly the same”, except for color. His wife and I got a big laugh out of that. As a person who never forgets a face, it’s just too funny. And he was a police officer for almost 30 years!
Face-blindess is also known as Prosopagnosia. The wiki article is pretty interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosopagnosia
Matt: , So you think this is any different than it was in the 50s, 60s and 70s, in between truly new generation of cars? Look at what was done to the ’55 Chevy in ’56 and ’57. Look at what was done to the big Chrysler Corp cars between ’57 and as late as ’64? Poor bastards; they had to come up with some stupid gimmicks to make them look a bit different than the year before.
The only thing that’s changed is that the cycles are longer now. I don’t actually buy that car shapes haven’t changed since 1997 (how about some examples of that?) But the automobile is a mature appliance, and fuel economy dictates aerodynamically efficient shapes. So yes, designers don’t have the freedom to reinvent the car like Exner essentially did in 1957; for better or for worse (worse, in my opinion).
FWIW, the new Camry has a shape decidedly different than its predecessor. It’s lower, wider and longer, and it is a more aggressive and dynamic shape. But is lower, wider and longer what we actually need?
Frankly, the predecessor Camry, which was built for some 15 years, had stellar space utilization and unbeatable interior accommodations as a result. That came about because its body was relatively tall, and its greenhouse had little tumblehome. But it was “boring”. So the result is a more dynamic shape, but less practical one. Progress.
I’m not going for a Camry argument, my thoughts with the 2018 design is that they are trying to spice up Toyota’s image by looking anywhere but the brand’s late model “appliance” look for inspiration, also for better or worse(I have no real opinion, a midsize sedan was never going to woo me). I do not however think buyers will notice the reduced space efficiency from the 2017 in the real world, nor will it be a turning point for a sales decline (which the midsize sedan market was well underway in beforehand).
With regard to examples, If you dipped the finished cars of different eras in a vat of paint, where everything(lights, grille, glass, tire’s, wheels) is all the same color, the only way you’d be able to tell any given late 90s car and a new car apart would be the cutlines, it’s not limited to Toyota, you wouldn’t be able to tell brands apart or years apart, period.
Would you imagine any current mainstream car looking out of this world to people if it were time traveled back to the 1990s? Throwing a 90s car into the 80s would, same with a 80s car into the 70s, and in the 60s alone there were at least three distinctive eras within (early 60s were still late 50s like, sans fins, middle were very boxy, and late were fuselage like) that would stick out like sore thumbs. Losing the 2 door bodystyle amplified the staid state of design, since there’s more freedom with less height/visibility conscious rooflines. The irony is, which I’m loath to say, the CUV “coupe” is actually somewhat fresh in that regard.
The styling evolution naturally slowed to a crawl for efficiency, but that’s the point. What’s the endgame of that? If Chrysler wanted to go bat shit crazy with their designs again, go for it, I say. Personally where I think you and I most disagree is the “we” aspect of the automobile. I don’t like or feel it wise that that every brand must “follow the leader” (now or historically). That may work in the short term to placate shareholders, but it ultimately seems like the path to consolidate all brands into one collective pod car. That is not “progress”. What made cars of the past so interesting, despite their deficiencies, was that the ones that couldn’t compete with the sales monsters still had something distinctive to offer, sometimes functionally(like Chrysler’s torsion bars) but usually in styling. With combination of staid styling, similar engineering principles, and the obliteration of ala carte options, it just seems to inevitably pose an existential crisis for smaller brands. What “we” need is irrelevant unless “my” only choice is a Toyota.
To XR7Matt’s point: As time marches on, more and more cars are being designed to be sold in every market of the globe. We’ve seen in the last 10-15 years where what were once distinctly European or American or Asian designs have all been homogenized (mostly to EuroNCAP pedestrian impact standards).
Hard points do seem to be shared among vehicles of a certain type or size; when they’re all government-mandated, we’re not going to see individuality like we have in the past.
Lord knows I like ugly cars, but some are so far out that it will take a lot of time to adjust to them.
I felt the that way about our 2001 Aztek when we first got it. But after a while, I grew accustomed to it’s “face”. While I never owned one, the Prius in the previous post had the same issue. I’m now rather used to them and don’t find them as odd as when introduced. If you say Prius, that’s the car I think of. Alternately, when you say Beetle, I think of the original Type 1, not the New Beetle, or the New New Beetle. I guess the connotations can go both ways.
I would say a current car transplanted back the 90’s would look pretty out of place. First of all, the basic shape has been changing. The most efficient shape for a car is the teardrop-like shape, which is why cars are slowly becoming more and more Prius-shaped. Take a look at the new Camry – the base of the C pillar goes almost all the rear of the car, whereas in the 90’s the 3-box sedan was still very much the norm. 20 years ago, they’d call it a 4-door fastback or something like that, now everything is shaped that way and it’s just a sedan.
The headlights are another obvious difference – in the early 90’s headlights were still the same basic shape and size as the sealed beam headlights that were standard just a few years before, and that didn’t change much the whole decade. Nowadays, headlight design is all over the place, and they tend to bulge out (same with tail lights) whereas in the 90’s they were flush mount with the whole aero thing. Headlights also tend to be mounted above the front wheel well now too, whereas in the 90’s they were almost always completely in front of it, even for cars with a lot of wrap-around like the Deville or the Nissan Stanza . Which is another way the shapes have been changing – front and rear overhang has been getting smaller even as cars have been bulking up. Part of this is also due to tire sizes growing over the past 20 years.
The aero thing also applies to grills. In the 90’s, they were generally no larger than they needed to be, or were hidden entirely like on the original Taurus. Now they are huge, exaggerated, and mostly fake. Another difference is the lack of visible bumpers on new cars, whereas in the 90’s they weren’t the battering rams of the mid 70’s, but we still had them.
All the sculpting, bulges, and character lines would also look pretty out of place too. In the 90’s cars were very slab sided, and wheel flares were subtle or not even present, whereas nowadays huge exaggerated wheel flares are norm.
The high beltlines would also be pretty out of place too. In the 90’s cars tended to have large windows, and now they are far smaller, which looks even stranger since the cars have bulked up so much. The amount of rear rake would also look pretty strange when so many cars back then had the beltline more or less parallel with the bottom of the car.
Someone else mentioned the Aztek, and to me that’s the perfect example of vehicle that really was just ahead of it’s time. What was pretty out there in 2000 would barely be noticed today.
I agree with you on the teardrop shape eroding away at the “3 box” since then, but that’s also a reflection of the blending of 2 door coupe styling into sedan styling in recent years, which goes to my point that it’s not exactly fresh – a mid 90s Civic Coupe is nearly the same profile as the ’18 Camry, just smaller with less doors
I also will concede that the nose of the cars have become more rounded off and less square jawed – though this was underway on many 90s designs – and the effect is that the front overhangs appear shorter from certain angles(but in profile are virtually identical).
Where I disagree with you is that the headlight shapes, grille size/shapes and even greenhouse may be visually distinctive from the mid-late 90s predecessors, the core shape that they form isn’t. Again, imagine all of them in monotone.
The headlights on 90s cars largely followed a linear path, coming off the boxier 80s designs, the hoodline is flat, the light housings line up with the grille and the bumper line seems parallel with the hood cutline. But all it takes for a designer to make that look modern to 2018 standards is to draw the headlights up into the hood and fender areas and droop the grille downward into the bumper area on the existing basic blunt shape. One of the best examples of this would be the 2000 (A33)Nissan Maxima. These were literally a facelift of the existing 99 body, but the front end of the 2000 swept back headlamps and utilized a larger more prominent, disjointed from each other. It fits in quite well with the designs we’re accustomed to today, unlike the 99.
Same applies to glass area. The roofline/greenhouse shapes haven’t actually changed much either, windshield and rear window angles have remained consistent as well as height. 1990s beltlines were artificially to look lower than they actually were, the cowls and rear decks were higher than the beltlines, so the doors simply had lowered cutouts for the glass, the tell is that the bottom of the side glass dips further than the windshield glass does in relation to the A pillars. The 2018 Camry utilizes this exact same method, in fact you can see where the cowl line it dips on the door under the side mirrors.
As for the sculpting and bulges, GM products had it, and something modern cars lack are protective moldings, which by the late 90s were body colored abstract shapes that easily could be considered “surface flaming” had they been stamped into the sheetmetal. Flares? That was a hallmark of Ford’s late 90s “new edge” styling language, Audi had it on their TT in 1998.
A 2018 car transplanted into the 90s may stand out with these details, but it wouldn’t seem generations ahead.
That’s only half right, I think. Toyota’s vertical slashes do seem like makeup, of a rather dark style that’s previously associated with the likes of KISS and B&D. Enough about that, but the profiles of our cars have changed drastically since the early 2000s, when Europeans passed strict pedestrian safety laws. The typical thigh-high hood and headlamps of Accords and such have been replaced with blunt, high hoodlines. The difference is dramatic, placing the body’s window line a foot or two higher. It would be enough to make our cars like like EMD locomotives (and the Mini’s does, sorta, but most designers cap it off with a low, sharply raked roofline. Then they call in the detail boys, ex-sushi chefs and tattoo artists, apparently, to finish off the job.
This article is just Hilarious! I love your comparison to running mascara. Perfect. I can just think what the designers were saying during their presentation: “well, frankly, we couldn’t think of anything better, and, this hasn’t been done before. So, What’d ya’ think?”
The most “stylish” Toyota model here, the C-HR, does quite well, actually. From January to October 2017 they sold 4,031 of them on a total of 20,180 Toyotas.
The complete list:
1. Aygo, A-segment hatchback (6,215)
2. Yaris, B-segment hatchback (5,541)
3. C-HR, C-segment CUV (4,031)
4. Auris, C-segment hatchback and wagon (2,615)
5. RAV4 (852)
Other models (926)
(Source: Autoweek 45-2017)
The Yaris, C-HR, Auris and RAV4 are all available as a hybrid. According to the information I’ve read an all-new Auris will be introduced next year. The D-segment (currently the Avensis sedan and wagon) seems to be history for Toyota.
Yes, Toyotas are selling well here too. Maybe the market likes the new styling direction just fine?
Let’s face it: CC’s audience is largely guys who like older cars. Not exactly the right demographic to judge new design directions, perhaps?
The C-HR is considered C-segment in Europe? Interesting. In the U.S. it’s a subcompact (B-segment), and the RAV4 is the compact.
What are the Ford EcoSport and Escape’s respective categories in the EU market?
Right, it turns out that the C-HR is a sub-compact CUV in the J-segment. First time I’ve heard of the J-segment…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_Car_Segment
The C-HR is 3 cm longer than the current Auris hatchback. Evidently the Auris is a C-segment (compact) car, like the VW Golf, Ford Focus, Opel Astra, etc.
A bit confusing that the somewhat bigger C-HR is a sub-compact CUV instead of a compact CUV.
I wonder when they run out of letters for the car segmentation…
I (retired Industrial Designer) consider any and all current Toyotas and Lexii(?) to be ASSUALTS on my delicate eyes!!! Talk about explosions in a mattress factory…YUKK.
Altho, among current car designs, of all makes, I’d be hard pressed to name one that is both distinctive and pleasing to the eye. DFO
Thanks for addressing this issue. It’s sad commentary when a car-buying decision depends on whether you can stand to look at it. Toyota and Lexus are not meeting that standard. Awful.
If I`m leasing a car for three years,I have to LIKE what I see in my garage, and in a parking lot.I hate to say this,but all those ‘mid size’ four door fastbacks look like they were ALL cut from the same cookie cutter.
Absolutely right to a point about the styles of current Toyota products these days. Under the stewardship of founder grand son, who enjoys sport cars, Toyota planners were asked to change its home appliance images. The reaction is to make productsure looks sporty, these ugly looking Toyota cars now are the fruit of sporty Toyota. We can call Toyota sin one day.
More those over style tricks they put into the car front section do not make any sense in terms of beauty and function. What is Toyota product designer department thinking? Do they look the IItalian design houses for idea? More sadly Japanese is famous for simplistic and elegant design, which has inspired Western designers for generations, the current Toyota styles are completely lost those traditions.
These over style tone in details are not limited to Toyota, just look at the front section of 2018 VW GTI and comparing with a 2003 VW Passat front bumper. You will realize how far auto makers have gone.
Even from production cost point, these ugly add-ons increase the cost, I guess at least 50 dollars per vehicle.
Do they look (to) the Italian design houses for ideas?
What Italian design houses? They’re all pretty much gone.
More sadly Japanese is famous for simplistic and elegant design
Really? You need to go look at some/most of their cars from the 70s and then say that again.
Paul loving Toyota can be seen everywhere in his super active responses to the comments . But if it is for Toyota long term benefit, not for winning the argument, that is fine. Its style is only minor problem to me, its real problems are multiple. With its current path, I am not suprised to see it becomes 1980s GM. Beside its still good reliability record, it is basically selling aging products specifically in North American, there are not direct fuel injection 4 cylinder turbo engine with multiple speed transmission in its main lineups in US. It also missed the market in China, the world largest auto market. It is also behind in development of electric vehicles and automouse driving technology. Selling its main lineup vehicles with long term zero interest is not sustainable in the raising interest environment.
BTW, I mean Japanese architecture design when I pointed out the elegance of Japan design. Its automobile designs have been good but not outstanding, they are never such ugly looks.
Paul loving Toyota can be seen everywhere in his super active responses to the comments .
I’m afraid you misread me. I never once said that I like (or love) Toyota’s current styling direction. I was simply challenging people here to say (or think) something than “Yuck”, “Yech”, or worse.
I have quite a bit of respect for Toyota generally, but I also have been quite disappointed with them in recent years on a number of issues. Most of all, their foot-dragging with EVs. Toyota took a huge gamble with the Prius almost 20 years ago, and they were the darling of the environmentally-conscious crowd. But their foolish commitment to fuel cells and ceding the battery EV mantle to Tesla and Nissan has been a huge mistake, and cost them their image as an innovator and pioneer.
I’m much less concerned about little turbo engines, as it’s becoming clear that they are more about gaming the EPA/mileage tests than real-world improvements in fuel consumption.
As far as China goes, you know as well as I do what the real problem there is for Toyota and other Japanese auto makers.
Toyota is being very conservative at the same time they’re trying hard to perk up their image.We’ll see how well it plays out, but obviously T. also has a lot of strengths too, especially their production efficiency, reliability and profitability.
It is honoured to get two direct replies from Paul.
I do not agreed with you on the small turbo engine is primarily for EPA regulations. Its performance and carbon emissions are much better than the regular 4-cylinder engine. To take advantage of direct fuel injection, more air is needed. This is a survival trick for the internal combustion engine which is under assault. Toyota has this type of engine but only seen in the Lexus GS line-up in US, VW/Audis has used since mid 1990s. I drove my friend 1997 Audis A4 with 1.8 liter turbo 4 coupled with 6 speed manual, as today it remains as one of impressive car I have ever driven, better than 2010 BMW M3 for thr daily driving.
On electric vehicle, Toyota lagged behind GM and Chinese BYD to market. I always view Tesla as hype and good short term stock trading company, and Nissan EV as toy.
I actually agree with Paul on this, It’s not a question of whether a turbo 4 is better than a NA 4, it’s whether it’s better than a NA V6, or a turbo V6 better than a NA V8. Turbocharging is in theory a best of both worlds way of making V6 power with 4 cylinder economy, but in the real world, they still need more fuel enrichment to make the equivelant power under boost as the larger engine of equal power they are substituting for, and for many people’s driving styles they end up in boost quite a lot, effectively negating the fuel economy advantage.
Historically turbos are used to fill gaps in internal combustion development. Turbo engines practically went extinct in all but a few high performance applications in the 90s after a huge surge of popularity in the 80s. With the adoption of multiport fuel injection, and DOHC, a NA V6 suddenly was able to legitimately do everything not only what a turbo I4 of the time could, but also what a NA V8 of the time could, but with better packaging, reliability and more efficiency. The next technology to kill off Turbocharging likely won’t even be gasoline powered, but even if it were, the concept of camless heads would likely be the next ICE advancement to bump off Turbocharging, or possibly even hybrid assist (ala LaFerrari).
Tygerleo: Are you not aware that the new 2018 Camry does use direct injection? Actually, it uses both direct and port, to optimize its efficiency and output.
And the Camry four has an EPA (combined) number of 32mpg; the 2018 Accord with the 1.5 turbo four gets 33mpg (EPA combined). The difference is insignificant. I would have to look up comparison tests to see if there’s a difference in real world economy. I strongly suspect not.
Also, if one wants more fuel economy, the Camry hybrid comes in two versions, one with a 46mpg rating, another wuth 52 mpg. Currently there’s no Accord hybrid.
For a long time people have declared Toyota boring. Well, this is there response. Too bad too, as I like a nice comfortable and quiet boring ride.
“You asked for it, you got it, Toyota!”
I rather like Toyota’s current efforts. As least they’re trying to get away from the image of the typical Toyota buyer (knows nothing about cars, cares nothing about cars, worships Consumer’s Reports slavishly, cares about reliability over every other factor).
Yeah, they’ll probably look dated rather quickly. But until we get Citroen back (and from what I’ve seen, Citroen isn’t making Citroen’s anymore), they’ll have to do.
And you can’t possibly make a brougham out of any of their cars. 5000 point in their favor.
Sounds more like they’re trying to drive away the typical Toyota buyer.
Now, if they can just get rid of that boring Toyota reliability….
Happy Motoring, Mark
They already have. . . .
I used to swear by Toyota reliability. Now they’re more like a Chrysler. The good ones are still very good indeed, but the bad ones seem unfixable no matter how hard the dealer tries. Just another brand that stands for nothing special anymore. What a shame.
Toyota sales are doing quite well currently, so that doesn’t exactly seem to be the case, does it?
How to go from refrigerator to a Gila Monster in one easy step, and an ugly one at that. Is everyone trying to outdo everyone else in the most outlandish and outrageous look of the year? These make the 1960 Mopars look like beauty queens and we all know how well that style endured. To all designers, please put some good taste behind your work and stop the angry catfish look!
“Good taste” is entirely subjective. How would you personally define it? The vast majority of new car buyers appear to enjoy the “angry catfish” look.
+1 on gila monsters and angry catfish to describe the new look.
It may be a good time to diversify my portfolio into some eye bleach futures. 😉
HA! I came up with sucker fish, but angry catfish is even better, and MUCH more descriptive!
Perhaps Toyota should hire the Mitsuoka design team.
I rented a Sienta last time I was in Nippon. All I remember about it is that the steering wheel seemed to be mounted ridiculously low.
Yes! Toyotas get worse every new model or facelift! The faces look so angry and contrived. The author left off a couple of the worst front ends in U.S. market currently, in my opinion.
Here’s my other favorite new car to hate, the Camry.
XR7Matt made some good points I hadn’t thought of. It seems to be true that the basic shape and proportions for FWD, gas powered cars were locked in about 20 years ago and cars have changed more superficially than fundamentally.
Toyota just seems to be desperately trying to differentiate their cars any way they can. Toyota and Honda seem to be in an arms race to see who can style their vehicles the most tastelessly. Maybe it’s working for them. I see a lot of those godawful Lexus RX’s on the road. I have to put on sunglasses to diminish the impact on my eyes.
I think it is possible to make unique cars that are also good looking. Mazda, Volvo, and Ford are a few examples of companies that are succeeding design-wise.
The styling of the new Toyotas and Lexi is beyond hideous.
The automotive version of waking up with a horse`s head in your bed. Maybe next Halloween, somebody will design a ‘2018 Toyota Camry Front End” costume.
In my opinion, Toyota’s styling really took a turn for the worse back around 2007 with the redesigned Camry. I remember at the time wondering if Toyota’s sales might take a hit for releasing such a frumpy, unattractive car. Especially as the Camry, given its somewhat conservative customer base, but they still sold (and continue to sell) a gazillion of them. So either people actually like the styling of modern cars, or at the very least don’t mind it. Cars like the featured car are just the result of a decade of increasingly bizarre styling efforts.
One thing Toyota did accomplish was to make me finally appreciate some of their older designs. Back in the 90’s I criticized cars like the 1997 Camry for being such a bland, boring car. But today when I see one, I really appreciate its clean, functional design and simple lines.
+1
I feel bad now for ever criticizing them for making bland looking cars.
Toyota sales in October 2017 were up 2.7%; the market overall was flat. Toyota sales for 2017 YTD are up 2.4%; the market overall is down 1.2%. Maybe other folks aren’t quite as unhappy with their looks?
Has it ever occurred to you all that Toyota undoubtedly does marketing clinics on their designs?
One thing is certain: it’s easy to identify a Toyota in a sea of look-alike cars. I can see a new Prius a half mile away, at night from the rear. 🙂
While I’m not a fan of the most bizzare current automotive styling trends, Certain models, like the Kia Optima, are growing on me. Those do look quite sleek.
OTOH, most of the new designs from Toyota do look like (as someone here beautifully put it) an angry catfish!
As for marketing clinics, I’m sure there was a point in the ’50s that most Americans saw more chrome and bigger fins as highly desirable – until most American automakers went overboard with it!
While I still believe Toyota builds cars with an overall, better than average reliability – they have had a number of problems in recent years. I can’t help but wonder how much of their current sales success is coasting on their formerly bullet-proof reputation.
Happy Motoring, Mark
I don’t think that Toyota’s styling direction is accidental. The fact that their sales are strong suggests that they know what they are doing. If their styling is tasteless and sales are high, the implication is that many car buyers have bad taste.
We here on this site are kind of freaks. If the majority of car guys dont like the styling, I don’t know that it matters much. Most people don’t have encyclopedic knowledge of decades of cars and detailed opinions on past styling trends. People just know what they like in a car, which is often dictated by how they think others will look at them and what image they will have, not to mention lots of non-styling factors.
I agree that Kia is another company that is doing a really good job with styling.
Good points. As with the fashion industry, looking different is perhaps more important than looking good. Art as far back as the Middle Ages shows how long this has been the case with the fashion industry. A king decides to wear a neck ruffle, and suddenly, all courtiers follow suit.
It should go without saying that the high water mark for Toyota styling was the original xB.
The fact that they sell well doesn’t mean that they look good. I mean, Micheal Bay films probably grossed more than Ingmar Bergman films but, well, you know . . .
“how about coming up with some examples of what “the way” is?” said Paul.
I see some hope for future designs returning to attractive in the Kia Stinger and the Buick TourX (nee Opel).
Mind you, I don’t think Toyota wants me as a customer and these eyes are old ones that see Mercedes 124 & 129 as nearly perfect and the early Mustang S197 as good.
The Stinger is nicely done, but it’s just a direct evolution of the Optima from the previous generation. Not exactly anything truly new, or that points to a whole new direction.
But yes, Kia has very good design these days; they hired the right guy. Best overall design of any brand, IMHO.
Headlights almost all the way up to the windshield on some cars.
Many look like they’ve already been hit.
At least old cars didn’t have many problems with overall proportions….shamefull crap.
The face of the new Toyotas remind me of Puddles Pity Party. They both just seem wrong on so many levels.
Come to think of it, I actually really like the new Prius. I’d drive one. And the CHR (I think that’s the name? The subcompact crossover) is pretty attractive too.
Agreed. I think these are not very nice to look at (although the LC 500 passes muster) and I’ve been in a mind to write up Honda’s latest work as the worst case examples. But a little while back CC alerted me to my own prejudices – it was something about Nissan sales climbing in the US despite their own pitiful styling direction (I still wince when I see a Juke).
But more to the point, I have to agree with Paul. It’s not the cars that are off, its my own aesthetic judgment. I think there is something to be said for ‘running out of ideas’, but we are now dealing with a much changing set of expectations. There was a recent set of statistics here in oz, whereby applications for driving licences had dropped 21% amongst the young in the last ten years.
Cars are becoming a different thing to society as we move into a new age of borrowed/rented cars and self-drivers, and what we as classicists have come to expect in terms of design progress is now a blinkered set of expectations.
I literally worship the ground on which old cars travel, but in some ways we are now entering the phase art found itself in 1863 which resulted in the ‘Salon des Refusés’.
Personally, I like that Toyota and Lexus are shaking up their design languages.
Lexus’ average buyer age was climbing precipitously, even with more European-targeted models like the IS and GS, so they needed a sharp new design language. I love all the new Lexus designs with one exception: the new RX. And it’s not the spindle grille that bothers me the most about it, it’s actually that “floating roof” effect that everybody (Opel, Nissan, etc) seems to be doing at the moment. It just reminds me of landau bars on the RX…
As for Toyota, the current Corolla and Avalon are a huge improvement over their uninspiring predecessors. The grilles are getting a bit large, particularly on the Avalon, but overall these edgy designs work for me. The C-HR was a bit of a shock at first and I would never want to sit in the back seat of one, but I like it.
For years, I derided Toyotas as being deathly dull. Now they have somebody in charge who is emphasizing driving excitement, and a design team that is taking some chances. And being in my 20s, I’m in the demographic Toyota is really trying to appeal to. Well, it’s working. I never would have bought a Toyota before but their latest models are quite appealing.
I have one issue with the new Camry, however. New platform? Great. Sharper dynamics? Awesome. Styling? Not quite my cup of tea… But it’s very easily solved! Shrink the grille just a tad and I’ll be happy. Front end aside, the new Camry is more attractive than the new Accord, Sonata and Altima. Never thought I’d say that!
And at least, please get rid of that runny mascara!
Happy Motoring, Mark
>> Camry is more attractive than the new Accord<<
Now that's a joke. Every professional review that makes a comparison agrees the Accord is a much better car than the Camry – a class above. And most agree the Camry is the ugly one and very unfortunate looking.
Eye of the beholder and all that…
I said more attractive, not a better car.
Maybe it’s just because of the black and white color scheme, but I see a First Order stormtrooper:
As for an actual opinion on car styling, I’ve always held two mantras in mind:
1. Is it better to try something new and potentially risky, or to play it safe and have a cookie-cutter imitation of whatever is the market leader at the time?
2. Styling of a vehicle doesn’t much affect the experience when you get behind the wheel.
It should go without saying that all car companies, including Toyota, make what they think will sell. And they don’t have to guess at it, too much: they use focus groups to find out exactly what appeals to which segment of the market. So, the squiggles, exaggerated lights and grilles, scoops and dripping mascara have been tailored to appeal to the largest identifiable group(s) of buyers.
Auto bodies have been getting thicker around the windows, with higher beltlines, for quite a while now. My guess is that these features are designed to appeal, consciously or unconsciously, to the buyer who’s concerned with safety. The car may or may not be more crush-resistant in a roll-over accident — but if it looks like it might be, that’s a plus. Smaller windows make Mrs Soccer Mom feel her kids are less vulnerable, somehow. Sadly, I don’t expect this trend to reverse any time soon; self-driving cars, equating in some minds to a whole new category of risk, can be expected to look a bit like rolling vaults, I expect — despite the sexy and open look of some preview models being shown now.
https://www.designboom.com/technology/nissan-imx-zero-emission-concept-car-10-25-2017/
And I’m reminded that, when we starting seeing the ’63 Chryslers on the road, my friend Eric and I decided they needed a nickname. With their thick pillars and heavy detailing, “Mosler” seemed the most appropriate monicker.
https://ccpublic.blob.core.windows.net/cc-temp/listing/55/557/1119222-1963-chrysler-new-yorker-std-c.jpg
Guess this beast was way ahead of its time ?
Agree. In a few short years Toyota went from plain -Jane to bizarre , to really really bizarre. Toyota builds a good product , but they are not the only ones.
The machine in the first photo looks like Peugeots efforts of 10 or more years ago. Disliked then (and now, for me) but they sold just fine.
Perhaps the relevant question is what it is about these slashes, scars, blackouts, the disharmony and most of all the aggression in these designs that does appeal? And why?
Maybe today’s young buyers, who grew up with combative video-games, and over-the-top movie-monsters, want violence in their vehicles!
Happy Motoring, Mark
I am enjoying the varying and thought provoking comments on this article.
I still like the styling of my 2011 Camry better than a new one.
I’m surprised nobody has mentioned the Audi singleframe grille. If memory serves, it was not well received when first introduced but it’s now been so widely imitated that Audi’s are now criticized for their bland styling.
With regards to Mazda styling, I find it almost too pure, like a flawless fashion model. I haven’t owned a new Mazda since 2007. Having said that, and as a former Miata 1st gen owner, I do like the look of the latest version.
But then, I’m okay with where Toyota is going as well. I don’t think they’ve perfected the design yet, but I do find certain aspects appealing.
What gets me even more than the “mascara” (nice analogy) are the massive cheek scoops, which aren’t even real scoops. Prius has the worst (besides the insane Mirai) and Camry has them too. Huge useless features out at the corners of long overhang, just waiting to get scratched up by high curbs and the like.
I’ve been driving Toyotas since 1987, Prius since the very first ones off the boat in 2000. Glad I’m not in the market for one now, but worried about what the 2020 Toyotas will look like.
I drive a car many have declared ugly for a single element known as the “the beak” Yes a 2014 TSX Sportwagon. No matter my opinion of it’s styling I can honestly say that from behind the wheel it doesn’t bother me at all. To that end what bothered me about the previous Camry was the interior, especially the gauge package. I couldn’t stand to look at that view all the time I was driving.
I think that styling trend is the most godawful hideous example of design that I’ve seen in a LONG time.
On another post here regarding Lexuses (Lexi?), I said that the front ends of many of the current ones, IMHO, look like automotive versions of sucker fish.
No reason to change that opinion looking at THIS. Ugh.
In the Camry, I see a design meant to appeal to children of the era of Star Wars and armored superhumans, who are now parents and feeling less than exciting as their bodies lose tone and get rounder. Whether they think this sedan is pretty is less important than whether they find in “attractive” psychologically. To the extent that a car’s face becomes that of the driver, the pedestrian would need to be avoided in sculpting front clips for family sedans. I’m a boomer, and ensconced in the age of comfort as I stare down the abyss. I would not feel comfortable with my own image if I drove a Camry, but I won’t call it ugly. I made that mistake with the Aztek. Those who jump to conclusions about taste are often masking rigidness.
Anyone know when eyebleach is on sale? That thing is beyond fugly.
There goes my appetite… *urp*…
as alluded to in another comment this crop of Deputy Dawg face ‘yodas’, and many other models as well could probably absorb a decent T-bone, head-on or rear end collision which may not only be unnoticeable but be an actual improvement.
Ugh, that is a mortal sin in my book.
You know, after giving that a good look over, I now think I’m OK with the latest and newest Camry. And, honestly, so long as they built safe, reliable, and long-lasting cars, let’s not be so quick to label them as boring. Nothing wrong with boring in my book. There’s far worse automotive sins.