AutoCritical

Military Jeeps are machines that were built to get from A to B in almost any condition. They have simple pressed steel panels screwed onto its frame to cover the engine and to hold other control parts in place. A square pane of glass stopped headwind, bugs and dirt blowing into the drivers face, and in combination with the tarp roof, stopped its occupants from getting mostly wet. To steer, the metal cast steering wheel attached to a shaft directly attached to the rack and pinion. In its raw and honest aesthetic they look tough and can handle any terrain. Without having even driven a Jeep, one can image the feel of the air and growling sounds of the engine with incremental ‘grunts’ of shifting gears. With no doors and agile animal stance, the Jeep has an ‘up and go’ appeal where you’d literally just hop in and grab the wheel and go.

Military Jeep, and a consumer production Jeep - Seize the day!

The need to be able to quickly get in and go to, perhaps get from one checkpoint to another, with no wasted time in opening doors and the ability of the vehicle to go through any terrain without preparation is justified. With the mass production Jeeps and Hummers, designers have captured these key characteristics from the original military functionality, but transformed an aesthetic that connotes a flexible, no boundaries lifestyle. Open top roofs, exposed frame work and half sized doors are reminiscent of the military style jeep. Even essential aesthetic qualities in the body paneling, like the flat front end with little overhang, large front grille and ‘slapped on’ wheel arches are very similar to the original Jeep.

These ‘features’ keep an already well established qualities that make a Jeep, a ‘Jeep’, but augmented by the used of imagery. Perhaps one could envisage the possibly for advertising/marketing material – visions of a sunny day, friends with sunglasses and surfboards sticking out the back of the open-air ‘leisure vehicle’ parked in a very ‘informal’ way in the sand. This vision gives the feeling that such a day happened spontaneously, where this vehicle allows you to, ‘up and go’ – picking up your friends and go to the beach, and get out and into the water as quickly got in – perhaps a ‘seize the day’ attitude.

Military and Consumer - Functionality aesthetic

Such a vision dramatically changes the aesthetic nature of the Jeep from something purely functional to a vehicle that has a focus more on the form, that is, the ‘form’ from a ‘functional vehicle’ (the military Jeep).  In the Wrangler and military versions of the Jeep, their connotative value is essentially still the same (to get in and get out), they have different denotative aesthetics in regards to their function and form.

Having high expectations on designs that come out from Ford would not be unreasonable if you were to see the examples of the Mondeo, Fiesta (Fast as a spear) and in some ways, the Taurus (Elegance that needs cosmetic surgery). I have to be honest, the first visual impact-opinion I had when seeing the new Focus was that of a brave boldness, mostly referring to the gaping vents at the front, and to how dramatic they were.

I don't mind the front end in the production version. It is distinct. But you can see what they were trying to relate to (the Fiesta - sketch)

Now that I’ve calmed down a bit and seeing the front end as an isolated element, I can see where they were coming from with that front end in its relation to the successful Fiesta, but am struggling to see why they didn’t try and make it more obvious as the vertical bars that support the lower in mouth seem weak, almost flimsy.

Front end comparison

Along the fenders are muscular wheel arches created by curved lines that lead over a belt line that connects them visually. A resultant intersection of surfaces and lines has a dynamic effect which again is pretty cool in isolation, but I have to admit struggling to see the harmony in relation to the rest of the car. It just seems a bit forced… can you see it?

A typical rear end - Not sure about that rounded section though.

Rounding up the rear is effectively a result of connecting the surfaces over the rear fenders. The graphical breakup is typically Ford, being inoffensive except for the tail lamp that seems out of place, and the surface of badge placement that seems a bit round. The front also seems a bit stiff around the bonnet area, now that I take a second look.

Some lines create forced surfaces that don't match. The tail light also seems out of place.

Overall the proportions of this design are desirably proportioned, just like the other products in the Ford range. However, with the high standard expected from those products, it becomes easy to notice the awkwardness when there are a couple out of place elements.