AutoCritical

Proportions of vehicles are always changing, both to fit the new regulations to do with things like safety and style. Proportions are also one of the design elements that can really ‘make or break’ the design of a vehicle and how a designer uses this to their advantage is to exaggerate them. The end is usually a result of a sketch with large wheels, and a small DLO.

2010 Chevrolet Equinox - Strong body side, bug-eye front...

From a few key elements, I think the proportions on the Chevrolet Equinox takes on characteristics of a concept sketch, starting with the bulky wheel arches that dwarf the more ‘production’ looking wheels, and the small DLO that is separated with a C-Pillar to the rear glass.

Concept-style wheel arches - smaller more realistic wheels - Unusual 'C-Pillar'

Just because a production car has concept-like features, doesn’t specifically or instantly make it a good looking car, or a successful design for that matter. In the instance of the Equinox I think the front wheel arches are a bit too dominant in comparison to the rear. If they were measured, they would probably be quite similar, but because there is less body color mass around the arches of the front than the back, the illusion results in the wheel arch sizes seeming a bit off balance (looks too heavy in the front).

Perhaps what is needed is a more aggressive front?

Although a heavy, planted look on a SUV may be successful for other designs, on this design it doesn’t suit when viewed holistically with the rest of the car. For me, the front of the car guides the feeling for the rest of the car and I don’t think the Equinox’s bug-eye almost cute face matches the heavy set arches. An attempt to ‘aggressify’ the front fascia of the car can be seen, but is not pulled off. The spears formed from budging lower vents and the under-hook of the lamps in theory is aggressive, but for some reason I think the soft and flat bonnet and peaky front grille, (and possibly that bow-tie badge) seem to be cheekily grinning at me. Is it grinning at you too?

A rear that is neither bold or cute

The rear of the car is quite anonymous and neither aggressive nor cutesy. It almost looks like a result of drawing horizontal lines between whatever was happening around the corners of the body side. Just as disappointing as the rear are elements that also don’t fit in with the rest of the design. For example, the rear glass solution on the side view around the C-pillar has an unusual solution that makes the roof look bent. Another is how the details around the head lamps meet the grille and front of the bonnet contradict each other.
Overall this design is all a bit mixed up. The front wants to be a small car, the side wants to be aggressive then the rear is nothing… literally…It’s a shame that this GM Designed car is so directionless compared to its Ford rivals…

Ever since I saw the new Ford Mondeo (no, I didn’t make a mistake here) on James Bond – Casino Royale, I couldn’t help but feel Ford had made a positive turn for this rejuvenated model. Similarly with the Taurus, a similar approach has been taken in the endeavor to bring some new life to an otherwise aging model, along with all its slightly duller connotations.

Front 3/4 view - New life like the Mondeo?

Aesthetically, compared to the past models that tried to be ground breaking, I think this 10th generation Taurus has hit closer to the mark. In the past, they took risks of being a ‘hit or miss’ but for this, they have taken the positive reaction to the Mondeo concept and tried to put that same energy into this model.

A design that emphasises the width rather than the height.

Evidence of the influence from the Mondeo can be seen from the rear of the car with the accented ‘hips’ over the tail lamps. This is not just a ‘copy’ from it but a quite different approach to a similar elemental idea. Interestingly different, the rear fascia and deck lid blend in as one and besides one horizontal crease, there seems to be no literal interpretation of a ‘standard’ bumper that usually has a more ‘flatter’ horizontal surface. Nothing comes to mind of vehicles that has approached this with a similar solution. As a result, there is a cleaner appearance of the rear and the focus is on the details of the lamp and badge. On the other hand, the lower part of the fascia/nappy has a lot going on. A mirror image of the accented hips of the deck lid show a visual connection and continuity of design, however the area for the name plate dominates and steals the attention from the upper rear, even to the point of it appearing to push the exhaust pipe to the side. In context of the whole rear, the necessary crease of the bumper, thin lines and sculpted out surface of the lower fascia and skirting minimize the potential for a heavy looking rear due to the flatter clean surfaces.

Even lines that aren't dynamic.

The following theme from the rear to the body side is the lower concave section that evenly flows. There is an issue with things that are visually even, that being a result of something that lacks emotion. This unfortunately is also reflected on the upper half of the body side that features the connection to a front fender vent. Unusually this element does not fade away into the rear fender, but continues with a similar intensity to the other side of the fender, then rudely stops. Further up to the beltline, a long spear/accented edge does a few things, one being the visual connection between the front and rear lamps, secondly creating a crisper edge on an otherwise softer surface, but most importantly, has a character that alludes to a feeling of elegance. Together, these three horizontal lines do create the appearance of length, so the reasoning to my negative opinion can still be argued that this would appeal to an audience who is not looking for something that is ‘dynamic’, but rather.length…

Perhaps a bit too aggressive for a somewhat more elegant side and rear

Unlike the boring interplay of lines on the body side, the front is slightly more exciting with spears across the lower section of the fascia and above the left and right escutcheons. There is still evidence of the emotionless efforts of styling, but what is more displeasing is the relationship of the overall design the front end has to the rest of the car. Connotations of elegance across the side, and chrome details at the rear don’t match the front that hints of aggression through the sporty bonnet bulge and barbeque front grille, both of which are suited to something that is more utilitarian.

Proportionally tough and sturdy

Proportionally, the Taurus is very balanced, with generally shorter overhanging front and rear, and a low cant rail and high belt line that creates a slim DLO – very concept car-like. The body masses are placed in the right areas, specifically the tall body sides alluding to a car that is weighted down and not appearing top-heavy. Efforts to reduce what could possibly look like and chubby car from the body side though a sculpted section is a bit obvious because of its emotionless clinical nature.

I’m not sure how I feel about a ‘utilitarian-elegance’ for this Ford. It does have place for the likes of a Subaru, but in this case, I’m left more confused. As an evolution from its predecessors, I think it’s still a positive move, but if Ford could be a bit more specific about what their aesthetic aim was for this car, and did it with a bit more passion, I would be better. Perhaps a face lift would help?