by "Dasupersprint - base trim is enough" (dasupersprint)
Published 11/01/2017 at 16:28
by "Dasupersprint - base trim is enough" (dasupersprint)
Published 11/01/2017 at 16:28
No Tags
STARS: 1
I’m a hatchback guy, I really want to like the hatch over the sedan but... I don’t? What’s your opinion, sedan or hatch?
"SpeedSix" (speedsix)
11/01/2017 at 16:30, STARS: 1
I just noticed how misplaced the rear reflectors on the hatch appear - never studied it in detail.
"HammerheadFistpunch" (hammerheadfistpunch)
11/01/2017 at 16:33, STARS: 8
Sedans are just wagons that haven’t reached their potential.
"davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com" (davesaddiction)
11/01/2017 at 16:34, STARS: 1
I’d have the hatch.
"Dasupersprint - base trim is enough" (dasupersprint)
11/01/2017 at 16:35, STARS: 2
OR sedans are hatchback with cancer
"facw" (facw)
11/01/2017 at 16:35, STARS: 1
I’ll take the hatch though the sedan doesn’t look bad.
"Textured Soy Protein" (texturedsoyprotein)
11/01/2017 at 16:35, STARS: 1
Generally I prefer hatchbacks over sedans.
In this case the sedan looks much better but the hatch has a better interior and is more expensive. The hatch has more available options, but only combined with the DCT. If you want a loaded stick the sedan has more options but not as much as the loaded DCT hatch.
"HammerheadFistpunch" (hammerheadfistpunch)
11/01/2017 at 16:38, STARS: 0
eh. Hatchbacks are just an intermediate evolutionary step towards the highest level
"CaptDale - is secretly British" (captdale)
11/01/2017 at 16:38, STARS: 0
Usually sedan over hatch any day, but I dislike Hyundai. Let me just tell you right now I dislike them for lots of reasons. And seeing them from the dealer side.... ugh
"Chariotoflove" (chariotoflove)
11/01/2017 at 16:40, STARS: 1
Both look about as good. So, go for greater utility with the hatch.
"ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable)" (adabofoppo)
11/01/2017 at 16:42, STARS: 0
Let’s see...
Wife drives: 08 Saturn Astra 5-door hatch.
My previous DD: 02 SVT Focus 3-door hatch.
Current DD: 16 GTI 5-door hatch.
yeah...
"duurtlang" (duurtlang)
11/01/2017 at 16:43, STARS: 1
Compact sedans tend to look hideous (opinion) but this one doesn’t look worse than the hatch. Still though, I’d pick the hatch for practicality reasons.
"PanchoVilleneuve ST" (PanchoVilleneuve)
11/01/2017 at 16:44, STARS: 0
The GT Sport is more practical and has a nicer interior than the sedan Sport. They’re otherwise the same, same engine, same upgraded suspension. Also, if cost of living is a factor, the wheels on the GT are 17", opposed to 18" on the sedan, and I can tell you from experience that 18" performance tires are just almost too expensive.
"AestheticsInMotion" (aestheticsinmotion)
11/01/2017 at 16:47, STARS: 1
Sedan, but I much prefer the hatch grill.
They both look good though
"DC3 LS, will be perpetually replacing cars until the end of time" (dc3ls-)
11/01/2017 at 16:48, STARS: 1
For me. Liftback > Hatch > Sedan.
"Future next gen S2000 owner" (future-next-gen-s2000-owner)
11/01/2017 at 16:48, STARS: 0
Looks more like a wagon than a hatch.
"DC3 LS, will be perpetually replacing cars until the end of time" (dc3ls-)
11/01/2017 at 16:50, STARS: 0
Also I’m going to have to go the opposite of Atlas VP. Hatch over sedan for compacts and vice versa for mid/full size. (IMO liftbacks are just more practical sedans.)
"Dasupersprint - base trim is enough" (dasupersprint)
11/01/2017 at 16:50, STARS: 0
Well there’s an Elantra liftback coming, but it looks ungainly?
"Dasupersprint - base trim is enough" (dasupersprint)
11/01/2017 at 16:52, STARS: 3
This is the wagon!
"DC3 LS, will be perpetually replacing cars until the end of time" (dc3ls-)
11/01/2017 at 16:56, STARS: 1
I think I’d just go for the hatch in that case.
"Roadster Man" (roadsterman)
11/01/2017 at 16:58, STARS: 8
All the sedans you posted look like jelly beans. Here’s a real sedan:
"Dasupersprint - base trim is enough" (dasupersprint)
11/01/2017 at 17:02, STARS: 1
the question was about Elantras
"RiceRocketeer Extraordinaire" (ricerocketeer2)
11/01/2017 at 17:12, STARS: 0
gib nao
seriously Hyundai if you are reading this, bring an N version of the Elantra wagon here and I will buy one and sing your praises for the end of time
"Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies" (jordanwphillips)
11/01/2017 at 17:22, STARS: 0
The nicer interior is only available with an auto.
"Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies" (jordanwphillips)
11/01/2017 at 17:22, STARS: 0
Having seen both in person, the hatch is ugly, while the sedan looks quite nice. After driving it though, I wouldn’t buy one.
"PanchoVilleneuve ST" (PanchoVilleneuve)
11/01/2017 at 17:36, STARS: 1
Really? That sucks.
"RT" (rt-p)
11/01/2017 at 17:38, STARS: 1
Both are somewhat smart-looking with a few nasty shortcomings.
For example: the chrome at the side of the hatchback doesn’t catch light properly, so it’s just there - looking flat and cheap.
When it comes to the hatch though, it looks remarkably similar to these.
All are similarly proportioned two-box shapes. All have thick C-pillars and lack quarter windows. All have rounded shoulders and deep sills. All have a rear door shut line that avoids tracing the flattened arc of the rear wheel arch. In short, they all look very similar, three peas from the same dull grey pod.
Granted, I still prefer the hatch to the saloon. After all, the saloon has tiny windows and a roof that slopes far too soon - killing off any possibility of having rear headroom. There’s your answer, it’s the hatch for me, even if I find the design to be playing it a bit safe.
But you did get me thinking, compact cars used to look much more individual. Now we’re just in a Golf-clone factory.
"for Michigan" (formichigan)
11/01/2017 at 17:39, STARS: 1
All the had to do was give the sedan a taller trunk/longer roof, but instead they gave us a malformed turd of a hatchback.
"Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies" (jordanwphillips)
11/01/2017 at 18:21, STARS: 0
And driving wise, the manual is the only redeeming quality.
"Vicente Esteve" (vicente-esteve)
11/01/2017 at 19:00, STARS: 0
After having a hatchback for the good part of 3 years and a sedan for 3 months, sedan all the way.
"Svart Smart, traded in his Smart" (svartsmart)
11/01/2017 at 19:08, STARS: 1
Hatch by far, in this particular case.
"Kat Callahan" (kyosuke)
11/01/2017 at 19:16, STARS: 1
Hatch
Hatch
Sedan
"Roadster Man" (roadsterman)
11/01/2017 at 21:52, STARS: 2
That’s a terrible question.
"Brian McKay" (brianmckay)
11/02/2017 at 03:44, STARS: 0
Let’s all buy ugly Chinese, Korean, and Japanese mommy-mobiles!
"Dasupersprint - base trim is enough" (dasupersprint)
11/02/2017 at 08:14, STARS: 0
What is that good looking white Renault? (second from last)
"Dasupersprint - base trim is enough" (dasupersprint)
11/02/2017 at 08:15, STARS: 1
I know!
"Dasupersprint - base trim is enough" (dasupersprint)
11/02/2017 at 08:20, STARS: 0
Right? They game the same platform to two different continents and that’s what came out
"Dasupersprint - base trim is enough" (dasupersprint)
11/02/2017 at 08:21, STARS: 0
okay
"Roadster Man" (roadsterman)
11/02/2017 at 09:55, STARS: 1
OK then I’d say hatchback to be honest.
"Klaus Schmoll" (klausschmoll)
11/02/2017 at 10:09, STARS: 1
Some sport trim of the pre-facelift R19.
"Steve is equipped with Electronic Fool Injection" (itsalwayssteve)
11/08/2017 at 08:56, STARS: 1
I like the hatch better.
"Amoore100" (amoore100)
11/08/2017 at 09:00, STARS: 0
“Compact cars used to look more individual.”
Yeah, something like that.
"RT" (rt-p)
11/08/2017 at 10:13, STARS: 1
Haha, they all have square headlights. But what about their actual shape, construction and form? I’m using black and white images of three door base models for a more objective comparison on identity.
The Peugeot sticks out with its triangular c-pillar and indentations which catch light (see below the window and on the bumper). It gives the car a sporty - yet composed look, as as expected of Pininfarina.
The Volkswagen instead relies on rounded, albeit blocky forms for a more robust appearance. The complex linework and flared arches indicate the quality of the steel presses used - a very rational design.
Moving on to the Fiat, we see a combination of the VW’s sensibilities and the Pug’s flair. In coming together, they do appear diluted though, with the cheaper line-work. Still, proportions may save it.
I’ll give you this: the Talbot and Nissan were much more akin to the photocopier styling of today - but both of them are outliers to the compact segment anyway. We all know of the awkward financial situation at Talbot and Nissan’s N13 being a bit of an afterthought for them. Regardless, I’d still argue the 205 and Golf were some of the best designs signed off by each respective company in recent years - they each convey a huge amount without compromising functionality.
It all goes to show what a good design can do.
"Amoore100" (amoore100)
11/08/2017 at 20:34, STARS: 0
Granted what you’ve outlined there are two magnificent designs, one by Pininfarina and one by Bertone, and a bunch of copy cats, not too different from today.
The lines on other cars are similarly “played with” to achieve different aesthetics, and in terms of differentiation it’s a bit of a reversal of roles as lights play much more into a car’s character nowadays than they obviously did then.
Besides, there are still plenty of style leaders, although “style” is a relative term when it comes to the Civic hatch.
"RT" (rt-p)
11/09/2017 at 12:28, STARS: 0
Car designers are now far more trained than before and have much better tools at their disposal. But I would still say modern car design is a bit stagnant - this recent quote from BMW’s post-Bangle design director sums it all up:
There is no such thing as car design: it’s a mixture of product design and graphic design.
Quite frankly, it’s worrying. The car was always a 3D form - a sculpture. If it’s confused with ‘graphics’ or you get designs like this.
For more, I recommend this article which I was paraphrasing earlier in this reply. The four primary features mentioned (purpose, structure, aerodynamics and engineering) are, to me at least, more important than just putting lines everywhere and calling it a day.
By the way, I don’t think Bertone did any of the cars you mentioned, which one were you talking about?
"Amoore100" (amoore100)
11/09/2017 at 17:15, STARS: 0
Sorry, Italdesign—my bad, I forgot that Giugiaro made the jump from Bertone before the ‘70s.
But to say that “things were better before” would be making the oft-made mistake of remembering the past through rose-tinted glasses; for us, the past is remembered fondly only because we’ve forgotten about those that made it less than perfect. I mean, imagine you’re placed into an American parking lot in the ‘70s. Besides a few icons here and there, all you’re gonna see are squared off, angular land barges with sealed beam headlights and big toothy grilles—no different from today where in between timeless Giulias and, perhaps, Golfs, there are just a myriad of shapeless crossovers and sedans. Besides, you’re preaching to the choir—in my Anthropology Gen Ed. this morning I spent the entire time doodling fascias for modern cars that would be less violently distasteful and tacky than we have today, and I do believe that I succeeded to an extent despite having zero artistic talent or experience.
"RT" (rt-p)
11/09/2017 at 19:04, STARS: 0
Believe me, I’m with you - there were plenty of times in the past where most cars on sale didn’t look all that interesting.
That being said, I still have a hunch that some years were better than others, even if we’re talking in broad strokes. You mentioned how in the 70s, a car park in the states would look pretty depressing - and you’re not wrong, post-oil crisis at least. But now, dig this picture of an American car park circa 1970:
All the cars pictured are polluting, unsafe and ridiculously dated mechanically. But they look a lot cooler to my eyes than this:
Technologically, this is leagues ahead - but if you squint it looks like a bunch of fridges lined up, only a few cars stick out.
And there you have it. Cars are getting better every year, but their design (while now limited to stricter constraints) does leave something to be desired. Plus, people who think this is a good idea…
…do make me more cynical about the way the industry is headed. Even I have perspective though. Cars are transport first and foremost, so every car doesn’t have to be spectacular (and they never all were anyway). I’m also willing to admit we’ve made leaps and bounds of general progress in design, for better or worse - but cars of today are certainly more of a sight than they were 10 or 20 years ago.
If I can pick favourites, I still obsess over cars from the ‘late 60s-early 70s’ and ‘mid-late 80s’ the most, since that’s where we got the most ‘interesting’ cars on sale at the same time. But now is now, and I truly believe we may getting close to the same level of cool in the near future.
In fact, let’s end this by posting those doodles of those fascias if you’re up to it, you got me curious after all. :P
"Amoore100" (amoore100)
11/10/2017 at 01:12, STARS: 0
I see what you’re saying, but IMO that’s more of a statement of preference than design values.
For me, this is more interesting than either of those, but not for any justifiable reason—just what I find significant or interesting; in fact, the ‘80s are such a fascinating period for me
because
cars looked so staid and similar and so designers had to get creative to make subtle tweaks here and there.
I think the argument you’re making is also on color—what if the modern lot had been filled with the same cars but across an entire palette of hues? I think you’d find far more variation: sedans, SUV’s, hatches, wagons, etc. rather than a lot full of American three-box designs with a Beetle here and there.
Anyways, I’m an engineering student so I have zero eye for design—in retrospect, I essentially recreated ‘90s versions of all the brands I chose to represent, and I also have decided that Honda should replace the chrome-stache with a full-width lightbar a-la ‘80s Mercury.
"RT" (rt-p)
11/10/2017 at 04:29, STARS: 1
Nice, I said ‘I obsess over cars from the mid-late 80s’ for a reason lol.
And sure, the car parks probably have something to do with colour and chrome, even if that might be a trend in itself. I think you could even justify that 80s car park as being more interesting for more objective reasons too, but again - that’s preaching to the choir right? Enough analysis for now.
That Honda fascia reminds me of this somehow too.
Easily one of Honda’s better recent designs imo.
"Amoore100" (amoore100)
11/10/2017 at 10:51, STARS: 1
Interesting, I hadn’t recalled that one—I was just trying to take the current Accord and make it palatable somehow; what irks me is that so many recent designs have come close to being nice, but the designers just go too far. The Accord could have been gorgeous, but then someone just came up and ran a steak knife down the side of the clay model and no one stopped them.
I’ve always preferred the original FCX concept myself, it really pioneered the full-length grille-headlight treatment from Honda although the production car looked a lot better (which may be a first).
"RT" (rt-p)
11/10/2017 at 18:57, STARS: 1
I like the FCX too, though the concept I linked predates it by two years, making it Honda’s first full-length grille-headlight car…
…except it isn’t. The 1988 City has it beat.
Well played, Honda.
"Amoore100" (amoore100)
11/11/2017 at 00:27, STARS: 1
Well what I meant is that the FCX has more of the angularity that you see in modern Honda design with the raked headlights and lateral unibrow—and how much better the chrome bar would be as a light bar.