12/03/2013 at 12:44 • Filed to: None | ![]() | ![]() |
Well, doesn't matter, it is only a rendering.
![]() 12/03/2013 at 12:45 |
|
Just say no...
![]() 12/03/2013 at 12:45 |
|
Not at all, Ew.
![]() 12/03/2013 at 12:51 |
|
I like it. Now just give me a 6MT and AWD Nissan!
![]() 12/03/2013 at 12:52 |
|
Somehow I like it! They finally toned down the fog lights!
![]() 12/03/2013 at 12:54 |
|
I suppose it's an improvement over this...
![]() 12/03/2013 at 12:57 |
|
was just about to post a comparison as well.
I actually like the fog lights on the original, but the headlights on the author's.
![]() 12/03/2013 at 12:57 |
|
much, but the pressed ham fender flairs need a little re-work too.
![]() 12/03/2013 at 12:57 |
|
no kidding.
![]() 12/03/2013 at 13:03 |
|
You can have 6MT, but you must lose the AWD to get it.
![]() 12/03/2013 at 13:05 |
|
well, that actually applies to the Juke as well.
![]() 12/03/2013 at 13:23 |
|
Worse.
The Juke works because it doesn't look like every other car. But in a harmonious way.
A facelifted Juke with a Rogue nose would blandify it.
![]() 12/03/2013 at 13:39 |
|
True. It looks better, but then it loses the ugliness that gave the Juke its unique character.
![]() 12/03/2013 at 13:56 |
|
WAYYYY better than its current incarnation, but that rear is a mess. However, if they put the rear of the Murano on it, it'd look like extremely bulbous.
![]() 12/03/2013 at 14:01 |
|
Much!!
![]() 12/03/2013 at 16:04 |
|
I was going to say exactly this. not better just more generally like-able
Also I hate corporate faces. that's why I'm so glad the Cherokee isn't just a baby G. Cherokee.
![]() 12/03/2013 at 20:02 |
|
Take my monies!