Trying to tell one four-door sedan from another usually requires a clear view of the front or rear because so many look alike in profile.
When a midsize sedan pulls alongside, only the most astute observer may be able to quickly tell if it is a Chevrolet Malibu, Nissan Maxima, Chrysler Sebring or Kia Optima.
Even from the front or rear, it often helps to get close enough to recognize the emblem on the grille or read the fineprint on the trunk.
It almost seems like the auto companies share a design studio. It can’t be coincidence that a Chevrolet can be mistaken for a Toyota and a Kia sedan looks like a Nissan. And if you’ve seen one sport-utility vehicle, haven’t you seen them all?
Instead of exploring the styling limits that consumers will accept, most car companies seek the safe middle ground, doing what their rivals do. The result is a mass-market blandness like the food served at chain restaurants, and the main differences are usually garnishes such as grilles and taillights.
What happened to originality in car design?
“It’s very expensive to develop a new product, $1 billion at least. Even a facelift costs $500 million,” says Wes Brown, an analyst with auto industry forecasting firm Nextrend. “To get it wrong can be devastating.
“So what you see is a lot of very conservative, evolutionary changes from the car companies. They don’t want to alienate the people who have already bought earlier versions of that model.”
Brown says Japanese manufacturers in particular play it safe with styling.
“They’ve become more conservative as their volume has gone up. They don’t want to take risks,” he says.
The Toyota Camry midsize sedan is a prime example. The best-selling car in the U.S. from 1997 to 2000, the Camry is universally praised for its quality and frequently panned for its bland looks.
Steve Sturm, Toyota’s marketing director, accepts the criticism.
“When designing a car in this class, you have to be somewhat risk averse. You have to be careful not to push the envelope too far,” Sturm said. “You want to make it look new, progressive, but you don’t want to go too far. A car with cutting-edge styling ages much quicker.”
Sturm says styling usually ranks sixth to eighth among buying considerations for midsize cars depending on the model. Practical considerations such as quality, reliability and durability, safety and value are most important.
Midsize sedans look alike, he adds, because they have to meet the same requirements for space and safety. They need crumple space at the front and rear for safety, room for passengers and luggage, doors wide enough for easy entry and exit, and windows that give the driver a good view.
The problem is more accute on compact and subcompact sedans, which have to meet similar requirements but give designers less sheet metal to work with. The result is that the 2002 Toyota Corolla, for example, looks like a blood relative of the Nissan Sentra.
“No designer wants to make a `me-too’ car, but once you meet all these requirements, most cars are going to take on a somewhat familiar tone,” Sturm said. “There is a lot more latitude in sports cars because you’re not as concerned about the packaging.”
The Camry was redesigned for 2002 to a more stylish appearance, and Toyota is pitching it to younger buyers as a car to desire instead of need.
“Our customers told us the one missing element has always been the emotion. We wanted to put more desire into it,” Sturm said.
Brown thinks Toyota was too cautious with the new Camry, and he says the danger of that approach is that it appeals mainly to current owners instead of attracting new buyers, especially younger ones. Long term, that increases owner loyalty but creates an aging buyer base.
Examples of models that aren’t attracting new buyers abound, according to Brown, who thinks recent versions of the Honda Civic and Accord, Chrysler’s minivans and the Ford Explorer were too cautious.
Sturm counters that, “People who want a stylish, sporty car tend to buy coupes or luxury cars,” and he points to the Ford Taurus as an example that went too far. The Taurus was the top-selling car in the U.S. until a redesign in 1996.
“People in this class don’t like radical departures. The Taurus was a radical departure, and there was huge resistance to it. Ford had to bring it back to a more traditional look,” Sturm said. “If you’re going to wind up risking the franchise, why take that risk?”
When Ford introduced the front-wheel-drive Taurus in 1986, it had groundbreaking aerodynamic styling. Taurus replaced uninspired rear-wheel-drive sedans and attracted thousands of new buyers to Ford showrooms.
A 1992 restyling gave a subtle, evolutionary update, but the 1996 redesign was a complete change to an elliptical shape that made the car look smaller, though it was larger. Ford toned down the styling in 2000.
“The next generation of larger Ford sedans will be more straightforward, far less styled,” Ford design director J Mays said in an interview at the Detroit Auto Show last month. Mays includes the Taurus among larger sedans.
“We’re not on a path to be the design leaders with those cars, and we will try to make our customers happy,” he said.
Ford’s heritage models such as the Thunderbird and Mustang, and smaller models such as Focus, will continue to be expressive, but cars such as Taurus will be more restrained.
“That is appropriate for the customer we’re looking for, the family-car buyer. They will be very contemporary but conservative enough to find ready acceptance in the marketplace,” Mays said. “Ford has been slightly too adventurous with design in the last 20 years.”
General Motors, however, will use styling as a key attraction under Bob Lutz, who took over last fall as head of product development. Lutz held a similar role at Chrysler in the 1990s when the “cab-forward” look of the Dodge Intrepid and Chrysler Concorde was introduced.
“We have to go beyond the Japanese. We need the same level of quality plus exciting design. An ugly domestic won’t sell,” Lutz said. “You can’t overcome bad design with lots of interior room.”
The Malibu was designed to look like the 1992-’96 Camry, but Lutz says imitating the Camry, even matching its quality, is not enough.
“The thinking was the more the Malibu looked like the Camry, the better it would sell. So Malibu looks like Camry, even down to the logo,” Lutz said in an interview. “But to get buyers back, we need to make our cars compellingly beautiful so that consumers will want to get in them and then be happy about the quality.”
Brown says that once a car achieves sales success, it is less likely to see radical changes because most car companies consult current owners to plan future models.
“When they ask owners what they like about their cars, of course they say, `I love my car. That’s why I bought it.’ Ask them what they would want in a new one, and they say, `Just make it look new,'” Brown said.
“Designers are supposed to decide what future products look like. To ask a consumer to design their car for three to five years from now is moronic.”
Lutz agrees and has decreed that GM will rely less on consumer research to design cars such as the Malibu and more on the gut instincts of its designers.
“I’m not a big fan of research and focus groups. I like to check my intuition against the public marketplace. When you sift through a lot of research data, you get a one-size-fits-all design,” Lutz said.
“Design it boldly the first time and then show it to people and if you turn on the public and you get excellent consumer reactions, it indicates you have a hit on your hands. We need to be more sensitive to the importance of design.”
That philosophy reinforces the approach at Pontiac, the GM car division that appeals to the emotions of buyers through sporty styling and performance.
It is noteworthy that the first concept car Lutz shepherded through since joining GM last year is the Pontiac Solstice, a two-seat roadster on display at the Chicago Auto Show.
Pontiac’s midsize Grand Prix doesn’t sell in the same numbers as the Camry (129,000 last year versus 390,000 for the Camry), but brand manager Bob Kraut says the Grand Prix generates passion among owners usually reserved for cars such as the Chevrolet Corvette or luxury brands such as Jaguar.
There are several Grand Prix owners clubs, the largest of which has more than 12,000 members. Dozens of members traveled to Chicago from different states last week to see the first public display of the Grand Prix G-Force show car at McCormick Place, a preview of the 2004 production model.
“These are the type of people who carry pictures of their children in their wallets and pictures of their cars,” Kraut said. “A lot of companies have over-processed their package with a jelly-bean design, and they lack soul and heart. The styling of a car says a lot about the customer.
Which is which
Similar sizes and safety regulations make it difficult for car manufacturers to come up with distinct designs. See if you can match the cars at right with these specifications.
1. Nissan Maxima
Wheelbase: 108.3 inches
Length: 190.5 inches
Height: 56.3 inches
Width: 70.3 inches
Track (front/rear): 60.2/59.4 inches
Weight: 3,218 pounds
Seating: 5
Head room (front/rear): 40.5/37.4 inches
Shoulder room (front/rear): 56.9/56.2 inches
Hip room (front/rear): 55.3/53.7 inches
Legroom (front/rear): 44.8/36.2 inches
Cargo volume: 15.1 cubic feet
Passenger volume: 102.5 cubic feet
2. Chrysler Sebring LX
Wheelbase: 108 inches
Length: 190.7 inches
Height: 54.9 inches
Width: 70.6 inches
Track (front/rear): 60.2/60.2 inches
Weight: 3,246 pounds
Seating: 5
Head room (front/rear): 37.6/35.8 inches
Shoulder room (front/rear): 55.2/54.7 inches
Hip room (front/rear): 52.5/53.1 inches
Legroom (front/rear): 42.3/38.1 inches
Cargo volume: 16 cubic feet
Passenger volume: 94 cubic feet
3. Kia Optima
Wheelbase: 106.3 inches
Length: 186.2 inches
Height: 55.5 inches
Width: 71.7 inches
Track (front/rear): 60.2/60.2 inches
Weight: 3,190 pounds
Seating: 5
Head room (front/rear): 39/37.6 inches
Shoulder room (front/rear): 56.9/55.7 inches
Hip room (front/rear): 55.8/54.4 inches
Legroom (front/rear): 43.3/36.2 inches
Cargo volume: 13.6 cubic feet
Passenger volume: 100 cubic feet
4. Chevrolet Malibu
Wheelbase: 107 inches
Length: 190.4 inches
Height: 56.7 inches
Width: 69.4 inches
Track (front/rear): 59/59.3 inches
Weight: 3,051 pounds
Seating: 5
Head room (front/rear): 39.4/37.6 inches
Shoulder room (front/rear): 55.5/55.3 inches
Hip room (front/rear): 52/52 inches
Legroom (front/rear): 41.9/38 inches
Cargo volume: 17.3 cubic feet
Passenger volume: 98.6 cubic feet
Match game
Here are the answers.
A. Chrysler Sebring (2)
B. Kia Optima (3)
C. Chevrolet Malibu (4)
D. Nissan Maxima (1)
