this new fiesta from ford looks like every other hatchback in production exatctly the same how do you tell these vehicles apart ?why design something supposedly new which looks like all the competition?
As Pete Seeger wrote back in the Sixties “little boxes little boxes and they.re all made out of ticky tacky and they all look just the same”
By: Moggy C - 3rd September 2008 at 06:48
Went to Volvo for some class.
That’s a phrase you don’t see very often :p
Moggy
By: atr42 - 3rd September 2008 at 01:19
Had a few Sierra’s. Last being a 2.0 GLX. S*** off a shovel, loved it. Bought a Mondeo, hated it. A mound of s***.
Went to Volvo for some class. Anyone lend me some money for a new XC60?
By: Moggy C - 1st September 2008 at 07:23
The Sierra was never front-wheel drive, it was rear-wheel (or, occasionally, four-wheel) drive. The Mondeo was Ford’s first front-wheel drive repmobile.
You know.. I did get that completely the wrong way round.:o
The fleets still went for the Vauxhalls at first.. so maybe it was GM’s move to FWD that made the Sierra, eventually, more acceptable.
I’ll stop digging now.
Moggy
By: Arabella-Cox - 31st August 2008 at 16:16
new fiesta
Hardly jaw dropping
the photo says it all ,i rest my case,that could be any small family car
,corsa, seat,toyota,fiat,peugeot,audi,etc etc,the old addage ,same size same shape different colour springs to mind.
By: BlueRobin - 29th August 2008 at 17:41
Hardly jaw dropping
By: Gromit - 29th August 2008 at 08:22
To be fair it was the first front-wheel drive repmobile and the fleets stayed away in droves until the concept proved itself after a few years. Moggy
The Sierra was never front-wheel drive, it was rear-wheel (or, occasionally, four-wheel) drive. The Mondeo was Ford’s first front-wheel drive repmobile.
By: J Boyle - 28th August 2008 at 17:22
If you call being nick-named the “Jelly Mould” and sending hordes of Cortina customers over to Vauxhall ‘a big hit’ yes it was.
Moggy
But i do recallseeing hordes of them in the UK in the late 80s…
German made turo examples were even imported (briefly) into the USA.
I rather liked their looks…but anything was upmarket from the 1-litre Toyota Starlet I was driving at the time…:D
By: MrBlueSky - 28th August 2008 at 16:59
When I renew my car lease every few years they usually offer me free ‘flat’ colours. Plain red, blue or white normally, black is apparently more expensive because (they say) it requires an extra coat. Metallics are more expensive too, that said they did give me a free metallic choice last time I took a new vehicle from them.
Very few cars nowerdays are sprayed with a direct gloss finish (A straight colour of white, red, blue etc… You know if you have one as the colour will show on the cloth as you polish.) Black has for along time always cost more, but this is something left over from God knows how many years when an extra coat was applied to enhance the depht of gloss.
But black now is no different from any other colour, as all finishes are 2 stage finishes, meaning a coloured solvent/waterbased basecoat, over sprayed with a two-pack lacquered top coat. And apart from 3 stage pearlescents or custom paint finishes all cost exactly the same… 😉 So if anyone says different their talking… :rolleyes:
And on a slightly different tack, don’t think metallic paint needs a “special” wax, all your polishing is the lacquer, not the basecoat colour underneath and as I said before all colours now are Clear/base any wax will do… 😉
By: Moggy C - 28th August 2008 at 12:14
Wasn’t the new rounded Sierra a big hit in the mid-80s?
If you call being nick-named the “Jelly Mould” and sending hordes of Cortina customers over to Vauxhall ‘a big hit’ yes it was.
To be fair it was the first front-wheel drive repmobile and the fleets stayed away in droves until the concept proved itself after a few years.
The later models, after a succession of mini-facelifts, gained the sort of acceptance familiarity breeds.
Moggy
By: Ren Frew - 28th August 2008 at 11:05
I can never understand how manufactures can charge extra for their colours… :confused:
I have a small bodyshop and there is no difference in the price I have to pay for any of the standard colours I use to refinish damaged vehicles, be it for a metallic or straight finish. It’s just a rip off!
When I renew my car lease every few years they usually offer me free ‘flat’ colours. Plain red, blue or white normally, black is apparently more expensive because (they say) it requires an extra coat. Metallics are more expensive too, that said they did give me a free metallic choice last time I took a new vehicle from them.
By: frankvw - 28th August 2008 at 07:10
Neither can I, but I can tell you that it was 500€ on a Focus for silver… (Well, as a matter of fact, not really, it was included in some options pack 😀 )
By: MrBlueSky - 27th August 2008 at 23:33
Well, white seems to be in fashion, but you must also remember that for most manufacturers (Ford for sure), white is the only “color” where you don’t pay extra. (sometimes, black too).
Red adds a little, and the metallic paints usually add something like 500€..
Not that I’d get a white one, except if I bought an utilitarian vehicle (delivery truck, … ). But I digress.
I can never understand how manufactures can charge extra for their colours… :confused:
I have a small bodyshop and there is no difference in the price I have to pay for any of the standard colours I use to refinish damaged vehicles, be it for a metallic or straight finish. It’s just a rip off!
By: frankvw - 26th August 2008 at 22:57
Well, white seems to be in fashion, but you must also remember that for most manufacturers (Ford for sure), white is the only “color” where you don’t pay extra. (sometimes, black too).
Red adds a little, and the metallic paints usually add something like 500€..
Not that I’d get a white one, except if I bought an utilitarian vehicle (delivery truck, … ). But I digress.
By: BlueRobin - 26th August 2008 at 21:52
Is it me or has there been a bloom in white 08 plate Fiestas, particularly STs? Is white the new silver?
By: J Boyle - 26th August 2008 at 18:49
Because the market place is conservative.
The ones that look a bit like all the others invariably outsell the ones with a bit of individuality or style.
Car makers are there to make profits from sales, not to preserve an art form at their own expense.
Sad, but true.
Moggy
I don’t disagree, but there are some exceptions…
Wasn’t the new rounded Sierra a big hit in the mid-80s?
Also, the U.S. Ford Taurus was the first to break away from the square formal style saloons and was a big hit starting in 1986. General Motors dismissed it as “jelly bean” styling and soon learned how popular they were.
So sometimes it does pay off .
By: atr42 - 26th August 2008 at 17:44
Looking at their brochures Volvo seem to think the new XC60 has a lot of individual design about it.
Sadly I can’t afford to find out. Will just have to go and press my nose up against the showroom glass like I did with the aircraft model shop window all those years ago!:D
By: Moggy C - 25th August 2008 at 22:56
this new fiesta from ford looks like every other hatchback in production exatctly the same how do you tell these vehicles apart ?why design something supposedly new which looks like all the competition?
Because the market place is conservative.
The ones that look a bit like all the others invariably outsell the ones with a bit of individuality or style.
Car makers are there to make profits from sales, not to preserve an art form at their own expense.
Sad, but true.
Moggy
By: J Boyle - 25th August 2008 at 20:53
Pete Seegar is an idiot and was writing about homes….but I digress.
A lot of hatches look pretty nice, considering the “two box” limitations on styling (and various rules to make them safe & pedestrian friendly).
They’re kind of like American cars of the mid-20s to early 30’s, same basic architecture…little “box” for the engine, bigger box for passengers.
The only way you could tell them apart were minor variations on the radiator surround.
Sign In
August 25, 2008 at 6:05 pm