10 boring cars: neither attractive nor ugly

Acura RL / RLX

When Acura released images of the new RLX, I was disappointed. I think the swoopy character line on the sides is homely, and the rest of car is undifferentiated from a lot of the other midsize luxury cars on the market. The RLX made me think of some other cars that are neither good looking or unattractive, but rather boring. Click through for 10 examples.

Acura RL

1. Acura RL: As mentioned in the intro, I've never understood where the RL fits in. The design is completely dated, and could have potentially looked cutting edge 10 years ago. It's a perfectly capable car, but probably not what Acura executives would prefer to be their flagship offering.

Lexus ES

2. Lexus ES: Yawn...the ES is soooo boring. The first-generation model had cool taillights that looked like a baby LS, but the current model looks more like a tarted-up Camry than ever. The average ES-owner is probably well into retirement age (not that there's anything wrong with that!), and reviewers consistently describe how bland the ES's performance and handling are.

Audi A8

3. Audi A8: The Audi A8 is by no means ugly; in fact, it is quite handsome. However, it does not have the excitement that the S-Class or 7-Series have. The A8 is actually a fairly boxy design if you think about it. What makes the A8 work are the subtle curves, technology, and, frankly, the Audi logo. I would love to own an A8, but it is not the first car that comes to mind when I think "excitement".

Honda Pilot

4. Honda Pilot: My guess is that Honda saw the success of the Jeep, Hummer, and wanted in on the action. While the resulting Pilot is similarly boxy, it is by no means rugged or cool. It is extremely bland and devoid of character. Not ugly, just boring.

Toyota Corolla

5. Toyota Corolla: Ugh. Renting a compact car and winding up with the Corolla is like drawing the short straw. Everyone knows someone with a Corolla. They are endlessly reliable, last forever, and capable enough to handle the average person's daily commute. However, that makes the Corolla ubiquitous, and it happens to be a boring design as well! When the current generation first came out, it was stylish, but Toyota hasn't made enough changes over the years to substantially update the car, and the competition has certainly caught up.

Dodge Journey

6. Dodge Journey: Everyone's heard of the Dodge Durango, but most people haven't heard of the Journey. The interior was never up to par, but there is something too "dainty" about the exterior. I don't know what it is...maybe the chrome accents? Taking a step back, the design looks more like a minivan than a rugged SUV. It's not ugly, but falls through the cracks because of its run-of-the-mill style.

Kia Forte

7. Kia Forte: Most of Kia's current lineup is, dare I say, exciting. Cars like the Optima, Elantra, and Sportage have brought Kia's reputation to a new level. The Forte was the first car to preview Kia's new design language, but compared to the others cars I just mentioned, the Forte looks tame in comparison. It is a good design, but there is not enough going on for the Forte to resonate in people's minds. Hopefully the next model will inject some more uniqueness.

Nissan Altima

8. Nissan Altima: As I mentioned in a previous post, I don't understand the Nissan Altima. Unlike the Fusion and Sonata, both of which are beautiful designs, the Altima is blobby and disproportioned. In 5 years time, it will blend in on the highway, just like every other previous Altima has.

Scion xD

9. Scion xD: The Scion xB has always had a cult following for its boxiness. The tC is a cool coupe with lots of standard features. However, the xD makes no sense. It costs about as much as the xB, but is smaller and isn't as distinct looking. The xD replaced the xA, which also prompted the question, "what's the point?"

Subaru Forester

10. Subaru Forester: I understand why people - especially in the Northeast - get Foresters. They are good in the snow and have plenty of room to store things in the back. However, it is so nondescript. Some people call it an SUV, others (like me) call it a wagon, so it's stuck somewhere in the middle and suffers from weird proportionality.

The Acura ILX ... and other examples of forced corporate design language

Acura ILX

In my opinion, there is something unnatural and forced-looking about the new Acura ILX. I would never pay $25-30k for this car. It is a Civic-based competitor to other sub-entry-level luxury cars like the Buick Verano and Audi A3, and I think Acura really missed a great opportunity here. The Acura family grille doesn't bother me (although I know some would disagree) as much as the ugly crease running along the side of the car and the fact that the door handles are IDENTICAL to those on the Civic. Yeah, Acura - don't think I didn't notice that! On its own, the door handle issue is unacceptable (see previous blog post). The rear end is marginally attractive but boring, and the interior is a watered down version of the TSX. The 150hp I-4 engine is probably no more interesting to drive than a Civic. The Integra and RSX were also Civic-based, but they somehow worked because they attempted to be sporty and scrappy, as opposed to luxurious, as the ILX does. I could imagine a Civic to be sporty, but not luxurious.

However, since I haven't driven or even sat in the ILX, I don't intend to review the car. Instead, I wish to point out a trend that the ILX exemplifies, that many car makers have failed when they try to push corporate design language downwards to the base model. Click through for some more examples.

Dodge Avenger

I don't dislike the Avenger, but I don't love it either. The Avenger is an obvious attempt to apply the Charger's aggressive lines on Chrysler's midsize platform. Chrysler showed a strong effort, but somehow they lost the Charger's edginess along the way. The crosshair grille, character lines on the rear doors, and distinctive taillights of the Charger are present, but toned down too much.

Mercedes GLK

As a Mercedes fan, it pains me to say it, but the GLK looks like a mess - a confluence of various design cues found on other Mercedes models that don't jive when mixed together. I see a little C, G, and M-Class in the GLK, but the mini-SUV is too boxy in places it shouldn't be, and too round in other places. The redesigned version (not shown here) is a little better but doesn't completely solve the problem.

Lincoln MKZ

Lincoln MKZ

The Lincoln MKZ is another example of wrongly forced corporate design language. Lincoln was obviously given the Ford Fusion platform and told to turn brass into gold. The designers must have thought they needed a "Lincoln-like" grille and taillights, so they slapped them on. The resulting design was an awkwardly edited Fusion clone. Lincoln did not fool anyone; there is a good reason why their sales have not been very good. I give Lincoln designers kudos for trying to substantially differentiate the dashboard, but unfortunately the result was terrible. The dashboard looked like a relic from the '60s or '70s and was oddly vertically oriented, and not very ergonomic. Fortunately, the interior was overhauled in the second-gen model.

Mazda 3

Mazda 3

The last example I'll provide is the Mazda 3. I know there are a lot of fans out there, but if I'm being honest, I think the first-gen Mazda 3 is much more attractive than the current version. I've always liked the styling on the Mazda 6 - including the latest version - but it somehow didn't translate gracefully on the smaller Mazda 3. The front fascia is a matter of taste, but I think it is way too big and cheesy. The rear end is too boxy in my opinion, and I don't like the shape of the taillights. Overall, I think Mazda tried way too hard to squeeze the attractive parts of the 6 on the 3, and it backfired.

Honda Insight review: why does it get such a bad rap?

The car I was driving in my previous post on the Ferrari 458 was the Honda Insight, one of my favorite Zipcars because of its lower hourly cost compared to gas-powered cars. While the Prius is overall a better car than the Insight, there are many things I actually like about the Insight. Contrary to just about every review out there, I actually don't mind driving the Insight. Click through to see my impressions:


In a number of ways, the Honda Insight is very similar to the Toyota Prius, especially from the side profile. The original Insight from the late-'90s was the first mainstream hybrid to hit US dealerships, even before the Prius. It was a weird-looking 3-door hatchback that looked like it needed training wheels. Honda attempted to make the car as aerodynamic as possible, and in the process, probably alienated certain prospective buyers. However, in the latest iteration, the Insight looks mainstream, yet refreshingly futuristic.

The front end looks great - more so than the more bland-looking Prius. The traditional 3-bar Honda grille, which looks ghastly on the Crosstour, looks much better on the Insight. The plastic around the headlights has an interesting blue tint that adds to the car's mystique.

Compared to the Prius, the Insight accelerates slower, but neither car is fast by any means. The Insight's engine sounds like a lawn-mower and accelerates at only one speed - slow. However, you're not buying a 5-door hybrid for performance; you're buying it for gas mileage, status, and for the environment (all worthy causes in my book). The Insight's regenerative braking is an awesome idea that all cars (including gas-powered ones) should have, and it makes for fairly responsive braking.

I was disappointed by the crummy plastic hubcaps, which can't be very aerodynamic. The original Insight had distinct flat alloy wheels that appeared to easily cut through the wind.

The Insight's interior does not have the fit and finish of the Prius, but it is also priced lower than Prius. The layout is much simpler and filled with hard plastics, but the dashboard is pleasantly contoured, similar to the Honda Fit and now-defunct Acura RSX. If you keep in mind that the Insight targets economy hybrid buyers, it isn't so bad.

Simple yet trendy, the Insight's radio and A/C controls are easy to figure out and look appealing. This base model does not have the trademark computer screen the Prius has, but who needs that anyway? It only adds to the sticker price.

One thing I love about the Insight (and Civic Hybrid) dashboard is the little blue light surrounding the speedometer, which turns green when you are using the electric motor (i.e., when you lift off the gas or hit the brakes). For me, driving the Insight becomes somewhat of a videogame to keep the light green as long as possible, especially given the inherent lack of power in the engine.

The final comment I would make is how practical the Insight is. I had to buy some large pillows and bedding and the Insight easily fit the large packages in the spacious trunk. The only problem with the design of the Insight (and the Prius) is that the spoiler cuts right into my rearview visibility. Otherwise, I think this 5-door hatchback is a great design concept. Overall, I would definitely consider buying the Insight if I was looking for a hybrid given its lower price point, intelligent color-coded dashboard, spacious trunk, and scarcity value - you don't see as many on the road as the relatively ubiquitous Prius, so the Insight is much more of a head-turner.

Volvo S40 review...an interesting, yet odd car

A few months ago, Volvo announced that the S40 sedan and V50 wagon will soon be discontinued. After I had a chance to flog a Zipcar S40 this weekend, I understand why...sort of. The S40 has a number of lovable quirks, but I don't think it ever found its place amongst the sea of other entry luxury sedans. Click through to see my impressions.

The S40 never competed with the serious contenders -- the C-Class, 3-Series, A4, IS, G, TL, and CTS -- but it never intended to. It is priced in the mid-to-high $20ks, well below the aforementioned competitors, and in part due to its smaller size, the S40 finds itself competing with entry-entry-luxury sedans, like the Saab 9-3, Acura TSX, and Audi A3. Buyers in this range want a sporty European sedan without the high price point. The Chrysler 300, Buick Regal, Dodge Charger are larger yet attractive, luxurious American alternatives, but don't likely raise the pulse of a prospective S40 buyer. A top-of-the-line Toyota Camry, Hyundai Sonata, Honda Accord, Nissan Altima, or Chevy Malibu may have some of the creature comforts the S40 buyer is looking for, but are probably way too boring. Volvo is a respectable name associated with safety, and the S40 has an intelligent, attractive Swedish-looking design, inside and out. The S40 is largely unchanged since its redesign in 2004, but it still looks fantastic on the road. When you tell your co-workers that you drive a Volvo, you will appear to have good taste in a humble manner.

So, I get the competitive positioning, but how is the car to drive? Unfortunately, it's a mixed bag. The biggest disappointment was the car's acceleration. The only engine available is a 227hp 5-cylinder turbocharged engine, but I felt like the S40 only had 2 speeds: low and low/medium. If I wanted to go fast, mashing the gas pedal to the ground would produce the same predetermined-feeling acceleration trajectory as if I was to step on the pedal halfway. I don't think my lack of excitement is caused by general turbo lag. In comparison, I felt like the turbocharged Audi A3 was ready for blast-off at my beck and call. The various turbo Saabs I've driven (yes, including my '92 9000!) were peppier than the S40. One positive aspect of the engine: its sound. The 5-cylinder has a pleasing purring sound, quite similar to the VW Golf's 5-cylinder engine.

The S40 has a decidedly Swedish-looking interior. Some people don't love it, but I think the thin center console is really attractive and practical, since you can store things behind it. The Zipcar model I drove had fake plastic looking metallic trim, and would look much better with the optional wood grain pattern. Compared to the A3, the radio and dashboard gauges look ancient...a reminder that the car hasn't had a meaningful update since 2004. However, all of the basic ingredients of an entry-luxury sedan interior are there: leather seats, in-dash phone, premium audio, sunroof, power and heated seats, automatic climate control, etc. The seats are very ergonomic and great for long trips.

Don't mind my leg in the picture :)

This weekend I had to buy a coffee table and area rug at Ikea. The Ford Escape or Toyota Tacoma may have been more practical, but I really wanted to drive a Swedish car to Ikea (now I can cross that off my bucket list). The coffee table was packaged (unassembled, of course) in a thin but wide box (55" x 31" x 3") and the store clerk worried that it may not fit in a standard sized sedan. However, the rear seats folded down easily and the large box and long rug surprisingly fit in the trunk quite nicely. Major +1 in my book.

Plenty o' room for cargo!

To summarize, would I buy this car if I was in the market? Probably not - the Audi A3 would win without question. However, the S40 would probably win my money over the Saab 9-3. While Volvo strategically sends the S40 to its grave, the entire Saab brand is on the brink of extinction.

Here are the pros and cons of the S40:

Pros:

• Looks fantastic inside and out
• Ample room for large objects
• Decent brand prestige
• Good value for the money - premium features for an entry-entry luxury price

Cons:

• Sluggish engine
• "Aluminum" trim looks and feels cheap
• Outdated audio / entertainment interface

Top 10 ugliest SUVs of all time

Pontiac Aztek

SUVs are a relatively modern phenomenon, rising in popularity in the mid-90s and losing steam in the late-00s when gas prices rose. In this short amount of time, we've gotten some great designs (which I will save for a subsequent post) and some scary designs. I want to spend time discussing the latter. I've ranked the top 10 ugliest SUVs, in order of bad to worst. Click through to see:

Mercedes GLK

10. Mercedes GLK. If you haven't already noticed, I am a huge Mercedes fan...so it pains me to include the GLK on this list, but it must be done. The GLK is oddly proportioned throughout. The front end looks like a cartoon character, the sides are too boxy, and the car looks pretty wimpy for an SUV. The interior is up to Mercedes' standards, but the exterior falls short of competitors like the Q5 and SRX.

BMW X3

9. BMW X3. BMW has finally fixed the awful Bangle-era styling of its 3, 5, and 7 sedans, but there's still something very displeasing about the X3 - too many nips, tucks, creases, and bends for my liking. The rear windows between the C and D pillar are an ugly shape, and I don't like the little downward curls and creases on the sides of the car. The front end is nothing extraordinary. The interior is the design's only saving grace in my opinion.

Acura ZDX

8. Acura ZDX. As the Honda Crosstour's ugly sister, the ZDX has had a hard time getting notoriety as a contender in the swoopy-SUV category. After the success of the Mercedes CLS, all the car manufacturers are racing to get 4-door coupe designs on as many vehicles as possible - sedan and SUV. The ZDX is Acura's answer to the BMW X6, but falls short. The front end has Acura's ugly shield, the rear doors have Pathfinder-like handles, and the rump is too big. Acura tried way to hard on this one.

Jeep Compass

7. Jeep Compass. Jeep screwed up on the Compass / Patriot combo. The quirky Compass was meant for the female demographic, while the boxier Patriot was for the male counterpart. Instead, why not create 1 vehicle the entire population would want to buy? Neither car could actually go off road; based on the Dodge Caliber, this platform was meant to be an SUV-like successor to the Dodge Neon. The harmless looking Patriot was the less egregious of the 2 Jeeps. Meanwhile, the Compass is a hot mess of design cliches. We've got the triangular front indicator lights, the word "Compass" is written in huge letters on the fake aluminum-trimmed bumper, the D-pillar is ugly and provides poor rear visibility, and the rear doors have Pathfinder-like handles (similar to the aforementioned ZDX) to give a fake-coupe look. None of this works, and the car hasn't sold well. For 2011, Marchionne has ordered up some much-needed improvements to the front end and the bargain-basement interior...but is it enough?

Infiniti QX

6. Infiniti QX. One word to describe the QX: ghastly. Check out my article on Infinitis...nuff said.

Lincoln MKT

5. Lincoln MKT. The MKT would make a good hearse, but not much else. Check out my Lincoln article.

Nissan Murano CrossCabriolet

4. Nissan Murano CrossCabriolet. Kudos to Nissan for trying to push the design envelope...but it didn't work, sorry. The Murano's front end looks like a frog; shedding 2 doors and roof does not help its case. There is something unflattering and hunchbacked about the design. The rear lights are awkward, similar to the Toyota Venza. For close to $50k, I don't understand why you would get an unsporty convertible instead of the myriad of true 4-seater convertibles in that price-range. And if you're dead set on an SUV convertible, get a Jeep Wrangler.

Subaru B9 Tribeca

3. Subaru B9 Tribeca. There is something very feminine about the Tribeca's design. Nothing wrong with femininity, but a dainty SUV fundamentally confuses me. The front end is one of the biggest trainwrecks in modern auto design history. The rest of the car is forgettable and irrelevant. The dashboard is shaped in an ugly swirl. Subaru tried too hard to innovate, and the result was one of the ugliest SUVs in history.

Honda Crosstour

2. Honda Crosstour. What's the only thing worse than an Acura ZDX? Its hideous sister the Honda Crosstour. This ugly duckling came very close to unseating the #1 ugliest SUV. The Crosstour is Honda's self-indulgent take on the swoopy SUV, mixing a variety of poor design cues. When the car was revealed on Facebook, the overwhelming number of negative responses resulted in one of the worst marketing campaigns in history. Honda is so embarrassed of the bad publicity, that they removed "Accord" from the nameplate, which is now just "Crosstour". The front end is oddly proportioned and the grille looks like it was yanked off of a last-gen Honda Odyssey. The rear end is jacked up too much, and whereas the Porsche Panamera can pull off a big rump, the Crosstour doesn't manage to. Time for an emergency redesign, Honda.

Pontiac Aztek

1. Pontiac Aztek. The king of ugly SUVs reigns supreme! Despite being out of production for over 5 years, AND despite the fact that the Pontiac brand does not exist anymore, the Aztek is still often mentioned in car publications in reference to the quintessential ugly SUV. The Aztek concept was a cool idea - a study to design the most functional SUV. But when the concept met reality, too many design features were scrapped and the vision was compromised beyond repair. Excessive gray plastic body cladding, ugly wheel arches, an amphibious "double grille", an oddly-slanted rear end, and frumpy proportions throughout plague this car to this day. I personally believe the Aztek was the catalyst (followed by the G6 GXP) that eventually brought Pontiac to its demise.

Honorable Mention:

• Toyota Venza


• (First-gen) Toyota RAV4


• Buick Rendezvous


• Saab 9-7X


• Chevy Blazer


• (Current-gen) Honda CR-V

Three reasons why I would not buy a 2011 Infiniti

As I go through the current Infiniti lineup, my grievances really boil down to 3 categories:

1) The weird "podium-style" dashboard
2) The fact that each car has a near-identical Nissan counterpart, either as a US or JDM model
3) Disappointing exterior styling compared to competition

I can't comment on the ride, acceleration, braking, etc., as I have not driven any of Infiniti's current cars, but that is not the point of this post. From reading popular auto mags, most reviewers draw the same conclusion anyway: Infinitis produce decent performance, but are either on par with or slightly worse than European competitors. When was the last time you saw an Infiniti win a car comparo? I can't even remember.

Click through to see my explanation.


Reason #1: Podium-style dashboard

Current Infiniti M

Last-gen Infiniti M

The quality of Infiniti's materials is certainly up to par, but there's something very unflattering (in my opinion) about the layout of Infiniti's interiors. Every time I sit in an Infiniti, I can't help but reminisce about sitting in a Nissan Quest, or any other minivan for that matter. Look at the angle of the instrument panel under the clock in the last 2 generations of Infiniti Ms, and compare it to the last 2 generations of Nissan Quests below - it is a very unique angle specific to Nissan, and I can't imagine it is as ergonomic as, say, the traditional vertically-oriented dashboards of the E-Class, 5-Series, or A6. The angle of Infiniti's dashboards was even worse 5-7 years ago - kudos to Nissan for toning it down in recent years - but they clearly have a lot of work left to do.

Current Nissan Quest

Last-gen Nissan Quest

Infiniti's weird dashboard angle also affects just about every other model, including the G, FX, and the now-discontinued Q (see pictures below). The Q was by far the worst offender. The QX escaped the wrath, but has so many other issues to discuss later.

Infiniti G / EX interior

Infiniti FX

Discontinued Infiniti Q - the worst offender!!

Reason #2: Nissan Clones

Infiniti has a checkered past in its efforts to differentiate its clone models from their Nissan counterparts.

Nissan Skyline / Infiniti G

The Infiniti G was sold in Japan and other countries as the Nissan Primera in early years, and now as the Skyline. As a car enthusiast, this practice cheapens the prestige of the Infiniti brand. Not every US car buyer knows this (and many do not care), so Infiniti is able to sell cars. Think about it - Mercedes are sold as Mercedes everywhere, and same goes for BMW, Audi, Cadillac, etc. The 3 Japanese luxury brands (Acura, Infiniti, and Lexus) came to the US in the early 1990s to try to establish themselves as legitimate luxury competitors, but are still sold under the non-luxury brands (Honda, Nissan, and Toyota) in other countries. Would the Infiniti G37 sell as well in the US as a Nissan Skyline? Definitely not. Buyers pay more for the Infiniti brand. I will not be fooled into paying a premium price for an Infiniti that is sold as a Nissan elsewhere!

Nissan Fuga / Infiniti M

The Nissan Fuga / Infiniti M has the same problem as the G, in terms of rebadging a car in the US that is sold as a Nissan in Japan.

Nissan Patrol / Infiniti QX

Funny how the Nissan variant looks (slightly) better than QX. Simple is always better, Nissan! Also, not shown here, the previous-gen QX56 was an exact replica of the short-lived Nissan Armada, both of which were sold in the US market. In my eyes, that dynamic had a terrible effect on the cachet of the original QX56.

Infiniti I / Nissan Maxima

I know the focus of this post is current Infinitis, but I need to mention the I35, which is fortunately not in production anymore. I despise this car. It was a lightly disguised Nissan Maxima (another car whose existence I do not understand), but made more unattractive by fussy styling - interior and exterior. At least the Infiniti J30 had a distinctive look (even though it is not everyone's cup of tea).

Infiniti QX4 / Nissan Pathfinder

I also have to mention this old "gem", also fortunately no longer in production. Nissan affixed a slightly modified front-end on the Pathfinder, swapped the logos, and put 3-spoke wheels on the car, and US buyers actually paid a premium for the QX4! Unbelievable. Say what you will about the Lexus RX, at least it did not resemble anything similar in Toyota's lineup.


Reason #3: Uncompetitive Styling

Infiniti EX

When I saw the Infiniti EX in pictures for the first time, I thought they were targeting the Tiguan / GLK / Q5 / X3 market, but when I saw the car in person, it looked more like a station-wagon version of the Infiniti G. The black molding running around the entire car doesn't work well - I think they were going for the Volvo XC70 / Audi Allroad look, but the EX falls short and looks cheap. Otherwise, the car doesn't look bad - I like the FX-inspired taillights and the G-inspired front end. What a shame.

Infiniti QX

See my post about portholes - they ruin this car, and only belong on Buicks. The proportions of the car are also way off - the front end looks distorted, the sides are too slabby, and the rear end is droopy and blobby. Who in their right mind would buy this over the abundant large-SUV competition (Mercedes GL, Jeep SRT8, Escalade ESV, Lexus LX, Toyota Land Cruiser)?

Infiniti FX

Generally speaking, I think the FX is one of Infiniti's brighter spots. When it first came out, it was very unique-looking and had a distinct exhaust tone. But there are a couple pitfalls I want to point out in the latest redesign: first, the air vents on the sides are gaudy and unnecessary (again, see my air vent post - Infiniti is a repeat offender!). The headlight arrangement is also quite odd - I almost like it, but the proportions are a tad awkward. It's missing something, but I don't know what!

Infiniti M

I really dislike the rear-end of the M. It is exceedingly uncompetitive compared to European and even American competition. The trunk line resembles the Suzuki Kizashi (not flattering!). I like the character lines on the sides, but don't love them. I can't tell if the side profile resembles a Maserati Quattroporte or a last-gen Buick LaCrosse...but I'm leaning toward the latter. And we've already talked about the interior...

Infiniti G37

This leaves us with the G37. I think the styling has actually improved with each iteration - the current version is quite muscular and attractive. Plus, the exhaust note is pleasantly distinctive. However, I have to compare this to the C-Class coupe and sedan, A4/A5, CTS coupe and sedan, and 3-Series coupe and sedan, and conclude that the G37 styling is not compelling enough to win my $40k. To be fair, I do believe the G37's styling is more appealing than the IS and TSX, but that's not saying much.