Not important part (background):

So I took this class this semester called Conceptual Ideation. Basically it's all about how to come up with good original ideas for art (which I could use the help in). For our first project, the teacher asked us to do a "redux" of something we failed at in the past. I chose to revisit the Aveo redesign I submitted for a C&G sketch competition a few years ago, which was undeniably very, very bad.

My aim is to design a subcompact car that is typically practical and economical, but looks like it can beat every other subcompact to a pulp. The teacher was encouraging me to make something as wild and futuristic as I could imagine, but it seems to me anything really radical would just come off too cutesy on a small car (e.g. Chevy Spark). So I am trying to take it in a more classical direction.

Important part:

So what I would like to know is, what typical automotive styling features convey to you a sense of power, aggressiveness, and sportiness?

It's mostly in The Face. Angry headlights, scowling grillework... The Face is what makes ppl get over in the slow lane when approached from behind by and angry-faced car. Strong wheel arches, big wheels and a wide track v. body width and maybe a wedge profile also convey automotive aggressiveness.

The current Aveo has an angry face, but it is made ineffective because the rest of the car is pure wimp.

I am not really a fan of anger on the face of non-sports cars. The '59 Buick is an exception, because back then, it was basically a one-car division, and that one car had to convey many different personalities through a plethora of bodystyles and trim levels.

Edited September 7, 200915 yr by ocnblu

Hmmm. Power could be suggested via flares fenders, a domed hood, a front fascia that leans forward, larger grille area, some degree of venting/ scoops, larger wheels, exhaust pipes. The now-typical fodder.

That said, you can accomplish a large portion of all that with the right stance, ride height/angle, and how well the wheels fit the wheel openings.

Personally, there is no reason in my mind that you could not take the awesome agressive look of the CTS-V and make an Econo box size auto that would grab peoples attention. So that means the following list of must have to look mean.

Fender flares,

Hood bulge or Hood scoop.

Dual exhuast in the back

HID Head Lamps or LED

Low profile tires, not run flates, but instead of 13" rims with really flexible tires, maybe 17 or 18" rims with a tire that only has a 2" side wall.

Turbo 4 banger under the hood

Racing style tail lights

3 1/2" ground clearance

I hope you get the Idea of what I think would sell well in an Econobox size car.

Racing style tail lights

Talk about a phrase that means absolutely nothing (aside from bringing up images of cheap ebay aftermarket tail lights for a civic).

Talk about a phrase that means absolutely nothing (aside from bringing up images of cheap ebay aftermarket tail lights for a civic).

I actually can see circle LED tail lights on a properly done Eco box car. No reason to have bland single bulb tail lights. His teacher does want him to think futuristic and wild.

I actually can see circle LED tail lights on a properly done Eco box car. No reason to have bland single bulb tail lights. His teacher does want him to think futuristic and wild.

Then say LED tail lights. It has nothing to do with racing.

I have been watching road racing and have seen some pretty nice looking taillights.

I agree on the mean looking face. One of my favorite small car front clips still:

IMO a lower roofline such as the Saturn example looks more agressive, but all small cars are are so much taller these days. Makes them roomier, but doesn't help when trying to avoid the cutsey look.

The Neon, '95-'99 in particular IMO do a good job of balancing cutsey and sporty as well.

Edited September 8, 200915 yr by fightingbee

If you can find a way to make a subcompact car long, low, and sleek with a good stance you'd be on to something.

It's also easier said than done. You have much, much less surface area to work with. Dimensions are, obviously, minuscule. Most subcompact cars have a problem with how the wheel openings relate to the front fender surface, making the tires look small and the overall stance look weak.

The Dodge Hornet concept, although very, very boxy, had nice wheel openings that related well with the front fender surfaces. It also had a decent stance as well.

I suggest you use the Mini Cooper as rule of thumb. If you could apply aggressive Chevrolet styling cues to its proportions, I think you could find a winner.

Notice the Mini has a very minimal overhangs and a good body to glasshouse ratio. It doesn't look too tall but doesn't look short, either. The stance is ok.

Also consider the Ford Fiesta, although its proportions (while nice) lack compared to the Mini:

This is not what you want:

Neither is this:

To be honest, you don't want this either:

Good luck.

I greatly appreciate your input, guys.

There's athletic aggressive, and there's brute aggressive. For example, that dodge concept up above is more brute aggressive. The Saturn is more athletic aggressive. Athletic aggressive features curves, long thin headlights, and a low stance and as little wheelgap as possible. Brute aggressive features a blunt nose, stronger lines, big round or squared lights.

This is not what you want:

Really if they reshaped those side creases a bit straighter, changed that odd quarter window, got rid of some of the stubbiness in the rear, and dumped the lower half of that huge grille, the Aveo5 could look halfway decent.

Really if they reshaped those side creases a bit straighter, changed that odd quarter window, got rid of some of the stubbiness in the rear, and dumped the lower half of that huge grille, the Aveo5 could look halfway decent.

It's just putting lipstick on a pig.

The first-gen Aveo really did look like one of these:

Why be an Easter egg when you can be the eagle?

Why be an Easter egg when you can be the eagle?

The Dodge Hornet is so wicked. It would be top of the class if it ever got built.

I have been watching road racing and have seen some pretty nice looking taillights.

James what is that orange car? I like It looks lik some clubman from the UK

The orange car is a KTM X-Bow. Really cool little track car.

^WANT

Thanks again for y'alls input. Hopefully I'll have something to show by next week.

Edited September 9, 200915 yr by §carlet §wordfish

You have chosen the toughest class of vehicle to make look right with agressiveness.

I have to agree on stance and wheel/tire size vs. wheel opening fit as a good place to begin.

It would be nice to see a car in this class without a chopped-off ass for a change too.

Quick question:

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj21/Do...veo_sedan_a.jpg

or

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj21/Do...veo_sedan_b.jpg

?

A was meant to reference the Nova, but I don't know if it overdoes the curvaceousness of the rest of the car. B reminds me of something Henrik Fisker said about the Alfa 156, that it looked sporty despite (or because) it did not have a fast C-pillar. I dunno if that quite works here.

Hard to get a sense of scale from those...

There's a problem with your design. The glasshouse-to-body ratio is not right. There's too much glasshouse and it makes the car looks too top-heavy and tall. Other than that, I didn't see much difference between A and B. You seem to have some details right, though. I like some of the lines and the flared fenders. It reminds me of an old 1970 Chevelle that got shrunk in the wash.

It's about 164 inches long and about 57 inches tall. Slightly smaller than the current Aveo sedan.

It's really too late to make any major design changes other than this choice.

The diff twixt the 2 was the C-pillar.

'A' came off as 'sportier' to me because it evoked the '70s Corvettes.

But I did have a hard time getting past the intial reaction (as whiteknight stated) : body-to-greehouse porportions are too 'econo / mainstream' rather than sporty.

Very tough to get sporty out of such a stubby proportion (167" x 57") without getting radical with the 2- / 3-boxes in relation to each other. IE; the concept Spark had a very high cowl- this 'switched it up' WRT the car's visual interpretation. Radical / shocking comes off as more 'hardcore' (since it's less mainstream)... and look where the production Spark was 'forced' to go- more mainstream and more... dumpy.