January 8, 200619 yr It's definite improvement over the Durango (which may be the ugliest vehicle out there now, with the demise of the Asstek...)
January 8, 200619 yr In it's final years, I wouldn't necessarily call the Aztek ugly. It broke the mold design-wise and certainly had it's odd angles, but it never disgusted me as the Durango does upon seeing it. Once it shed it's plastic cladding and was fitted with the larger wheel package, it almost looked attractive. Edited January 8, 200619 yr by Bimmer325
January 8, 200619 yr In it's final years, I wouldn't necessarily call the Aztek ugly. It broke the mold design-wise and certainly had it's odd angles, but it never disgusted me as the Durango does upon seeing it. Once it shed it's plastic cladding and was fitted with the larger wheel package, it almost looked attractive. [post="69854"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post] ugh...I'm sorry; I am a GM fan to the end, but I dont think anyone should get away with using the words 'aztek' and 'attractive' in the same sentence. =( I'm going to have to dissagree. The durango, while quite ugly, is not nearly the embarassment the aztek was. But that's just my opinion, and of course you're entitled to yours...just felt the need to throw in my .02 =) <3
January 8, 200619 yr That's what I was thinking, but still not a fan. Really dislike the grille and lights, although lightyears better than the Durango. [post="69292"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post] Nice new pic, Paolino!!! :AH-HA_wink: (sorry for off-topic)
January 8, 200619 yr In it's final years, I wouldn't necessarily call the Aztek ugly. It broke the mold design-wise and certainly had it's odd angles, but it never disgusted me as the Durango does upon seeing it. Once it shed it's plastic cladding and was fitted with the larger wheel package, it almost looked attractive. Nah, it was all-ugly all the time...esp. in garish colors like yellow and orange...
January 8, 200619 yr Chrysler! What's wrong with you? You were so cool before, what happened?! It looks disgusting...
January 8, 200619 yr I'm going to go ahead and assume this is a chop. There's no way Chrysler would approve a design that hideous for production. If I'm wrong, I'd say Chrysler's turnaround has reached it's peak. [post="69057"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post] I agree. This is too horrible to be real. But, they also have that Imperial concept which is even worse. I think the design department, which was one of he best, Is suffering from collective blindness.
January 9, 200619 yr No look at the Spy pick they look exactly the same, just face it Chyrsler lost its good look mojo after the refreshend Ram.
January 9, 200619 yr I don't think its a photochop. It's clearly a picture from a magazine. The person worked with the image in Photoshop before publishing it. Way to BLOW Chrysler. Mark
January 9, 200619 yr While I don't love it or hate it, it's looks much better in "normal" (not grainy) pictures:
January 9, 200619 yr From the b-pillar back it looks like a CSV with Grand Cherokee taillights. And the front still has a party deck and a grille that tries too hard to look like the 300's.
January 9, 200619 yr Fly, it's called a bumper. It's kind of illegal not to have one. [post="68720"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post] You sure? I seem to see alot of Rav-4's running around without them.
January 9, 200619 yr I think it looks pretty good - but how will Chrysler sell this once the new Buick Enclave comes out? They had better sell as many as they can in the next 12 months... because once the Enclave arrives the lights will be out for the Aspen.
January 9, 200619 yr I think it looks pretty good - but how will Chrysler sell this once the new Buick Enclave comes out? They had better sell as many as they can in the next 12 months... because once the Enclave arrives the lights will be out for the Aspen. [post="70913"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post] The Enclave has got to cost much more than this .
January 10, 200619 yr The Enclave has got to cost much more than this . [post="70962"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post] Possibly. What does a loaded Durango cost? You can easily add $5K to the cost of a loaded Durango. My guess is that it would place this at or over $40K. My guess is that the Enclave will start in the high $30K's and run up in the mid $40K's. That means that while the Enclave will sell without discounts and the Aspen will not... But the reality is that the Aspen will not compete against the Lexus RX and GX while the Enclave will.
January 10, 200619 yr You sure? I seem to see alot of Rav-4's running around without them. [post="70884"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post] Rear bumpers are not required on trucks. Mark
January 10, 200619 yr This thing is no beauty, but it's not exactly ugly either, like the Durango is. So this should appeal to the mopar fans who want a big trucky SUV and don't find the Durango quite to their taste. This also probably cost next to nothing to develop.
January 10, 200619 yr Did Chrysler really need an SUV this bad? Sure..they needed a big SUV that was more luxurious than the Durango.. something to compete with the Yukon. Edited January 10, 200619 yr by moltar
January 10, 200619 yr It's an ugly truck. I'm sorry, but it's not attractive at all, IMO. Period. What a let down after outrageous looks of the 300 and company, and the Imperial. Whether you love or hate the Imperial, it'll draw a reaction. This is just terrible.
January 11, 200619 yr Let's go ahead and continue the discussion here since the official pics are out: http://www.cheersandgears.com/forums/index...?showtopic=4824
