FRONT BUMPER Variations - 86 vs BRZ Gallery

[Red-86]

After thinking on it for a bit, I think the problem is that the new bonnet (hood for you Americans ) and styling makes the car look narrower and taller than gen 1. It might not be in terms of raw measurements, but visually from the front, the bonnet looks too tall.

From the side, the main problem is that the crease line that runs over the front air vent behind the front wheel curves down aimlessly. Instead of being a strong horizontal line that carries back into the door (as in Sketch Monkey's version), it just droops down sadly and looks incoherent with the rest of the car.

Darker colours hide this problem (e.g. WRC blue), but in that silver on the reveal car, it looks awful. I suspect the GR86 version will have the same problem. A shame.

[gymratter]

its the other way around for me. i think the BRZ will look better in darker colors like blue and black. hids some of the weirdest going on in the front.

[Dzmitry]

Originally Posted by Red-86

After thinking on it for a bit, I think the problem is that the new bonnet (hood for you Americans ) and styling makes the car look narrower and taller than gen 1. It might not be in terms of raw measurements, but visually from the front, the bonnet looks too tall.

From the side, the main problem is that the crease line that runs over the front air vent behind the front wheel curves down aimlessly. Instead of being a strong horizontal line that carries back into the door (as in Sketch Monkey's version), it just droops down sadly and looks incoherent with the rest of the car.

Darker colours hide this problem (e.g. WRC blue), but in that silver on the reveal car, it looks awful. I suspect the GR86 version will have the same problem. A shame.

Looking at photos, the height has bothered me as well. Though the journalists that have seen it seem to claim that it looks low and wider than before. Same as they claim that it looks refined and beautiful. Kind of blows my mind that this car would be so non-photogenic. But in some ways, it's what I hope for, since so far I have not been thrilled with the looks at all.

[Palm Avenue]

Looks like an RX8 mated with a Nissan Ellure.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Dzmitry

Looking at photos, the height has bothered me as well. Though the journalists that have seen it seem to claim that it looks low and wider than before. Same as they claim that it looks refined and beautiful. Kind of blows my mind that this car would be so non-photogenic. But in some ways, it's what I hope for, since so far I have not been thrilled with the looks at all.

Pictures of cars used to be taken from five to six feet up which would be your normal average viewing heights.




Then at some point in the late eighties or early 90s the advertising world decided that people would rather see what cars looked like from 8 to 12 inches off the ground. That angle of photography has stuck ever since. It sucks because not many people actually view cars from that perspective!

[Sport-Tech]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Pictures of cars used to be taken from five to six feet up which would be your normal average viewing heights.
...

That Challenger still looks sweet 50 years on. Can't say the same for the AMC lineup.

[Sport-Tech]

Originally Posted by Dzmitry

Looking at photos, the height has bothered me as well. Though the journalists that have seen it seem to claim that it looks low and wider than before. Same as they claim that it looks refined and beautiful. Kind of blows my mind that this car would be so non-photogenic. But in some ways, it's what I hope for, since so far I have not been thrilled with the looks at all.

I didn't give much weight to the photos, depending on the lenses used, focal length, zoom factor etc. there can be a lot of optical distortions introduced. IMO the new BRZ looks far better in that Love Cars walkaround video of a WRB car posted earlier which gives a more comprehensive view. (And to Tcoat's point above, that video was mostly shot from a normal viewing height.) The Love Cars video took me from "Meh" to "I want" in about 30 seconds. (Why Subaru chose a silver car for the initial reveal is a mystery, the car looks so much better in WRB.)

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Sport-Tech

That Challenger still looks sweet 50 years on. Can't say the same for the AMC lineup.

Oh I don't know the performance versions of some of those AMCs were pretty sweet as well.

[Sport-Tech]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Oh I don't know the performance versions of some of those AMCs were pretty sweet as well.

Well that's a big step up from the Pacer, I'll give you that.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Sport-Tech

Well that's a big step up from the Pacer, I'll give you that.

I would take that in a heartbeat.


But... Welll…
Just read through this
https://www.ft86club.com/forums/show...=143253&page=2

[extrashaky]

Originally Posted by Sport-Tech

That Challenger still looks sweet 50 years on. Can't say the same for the AMC lineup.

Be fair. You're trying to compare cars that were four years apart. Compare them year for year. This is the '70 Javelin, which competes pretty well against the '70 Challenger in the looks department.



Four years later cars had gotten uglier across the board. This is the '74 Challenger:

[Sport-Tech]

^It's certainly closer year to year but that great AMC paint job aside I would still favor the Challenger. The Javelin's more compact form is a big plus though. (My father had a nicely preserved 69 GTO convertible about the size of that Chally and that thing was a tank.)

[Dake]

Originally Posted by beltax90

love how last gen had a "mustache" and now this one has a goatee

Worse than that - it's a soul patch.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Dake

Worse than that - it's a soul patch.

And mutton chops!