Why are cheap cars ugly?
Discussion
I've always wondered this. I understand smaller manufacturers won't have a budget as big as bigger ones, but I don't understand why budget directly corresponds to how appealing a car looks. Most people have the ability to tell if something looks nice or not, and I'm not talking about divisive stuff. There are some outright ugly cars e.g. early Hyundai and Kia, Perodua, Daewoo, even Daihatsu. Surely even an apprentice car designer can draw up a decent-looking car? Maybe the tastes of eastern markets are just a lot different, because I notice cars in Malaysia and South Korea tend to be uglier than ours.
A lot of the early Korean cars were rehashed. Cars such as the Opel Belmont became the Daewoo Nexia. Same with Perodua and Daihatsu who often got rehashed Japanese cars. The R&D has been paid for as has the tooling. Ugly cars in Asia are still a car and the difference between surviving in everyday life that we don't think about.
We're conditioned in the West to styling and luxury whereas an Asian person (where most of these cars are marketed) will find that he can use his Yaris Verso for family and business - function is often still king.
We're conditioned in the West to styling and luxury whereas an Asian person (where most of these cars are marketed) will find that he can use his Yaris Verso for family and business - function is often still king.
I'd go far as to say some of it might be down to who their target country/geographical area. Most are meant to appeal internationally but it's mainly geared as an aspirational product in developing countries. These countries want cheap motoring for social mobility. They don't want something flashy looking.
case in point the K13 micra (below) just gone. Ugly, crap looking car that feels cheap. designed for india and all over the world. It was given bad reviews here.
.jpg)
The new K14 micra coming out, getting good press and is geared towards europe.
.JPG)
Ford seem to have done the very opposite of the above with the Ka.
mk2 Ka, fashionable, youthful, stylish, handles well for such a small car
Ka+
Box on wheels based on the older fiesta platform meant to be cheap and basic. mainly designed for india.
case in point the K13 micra (below) just gone. Ugly, crap looking car that feels cheap. designed for india and all over the world. It was given bad reviews here.
The new K14 micra coming out, getting good press and is geared towards europe.
Ford seem to have done the very opposite of the above with the Ka.
mk2 Ka, fashionable, youthful, stylish, handles well for such a small car
Ka+
Box on wheels based on the older fiesta platform meant to be cheap and basic. mainly designed for india.
Not just cheap cars are ugly. There've been some big bertha howlers too in recent years. What about the Audi Q7, an ugly monstrosity if ever I saw one, or the current Ford Mondeo and S Max...again, just horrible....original Porsche Panamera.....etc, etc....
Current VW up is a handsome city car, ditto, Peugeot 108/Citroen C1/Toyota AYGO...all cheap and cheerful.
Just a note on the above post, have you seen a k14 Micra in the flesh? It can hardly be described as a small car anymore, I saw one parked next to a Golf recently and it would honestly be a toss up as to what one has the larger footprint at a glance.
And honestly you can't make objective statements about appearance as they are purely subjective, personally I prefer the older Micra rather the new, inflated, high waistline mess that the new one is.
And honestly you can't make objective statements about appearance as they are purely subjective, personally I prefer the older Micra rather the new, inflated, high waistline mess that the new one is.
Edited by caelite on Saturday 15th July 11:58
I've stopped trusting my own personal taste as a yardstick.
It was brought home to me recently when I was pompously pointing out the ludicrous design of the current Lexus SUVs to my pre-teen son. I believe the word origami was used.
He told me he quite liked them.
I then realised that there is a generational as well as regional influence being brought to bear on car aesthetics.
Sometimes you might just be the wrong age group to 'get' some design.
It was brought home to me recently when I was pompously pointing out the ludicrous design of the current Lexus SUVs to my pre-teen son. I believe the word origami was used.
He told me he quite liked them.
I then realised that there is a generational as well as regional influence being brought to bear on car aesthetics.
Sometimes you might just be the wrong age group to 'get' some design.
Think about what design contraints cheap cars tend to have vs expensive ones. Cheap cars are often aimed at people who really need a do-it-all car because that's what they can afford and they have to prioritise utility, and a car like that can never be the best looking. The makers try to compensate with styling, hence why there are so many over-styled aggressive looking econoboxes on sale which, when I look a bit closer remind me of nothing so much as an angry faced gerbil.
Leaving aside the above to and fro about whether the proposition is in fact true, there are a couple of economic explanations for why you might expect to observe this.
One is simply, if cheap cars looked good, that would take away one of the reasons to buy expensive cars. Since most manufacturers make both cheap and expensive cars, this is one of the way they are able to control the desirability of the cheap cars to maximise profit.
It applies both at a whole product level and the trim level. Hence why, for example, (back in the day) you had to pay extra for body coloured bumpers (way more than the cost of painting the bumpers). If the LX looked just as good, why would anyone opt for the GLX?
Differentiating your range in this way means that you sell the LX to the people who would otherwise not buy from you at all (or buy second hand) and you manipulate the spec sheet so that the people who can afford the GLX don't opt for the cheaper model.
There's also other theories. For example it could be that making something look cheap, you put the idea in buyers' minds that they're making the prudent financial choice by buying that vehicle, irrespective of the actual purchase price. So perhaps while the Audi A1 tries to signal "hey, I look premium even though I'm quite cheap", Dacia goes after a different group of people by signalling the opposite: "I'm Gordon Brown in car form".
One is simply, if cheap cars looked good, that would take away one of the reasons to buy expensive cars. Since most manufacturers make both cheap and expensive cars, this is one of the way they are able to control the desirability of the cheap cars to maximise profit.
It applies both at a whole product level and the trim level. Hence why, for example, (back in the day) you had to pay extra for body coloured bumpers (way more than the cost of painting the bumpers). If the LX looked just as good, why would anyone opt for the GLX?
Differentiating your range in this way means that you sell the LX to the people who would otherwise not buy from you at all (or buy second hand) and you manipulate the spec sheet so that the people who can afford the GLX don't opt for the cheaper model.
There's also other theories. For example it could be that making something look cheap, you put the idea in buyers' minds that they're making the prudent financial choice by buying that vehicle, irrespective of the actual purchase price. So perhaps while the Audi A1 tries to signal "hey, I look premium even though I'm quite cheap", Dacia goes after a different group of people by signalling the opposite: "I'm Gordon Brown in car form".
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff