Fastback styling is back in a big way. Giving the impression of speed when the car is standing still, this head-turning school of design was used on Talbot-Logos and Packards in the '30s, many American cars in the '40s and '50s and of course, the pony/muscle cars of the '60s. Sports car designers have always loved fastbacks -- '63-'67 Corvette, the Datsun/Nissan Z car and any number of modern-day Ferraris and Lamborghinis. Even economy cars jumped on the bandwagon -- remember the Corolla SR-5 hatchback of the '80s?
Today, it's just getting a bit out of hand...
Now, four-door sedans (Mercedes and VW: If it has four doors, it's not a coupe) and crossover SUVs/Wagons/SAVs have gone under the designer's knife. While I'm a big fan of a fastback design for appropriate vehicles -- I'd love to have a Miura and Boss 302 in my fantasy collection -- it typically makes no sense in a sedan or crossover application. Usually you buy a sedan because you plan on carrying rear passengers, yet the undeniably handsome VW CC (above) won't work as a sedan for many people. It only seats four, and though the individual rear seats themselves are comfy, head room is scant for taller folks back there.
But the most blatant examples of form over function include the new crop of fastback crossovers. This bizarre breed gives you the disadvantages of a crossover SUV (heavy weight, bulky proportions and a thirst for fuel) without the advantages (increased passenger and cargo space compared to a coupe or sedan). Don't you think it's just ridiculous to have a 5,000-pound crossover that can only seat four like the BMW X6? And the new Acura ZDX (pictured at the top) is no better: 4,400 pounds and though it ostensibly seats five, those in the back better be shorties -- we're talking tight quarters here.
The Pontiac Aztec has taken infinite (and well-deserved) shots for being fugly, but as a crossover SUV, it actually worked well. A peppy, fuel-efficient V6 and a spacious cabin atop a relatively small footprint made sense for those with no style sense. Hell you could even get an integrated tent for camping.
Say what you will about the Aztec, I'd make the argument that at least it worked much better as a vehicle than these 4- to 5,000-pound fashion accessories.
By mnorm1
on December 3, 2009
02:50 PM
Every time I see the ZDX, I think "AMC Eagle." That's not a compliment.
By yankeez
on December 3, 2009
04:48 PM
The fastback is just one of those automotive fads that come and go (and frankly I wish they'd go to, as the design rarely works).
I thought it reached a pinnacle of ridiculousness on the late '70s when GM came out with those ghastly fastback Buick Century and Olds Cutlass sedans (remember those?), but now I can see that several marques are determined to top those for sheer outright ugliness.
Give them a few years and they'll disappear when they're out of fashion (but, in 20-25 years or so, I'm sure we'll see yet another wave...)
By rsholland
on December 3, 2009
05:34 PM
I know they are a compromise, being a cross between a sedan and a wagon.
But you know what? I still like them.
By oberg
on December 4, 2009
09:34 AM
Acura ZDX -- 56 cubic feet cargo
Volvo V70 -- 72 cubic feet cargo
Someone really needs to explain to me the appeal of these small CUVs.
By oberg
on December 4, 2009
09:34 AM
Acura ZDX -- 56 cubic feet cargo
Volvo V70 -- 72 cubic feet cargo
Someone really needs to explain to me the appeal of these small CUVs.
By firstwagon
on December 4, 2009
11:21 AM
"Every time I see the ZDX, I think "AMC Eagle." That's not a compliment."
I liked the Eagle wagon. It was funky looking because that's the way it came out. (Concord wagon with a bulky 4wd drivetrain slid underneath built on a slim budget by a dying AMC).
I can't tell if these new things are delibertely trying to look odd or if some high priced design team actually thought this look good.