ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Remember when the fuzz used to drive round in these? Fug-ly.
Great for pointing and laughing, though, as were their predecessors:
Ugly Cars
- Thread starter weltweit
- Start date
Great for pointing and laughing, though, as were their predecessors:
cybertect
It's grim up north (London)
Mrs C is convinced the Multipla looks like Jodie Marsh
Cid
Proper break this time
I reckon someone at Fiat was taking the piss with this:
Thing is, whatever you think of the looks, it's tardis-like inside - enormous amount of space for the length. Excellent bit of design in many ways, I'd drive one just to piss off people like you.
Chz
Stark Raving Sane
In its day it was not bad. That was a while ago. It doesn't even come close to the standards of miniMPVs these days. The Jazz and Note in particular really raised the bar and make an old Multipla look cheap and ungainly. And those two are cheap to pick up used. The Multipla fits in an odd space though - it's a bit bigger than the miniMPVs, but quite a lot smaller than the next size up. I really hated that middle front seat - no-one over 12 would want to spend more than 10 minute there.
I'd say its spiritual successor in the realm of "interestingly designed" car is the Renault Modus. That's an ugly fucker, too.
I'd say its spiritual successor in the realm of "interestingly designed" car is the Renault Modus. That's an ugly fucker, too.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
I had one of those, it was a fine car. Apart from the sills needed doing come MOT time.But then, IMO the original is still by far the best:
discokermit
Well-Known Member
If you think this is naff you are a crazy fool:
i went in tandem with one of these up the m6 last weekend for quite a way. we did waves and thumbs ups when they reached their junction. it's a very nice car.
Great little cars. Mine - well, my mum's, but I did the bulk of the miles in it - was fourteen years old with 90k on the clock, but it still stood up to me commuting fifteen miles a day and more often than not thrashing the crap out of it, as nineteen-year-olds tend to do, with no more trouble than a failed starter motor. Rust got it in the end, though, and I suppose that was the story for most of them. They hung about for ages as teenagers' cars and general old bangers, but they're nearly all gone now. Shame.
It's a Jaaaaaag.
</Clarkson>
Termite Man
zombie flesh eater
Until googling just now, I've discovered that make of car isn't a Panda
Remember when the fuzz used to drive round in these? Fug-ly.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
"We've had complaints that our cars aren't making our customers feel better about having microscopic genitals."
"What if we just drape a big silver cock across the bonnet?"
"Brilliant, and it'll also function as a really clear warning to other road users that the driver is a complete and utter bell end."
Ich bin ein Mod
does his make up in his room
That's not a car. It's a quadricycle.
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
Ladies and Gentlemen I give you the PT crusier Softtop...
I was behind one of these a few days ago and the way they'vecut the roof line makes it look like they've stuck a 1920's travel trunk on the back of it...
I thought they couldn't make it look worse but b good they have.
WTF is that lip where the hood doesn't reach the end of the car too...
That picture doesn't do it justice but you lose around half a foot in cabin space and then have this flat almost cottage like shelf on the back of the car...
I was behind one of these a few days ago and the way they'vecut the roof line makes it look like they've stuck a 1920's travel trunk on the back of it...
I thought they couldn't make it look worse but b good they have.
WTF is that lip where the hood doesn't reach the end of the car too...
That picture doesn't do it justice but you lose around half a foot in cabin space and then have this flat almost cottage like shelf on the back of the car...
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
yup
do you think there was a point when they first cut the roof off after saying they'd make on they though oh jesus what have we done...
There is a strange thing going on with car design. The first of the streamlined cars was the pre-war Chrysler Airflow, which was not a commercial success but was very influential. It got referenced in the Chrysler PT as part of the retro design movement. Then modern ugly style continues the rounded body motif but the theme has been aborted by introducing the chunky high bodied, boxy front ends. They must have increased the drag from wind resistance. Of course that is no problem because petrol is plentiful and coming down in price daily. 
What are car designers up to? 
What are car designers up to?
Chz
Stark Raving Sane
What appears to be streamlined is not necessarily streamlined. The 1983 Audi 100 looks like a box and yet has a better drag coefficient than most cars made today.
There is a trend to trade off a bit of aerodynamics for a higher profile because it increases passenger comfort, ease of ingress/egress and simplifies loading cargo. These cars are still pretty good on drag coefficient though.
Eg:
1990 Lamborghini Diablo - 0.31
1983 Audi 100 - 0.30
1992 McLaren F1 - 0.32
2006 Nissan Note - 0.33 (picked as a car with a high roofline)
Now the higher car will very likely have a higher drag area, but there's only so large or small the frontal area of a normal passenger car can be. To use the Note as an example (because I happen to have the stats at hand), its frontal area is a not impressive 0.686m2. Which is still less than a DeLorean. It also has better drag than the DeLorean.
There is a trend to trade off a bit of aerodynamics for a higher profile because it increases passenger comfort, ease of ingress/egress and simplifies loading cargo. These cars are still pretty good on drag coefficient though.
Eg:
1990 Lamborghini Diablo - 0.31
1983 Audi 100 - 0.30
1992 McLaren F1 - 0.32
2006 Nissan Note - 0.33 (picked as a car with a high roofline)
Now the higher car will very likely have a higher drag area, but there's only so large or small the frontal area of a normal passenger car can be. To use the Note as an example (because I happen to have the stats at hand), its frontal area is a not impressive 0.686m2. Which is still less than a DeLorean. It also has better drag than the DeLorean.
mattie
missing in inaction
Interesting to note the similarity between Mclaren F1 and Nissan Note for dag coefficient - perhaps shows the trade-offs made regarding downforce, stability and cooling, which the Note, god bless it, doesn't need to consider to the same extent. I say this as a rambling way to make the point that low drag coefficient isn't always indicative of 'better' aerodynamics in all cases. An F1 car can have a drag coefficient of over 1.
Saying that, the Prius has a drag coefficient of around 0.25, pretty good going seeing as it's arguably mostly intended for urban driving where aero drag isn't always the factor it would be for cars intended for motorway use - mondeoes etc.
suzuki X 90
Invalid blue ...and batman headrests for serious extra added naffness
I really don't get the concept of this at all ...at least with the multipla ...you can see the why !
I never saw the point of these.
I mean, you take a basic wheelbase and shape that would equate to a 5 seater hatchback, then you squash the back bit down, making it a less-than-practical 2 seater. And yet, you don't make it into a little "sports car" and/or a convertible. You just end up with less seats and space, for the same money as you'd have spent on a more "standard" little car. And its bloody ugly as well!
I wonder how many of them they sold?
Giles..
Oh thanks for that. It is nice to have a question answered with facts and figures. I came across information about the rear end of cars being crucial because of the way the wind is forced to eddy as it comes off the car. I understand some of the late 60s cars the Alpha Romeo for example having a sharpish edge at the back edge of the boot lid to reduce this effect. These modern ones however are rounded at the back and look as if they would create more problems in this area.
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
Sharp flat rears like the Alfa were terrible at causing drag and spinning eddies out not just for following cars but for the car itself. The air is rushing over the top and bottom surfaces and hits the flat end and eddies behind the number plate region which increases drag dramatically. Like an airplane wing you want the air flows to match or dissipate not stop suddenly. Modern rounded cars will be better.
mattie
missing in inaction
I vaguely recall some genius designing American muscle cars in the 60s designed what he thought looked a 'streamlined' rear to increase marketability, and all it did was add to drag - nothing else. I can't for the life of me remember what car it was, maybe the Dodge Charger.
As an aside, some designs are intended to either prevent or instigate flow separation, generally to prevent high-speed instability. These are what spoilers do, they're different to aerofoils as they - in slightly noddy terms- try to stop the overall car body assuming certain aerodynamic characterisics (generally lift). This can add a bit of drag, but are there for good reason. As above, some spoilers - and some rear designs - are simply badly designed, but equally some designs are specifically intended to do something, even if it is to counteract undesirable airflow induced elsewhere.
Just to finish off, the excreble Audi TT had a spoiler added when they realised the shape of the car made it act like a big fucking wing. Style over substance, sadly.
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
not strictly true several early cars were in high speed smashes where the drivers claimed th back end had just become unstable...
although this could never be replicated audi decided to stick a noddy spoiler on the back to put rest peoples fears...
and they changed the suspension which seemingly had really caused the issue...
If you look at modern tt's they don't all have spoilers and the shape hasn't been changed significantly...
mattie
missing in inaction
I'll admit my insight comes solely from a lawyer for audi gmbh, not an engineer, but apparently the cause was aero issues with flow at certain car attitudes, which explains the need to prat about with suspension, spoiler and traction control (I assume for weight distribution).
As far as I follow, the body shape was inherently not good (the, er, technical term) with certain flows, and could be avoided either by preventing getting into situations that cause the flow or by actually making the flow issue non-existent or unproblematic (making it have negligible effect on the car's behaviour).
I'd favour making it unproblematic through either means, which is what I hope and assume Audi have done - I've no idea if suspension rethinks were done to keep the car at a certain position or to modify its response to the underlying aero excitation or general change in aero loading, I'm hoping the latter.
My understanding remains that the original shape contributed to the problem by inducing certain loading that the car struggled to manage.
On a legal front, it sounded like it could have been pretty serious for Audi, the lawyer was concerned they may have been found negligent in the US for some of the smashes - most of which were pretty nasty, given they occur at high speed - but nothing much seems to have come of it. And they're still selling shedloads of TTs. One born every minute.
