Granted, I’m not a part of the target demographic, but when I saw photos of Bentley’s EXP 9 F concept SUV, I wasn’t offended by the design. After all, Bentleys are fairly brutish and assertive vehicles and while the SUV concept may offend purists, it is immediately identifiable as a Bentley and seemed in keeping with the brand’s aesthetic:
Which is why I was surprised to see this pop up on Jalopnik:
After the decidedly negative response to the decidedly hideous EXP 9 F concept at last week’s Geneva Motor Show, we couldn’t be less surprised to hear Bentley is reconsidering the design of the poorly received concept SUV.
What- are they going to make a lithe, sexxi, subtle-y detailed replacement? Or am I so uninterested in a megadollar SUV that I’m blind to the potential?
Not a fan at all, there’s so much going on in the front back side and rear it’s near impossible to look at. Everything is dialed up to 11 and screaming at you. Even for a concept car, I think there is a level of refinement that’s missing. The headlight/fog light ratio seems off, and the proportions of some of the details like the grill and trim seem scaled up more than they need to be.
I do like the surfacing and detailing on the seats, but aside from that I’d agree with Jalopnik send this one back the drawing board and quick!
Exactly. I think that’s what made the Hummer line a success with it’s target market (and hated by near everyone else). Without rehashing the whole ‘good design’ vs. good business discussion from the Kia thread, I would have thought that was the point.
I do agree that the sketches looked better- though Bentley could hardly have released a chopped SUV- the roofline really helps the profile view. Something is always lost when trying to get a sketch onto an existing architecture, too. Veering slightly off topic, this is part of the reason that renderings and sketches shouldn’t be entered in architectural competitions: they almost always look better than the finished product.
The only thing that behemoth reminds me of, stylewise is this:
Irony at play here.
The Studebaker Lark was essentially the first US “compact car”. Packard/Studebaker had been losing money for years and the Lark series was basically a last ditch attempt to save the failing company (renamed Studebaker). Debuting in 1959, it worked for a few years because the “Big Three” worked dual-dealerships with Studebaker because they didn’t have compact models of their own.
It was based on the full-size chassis of the previous model but with reduced front and rear overhang, and shortened wheel base ahead of the fire wall. A v8 was offered. Our neighbors had one when I was a kid and it easily hauled two adults and five or six wild Indians to swimming lessons, ball games, and such.
The only other manufacturer in the category at the time was Nash. No V8 option.