Sticking with the one criteria…without a doubt
Since YO already posted it, I’ll second the 300SL Gullwing Merc as my favorite “pretty” car. My absolute favorite.
1938 Bugatti Type 57 Atlante (Atlantic)
Owner: Ralph Lauren
Ash wood body framework
“Tribute” cars… . .
Chrysler Atlantic Concept
Davaux
(styled by Australian Industrial designer David Clash and built by DC Cars.)
Great topic. I can’t pick just one favorite “pretty” car. Some of my absolute favorites have already been posted. The Miura, the Bugatti type 57 Atlantic, 300SL Gullwing and DB9.
I think the 246 Dino is worth adding.
Uh oh…I think I feel a rant coming on 
I have to disagree that pretty is the goal for car design. Some cars should be pretty, but just like any other product, different target customers want different things.
The words “ugly” and “pretty” are so subjective. I think of car design as a delicate balance between harmonious and discordant elements. The sculptural language can evoke a wide variety of different emotions. As long as it is appropriate for the brand and customer, Why not create with the full range available? Purely harmonious shapes and detailing may be pleasing or just be bland and forgettable. Adding some slightly discordant forms could provide just the right amount of tension to be memorable. Throwing in too much could end up as a cluttered mess.
Marcello Gandini designed the Miura, an undoubtedly beautiful car, but he also designed the Countach and Stratos, which I wouldn’t label as pretty. I think all 3 are successful and coherent designs that have enduring appeal. He had such command of his craft that he could choose just the right balance to convey power and desirability.
The Miura was not so different in form language from the shapes that other sports cars were using in the late 60’s and early 70’s. The Countach however was a distinct and somewhat shocking break from tradition that created a memorable form language for Lamborghini. Esatablishing it as a more aggressive car than say Ferrari.
I will use the LP500 prototype for discussion as the later production versions lost most of the subtlety of the showcar with added wings and fender flares.
I am particularly impressed with how Gandini balanced the tension between the curves of the shoulder line, wheel arches and upswept rear in profile vs the almost fractal repetition of trapezoidal forms in top view.
In my opinion, the brutal wedge shape along with the contrast between curved and straight lines is what makes the design “work”. The overall shape is bold and different, but there is harmony and coherence between the details which gives the whole design an underlying logic and purposefulness. The Countach may appeal to fewer people than the Miura because of its unvarnished aggressiveness, but I would argue that it is more memorable. When I think of Lamborghini it is the first car that I picture.
I suspect that what really is bugging YO is that a lot of designers don’t seem to have the skill to execute all of the details of their designs successfully, so the design doesn’t come together as a cohesive vision.
I guess I’m not seeing what I would define as “pretty” in most of these, so here is a car I think is striking
Thank you mbd !
if you wrote a whole essay on car-design you could save manhood
a lot of grief. While not obeying to the “one car rule” you use
two marvelous examples of excellent car design to make your point.
These are (like some of the above) examples, that everybody could
agree on being “good design”. Which also means that beauty can be
created and it doesn’t lie solely “in the eye of the beholder”.
I would also like to ad, that “new” doesn´t always have to be desturbing by beiing slightly whacky. When the Citroen DS in 1955 was revealed for the first time to postwar europe it was a shock to a lot of people. But they sold 10.000 cars on the fair.
(Worth about one year of production). BMW didn’t achieve that with the last 7-Series, did they?
To come back to the 370Z. The proportions are good, but the rear fenders and light´s just don’t work harmoniously. The lights are trying to be different for the sake of being different, which is just plain shallow.
If it was well resolved I could live with it.
Have a beautiful day everyone.
Yours mo-i
Both cars where also on my mental list (but my posts were already getting long)… I whole heartedly agree on the LP500. The concept car was beautiful, not in a Scarlet Johanson way, but more of an athletic, bad ass sort of beauty.
A lot of it is form resolution and consistency. The Countach is such a great example because it goes from the pure concept, to the bloated, over finned final version… from beautiful to hideous.
I’m going to include my 2 cars because I think they are beautiful.
Sure we can get 100’s of pages of nice looking cars, but I’m somewhat with what Mr.914 mentioned. As designers, I would think we can better evaluate design that just saying “it’s nice/pretty/s3xy”. For one, how do we categorize something as pretty? Is being pretty different than being “s3xy?”? I also think the point mentioned about the design intent, target market, and appropriateness is an important one as well.
I’m also going to bring up again the saying my former professor used to tell us. “There is right and wrong. There is good and bad. Both are important but they are different things.” As a (poor) example, if you are tasked with designing a chair, and come back with a really nice sofa, it may be good, but it’s wrong.
Does the same thing perhaps apply to car design, in this context? Once we better define “pretty” for example, can we say perhaps that some cars should be “pretty” while others perhaps should be something else? Maybe aggressive? For sure I would think we could have multiple examples of good design, while sill agreeing that not all good design may be pretty. Well-resolved, cohesive, etc. I think could just as easily apply to good design that may not be pretty.
I dunno exactly where I’m going with this, but would just like to stimulate discussion more than pages and pages of cars that people like for one reason or another. Maybe perhaps a more interesting conversation could be which cars are most appropriate (for the market, brand, etc.). ?
R
I dunno exactly where I’m going with this, but would just like to stimulate discussion more than pages and pages of cars that people like for one reason or another. Maybe perhaps a more interesting conversation could be which cars are most appropriate (for the market, brand, etc.). ?
I agree that a discussion could be more interesting than just a bunch of pictures.
I am fascinated by how design choices can trigger emotion. There is an aura about a fully resolved design that feels “right”. It is a “I know it when I see it” kind of thing for most people. Non designers feel it on a gut level, but for the most part couldn’t tell you why the design works. Since we are all designers and aspiring designers, I think it would be much more interesting to try and articulate what it is about the specific designs that we choose that is most captivating.
I feel that we as designers are able to speak in the language of form. We communicate through surfaces, shapes, proportion, graphics, colors and textures. I am curious what combination of those or other elements makes a particular car “pretty” or appealing to each of you personally. I for one, am way more interested in the reasons why something works than just knowing that someone else thinks it does. An opinion doesn’t help me…a reason points me to truth. If I understand the why, I have a better chance of success in my own design work.
In the spirit of discussion, I will elaborate a bit on my Countach analysis:
I have a particular fondness for the Countach because it was the car that made me aware of car design in the first place. When I was about five years old. I was riding in the back of my parents car while we were on the freeway. Suddenly, out of the corner of my eye, I saw a low, red wedge slice through traffic like a shark through a school of minnows. I felt an adrenalin rush and urged my mom to follow it. I noticed that the cars around it seemed to want to move out of the way as the driver wove through the lanes. We lost it about five miles down the highway, but I was forever changed. Part of why I reacted so strongly to seeing the Countach was how alien it looked among the other cars. It was so directional and uncompromising that it stood out starkly against a sea of boring sedans. While I now appreciate the harmonious aspects of the design and can see the nuances, as a kid all I felt was awe.
While I like “pretty” I also crave an element of surprise. The most memorable designs usually have both. I think sports cars especially need to balance the aggressive and beautiful elements in order to project the right combination of power and grace.
Pictures say 1000 words I believe is the saying. It’s good to intellectualize, but it’s just as important to look at stuff. Careful not to downplay those “pictures”.
who doesn’t like pictures?
some nice one’s I just found here of 70’s car concepts-
a bit of eye candy-
My only point about the talking about design vs. pics was that in addition to looking at nice cars, it would also be good to have more of a discussion about why they are nice, how they are appropriate and how we can perhaps better our use of language to describe them. not looking to get get super intellectual (ie. “Discuss: The context of car design and it’s relevance on the post industrial human psychology with respect to the appropriation of juxtaposition in consumer culture” - yep, just made that up), but you know what I’m saying, i think…
R
mbd wrote:
I agree that a discussion could be more interesting than just a bunch of pictures…
Pictures say 1000 words I believe is the saying. It’s good to intellectualize, but it’s just as important to look at stuff. Careful not to downplay those “pictures”.
I want pictures of great cars and insight into what other designers see that I may not. Then I might learn something. 
The reason I started the post is the comment Yo made about “why can’t we just make pretty cars”. Others have brought up some of the problems with that comment:
-
What’s pretty mean? If we talk about people, we definitely use the word pretty for some people and sexy for others. I think the same goes for cars. Personally, sexy would be a supercar. Sexy is not concerned with anything practical. Pretty is more humble, less flash, but equally attractive. Perhaps a more cerebral response. Sexy you want now, pretty the admiration grows with time.
-
Can we pick one? If we want pretty cars, it should mean we can define what that is. I know in a project, we would define it with 100 pictures of different products, people, clothes, graphics etc, but for this thread, I was hoping to just get the first idea. The car that symbolized pretty.
For example, when I think of a sexy car, the Jag XK pops into mind. It’s pretty too, but that long hood just screams sex to me.
- Pictures & words. Yes, we need words. Personally, I find all of these pictures of Astons and Ferraris surprising. Pretty is not the first word I would use with any of them. (see above for my thoughts)
Mo-i is more along my thoughts. The DS is certainly a pretty car. If the Italians are responsible for making the sexy car, I think the French would be the ones for making a pretty car. The DS is like a humble country girl with a flower in her hair and a baguette in the basket of her bicycle. It’s a sunny day whenever I see one.
The Fiat Spyder is also interesting. I hadn’t thought of that, but that’s pretty too. Notice the difference between the Spyder and the Ferraris. The Spyder loses all of the vents and louvres. The proportions go from laying down (very horizontal) to sitting up straight (the abrupt front and rear, the upright windscreen). However, the proportions and attention to detail in the form are amazing. The Spyder is one of those cars that only looks better with time.
I’m going to digest what we’ve seen and hopefully post a picture of my own tonight.
yup, exactly what I was trying to say, but you’ve said it better. thanks.
R
matsiyah beat me to it! I was just about to post the exact same car…
I was actually thinking the Toronado. It’s not sporty, it’s not brutal, it’s just pretty:
I’d agree that the Toronado is pretty, but I’ll call your Toronado and raise you a 1971-73 Buick Riviera.
The way that long hood carries into the top, the rake of the windscreen (with no wing vents) as the top blends into a turtle deck carrying out to the boat tail with accentuated rear wheel arches rising up to the rear deck just drips. Pretty and s3xy, and with the 455cu.i. a bit brutal. Originally it was to have shared the FWD Toronado platform but teething problems with the front-wheel drive system changed that; lucky for us, it would have not been near as visually pleasing as it turned out.
I think this machine would have lent itself well to a massive down-sizing into a 2-seater, sport configuration, Ã la Mustang.
But Buick fa’up, and the marque turned to crap immediately following 1973, nothing built since then with the Rivi name on it is even remotely remarkable (as in the literal sense of the word; worth notice).
(this is a '71; the only year with trunk deck louvers).
Please excuse the re-post of this .gif but it really displays the car well. The CB antenna is … regrettable.
The 1969 Pontiac Grand Prix was a close second for me; nice, but he lines just are not as fluid nor continuous as those on the Rivi.
The wheel/tire/suspension combination on this example is not stock, and looks out of proportion to the arches. The GP also went the way of the Rivi … bigger and heavier (and this, after it had originally been down-sized from previous Grand Prix models).
Lucky me … my dad owned both of these models in the years they were introduced. I drove the GP (an SJ) to my high school Senior Prom … … 
I was just looking through some pics of my old car:
Now that’s pretty. (Except for that ugly black antenna the painter put in that I forgot to replace before taking the pics.)
I don’t think these were regarded all that highly when they were new- the fins seemed pretty old fashioned in 1968- but I think it gets better and better with age. That door handle detail is especially sharp. When is someone going to bring back fine chrome trim detailing? When they bother to put chrome on new cars, it’s always so clunky and ham handed.
Wow, that’s a beauty. The P1800 is in my all time list of fave cars. Top 5. The ES fastback version is also great.
In a similar vein I’d also add the Karmann Ghia. Just gorgeous at any angle.
Both, just pretty. Timeless, not aggressive, just excellent studies in restraint, proportion and surfacing.
R