Car Exterior Design

[RogEphedra]

Sorry this is so long. I hope it's accurate, coherent, and turns into an interesting discussion.

I'm very interested in how the "look" of a car is achieved, and how do the carmakers decide where to stop? I think there are some things that universally appeal to almost all car buyers. While researching cars before my purchase, there were certain things that I eventually came to desire in a car's look:

• body hugging the tires fairly tightly (that huge 3- or 4-inch gap between top of tire and inner radius of fender on some cars is just plain hideous)

• wheels "pooched out" instead of tucked-in toward the centerline of the car with the fenders overhanging by several inches

• concavity of the wheel design, with spokes curving inward toward the hub

• An interesting and sporty-looking wheel design

• A "muscular" look to the car, usually realized in the fenders flaring out, versus a car that just looks flat down the side

• Some sports-car accoutrements (ie, side gills)

• Larger wheel diameter, and with it, tires with low sidewall height

• Tires that are appropriately sized for the car, even a bit on the large side, never undersized

• Wide tires (tires that are even slightly too narrow look awful from the rear)

• A slight downward taper (or the appearance of such) from rear to front

• A low-to-the-ground front spoiler and low-to-the-ground side skirts

• No single one-sided exhaust pipe, nor dual pipes on one side

• Large visible (hopefully sportily-colored) brakes at front and rear

• And probably others I'm forgetting

Most people decide on cars based on their looks. Certainly not all, but surely most. Let’s face it: if the M3 looked like the Honda Accord but had M3 internals and performance, how many of us would have bought it? When I look at the car landscape out there, I don’t see cars that meet the above checklist (thank god, because it makes my M3 look that much more awesome!). I don’t think I’m any different than anybody else, so if I want these things, I’d bet the vast majority wants them too. So why aren’t carmakers making cars that look like this, given that most people buy based on looks?

Let’s look at our M3. Now it has all of the above (give or take), but why did BMW stop where they did? Why not make it even more aggressive and sporty looking. As a comparison, look at the picture below and compare to the production M3.

So for our production M3s, why did BMW not: flare the fenders out more, make the side skirts more shapely, make the front spoiler and air intake area more aggressive and lower to the ground, make the hood power dome and lines more shapely, have sleeker headlights, lower the body to hug the wheels a bit tighter, use wider tires, have an extremely concave wheel design? I know the car below costs something like 300k, but it’s not a production car either, so there were no “economies of scale” to be realized.

In short, why did BMW stop where they did with the exterior look of our M3? And why don’t all carmakers seek to make cars that meet the above bulleted checklist?

Thanks for reading!

PS: Please don't say "it's all about cost", because BMW could have cut the cost of the M3 further by diminishing some of the sporty aggressive exterior elements, but they chose not to.

[FStop7]

Because BMW doesn't do aggressive. They never have.

[Crazy Bimmer]

I'd say its about pleasing the masses.

Hell to be perfectly honest, I thought the M3 looked overdone in stock form when i first saw BMW's Official pictures surfacing on the internet. It took time to grow on me.

Now if they did something more aggressive, i'd think they would have had more criticism from the public. Just too risky in a marketing standpoint. IMO

[///V\3Dude]

PS: Please don't say "it's all about cost", because BMW could have cut the cost of the M3 further by diminishing some of the sporty aggressive exterior elements, but they chose not to

There you go, you said it to! BMW could cut the cost so do other car makers!

You can always add options! Look at the Scion tC- Get all those goodies for extra Dough, Basic model is more economically suited- you want sporty you show the dough! :-)

[TailHappyM3]

Originally Posted by FStop7

Because BMW doesn't do aggressive. They never have.

I'd say the E46 M3 was aggressive and definitely more so than this current model.

OP, good post and good question. I think they need to leave some on the table for the next generation or otherwise risk falling short on the design or having to go too aggressive. It has to stop somewhere. I agree with your notion that this generation is too refined. The E46 was a huge step up in aggressiveness over the E36 but this time they wanted something a bit more subtle. I'd like to see them go back to the muscular stance that the M should have and perhaps something more along the lines of the E46.

[Bob MG]

Because not all M3 owners are under 28!!
There are some older than 40 who are business execs and choose to drive a sporty yet slightly understated car that is purchased more towards the exhileration derived from driving, rather than loud bling!!

Take a standard Porsche Turbo or instance, very subtle, and for those die hards, they have the GT models, which are hard but still not overdone.

[TailHappyM3]

Originally Posted by andrewabf

Because not all M3 owners are under 28!!
There are some older than 40 who are business execs and choose to drive a sporty yet slightly understated car that is purchased more towards the exhileration derived from driving, rather than loud bling!!

Take a standard Porsche Turbo or instance, very subtle, and for those die hards, they have the GT models, which are hard but still not overdone.

There is nothing subtle about Porsche`s GT models with those wings at the back. They scream attention big time and I know this all too well. I got really tired fast of the stares and strange looks we received with GT3 and my wife stopped going for rides in it with me because of this too. This is when we started missing the M3 and regretted selling it...muscular yet elegant.

[pumper206]

As stated in one of the above posts, it's all about pleasing the masses, IMO. We, people who like extra aggressive car design, are probably not the majority. If you think about it, it's actually easier to make a car look more aggressive then to make an aggressive looking car look less aggressive. Besides, if they made the car look that much more aggressive we'd have nothing left to mod!!!! Then what would we blow our money on???
IMO, modding is about throwing one's own personal flare on their car.

[Bob MG]

Originally Posted by Azorean

There is nothing subtle about Porsche`s GT models with those wings at the back. They scream attention big time and I know this all too well. I got really tired fast of the stares and strange looks we received with GT3 and my wife stopped going for rides in it with me because of this too. This is when we started missing the M3 and regretted selling it...muscular yet elegant.

I do agree the GT porsches aren't subtle with the wings, but everyhing else looks ok, no lip spoilers etc. But I do know what you mean with the wife... Mine refused to go in my GT2, 3 RS and Challenge CS. I think the latter stripe down the middle took the cake

but that said she hates my M3 to. So as a compromise I am removing all the carbon bits ad pieces

[CATCH_M3]

Because the M3 is a luxurious sports/GT coupe and not a supercar.
That's why the M3 has reached mainstream popularity; it's versatility. It's not too loud and its not too quiet.

Porsche has a bigger enthusiast crowd per capita than BMW in my opinion; just look at the soccer Moms porsche vs BMW. And look at the people who pick a 6-spd porsche vs. BMW.

[bobbyd1961]

Originally Posted by RogEphedra

Sorry this is so long. I hope it's accurate, coherent, and turns into an interesting discussion.

I'm very interested in how the "look" of a car is achieved, and how do the carmakers decide where to stop? I think there are some things that universally appeal to almost all car buyers. While researching cars before my purchase, there were certain things that I eventually came to desire in a car's look:

• body hugging the tires fairly tightly (that huge 3- or 4-inch gap between top of tire and inner radius of fender on some cars is just plain hideous)

• wheels "pooched out" instead of tucked-in toward the centerline of the car with the fenders overhanging by several inches

• concavity of the wheel design, with spokes curving inward toward the hub

• An interesting and sporty-looking wheel design

• A "muscular" look to the car, usually realized in the fenders flaring out, versus a car that just looks flat down the side

• Some sports-car accoutrements (ie, side gills)

• Larger wheel diameter, and with it, tires with low sidewall height

• Tires that are appropriately sized for the car, even a bit on the large side, never undersized

• Wide tires (tires that are even slightly too narrow look awful from the rear)

• A slight downward taper (or the appearance of such) from rear to front

• A low-to-the-ground front spoiler and low-to-the-ground side skirts

• No single one-sided exhaust pipe, nor dual pipes on one side

• Large visible (hopefully sportily-colored) brakes at front and rear

• And probably others I'm forgetting

Most people decide on cars based on their looks. Certainly not all, but surely most. Let’s face it: if the M3 looked like the Honda Accord but had M3 internals and performance, how many of us would have bought it? When I look at the car landscape out there, I don’t see cars that meet the above checklist (thank god, because it makes my M3 look that much more awesome!). I don’t think I’m any different than anybody else, so if I want these things, I’d bet the vast majority wants them too. So why aren’t carmakers making cars that look like this, given that most people buy based on looks?

Let’s look at our M3. Now it has all of the above (give or take), but why did BMW stop where they did? Why not make it even more aggressive and sporty looking. As a comparison, look at the picture below and compare to the production M3.

So for our production M3s, why did BMW not: flare the fenders out more, make the side skirts more shapely, make the front spoiler and air intake area more aggressive and lower to the ground, make the hood power dome and lines more shapely, have sleeker headlights, lower the body to hug the wheels a bit tighter, use wider tires, have an extremely concave wheel design? I know the car below costs something like 300k, but it’s not a production car either, so there were no “economies of scale” to be realized.

In short, why did BMW stop where they did with the exterior look of our M3? And why don’t all carmakers seek to make cars that meet the above bulleted checklist?

Thanks for reading!

PS: Please don't say "it's all about cost", because BMW could have cut the cost of the M3 further by diminishing some of the sporty aggressive exterior elements, but they chose not to.

if all you described is in that picture then i completely concurr!

[Eau Rouge]

Originally Posted by RogEphedra

Sorry this is so long. I hope it's accurate, coherent, and turns into an interesting discussion.

I'm very interested in how the "look" of a car is achieved, and how do the carmakers decide where to stop? I think there are some things that universally appeal to almost all car buyers. While researching cars before my purchase, there were certain things that I eventually came to desire in a car's look:

• body hugging the tires fairly tightly (that huge 3- or 4-inch gap between top of tire and inner radius of fender on some cars is just plain hideous)

• wheels "pooched out" instead of tucked-in toward the centerline of the car with the fenders overhanging by several inches

• concavity of the wheel design, with spokes curving inward toward the hub

• An interesting and sporty-looking wheel design

• A "muscular" look to the car, usually realized in the fenders flaring out, versus a car that just looks flat down the side

• Some sports-car accoutrements (ie, side gills)

• Larger wheel diameter, and with it, tires with low sidewall height

• Tires that are appropriately sized for the car, even a bit on the large side, never undersized

• Wide tires (tires that are even slightly too narrow look awful from the rear)

• A slight downward taper (or the appearance of such) from rear to front

• A low-to-the-ground front spoiler and low-to-the-ground side skirts

• No single one-sided exhaust pipe, nor dual pipes on one side

• Large visible (hopefully sportily-colored) brakes at front and rear

• And probably others I'm forgetting

Most people decide on cars based on their looks. Certainly not all, but surely most. Let’s face it: if the M3 looked like the Honda Accord but had M3 internals and performance, how many of us would have bought it? When I look at the car landscape out there, I don’t see cars that meet the above checklist (thank god, because it makes my M3 look that much more awesome!). I don’t think I’m any different than anybody else, so if I want these things, I’d bet the vast majority wants them too. So why aren’t carmakers making cars that look like this, given that most people buy based on looks?

Let’s look at our M3. Now it has all of the above (give or take), but why did BMW stop where they did? Why not make it even more aggressive and sporty looking. As a comparison, look at the picture below and compare to the production M3.

So for our production M3s, why did BMW not: flare the fenders out more, make the side skirts more shapely, make the front spoiler and air intake area more aggressive and lower to the ground, make the hood power dome and lines more shapely, have sleeker headlights, lower the body to hug the wheels a bit tighter, use wider tires, have an extremely concave wheel design? I know the car below costs something like 300k, but it’s not a production car either, so there were no “economies of scale” to be realized.

In short, why did BMW stop where they did with the exterior look of our M3? And why don’t all carmakers seek to make cars that meet the above bulleted checklist?

Thanks for reading!

PS: Please don't say "it's all about cost", because BMW could have cut the cost of the M3 further by diminishing some of the sporty aggressive exterior elements, but they chose not to.

Interesting post. I'll bite even though designing cars is not something that I do.

Your "in short" question probably deserves a long, detailed answer by an assortment of individuals that work with various manufacturers, but it is probably fair to say that the M Division's philosophy subjected to the requirements d'jour (e.g. regulations) are major influences in model design. Other manufacturers have their own philosophies which likely predetermine the non-inclusion of much of that which you would like to see in a car. Cost is very much a major consideration although it is debatable whether cost carries equal weight in the design from manufacturer to manufacturer.

Let’s look at our M3. Now it has all of the above (give or take), but why did BMW stop where they did? Why not make it even more aggressive and sporty looking. As a comparison, look at the picture below and compare to the production M3.

IMO, the M Division probably realized that stopping where it did, contrary to what you would have wished it to do, would not have been inline with the set goals for the M3. Appeal, production costs, fuel efficiency/drag (Yes, the mpg isn't great, but the flared fenders would not have improved mileage.) are design/production considerations that each of the items on your wish list would have had to overcome to be included in production model.

...flare the fenders out more, make the side skirts more shapely, make the front spoiler and air intake area more aggressive and lower to the ground, make the hood power dome and lines more shapely, have sleeker headlights, lower the body to hug the wheels a bit tighter, use wider tires, have an extremely concave wheel design? I know the car below costs something like 300k, but it’s not a production car either, so there were no “economies of scale” to be realized.

Maybe M Division was trying to support the aftermarket retailer community? Perhaps some people would not buy a car that was factory-modded to perfection.

You mention "economies of scale". Let's suppose that there was no production cost increase as a result of the incorporation of everything that you wish for in a model. You buy the car of your dreams and are happy. However, the next guy takes a look at the car that you just purchased and decides that it is over-the-top for his tastes and moves on to something else. If the manufacturer experiences a shortfall of sales due to more of those in the target demographic opting to buy something else rather than the new more menacing looking model, the law of demand will kick in forcing the the seller to cut pricing which in turn leads to reduced profit for the manufacturer. Ultimately, the manufacturer will either revert back to that which was more profitable or will discontinue the model altogether.

Finally, thinking of the proverbial glass that is half filled with water, what's in the glass is more important than what's not in the glass. To each his own.

[RogEphedra]

Originally Posted by bobbyd1961

if all you described is in that picture then i completely concurr!

I don't follow

[RogEphedra]

Originally Posted by Azorean

OP, good post and good question.

Thanks!

Originally Posted by Azorean

I think they need to leave some on the table for the next generation or otherwise risk falling short on the design or having to go too aggressive.

Good point. I always fear somebody's going to come out with a car that's going to blow me away more than the M3 does, but it's a baseless fear, because it seems these days car companies rarely do drastically aggressive changes from one body style to the next. Rather, they do things incrementally, as if they're very slowly building towards a climax several years down the road.

Originally Posted by Azorean

I agree with your notion that this generation is too refined

I didn't mean to imply that I'm at all dissatisfied with the aggressiveness of the E90 M3, though my post kinda assumed that tone, didn't it? To me, if you look at it under different combinations of viewing angles and lighting conditions, it can range from sporty-yet-refined to very aggressive.

[RogEphedra]

Eau Rogue, thanks a lot for your reply! Good stuff.

Originally Posted by Eau Rouge

Other manufacturers have their own philosophies which likely predetermine the non-inclusion of much of that which you would like to see in a car.

This reminds me of a quote I saw from some chief designer at Ford about Chris Bangle, the former BMW lead designer or design director. The quote was something condescending about Bangle. Whether he really said the quote or not, I thought to myself, that's why your (Ford's) cars are boring and ugly (except the Mustang) and your company isn't doing well, because you won't include the more attractive elements that I believe people want on a car and that eventually lead them toward the BMWs of the car world.

Originally Posted by Eau Rouge

IMO, the M Division probably realized that stopping where it did, contrary to what you would have wished it to do, would not have been inline with the set goals for the M3. Appeal, production costs, fuel efficiency/drag (Yes, the mpg isn't great, but the flared fenders would not have improved mileage.) are design/production considerations that each of the items on your wish list would have had to overcome to be included in production model.

But if they don't go aggressive enough on their sports cars, then they risk losing my or others' business to another car company. So they've gotta watch where they draw the line, right?

Originally Posted by Eau Rouge

Perhaps some people would not buy a car that was factory-modded to perfection.

Name one. Then you don't have to do any legwork, and who wants to do legwork.

Originally Posted by Eau Rouge

You mention "economies of scale". Let's suppose that there was no production cost increase as a result of the incorporation of everything that you wish for in a model. You buy the car of your dreams and are happy. However, the next guy takes a look at the car that you just purchased and decides that it is over-the-top for his tastes and moves on to something else.

But who's to say the version they've settled on for production isn't over the top? I guess (though I find it hard to believe) some people think the M3 is over the top. So maybe BMW should have made the M3 a bit more passive to scoop up those people in addition to all of us who bought one. So again, where do they draw the line, you know?

[Robo Squirrel]

Originally Posted by RogEphedra

Sorry this is so long. I hope it's accurate, coherent, and turns into an interesting discussion.

I'm very interested in how the "look" of a car is achieved, and how do the carmakers decide where to stop? I think there are some things that universally appeal to almost all car buyers. While researching cars before my purchase, there were certain things that I eventually came to desire in a car's look:

• body hugging the tires fairly tightly (that huge 3- or 4-inch gap between top of tire and inner radius of fender on some cars is just plain hideous)

• wheels "pooched out" instead of tucked-in toward the centerline of the car with the fenders overhanging by several inches

• concavity of the wheel design, with spokes curving inward toward the hub

• An interesting and sporty-looking wheel design

• A "muscular" look to the car, usually realized in the fenders flaring out, versus a car that just looks flat down the side

• Some sports-car accoutrements (ie, side gills)

• Larger wheel diameter, and with it, tires with low sidewall height

• Tires that are appropriately sized for the car, even a bit on the large side, never undersized

• Wide tires (tires that are even slightly too narrow look awful from the rear)

• A slight downward taper (or the appearance of such) from rear to front

• A low-to-the-ground front spoiler and low-to-the-ground side skirts

• No single one-sided exhaust pipe, nor dual pipes on one side

• Large visible (hopefully sportily-colored) brakes at front and rear

• And probably others I'm forgetting

Most people decide on cars based on their looks. Certainly not all, but surely most. Let’s face it: if the M3 looked like the Honda Accord but had M3 internals and performance, how many of us would have bought it? When I look at the car landscape out there, I don’t see cars that meet the above checklist (thank god, because it makes my M3 look that much more awesome!). I don’t think I’m any different than anybody else, so if I want these things, I’d bet the vast majority wants them too. So why aren’t carmakers making cars that look like this, given that most people buy based on looks?

Let’s look at our M3. Now it has all of the above (give or take), but why did BMW stop where they did? Why not make it even more aggressive and sporty looking. As a comparison, look at the picture below and compare to the production M3.

So for our production M3s, why did BMW not: flare the fenders out more, make the side skirts more shapely, make the front spoiler and air intake area more aggressive and lower to the ground, make the hood power dome and lines more shapely, have sleeker headlights, lower the body to hug the wheels a bit tighter, use wider tires, have an extremely concave wheel design? I know the car below costs something like 300k, but it’s not a production car either, so there were no “economies of scale” to be realized.

In short, why did BMW stop where they did with the exterior look of our M3? And why don’t all carmakers seek to make cars that meet the above bulleted checklist?

Thanks for reading!

PS: Please don't say "it's all about cost", because BMW could have cut the cost of the M3 further by diminishing some of the sporty aggressive exterior elements, but they chose not to.

having worked in the industry as an automotive designer, i can tell you that the reason all car companies dont apply this checklist isnt because the designers dont want to employ it. almost every sketch starts out like this...then it gets dumbed down from there.

and you have to remember that BMW has alot more money to put into each and every car they build, than lets say honda. also BMW builds a more focused car. honda, toyota, GM...whatever mostly build appliances.

more importantly mass appeal has alot to do with it. most people dont want RWD, so that takes away your good proportions. also people want a smooth "im floating on air" kind of ride...so there goes your aggressive ride height and big expensive wheels. the wheels are tucked into the fender because of aero, the more the wheels stick out, the worse the fuel econ gets...also this is so the lower half of the car doesnt get covered in road derbis that the wheels fling everywhere.

some of these things can be overcome...depending on the people pulling the strings. some companies can take a terrible package and make a beautiful car out of it. some companies can take an amazing package...and make a hideous car from it.

and personally, i dont like the ricer-esque styling of the brabham thing. the design is very immature.

[RogEphedra]

Originally Posted by Robo Squirrel

most people dont want RWD, so that takes away your good proportions. also people want a smooth "im floating on air" kind of ride...so there goes your aggressive ride height and big expensive wheels.

Really? During the design process, I'm curious who within the company makes the decision about what people do and don't want?

[quality_sound]

Originally Posted by RogEphedra

Name one. Then you don't have to do any legwork, and who wants to do legwork.

Me. I don't want a car that looks like everyone else's.

[quality_sound]

Originally Posted by Robo Squirrel

more importantly mass appeal has alot to do with it. most people dont want RWD,

Most people have been brainwashed to think they don't want RWD or so poorly trained as drivers that they need the massive understeering safety cushion FWD offers.

[///FCB]

I agree on all your points except for the "no one sided exhaust". I think for some cars one sided exhaust tip/tips looks better

[ersin]

Originally Posted by RogEphedra

Really? During the design process, I'm curious who within the company makes the decision about what people do and don't want?

Mr. Bangle does (or rather did) at BMW.

Edit: actually I think in der Bangle's case he didn't make his decisions on what the people want, but on what he wants.

[Dieselino]

There is many factors as to why cars are they way they are. There are MANY requirements that you would not believe go into cars to make them legal for the road. Ill try and answer most of your questions.

Believe it or not most of the things you described have nothing to do with cost. First off the reason you see some cars that have tires more burried than others is because of a requirement in Europe that requires a certain amount of tire coverage at the 30 and 50 degree angles from the center line of the wheel. This is to prevent road debris from hitting the car behind you. This is not a requirement in the USA, so if you notice for example a Dodge Ram has the tires way out.

Now some cars handle tire coverage better then others, the "smoother" ride you get out of a more main stream car requires more suspension travel so you have to have more wheel gap so the tire doesnt hit the fenders. On a car like the M3 you can close up the wheel openings because the suspension is stiffer so there is less travel but the ride is more harsh so its a trade off.

Also another thing that some cars do is they roll the sheet metal flange inside the wheel opening (all bmw's, audi's etc do this) so they can have the wheels out as far as possible. This is cost related because it requires a secondary operation to come back and roll the fender flange in. So cheaper cars dont do this making the tires have to be burried more.

You asked about wheels, alot of customers dont like harsh rides. The bigger the wheel the harsher the ride. The less side wall on the tire the harsher the ride. Also the bigger the wheel, the heavier the car and reducing unsprung weight is important for many reasons, one being fuel economy. This is why you dont see a prius on 19's from the factory.

About wheel offset. Have you noticed that almost all front wheel and AWD drive cars have little to no offset? That is because to package the drivetrain it makes the wheels have less offset. Car companys try to make the car fit into the smallest box possible while benching marking the interior volume for the car in its segment. So having a huge fender flares is not a good thing for anything but looks of course. When designing a main stream car, you want to reduce frontal area as much as possible to reduce drag and increase fuel economy. So on say an Audi A4 for example, the wheels have very little offset. They could have increase the offset but then Audi would have to make the car bigger and they dont want to do that for many reasons. Another reason for not having alot of offset is because it is alot harder on wheel bearings as it increases the scrub radius.

Although take a look at BMW's they have some of the most agressive offsets in the industry. Look at the M5 or even regular 6 series, they have crazy concave wheels for a production car.


In summary there are many things that go into account when designing a car. As Robo Squirrel mentioned, all sketches start out crazy exaggerated with all those things you described. Whether youd like to admit it or not, the M3 is a more main stream Luxury GT car. It has to do the job of many cars. So it does get away with alot of things a toyota camry cant, but it cant do crazy things like a Lambo for example. Car designers dont get to do whatever they want, engineering, marketing, customer research data, all play a big role. Hope this helps.