Paris 2008

Part 2
C3 Picasso
The new C3 Picasso is the newest addition to what is already a pretty comprehensive MPV line up, fitting somewhere in amongst the Berlingo, Xsara Picasso (which will remain on sale), C4 Picasso & Grande Picasso and is possibly my favourite thing at Paris this year. It's kind of a funky & functional rather than utilitarian, friendly without being retro - could this be the first MPV you might actually want to buy? The overall effect is boxy with large radiussed corners, functional but not spartan, and quite distinct from most other MPVs. It looks set for the urban jungle too, although it's friendly rather than threatening the chunky rubstrips and bumper (rear especially) give it a rugged feel without resorting to pseudo off-roader clichés: Citroën seem to have judged it perfectly.

The slim, blacked out pre-A pillar gives better visibility and helps reinforce the boxy theme. I'm a little surprised that the elements of the front corner aren't tied together in unifying graphic like that hinted at in the C-Buggy & C-Airplay, but thus far only seen in production on the C4 Picasso's. Otherwise the front works quite well, though the edge surrounding the headlight is a bit unnecessary. However there is a certain honesty about the front graphics: the inlets are mounted where they're needed (low down) and the central elements are fully functioning, i.e. they don't have significant portions blanked off as is so common these days.

The vertical back end works well; the planform at the corners, curve at the top in profile and chunky rear bumper soften what could have otherwise looked van like. There is some nice detailing even if, in reality, the secondary lights in the bumper are probably vulnerable to damage when loading. It sits nicely on it's wheelbase and has a planted stance and though the lip around the wheelarches is quite thick, the wheelarch form itself isn't too exaggerated and smoothly integrated into the flanks.

In fact my major problem is not with the C3 Picasso, but the Berlingo: why, in the name of all that is holy, did they launch this when they have the capability of producing cars of the C3 Picasso's quality? Citroën must hope that the average Berlingo buyer really needs the space (it's bigger than the C3 Picasso.) One assumes that no C3 Grand Picasso is planned, otherwise it's really screwed...

GTbyCitroën
One of the undoubted show stars, the Citroën GT is a pure concept but it doesn't quite do it for me. However, given the pretty universally good reception given elsewhere I am starting to question my own judgement. It's not that I didn't like it, I just wasn't fussed; like so much stuff these days, it works well from a couple of specific viewpoints but poorly everywhere inbetween. The front elevation has the aspect of a crab with it's legs tucked up: the dull central form – a smooth soap bar with a nondescript grille – being the carapace and the wheelarch / side intakes the claws/legs. The press release explanation of the overhanging tail sets a new standard for marketing bollocks: it was 'made exaggeratedly long in order to create an effect of retinal persistence'. Rather than a single, integrated whole, it looks like central ovoid body onto which various appendages have been grafted. As with the odd shaped C-Metisse, I found the interior of the GT far more interesting. Admittedly, I don't see polished copper IPs catching on anytime soon (however cool they look) – but if one of the roles for such concept cars is to inspire then it succeeds on that basis; and car interiors are in need of inspiration.

Maybe it takes more than a pure concept to get me excited – but I loved the Mazda Furai, despite all that guff about it being shaped by the wind (if so, why don't LMP cars look like this already?) In terms of pure theatre, it's not a patch on Batmans Tumbler (but nothing from the 'proper' car designers is either). Sculpturally, the soon to be replaced current F1 generation have got some many things going on, even if the overall effect is dramatic rather than beautiful.

The C-GT is the latest and cleverest in a series of GT tie-ins. TVRs appearance in a videogame, in combination with it's unavailability (as opposed to unobtainability) in many markets made it beyond cool to generation of gamers. Unfortunately, this culminated in the Tuscan Speed Six's appearance in Swordfish – so, swings and roundabouts then... As an ambassador for the brand it's great and making it available in the game is a good move.

As a Citroëniste, I think it's supreme irrelevance is possibly why it left me cold. With the exception of the SM, Citroën has never made a sports car in the past, and even before the current difficulties they were unlikely to in the future. I'm struggling to see anything that relates to their current or future design language – take the badges off and it could be anything. It's primary drive is novelty, and as consumers become ever more design literate, there needs to be a little more substance.

Golf VI
Timeless. Classic. Mature. As far as the new Golf VI is concerned, these are euphemisms for what it actually is: boring. And who thought that this staid effort was best showcased in mid-tone, mediocre metallic blue? (Odd that the new Ka was launched in a similar colour – is this the new black?) It looks much better in silver and it needs all the help it can get. The Golf V was hailed as a return to form in a number of regards, and styling was one of them. To these eyes, the Golf VI seems to be stuck halfway between the IV & V. With Touareg taillights - only they're not: if costs are such an issue why not use the rather tidy Golf Plus units? They're so rare hardly anyone would notice...

According to VW themselves they wanted to 're-establish the unadorned look' of the Golf IV but they've not been very successful. The key to this look in the Golf IV was it's clean graphics (such as headlamp shape) simple surfaces, and elegant shutlines; the Golf V was more complex, but there remained a coherence lacking in this new iteration. The headlights are a complex shape, as are the upper & lower grilles. This is the first horizontally oriented grille on Walter de Silva's watch and it's..... really quite anonymous. Which is presumably why they made the VW badge so big (by Golf X it could be a threat to pedestrian NCAP ratings). Scaling is an issue - the thin chrome trim on the upper grille vanes (which call to mind the speaker grille of a mono Decca radio cassette player I had in the 70s) contrast poorly with the oversize detailing of the badge itself. The trim around the lower grille does work; it's at a remove from the badge forms a neat virtual lightline tracing the shape of the intake, but why isn't the line carried up through the lights and bonnet more cleanly – it gets lost in the upper grille / headlight area.

The unadorned aspect may refer to the body sides: from the front ¾ the only features of the body side are the shoulder line and the door handle - as is the fashion these days rubstrips have been abandoned, and the effect is quite pleasing. It's a similar story from the rear ¾ but unlike the IV, the taillights are sort of rectangular but actually a complex shape and interrupt the strong, clean shutline that defines the C-pillar graphic which has not only been a cornerstone of the Golf identity of late, but added tension to the rear ¾ – giving a planted look – to even a 1.4CL on steel rims. While more complex, the rear end does improve on the Golf V: the crisp detailing adds a focus previously lacking.

Even though there was quite a lot of form in the rear bumper of the Golf V, one was always left with the impression of a saggy arse because the eye had nothing to latch onto – the whole tail was a slippery slope, heightened by the fact that overall form widened towards the base and the bodycolour / grey plastic border was at the widest point. Here the edge in the lower lip of the tailgate is stronger, the tighter upper radius of the bumper itself, and the character line just above the rear reflectors which adds a highlight work together to give a more defined look; extending the painted area all the way down also helps.

The Golf V GTi in white on the optional Monza alloys (retained on the new model) was a tour de force. Not normally the best colour for a car, this showed off the excellent graphics to their best advantage, the simple surfaces and lower mouldings towards the rear emphasised the stance, and the now traditional red trim was the perfect counterpoint to set the whole thing off. The new GTi's lights are nicer than the standard models, but this is hardly enough to make a difference – the new model is fussier and lacks the impact of it's predecessor. The new lower grille with it's vertical driving lights does indeed make it look wider, but also a little simple minded. On a cleaner looking car, such as the Golf IV, the parallel red trim might have worked well. Here it looks a little boring - maybe they should have removed one of the upper pieces of red trim and put it around the lower intake?

I'm sure none of this will unduly impact the Golf's success, but if this is the new VW look things are going to be a little duller in the showrooms.

Renault Ondelios
Historically Renault have usually struck a good balance between the three major elements of concept car design – theatre, research & preview – than most; but the Ondelios is their most pointless & irrelevant concept since 1993's Racoon. It lacks anything obviously relevant to Renault's design language. It's a type of vehicle that Renault don't have much expertise in: the Koleos (their first off-roader) was a late entry into the softroader market – and none the better for it, being a pretty dismal effort.

The basic form is a distorted soap bar shape whose ends have been truncated with cheese wire. The gaping, lamprey-like mouth doesn't seem to offer many possibilities for front end graphics. What fine detail there is has not been particularly well integrated. The strakes around the front badge are OK but the opening as a whole is awkward and both the shape of running lights that extend into the bonnet and the detail within don't really relate to anything else on the car. The rear view cameras look like Shreks ears. Only smaller. At the back, the rear light / vent area is far too fussy – they need to take a closer look at current Mazda concepts to see how it should be done.

The interior has a few nice details, such as the glovebox surface which looks like the skin of a whale, but most of it is standard issue concept car. The strange dividing panels between the seats call to mind those new fangled business class airline seats; something desirable when you're sharing a confined space with strangers for some hours, but surely a little antisocial in a car?

Citroën Hypnos
Given that SUVs are a type of vehicle until recently largely ignored by the French manufacturers, it seems bizarre synchronicity that both Renault & Citroën choose an off road theme for their concepts. The front end is a less extreme evolution of the C-Metisse than the GT; the headlights are a jumble of scoops and curves lacking any unifying theme or direction – as a result they don't communicate / express the excitement they were surely meant to convey. Underneath all the swoopy sharp edged nonsense, the bland central form & grille is pretty similar to the GT. Let us hope that this is not an indication of the future of the Citroën corporate look: they've only just got their mojo back and this is not an improvement.

The surface features in the flanks seems like something gouged into the underlying form rather than an expression of some muscular or dynamic form, and the chrome 'rubstrip' is just odd. The rear badge cum exhaust surround is one of those pointless features that will never see production and adds little interest here. The rear lights are almost as fussy as the front; here the intended aim is more apparent, but falls even further short of achievement. Form that suggests speed or movement can be surprisingly complex when studied closely: if it does it's job well this it's not necessarily apparent to the casual observer – any one of the recent Mazda concepts illustrates this neatly. The Hypnos (despite what the name suggests) achieves the opposite – a jumble of swoops and curves that doesn't gel as a whole.

Peugeot RC HyMotion4
In contrast to Renault, Peugeot's concepts are typically irrelevant, often juvenile, flights of fancy that not only have little to with design direction but are vehicles of a type that Peugeot doesn't currently - and isn't likely to – produce. The recent exception to this was the 308 RC Z – which also seemed to indicate that the PSA design teams had rediscovered such things as proportion, planform and stance; unfortunately the RC HyMotion4 (snappy name guys) suggests that this may have been a false dawn.

In fairness, the RC HyMotion4 isn't as excruciating as the 907 or the 908 RC. The odd proportions of the 908 RC are back but there is at least planform this time. At the front the combination of planform, headlight graphic and large grille area (mostly blanked off) have more than a little of the Audi R8 about them – aided and abetted by a rear door graphic which is not dissimilar to the R8's sail panel; and their definition of brand identity seems to be making the badge larger.

Some form of curving character line spanning the length of the car has become a staple of many a marques surface language but Peugeot don't quite seem to have got the hang of it. This starts from the front side intake through the wheelarch into the bonnet / wing shutline and through into the doors and on to the taillights. Not entirely unlike a similar feature line on the Passat CC but unfortunately lacking it's sophistication: it's progress through the flanks is uneven, and fades out halfway through the rear door for reasons not immediately apparent. Surely a feature could have been made of the intake for the mid-mounted engine, siting it between the two character lines rather than this apologetic affair.

Better than recent efforts but something halfway between this and the Prologue HyMotion4 that contained some indication of possibilities for the Peugeot direction would have hit the spot nicely. Let's hope that this was the last gasp of the old guard and not produced entirely under the new design director.

Kia Soul
At bloody last. The Soul has had such a protracted gestation that the production item almost didn't warrant a second glance - which would have been a pity as it's an excellent job. In fact right it could be argued that this is the looker of both Kia & Hyundai's ranges. Yes, this does include the outgoing Hyundai Coupe, which needs an assisted suicide: the last few facelifts have just prolonged the cruelty. In many ways an improvement on the concept first shown (one wonders at the design chronology), the Soul is very much at the street end of the CUV market; more a tall hatchback than a small offroader: no bad thing. On a macro level it could be argued that the Soul shares much with Saab's 9-3X concept of '02, but there's little chance of confusing them: the Soul is more upright and sits more evenly on it's wheelbase so lacks that bobtail feel. If anything, it looks like a old school basketball boot or maybe a friendly Doc Marten - either way, the tie up with Vans in the US is inspired.

Almost every car shown thus far has a slightly different combination of trim finish & detail and it's not clear whether this is intentional, but the red vehicle on stand at Paris is one of the better combinations. The pinched Kia grille, black moulding under the headlights and around the wheelarches and bodycolour rubstrip should be rolled out across the range. One thing that must be especially praised is the absence of the pseudo-alloy plastic finishes currently so fashionable. Unusually, the gloss black finish a) works better than the matt finish and b) is just that, gloss; not the too-shiny 'piano' black finish as per the new Focus RS, whose bits of trim look like they've been left in the oven for a fraction too long.

The simple bold surfaces work nicely with the restrained detailing. OK, so it has a fake sidevent / repeater mount but these things seem to be mandatory these days, but elsewhere maximum value has been extracted from what detail there is. The waistline and shoulder/feature line carry forward to define the upper and lower boundaries of the headlight; the upper line flows around the light unit and then underscores the grille in a squared off 'U' shape. This shape is mirrored in the lower detail of the bumper which is a neat re-interpretation of the now clichéd sumpguard graphic, and well executed.

The weakest point of the nose is more a production engineering related issue than a styling one: in every Soul I've seen thus far there has been some issue with the bonnet and bumper alignment. Not the panel gap per se but the tongues in the bonnet either side of the grille seem to either be a little proud of the bumper or even flaring out at a slightly different angle. A small detail, but on such a simple front end hard to ignore once noticed; hopefully something that can be rectified.

From the rear it still resembles a Daihatsu Sirion, but given how rare these are it's not that big a problem. It's a pity the deeper sectioned tailgate wasn't retained for production (could have been neat storage cubby for toolkit) and even more that the 'floating' tailgate of the concept didn't make it, most likely due to cost. One of the few weaknesses is the glasshouse / roof area – it just seems a little too boxy in relation to the rest of the vehicle. Most of the time it gets hidden in the overall DLO graphic, but a little curvature in the windscreen might make it look less blocky from the front three-quarter. The contrast between the gloss black of the A pillar and matt finish of the window frames doesn't help, and the form in the side mirror mount lacks sophistication especially in relation to the sidevent just below; but this is really nitpicking.

Producing such a design-led model was a brave move for Kia (but necessary for the brand to progress), and the quality of it's execution makes it a good one. And if the awfully named 'Koup' concept is anything to go by, the Soul wasn't a fluke (but let's hope it's development is a little quicker.) Now they just need to be as brave with the next gen C'eed...

Mini Cross
Audi seem to have seen the light of using the name metro (though it could simply be that A1 is far more logical); one can only hope Mini stick with some variant of Crossover rather than Maxi, which was mooted at some point. Whilst Maxi does have a certain logic about it, to anyone even vaguely familiar with the original bearer of that name it does not have positive associations.

The Crossover concept was.... well, more of the same really. Underneath all of that beautiful detailing, BMW still don't seem to have a handle on the Mini design language – if they want to make this into a fully fledged marque this bridge will have to be crossed at some point. That is not to say that this is an easy or enviable task - far from it: of all the iconic peoples cars the original Mini had the lowest actual styling content.

So what we have is essentially a jacked up Mini with bigger wheelarches. In a proper four seater the whole asymmetry thing is getting a little contrived. The surface features are so subtle that they could be missed – the form in the lower door hardly screams at you but this is bold, even daring compared to the surface form in the nose and tail. At the front it looks like they wanted to create a highlight under the grille and then just let the form fade out into... nothing really. The surface change in the lower tailgate has the unfortunate effect of highlighting how bluff & featureless the rest of the tail is, which has a rather dour demeanour generally.

It's not even clear which of the details will make it through to any production reality. The Crossover is not as different from the Concept Tokyo / Detroit / Geneva as it should have been, and when the elements of the concept that didn't make it into the Clubman are removed we're left with even less. The seamline sidevents are a neat detail but we've been seeing them for nearly three years now and there's nothing to indicate they're any more likely to appear on the production Cross. The Mini Concept's the headlight and grille shape also didn't influence the production Clubman, which was a pity; the Crossover is a further evolution of that theme – will it make it this time?

If the previous Mini concepts are an indication, the production tailgate will follow the same basic configuration but with a less elaborate (& expensive) hinge arrangement; it remains to be seen if the asymmetry is retained. The rear light silhouette will probably be retained for production (woo and indeed, hoo.) The DLO graphic is similar to Honda Element and Toyota FJ, no bad thing in this case but overall the glasshouse is a little small – this is especially apparent from the rear where it makes the tail look overly tall; some variation on this should be retained if only to differentiate it from the floating roof of the Mini & Clubman.

I'm not a fan of the 'look at me!' over-designed interiors of the reborn Mini; the revised Mini & Clubman were steps in the right direction and the Crossover interior builds on the existing Mini themes. The use of wood here warrants special mention: like the current Range Rover, it looks like a structural part of the interior rather than simply trim and works all the better for it. Unfortunately it's not credible that the production interior will remain so elegantly sparse – particularly the centre console.

BMW X1
It's quite amusing watching the current BMW design team wrestle with the wretched Bangle flame surfacing legacy: here they seem to have thrown everything at the wall and kept what sticks – it's all over the place. Whatever one may think of the original X5 as a vehicle, it raised the bar for SUV styling - there was a lot of clever stuff going on; the X1 is far less sophisticated and seems to have abandoned many of the features associated with the X models.

The grille and the lights follow on from the new 7, but this rendition of the kidney grille is worse (too amorphous) and seems a fraction too large; proportionately it's certainly a lot larger than not only the other X models, but everything else. The light graphic is another weak point – the overall silhouette lacks tension, the light units themselves seem arbitrarily positioned within the unit and the eyebrow first seen on the CS seems a mandatory component of the new look, even though it doesn't relate to anything else here. It just seems like they didn't give it much thought. The surfacing around the headlights is all over the place and the junction between the bonnet, wing, headlight and bumper is just messy. The new BMW nose is bluffer than before, and the dark grey insert does a reasonable job of disguising that & the height of nose, but the odd siting of the driving lights detracts from this.

The crease in the lower flanks first seen on the CS and then the new 7 – a nice surfacing feature – has been used here, but it's oddly sized and positioned, skewed and ties into (albeit with a fade out) the rear quarter light; weird. Had this been moved forward slightly it might have helped tie things together – it's axle-to-dash ratio shares more with the 7 than the other X models, and the nose feels too long when viewed in profile. The squared off wheelarches are in themselves OK but the front wheelarch looks a little awkward and intrusive in relation to the front corner and headlights.

Although the rear light graphic is good, the relationship with the tailgate is odd – why is the surface break aligned to a surface feature within the light rather than the upper edge of the light itself? (as in other X models.) The chrome insert at the bottom of the main unit is odd – it seems almost accidental and it interferes with the unity of the two parts of the light unit. Bar the front grille surround, it's also about the only piece of chrome on the whole car, never mind the tailgate; yes it's a small detail – but there aren't that many such details on the X1 and these things do matter. The surfacing around the numberplate surround is poor – instead of perpetuating the myth that this has been milled out of the solid surface of the tailgate this looks like a solid plane set into a softer inflated form.

Overall then, a rather mixed affair: the X1 isn't sure whether it's a 'proper' X model or a jacked up 3 Touring. The real test of the van Hooydonk BMWs will be the new 5, and based on what we've seen thus far the omens aren't good.

Kangoo Be Bop / ZE concept
Unfortunately for Renault, Postman Pat has just taken delivery of a new van (really) – otherwise the Be Bop have been perfect.

The new Kangoo has grown somewhat, and this makes space for the Be Bop. On the one hand, they have been incredibly successful in making a vehicle of it's size and proportions not look overbodied on it's 16” rims, but on the other it looks like it could do a rolling stoppie if you braked too hard. The scaling of the features seems to be the issue – certain details seem to have been intended for a much larger vehicle. The crisp surface break between the hooped wheelarches and the bodyside emphasises the size of the wheelarch in relation to the rest of the body. The semi-circular graphic at the back of the rear window – as opposed to a more squared off form of big brother is so simple and so big (or crude) as to appear toylike. Even the rubstrip seems deep for it's length.

Along with many others, Renault has adopted the silver finish on the plastic that is meant to look like alloy, but just looks – even from a distance – like a cheap plastic finish. Aside from aesthetic considerations, I can't see how this will age / weather terribly well. So as not be outdone by the new Berlingo, Renault have used even more of this stuff: the bumpers, the bonnet, the tailgate – nothing is safe.

The ZE concept is as near as dammit the same size as the Be Bop, and it's as though they represent the grown up and the novelty versions of the same vehicle. Yes, the door and window graphics are willfully convoluted, but the headlight silhouette is nicer than the Be Bops, ditto the front and rear bumper inserts. The smoother surfacing with better integrated wheelarches and bone line just above the rubstrip (which stops things getting too amorphous) is much better than the Be Bop's. Like the Nissan Cube (only symmetrical) the ZE carries the side window graphic through into the tailgate – but some simplified variation is production feasible. Of course mundane essential items like doorhandles, wing mirrors and wipers along with shutlines would lessen it's impact, but we would still be left with a French equivalent of the Cube – only with a certain je ne sais quoi.

Megane III
The quality of design in the Renault range is very uneven. Three years on, I still can't help photographing the latest Clio Sport variant at a show: it's stance is perfect and the surfacing of the front bumper / air dam exquisite. It's hard to believe these are the same people that have recently given the world the dreary Koleos. The current Laguna is ungainly - especially the saloon's taillights (they don't look like they belong), but the coupe looks like a junior Aston. Whilst I have huge admiration for Mr Le Quement, Renault seem to have been through a rough patch of late; the Avantime, Vel Satis, & Megane II (standard bearers of 'booty' era) have been - to varying degrees - failures in the showroom. So a retreat to the middle ground is entirely understandable, especially for bread and butter models. Although the concept in Geneva was more than a straight preview concept, it closely presaged what was to come; unfortunately more has been lost in the translation to production than seems strictly necessary.

The front graphic – a stylised gullwing form that takes in a low mounted intake through into the front lights – first seen on the Fluence concept in '04, and hinted at a few times since has finally reached production but the execution is flawed. The flow is now disjointed: the headlight unit desperately needs an orange sidereflector / indicator vane that continues the arc of the front wing to link it to the front graphic – not only has the edge in the headlight that perfomed this task in the concept been softened, it's utterly overwhelmed in the clutter of a shiny, busy production light unit. Similarly, the bumper / wing shutline is poorly sited – it overrides the form in the front wing, and the eye falls off the edge following it. Keeping the shutline basically the same but moving it forward 2-4” (similar to the taillights) would have allowed the curved form to dominate. In the front elevation, the 'wings' the gullwing rise at a steeper angle on the production version than the concept; there no good reason for this as the outermost few inches of the main intake is blank plastic and relaxing the angle would make the front look more sleek and flow better. All of which might sound like nitpicking, but the cumulative effect would make a significant difference.

The leading edge of the bonnet probably couldn't be extended much further without compromising crash repair regs, but it should have either been extended to fully enclose the badge or moved back, much like the current Clio. The way the badge straddles the shutline and the surrounding cutline are awkward and would have been far more elegant if mounted wholly within either panel. Unfortunately the issue is compounded by the relatively large panel gap – thrown into sharp contrast by the excellent, tight shutlines all around: again, moving the shutline would make a tighter tolerance more feasible.

At the rear the taillights seem to big for the rest of the vehicle, making the rear end look oversize. This impression is reinforced by the fact that most of the other features of the tail have been executed on the same scale – such as the surface change in the lower tailgate. It's a pity the tail of the 3 door didn't follow the concept more closely, at the moment it can look like it has a huge arse from certain angles; there's too much going on in the upper half. It's tailgate seems to be about 4” higher than the 5 door's, which doesn't help. The grey plastic strip is an awkward shape that doesn't relate well to the rubstrip on the sides, the silver plastic rectangular exhaust pipe is cheap looking and the surfacing around the foglights terrible. Two elements from the concept should have been used more fully: 1) the rubstrip at the base of the door starts about a third of the way back and is carried through into the wheelarch and tail, 2) the 'eyebrows' over the taillights, positioned right about where the colour border currently is, would mean the lights themselves could be be sited lower and added interest.

Overall it's far less radical than the Megane II and will doubtless do the better in the marketplace for it, but it's a shame that it falls down on the details.

Mercedes Concept Fascination
After the grotesque that was last years F700, we get a much stronger hint about the the new E-Class from the handsome conceptFASCINATION, so what can we learn about the new E? We can be pretty certain that the front light graphics are similar as we've been told about the new theme enough times. These are the most successful examples yet, but unfortunately from the spyshots recently published the production version is less elegant: the main unit interrupts the bonnet shutline in both elevations, making it not only uglier but surely more expensive to engineer; a lose-lose.

The form in the rear wheelarch works well at disguising the visual mass resultant from the high waistline, assisted by the steeply rising rubstrip over the rear wheels. In fact, with the exception of a little fussiness under the rear taillights the surfacing is much cleaner and more elegant than a lot of overdetailed Mercedes of late – the recent GLK being the worst offender. Even so, isn't it going to be a bit claustrophobic in the back? Given that the E-Class estate is a true load lugger, could this be a hint that a next-gen CLS might be joined by a sportswagen sister? A niche too far – maybe...

Octavia facelift
What is it about facelifts – are they given to the B-team or the office juniors? Changing certain elements of an existing design and successfully integrating them is a tricky task, but all too often the results are poor because the job is done with little skill, or sympathy with the original.

Although the Octavia's facelift is not disastrous, it's hardly a good example of the art either. At the back the changes seem confined to the lights and bumper, so not much to get wrong here. The new light is basically the old one with the central block of red now rendered in silver and a new simple, elegant bumper. So far, so good. The problem is at the front where the bumper, lights, front wings, grille & possibly bonnet have been changed.

Though understated, the Skoda Superb is handsome and this is surely the direction in which Skoda wanted to Octavia to move. At the front, one of the key features is the headlight. Although this graphic is not unique (see certain Honda and Mitsi models) it is crisply executed here and, as with the fat almond shape is shared by the Fabia and Roomster, I expected the Octavia to sport some variation on the the Superb's theme.

Whilst the lower airdam & driving light do mimic the Superb, the only aspect of the headlights copied is the chrome strip embossed with the model name (but here is seems slightly askew.) Not only does the anonymous, amorphous (sort of a squashed Corsa shape) silhouette share nothing with any other Skoda, it simply does not fit in with the rest of the car in terms of either graphics or surfacing. This is a design fault: the scope of the changes at the front did not constrain the solution so as dictate such a result.

Maybe I'm being a pedant – it's only a headlight after all; but given the manhours and money spent on changing just this one item, a little more thought and effort at the design stage would have yielded a much better result for something that will be seen in showrooms all over the world for the next four years.

Ssangyong C200
Ssangyong in (fairly) good looking car shock! Thus far Ssangyong have been purveyors of almost wilfully ugly cars, but the C200 reverses this. From the front it has the aspect of a Grand Vitara, (no bad thing) and, dare I say it, a hint of LRX – but that could just be the paintjob. It remains to be seen how and when the headlights / grille get translated into production, but hopefully the overall graphic will survive.

By the same token, let's hope that the rear is revised. The surface feature over the haunches is not necessary and poorly executed: it droops rather than swooshes and forces the rear doorhandle higher than it wants to be. The matching window line is also unnecessary and the rear door shutline needs more definition.

The rear light graphic is crude, contrived and doesn't really relate to anything other than the aforementioned swoosh and the odd underlining swage line. Simpler, cleaner light units would work better. They've gone for faux sump guards on all four sides but just get away with it by not being too overstated.

However, let's get this in perspective: this is a design from the people who've given the world the Rodius, Kyron, & Actyon. Even if the C200 were put in production unchanged it's a clean, modern design light years ahead of anything seen from them previously.